Universal History for Our Times
Universal History for Our Times
复制标题
我们这个时代的普遍历史
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1973
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Niels Steensgaard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Niels Steensgaard
历史学作为一门严肃的学科，随着民族国家的发展而走向成熟。历史研究通常是在国家范围内进行的，直到最近，学校课程仍以国家历史为主。当西方国家教授所谓的世界历史时，世界通常被理解为只包括欧洲和美国。自第二次世界大战以来，历史学家一直面临着在更大的背景下呈现历史的日益增长的需求，特别是那些认为他们不能继续在政治科学课程中教授国际合作，同时在历史课上宣传或多或少以自我为中心的民族历史神话的教师。伴随着这一运动，人们对亚洲和非洲新国家的民族史越来越感兴趣，而大多数突破既定界限的研究都转向了后一种历史。到目前为止，很少有历史学家致力于比较研究或真正的全球研究，从而建立一个普遍的历史。麦克尼尔是唯一认真尝试呈现全球历史的人，他不是把全球历史作为一堆或多或少没有形状的信息，而是在一个定义明确的理论框架内。因此，大集体企业仍然是通史研究的最重要的出发点，而且在今后许多年里无疑仍将如此。因此，必须对这些系列的编辑原则及其编辑和作者的先入之见和判断给予相当大的关注。通过普及和通过教师的基本思想将传播到世界各地，并有助于形成未来几代人的思想。我经常提醒自己，我今天教给学生的东西，到2020年，他们可能会逐字逐句地教给那些可能在2070年成为事务主管的学生（尽管我希望不是这样）。从这个角度看，历史教学是一个相当严肃的问题。在英语世界，二战后开始的两个最重要的通史项目是新剑桥现代史和联合国教科文组织赞助的人类史。这两个系列现在都接近尾声。这篇评论文章将集中在两个最近出版的卷，但主要的兴趣将是讨论
History as a serious discipline reached maturity with the national state. Historical research has ordinarily been carried on within national boundaries, and school curricula were until recently dominated by national history. When so-called world history was taught in the Western countries, the world was generally understood to include Europe and the United States only. Since World War II historians have been confronted with an increasing demand for the presentation of history within a larger context, especially from teachers who felt that they could not go on teaching international cooperation in political science classes while propagating the more or less self-centered myths of national history in history classes. This movement has been accompanied by a growing interest in the national histories of the new states of Asia and Africa, and it is to the latter kind of history most of the research that is breaking through the established boundaries has been diverted. So far very few historians have devoted themselves to comparative or truly global studies on which a universal history might be built, and the syntheses of Fernand Braudel and William H. McNeill are the only serious attempts at presenting global history, not as a more or less shapeless mass of information, but within a well-defined theoretical framework. Thus the great collective enterprises are still the most important points of departure for the study of general history and will no doubt remain so for many years to come. Considerable interest must therefore be attached to the editorial principles of these series and to the preconceptions and judgments of their editors and authors. Through popularizations and through teachers the underlying ideas will spread all over the world and contribute toward forming the minds of coming generations. I frequently remind myself that what I teach my students today they may be teaching verbatim (though I hope not) in the year of 2020 to pupils who may be at the head of affairs in 2070. Looked upon in this way, the teaching of history is quite a serious matter. In the English-speaking world the two most important general history projects started after World War II are the New Cambridge Modern History and the History of Mankind, sponsored by UNESCO. Both series are now approaching their conclusion. This review article will concentrate upon two recently published volumes,1 but the main interest will be a discussion of the