近代文明观形成浅议

发布时间：2018-05-30 06:17

本文选题：近代文明 + 中国近代文化史　；参考：《史学史研究》2007年03期

【摘要】：20世纪80年代以来,中国近代文化史研究虽取得长足进展,但对其理论问题尚乏充分讨论。这一状况,非常不利于研究的持久深入。为了推进中国近代文化史研究的理论思考,我们邀请六位教授,就相关问题发表各自的高见。郑师渠认为:要正确解读20世纪初年中国社会文化思潮的变动,必须进一步超越既有的定势思维,将之置于欧战前后现代思潮变动的大视野下考察,引入反省现代性思潮这一新的视角,把握现代性与反省现代性的搏击与统一,才能得出更合乎历史实际的认识。史革新认为:在近代中国新文化理论诸说中,近代文明观是形成较早的文化理论学说,它固然有对传统文化观念的继承,但更主要的是对输入于欧美、日本的文明观的吸收,实为中国近代思想文化的发展提供了一个新的起点。郑大华认为:加强社会变迁与文化转型之互动关系的研究,对于深化中国近代文化史的研究具有十分重要的意义,因为社会变迁引起文化转型,并决定着文化转型的性质和速率,而文化转型又对社会变迁有着重要影响,有时还为下一步的社会变迁制造或提供思想前提。黄兴涛认为:文化史研究由三个层面组成,一是文化人物、事件、各文化分支门类自身一般状况的研究;二是多种文化因素整合而成的"文化现象"的发现和阐释;三是文化与社会政治、经济等的互动关系的研究,尤其应注重"社会的文化史"与"文化的社会史"之间的互动关系。李帆认为:中国近代学术史研究有其自身的特色所在,分期方面不完全等同于政治史,研究对象、视角和思想史有所不同,不过没必要强分畛域,研究视野上则要有文化史的视野,文化史是其基本依托。张昭军认为:中国近代文化史研究对象的确定,一是要以新文化的生成、发展为主线,兼顾近代历史上的其他文化;二是要将文化史作为类文化的历史,而非专史的简单拼合;三是既把文化作为研究对象,又视为不断发展的理论方法;四是要处理好"外在取向"与"内在理路"的关系。以下刊出他们的精彩论述,希望能对关注这方面问题的读者有所帮助,也期望学界同仁参与讨论。
[Abstract]:Although great progress has been made in the study of Chinese modern cultural history since the 1980's, the theoretical issues have not been fully discussed. This situation is not conducive to the study of lasting depth. In order to promote the theoretical thinking of the study of Chinese modern cultural history, we invite six professors to express their opinions on relevant issues. Zheng Shiqu believes that in order to correctly interpret the changes in the trend of social and cultural thought in China in the early 20th century, we must further transcend the existing stereotypical thinking and place it under the great vision of the changes in the modern trend of thought before and after the European War. Only by introducing the new perspective of introspection of modernity and grasping the fight and unity of modernity and introspection can we get a more realistic understanding of history. The history innovation holds that: among the theories of modern Chinese new culture theory, modern civilization view is the early cultural theory, it certainly inherits the traditional cultural concept, but it is more important to absorb the civilization view imported in Europe, America and Japan. In fact, it provides a new starting point for the development of modern Chinese ideology and culture. Zheng Dahua believes that strengthening the study of the interactive relationship between social change and cultural transformation is of great significance in deepening the study of Chinese modern cultural history, because social change leads to cultural transformation. It also determines the nature and rate of cultural transformation, which has an important impact on social change, and sometimes makes or provides the ideological premise for the next step of social change. Huang Xingtao holds that the study of cultural history consists of three levels: the study of cultural figures, events, and the general situation of each branch of culture, the discovery and interpretation of "cultural phenomena" resulting from the integration of various cultural factors; The third is the study of the interaction between culture and social politics and economy, especially the interactive relationship between "social cultural history" and "cultural social history". Li Fan believes: the study of Chinese modern academic history has its own characteristics, and the staging aspect is not entirely equivalent to political history. The object of study, the perspective and the history of thought are different, but there is no need to make a strong distinction between the two sides. On the other hand, it is necessary to have the visual field of cultural history, which is the basic support. Zhang Zhaojun believes that the determination of the research object of Chinese modern cultural history is to take the formation and development of new culture as the main line and other cultures in modern history to be taken into account, the second is to regard cultural history as the history of culture, not as a simple combination of special history; The third is to regard culture as both the object of study and the developing theoretical method, and the fourth is to deal with the relationship between "external orientation" and "internal logic". The following highlights are published in the hope that they will be of help to readers who are concerned about this issue, and expect their colleagues to participate in the discussion.
【作者单位】：北京师范大学历史学院
【分类号】：K203

【相似文献】