政治中的历史:中国和英语国家学术界之间的身份历史叙事“战斗”

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Rethinking History Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/13642529.2022.2066307
Nagatomi Hirayama
{"title":"政治中的历史:中国和英语国家学术界之间的身份历史叙事“战斗”","authors":"Nagatomi Hirayama","doi":"10.1080/13642529.2022.2066307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses an important political conflict of historical knowledge between Chinese and Anglophone academia. By exploring divergent perspectives either on long-term and coherent narratives of China or short-term and differentiated narratives of China through the founding issues of Historical Review (Lishi pinglun) established by the Chinese Academy of History in 2020, this article illustrates a ‘battle’ of narratives derived from different regimes of historical knowledge, either officially institutionalized in contemporary China or unofficially constituted in Anglophone academia. Specifically, by critically evaluating the discursive constructions of identity-driven historical narratives of both sides, this article gives a serious consideration to the Historical Review’s mission against the deconstructionist historical narratives. In so doing, I argue that even if it is true that the Historical Review contributors are nationalists and thus help radicalize Chinese nationalism, the liberalist deconstructionist historians of China in English academia are not free from the same types of ‘political contaminations’ by lighting the excessive fires of China bashing.","PeriodicalId":46004,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking History","volume":"26 1","pages":"179 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"History in politics: a “battle” of identity historical narratives between Chinese and Anglophone academia\",\"authors\":\"Nagatomi Hirayama\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13642529.2022.2066307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article discusses an important political conflict of historical knowledge between Chinese and Anglophone academia. By exploring divergent perspectives either on long-term and coherent narratives of China or short-term and differentiated narratives of China through the founding issues of Historical Review (Lishi pinglun) established by the Chinese Academy of History in 2020, this article illustrates a ‘battle’ of narratives derived from different regimes of historical knowledge, either officially institutionalized in contemporary China or unofficially constituted in Anglophone academia. Specifically, by critically evaluating the discursive constructions of identity-driven historical narratives of both sides, this article gives a serious consideration to the Historical Review’s mission against the deconstructionist historical narratives. In so doing, I argue that even if it is true that the Historical Review contributors are nationalists and thus help radicalize Chinese nationalism, the liberalist deconstructionist historians of China in English academia are not free from the same types of ‘political contaminations’ by lighting the excessive fires of China bashing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rethinking History\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"179 - 206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rethinking History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2022.2066307\",\"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":"Rethinking History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2022.2066307","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

摘要本文论述了中英学术界在历史知识上的一场重要政治冲突。本文通过中国历史研究院2020年创办的《历史评论》(《离石评论》)的创刊,探讨了对中国长期连贯叙事或中国短期差异叙事的不同视角,阐释了一场源自不同历史知识体系的叙事之战,要么在当代中国正式制度化,要么在英语学术界非正式组成。具体而言,本文通过批判性地评价双方身份驱动的历史叙事的话语建构,认真思考了《历史评论》反对解构主义历史叙事的使命。在这样做的过程中,我认为,即使《历史评论》的撰稿人确实是民族主义者,从而有助于激进化中国民族主义,但英国学术界的自由主义解构主义中国历史学家也不能因为过度抨击中国而免受同样类型的“政治污染”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
History in politics: a “battle” of identity historical narratives between Chinese and Anglophone academia
ABSTRACT This article discusses an important political conflict of historical knowledge between Chinese and Anglophone academia. By exploring divergent perspectives either on long-term and coherent narratives of China or short-term and differentiated narratives of China through the founding issues of Historical Review (Lishi pinglun) established by the Chinese Academy of History in 2020, this article illustrates a ‘battle’ of narratives derived from different regimes of historical knowledge, either officially institutionalized in contemporary China or unofficially constituted in Anglophone academia. Specifically, by critically evaluating the discursive constructions of identity-driven historical narratives of both sides, this article gives a serious consideration to the Historical Review’s mission against the deconstructionist historical narratives. In so doing, I argue that even if it is true that the Historical Review contributors are nationalists and thus help radicalize Chinese nationalism, the liberalist deconstructionist historians of China in English academia are not free from the same types of ‘political contaminations’ by lighting the excessive fires of China bashing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Rethinking History
Rethinking History Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This acclaimed journal allows historians in a broad range of specialities to experiment with new ways of presenting and interpreting history. Rethinking History challenges the accepted ways of doing history and rethinks the traditional paradigms, providing a unique forum in which practitioners and theorists can debate and expand the boundaries of the discipline.
期刊最新文献
Creating Cromwell: an analysis of the historical novel’s position and potentiality through a study of Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall trilogy Between agency and event the book of Job as a Greek tragedy Being alongside: the practice of collaborative public history Just a matter of time: reviewing temporality in Australian historiography Transients, punks and hobos: rethinking the history of train hopping through experimental film
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1