北京师范大学
教育研究中的比较―历史方法
Lecture 6
Approach to Comparative-Historical Method (3):
Constructionism in Historical Perspective
A. Michael Standford's the Nature of Historical Knowledge: The Predicament of the
Historians
1. Past events and the historical field
2. Historical evidence
3. The construction in the historian mind
4. Historical communication (book, lecture or article)
5. The public mind
6. Historical actions (which become part of historical events)
B. Paul Ricoeur's Objectivity and Subjectivity in History
1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study: In comparison with the objectivity
attained or claimed to have attained in natural science, Ricoeur underlines that
historical objectivity is “an incomplete objectivity” (1965, p.26) Their
incompleteness can be featured in four counts
a. Judgment of importance: Choices made by historian in their process of
investigations are based mainly on judgment of importance rather than
empirically and objectively derived criteria, which natural scientists claimed to
have used. Historian’s judgments of importance (in Weber’s words ‘cultural
significance) will not only affect historian’s choice of topics and/or problem of
investigation, but will play essential parts in choice of data (i.e. historical
documents or any other forms of historical artifact), in constructing causal
sequences (i.e. narrative), in selecting contextual factors, against which the data
and causal explanations are set against.
b. Conception of causality:
i. According to Ernest Nagel’s classification explanation can be differentiated
into: deductive model, probabilistic explanation, functional explanation and
genetic explanation. He characterizes that “historical inquiries frequently
undertake to explain why it is that a given subject has certain
characteristics, by describing how the subject has evolved out of some
earlier one. Such explanations are commonly called ‘genetic’.” (Nagel,
1961, p. 25)
ii. In this kind of explanations, what historians seek to attain is not
determinations but conditions or “fields of influence, opportunities, etc.”
(Ricoeur, 1965, p. 27)
iii. Accordingly, there are at least of three tiers of causality to be explored in
historical studies (Ricoeur, 1965, p. 26)
- The geo-political, socio-economic, and cultural conditions/ contexts
- The temporal and/or epochal conditions/contexts
- The flow of events.
c. Temporal distance:
i. In historical investigation, historians encounter one objective difficulty, i.e.
to understand their objects of inquiry in remote distance. They basically
1
experience the “phenomenon of self-alienation, of drawing out, of
distension, in a word, of original ‘otherness’.” (Ricoeur, 1965, p. 27)
ii. To overcome this kind of distance and otherness, historians have to project
them into “another present” to be exact past. These efforts of projecting
into the past, which has been characterized by Riceour as “temporal
imagination”, require a kind of “subjectivity, which is never approached by
the science of space, matter, and life.” (ibid, p. 28)
d. Human distance
i. “What history ultimately tries to explain and understand are men. The past
from which we are removed is human past. In addition to temporal,
therefore, there is that specific distance which stems from the fact that the
other is different man.” (ibid, p. 28)
ii. To overcome it, historians are expected to be able to wage a kind of
“sympathetic efforts” in their investigation. That is, it “is not merely an
imaginative projection into another present but a real projection into
another human life.” (ibid, p. 28)
2. Objectivity in historian’s subjectivity: In view of these features of incomplete
objectivity in historical investigation, historians can guard against the trap of
absolute relativism or subjectivism by
a. Objectification and reflection on historian’s subjectivity
b. Historical criticism among historians
C. Alun Munslow's Conception of the Development of Historical Studies (1997)
1. Past events and the historical field: Can they be fully recovered?
2. Historical evidence: objective facts, theoretically mediated interpretation, socially
constructed representations
3. The role of the historical researchers: objective deconstructionist, theoretically guided
constructionist, interpreters of text within text within contexts.
4. Product of historical research: authentic correspondence of the past, representations
of the past from selective perspectives, or retrieval of suppressed representations of
the past.
