主管:教育部
主办:中国人民大学
ISSN 0257-2826  CN 11-1454/G4

Teaching and Research ›› 2021, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (10): 92-102.

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Historical Turn in Western Political Science: Three Levels and Implications

  

  1. Institute of National Politics, Yunnan University, Kunming, Yunnan 650091, China
  • Online:2021-10-16 Published:2021-10-09

西方政治学转向历史的三个层次及其启示

  

  1. 云南大学民族政治研究院
  • 作者简介:郭台辉,云南大学民族政治研究院政治学教授(云南 昆明 650091)。
  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家社科基金重点课题“中国政治学话语体系的依赖性与自主性问题研究”(项目号:17AZZ002)的阶段性成果。

Abstract: Based on a review of the academic history of the “historical turn” in Western social sciences, three levels of historical turn can be identified in political science, which result from different understandings of history. At the level of history as methodology, the theories, propositions, and concepts produced in political science are held as “fundamental principles”, while historical studies are used for “practical application”, providing materials for proving the rationality of knowledge. At the level of history as epistemology, the historical and political studies are integrated, which start from real political issues, highlight the historical sources of political knowledge, and interpret or explain the historical processes and causes. At the level of history as ontology, political science is instead used for “practical application”, whose discussions are aimed at revealing the universal historical processes, i.e. the “fundamental principles”. The historical turns at the three levels have rationality in knowledge production and basis in the academic history, but they also have different problems. Political science in China has recognized the significance of the historical turn. However, the three levels of historical turn should not be separated; instead, we need to find the interlevel logical and factual connection mechanisms. The particularly important but difficult part is about the third level. We need to establish a unified historical conception based on the tradition of the Chinese civilization, and set it as the foundation of the other two levels.

Key words: “historical turn”, history as methodology, history as epistemology, history as ontology

摘要: 反观西方社会科学的“转向历史”学术史,政治学因对历史的不同理解而出现三种层次性的历史转向。在历史作为方法的层次,以政治学生产的理论、命题、概念为“体”,以历史研究为“用”,作为论证知识合理性的材料来源;在历史作为认知的层次,历史研究与政治学融通,从现实政治问题出发,重视政治知识的历史经验来源与提炼,阐释或解释其历史过程及成因;在历史作为本体的层次,政治学倒转为“用”,所关注的任何议题是为了揭示普遍历史进程之“体”。三种转向方式都有其知识生产的合理性和学术史依据,也存在不同程度的缺憾。中国政治学已经意识到转向历史的时代意义,但不能撕裂转向历史的三个层次,而是要在层次之间寻找逻辑与事实的关联机制,尤其重要但也艰难的是在第三层次,基于中华文明传统确立统一的历史观念,使之成为前两个层次的基石。

关键词: “转向历史”, 历史方法, 历史认知, 历史本体