中國近代史兩種范式研究
發(fā)布時間：2019-07-10 14:12
【摘要】：本文主要探究如何看待中國近代史研究領域的革命史范式和現(xiàn)代化范式問題。革命史范式在與現(xiàn)代化范式的爭論中得到發(fā)展與完善,較為流行的現(xiàn)代化范式難成體系,中國近代史到底該如何在馬克思主義理論的指導下進行更好地解讀。全文分四個部分。第一個部分介紹中國近代史領域“范式”提出的背景。第二部分主要分別概述革命史范式和現(xiàn)代化范式,介紹其主要觀點、理論基礎以及對中國近代史進行敘述時的主要線索。通過展現(xiàn)兩種范式的發(fā)展歷程,橫向比較在不同歷史時期兩種范式的發(fā)展情況,為第三部分分析兩種范式之間的爭論做準備。第三部分分析兩種范式之間的爭論。學術界對兩種范式的爭論主要有三種觀點。第一種觀點認為,現(xiàn)代化范式作為新的研究范式應該取代已經落伍的革命史范式。第二種觀點認為雙方不能取代彼此,均主張包容對方,但有一個誰相對占主導的問題。其中一種是以革命史范式為主導,兼采現(xiàn)代化范式,另一種是以現(xiàn)代化范式為主導,兼采革命史范式。第三種觀點認為,革命史范式與現(xiàn)代化范式不存在根本的對立,兩者應該并存。有關范式之爭的結果,可以肯定的是革命史范式失去獨尊的地位,但在近代史學科體系的通史著作中仍占有重大影響。而現(xiàn)代化范式對用現(xiàn)代化的視角去解讀中國近代史上具體的事件比較流行。第四部分指出兩種范式存在的缺點,并結合近期后現(xiàn)代主義對史學的沖擊,簡單介紹后現(xiàn)代主義史學對兩種范式的解構,以引出中國近代史研究的未來走向。最后指出將中國近代史分為革命史范式和現(xiàn)代化范式,是一種二元對立的思維。中國近代史涵蓋太多的內容,兩種范式在研究中必有忽略之處,不可能面面俱到。在進行近代史研究時,勿要忘記在大方向上把握唯物史觀。我國的近代史研究應該在唯物史觀指導下,不斷開拓新的研究領域,從多方面解讀這段歷史,有助于從整體上認識近代中國的歷史。
[Abstract]:This paper mainly explores how to view the paradigm of the revolutionary history and the modernization paradigm in the research field of the modern history of China. The paradigm of the revolutionary history has been developed and perfected in the debate with the modern paradigm, and the more popular modern paradigm is difficult to form, and how the Chinese modern history should be better interpreted under the guidance of the Marxist theory. The full text is divided into four parts. The first part introduces the background of the "paradigm" of Chinese modern history. The second part mainly summarizes the revolutionary history and the modern paradigm, and introduces the main points of view, the theoretical basis and the main clue to the description of the modern history of China. Through the development of the two paradigms, the development of the two paradigms in different historical periods is compared, and the dispute between the two paradigms is prepared for the third part. The third part analyses the argument between the two paradigms. There are three views on the two paradigms in the academic circle. The first view is that the paradigm of modernization should be a new paradigm of the revolutionary history. The second view is that both sides can't replace each other and advocate for inclusion, but one has a relatively dominant issue. One of them is the model of the revolutionary history as the main and the modern paradigm, and the other is the mode of modernization and the paradigm of the revolutionary history. The third view is that the paradigm of the revolutionary history and the paradigm of modernization do not have the fundamental contradiction, and both should co-exist. The result of the controversy of the pattern of the revolutionary history can affirm the status of the revolutionary history, but still has a great influence in the history of the history of modern history. The modern paradigm is more and more popular with the modern perspective to interpret the specific events in the modern history of China. The fourth part points out the shortcomings of the two paradigms, and in combination with the recent post-modernism's impact on the history, briefly introduces the deconstruction of the two kinds of paradigms in the post-modernism history, so as to lead to the future trend of the research of the modern history of China. In the end, it is pointed out that the modern history of China is divided into the revolutionary history and the modern paradigm, and it is a binary opposite thinking. China's modern history covers too much content, and the two paradigms will be ignored in the study, and it is impossible to face all the problems. In the study of modern history, we should not forget to grasp the historical materialism in the big direction. The research of modern history of China should, under the guidance of historical materialism, continuously open up new research fields, and interpret the history from various aspects, which will help to realize the history of modern China in a whole.
