后现代主义与柯文的《历史三调》

Postmodernism and Paul A.Cohen’s History in Three Keys

面对后现代主义挑战,如何理解“历史学家的工作”成了时代课题。哲学家的理论文章因不会说史学家的语言,不受史家待见。史家卡尔、埃尔顿的著作因“年代本色”,已经过时。与职业史家艾文斯等人融合治史经验于理论,探讨以“追求更丰富的意义”回应时代课题的说理方式不同的是,柯文以“一个真实的历史事件”研究展现了“挑战”下的“如何做”。相比于治史经验,这种“新解读”更直接具体,易于史家理解。正因如此,柯文的理论受制于实践,其探讨的深度与广度不能与哲学家相比。柯文能回应与其是否受后现代主义影响之间并不存在必然关系,虽各家言说自成其理,但“衍生”“师承”的“可能性”说明“影响或冲击”还需进一步深思。

Facing the challenge of postmodernism,how to understand“the work of historians”has become the issue of the times.Philosophers’theoretical articles are disliked by historians because they do not speak the historian’s language.The works of such historians as Karl and Elton are out of date because of their“era nature”.In contrast to“historians”such as Evans whose theoretical discussion includes how the experience of historical research better responds to the issues of the times by“pursuing richer meaning”,Paul A.Cohen’s research approach,more straightforward and vivid,is easy for historians to understand.Because of this,Cohen’s theory is subject to practice,and the depth and width of his discussion cannot be compared with that of philosophers.There is no evidence of a relationship between Cohen and postmodernism.Although many scholars have their own ideas,derivation of thoughts and mentoring relationship indicate that“influence or impact”deserves further research.