胡绳史学研究

【作者】 胡现岭；

【导师】 乔治忠；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 胡绳是中国共产党著名的史学家之一,他在中国近代史研究以及中共党史研究方面做出了突出的贡献,其从上个世纪四十年代开始为构建中国近代史学术体系进行了深入的思考,这种思考一直延续到他生命的最后阶段,他所构建的中国近代史学术体系,在相当长的时期内被中国近代史学界奉为圭臬。八十年代以后,胡绳把研究的重点转向中共党史,其所主编的《中国共产党的七十年》也被誉为是最为权威的一部党史读本。胡绳一生学术研究的高潮和低谷时期,与中国共产党的事业几乎是完全同步的。当党的事业不断取得进步的时候,胡绳的学术就处在高潮时期;相反,当党的事业陷入低谷的时候,胡绳的学术也是如此。从这一点足以看出胡绳是一个不同于传统意义上的知识分子,正是如意大利马克思主义者葛兰西所言,他是属于“有机化”或“组织化”的知识分子,以革命为唯一志业。他写出的东西首先是服务于革命,服务于党的工作目标。他首先是战士,然后才是学者。胡绳的近代史研究是从四十年代开始进行的,他的研究首先是寻找时事评论的替代品,这个时期所写的文章带有很强的革命性。在很多具体论断上与历史真相有一定的差距,这种写作的指导思想在相当程度上影响到他一生的学术研究,重视学术的革命性而相对忽视了作为学术根本的科学性。这种指导思想在建国后从1957年到1966年这段时间内发扬到了极致。胡绳积极或消极地投身到建国初的几次思想理论的批判中,虽然在当时他的文章相对来讲还是比较温和的,但不可否认,这些文章在当时的大批判中还是起了推波助澜的作用。在中国近代史研究方面,胡绳存在着以中国近代政治史代替中国近代史的倾向,虽然也顾及到经济、文化等方面,但总体来讲还是以政治史为主。在中国近代史的分期上,长期坚持以领导阶级的不同来作为中国近代史分期的标准,而排斥了更具学术性的以社会性质为标准来划分中国近代史的分期思想。这种做法显然是为了突出中国共产党的领导以及新中国政权的合法性,但从学术的角度来看要逊色许多。胡绳在中共党史研究方面更重视社会效果,虽然胡绳一再提出研究无禁区,但在具体的研究中还是提出一些委婉的限制;虽然强调只有认真总结经验教训才能更好地为现实服务,但往往为了现实问题而有所回避,往往更多地谈中共党史上积极面,对消极的一面很少涉及。在中共党史研究上,胡绳与其说是史学家毋宁说是一个优秀的宣传家。晚年的胡绳在中国近代史以及中共党史研究方面,提出许多与自己以前论断相异的观点,被一些研究者认为是胡绳“晚年变法”,其历史观有重大的变化。实则非也。胡绳认为自己在历史研究中坚持的是唯物史观,但更多的时候他的历史观是革命史观。革命史观强调的是实用性,会随着形势的不同而对具体历史事件的判断有所区别,而唯物史观则以求真为唯一目标。其晚年新论点并不标志历史观有所变化。实际上,他是想以革命史观为主的旧范式来包容以现代化视角为主的新范式,使现代化理论成为旧范式中的一部分,同时实现对新范式的革命化改造和对旧范式的现代化改造,期以建构一种能回应现实的史学范式。这个现象其实也是革命史观灵活实用的一个表现。随着时代的发展,胡绳的学术成果很多地方都有待重新讨论,但这并不意味着他的成果价值不高。对他不能以一个纯学者的标准来评价,他的史学研究在相当大的程度上为党的理论宣传事业直接或者间接地提供了依据,在大多数的时间里为中国革命的胜利和政治稳定作出了突出的贡献,这种作用是一般的学者所不能比拟的,他在他的位置上出色的完成了自己的职责。更多还原

