What is history: a brief discussion of several definitions of history in the new era
Author: Zhou Xiangsen
Determining the objective reality of the research object is the establishment of a science premise and foundation. [1] If we want to establish the discipline of historical criticism, we must first determine the connotation of the definition of historical criticism from an ontological perspective. To determine the definition of historiography, we must first determine the definition of historiography (also known as "history"). What exactly is historiography? This is the first problem that must be solved in the history of history and historical theory research, and the theoretical research on historical criticism is no exception. Because, although it belongs to the category of historical ontology and is not a question to be answered by the ontology of historical criticism, basic questions such as the object of historical criticism practice and the research object of historical criticism theory cannot be answered without first determining the definition of history. clear.
1. "History" has two meanings
Due to the different broad and narrow meanings, the definition of history can be summarized into two types from the connotation. "Historical science" in a broad sense is a unity of "history has two meanings" resulting from the simultaneous training of "history", including: (1) The objective existence and development of human past societies that are completely independent of people's consciousness. Process, and (2) the spiritual production practice and the products created by historians to describe and explore this objective existence and process and its laws. Historiography in the narrow sense does not include the former, but refers specifically to the latter.
History in the narrow sense is a unity of spiritual production practice and the things it creates that belong to the ideological form. In terms of its nature, due to the different angles and starting points of historians' investigation, there are "activity" theory, "knowledge" or "academic" theory, "knowledge system" theory, "science" theory, and "art" theory. Different definitions from the "half science, half art" theory, "integration" theory, etc.
Before the birth of Marxist history, people generally defined history in a broad sense, that is, the definition of history and the definition of history were often the same, and few people made strict conceptual distinctions between the two. distinguish. In English, "history" and "history" are the same word: History. According to the fourth edition of the "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary", the first meaning of History refers to "history" - the study of past events; the second meaning is "history" - past events, especially from the overall perspective. The third meaning is actually derived from the first meaning - a systematic narration of past events. It can be seen that "history" and "history" are their original meanings. In the definition or explanation of history by Western historians, what History specifically refers to generally depends on the specific text context.
The process of understanding history in China and the West is basically the same. The concept of "historiography" in ancient China also developed from the understanding of "history", or it was originally included in "history". According to Mr. Qu Lindong's research, generally speaking, the meaning of "history" in ancient China has gone through the development process of historians, history books, historical events, and historiography. The concept of history may have originated from AD 319 (the second year of Taixing in the Eastern Jin Dynasty) when Later Zhao Shile became king during the Sixteen Kingdoms period of the Eastern Jin Dynasty. At that time and for the next century and a half, people did not give a clear explanation of its connotation. However, history got rid of its dependence on Confucian classics and stood side by side with the traditional Confucian classics and legal studies, becoming a completely independent department in official studies. This was of great significance in the development of ancient Chinese historiography. Later, it had the contents of compilation and philology; by the Qianjia period of the Qing Dynasty, people also endowed historiography with contents such as historical narrative techniques and historical understanding methods. [2] To put it simply, in ancient China, the highest understanding level reached by people in explaining the concept of history was: history is a specialized and technical knowledge about how to understand, narrate or compile past events. This understanding is similar to the definition of "history is art" by modern Western historians. In the history of the development of ancient Chinese historiography, "history" as the objective existence of human society in the past and "history" as a kind of specialized knowledge in which people understand and describe its activities and their results finally achieved a preliminary separation. It is the result of thousands of years of exploration by ancient historians, and it is also one of their greatest achievements in historical understanding.
Precisely because "historiography" emerged from the hard shell of "history", although in the eyes of contemporary historians, "history" and "historiography" are two different connotations and essences. The same concepts, the answers to what they are belong to different ontological categories, but when people define them, they are like a two-faced monster - the two are used interchangeably and are entangled with each other. Just as "Yi" "has three meanings in one name" because it memorizes separate training, parallel training and simultaneous combined training - "The so-called Yi (simple) means changing, not easy" [3], - "History" "Because a word with multiple meanings is used simultaneously, it always has two meanings. This situation is still stubbornly maintained in modern times. Therefore, modern people's definition of history is not much better than that of the ancients, and they often cannot completely separate the two sides of the goddess Cleo. When they define "who is a historian" or "what is history?", they are actually not determining the definition of "history" but the definition of "historiography"; sometimes they combine the two meanings at the same time. If analyzed from the perspective of historical ontology, people will inevitably regard their definition as defining the concept of "history" from an ideological perspective, and thus conclude that their view of history is essentially an idealist view of history.
