重新定义批判的与保守的历史书写

Redefining the Critical and the Conservative Writing of History

当事实的解释或对其他事实性事物的解释给定时,大多数已知的历史哲学诉诸描述。我认为,不存在纯粹描述。也就是说,不存在非推理的描述和知识。描述与诠释之间的二分法,应该变成旧(推理的)描述与新(推理的)描述之间的二分法。旧推理描述和新推理描述都依赖不同的前提假设,或者依赖不同时代的前提假设。旧推理描述表现为对事件和事实的描述,只是因为旧推理描述的语言已被广为接受而且前提假设由此被隐藏起来。这一观点被具体的历史编纂学例证说明。虽然1917年十月革命是一个公认的事实,但这只是因为已经被接受的某种惯例。奥兰多·费吉斯的著作《革命的俄国,1891—1991》例证了如何以八种不同方式理性地理解这场革命。对于历史编纂学的理论基础来说,重要的是,一切描述都是推理的。预设存在纯粹描述的方法,倾向于将历史编纂学理解为独立事件之间的因果联系和对事件的单纯叙述。我认为,处在最好状态的历史编纂学是理性批判,它“揭露”旧描述及其前提假设。因此,我们应该区分批判的历史编纂学与保守的历史编纂学。对历史语言的态度是这一区分的标准。历史研究越关注所使用的语言,解构旧的并重构新的,历史研究就越具有批判性。进而,历史研究在这方面做得越少,只是“单纯地描述”,就越保守。

Most known philosophies of history appeal to descriptions,when an account of facts or of other so-called factual matter is given.I argue there is nothing like a pure description.This is to say that there is no non-inferential description and knowledge.The dichotomy between description and interpretation should be between old(inferential)and new(er)(inferential)descriptions.Both old and new inferential descriptions rely on different presuppositions,or perhaps on the presupposition of different times.The old inferential description appears descriptive of events and facts only because the language of it has been widely accepted and presuppositions thereby concealed.The view is illustrated by concrete historiographical examples.While the Bolshevik revolution that happened in 1917 may seem like an obvious fact,this is only so because of a certain convention has been accepted.Orlando Figes exemplifies in his book Revolutionary Russia 1891—1991(London:Pelican,2014)how this revolution can be rationally understood in eight different ways.That all description is inferential is important regarding the rationale of historiography.The approaches that presuppose that there is pure description tend to understand historiography as something like the causal linking of independent events and as the simple narration of events.I argue that historiography at its best is rational criticism,which“unmasks”old descriptions and their presuppositions.Therefore,we should make a distinction between critical and conservative historiography in which the attitude to historical language functions as a demarcation criterion:the more a study of history focuses on the language used,deconstructing old and reconstructing new,the more critical it is.Further,the less it does this and“merely describes,”the more conservative the study is.