本文選題：思想史 + 福柯�。� 參考：《天府新論》2017年04期

【摘要】：現(xiàn)代史學的兩項基礎(chǔ),即史料考證編纂方法與歷史因果解釋,已備受后現(xiàn)代史學質(zhì)疑。福柯的譜系學與斯金納、徐復(fù)觀的思想史在這種語境下興起,其均對歷史穩(wěn)定結(jié)構(gòu)、觀念與敘事的連貫性提出質(zhì)疑。三者的核心手法主要有兩點:首先,將權(quán)力和政治引入思想分析,注重討論具體時空中話語、政治、行動的關(guān)系;其次,將以往連續(xù)性的學術(shù)史敘述解構(gòu)為不同情境下的政治行動。由此其呈現(xiàn)概念本身的斷裂性,以古代的知識作為現(xiàn)代的參照,挖掘斷裂的歷史面來批判現(xiàn)實。但是�？屡c斯金納、徐復(fù)觀仍有區(qū)分,�？伦⒅貦�(quán)力的策略、網(wǎng)絡(luò)、機制,而后兩者的思想史則繼承現(xiàn)代史學的史料分析手法,對作者主體性懷有敬重,且徐復(fù)觀的經(jīng)史之學更有助于紓解后現(xiàn)代的困境。
[Abstract]:The two bases of modern historiography, that is, the compilation method of historical data textual research and historical causality explanation, have been questioned by postmodern historiography. Foucault's genealogy and Skinner's and Xu Fuguan's ideological history rose in this context, which questioned the consistency of historical stability, ideas and narration. The core techniques of the three are as follows: first, introducing power and politics into ideological analysis, focusing on the relationship between discourse, politics, and action in specific time and space; and secondly, The continuous academic history of the past is deconstructed into political action in different contexts. Thus it presents the fracture of the concept itself and criticizes the reality with ancient knowledge as the modern reference and excavating the historical surface of the fracture. But Foucault and Skinner and Xu Fuguan still have a distinction. Foucault pays attention to the strategy, network and mechanism of power, while the ideological history of the latter two inherits the method of historical data analysis of modern history and respects the author's subjectivity. And Xu Fuguan's study of classics history is helpful to relieve the plight of post-modern.
【作者單位】： 武漢大學哲學學院;
【基金】：中央高�；究蒲袠I(yè)務(wù)費專項資金資助重點項目(編號:2015113010201)階段性成果
【分類號】：K091

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 王芳;;昆廷·斯金納的“歷史語境主義”探討[J];歷史教學問題;2008年05期

2 張芳山;涂憲華;;從觀念到語境:近代西方思想史研究范式轉(zhuǎn)向——兼論“斯金納革命”對思想史研究的貢獻[J];江西社會科學;2011年12期

，

本文編號：1799439