If we analyze the actual content of their explanations and the overall context of the text, it is not difficult to see that they determined the connotation of historiography in a narrow sense. For example, Liang Qichao, a master of modern Chinese studies and the initiator of the "New Historiography" revolution, wrote clearly at the beginning of his book "Chinese History Research Methods": "Who is a historian? He records the continuous activities of human society and summarizes them. Achievements, seeking their causal relationships, as a reference for ordinary people’s activities in modern times.”[4] The “history” here obviously refers to “historiography”; moreover, the content described in the book "Chinese History Research Methods". , is also a question of how to study history, rather than a question of what history is. Of course, most historians adopt the traditional method of simultaneous training. For example, Du Weiyun said: "Generally speaking, the so-called history is nothing more than events that actually happened in the past (in short, past events), or records of events that actually happened in the past (records of past events)." [5]
2. The contemporary ambiguity of "historiography"
People today have different definitions or explanations of historiography, and they can't agree on one.
"Activity" said. Mr. Qu Lindong said in the book "Outline of Chinese Historiography": "The comprehensive activity of understanding, recording and writing of the history of human society is historiography." [6] Mr. Qu's definition and the content of his book is compatible. Because history in ancient China mainly existed in the form of a cultural accumulation activity affiliated with political activities. This is fully proved by the system of historians and historical museums. Although history began to become a specialized discipline during the Sixteen Kingdoms period of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, and although there was no lack of private history writing in the development process of ancient Chinese historiography, it included both cultural activities and political activities and was mainly used as a form of expression of political activities. Comprehensive activity" characteristics have not changed.
"Learning" theory. In the "Introduction" to the book "Introduction to History" edited by Mr. Wu Ze, the definition of history is: "Historical science is the study of the development process and laws of human society." [7]
"History is half science and half art" said. The origin of this statement is more complicated. In the history of Western historiography, this debate can be traced back to the ancient Roman Empire in the 2nd century AD. The first person to analyze this issue was the Greek-Roman Loucianos (about 120-180 years), a rhetorician and satirical prose writer at that time. One theory is that it was about 125-192 years. Old translation: Loucianos Good, now it is also translated as Lucian according to the English translation Lucian). Lucianus wrote about 80 miscellaneous essays in the traditional dialogue style, covering topics such as literature and art, philosophy, rhetoric, religion, etc. Among them, there is a historical commentary monograph "On Writing History", which "can be positioned as Western historiography" The first monograph on historical theory in history” [8]. Lucianus discusses the task or purpose, essence, value, and method of understanding of history, the subjective consciousness structure of historians, the collection and processing of historical materials, the form of expression of historical works, the general standards for judging the quality of historical works, etc. , raised the epistemological and methodological issues of the ontology of history, revealed the authenticity and essential characteristics of history compared with literature and art (such as eulogies, poetry, drama and other forms of expression), and believed that although history has an additional element of appreciation, it also It is necessary to resort to appropriate literary and artistic expression techniques, and to express things such as "flashy and realistic", "beauty of style", "beauty of truth" and "beauty of well-organized order". However, these are not the essence of history. According to its characteristics, essence and purpose, history is a practical study, not an appreciation study like poetry. The basic points of historical epistemology and methodology expressed in Lucianus's "On Writing History" are as follows. In the article, "history" refers to the meaning of "historiography" in "History has two meanings":
"The first task of a historian is to tell the truth."
"History must strive to do its duty, which is to write the truth."
"History has only one task or purpose. That is practicality, and practicality has only one root, and that is truth. The admirable elements in history are undoubtedly extraneous things, not the essence of history."
