摘要
科学实证的历史研究通常把传说与历史二元对立起来 ,而后现代史学的挑战却对此进行了质疑 ,因为他们试图解构历史撰写的客观性。事实上 ,无论口头传说还是历史文献 ,都是历史记忆的不同表述方式 ,我们可以通过这一共同的特征 ,将两者对接起来 ,以期深化和丰富历史研究。从乾嘉时期的历史考据 ,到现代实证史学 ,再到后现代史学 ,人们始终关注史料 ,因为史料是史家了解过去的惟一桥梁 ,只不过他们在如何了解真实的过去方面有着不同的看法。这并不仅仅表明学术史的断裂 ,同时也显示了一条连续的、一以贯之的思想链。
Scientifically positive historiography usually opposes legend to history. This however is challenged by postmodern historiography, which seeks to deconstruct the objectivity of written history. In fact, legend and historical texts are simply different forms of historical memory. Using this commonality we can link them to deepen and enrich historical studies. From the historical textual studies of the mid Qing (1736—1821) to modern positive history all way to postmodernism, historiographers have always been concerned with historical data, which serve as a bridge to the understanding of the past. They differ only in their approach. While pointing to a rupture in the academic history, we also highlight a continuous intellectual chain.
出处
《中国社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2003年第2期175-188,共14页
Social Sciences in China
