社科网首页|论坛|人文社区|客户端|官方微博|报刊投稿|邮箱 中国社会科学网
English Russian 关于我们 2011年12月26日 星期日
当前位置: 首页 > 学术期刊 > 史学理论研究 > 2017年 > 《史学理论研究》2017年第2期
 

《史学理论研究》2017年第2期

  目 录

  [圆桌会议]

  纪念《史学理论研究》杂志创刊30周年 /陈启能 庞卓恒 瞿林东 张广智 于沛(4)

  [马克思主义史学思想研究]

  再论马克思的“农业公社”问题——与宋培军、张秋霞两位先生商榷 /沈斌(22)

  [专题研究]

  新考据派史家胡适、傅斯年的宋学观与方法论述评 /徐国利(30)

  傅斯年历史理论思想之现代哲学前提考释 /卓立(43)

  西方汉学与“古史辨运动” /李长银(56)

  书写“她”的历史——非洲妇女史的兴起与发展 /郑晓霞(71)

  数字技术与史学观念——中国历史数据库与史学理念方法关系探析 /申斌 杨培娜(87)

  回到国家建构——对清代历史研究中帝国主义路径的再分析 /刘文鹏(96)

  [历史学家]

  民国时期夏鼐对考古学的认识 /王兴(106)

  阎宗临与法国汉学 /张炜(117)

  [访谈]

  德国与欧洲的当代历史书写——斯特凡·贝格尔教授访谈 /尉佩云(125)

  [理论沙龙]

  转向全球?微观史的扩展 /汉斯·梅迪克(132)

  [综述]

  “中国中心观”与美国的中国学研究 /王瑞(140)

  [书评]

  劳伦斯·斯通家庭发展“三阶段理论”刍议——评《英国的家庭、性与婚姻:1500—1800》 /牛文馨(150)

 

  

  CONTENTS

  Round Table

  The Commemoration of the 30th Anniversary of the Historiography Quarterly /Chen Qineng, Pang Zhuoheng, Qu Lindong, Zhang Guangzhi,Yu Pei (4)

  Study of Marxist Ideas of History

  How to Understand Marx's “Agricultural Commune”—An Exchange of Opinion with Song Peijun and Zhang Qiuxia /Shen Bin (22)

  Monographic Studies

  On Hu Shi and Fu Sinian's Discovery and Evaluation of the Scientific Elements in Song Historiography /Xu Guoli (30)

  An Analysis of Fu Sinian's Ideas of History and Their Modern Philosophical Premise /Zhuo Li (43)

  Gu Jiegang's “Discussion of Ancient History” Movement and Its Relationship with Developments in Western Sinology /Li Changyin (56)

  Writing Herstories: The Rise and Development of Women's History in Africa /Zheng Xiaoxia (71)

  Digital Technology and the Notion of History: A Study of the Relationship between Historical Database and Historical Methodology in China /Shen Bin, Yang Peina (87)

  Back to State Building: An Analysis of the Qing Imperial Policy and the Study of New Qing History /Liu Wenpeng (96)

  Historian

  The Relationship between Archeology and Historiography in the Republican Period (1911-49): A Case Study of Xia Nai's (1910-85) Early Career /Wang Xing (106)

  Yan Zonglin (1904-1978) and French Sinology /Zhang Wei (117)

  Interview

  Historical Writings in Germany and Europe Today: An Interview with Professor Stefan Berger /Yu Peiyun (125)

  Theoretical Salon

  Turning Global? Microhistory in Extension /Hans Medick (132)

  Review Ariticle

  “Chinacentered Approach” and China Studies in the U.S.A. /Wang Rui (140)

  Book Review

  “The Development of Family in Three Phases”—A Review of Lawrence Stone's The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 /Niu Wenxin (150)

 

  

  SUMMARY OF ARTICLESSUMMARY OF ARTICLES

 

  

  How to Understand Karl Marx's “Agricultural Commune”—An Exchange of Opinion with Song Peijun and Zhang Qiuxia //Shen Bin

  In the various “drafts” of his letters to Vera Zasulich, Karl Marx discusses the concept of “agricultural commune.” Having conducted a comprehensive investigation of the French manuscripts and other related texts, the author argues that the notion “agricultural commune” was coined by Marx in order to distinguish it from the other more commonly used term of “rural commune” at the time. That is, “agricultural commune” and “rural commune” are two different concepts, which are not interchangeable. Through his study of Germanic “agricultural commune,” Marx gained a better understanding of the development of agricultural communities in Europe, one that enabled him to no longer apply the idea of “Asiatic Mode” in analyzing historical development. Thus, “agricultural communes” were also different from the socalled “Asiatic communes.” Nonetheless, Marx later realized that the notion of “agricultural communes” could not be applied in analyzing the reality and history of rural Russia. In the end, he discontinued his exploration of the concept.

