民族主义,历史主义,危机

D. Bloxham
{"title":"民族主义,历史主义,危机","authors":"D. Bloxham","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198858720.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the nineteenth century the general trend was away from grand comparative stadial theories and towards particularist accounts. The dominant historical rationale of the age was History as Identity, specifically national Identity. The first section of this chapter addresses the political context of so much historical thought across the Continent, with the French Revolution and its aftershocks prominent. The second section focuses on the main trends of the influential German historiography. At the same time, there were challenges to the prevailing German model of historiography even in its heyday: challenges in the 1860s are examined in the third section. Given the grand fluctuations in German political fortunes in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the accompanying turmoil in historical philosophy, Germany also features quite heavily in most of the remaining sections of the chapter. Here we examine how the particularizing, relativizing, tendency of a brand of historical thought turned in upon itself from around 1870, as some of the certainties of the nation-through-history were undermined by the effects of modernization and world conflict, and the social function of the historian became the subject of renewed debate. One upshot was a series of manifestos for scholarly neutrality, and a proceduralist emphasis on History as Methodology alone. As the German model of national History was weakened in the first half of the twentieth century, more space was created for competing methodologies within Germany too. The final section of this chapter considers some of those new alternatives.","PeriodicalId":439163,"journal":{"name":"Why History?","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nationalism, Historicism, Crisis\",\"authors\":\"D. Bloxham\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198858720.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the nineteenth century the general trend was away from grand comparative stadial theories and towards particularist accounts. The dominant historical rationale of the age was History as Identity, specifically national Identity. The first section of this chapter addresses the political context of so much historical thought across the Continent, with the French Revolution and its aftershocks prominent. The second section focuses on the main trends of the influential German historiography. At the same time, there were challenges to the prevailing German model of historiography even in its heyday: challenges in the 1860s are examined in the third section. Given the grand fluctuations in German political fortunes in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the accompanying turmoil in historical philosophy, Germany also features quite heavily in most of the remaining sections of the chapter. Here we examine how the particularizing, relativizing, tendency of a brand of historical thought turned in upon itself from around 1870, as some of the certainties of the nation-through-history were undermined by the effects of modernization and world conflict, and the social function of the historian became the subject of renewed debate. One upshot was a series of manifestos for scholarly neutrality, and a proceduralist emphasis on History as Methodology alone. As the German model of national History was weakened in the first half of the twentieth century, more space was created for competing methodologies within Germany too. The final section of this chapter considers some of those new alternatives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":439163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Why History?\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Why History?\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198858720.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Why History?","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198858720.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在19世纪,总的趋势是远离宏大的比较理论,而转向具体的叙述。那个时代占主导地位的历史理论基础是作为身份的历史,特别是国家身份。本章的第一部分讨论了整个欧洲大陆如此多历史思想的政治背景,其中法国大革命及其余震尤为突出。第二部分着重于有影响的德国史学的主要趋势。与此同时,即使在鼎盛时期,盛行的德国史学模式也面临着挑战:19世纪60年代的挑战将在第三部分进行考察。考虑到19世纪和20世纪早期德国政治命运的巨大波动,以及随之而来的历史哲学的动荡,德国在本章的大部分剩余章节中也占据了相当重要的地位。在这里,我们研究了从1870年左右开始,随着现代化和世界冲突的影响削弱了历史国家的某些确定性,历史学家的社会功能成为重新辩论的主题,一种历史思想的特殊化、相对化倾向是如何自我转变的。一个结果是一系列学术中立的宣言,以及对历史作为方法论的程序主义的强调。随着20世纪上半叶德国国史模式的削弱,德国国内也为竞争方法论创造了更多的空间。本章的最后一节将讨论其中一些新的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nationalism, Historicism, Crisis
In the nineteenth century the general trend was away from grand comparative stadial theories and towards particularist accounts. The dominant historical rationale of the age was History as Identity, specifically national Identity. The first section of this chapter addresses the political context of so much historical thought across the Continent, with the French Revolution and its aftershocks prominent. The second section focuses on the main trends of the influential German historiography. At the same time, there were challenges to the prevailing German model of historiography even in its heyday: challenges in the 1860s are examined in the third section. Given the grand fluctuations in German political fortunes in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the accompanying turmoil in historical philosophy, Germany also features quite heavily in most of the remaining sections of the chapter. Here we examine how the particularizing, relativizing, tendency of a brand of historical thought turned in upon itself from around 1870, as some of the certainties of the nation-through-history were undermined by the effects of modernization and world conflict, and the social function of the historian became the subject of renewed debate. One upshot was a series of manifestos for scholarly neutrality, and a proceduralist emphasis on History as Methodology alone. As the German model of national History was weakened in the first half of the twentieth century, more space was created for competing methodologies within Germany too. The final section of this chapter considers some of those new alternatives.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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