水怜黛心玉娇溶,热点阁,寺庙狂奔
文化历史作业essay
本篇essay绘制了一幅或多或少与文化历史相关的知识领域的图画。从考古和像艺术，文学，语言，宗教这类的历史活动中分离文化历史与知识、社会、政治历史是很困难的。不管这些历史是否在相关部门中研究或者是在“视觉研究”，“宗教学研究”和“文化研究”的保护伞下。所有这些邻近领域形成了一个内部圈子，并讨论其相关细节。位于中间圈子以外的，即与文化历史相分离的学科却对其有很大影响，如人类学、民族学、社会学、政治和地理。更远的是，最近才由文化历史学家发现的，称为外圈，由心理学、认知研究,神经科学和生物学构成。外圈学科对文化历史实践的影响仍不确定。
早在80年代和90年代讨论的文化转向之前就有了文化历史。早在18世纪后期，德国就用Kulturgeschichte这个名字用于文化历史，而在意大利文艺复兴时期，Jacob Burckhardt在他的著作中用了Kultur der这个名字，于1860年出版。那时候，荷兰受德国影响很深，Johan Huizing对文化历史面貌的想法在1926年的一场讲座中变现，随后就出版了。在美国，有本书叫《文化靠近历史》，由美国历史协会于1940年出版。相比之下，20年代来自法国弗朗索瓦•基佐到布劳岱尔的历史学家更喜欢用civilisation这个词，而英国的学者对社会更有兴趣。
ABSTRACT摘要
This article offers a kind of map of intellectual fields that are more or less close to cultural history. It is difficult to separate cultural history from intellectual, social and political history, from archaeology and from the histories of such activities as art, literature, language and religion, whether these histories are studied in departments of history or under the umbrella of “visual studies”, “religious studies” or “cultural studies”. All these neighbours form an “inner circle”, discussed in relative detail. Beyond it lies a “middle circle” of disciplines that are separate from cultural history but have made considerable impact on it: anthropology, ethnology, sociology, politics and geography. Still further away, and discovered by cultural historians only recently, comes an “outer circle”, comprising psychology, cognitive studies, neuroscience and biology. The effect of the outer circle of disciplines on the practice of cultural history remains uncertain.
THE CULTURAL TURN 文化转向
Cultural history is much older than the much-discussed “cultural turn” of the 1980s and 1990s. It was already practised in Germany under that name (Kulturgeschichte) as far back as the late eighteenth century, while Jacob Burckhardt's masterpiece on the Italian Renaissance, Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, was first published in 1860 (Burckhardt, 1860). In the Netherlands, which was still strongly influenced by German culture at that time, Johan Huizinga's reflections on “the task of cultural history” were given in the form of a lecture in 1926 and published soon afterwards (Huizinga, 1929). In the USA, a book entitled The Cultural Approach to History was published by the American Historical Association in 1940 (Ware, 1940). In France, by contrast, historians from François Guizot in the 1820s to Fernand Braudel in the 1970s preferred the term civilisation, while British scholars (with rare exceptions such as Arnold Toynbee) were more interested in social than in cultural history (Burke, 2008).
In other words, the cultural turn is a revival rather than a creation ex nihilo. Scholars in the USA, such as Schorske (1979), Darnton (1984) and Hunt (1984) have been in the vanguard, but this time French and British scholars have played an important part. In France, where the phrase histoire culturelle is replacing civilisation (though the history of the book remains known as l'histoire et civilisation du livre) one thinks not only of Chartier (1988), but also of specialists on the twentieth century such as Rioux and Sirinelli (1997-98). In Britain, chairs and departments in the subject have been founded at the University of Aberdeen, for instance, at Manchester and at York.
As is usually the case with revivals, cultural history has been re-invented. The definition has widened to include popular culture (although this concept is contested), and also everyday life: the history of material culture, the history of the body, the history of practices such as gestures, humour, collecting, travel and so on (Bremmer and Roodenburg, 1991, 1997; Elsner and Cardinal, 1994; Elsner and Rubiés, 1999). The contrast with earlier cultural historians was great enough to encourage the rise of the phrase “new cultural history” (Hunt, 1989) -by now no longer new. From the 1990s onwards, historians in the English-speaking world showed themselves to be increasingly at ease with phrases such as “the culture of retribution” (Beik, 1997); “the culture of gambling” (Kavanagh, 1993); “the culture of politeness” (Klein, 1994); “the culture of secrecy” (Vincent, 1998; Snyder, 2009) and so on.
It is obvious enough that this major shift in the discipline of history is linked to a wider cultural turn. Outside the academic domain, the increasingly common use of the term “culture” to refer to domains as different as business (“corporate culture”), violence (“gun culture”) sex, religion and drugs reveals a change in the way in which the everyday world is perceived, a turn that has been encouraged by the political debates over “multiculturalism”. Inside the university, the cultural turn has affected a whole range of disciplines, the “neighbours” with which this article is concerned.
One way of defining identity, perhaps the main way, is against the other, most obviously against the neighbours (whether they are perceived as good or bad neighbours). This form of definition works for disciplines as well as nations, groups or individuals. Sociologists have noted that claims to territory are common in the academic world (Becher and Trowler, 2005). Intellectual “fields” have to be defended from encroachment by what the great interdisciplinary scholar Aby Warburg called the intellectual “frontier police” (Grenzwachertum).
On the positive side, intellectual frontiers, like geographical ones, may be viewed as “contact zones” in which exchanges take place. Borrowing from the neighbours is a common practice for disciplines as well as for families. It may be useful to divide these neighbours into three groups or concentric circles, according to their distance from cultural history, which for the purpose of this article will be viewed as a planet surrounded by satellites (needless to say, any discipline may be placed in the centre for this purpose).
THE INNER CIRCLE 内圈
In the case of cultural history, the inner circle consists of different kinds of history: intellectual history, social history, political history, the history of science, the history of art, the history of literature, the history of the book, the history of language and the history of religion, together with classics, archaeology and the new discipline or bundle of disciplines that goes under the name of “cultural studies”. From the administrative point of view, some of these varieties of history (notably art history, literature and the history of science) might be called disciplines because they have their own departments in the university, while others are sub-disciplines in the sense of being only semi-autonomous. They are more likely to have their own journals and associations than to be organized in independent departments.
Intellectual History, otherwise known, especially in the United States, as the history of ideas, and including the history of philosophy (Akehurst, 2010), is particularly close to cultural history. Indeed, in its traditional German form of Geistesgeschichte it was difficult to distinguish from cultural history. One might say that cultural history, whose practitioners are now concerned with matter (“material culture”) as well as “spirit” or ideas, includes intellectual history. Sociologically speaking, however, the two groups of scholars are separate. Departments of intellectual history are relatively unusual but programmes in intellectual history for graduate students are quite common and the approach is supported by journals such as the Journal of the History of Ideas (founded in 1940) and Modern Intellectual History (founded in 2004).
This field, approach or sub-discipline -it is difficult to say which description is more accurate- is most important in the Anglophone world, from Scotland to Australia. Its principal competitor, especially in Germany and Scandinavia, isBegriffsgeschichte, the “history of concepts’. The leading figure in this approach, concerned to examine the changing uses of concepts and to place them in a wider linguistic field, was the late Reinhart Koselleck, while its monument is the nine-volume Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Brunner et al., 1972-97). In Spain, Fernández Sebastián (2011), a specialist on political thought, both practices and preaches conceptual history. Both intellectual and conceptual history have been affected by the cultural turn, as scholars increasingly concern themselves with what might be called “the cultural history of intellectual practices” (Burke, 2011; cf. Blake, 2008). |
