论新历史主义史学研究范式

A Study of the Research Paradigms of the Historiography of Neo-historicism

20世纪最后30年西方史学受到各种新思潮的影响,历史主义史学研究范式、社会科学化史学研究范式虽然都被继续使用着,但重视文化对历史的塑造作用,重视历史书写的主体意义,让史学耳目一新。从对辩证法的新理解并运用于历史研究的视域,本文把这一时期的新史学定义为新历史主义史学。从史学方法论上看,由于新历史主义史学的方法论突出地显示在对辩证法的新理解和运用上,与运用辩证法为方法论的历史主义史学形成否定之否定关系。新历史主义史学是对历史主义史学的回归,但这不是简单的重复性回归,而是新的更高层次上的回归。如果仅仅把这一时期的史学概括为新文化史、新社会史是不够的,因为这种概括只注意到了新史学突出的特征,而忽略了整体性并有所遗漏。本文以莫兰的科学研究范式理论为立足点,从主导概念、关键概念、关键原则及其逻辑关系方面,提炼出新历史主义史学研究范式,并辅之以案例进行说明,最后进行了学术史评价。新历史主义史学研究范式的主要特点,是对辩证法有新的理解和运用,这是值得注意和肯定的。

The last thirty years of the 20 th century saw the academic community of the West under the impacts of various trends of new thoughts while historiography was no exception. Though the paradigms of historicism and social scientificality were still in use, the scholars attached importance to the role of culture in shaping history, and the subjective significance of historical writing, which brought vitality to the traditional historicism. The academic community defined the historical studies of this period as neo-historicism due to its new interpretation of dialectics and its application to historical studies. The methodology adopted by the historiography of neo-historicism highlighted the new interpretation and application of dialectics, which mirrored a relation of the negation of negation?embodied in the historiography of neo-historicism that adopted dialectics as its methodology. The historiography of neo-historicism is a kind of return to the historiography of historicism, but it is not a simple copy but one at a higher level. It is not correct to summarize the historiography of this period as a new cultural history or a new social history, because such summary only notices the obvious features of the new historical studies but overlooks its integrity. This paper adopts Morin’s theoretical paradigms of scientific research in the case study and summarizes the research paradigms of the historiography of neo-historicism in terms of dominant concepts, key concepts and principles as well as their logical relations. It finally gives an assessment from the aspect of academic history by pointing out that the major characteristics of the research paradigms of the historiography of neo-historicism are the new interpretation and application of dialectics, which deserves more academic attention.