摘要
改革开放初期,在传统古史分期理论框架下,"西周封建论"、"秦统一封建说"、"魏晋封建论"等学派对郭沫若"战国封建论"陆续提出新的质疑、商榷与批判,"战国封建论"学者则在对来自以上各派种种辩难予以回击反驳的同时,也对郭沫若"战国封建论"进行了补充、订正。以上论辩对新时期中国古代社会形态与古史分期的研究起到了一定的拓展与深化作用。改革开放初期的"无奴说"并未彻底推翻包括郭沫若"战国封建论"在内的传统古史分期理论,但其或多或少地影响到改革开放以后中国古代社会形态与古史分期理论讨论的学术走向。改革开放初期学术界对郭沫若"战国封建论"的辩难,也屡屡暴露出理论上的公式主义和史料运用上的实用主义等突出问题,辩论双方多有偏激武断之处,这在一定程度上影响到学术评判的客观与公正。
In the early days of the'reform and opening-up'period(1978-),Guo Moruo's periodization theory of ancient Chinese history,regarding the social transition from slavery to feudalism,received many criticisms.Guo had argued that the transition occurred in the Warring States Period(475-221 BCE),whereas others believed that it had taken place in the Western Zhou Period(1046-771 BCE),or did not occur until the Qin dynasty's unification in 221 BCE or even later.The historians who disagreed with Guo's theory presented a variety of criticisms.At the same time,Guo's supporters repelled them with new evidence and explanation.In general,the debates on Guo Moruo's periodization theory improved one's understanding of the nature of ancient Chinese society and history as well as Guo's own theory.Some of his critics went as far as to argue that there was no slavery in ancient China,which exerted certain impact on the future research on the history of China's high antiquity.Meanwhile,the critics also invariably showed their weakness in using,applying and explaining Marxist theory.In the debates,some participants from all sides appeared argumentative and even polemical,which were of no help in upholding a fair and objective scholarly standard.
出处
《史学理论研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第1期30-39,共10页
Historiography Bimonthly
