【作者】 谷学峰；

【导师】 张书学；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 1958年“大跃进”时期,我国史学领域曾发生过一场规模宏大的所谓“史学革命”运动,这场“史学革命”给中国史学的发展带来了深刻而广泛的影响,还直接左右了其后一段时期内中国史学的发展走向。本文通过对这场“史学革命”的考察分析,旨在准确把握建国后马克思主义史学发展的基本脉络和特征,探求史学与政治的微妙关系,总结经验教训,为今后中国马克思主义史学的健康发展提供助力。随着新中国的成立,新的政治、文化、经济体制建立,中国史学也面临着转型,即由现代多元史学向中国马克思主义史学的转型,也就是说新中国要建立与当时的社会政治及文化相适应的马克思主义史学。在这一大背景下,随着当时政治形势的发展,1958年“大跃进”时期,史学领域出现了“史学革命”运动。“史学革命”,是对以批判资产阶级史学、建立以阶级斗争为主线的人民史体系为中心的一系列运动的总称,其内容涵盖史学界的“厚今薄古”大讨论,对所谓“资产阶级”史学及史学家的批判,“打破王朝体系”,“构建以阶级斗争为主线的人民史体系”,以青年学生为主体的写史、编教材活动,史学的“大跃进”等等。这场“史学革命”运动以“厚今薄古”大讨论为其开端,在“拔白旗、插红旗”运动中达到高潮,由于“史学革命”本身所主张观点的不合理性,随着“拔白旗、插红旗”运动的结束而渐趋衰弱。“史学革命”中的一些荒唐做法,引起了郭沫若、范文澜、翦伯赞等史学家的反对与批评,不过,“史学革命”的影响却难以彻底清除。随着1966年前后阶级斗争形势的高涨,“史学革命”的提法被套用,以吴晗、翦伯赞为首的老一代马克思主义历史学家几乎都遭到了政治批判,甚至有些历史学家为此付出了生命。从本质上来说,“史学革命”不是真正学术意义上的历史学革命。1958年的“史学革命”并没有展现学术正常发展进步的一面。它不是对马克思主义唯物史观的丰富和发展,而是对其进行的公式化、简单化和教条化的理解运用,并且还否定了此前史学工作者为中国马克思主义史学的发展而做出的种种努力。当时提出的“人民史体系”的史学编纂体系,是阶级斗争观点在史学研究中极端运用的体现,不能够反映整个中国历史的实际面貌。“史学革命”是社会变动与史学工作者思想认识变化相互作用的结果。1958年“史学革命”实质上是当时各种政治运动在史学领域的综合反映。当时的国家开展的每一项政治运动可以说都直接冲击、影响着史学领域的工作。史学工作者思想认识的变化也推动着“史学革命”的开展,他们按各自的理解把阶级斗争观点运用到当时的史学研究之中,用阶级斗争的办法来解决学术问题。可见,史学的发展与社会的变动息息相关,这种相关性反映中国史学经世致用的传统与当时史学家的治学心态,也反映了史学变动与对马克思主义唯物史观的理解与诠释密切相关。“史学革命”的要害在于把阶级斗争观点全面引入到史学领域,把政治标准作为区分资产阶级史学与马克思主义史学的学术标准。“史学革命”中,在“左”的政治路线的影响下,阶级分析的方法、阶级斗争的观点逐渐上升到历史观的层面,并且脱离了或忽视了马克思主义唯物史观的指导,甚至被等同于马克思主义的唯物史观。这显然是一种以偏概全的理解。“史学革命”给中国史学带来了一个严重后果——史学的政治化倾向,从而使史学丧失了学术自身,走向了“文革”中的“影射史学”之绝境。“史学革命”提出了史学的批判、继承与创新的问题,但没有恰当地解决这一问题。“史学革命”对史学遗产强调批判,缺乏继承,严重削弱或中断了一些优良的治史传统。民国史学有两大传统：一是注重史料；一是注重借鉴西方史学。建国后,这两大治史传统皆被严重削弱或中断,至少不再被视为治史的重要方面。“史学革命”展开了对所谓“资产阶级”史学家的错误批判,削弱了中国史学的研究力量,使一批学有专长且正值学术盛年的学者无法专注甚至一度中断了史学研究。这些都警示我们要做好史学遗产的批判继承工作。“史学革命”提出了史学革新的问题,这一点容易被人所忽视。当时,“史学革命”中有人提出“打破王朝体系、建立人民史体系”的观点,这体现了当时史学面对现实政治需要作出的一种主动适应。虽然,这一观点因其不合理性遭到了批判。但是,它却带给我们一种马克思主义史学随时代发展而不断革新的问题意识。“史学革命”对中国史学的发展来讲,虽然其破坏性大于建设性,但也并非一无是处。如,中国近现代史学科就在此时期得到了前所未有的重视和加强,可以说为其以后的发展奠定了一定的基础。“史学革命”给我们以深刻的启示,那就是要正确处理史学与政治的关系,正确处理史学“求真”与“致用”的关系,要在学术研究中坚持“百家争鸣,百花齐放”的方针。通过对“史学革命”的考察,我们看到了建国后中国史学发展的曲折一面,但是这并不是抹杀和无视当时中国马克思主义史学取得的巨大成绩,我们更不能把中国史学出现的问题归咎于马克思主义本身,取消其对历史研究的指导作用；十一届三中全会后,中国马克思主义史学对自身进行了深刻的反思,重新迸发了生机与活力,但也不能认为中国马克思主义史学存在的问题已经全部解决,有些问题还需我们重新审视,还需要我们进行更深入的研究：全球化时代的到来,使中国马克思主义史学面临着新的挑战与机遇,中国马克思主义史学需要在结合中国史学传统与实践的基础上,吸收各种文明及不同学科的优秀文化成果,不断丰富自身,发展自身,强化在中国学术领域中的主流地位,并屹立于世界学术之林。更多还原

【Abstract】 "The revolution of history" took place in the field of history with the Great Leap Forward Movement of 1958. The revolution produced significant influences on the history of China in the post-1949 era and played a leading role in the field for several decades. By examining the rise and fall of the revolution of history in the post-1949 period, this dissertation aims to demonstrate the main clue and basic characteristics of Marxist historiography and to reveal the delicate relationship between history and politics."The revolution of history" served as one of communist reforms of China’s new regime in the post-1949 era. With the foundation of new political, cultural, and economic systems after 1949, the field of history also experienced a great transformation of methodology from plural paradigms to exclusive Marxism—that was, the Marxist historiography, in order to meet the social, political, and cultural requirements of the new regime and state. When the Great Leap Forward rose in 1958, "The revolution of history" also started in the field of history in China. This dissertation defines "The revolution of history" in a general sense. It consists of a series of movements, including the debate on "exalting the present and depreciating the past," the movements of criticizing the bourgeois historiography, "producing history of working people," "breaking the dynasty-centered historiography," "constructing class struggle-based history of people," the Great Leap Forward in history field, and so on. It began with a fierce debate on Chinese history that was known as "exalting the present and depreciating the past," reached its zenith but soon declined with the movement of "removing the while flag and raising the red flag." Some leading historians, including Guo Moruo, Fan Wenlan, and Jian Bozan, criticized some negative ways showed up in "the revolution of history," but in no way were they able to stop the movement. Rather, they were eventually criticized by the movement and some historians even died of the political criticism."The