"If there is no way to achieve reality. In this case, the historian should always pay attention not to the current audience (ancient historical works were to be read to the audience in public - author's note), but to the people who will read his historical works in the future. "
"History is afraid of confusing right and wrong and distorting the truth. According to doctors, the trachea cannot tolerate a little food. "
"If history is rhetoric, Even the value of appreciation is gone.”
“The temperament of a historian must be a little bit like a poet. History, like poetry, needs to use some high and refined tones.
”
“History can be sung, but the praise must be done properly, used appropriately, and not annoying to readers.” ”
“Historians must focus on future generations of readers when praising. "
"If the historian thinks that it is absolutely necessary to add some modifications, he should only seek the beauty of the style itself; only this kind of beauty is flashy and practical. Unfortunately, today's historians often ignore this real beauty. , but abandon the original and seek the end, confuse the fish with the pearl, and sell floating words made out of nothing. ”
“The same is true for what a historian can do: his art lies in giving complex and intricate real-life events the beauty of a coherent order, and then recording these events in as smooth a style as possible. If the listener or reader feels as if he has experienced the situation and witnessed the event, and praises the author's skill, then the historian's statue will be considered perfect and his labor will not be in vain. ”
“Since we believe that the purpose of the historical spirit is to be frank and honest, the historical style should accordingly strive to be as plain and smooth as the clear sky; we must avoid both esoteric and bizarre words and phrases, as well as vulgar market words. argot. We hope that lay people can understand it and scribes can appreciate it. The words should be elegant but not clumsy, without any trace of polishing, so as not to make people feel like strong liquor. ”
“Don’t give readers the impression that you are arrogant and rhetorical, regardless of historical development. "("History" here refers to the objective existence of history. - Author's note)
"Historical housework makes one's mind like a bright mirror, with light as clear as wash, without stains, reflecting people's faces. , not happy at all; in this way, he can reflect the reality of life truthfully, without distorting the truth or eclipsing it. ”
Historians “should not be careless in collecting materials, but must work hard and conduct repeated investigations; if possible, the historian should visit the scene in person and witness what happened; otherwise, he should also adopt an impartial and impartial approach. Report well and choose testimony that will not be exaggerated or derogated by bias. "
"My model historian is a person who is fearless, upright, independent, frank and honest, has a clear sense of right and wrong, is not swayed by his own likes and dislikes, and is not motivated by pity or admiration. He is merciful in his writing; he is a selfless judge who bears no hatred to anyone, but shows no favoritism to anyone; he is a writer who looks at the world, has no eyes for emperors and generals, and never considers their happiness or anger, but records them truthfully. deeds. "He may have personal grudges, but he pays more attention to the interests of the country and values ??truth more than personal grudges; he may have favorite characters, but he will not forgive their mistakes." ”
The historian “must be a person of independent spirit, fearless and not dependent on others, otherwise he will be indecisive and susceptible to undue influence”; “Must pay homage only to the fragrance of truth, He will never worship other gods; all gods are not in his eyes. His only principle and firm belief is that he never thinks about today's audience, but only thinks about future readers. "
"My ideal historian must have two talents: one is political vision, and the other is expressive ability. The former is an innate talent and cannot be learned; the latter is an acquired accomplishment, which can be learned as long as you read the classics carefully and study hard. ”
“The sole task of the eulogist is to praise and please his object. As long as the goal can be achieved, no matter how exaggerated it is, no matter how exaggerated it is.” “Poetry enjoys unlimited freedom, and poetry only abides by one law— —The poet’s imagination. ”
Therefore, in Lucianus’ view, “the inability to distinguish between poetry and history is indeed a serious problem in historiography.” [9]
Lucianus’s opinion on “ The analysis of the similarities and differences between "poetry and history", "practical history" and "appreciative history" opened the door to the debate among later historians about whether history is a science or an art. In modern Western countries, whether it is objective Is history proposed by relativist historians an empirical science that “tells the truth” and “history is a science, no more and no less”, or is history proposed by relativist historians an art and “history is a science”. "Study is half science, half art" and other expressions of the ontology of history with different forms. In terms of their understanding of the principles of historical governance and the nature of history, as well as the topics discussed and the path of thinking, they are actually not beyond Lu The level of understanding reached and the boundaries delineated by Lucianus.
