The subjectivity and objectivity of history
1. The concept of history
What is history? Whether you are a beginner or someone who is engaged in in-depth research, you cannot avoid this problem. With the development of the times and changes in society, people in different time and space environments will give different answers to each other. For historians, the conceptual definition of the word history itself seems to be more difficult than any other vocabulary. To this day, the discussion around this concept is still complicated and controversial. Academically speaking, this phenomenon is normal. Just as Goethe said, "People only have clear knowledge when they have very little knowledge. Knowledge will grow along with doubts."
A. Three levels of meaning contained in the word history
Relatively authoritative historical theoretical works in China believe that the word history contains three levels of meaning.
“First, it refers to the objective historical process of human society in the past, or the history of things that happened in the past, that is, the objective existence of history as the object of knowledge of history researchers;
Second, it refers to people’s historical understanding or historical works that are the concentrated results of historical understanding, that is, subjectified history as the subject of understanding reconstructs the objective historical process;
Third, it refers to the study of history This discipline, from a Marxist point of view, is a science that studies various historical phenomena that have occurred in human society and explores the laws of their occurrence and development." (Du Jingguo, Pang Zhuoheng, and Chen Gaohua: "Introduction to History", Higher Education Press, 1990. Year, page 3. )
If these three levels are further organized, it can be believed that history contains two basic elements, namely what happened in the past and people's understanding of these things. This also involves the issue of historical subjectivity and objectivity.
2. Western historians’ discussion of subjectivity and objectivity in history
A. Thucydides’ historical understanding Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, was the first person in Western history to A person known for respecting the objectivity of historical facts, he does not believe in rumors and strives to make his narrative consistent with the facts. However, like other classical historians, he also placed the moral teaching function of history in a very important position in historical writing. In the opening chapter of "History of the Peloponnesian War", Thucydides clarified the purpose of writing his book, "This historical work of mine will probably not be interesting to read because of the lack of fictional stories. But if those If those who wish to gain a clear understanding of what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future (for human nature remains human nature) find my work of some benefit, then I shall be content with it. I want to cater to the temporary taste of the masses, but I want to last forever." (Thucydides: "History of the Peloponnesian War", translated by Xie Defeng, The Commercial Press, 1960, page 18.) It seems that, The author wants to exhort future generations by describing the rise and fall of the Athenian country and learn from history. For example, he often wrote long speeches in the tone of the people involved, but in fact expressed his political pursuits. In the popular "Pericles's Speech at the State Funeral Ceremony of the Fallen Soldiers", Thucydides vigorously praised the democratic politics of Athens.
B. Ranke’s understanding of history In the 19th century, the “Rank School” founded by the German historian Ranke was famous for its objectivist historiography. They have a famous saying: How we record history is how it happened. In Ranke's era, the status of history rose rapidly, so much so that later generations called the 19th century the "century of history." Historians at that time were often full of confidence in their own disciplines. Scholars who had received strict professional training in history believed that as long as they spent a period of scientific work sorting out the historical materials left over from the past, the original appearance of history could be comprehensive and thorough. , truly presented to the world. Under the guidance of this principle, Ranke and his students spent a lot of energy and left behind such masterpieces as "History of the Latin and Teutonic Peoples". On the surface, the Ranke school seems to have completely eliminated personal subjective factors from historical writing, but in fact, their efforts cannot be fully realized. On the one hand, Ranke emphasized the objectivity of history, but on the other hand, history has regularity. With a typical elite view of history, he declared to the world that the entire history was the handiwork of God. Under the guidance of divine will, emperors, generals and ministers created history according to their own intentions. Therefore, the historical materials used by historians of the Ranke School are mostly related to every move of the upper class in society, while the lower class people are excluded from their historical vision. Although in form, the Ranke School follows objective and scientific methods of making history, fundamentally speaking, these all serve its "elite view of history" and implement its subjective consciousness.
C. Croce’s historical understanding
The Italian philosopher and historian Croce is a representative figure who advocates historical relativism, emphasizing that all history is contemporary history. famous. He believes that historians should "only concentrate on a certain point that is consistent with an issue and constitutes a living positive history, that is, contemporary history." On the contrary, there is no objective history that exists independently of subject consciousness. (Croach: "The Theory and Practice of History", translated by Fu Rengan, The Commercial Press, 1982, p. 37.) In Crouch's view, the history that the knower grasps through subjective perception and personal needs Knowledge is the real history.
"History exists in each of us, and its data is in our own breasts."
(Croach: "Theory and Practice of History", page 14.) And others History that is superfluous and outside its horizon is false and completely unreliable. Here, compared to objective history, human subject consciousness has been emphasized as never before.
D. Collingwood’s historical understanding
Collingwood was a British philosopher and historian in the first half of the 20th century. In the philosophy of history, it is advocated that "all history is the history of ideas." It is the ideological motivation of the person concerned that determines his actions, thus promoting the movement of history. "For historians, the objects to be discovered are not simple events, but the thoughts expressed in them." (Ke Linwu De: "The Concept of History", translated by He Zhaowu et al., China Social Sciences Press, 1986, Page 243.) Therefore, historians must study the ideas behind human actions. Following Crouch, Collingwood raised the role of subjective factors in historical understanding to a new level.
3. History is the unity of subjectivity and objectivity
Generally speaking, historical research is inseparable from the subjectivity of historical understanding and the objectivity of history itself. The discipline of history requires the interaction of the two to some extent. For events that occurred in the past, their objectivity exists independently of human consciousness. The emergence and development of historical science must rely on people's subjective initiative and specific and in-depth explanations. No historical research can absolutely exclude human subject activities, which is a significant feature of the humanities and social sciences. It seems impossible to build the discipline of history into a model similar to pure natural science. Because history cannot be repeated, its regularity is only valid under certain specific conditions. From another perspective, there is no need for us to do that. From a realistic perspective, people in different eras will have different social problems, and these problems will require historians with critical consciousness to draw on past experiences. The so-called objective historical facts are reinterpreted wonderfully to keep pace with the times.
4. The relativity of historical understanding
A. The meaning of the relativity of historical understanding
Historical understanding is relative in nature. The meaning is that the object of knowledge has more outstanding independent selectivity, non-repetition and non-intuitiveness than other objects of scientific knowledge; the subject of historical knowledge is in the general process of universal historical connection, and the cognitive activities of historical objects cannot be purely objective beyond one's own specific Restricted by the ideological level, tendencies and values ??of the times
The absoluteness of historical understanding only exists in certain singular judgments about specific historical facts, or in a series of inheritances that represent the infinite development of human historical understanding. A direction that can only be approached gradually.
On the basis of understanding the relativity of historical understanding, it is possible to deeply explore the mutuality between historical understanding and other scientific understandings, and objectively seek for reference and combination between various sciences.
B. Requirements for historical researchers
Historical researchers must regularly conduct self-reflection and pay attention to the extent of their own subconsciousness, knowledge characteristics and other ideological and conceptual tendencies. And the meaning is reflected in the results of one's own historical understanding, and how to treat this component. Furthermore, it is necessary to pay greater attention to the subjective factors of others infiltrated into the historical materials, so as to eliminate their negative impact as much as possible. When making general and universal cognitive conclusions, focus on tracing the premises for their establishment, especially the ad hoc and hypothetical components of the theoretical premises themselves. Finally, for the understanding of history with universal significance, give up the awareness that the understanding has ended, and be ready to re-understand history on the basis of reality. (For the above, please refer to Zhao Yifeng: "The Relativity of Historical Understanding", "Historical Research" Issue 1, 1998.
)