【Abstract】 Being one of the famous historians of the Chinese Communist Party, Hu Sheng makes a great achievement in the area of the Modern History of China and the History of the Chinese Communist Party. He had been thinking deeply for constructing the system of the Modern History of China from 1940s to the last time of his life. For a very long time, that system had been looked up to as the standard by the historians of the Modern China. After 1980s, the focus of the study of Hu Sheng turned to the History of the Chinese Communist Party, and the Seventies of the Chinese Communist Party edited by him has been regarded as one of the most authoritarian books of the History of the Chinese Communist Party.The academic research of the whole life of Hu Sheng had stood togethter through thick and thin with the development of the revolutionary cause of the Chinese Communist Party. When the revolutionary cause of the Chinese Communist Party developed smoothly, so did the achievement of the academic research of Hu Sheng; it was the same the other way round. From this point, we can see clearly that Mr Hu is an intellectual different from the traditional one. As the Marxist Glandsay of Italia said, he is one of the sort of intellectuals called "organic"or"organized" ones, who devotes himself to the revolutionary cause. At first, what he wrote is to meet the revolutionary cause and the objective of the Chinese Communist Party fought for. Above all, he is a soldier, then a scholar.Mr Hu started the research of Modern History of China from 1940s, and his research began with how to replace the current events survey with something else. During this period, his articles were imbued with a strong revolutionary spirit. To a great extent, the academic research of the whole life of him had been influenced by that guiding ideology of writing, which thinks highly the revolutionary spirit of academic research but ignores the basic element of it- objectivity. That guiding ideology had been developed as far as it was during the period between 1957 and 1966; Mr Hu had thrown himself into the critique of the several discussions of the ideological theory actively or passively during the early times of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. In contrast to the articles of the others at the period, the views of his was still soft, but there was no denying the fact that his articles did add fuel to the flames to the ideological movements at that time.The tendency of the Political History of Modern China replacing the Modern History of China is present in his research of Modern History of China. Although his research refers to the respects of economics and culture, in a whole the political history is the main theme. For a long time, he insists that the changing of the leading class should be the criterion of the dividing of the Modern History of China, and refutes the more academic criterion: Dividing the periods of the Modern History of China by the nature of society. Obviously, it is to prove the right of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the authority of the New Republic of China, but it isn’t enough according to the academic criterion.For studying the History of the Chinese Communist Party, Mr Hu thinks highly of its social effects , although he persists that to study the History of the Chinese Communist Party is freely, he puts a limit on certain questions very tactfully; Although he lays stress on that summing up the historical experience is very important for the service for the social reality, he always avoids studying some problems for the current social reality, always relates something good more about the History of the Chinese Communist Party , and seldom refers to something passive. Thus, we can say that Mr Hu is rather an excellent propagandist than a historian for the studying the History of the Chinese Communist Party.In his later years of life, in respect to the Modern History of China and the History of the Chinese Communist Party, Mr Hu put forward many new ideas different from the ones he did before. That is called the "political reform in his later years " of Hu Sheng by some scholars, and it is believed that the conception of history of him has changed a lot. In fact, it doesn’t so. Mr Hu thinks that he upholds historical materialism in his research of history, and the conception of history of him is more often the revolutionary conception of history, what it emphasizes is the pragmatism, but for the historical materialism , its single aims is to search the truth. The new idea of his later years doesn’t mean the change in his conception of history. As a matter of fact, what he implies is to include the new model of modernization with the old model of the revolutionary conception of history, to make the theory of modernization a part of the old model of history, at the same time, to realize the new model revolutionized and the old model modernized, and at last to construct a model of history reflecting the reality. In fact, this presents the adaptability and pragmatism of the revolutionary conception of history.As time went by, many academic achievements of Mr Hu needs to be re-study, but this doesn’t mean that he makes little contribution to the research of history. For him, we couldn’t appraise him by the criterion of a pure scholar, and in a great degree, his academic research provides the theoretical basis for the propaganda of the theory of the Chinese Communist Party. For the most time, he makes a great contribution to the victory of the Chinese Revolutionary and the stale political environment, and in general, most scholars can’t match this effect. He fulfils his historical mission according to his historical role.更多还原