历史记忆研究

【作者】 赖国栋；

【导师】 于沛；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 史学从文学中独立出来之前，历史与记忆并未完全得到区分。随着批判历史学的发展，历史与记忆在往不同的方向转化：记忆向着认同，历史向着真实。20世纪70年代，随着“精神状态史”的登台，记忆问题越来越受到历史学家的关注，也产生了另一些新问题，如历史学家如何对待记忆?记忆怎样和过去对话?历史是否如我们当下所见越来越等同于记忆?历史主义者与建构主义者对待记忆持何种立场?记忆与遗忘是什么关系?年鉴学派的“新史学”或“精神状态史”如何促进了现代历史学的记忆研究，等等。在这种新语境下，笔者希望通过考察20世纪西方特别是法美两国关于历史与记忆的经验，认识历史、记忆与历史记忆的一些特性，同时表明这些问题是如何有助于我们的历史理解以及史学思维。除去导言和结语，本论文包括五章。导言旨在概述我们要讨论问题的理论背景、问题意识的产生过程以及本论文的写作目的、方法。文章澄清了记忆与其它概念诸如传统、怀旧等的关系，同时表明并非每一种记忆都是历史的记忆，只有当一种记忆超越了这个人的生命或某个群体的“此在”界限，才能称得是历史的记忆。记忆不是传统，也不是怀旧，更不是纪念。记忆与历史紧密相连但并非对立，同时记忆并不是历史的原材料。第一章“述评”主要围绕历史记忆在20世纪兴起的原因等角度展开讨论。文章首先考察了记忆的历史。历史性思考意味着批判性的和语境化的思考，因此文章探讨了历史记忆研究兴起的语境。文章将历史记忆研究兴起的原因归结如下，即它受到了大屠杀、创伤、历史无意识、民族认同(对法国大革命的纪念)等等的促动。它与记忆的真实性、后现代史学、多元文化论等又不无关系。记忆问题在20世纪经历了一次认识论的转变，而历史思维中每一次实质性的进步、范式的转变，都是与历史学家当前生活中的变化相伴随着的。第二章“现代记忆的多重视角”旨在表明20世纪的历史记忆方式有别于古代的。不过我们仍然承认古代记忆方式(影像和场所)的有效性。文章揭示了场所等痕迹的多元性导致了多元的历史记忆，同时还揭露了现代记忆涉及到见证、历史认同等。结尾处则着重指出了记忆在现代认识论上的三种假设(重构主义、建构主义和解构主义)分别导致了不同的历史认知。同时文章还希望表明创伤导致记忆，历史的崇高容易走向历史的遗忘。至于遗忘工作，我们将它与主体联系起来，以布罗代尔不写“圣巴托罗缪惨案”为例，表明遗忘使得认同成为可能。第三章“个体记忆”从方法论个体主义入手，以文明史的写作为例，指出历史的建构并非最终归因于个体，但是又离不开个体，从而使得历史理解走向“解释学的循环”。文章将个体记忆的时间分为九类，从而使个体表现为九种历史观。具体到布罗代尔等历史学家，他们可能在对待历史写作问题时表现出一致性与非一致性。文章再次以布罗代尔、乔治·杜比等史家的自传为例，分析了“自我史”中可能存在的两种取向：建构主义和实验主义(“非常规历史”)，同时将后者视为理解历史的有效的“新途径”。第四章“集体记忆”从个体记忆如何进入集体这一点出发，旨在区分集体记忆的五种承载物：官方承载物，组织上的承载物，文化承载物，学术承载物以及其它承载物。它们分别从各自的角度维持了集体记忆，并在当下显现出或积极或消极的作用。文章又试图表明集体记忆是复合的，所以应将历史记忆说成“集合的记忆”，而非“集体记忆”。最终，我们依据大屠杀幸存者的叙事结构，得出历史知识通过回忆、纪念等复杂程序而产生的路径。它再次呼应了个体记忆中历史知识的来源问题。第五章实际上是考察个案，即试图探讨利科作为对法国历史学家影响较大的史学理论家是如何思考历史学实践的，以及如何框定我们关于历史记忆的论述。我们在分析过程中，将设法提炼他所使用过的各种论点来展开他的立场分析，以及表明它们是如何与我们前面的历史主题讨论结合起来。再次，我们会对利科在记忆问题上所没有注意到的关键点——例如，没有注意到“多媒体”对历史记忆的影响——作出适当的评论，以承接我们前面关于现代集体记忆方式的探讨。结语部分主要强调历史记忆之外的一些障碍：我们为何对历史记忆及其表象如此焦虑?我们对它负有什么责任?它包含了什么伦理价值?当然，我们也会谈到历史的悲悼与忧郁，因为它们可能阻碍记忆。记忆的责任由此是与意义相关，而与真实性无关，因此我们将着重点放在历史的责任而非记忆的责任上。文章认为重新撰写历史就是我们的历史责任之一。历史中的伦理就是在进行道德判断、保持目标平衡的同时，既要向着真实，又要向着受害者。文章的目的最终在于强调历史的伦理而非“记忆的伦理”。更多还原

