中国近代史两种范式研究

发布时间：2019-07-10 14:12

【摘要】：本文主要探究如何看待中国近代史研究领域的革命史范式和现代化范式问题。革命史范式在与现代化范式的争论中得到发展与完善,较为流行的现代化范式难成体系,中国近代史到底该如何在马克思主义理论的指导下进行更好地解读。全文分四个部分。第一个部分介绍中国近代史领域“范式”提出的背景。第二部分主要分别概述革命史范式和现代化范式,介绍其主要观点、理论基础以及对中国近代史进行叙述时的主要线索。通过展现两种范式的发展历程,横向比较在不同历史时期两种范式的发展情况,为第三部分分析两种范式之间的争论做准备。第三部分分析两种范式之间的争论。学术界对两种范式的争论主要有三种观点。第一种观点认为,现代化范式作为新的研究范式应该取代已经落伍的革命史范式。第二种观点认为双方不能取代彼此,均主张包容对方,但有一个谁相对占主导的问题。其中一种是以革命史范式为主导,兼采现代化范式,另一种是以现代化范式为主导,兼采革命史范式。第三种观点认为,革命史范式与现代化范式不存在根本的对立,两者应该并存。有关范式之争的结果,可以肯定的是革命史范式失去独尊的地位,但在近代史学科体系的通史著作中仍占有重大影响。而现代化范式对用现代化的视角去解读中国近代史上具体的事件比较流行。第四部分指出两种范式存在的缺点,并结合近期后现代主义对史学的冲击,简单介绍后现代主义史学对两种范式的解构,以引出中国近代史研究的未来走向。最后指出将中国近代史分为革命史范式和现代化范式,是一种二元对立的思维。中国近代史涵盖太多的内容,两种范式在研究中必有忽略之处,不可能面面俱到。在进行近代史研究时,勿要忘记在大方向上把握唯物史观。我国的近代史研究应该在唯物史观指导下,不断开拓新的研究领域,从多方面解读这段历史,有助于从整体上认识近代中国的历史。
[Abstract]:This paper mainly explores how to view the paradigm of the revolutionary history and the modernization paradigm in the research field of the modern history of China. The paradigm of the revolutionary history has been developed and perfected in the debate with the modern paradigm, and the more popular modern paradigm is difficult to form, and how the Chinese modern history should be better interpreted under the guidance of the Marxist theory. The full text is divided into four parts. The first part introduces the background of the "paradigm" of Chinese modern history. The second part mainly summarizes the revolutionary history and the modern paradigm, and introduces the main points of view, the theoretical basis and the main clue to the description of the modern history of China. Through the development of the two paradigms, the development of the two paradigms in different historical periods is compared, and the dispute between the two paradigms is prepared for the third part. The third part analyses the argument between the two paradigms. There are three views on the two paradigms in the academic circle. The first view is that the paradigm of modernization should be a new paradigm of the revolutionary history. The second view is that both sides can't replace each other and advocate for inclusion, but one has a relatively dominant issue. One of them is the model of the revolutionary history as the main and the modern paradigm, and the other is the mode of modernization and the paradigm of the revolutionary history. The third view is that the paradigm of the revolutionary history and the paradigm of modernization do not have the fundamental contradiction, and both should co-exist. The result of the controversy of the pattern of the revolutionary history can affirm the status of the revolutionary history, but still has a great influence in the history of the history of modern history. The modern paradigm is more and more popular with the modern perspective to interpret the specific events in the modern history of China. The fourth part points out the shortcomings of the two paradigms, and in combination with the recent post-modernism's impact on the history, briefly introduces the deconstruction of the two kinds of paradigms in the post-modernism history, so as to lead to the future trend of the research of the modern history of China. In the end, it is pointed out that the modern history of China is divided into the revolutionary history and the modern paradigm, and it is a binary opposite thinking. China's modern history covers too much content, and the two paradigms will be ignored in the study, and it is impossible to face all the problems. In the study of modern history, we should not forget to grasp the historical materialism in the big direction. The research of modern history of China should, under the guidance of historical materialism, continuously open up new research fields, and interpret the history from various aspects, which will help to realize the history of modern China in a whole.
【学位授予单位】：曲阜师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：K25

【参考文献】