北京师范大学：《教育研究方法》课程教学资源（PPT讲稿）Lecture 6 Approach to Comparative-Historical Method（3）Constructionism in Historical Perspective

北京师范大学 教育研究方法讲座系列 Lecture 6 Approach to Comparative-Historical Method 3) Constructionism in Historical Perspective

北京师范大学 教育研究方法讲座系列 Lecture 6 Approach to Comparative-Historical Method (3): Constructionism in Historical Perspective

The Nature of Historical Knowledge MICHAEL STANFORD

Michael stanford's The nature of historical Knowledge: The predicament of the historians Unseen Seen Past events historical field Historicalevidence The construction in the historian's mind Historical communication ook, lecture or article The public mind Historicalaction ( which become part ofhistorical events

3 Michael Stanford’s The Nature of Historical Knowledge: The Predicament of the Historians Past events & Historical field Historical evidence The construction in the historian’s mind Historical communication (book, lecture or article) The public mind Historical action (which become part of historical events) Unseen Seen

Paul ricoeur 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. icoeur underlines that historical objectivity is"an incomplete objectivity(1965, p. 26) Their incompleteness can be featured in four counts

4 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

History and Truth PAUL RICOEUR 1D相t01NB0

Paul ricoeur 's Objectivity and Subjectivity in History 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study: 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historian's choice of topics andor problem of investigation, but will play essential parts in choice of data (i.e. historical documents or any other forms of historical artifact), in constructing causal sequences(i.e. narrative), in selecting contextual factors, against which the data and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

6 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study:.. 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. Paul Ricoeur’s Objectivity and Subjectivity in History

Paul ricoeur 's Objectivity and Subjectivity in History 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study. b. Conception of causalin∴ o According to Ernest Nagel's classification explanation can be differentiated into: deductive model, probabilistic explanation, functional explanation and genetic explanation. He characterizes that"historicalinquiries frequently undertake to explain why it is that a given subject has certain characteristics, by describing how the subject has evolved out of some earlierone Such explanations are commonly called genetic. (NageL,1961, p 25) 2 In this kind ofexplanations, what historians seek to attain is not determinations but conditions or fields ofinfluence opportunities, etc.Ricoeur, 1965, p. 27

7 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study: b. Conception of causality:  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)  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) Paul Ricoeur’s Objectivity and Subjectivity in History

Paul ricoeur 's Objectivity and Subjectivity in History 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study. b. Conception of causality. 3 Accordingly, there are at least ofthree tiers of causality to be explored in historical studies(Ricoeur, 1965, P. 26) a The geo-political, socio-economic, and cultural conditions/contexts b The temporal andor epochal conditions/contexts c) The flow of events

8 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study: b. Conception of causality:  Accordingly, there are at least of three tiers of causality to be explored in historical studies (Ricoeur, 1965, p. 26) a) The geo-political, socio-economic, and cultural conditions/ contexts b) The temporal and/or epochal conditions/contexts c) The flow of events. Paul Ricoeur’s Objectivity and Subjectivity in History

Paul ricoeur 's Objectivity and Subjectivity in History 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study. c. Temporal distance o In historicalinvestigation, historians encounterone objective difficulty, i.e. to understand their objects of inquiry in remote distance. They basically experience the "phenomenon of self- alienation, of drawing out, of distension, in a word, oforiginal otherness. Ricoeur, 1965, p. 27) e To overcome this kind of distance and otherness, historians have to project theminto"anotherpresent"to be exact past. These efforts ofprojecting into the past, which has been characterized by Riceouras "temporalimagination', require a kind of"subjectivity, which is never approached by the science of space, matter, and ljye.”(ibid,p.28

9 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study: c. Temporal distance:  In historical investigation, historians encounter one objective difficulty, i.e. to understand their objects of inquiry in remote distance. They basically experience the “phenomenon of self￾alienation, of drawing out, of distension, in a word, of original ‘otherness’.” (Ricoeur, 1965, p. 27)  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) Paul Ricoeur’s Objectivity and Subjectivity in History

Paul ricoeur 's Objectivity and Subjectivity in History 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study d. human distance o "What history ultimately tries to explain and understand are men. The pastfromwhich 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) e To overcome it, historians are expected to be able to wage a kind of sympathetic efforts in theirinvestigation. That is, it"is not merely an imaginative projection into another present but a real projection into another human life.(ibid, p. 28)

10 1. The incomplete objectivity in historical study: d. Human distance  “ 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)  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) Paul Ricoeur’s Objectivity and Subjectivity in History