{"title":"实践使相关性:当前的展望与历史","authors":"Todd Shepard","doi":"10.1017/S1479244322000178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most historians let collective memories guide their work, with what needs to be studied already understood to matter. This is particularly true for histories of the recent past, in which primary-source research serves, to quote Michel Foucault, “to refresh memory.” Memorial histories are of different types—including nationalist histories, militant histories, and family or group histories—and useful. There are other approaches to studying the past, however, that can help even those committed to memorial practices. This article draws from work by Bonnie G. Smith, Laura Doan, and Foucault to home in on two key historical practices: “primary-source work” and “historiography.” A sharper awareness of what these practices are, their possibilities, and, of pressing importance, their limits—what they cannot or tend not to reveal, what they in fact render more difficult to see—could help make debates about presentism more convincing. The article proposes “prospecting” as a way to identify research topics that might stimulate present-day discussions and also engage other scholars.","PeriodicalId":44584,"journal":{"name":"Modern Intellectual History","volume":"20 1","pages":"639 - 650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practices Make Pertinent: Prospecting and Histories of the Present\",\"authors\":\"Todd Shepard\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1479244322000178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most historians let collective memories guide their work, with what needs to be studied already understood to matter. This is particularly true for histories of the recent past, in which primary-source research serves, to quote Michel Foucault, “to refresh memory.” Memorial histories are of different types—including nationalist histories, militant histories, and family or group histories—and useful. There are other approaches to studying the past, however, that can help even those committed to memorial practices. This article draws from work by Bonnie G. Smith, Laura Doan, and Foucault to home in on two key historical practices: “primary-source work” and “historiography.” A sharper awareness of what these practices are, their possibilities, and, of pressing importance, their limits—what they cannot or tend not to reveal, what they in fact render more difficult to see—could help make debates about presentism more convincing. The article proposes “prospecting” as a way to identify research topics that might stimulate present-day discussions and also engage other scholars.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Intellectual History\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"639 - 650\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Intellectual History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244322000178\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Intellectual History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244322000178","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
大多数历史学家让集体记忆指导他们的工作,需要研究的东西已经被理解为重要的。对于最近的历史来说尤其如此,用米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)的话来说,第一手资料的研究起到了“刷新记忆”的作用。纪念历史有不同的类型——包括民族主义历史、军事历史、家庭或团体历史——而且很有用。然而,还有其他研究过去的方法,甚至可以帮助那些致力于纪念活动的人。本文借鉴了Bonnie G. Smith、Laura Doan和Foucault的著作,聚焦于两个关键的历史实践:“第一手资料工作”和“史学”。更敏锐地认识到这些实践是什么,它们的可能性,以及它们的迫切重要性,它们的局限性——它们不能或倾向于不揭示的东西,它们实际上使之更难以看到的东西——有助于使关于现在主义的辩论更有说服力。这篇文章提出,“勘探”是一种确定研究主题的方法,可以激发当前的讨论,也可以吸引其他学者。
Practices Make Pertinent: Prospecting and Histories of the Present
Most historians let collective memories guide their work, with what needs to be studied already understood to matter. This is particularly true for histories of the recent past, in which primary-source research serves, to quote Michel Foucault, “to refresh memory.” Memorial histories are of different types—including nationalist histories, militant histories, and family or group histories—and useful. There are other approaches to studying the past, however, that can help even those committed to memorial practices. This article draws from work by Bonnie G. Smith, Laura Doan, and Foucault to home in on two key historical practices: “primary-source work” and “historiography.” A sharper awareness of what these practices are, their possibilities, and, of pressing importance, their limits—what they cannot or tend not to reveal, what they in fact render more difficult to see—could help make debates about presentism more convincing. The article proposes “prospecting” as a way to identify research topics that might stimulate present-day discussions and also engage other scholars.