Theme Issue 35
Chinese Historiography in Comparative Perspective
Edited by Axel Schneider and Susanne Weigelin-Schwiedrzik
Cover image: Untitled, by Kirill Sharkovski (7 May 2019)
+ SUSANNE WEIGELIN-SCHWIEDRZIK, Introduction to "Chinese Historiography in Comparative Perspective," History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996).
No abstract.
+ JÖRN RÜSEN, Some Theoretical Approaches to Intercultural Comparative Historiography, History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996), 5-22.
Intercultural comparative historiography raises fundamental methodological problems: Is there any ground for comparison beyond the peculiarities and differences of cultures to be compared? One must avoid taking the Western cultural tradition of historical thinking as the basis for the comparison. Therefore one has to conceptualize the theoretical grounds for comparison and explicate elements of historical thinking which operate in every culture. Then cultural differences in historiography can be analyzed as peculiar constellations of these elements. In order to develop this comparative groundwork, one has to start with some fundamental considerations about historical memory as the universal cultural means of orienting human practical life in its temporal dimensions. On this foundation one has to erect a theory of historical consciousness and its constitutive factors, procedures, and functions. In a systematized form the relationship of these elements can be used to identify the varieties of historical thinking in different contexts over time. This approach has as one objective an intercultural exchange of knowledge about history as a medium for identity-forming. It should enable the participants in this exchange to overcome the widespread logic of exclusion in favor of a more inclusive manner of historical self-understanding.
+ BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ, History in Chinese Culture: Some Comparative Reflections, History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996), 23-33.
This article explores the differences and similarities between China and the West in terms of history. While the term itself is of ancient Greek origin, the "semantic field" of history resonates in many ways with the semantic field covered by the word hi in China. The original Greek usage, derived from Herodotus, means an inquiry into human affairs. The inquiry involved narrative (as well as what we might call anthropological observation) over large stretches of time and space, but many of its main concerns were metahistorical in terms of nineteenth-century western historicism. This is true of Thucydides and later even of Machiavelli. History was a casebook and a "mirror" of metahistorical experiences which could be used in an entirely unhistorical way to shed light on many areas of human ethical, political, and other modes of thought and behavior. The nineteenth-century western "historicist" view of history as a "master narrative" reflecting an irreversible, inexorable process of development shaping the entire destiny of the human race may have some of its roots in the Heilsgeschichte of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in its "progressivist" version. Historicism also implied that human beings were basically formed by their loci within their historical epoch and raised serious questions concerning the role of human agency in human affairs. In China--in contrast to the West--we find particularly in the Confucian stream of thought the early emergence of the idea of a metahistorical ideal order which had been realized within the human sphere in the past. Here the historical problem was the fatal human capacity to fall away from the principles of this normative order (the dao). The problem became: why does humanity depart from the good order and to what extent can it be restored? Despite the vastly different framework, we can find in China (particularly in the "Spring and Autumn" tradition, and elsewhere) both the kind of "unhistorical" history which regards history as a reservoir of metahistorical experience in ethical, political, and other aspects of life, and a view which projects something like the image of an inexorable and impersonal historical process involving both the flourishing and decline of the normative order. Within the latter framework we find some dilemmas concerning the role of human agency that we find in post-Enlightenment, western "master narratives."
+ MICHAEL QUIRIN, Scholarship, Value, Method, and Hermeneutics in Kaozheng: Some Reflections on Cui Shu (1740-1816) and the Confucian Classics, History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996), 34-53.
The first part considers a possible indigenous line of descent for modern Chinese historical scholarship. It argues that further research on late imperial kaozheng-studies is needed that should concentrate on the question of the relationship between scholarship and Confucian values in kaozheng-discourse. The second part uses the case of the late traditional scholar Cui Shu (1740-1816) to exemplify the hypothesis that in kaozheng-studies scholarship and value were still highly integrated and that this falls into line with the general position of history in the Confucian context. This hypothesis is further elaborated in the third part of the article which contrasts Cui Shu's heuristic approach with some of the basic ideas on method as they were developed within the historicist tradition. The author comes to the conclusion that the dissimilarities prevail. In the fourth part analogies between the heuristic discourse in kaozheng and in the European hermeneutic tradition are briefly discussed. It argues that analogies indeed exist but that these analogies are to be sought in the premodern or early modern stages of the development of European hermeneutics rather than in contemporary philosophical hermeneutics.