Typology of Historical Research
Past events
Historical
evidences
Role of
researchers
Outputs of historical
research
Deconstructionist
Fully Retrievable
Objective facts
Objective and
impartial
deconstructionists
History as authentic
correspondence of
the past
Constructionist
Partly
retrievable
Structurally and
theoretically
mediated
interpretations
Theoretically and
structurally
guided
constructionist
History as
representations of
the past from
selective
perspectives
Deconstructionist
Irretrievable
Socially
constructed and/or
systemic distorted
representations
Interpreters of
text within text
within context
History as retrieval
of suppressed
representations of
the past
2
D. Leopold von Ranke and Modern Historicism: The Reconstructionist Project
1. From the philosophy of history to the historical science: Leopold von Ranke (17951886) has been respected by Western historians as the founding father of modern
profession of historical science. His begins his project of building the profession of
historical science by first of all criticizing “the pitfalls of a philosophy of history”
(Ranke, 1973, Chapter 4)
2. Ranke rejects the philosophy of history laid down by philosophers notably Hegel by
criticizing Hegel’s “assertion that reason rules the world.” (Ranke, 1973, P. 49) And
this reason, which has been characterized by Hegel as “The Spirit”, will set the path
in which “mankind is on an uninterrupted road to progress, in a steady development
toward perfection.” (Ranke, 1973, P. 29)
3. Accordingly, Ranke asserts that the subject of study in history is not the spirit or the
universal destiny of human progress. Instead “our subject is mankind as it is,
explicable or inexplicable, the life of the individual, of the generations, of the
people.” (Ranke, 1973, P. 138)
Furthermore, Ranke also refrains the mission that “to history has been given the
function of judging the past, of instructing men for the profit of future years.”
Instead he asserts that “the present attempt does not aspire to such lofty
undertaking. It merely wants to show how, essentially, things happened.” (Ranke,
1973, P. 137)
4. The research strategies leading to the revelation of what actually happened,
according to Ranke’s recommendations as well as illustrations in his historical
research works, is to go directly to the first-handed sources, such as “memoirs,
diaries, letters, reports from embassies, and original narratives of eyewitnesses.”
(Ranke, 1973, P. 137) Hence, “strict presentation of facts…is undoubtedly the
supreme law” (ibid) in Ranke’s method of historiography..
5. In general, accordingly to Iggers, “the scientific orientation” of the
reconstructionists “since Leopold von Ranke shared three basic assumptions…
(1) They accepted a correspondence theory truth holding that history portrays
people who really existed and actions that really took place.
(2) The presupposed that human actions mirror the intentions of the actors and that
it is the task of the historian to comprehend these intentions in order to
construct a coherent history story.
(3) They operated with one-dimensional, diachronical conception of time, in which
later events follow early ones in a coherent sequence.
The assumptions of the reality, intentionality, and temporal sequence determined
the structure of writing …from Ranke well into the twentieth century.” (Iggers,
1995, P. 3) This school in historiography has therefore been characterized as the
Reconstructions” by Alun Munslow (1997), while Iggers called the Classical
Historicism. (1995)
E. In Search of the Theory of History: The Constructionists’ Project
1. Most of the constructionists in historical researchs share the presupposition of
mediating the past with a preconceived theoretical framework. As E,H, Carr, one of
the key member of the camp, stresses the historical evidences appear before us are
already in the form of selectively interpreted facts of the historians. They are what
Carr called the “historian’s facts”. Therefore, the social called historical facts are
practically inseparable with their interpretations. In Carr’s own words,
“the facts of history never come to us ‘pure’ since they do not and cannot exist in a
pure form: they are always refracted through the mind of the recorder. It follows
that we take up a work of history, our first concern should not be with the fact
3
which it contains but with the historian who wrote it.” (Carr, Quoted in Munslow,
1997, Pp.44-45)
2. Alex Callinicos, another constructionist according to Munslow, suggests that one
may read the work of historicans by tracing their theory of history with the
following constituents (Calinicos, :
a. A theory of structure: An account of the fundamental relationship constitutive of
a particular kind of society
b. A theory of transformation: An account of the mechanism or mechanisms
responsible for social changes and fundamental transformation of the social
structure
c. A theory of directionality
i. Changes (increase/decrease) in some culturally significant property
ii. Teleological or non-teleological change: debate on predetermined trajectory
and outcomes of changes
C. Marxist Constructionist Framework of Historical Research
1. The theory of structure: Theory of class exploitation
2. The theory of transformation: The historical materialism
a. Primary thesis on the relation between force of production and relation of
production
b. The thesis between the base/infrastructure and superstructure
3. The theory of directionality:
a. The theory of development of force of production and class struggle
b. Teleological theory of change towards communism, i.e. classless society
G. Max Weber's Constructionist Framework of Historical Research
1. The theory of structure: Theory of domination
a. "Domination refers to a meaningful interrelationship between those giving
orders and those obeying, to the effect that the expectations toward which action
is oriented on both sides can be reckon upon." (1968/78, p. 1378)
b. Weber’s two bases of domination:
“(T)here are two diametrically contrasting type of domination, viz., domination
by virtue of constellation of interest (in particular: by virtue of a position of a
monopoly), and domination by virtue of authority, i.e. power to command and
duty to obey. The purest type of the former is monopolistic domination in the
market; of the latter, patriarchal, magisterial, or princely power.” (Weber, 1978,
p.942).