In the contemporary Chinese historiographic theory circles, historical theorists have taken up the issue of Lucianus.
Historians who insist that history is a science, on the one hand, follow the cognitive path opened by Lucianus and identify authenticity as one of the essential characteristics of history from the difference between history and literature; on the other hand, they follow the path of understanding opened by Lucianus. , following the dialectical, historical and materialist path of understanding opened up by Marx and Engels, and from the perspective of historical ontology and historiography ontology, it profoundly expounded the objective reality of the objects of historical research, thus laying a solid foundation for history. Base. Other historians who hold a relativistic or even eclectic view of history have also continued Lucianus’ path of understanding. The only difference is that they have smuggled in the “undoubtedly extraneous things” that Lucianus had excluded. The content of the essential characteristics of history is made into something intrinsic to the essence of history, and then based on this, the old tune of "half...half" is repeated. Mr. He Zhaowu’s theory that history is a humanities discipline that is “a super science that is both scientific and non-scientific” can be seen as the contemporary Chinese version of the “half...half” theory.
In the late 1980s, Mr. He Zhaowu put forward the famous proposition of "false questions in historical research" and believed that "in order to modernize historical science," "historical circles should conduct research on all specious false questions in the past." Re-criticize and make some clarifications” [10]. This theory has had considerable influence in the field of Chinese history. The first thing he clarified as a "false question" was the long-term, stagnation, or long-term stagnation of China's feudal society. In the 1990s, his clarification work quickly traced its origins to the ontology of history and the categories of historical ontology, treating "Is history a science?" as a quasi-"false question" - Mr. He did not directly identify it It is a "false question", but we only think that it is a manifestation of the "scientific viewpoint", so we call it a quasi-"false question" to clear it up. From some of his published articles, such as "Some Reflections on History", "On the Dual Nature of History", "On the Dual Nature of History", "Historians, Historiography and History" [11], and by others Included in his collection of "Academic Cultural Essays", "History and Historiography" Preface, etc., it is not difficult to find that his history as a humanities subject is a "super science":
"People's research and understanding of history constitute historiography."
"...people's experience of history (history)..."
"History itself includes There are two levels, the first level (History I) is the knowledge or identification of historical facts or historical materials, and the second level (History II) is the understanding or interpretation of the first level (History I).”
"The data given in History I can have a 'reality', that is, a view that everyone agrees on (or can reach a consensus on)...History II is essentially a process of thinking construction... …”
“History II also includes two parts, namely rational thinking and experiential ability. The combination of the two becomes historical rationality. Rational thinking is what makes it identified with science; experiential ability is what enables it. It is identified with art and thus different from science... Therefore, history is both science and not science at the same time; it needs to be scientific and needs something other than scientific... that is, our understanding of The sensitivity of spiritual experience that history requires is essentially similar to the sensitivity of art."
"The key to history becoming history lies in history II, not in history. History I. History I is science, History II is philosophy. "
"To treat history scientifically, we must admit the non-scientific elements in history." Otherwise, "history will not be the same. There is no such thing as 'scientific' history, let alone 'humanistic' history (which is both scientific and non-scientific, so it is super-scientific, but not anti-scientific)."
"History cannot simply consider the material aspect, nor the spiritual aspect, but must integrate the two into a whole; the history of thought is the most essential and core part of it"; "Ideology The object of history is how all humanistic motives (people's thoughts, theories, opinions, wishes, etc.) participate in and form the whole of history." "The history of ideas discusses people's ideas and opinions, including the worldview in the broadest sense. and outlook on life... running through all human material and spiritual activities is the whole of human thought, which is what we call the history of thought." "Human thought and culture may be divided into two categories, one is accumulation, and the other is accumulation. One category is non-accumulation...components in history...which fall within the scope of humanities, and can be roughly divided into two categories: one category involves knowledge and technology, and the other category involves non-knowledge and non-technical content. The first category can be accumulated, but the latter category cannot"; "Thought and reality constitute a whole, this is the so-called history and its connotation.
