|
结 语 英国历史学家克里斯托弗·希尔曾言：“每一代人都需要重新书写历史，因为尽管过去不会发生改变，但现实是不断变化的，每一代人都要对过去提出新问题，发现(与现在)相似的新领域，再现先辈经历的不同侧面。”(67)跨国史正是历史学家根据变化了的现实对被淹没的先辈经历的再现，是全球化时代重新书写人类历史的新尝试。它的兴起已经给美国历史的研究与教学带来巨大的变化，并正在影响其他国家的历史研究，将使我们对人类过去的认识更加丰富、更加接近历史真实。更重要的是，它可以帮助我们理解现在，应对人类当前面临的种种跨国问题。不仅如此，跨国史研究还有政治和伦理上的价值：它试图在国家疆界之外“发现”影响本国发展进程和人类命运的历史，将本国的经验视为人类普遍经验中的地方性知识，提倡“在别人身上看到我们自己”，(68)有助于消除狭隘民族主义的影响，在相互影响和依赖日益加深的时代避免褊狭自恋和妄自尊大。从这个意义上说，跨国史视角的引入和跨国史的书写，不仅对美国意义重大，而且对中国具有同样的意义，理应得到中国学者的重视。 注释： ①跨国史与全球史虽然都是在全球化的背景下兴起的，但二者出现的学术语境、关注对象和研究旨趣有很大不同。全球史是历史学家对经济全球化的反应，以跨地区和跨文化的全球性现象为研究对象，主要考察世界不同地区相互联系逐渐加深和世界从分散走向整体的过程。用全球史大家杰里·本特利的话说，全球史所探讨的是“超越了民族、政治、地理或者文化等界限，对跨地区、大洲、半球甚至全球范围内的各种事务产生影响的历史进程，包括气候变迁、物种传播、传染病扩散、大规模移民、技术传播、帝国扩张运动、跨文化贸易、思想和观念的传播以及宗教信仰和文化传统的扩张”。也就是说，全球史的研究对象是全球性现象和全球化进程。而跨国史起源于对以民族国家为中心的传统史学范式的不满，是以历史上的跨国现象为研究对象，这些跨国现象可能是全球性的，也可能不是全球性的，而仅仅涉及两个或多个国家与社会，因而不具有全球性意义。实际上，很多跨国现象并不在全球史关注的范畴，同时又无法放在民族国家框架内进行研究，如国际非政府组织以及跨国政治与社会运动。从这个意义上说，跨国史的研究范围实际上包含了全球史。全球史本质上是关于全球化进程的历史叙事，并不像跨国史那样热衷于将跨国视角引入民族国家历史研究以及重新阐释民族国家历史。另外，跨国史的提出比全球史要晚，全球史的兴起是在20世纪80年代，而跨国史的提出则在90年代。本特利的话引自Jerry H. Bentley, "The New World History," in Lloyd Kramer and Sarah Maza, eds., A Companion to Western Historical Thought, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002,p.393. ②徐国琦教授的《八十年代以来的美国外交史学》(南开大学历史研究所美国史研究室编：《美国历史问题新探》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1996年)曾提及，国际史的兴起是美国外交史研究的新趋势。他的《“会当凌绝顶，一览众山小”——国际史研究方法及其应用》(《文史哲》2012年第5期)对国际史做了进一步阐释，但主旨是介绍他对中国与第一次世界大战等主题的研究，对国际史研究方法虽有论及，但比较简略，对美国史研究的国际化以及跨国史兴起的背景、内容和意义均未涉及。孙岳教授的《“美国史全球化运动”评述》(《首都师范大学学报》2007年第3期)主要介绍了托马斯·本德领导的美国史研究的国际化运动。拙文《试论全球化背景下美国外交史的国际化与文化转向》(《美国研究》2008年第1期)也曾对美国外交史的国际化和国际史的兴起略有讨论。国外多位学者对美国史领域的跨国转向潮流进行了回顾，参见Jay Sexton, "The Global View of the United States," The Historical Journal, vol. 48, no. 1(Mar. 2005), pp. 261-276; Ian Tyrrell, "Reflections on the Transnational Turn in United States History: Theory and Practice," Journal of Global History, vol. 4, no. 3(Nov. 2009), pp. 453-474; Akira Iriye, Global and Transnational History: The Past, Present, and Future, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.这些文章对笔者有所启发，但本文试图从全球化浪潮挑战民族国家史学的视角解读跨国史的兴起，并划分为两大类：作为方法的跨国史和作为研究领域的跨国史，同时指出了跨国史书写存在的不足，这些都与国外学者对这一潮流的梳理有很大不同。 ③Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp.27-28. ④塞缪尔·亨廷顿：《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》，周琪等译，北京：新华出版社，1998年，第16页。 ⑤Akira Iriye, "Internationalizing International History," in Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in a Global Age, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002, p.52. ⑥Lester M. Salamon, "The Rise of The Nonprofit Sector," Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, no. 4(Jul./Aug. 1994),p.109. ⑦Ian Tyrrell, "American Exceptionalism in an Age of International History," American Historical Review, vol. 96, no. 4(Oct. 1991), p.1033. ⑧Ernest Renan, "What Is a Nation?" in Homi K. Bhabha, ed., Nation and Narration, New York: Routledge, 1995, p.11. ⑨奥伯林学院教授温迪·科泽尔(Wendy Kozol)认为，正是追求社会正义的“实践者与学者之间的对话”导致了一些领域“跨国史分析的兴起”。"AHR Conversation: On Transnational History," American Historical Review, vol. 111, no. 5(Dec. 2006), p.1445. ⑩David A. Hollinger, "The Historian's Use of the United States and Vice Versa," in Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in a Global Age, p.381. (11)参见Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China. (12)Robert J. McMahon, "The Study of American Foreign Relations: National History or International History," in Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson, eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p.20. (13)Michael H. Hunt, "The Long Crisis in US Diplomatic History: Coming to Closure," Diplomatic History, vol. 16, no. 1(Winter 1992), pp. 115-140. (14)Akira Iriye, "The Internationalization of History," American Historical Review, vol. 94, no. 1(Feb. 1989), pp.2, 4. (15)Michael H. Hunt, "Internationalizing US Diplomatic History: A Practical Agenda," Diplomatic History, vol. 15, no. 1(Winter 1991), pp.1-11. (16)乔伊斯·阿普尔比、林恩·亨特、玛格丽特·雅各布：《历史的真相》，刘北成、薛绚译，上海：上海人民出版社，2011年，第90页。 (17)Ian Tyrrell, "American Exceptionalism in an Age of International History," pp.1031, 1038, 1055. (18)Joyce Appleby, "Recovering America's Historic Diversity: Beyond Exceptionalism," Journal of American History, vol. 79, no. 2(Sep. 1992), pp. 419-431.