i. Monopoly of interest in market sphere
ii Legitimation and authority in political sphere
c. Three domains of stratification
i. Classes in economic order
- Economic order refers to "the ways in which economic goods and services
are distributed and used." (1948/91, P. 181)
- Classes are typical groups in a given economic order and participating in
the distribution of economic goods and services
ii. Status groups in social order
- Social order refers to "the way in which social honor is distributed in a
community." (1948/91, P. 181)
- Status groups are "typical groups" in a given social order and participating
in the distribution of social honor
iii. Parties in political order
4
- Political order refers to the way in which both physical force and legitimate
authority are distributed in a community
- Parties are “typical groups” in the arena power contest in a given
community
2. The theory of transformation: The multi-causal framework of social carriers,
intensity of actions, conflicts among dominant and assertive groups, forces of
historical events, technology and geography.
3. The theory of directionality perspective
a. Theory of rationalization of the Occident and the iron cage of instrumental
rationality
b. Non-teleological
H. Max Weber’s Comparative-Historical Method:
1. The ontological framework of sociocultural phenomena
a. Essential roles of social carriers in particular social fabric and epoch
i. Status groups, classes, “universal organizations” (primary associations),
e.g. households, clan, neighborhood
ii. “External structure” (secondary association), e.g. the states, sects or
churches, enterprises, and political parties
b. The variable intensity of patterned/typical action
(Weber’s conception of four types of social action: means-end rational, valuerational, affectual, and traditional action)
c. Forces of historical events, technology, and geography in shaping cultural
phenomena and changes
d. Power of the social carriers and conflict and competition among them
2. Weber's Conception of Causal Analysis
a. Adequate causation of concrete phenomenon vs. nomological causation of
universal phenomena
b. Degree of causality: distinction among facilitating and necessary orientations
of actions
c. Counterfactual comparison as means to test degree of causality of a given set
of antecedent conditions "favoring" a given effect
d. Synchronic and diachronic interactions in causal model
i. Syncricahronic (within the present) interaction among societal domains
ii. Diachronic (between present and past) interaction in causal mode
- Distinction between legacy and antecedent conditions
- Distinction between inter-domain and intra-domain diachronic
interaction
iii. Contextual effects on conjunctural interaction
e. Theoretical framework as ideal type in causal mode
3. Max Weber's Conception of Ideal Type as Heuristic Instrument in ComparativeHistorical Research
a. The nature of ideal type
i. Ideal type is a one-sided accentuation of reality and not a schema which can
be completely exhaust the infinite richness of a cultural phenomenon
ii. Ideal type is value-relevant point of view to reality and not an objective and
complete vantage-point to cultural phenomenon
iii. Ideal type is dialectic mediator between the finite human mind and the
infinite reality
b. The Usage of Ideal Type
5
i. Ideal type is used as yardstick to measure and compare the specificity of
cultural phenomenon
- Single ideal type, e.g. means-end rational action, bureaucracy, etc.
- Compound ideal type, e.g. patrimonial bureaucracy
ii. Ideal type is used as hypothesis-forming model
-. Ideal type as dynamic model, e.g. bureaucracy, patrimonialism,
rationalized education, etc.
- Ideal type as contextual model, e.g. the impact of calculable law on the
rise of capitalism in Western Europe, the contextual effect of
“stratification principles on education, etc.
- Ideal type as affinity and antagonism model
+ intra-domain model of antagonistic relationship, e.g. antagonistic
relationship among bases of legitimacy, esp. between legal-rational
and charismatic authority
+ inter-domain antagonistic relationship, e.g. antagonistic relationship
between charismatic rulership and rational economy, between
traditional religious identity and rational identity with nation-state,
etc.
+ inter-domain affinity, e.g. affinity between calculable law and
rational capitalism, between Calvinist doctrine and spirit of
capitalism
6