+ AXEL SCHNEIDER, Between Dao and History: Two Chinese Historians in Search of a Modern Identity for China, History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996), 54-73.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century Chinese historians have struggled to reform Chinese historiography and to establish a new identity for the Chinese nation. In this article I analyze the historiography of Chen Yinke and Fu Sinian as a case study for this ongoing process of reform. Although both were bound into the dichotomy of dao and history as established by Benjamin Schwartz, they represent quite different solutions to the question of how the relationship between norm and fact has to be conceptualized. Chen Yinke's historiography is one of the first examples of the emerging pluralization of the relationship between dao and history, since he is aware of the subjective influences that affect a historian's research and seems to recognize that these influences can be positive. Fu Sinian's historiography on the other hand is an example of the reintegration of dao and history. He explicitly refutes the claims of theory and interpretation, but actually reintroduces theoretical explanations without identifying them as such. Thus his methodology can be described as a hidden reintegration of dao and history, of norm and fact. These different methodological views imply two divergent approaches to the nature of Sino-Western cultural relations, and to the role of the historian in modern Chinese society. Chen recognizes the fundamental differences between China and the West and assumes the equality of the unequal, that is, the principle that there are no absolute values that could function as norms for comparing different cultures. Because of the pluralization of the relationship between dao and history, the historian is no longer in a position to guide society ideologically and philosophically. He is freed from the constraints of political engagement and assumes the role of a kind of cultural guardian. By contrast Fu assumes a single world civilization based on a universal methodology for accumulating knowledge. He is unable to establish continuity between the particular Chinese past and its present and therefore cannot establish an identity that is both new and at the same time Chinese. Fu also takes a position different from Chen on the role of the historian. He postulates a complete separation from politics, but in historiographical as well as in political practice, he adopts the role of ideological leader and moral critic of those in power.
+ SUSANNE WEIGELIN-SCHWIEDRZIK, On shi and lun: Toward a Typology of Historiography in the PRC, History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996), 74-94.
The discussion of shi and lun is the discussion of the relationship between historical data on the one side and theories of history on the other. It is the only methodological discussion historians in the PRC have been going through since the People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded in October 1949. The question of how to relate data to theory gained a new dimension as not only the quality of historical research but also historians' loyalty to the Communist regime was evaluated according to the methodological approach they preferred. In this article the political aspect of discussions of historiography in the PRC is left aside; here the discussion of the relationship between data and theory is used to develop a typology of Marxist historiography in the PRC. This discourse is characterized by three "slogans": theory has to take the lead over data (yi lun dai shi); data and theory have to be combined (shi lun jiehe); and interpretation has to emerge from data (lun cong shi chu). The theory-oriented first slogan coincides with a way of writing history in which data are used to show the plausibility of Marxist theory. In contrast to this, the slogan demanding the combination of data and theory is aimed at finding the specific laws governing the historical process in China by applying Marxism as a kind of methodology to Chinese history, whereas the third idea of having interpretations emerge from the data is based on the idea of probing the quality of Marxism by having interpretations come out of historical research which might or might not prove to be compatible with Marxism. The typology suggested in this article results from discussions with both the "European" and the Chinese. By borrowing from both Hayden D. White and Jörn Rüsen on the one side, and by introducing on the other side the debate Chinese historians have been carrying on, a solution is found that is specific with regard to answers concerning Marxist historiography in China, but which might be of further interest insofar as the method of establishing this typology might be of broader use when trying to understand historiography organized around philosophical concepts rather than plot structures borrowed from literature.
+ ARIF DIRLIK, Chinese History and the Question of Orientalism, History and Theory, Theme Issue 35 (December 1996), 95-117.
The discussion develops Edward Said's thesis of orientialism. Said approached "orientalism" as a construction of Asia by Europeans, and a problem in Euro-American modernity. This essay argues that, from the beginning, Asians participated in the construction of the orient, and that orientalism therefore should be viewed as a problem in Asian modernities as well. The essay utilizes Mary Louise Pratt's idea of "contact zones" to argue that orientalism was a product of the circulation of Euro-American and Asian intellectuals in these contact zones, or borderlands. While orientalism has been very much implicated in power relations between Euro-America and Asia, the question of power nevertheless should be separated analytically from the construction of orientalism. In support of this argument, the essay points to the contemporary "self-orientalization" of Asian intellectuals, which is a manifestation not of powerlessness but newly-acquired power.