"
"History is not an empirical science. You cannot conduct controlled experiments to confirm or falsify it... As far as the history of the material level is concerned, the development of things has its inevitable consequences. But as far as history at the humanistic level is concerned, its development does not have inevitable laws in the sense of the development of material things... Modern history is asking people to give up the so-called understanding of the so-called modern history that was required of people in the previous period. The laws of history are also like the infinite worship and infinite belief in the laws of natural science."
The key points of the "dual nature of history theory" obtained by Mr. He Zhaowu from "Several Reflections on History" are as above . After his dichotomy of "History I" and "History II" was proposed, some young history theorists got inspiration from it, and then distinguished the so-called "History III". It can be seen that the dichotomy. It has made a contribution to the "refinement" of history: it has opened up a structuralist or hierarchical research path in the study of historical ontology. As for whether the concept of history itself can make such a refined distinction. No one has yet delved into the hierarchical distinction.
Looking at Mr. He’s relevant discussion, it can be summarized as follows: History is the most essential and core part of history, which is based on people’s understanding of history. It is a humanities discipline that is composed of research, understanding, and experience, but is not science, philosophy, or art.
This kind of historical interpretation is actually new. The difference between Lucianus's argument and Lu's is that Mr. He combined Lu's "practical history" and "appreciative history" in an eclectic way, transforming history into a Intersex people. In other words, through sex reassignment surgery, history has returned from the scientific era of the late 20th century to its simple and uncertain childlike era.
According to Mr. He Zhaowu’s relevant discussion, this kind of history. The duality of right and wrong is rooted in the duality of history. The so-called "history has its dual nature" argument, that is, as a natural person, human history is subject to the laws of nature and necessity, but as a free and self-disciplined person, he is his own history. The master of the world decides his own orientation” [12].
In this way, the general connotation of the definition of history that people usually understand—the objective process of human society—is greatly When history is reduced to human beings, not only is the "class" gone, but the connotation of "society" is also removed. Both the so-called duality of history and the so-called duality of history are actually rooted in "human beings" in the sense of individual attributes. "The dual nature of history. When explaining what history is, Mr. He overemphasized the "freedom and autonomy" of "human beings" that he had completely individualized. When discussing the characteristics of history, he overemphasized the characteristics of the humanities. The general characteristics are equivalent to the characteristics of history. "So this is the reason for crying! ”
The theory of “science”. In 1902, John Bagnell, a British positivist historian and an important representative of the Cambridge Historical School,
Bury, 1861-1927. Also translated as Bagnell Ray, Bray) succeeded Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg
Acton (1834-1902) as appointed professor of modern history at the University of Cambridge. In his inaugural address "The Science of History", he began with the following sentence The words conclude: “History is a science, nothing more and nothing less. "[13] This is a frequently cited quote by historians when discussing the question of what history is. In contemporary Chinese history circles, there are currently three representative opinions on the "scientific" theory: general "scientific" theory; The theory of "concrete and empirical science with particularity, comprehensiveness, integrity and authenticity"; the theory of "integration"
The theory of general "science" is the most common definition of history. OK. For example, the "History" article of the new edition of "Cihai" published in 1999: "Also known as 'History'. A department of social sciences. The science that studies and explains the specific process and regularity of the development of human society. [14] Another example is the definition of history determined in the "Preface" of Wu's book "Introduction to History": "History is a science of reflection, a science that explores various specific historical studies and their inherent laws. "[15]
"Concrete and empirical science with particularity, comprehensiveness, integrity and authenticity". Mr. Li Zhenhong created a special topic in the book "Theory and Methods of History" Chapter, discusses what scientific history is and its fundamental difference from general history from the aspects of "history is the basis of science", "the characteristics and tasks of historical science", and the research objects of historical science. According to him. According to the discussion, history can be divided into two types: one is the general history before the emergence of Marxist history. It is not yet a science. At best, it is a specialized way of describing and studying the objective existence and processes of human society in the past. Knowledge system; First, Marxist history, which is the only scientific history so far.
