后现代主义史学理论的再反思  

Rethinking Postmodernist Historical Theories

作　　者：成威华 Cheng Weihua

机构地区：[1]上海师范大学人文学院世界史系,200234

出　　处：《史学理论研究》2024年第3期146-156,160,共12页Historiography Bimonthly

摘　　要：后现代主义史学理论关注历史书写,认为历史文本是一种言辞虚构,历史叙事没有真假对错,这一观点遭到了学界激烈的批判。本文首先对这些批评与后现代主义的自我辩护进行梳理,然后对海登·怀特与弗兰克·安克斯密特的理论变化和差异进行辨别,最后在此基础上对后现代主义进行重新评价。虽然后现代主义的两位代表人物怀特与安克斯密特在理论观点上存在前后变化和内部差异,而且就历史叙事与虚构叙事也或多或少作过区分,但他们忽略了对历史研究环节的考察,否定了历史叙事存在“真”的可能性,最终陷入了历史相对主义的泥沼,观点甚至前后自相矛盾。与后现代主义这一叙事唯心论相比,学界目前需要一种同历史研究更相契合的叙事实在论。Postmodernist historical theories focus on historical writing,believing that tbe historical text is a form of verbal fiction,and historical narratives can be neither true nor false.This point of view has been fiercely criticized by scholars.After introducing these criticisms and post-modernist scholars'self-defenses,this article identifies and investigates theoretical shifts and differences in the views of two representatives,Hayden White and Frank Ankersmit.By doing so,it reappraises postmodernist views.To be more specific,there are some shifts and differences between White's and Ankersmit's views,which have made distinctions to some extent between historical narratives and fictional narratives.Yet,both of them have overlooked the examination of the historical research process and rejected the possibility of"true"historical narratives.As a result,they fell into the traps of historical relativism and their views may even have become selfcontradictory.Compared to postmodernist narrative idealism,scholars today need a narrative realism,which is more suitable to historical research.

关 键 词：后现代主义 自我辩护 内部差异 重新评价 

分 类 号：K091[历史地理—历史学]