| 英文摘要 |
Mainstream British and American history education prefers a rational and objective historical understanding, and rejects imagination or identification that connects with personal experiences. To explore how historical empathy is understood and practiced, this research delineated different historiographical orientations of the history discipline and interviewed seven history scholars and five high school history teachers who hold at least a master’s degree. The results showed that the interviewees’ perceptions of historical empathy present a spectral distribution. Those who take the rational stance seem to be influenced by scientific historicism, and perceive historical empathy to be understanding historical contexts and making inferences based on evidence. Those who value emotions seem to be influenced by post-modernism and romanticism, which advocate the importance of sympathy, imagination, and inspiration. Furthermore, those who hold the integrated position embrace a hermeneutic view that historical empathy is both cognitive and affective, which encourages the use of historical imagination and personal experiences, in addition to evidence, for historical understanding and judgment. This paper argues for the integrated view and believes that history teachers must understand how different historiographies affect historical empathy teaching in order to make better judgement about their teaching orientations. |