引文引自第420页。 (19)"Toward the Internationalization of American History: A Round Table," Journal of American History, vol. 79, no. 2(Sep. 1992), pp. 432-542. (20)参见Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in a Global Age. (21)Thomas Bender, La Pietra Report, 2000, Part II, http://www.oah.org/activities/lapietra/，2012年5月18日。 (22)Carl J. Guarneri, "Internationalizing the United States Survey Course: American History for a Global Age," The History Teacher, vol. 36, no. 1(Nov. 2002), p.39. (23)Jay Sexton, "The Global View of the United States," p.261. (24)"AHR Conversation: On Transnational History," p.1445. (25)Akira Iriye and Pierre-Yves Saunier, eds., The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp.ⅹⅹⅵ-ⅹⅹⅹⅵ. (26)Thomas Bender, "Introduction: Historians, the Nation, and the Plenitude of Narratives," in Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in a Global Age, p. 10. (27)Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," Journal of American History, vol. 86, no. 3(Dec. 1999), p.1015. (28)David Thelen, "The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History," Journal of American History, vol. 86, no. 3(Dec. 1999), p.971. (29)Joyce Appleby, "A Different Kind of Independence: The Postwar Restructuring of the Historical Study of Early America," William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, vol. 50, no. 2(Apr. 1993), p.249. (30)Gordon S. Wood, "A Century of Writing Early American History," American Historical Review, vol. 100, no. 3(Jun. 1995), p.693. (31)David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, p.7. (32)Daniel T. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 7. (33)James H. Meriwether, Proudly We Can Be Africans: Black Americans and Africa, 1935-1961, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. (34)Alfred W. McCoy and Francisco Scarano, eds., Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009.“帝国内部的交互作用”这一提法引自第10页。 (35)Dana L. Robert, "The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movement between the World Wars," International Bulletin o f Missionary Research, vol. 26, no. 2(Apr. 2002), pp.50-66；戴维·A.霍林格：《海外传教活动对20世纪美国的影响》，《复旦学报》2013年第3期。 (36)Timothy Henderson, A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States, New York: Hill and Wang, 2008. (37)Thomas Bender, A Nation among Nations: America's Place in World History, New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. (38)引入跨国史视角书写美国历史的通览性著作还有：Ian Tyrrell, Transnational Nation: United States History in Global Perspective since 1789, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007; Carl J. Guarneri, America in the World: United States History in Global Conlext, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. (39)Sven Beckert's Review on A Nation among Nations, American Historical Review, vol. 112, no. 4(Oct. 2007), p.1125. (40)Gary W. Reichard and Ted Dickson, eds., America on the World Stage: A Global Approach to U. S. History, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2008. (41)Peter Stearns and Noralee Frankel, eds., Globalizing American History: The AHA Guide to Re-Imagining the U.S. Survey Course, Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association, 2008. (42)Thomas Bender, "Introduction: Historians, the Nation, and the Plenitude of Narratives," p. 10. (43)Steven Vertovec, "Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism," Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 22, no. 2(Mar. 1999), p.447; Akira Iriye and Pierre-Yves Saunier, eds., The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History, p. 1054. (44)“国际史”和“跨国史”是两个非常相近的概念，有学者认为二者是一回事，例如，剑桥大学历史教授克里斯托弗·贝利(Christopher Bayly)认为，跨国史和国际史的关系类似于“全球史”与“世界史”的关系，二者的含义差不多是相同的，两个名词不过是不同学者在不同语境下的不同叫法。有的学者认为二者存在一些差异，例如，入江昭认为，国际史较多地关注与国家(state)和政治相关的跨国事务，强调行为体的国家身份或与主权国家的相关性，而跨国史更侧重社会、文化和经济领域的跨国现象，强调行为体的非国家特性。一般说来，国际史的提出是外交史学家对历史研究中跨国转向回应的结果，而跨国史的概念则更多地为非外交史家所使用，在绝大多数情况下，二者是可以互用的。实际上，入江昭本人有时也交替使用这两个概念。