To Confront the Totality: A Critique of Empiricism in the Historiography of the People's Republic of China

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Jake Werner
{"title":"To Confront the Totality: A Critique of Empiricism in the Historiography of the People's Republic of China","authors":"Jake Werner","doi":"10.1215/10679847-9286675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Most recent research on the first three decades of the PRC has avoided theoretical reflection on the period, instead claiming an empiricist fidelity to the heterogeneity of lived experience. Yet the refusal of theory allows unexamined conceptualizations to structure the findings—conceptualizations whose plausibility arises not from the archive but from the historian's own historically situated sensibilities. This article identifies a deep orientation at work in an otherwise highly diverse set of scholarship on the early PRC. A research paradigm privileging the individual over the collective, civil society over the state, diversity over homogeneity, contingency over necessity, and fragmentation over totality has achieved important advances, but it has also foreclosed essential new directions for research. The article then sketches an alternative approach that does not simply reverse these binaries but aims to encompass both sides through a reappropriation of classical social theories such as those of Marx, Durkheim, and Freud. Building on long-neglected aspects of these theories, such as their varied approaches to a co-constitutive relation between social appearance and essence, would not displace careful empirical investigation but deepen it by revealing the full complexity of the sources.","PeriodicalId":44356,"journal":{"name":"Positions-Asia Critique","volume":"23 1","pages":"719 - 758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Positions-Asia Critique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10679847-9286675","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Most recent research on the first three decades of the PRC has avoided theoretical reflection on the period, instead claiming an empiricist fidelity to the heterogeneity of lived experience. Yet the refusal of theory allows unexamined conceptualizations to structure the findings—conceptualizations whose plausibility arises not from the archive but from the historian's own historically situated sensibilities. This article identifies a deep orientation at work in an otherwise highly diverse set of scholarship on the early PRC. A research paradigm privileging the individual over the collective, civil society over the state, diversity over homogeneity, contingency over necessity, and fragmentation over totality has achieved important advances, but it has also foreclosed essential new directions for research. The article then sketches an alternative approach that does not simply reverse these binaries but aims to encompass both sides through a reappropriation of classical social theories such as those of Marx, Durkheim, and Freud. Building on long-neglected aspects of these theories, such as their varied approaches to a co-constitutive relation between social appearance and essence, would not displace careful empirical investigation but deepen it by revealing the full complexity of the sources.
面对整体:对中华人民共和国史学中的经验主义的批判
摘要:大多数关于新中国成立前三十年的研究都避免了对这一时期的理论反思,而是声称对生活经验异质性的经验主义忠实。然而,对理论的拒绝允许未经检验的概念化来构建这些发现——这些概念化的合理性不是来自档案,而是来自历史学家自己的历史感受。这篇文章在中华人民共和国早期高度多样化的学术研究中发现了一个深刻的方向。一种研究范式将个人置于集体之上,将公民社会置于国家之上,将多样性置于同质性之上,将偶然性置于必要性之上,将碎片化置于整体性之上,这种范式取得了重要的进展,但它也阻碍了研究的重要新方向。然后,文章概述了另一种方法,它不是简单地扭转这些二元对立,而是旨在通过重新利用马克思、涂尔干和弗洛伊德等经典社会理论来涵盖双方。建立在这些理论长期被忽视的方面,例如他们对社会表象和本质之间共同构成关系的各种方法,不会取代仔细的实证调查,而是通过揭示来源的全部复杂性来深化它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Positions-Asia Critique
Positions-Asia Critique ASIAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信