本文選題：中國近代文化史 + 新文化史��； 參考：《史學史研究》2007年03期

【摘要】：20世紀80年代以來,中國近代文化史研究雖取得長足進展,但對其理論問題尚乏充分討論。這一狀況,非常不利于研究的持久深入。為了推進中國近代文化史研究的理論思考,我們邀請六位教授,就相關問題發(fā)表各自的高見。鄭師渠認為:要正確解讀20世紀初年中國社會文化思潮的變動,必須進一步超越既有的定勢思維,將之置于歐戰(zhàn)前后現(xiàn)代思潮變動的大視野下考察,引入反省現(xiàn)代性思潮這一新的視角,把握現(xiàn)代性與反省現(xiàn)代性的搏擊與統(tǒng)一,才能得出更合乎歷史實際的認識。史革新認為:在近代中國新文化理論諸說中,近代文明觀是形成較早的文化理論學說,它固然有對傳統(tǒng)文化觀念的繼承,但更主要的是對輸入于歐美、日本的文明觀的吸收,實為中國近代思想文化的發(fā)展提供了一個新的起點。鄭大華認為:加強社會變遷與文化轉型之互動關系的研究,對于深化中國近代文化史的研究具有十分重要的意義,因為社會變遷引起文化轉型,并決定著文化轉型的性質和速率,而文化轉型又對社會變遷有著重要影響,有時還為下一步的社會變遷制造或提供思想前提。黃興濤認為:文化史研究由三個層面組成,一是文化人物、事件、各文化分支門類自身一般狀況的研究;二是多種文化因素整合而成的"文化現(xiàn)象"的發(fā)現(xiàn)和闡釋;三是文化與社會政治、經濟等的互動關系的研究,尤其應注重"社會的文化史"與"文化的社會史"之間的互動關系。李帆認為:中國近代學術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,研究對象、視角和思想史有所不同,不過沒必要強分畛域,研究視野上則要有文化史的視野,文化史是其基本依托。張昭軍認為:中國近代文化史研究對象的確定,一是要以新文化的生成、發(fā)展為主線,兼顧近代歷史上的其他文化;二是要將文化史作為類文化的歷史,而非專史的簡單拼合;三是既把文化作為研究對象,又視為不斷發(fā)展的理論方法;四是要處理好"外在取向"與"內在理路"的關系。以下刊出他們的精彩論述,希望能對關注這方面問題的讀者有所幫助,也期望學界同仁參與討論。
[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.
【作者單位】： 北京師范大學歷史學院
【分類號】：K203

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 黃興濤;;文化史研究的省思[J];史學史研究;2007年03期

2 張昭軍;王立璋;;“近代中國與近代文化”研討會綜述[J];近代史研究;2007年06期

3 王笛;;新文化史、微觀史和大眾文化史——西方有關成果及其對中國史研究的影響[J];近代史研究;2009年01期

4 胡悅晗;謝永棟;;中國日常生活史研究述評[J];史林;2010年05期

5 李帆;;中國近代學術史研究的若干思考[J];史學史研究;2007年03期

6 史革新;;近代文明觀形成淺議[J];史學史研究;2007年03期

7 鄭大華;;要加強社會變遷與文化轉型之互動關系的研究[J];史學史研究;2007年03期

8 鄭師渠;;考察20世紀初年中國社會文化思潮變動的新視角[J];史學史研究;2007年03期

9 ;《中州學刊》1985年總目錄[J];中州學刊;1985年06期

10 文仄;香港——在《新文化史料》目錄上[J];新文化史料;1997年03期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 李長莉;;交叉視角與史學范式——“社會文化史”回顧與展望[A];過去的經驗與未來的可能走向——中國近代史研究三十年（1979-2009）[C];2009年

相關重要報紙文章 前4條

1 周武;新文化史的興起[N];文匯報;2006年

2 復旦大學歷史系 張仲民;海外漢學掀起新文化史研究熱[N];社會科學報;2008年

3 中國社科院世界歷史研究所 張煒;文化史何以出“新”[N];團結報;2010年

4 葛兆光;中古的科學史、社會史、文化史,抑或是博物學史？[N];中華讀書報;2010年

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 呂杰;作為方法的“語境”[D];華東師范大學;2012年

，

本文編號：2094800