  On Hu Shi and Fu Sinian's Discovery and Evaluation of the Scientific Elements in Song Historiography //Xu Guoli

  Drawing on the idea of evolutionism, Hu Shi and Fu Sinian studied and evaluated Song scholarship from the perspective of modern scientific methodology and historiography. Hu Shi pointed out that the greatest contribution of Song scholarship was its advocacy of “the investigation of things and extension of knowledge”(gewu zhizhi), which was continued in the Qing period and presaged the rise of modern scholarship. As such, Zhu Xi (1230-1300) was a great thinker for the modern Chinese and the NeoConfucian statecraft emphasis was a positive legacy. By comparison, Fu Sinian praised “following the path of inquiry and study”(daowenxue) for its scientific characteristic in NeoConfucian scholarship during the Song and Ming periods. Fu also believed that while Qing evidential scholars challenged Song NeoConfucianism, they shared in essence a similar scholarly stance. Zhu Xi, therefore, was a great scholar who expanded on tradition while exploring new scholarly paths. In Hu and Fu's opinion, Song historians made a great achievement in source collection and criticism and their methods were comparable to that of modern science and consequential in preparing modern historiography. Thanks to their effort to discover and evaluate the scientific spirit and methods in Song scholarship, Hu Shi and Fu Sinian provided a traditional resource for the transformation of Chinese scholarship. Yet their approach reflects the thinking of instrumental rationality. Mired in Eurocentrism and scientism, their interpretation of Song scholarship is onesided and partly flawed. The evolutionism advanced by them is also inferior to Marxist historical materialism.Nonetheless, while Hu and Fu underestimated the moral value of traditional learning for the establishment of modern scholarship, their study of Song scholarship remains inspirational for our construction of modern academic discourse.

  An Analysis of Fu Sinian's Ideas of History and Their Modern Philosophical Premise //Zhuo Li

  Fu Sinian's philosophical thoughts have been overlooked for quite a long time, which has consequently affected our understanding and evaluation of his historical thoughts. In fact, Fu was a scholar quite versed in theory. He not only proposed and practiced new ideas of history, but he also was rather proficient in modern philosophy. In order to fully understand the purport of his ideas of history and what others have perceived the “internal conflicts” in his ideas, it is necessary for us to examine his philosophy against the background of modern science and philosophy and consider them a theoretical system with consistency and uniformity. What Fu Sinian opposed was the theory of history in the sense of modern rationalism. Meanwhile, he pursued the deductivist theory of history on the ground of modern science. Thus, the author argues, Fu Sinian's idea of history was not modern Western positivism based on inductivism, but a new form of positivism that emphasizes historical contextualism and deductivism. In this sense, his ideas transcend the subject and object dichotomy. In sum, we should not merely consider Fu Sinian as an advocate of objective historiography; instead, we should examine his whole theoretical system, for it was key to our understanding of Fu Sinian's scholarship.

  Gu Jiegang's “Discussion of Ancient History” Movement and Its Relationship with Developments in Western Sinology //Li Changyin

  The development of scholarship in modern China formed a close relationship with developments in Western sinology. Gu Jiegang's launching of the “Discussion of Ancient History” movement in the 1920s was a representative example. Hu Shi and Gu Jiegang proposed the notion that “there was no history before the Eastern Zhou dynasty,” which was indebted to the historical skepticism by Philip Van Ness Myers and Friedrich Hirth of the same period. The idea that “the Shang dynasty was still in the late Stone Age” advocated by Hu and Gu was also directly influenced by J.G. Andersson's An Early Chinese Culture. Conversely, Arthur W. Hummel played a key role in introducing the “Discussion of Ancient History” to Western academia. Paradoxically, while Berhhard Karlgren wrote the On the Authenticity and Nature of the Tso Chuan to refute Kang Youwei's reinterpretation of Confucian Classics, his work however became of value for Chinese scholars to reaffirm the value of New Text Confucianism and spear ahead the “Discussion of Ancient History” movement. In a word, if we would like to choose a saying to describe the relationship between modern Chinese historical scholarship and Western Sinology, the Chinese proverb, “the stone from other hills may serve to polish jade,” may be an appropriate choice.

