结构的历史主义何以可能?——以A.施密特对马克思历史主义的结构化改造为视角

How is‘structural'historicism possible?—From the perspective of A.Schmidt's structural transformation of Marx's historicism

上世纪60—70年代,以阿尔都塞、普兰查斯为代表的“结构”的马克思主义者对葛兰西所代表的历史向度的马克思主义展开了声势浩大的批判。在这一背景下,德语世界的马克思主义者在予以回应的同时,也展开了对马克思主义历史主义学说的新一轮反思。在这一背景下,以A.施密特(Alfred. Schmidt)为代表的当代学者试图调和历史主义与结构主义这两种对立的解释路径,继而为马克思主义本身增添新的理论活力。在施密特看来,马克思主义不可丧失其历史向度,但对其历史向度的表述完全可借助于一种“结构”的方法,即建立一种描述社会生活图式变迁所需的“否定的总体性”。A.施密特由此对马克思《资本论》方法中的历史主义进行“结构化”改造,提出了对叙述方法与研究方法之间关系的新阐释,即马克思主义的历史主义的话语体系亦能兼容“结构”的要素。在此基础上,一种结构的历史主义在理论上是可能的。

In the 1960s and 1970s,Structural Marxists represented by L.Althusser and N.Poulantzas launched a powerful criticism of the historical Marxism represented by A.Gramsci,which lead to the responding by Marxists in the German-speaking world,they who also launched a new round of reflection and defense on Marxist historical doctrine.In this context,contemporary scholars represented by A.Schmidt(Alfred.Schmidt)tried to reconcile the two opposing interpretation paths of historicism and structuralism,and then added new theoretical vitality to Marxism itself.In A.Schmidt's view,Marxism cannot lose its historical dimension.However,the expression of its historical dimension can be completely relied on a‘structural’method which helps to establish a‘description of the changes in the schema of social life’based on the concept Negative totality'.A.Schmidt in this regard have transformed the historicism of Marx's Das Kapital into a structural theory and proposed a new interpretation of the relationship between narrative methods and research methods,that is,Marxist historicist discourse system can also be compatible with the elements of‘structure',which lays the groundwork to a theory of structural historicism.