论马克思主义史学的垫脚石和其他灾难

IF 0.9 4区社会学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory Pub Date : 2021-09-17 DOI:10.1163/1569206x-12342058

H. Gerstenberger

{"title":"论马克思主义史学的垫脚石和其他灾难","authors":"H. Gerstenberger","doi":"10.1163/1569206x-12342058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nHistorical research is always in danger of being made use of for explaining and illustrating instead of testing one’s theoretical conceptions. Since Marxist historical research has certainly not been exempt from this temptation, one has to start any debate about Marxist historiography with the demand to accord empirical research the chance to shake even the cornerstones of one’s own theoretical conceptions. In a paper that has triggered off a new discussion on ‘Political Marxism’, Samuel Knafo and Benno Teschke insist on such a practice. In what follows I try to position the ongoing discussion in the wider context of theoretical concepts of Marxist historiography.","PeriodicalId":46231,"journal":{"name":"Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Stepping Stones and Other Calamities of Marxist Historiography\",\"authors\":\"H. Gerstenberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1569206x-12342058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nHistorical research is always in danger of being made use of for explaining and illustrating instead of testing one’s theoretical conceptions. Since Marxist historical research has certainly not been exempt from this temptation, one has to start any debate about Marxist historiography with the demand to accord empirical research the chance to shake even the cornerstones of one’s own theoretical conceptions. In a paper that has triggered off a new discussion on ‘Political Marxism’, Samuel Knafo and Benno Teschke insist on such a practice. In what follows I try to position the ongoing discussion in the wider context of theoretical concepts of Marxist historiography.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206x-12342058\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206x-12342058","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

历史研究总是有被用来解释和说明的危险，而不是用来检验自己的理论概念。既然马克思主义的历史研究当然也不能幸免于这种诱惑，那么人们在开始任何关于马克思主义史学的辩论时，都必须要求让实证研究有机会动摇自己理论概念的基石。在一篇引发了关于“政治马克思主义”新讨论的论文中，塞缪尔·纳福和本诺·特施克坚持这样的实践。在接下来的内容中，我试图将正在进行的讨论置于马克思主义史学理论概念的更广泛背景中。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

On Stepping Stones and Other Calamities of Marxist Historiography

Historical research is always in danger of being made use of for explaining and illustrating instead of testing one’s theoretical conceptions. Since Marxist historical research has certainly not been exempt from this temptation, one has to start any debate about Marxist historiography with the demand to accord empirical research the chance to shake even the cornerstones of one’s own theoretical conceptions. In a paper that has triggered off a new discussion on ‘Political Marxism’, Samuel Knafo and Benno Teschke insist on such a practice. In what follows I try to position the ongoing discussion in the wider context of theoretical concepts of Marxist historiography.

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

Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory Multiple-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Historical Materialism is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring and developing the critical and explanatory potential of Marxist theory. The journal started as a project at the London School of Economics from 1995 to 1998. The advisory editorial board comprises many leading Marxists, including Robert Brenner, Maurice Godelier, Michael Lebowitz, Justin Rosenberg, Ellen Meiksins Wood and others. Marxism has manifested itself in the late 1990s from the pages of the Financial Times to new work by Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton and David Harvey. Unburdened by pre-1989 ideological baggage, Historical Materialism stands at the edge of a vibrant intellectual current, publishing a new generation of Marxist thinkers and scholars.