To be precise, scientific history is “under the guidance of the general laws provided by Marxist philosophy, through the analysis and study of countless historical phenomena, historical events and historical figures of various nations and countries in the world, in order to understand their history. "Special laws and characteristics of development", a concrete and empirical science with distinctive and important characteristics such as particularity, comprehensiveness, integrity and authenticity. [16]
Unlike most historians in the past, Mr. Li Zhenhong correctly distinguished historical science and philosophy, especially Marxist historical materialism, from three aspects: research objects, tasks and characteristics. The differences between socialist philosophy, general social sciences, literature and other disciplines have determined the special research objects of objective reality for historical science and stipulated the special tasks it should undertake.
The definitions of historiography or historical science given by most historians always confuse the objects and tasks of historical science and historical materialist philosophy. For example, the "Historical Science" entry in the "Dictionary of Historical Theory" published by Li later comprehensively and systematically reflected the theoretical research results of Chinese history in the new era. This entry absorbs the connotation of the concept of historical science in two chapters of Li's "History is the basis of science" and "Characteristics and tasks of historical science". However, at the same time, it still equates the research object of historical materialist philosophy - "the history of human social development" - with and regards it as the only research object of Marxist historical science. The research objects and tasks of historical science in Li's book are - "Under the guidance of the general laws provided by Marxist philosophy, through the analysis and research of countless historical phenomena, historical events and historical figures of various nations and countries in the world, In order to understand the special laws and characteristics of their historical development", - after a slight change in the way of expression, it is regarded as one of the main tasks of Marxist historical science; it should be a research task of historical materialist philosophy, - " "Revealing the universal laws of the historical development of human society from primitive society through various class societies to socialist society", "pointing out the direction of socialism and communism in historical progress, and providing scientific theories and theories for the proletariat to understand and transform the world." "Historical basis", etc., - are also included in the main tasks of Marxist historical science. [17] The content of this entry is actually a "hybrid" based on the content of the "historical science" entry in "Cihai" and mixed with the relevant content in Li's works. While scientific history undertakes its own special tasks and conducts research on specific categories, it completely takes over and overtakes all the tasks and research objects of historical materialist philosophy. How can historical science bear this burden?
The theory of "integration". In the discussion of what history is in the historical circles in the new era, one of the latest and distinctive definitions was established by Mr. Jiang Dachun. In the article "Contemporary Chinese Historical Thoughts and the Development of Marxist Views of History", in view of the fact that "usually people think that history is historical treatises, or more precisely, it is the historical knowledge expressed in these historical treatises". He has an intuitive "but not comprehensive and profound" understanding of the current situation. From the perspective of "broad understanding", he determined a new, "comprehensive and profound" and clear definition for history: "History is As the subject of research, historians interact with historical objects through certain ways of thinking and understanding, and the products they create are historical knowledge.” [18] In this expression, Mr. Jiang did not touch on the concept of "historical existence", but judging from Mr. Jiang's full text, he used the concept of "historical object" as a historical object that enters the category of historians' cognitive objects in the sense of "historical existence". Therefore, based on his relevant explanations in the article, we can conclude that "historian" and "historical existence" are the two prerequisite elements that constitute historical research activities as a practice of spiritual production; "historical thinking way of understanding" ", "historical understanding means", "historical object", "historical research spiritual production practice" ("historical research activities") and "historical knowledge" are the five basic elements that constitute history. The definition of historiography determined by Mr. Jiang is indeed more comprehensive than the existing definitions of historiography. Mr. Jiang calls it "Neo-Marxist Historiography" and defines it in nature as "a scientifically based history based on its integration in the way of historical understanding and its comprehensive characteristics in its object field". Integrity that inherently integrates positivity, abstraction, value, and artistry."
What exactly are the three historiography
Although most of the above definitions or explanations of historiography are determined by recent or contemporary people in the history of literature, in terms of logical sequence, they are actually It is basically consistent with the natural historical process of the evolution of history itself and the ideological historical process of people's understanding of it. "History has two meanings" and modern people's "activity" theory, "learning" or "academic" theory and "knowledge system" theory, "super science" or "half science, half art" theory, and "science" theory , can be regarded as the ideological or theoretical manifestations of objective facts corresponding to the first, second, third, and fourth eras of history in its development process.
Among them, the general "scientific" theory in the "scientific" theory and the other two historical explanations respectively reflect two different periods before and after the fourth development era of history; as for the latter,