【Abstract】 There is not any clear distinction between history and memory before the formeris separated from literature.However,with the development of critical historicalscholarship,history and memory move toward different directions.In the 1970s,withthe emerging of“history of mentalit(?)”,the question of memory’s valorization,whichleads to some new subject matters,has drawn increasing interest of the historians.Forinstance,what is the attitude of the historians to memory? How does memory make adialogue with the past? Can we equate history with memory? What is the attitude ofhistoricists and constructivists to memory? What is the relationship between memoryand forgetting? How does the“new history”of Annales School or“history ofmentalit(?)”promote the study of memory in modern history? In this new context,byreviewing the Western,particularly French and the American experience on historyand memory in the 20th century,the dissertation examines certain salient features ofthe relation among history,memory and historical interpretation,and aims todemonstrate how these issues contribute to our historical understanding and thinking.Besides the Introduction and the Conclusion,this dissertation includes fivechapters.The Introduction states the theoretical background,the producing process ofthe question under discussion and its writing purpose and method.It clarifies therelation between memory and other concepts like tradition,nostalgia andcommemoration.In the meantime,it claims that every kind of memory is nothistorical memory;it is one only when it surpasses an individual or a particulargroup’s level.Memory is neither tradition,nor nostalgia,nor commemoration,norhistory.Social memory and culture memory are closely linked to history,but notmutually contradictory.And memory is not the raw material of history.The First Chapter“Review”centers on the discussion of the reasons whyhistorical memory rises in the 20th century.It first investigates the history of memory,which helps to understand why“memory”has received so much attention in the lastcentury.It maintains that historical thinking means critical and contextual thinking,and that the law of causality is the secret of history,as well as the secret of memory.Therefore we must discuss the reasons why the research of historical memory rises inthe last century,which can be concluded as follows:it has been promoted byHolocaust (Post-Holocaust),trauma,historical unconsciousness and national identity(the commemoration of French Revolution) and the like.It is also related to theauthenticity of memory,post-modern historiography and multiculturalism,etc.The Second Chapter“Multiple Perspectives of Modern Memory”aims toindicate that the historical memory methods in the 20th century are different fromthose in the ancient times.However we still acknowledge the validity of memorymethods in the ancient times (imago and place).It reveals that the diversity of traces,such as places or topoi,causes the diversity of historical memory.Simultaneously itholds that modern memory involves witness,historical identity and so forth.The endof the chapter emphatically points out that the three kinds of epistemological suppositions (reconstructism,constructism,deconstructism) on memory has causedthree different historical cognitions.And we also want to indicate that the traumaserves to memory,and that historical sublime easily serves to historical forgetting.Beginning with methodological individualism,Chapter Three“IndividualMemory”points out that the construction of history is not ascribed to individual,butnot irrelevant to it,which makes history understanding move towards thehermeneutical circle.It divides the time consciousness of individual memory into ninekinds,making individual represented as nine kinds of historical views.As to thehistorians,they may demonstrate consistency as well as inconsistency while treatingtheir history-writing.Taking the autobiographies of some famous Frenchhistorians--Fernand Braudel and Georges Duby--as examples,it analyzes twoapproaches that may exist in individual memory:constructism and experimentism (or“unconventional history”),and regards the latter as an effective“new way”tounderstand history.Starting with the semantic ambiguity of collective memory and how individualmemory enters into the collective,Chapter Four aims at distinguishing the five kindsof carriers of collective memory,namely,official carrier,organizational carrier,cultural carrier,academic carrier and others.Each of the four kept collective memoryin its own way,and revealed its positive or passive function respectively.Finally,according to narrative structure of the survivors,it shows that how historicalknowledge comes into being,which may have echoed the origin of historicalknowledge in individual memory.The Fifth Chapter is a case study.It mainly discusses Paul Ricoeur’s thoughts onhistorical practices and his definition of historical memory.It also attempts to analyzehis positions by refining various arguments he used,and indicate how they relate tothe themes we mentioned previously.Moreover,we will comment appropriately onthe points neglected by him.For example,he has not noticed the impact of“multimedia”exerting on historical memory.The Conclusion emphasizes some barriers outside historical memory.Thebarriers can be stated as follows:Why are we so anxious about historical memory andits representation? What responsibility should we take for it? What ethics does itcontain? However,we also talk about historical mourning and melancholy,becausethey will possibly hinder remembering and recollection.The paper believes that oneof our responsibilities is to rewrite history.The ethical spirit of history must beresponsible for the truth,and speak for the victims,while carrying on the task of themoral judgment and balancing different goals.更多还原