比較史學探索

Problematizing Comparative Historical Studies

本文提出以下論點：我們必須主導當代社會及人文學科的諸種討論保持開放的心態，並重視歷史研究的特殊性，否則真正的危機會是歷史學的地位很可能淪為其他人文與社會學科的輔助學科：迄今為止其他人文與社會學科對於當代事件與現象的詮釋更為成功，儘管對於當代事件與現象的詮釋在傳統上均交付給歷史領域。本文主張：當代史學研究的弱點在於史學的方法論和理論與實證研究分離，以致於難以面對因現代性的來臨而出現的複雜現象。為能連結理論與實踐，本文作者建議在歷史研究中挪用所謂的「接地理論」──根據數據所發展出來的理論，並採用比較的途徑與個案研究為其主要方法。本文包含兩部分：在第一部作者指出當代人文及社會學科所提出的理論，何以未能支應歷史的變化；在第二部分作者草擬了「接地理論」的方法論。

In this text I am going to argue that unless it opens itself to discussions that dominate contemporary social and human sciences, and unless protection of the specificity of historical research is undertaken, there is a real risk that history might be reduced to the status of an auxiliary science of other human and social sciences that have thus far been more successful in interpreting contemporary events and phenomena which have traditionally been consigned to the field of history. I claim that the weak points of contemporary historical studies are methodology and theory separated from empirical research in such a way that they are unable to capture complex phenomena which have emerged with the advent of modernity. In order to link practice and theory, I propose to appropriate for historical research what has been called 'grounded theory' — theory developed out of data, and which uses comparative approaches and case studies as its main methods. The text contains two parts: in part one, I indicate ways in which theories in contemporary human and social science have failed to deal with historical change and in part two, I sketch a methodology of grounded theory.