（14）Donald Worster, “Environmentalism Goes Global,” Diplomatic History, vol. 32, no. 4, 2008, pp. 639-641; J. Donald Hughes, What Is Environmental History, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006, pp. 77-93; Joachim Radkau, Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008; I. G. Simmons, Global Environmental History, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2008.
    （15）类似的环境史书籍可见Felipe Fernndez-Armesto, Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature, London: Pan Books, 2001.
    （16）中译本参见约翰·R. 麦克尼尔、威廉·H. 麦克尼尔：《人类之网：鸟瞰世界历史》。
    （17）Felipe Fernndez-Armesto, Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature.
    （18）Edmund Burke III and Kenneth Pomeranz, eds., The Environment and World History.
    （19）J. R. McNeill近来延续过往的环境史研究的疾病课题，将焦点集中于帝国与环境的互动。J. R. McNeill, Mosquito Empires: Ecology and War in the Greater Caribbean, 1620-1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
    （20）R. Bin Wong, China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997; Andre Gunder Frank, Reorient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, London: University of California Press, 1998.
    （21）Peter N. Stearns, “Social History and World History: Prospects for Collaboration,” Journal of World History, vol. 18, no. 1（2007）， pp. 43-52; Peter N. Stearns, “Social History and World History: Toward Greater Interaction,” World History Connected, vol. 2, no. 2（2005）。
    （22）Kenneth Pomeranz, “Social History and World History: From Daily Life to Patterns of Change,” Journal of World History, vol. 18, no. 1, 2007, pp. 69-98.
    （23）Giulia Calvi, “Global Trends: Gender Studies in Europe and the U. S.” European History Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, 2010, pp. 641-655.
    （24）Mary E. Frederickson, “Going Global: New Trajectories in U. S. Women‘s History,” The History Teacher, vol. 43, no. 2, 2010, pp. 169-189.
    （25）Timothy Brook, Vermeer’s Hat: The Seventeenth Century and the Dawn of the Global World, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2008.
    （26）Tonio Andrade, “A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys, and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory,” Journal of World History, vol. 21, no. 4, 2010, pp. 573-591.
    （27）Jonathan Spence, The Question of Hu, New York: Vintage Books, 1989; Linda Colley, The Ordeal of Elizabeth Marsh: A Woman in World History, New York: Happer Collins, 2007; Natalie Zemon Davis, Trickster Travels: A Sixteenth-Century Muslim between Worlds, New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.
    （28）Rosemarie Zagarri, “The Significance of the ‘Global Turn’ for the Early American Republic,” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 32, no. 1（Spring 2011）， p. 7.
    （29）Lynn Hunt, “The French Revolution in Global Context,” in David Armitage and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, eds., The Age of Revolutions in Global Context, c. 1760-1840, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 34.
    超越全球史与世界史编纂的其他可能
    中国社会科学院世界历史研究所副研究员 张旭鹏
    作为世界史编纂方式之一的全球史，因其对人类过往所持的全球视角，以及对世界不同国家和地区彼此联系与交相互动的重视，极大丰富和深化了当今的世界史研究，使之更能满足全球化时代人们对一种新的全球叙事的需要。①然而，在人类历史进程日趋一体化的背后，却是各种地方主义诉求的此起彼伏，民族国家边界的打破虽然带来商品和人口的自由流动，但也造成持续不断的族裔摩擦和种族纷争。即使在同一文明内部，现代化发展程度不同的各个社会之间的价值冲突，似乎比处于同一发展阶段的不同文明之间的冲突还要剧烈。②全球化在带来文化、制度乃至景观趋同的同时，却无法否认日益纷繁的多样化和基于差异的认同政治。
    生活在“全球叙事黄金时代”的乐观主义，让历史学家看到全球史的可能性和必然性。③但是，迄今为止，全球史在表现人类历史的多样性和差异性上做得并不成功，甚至有一种以单一叙事来取代多元叙事的危险。而漠视人类历史的多样性和不同地区之间的差异，只能让这种全球叙事成为带有某种种族中心主义倾向的主导叙事，不但拒斥其他来自地方经验的叙事，而且无助于认识和理解人们生活于其中的这个世界。近年来，对全球史的反思和批判已经引起学者的足够关注，④不过那种为之贴上西方意识形态或新殖民主义标签的做法却显得过于草率和情绪化。只有深入其内在机理并追溯其发生、发展的学术渊源，并将之置于当前世界史编纂的其他脉络之中，通过比较来审视它的局限，我们才能较为客观地揭示全球史的种种不足，进而予以补充和完善。