改革开放以来近代史叙事的转型——兼对一种流行观点的商榷

The Shifts in Modern Chinese History Studies since the Reform and Opening Up—A Discussion on a Popular View

讨论改革开放以来的近代史研究转型,就不能不谈及“革命史范式”“现代化范式”和“后现代范式”。按照流行的见解,40年来的学术发展先是“现代化范式”逐步代替“革命史范式”,后有“后现代范式”起而挑战“现代化范式”。这样的划分简洁明了、整齐划一,然而纷繁复杂的历史事实不可能如此齐整。1980年代学界争论的焦点在于“什么才是马克思主义的历史动力”“谁才是革命的阶级”,而“现代化范式”的说法是1990年代中后期保守主义史观兴起后的产物,后者无法涵盖前者。“后现代范式”虽在表面上否定了革命史叙事,但其源头却与中国的革命思想具有潜在联系。总之,近代史研究的转型不是后一种范式否定前一种范式的断崖式跳跃,而是前后相系、不断变化的过程。

When discussing the transformative shifts having occurred in the field of Chinese modern history following the economic reforms,one cannot avoid mentioning the“revolutionary history paradigm”,the“paradigm of modernization”and the“postmodern paradigm”.According to popular belief,the course of development taken by the academic world over the past 40 years is marked by a series of transformations:First the progressive replacement of the“revolutionary history paradigm”by that of the“paradigm of modernization”,followed by the rise of the“postmodern paradigm”and the challenging of its predecessor.This set of divisions,though logically clear and succinct,do not conform to the realities of history in all of its complexness.While the academic circles in the 1980s were largely concerned with the issues of“what exactly is the historical driving force of Marxism?”and“who are the revolutionary class?”,the notion of the“paradigm of modernization”was rather a product of the conservative historical view which emerged in the late 1990s.In this sense,the latter cannot possibly embody the former.The“postmodern paradigm”appears to have rejected the narrative of revolutionary history,but in fact it shares deeper connections with Chinese revolutionary thought.In short,these transformative shifts in modern Chinese history are not a simple“exchange”whereby one paradigm transfers into the next,but are rather a process of constant and interconnected change.