摘要
安克斯密特自发表其《崇高的历史经验》(2005)以来,学界多认为他由语言向经验的转向是不成功的,但对其问题产生的原因却少有论述。事实上,在之前的《历史与转义》(1994)一书中,安氏就曾对历史经验进行过专门的探讨。在这里,他通过与"乡愁"经验相联系,阐述了一种"后现代历史经验"理论。这是一种过去与现在间存在差异的经验,是一种不能为历史学家所叙述的经验。分析这一少为学者所论及的论述可以发现,安氏的历史经验理论与人们的通常理解有很大差异,并在一开始就与个体主义捆绑在一起,这正是安氏的经验转向受到拒绝的重要原因。不过,鉴于历史学与个体主义的关系至今仍未有定论,我们应以开放之心态思考这一理论。
In reviewing Frank Ankersmit's Sublime Historical Experience which he published in 2005,scholars have been generally believed that the book marked Ankersmit's turn from the linguistics to the experience and that this turn is by and large unsuccessful. Yet few have discussed the leading cause for the turn and if it failed,how it is so. In fact,in his History and Tropology: the Rise and Fall of Metaphor published in 1994,Ankersmit already displayed an interest in the "historical experience. "In the book,Ankersmit expounds the postmodernist theory of historical experience by relating historical experience with"nostalgia". According to Ankersmit,historical experience is an experience that shows the difference between the past and the present,which cannot be narrated by historians. By analyzing this lesser known argument,the author believes,we can find that Ankersmit's theory of historical experience is different from ordinary understandings of experience because it is closely tied to individualism from the very beginning.This connection also explains why many have refuted Ankersmit's turn to experience. However,since there is no consensus on how history is related to individualism,we should be more open to Ankersmit's theoretical experiment.
出处
《史学理论研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第1期76-86,共11页
Historiography Bimonthly