【學位授予單位】：曲阜師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：K25
本文編號：2512650
[Abstract]:This paper mainly explores how to view the paradigm of the revolutionary history and the modernization paradigm in the research field of the modern history of China. The paradigm of the revolutionary history has been developed and perfected in the debate with the modern paradigm, and the more popular modern paradigm is difficult to form, and how the Chinese modern history should be better interpreted under the guidance of the Marxist theory. The full text is divided into four parts. The first part introduces the background of the "paradigm" of Chinese modern history. The second part mainly summarizes the revolutionary history and the modern paradigm, and introduces the main points of view, the theoretical basis and the main clue to the description of the modern history of China. Through the development of the two paradigms, the development of the two paradigms in different historical periods is compared, and the dispute between the two paradigms is prepared for the third part. The third part analyses the argument between the two paradigms. There are three views on the two paradigms in the academic circle. The first view is that the paradigm of modernization should be a new paradigm of the revolutionary history. The second view is that both sides can't replace each other and advocate for inclusion, but one has a relatively dominant issue. One of them is the model of the revolutionary history as the main and the modern paradigm, and the other is the mode of modernization and the paradigm of the revolutionary history. The third view is that the paradigm of the revolutionary history and the paradigm of modernization do not have the fundamental contradiction, and both should co-exist. The result of the controversy of the pattern of the revolutionary history can affirm the status of the revolutionary history, but still has a great influence in the history of the history of modern history. The modern paradigm is more and more popular with the modern perspective to interpret the specific events in the modern history of China. The fourth part points out the shortcomings of the two paradigms, and in combination with the recent post-modernism's impact on the history, briefly introduces the deconstruction of the two kinds of paradigms in the post-modernism history, so as to lead to the future trend of the research of the modern history of China. In the end, it is pointed out that the modern history of China is divided into the revolutionary history and the modern paradigm, and it is a binary opposite thinking. China's modern history covers too much content, and the two paradigms will be ignored in the study, and it is impossible to face all the problems. In the study of modern history, we should not forget to grasp the historical materialism in the big direction. The research of modern history of China should, under the guidance of historical materialism, continuously open up new research fields, and interpret the history from various aspects, which will help to realize the history of modern China in a whole.
【學位授予單位】：曲阜師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：K25
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 左玉河;;中國近代史研究的范式之爭與超越之路[J];史學月刊;2014年06期
2 鄭師渠;;近代史教材的編撰與近代史研究的“范式之爭”[J];近代史研究;2010年02期
3 夏明方;;中國近代歷史研究方法的新陳代謝[J];近代史研究;2010年02期
4 楊天宏;;系統(tǒng)性的缺失:中國近代史研究現(xiàn)狀之憂[J];近代史研究;2010年02期
5 蔡禮強;;中國近代史研究的兩大基本理論范式[J];甘肅社會科學;2006年03期
6 周東華;正確對待中國近代史研究的“現(xiàn)代化范式”和“革命范式”——與吳劍杰、龔書鐸等先生商榷[J];社會科學論壇;2005年05期
7 井建斌;正確評價中國近代史研究的現(xiàn)代化取向——與李文海、張海鵬、龔書鐸等教授商榷[J];社會科學論壇;2005年05期
8 董正華;從歷史發(fā)展多線性到史學范式多樣化——圍繞“以一元多線論為基礎的現(xiàn)代化范式”的討論[J];史學月刊;2004年05期
9 董正華;多種“范式”并存有益于史學的繁榮[J];史學理論研究;2003年03期
10 林被甸,董正華;中國現(xiàn)代化研究的現(xiàn)狀[J];中國特色社會主義研究;2003年01期
，本文編號：2512650
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/zgjxds/2512650.html
