Chinese Social History Studies: Development, Problems, and Solutions
- PDF / 648,453 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 13 Downloads / 191 Views
Chinese Social History Studies: Development, Problems, and Solutions Qinghai Fu1 · Ping Liu2 Received: 1 October 2020 / Accepted: 1 November 2020 © Fudan University 2020
Abstract Since its revival in the mid-1980s, the study of Chinese social history has enjoyed steady growth and prominence as an emerging field. Its development over the past three decades can be roughly divided into three stages. The first is the rejuvenation stage, when “social history” started to gain ground as a new branch of study and developed into regional and cultural histories. The second stage started around the 1990s when the study of “new social history” arose to break away from the old paradigms and establish new approaches for a self-sustained branch of study. Due to its narrowly targeted narrative framework, obscure jargon, and exclusive rhetoric, it was later reduced to new historical research that focused on investigating concepts without due emphasis on revisiting the origin of the study. The third stage featured the rise of historical anthropology, which sprang up in the late 1990s and brought forth new ideas that spread across the country into the twentieth century with extensive influence. Hence, social history, “new social history,” and historical anthropology mark the three different yet connected stages in the development of Chinese social history studies. Each played a significant part in history with a lasting impact on the development of the field and issues raised for further inquiry. Keywords Social history · New social history · Historical anthropology · Crisis of historical studies The “crisis” of historical studies in the mid-1980s launched the rise of social history research, the extensive development of which gave rise to new crises. Limitations cripple the current domestic research practice in three major aspects: a paucity of * Qinghai Fu [email protected] Ping Liu [email protected] 1
Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
2
Department of History, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Q. Fu, P. Liu
locally based theories, discrepancies in the definitions and perceptions of concepts, and “fragmented” research paradigms. Although both are manifestations of deepening social history research, regional social history and social-cultural history differ in some obvious ways. While the former focuses on the study of “small history” that cannot be effectively connected to the “big history,” the latter maintains an ambiguous relationship with “new cultural history.” Considering the feeble theoretical grounding and limited potential in cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural dialogue, a group of scholars initiated the “new social history” drawing from their knowledge and critical reflections of historical research abroad. They attempted to build new narrative frameworks and proposed ground-breaking approaches to historical studies while introducing avenues of research in “concept history.” Historical anthropology advocates cross-disciplinar
Data Loading...