参见"AHR Conversation: On Transnational History," p. 1442; Akira Iriye, "Transnational History," Contemporary European History, vol. 13, no. 2(May 2004), p.216; Akira Iriye, Global and Transnational History: The Past, Present, and Future, p.15. (45)Liping Bu, Making the World like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century, Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003; Victoria de Grazia, Irresistible Empire: America's Advance through Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2005; Jessica Gienow-Hecht, Sound Diplomacy: Music and Emotions in Transatlantic Relations, 1850-1920, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009. (46)Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Sel f-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.引文引自第11—12页。 (47)David Armitage, The Declaration o f Independence: A Global History. (48)主要有Dwayne R. Winseck and Robert M. Pike, Communication and Empire: Media, Markets, and Globalization, 1860-1930, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007; Cecilia Leong-Salobir, Food Culture in Colonial Asia: A Taste o f Empire, New York: Routledge, 2011. (49)参见Leila J. Rupp, Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women's Movement, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. (50)参见Marcel van der Linden, "Transnationalizing American Labor History," Journal of American History, vol. 86, no. 3(Dec. 1999). (51)Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999; Dominic Sachsenmaier, ed., Competing Visions o f World Order: Global Moments and Movements, 1880s-1930s, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007; Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth, eds., 1968 in Europe; A History of Protest and Activism, 1956-1977, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008; Sara B. Snyder, Human Rights Activism and the End of the Cold War: A Transnational History o f the Helsinki Network, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. (52)John Boli and George M. Thomas, "INGOs and Organization of World Culture," in John Boli and George M. Thomas, eds., Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999, p.17. (53)Akira Iriye, Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002. (54)Lawrence Wittner's Review on Global Community, American Historical Review, vol. 108, no. 1(Feb. 2003), p.170. (55)Sheldon Watts, Epidemics and History: Disease, Power and Imperialism, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999. (56)Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008. (57)Erez Manela, "Smallpox Eradication and the Rise of Global Governance," in Niall Ferguson et al., eds., The Shock of the Global: The 1970s in Perspective, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010; Dorothy V. Jones, Toward a Just World: The Critical Years in the Search for International Justice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002; Lawrence Wittner, The Struggle against the Bomb, 3 vols., Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993, 1997, 2003. (58)Madeline Hsu, Dreaming of Gold, Dreaming of Home: Transnationalism and Migration between the United States and South China, 1882-1943, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000. (59)Akira Iriye, Global and Transnational History: The Past, Present, and Future, p.1. (60)Erez Manela, "The United States in the World," in Eric Foner and Lisa McGirr, eds., American History Now, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011, p.203. (61)Xu Guoqi, Strangers on the Western Front: Chinese Workers in the Great War, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2011. (62)尼尔·弗格森等人主编的论文集《全球震荡：透视1970年代》讨论的就是这一主题。Niall Ferguson et al., eds., The Shock of the Global: The 1970s in Perspective. (63)马修·康纳利指出，冷战透镜即东西方冲突的框架，无法解释阿尔及利亚战争的性质及其结果，而应该从南北冲突的视角来看待这场战争。参见Matthew Connelly, "Taking Off the Cold War Lens: Visions of North-South Conflict during the Algerian War for Independence," American Historical Review, vol. 105, no. 3(Jun. 2000), pp. 739-769. (64)Thomas Bender, A Nation among Nations: America's Place in World History, pp. 298, 10. (65)Thomas Bender, A Nation among Nations: America's Place in World History, pp. 134-135. (66)参见Thomas Bender, La Pietra Report, Part Ⅱ. (67)Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution, London: Penguin Books, 1975, p.15. (68)Clifford Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, New York: Basic Books, 1983, p.16. (责任编辑：admin) |