revolution of history" in 1958 was not an academic revolution as it literally suggested. It failed to highlight the positive characters of the improvement of academic research. Rather, it utilized a set of highly-programmed Marxist concepts to trim down the previous historiography. The most typical embodiment of this class struggle-centric approach was to write "history of people" which could not reflect the true face of Chinese history. The revolution was actually a result of the changes and mutual reactions of the Chinese society and historians’thought. Thus, it was no more than a general mirror of various political movements in the field of historical research. It came into being when historians had strong attention of putting their new revolutionary ideas into practice. In this sense, "the revolution of history" served as the best case for one to observe the pragmatic convention of Chinese historiography, although it showed out in Marxist way.The most critical point of "the revolution of history" proved the permeation of the class struggle-centric approach in the field of historical research, which took the political rules as the academic criterion for differentiating bourgeois historiography and Marxist historiography. The "left-wing" approach dominated everything in the field with the rise of class struggle ideology and was put on an equal footing with the Marxist historical materialism. Eventually, the revolution resulted in the serious politicalization of the Chinese historiography at that time. The "allusive history" was a case in point."The revolution of history" posed a very critical question about dealing with historiography. The revolution emphasized criticism on previous historiography and neglected to inherit some excellent methods of historical research. In the republican era, China’s history had developed two paradigms for historical research. The first paradigm was to conduct research by extensively utilizing historical materials and the second one was to learn methodologies from western scholarship. However, in the post-1949 period the two paradigms were considerably abandoned and replaced by class struggle paradigm and historical materialism. The revolution wrongly criticized so-called "bourgeois" historians, which significantly weakened the research team in history and prevented young scholars from conducting historical research. By the same token, the revolution arguably put forward some new questions like "breaking the dynasty-centric history" through which the Chinese conventional historiography might have achieved some new ideas. Although these issues were late distorted by political movements, they still reminded us of the dynamic relationship between historical research and social transformation.Although "revolution of history" was more destructive than constructive for the Chinese historical research, it would be inappropriate to completely deny it as people. To some extent, it produced some positive effects on academic research. For example, modern Chinese research received unprecedentedly close attention during the period, which laid the foundation for better research in the following years."The revolution of history" exerted quite strong but negative influences on China’s historical research. Rather, it served as a typical case for historians to examine the rise of Marxist historical materialism and historical methodology in post-1949 China. It reminded historians that it would be essential for a historian to handle the relationship between politics and historical research, and the one between "pursuing the truth" and "taking practice" in Chinese context. In the meanwhile, through this case one could well observe dynamic relations between China’s politics and academy in Mao’s China, a new state jubilantly growing up with political, social, and cultural movements. After 1979, the Chinese Marxist historiography made a critical examination of its own history in China in order to modify the directions in the new academic setting. By examining "the revolution of history" in 1958, this dissertation argues that the Marxist historiography should efficiently combine the Chinese conventional paradigm and cosmopolitan practice in order to meet the great intellectual challenge from within and outside China’s border in the unprecedented globalization period.更多还原