首页> 外文期刊>中国历史学前沿:英文版 >Shifting Narratives:Modern Chinese History since the Economic Reform and a Critique of Popular Opinion
【24h】

Shifting Narratives:Modern Chinese History since the Economic Reform and a Critique of Popular Opinion

机译:叙事的转移:经济改革以来的中国近现代史与民意批评

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

When discussing the trans-formative shifts having occurred in the field of Chinese modern history following the economic reforms,one cannot avoid mention of the"revolutionary history paradigm,"the"paradigm of modernization"as well as the"postmodern paradigm."According to popular belief,the course of development taken by the academic world during the past forty years was marked by a series of transformations:First was the progressive replacement of the"revolutionary history paradigm"by that of the"paradigm of modernization";following that was the rise of the"postmodern paradigm"and the challenging of its predecessor.This set of divisions,though logically clear and succinct,cannot possibly conform to the realities of history in all of its complexness.While academic circles in the 1980''s were largely concerned with the issues of"what exactly is the historical driving force of Marxism"and"who are the revolutionary class,"the notion of the"paradigm of modernization"was rather a product of the conservative historical viewpoint and its rise during the late 1990''s.In this sense,then,the latter cannot possibly embody the former.On the surface of things though the"postmodern paradigm"appears to refuse the narrative of revolutionary history,it in fact shares deeper connections with Chinese revolutionary thought at its roots.In short,then,these trans-formative shifts in modern Chinese history are not a simple"exchange"whereby one paradigm transfers into the next,but are rather a process of incessant and interconnected change.
机译:在讨论随着经济改革在中国近代史领域发生的变革性转变时,人们不可避免地要提到“革命历史范式”,“现代化范式”以及“后现代”范式。 “根据普遍的信念,过去四十年来学术界所采取的发展历程以一系列转变为标志:首先是用“革命历史范式”逐步取代“革命历史范式”。 “现代化范式”;其后是“后现代范式”的兴起及其前身的挑战。尽管逻辑上清晰明了,这组划分在逻辑上并不能完全符合历史的现实。虽然1980年代的学术界主要关注的是“马克思主义的历史驱动力到底是什么”和“革命阶级是谁”,“马克思主义范式的概念”等问题。现代化这是保守的历史观点及其在1990年代后期兴起的产物。从这个意义上讲,后者就不可能体现前者。尽管从表面上看,“后现代范式”似乎拒绝了后者。革命历史的叙述,实际上它与中国革命思想的根源有着更深的联系。总之,这些在现代中国历史中的变革性转变并不是简单的“交换”,而是一种范式转移到另一种范式中,而是一个不断而又相互联系的变化过程。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号