  Writing Herstories: The Rise and Development of Women's History in Africa //Zheng Xiaoxia

  After many countries in Africa achieved independence and buoyed by the strong nationalist sentiment, African scholars pursued with passion the writing of African history to explore and rediscover the continent's past. Against the backdrop of great advances in “new historiography,” African history and feminist movements in both Africa and around the world, women's history began to emerge across African countries from the late 1960s. During the 1970s, the field experienced a marked progress whereas as a whole it remained in the stage of infancy. Thanks to the advance of women's studies, the focus of women's history in Africa shifted from elite women to ordinary women in both urban and rural areas, including prostitutes, maids and servants, witchcrafts, laborers, slaves and farmers, etc. From the 1990s, gender studies also gained influence in Africa, women's studies in Africa have therefore also shown multiperspectival and interdisciplinary characteristics.

  Digital Technology and the Notion of History: A Study of the Relationship between Historical Database and Historical Methodology in China //Shen Bin, Yang Peina

  The making of historical databases has merged the development of digital technology and historical research. They represent the technological improvement in historical methodology and also help the latter's innovation and expansion. The creation of digital archives and their searchable function extends the empiricist approach to historical study and textual criticism whereas the establishment of large quantitative databases is indebted to the interest in using social science and statistical methods in historical analysis. The development of digital technology has made improvement in both areas. In more recent years, thanks to the growing interest in digital humanities, it is possible to explore more innovations in historical methodology, which can help expand the emphasis of the new historiographical trend on analyzing both textual and historical contexts.

  Back to State Building: An Analysis of the Qing Imperial Policy and the Study of New Qing History //Liu Wenpeng

  Having applied imperialism theories in studying Qing history, Peter Perdue and other scholars of the “New Qing History” School put forth the notion of “Manchu imperialism” to describe the Qing dynasty's policy toward Inner Asia, which has become one of the theoretical origins of the School. These historians believe that the Qing empire's expansion into Inner Asia during the 17th and 18th centuries was comparable to the colonialist policies of the Ottoman and European empires. However, having built on the theoretical foundation of Western colonialism and imperialism, this viewpoint carries an ideological overtone and contains serious logical and historical flaws. We need to criticize it and study the Qing once again from the perspective of state building. We should not be misguided by erroneous theories; instead we should adopt a comprehensive and historical approach to understanding and interpreting Qing political history diachronically.

  The Relationship between Archeology and Historiography in the Republican Period (1911-49): A Case Study of Xia Nai's (1910-85) Early Career //Wang Xing

  Based on the reading of Xia Nai's diary as well as readings of other relevant sources, this article examines the relationship between archaeology and history by looking at Xia's early career in the Republican period. At first, Xia Nai regarded archaeology as an inferior form of scholarship. But later he changed his mind and believed instead that archaeology was key to the understanding of ancient China. This reversal of mind in Xia Nai reflected his early academic experience. It was also related to the overall academic atmosphere in the Republican era. With respect to the study of prehistorical and historical periods, archaeology and history obviously play a different role. However, historical perspective is essential to the study of archaeology too. Indeed, while their approaches are different, archaeology and history both seek to understand and reconstruct the ancient past. Studying Xia Nai's attitudes toward history and archaeology helps us to gain a better understanding of the development of scholarship in the first half of the 20th century. It also improves our knowledge of how the two disciplines developed further during the early People's Republic period.

  Yan Zonglin (1904-1978) and French Sinology //Zhang Wei

  As a prominent historian in modern China, Yan Zonglin is well known for his broad knowledge. Yet it is in the field of the history of SinoEuropean relations that he made the most notable achievement. This achievement was related to Yan's study in France where he developed a keen interest in French sinology. Indeed, thanks to his French education and his proficiency in the language, Yan was well prepared for making academic exchanges with French sinologists. With respect to subjects of study, research methods and source materials, his early writings in the study of SinoEuropean relations reflect his solid training as well as the mainstream interest in French sinology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His publications also became well received among French sinologists. Having acquainted himself well with the development of French sinology, Yan made a unique scholarly contribution, one that demonstrates a crosscultural characteristic. His career and accomplishment are truly exemplary.

  “Chinacentered Approach” and the China Studies in the U.S. //Wang Rui

  In the field of Chinese histarical stuclies, the “Chinacentered approach” advocated and advanced by Paul A. Cohen has exerted a farreaching influence. Yet previous studies tend to only focus on the approach itself and its theoretical connotation. As such, they have not yielded very satisfactory result. In fact, the author contends, the rise of this “Chinacentered approach” needs to be examined in a much larger context. Indeed, if there was not a general trend of critical reflection of academic studies in the U.S. and John K. Fairbank's support, Paul Cohen and his associates might not be able to put forth their theory. At least, the “Chinacentered approach” might not have had such a considerable influence. While it helped modify the previous “challenge and response approach” and pointed to a new direction of China studies in the U.S., the theory itself was far from perfect. It has its theoretical weaknesses as well as some limits in application.1,15,44,51,68-83,116,121,123,125-127,135,137,153