ABSTRACT

A prominent but often neglected feature of historical representation is the presence within it of ‘tensions’ of a sort that cannot be resolved within the limits of historical representation itself. This unresolvability is most readily seen when historians aim to be cognitively responsible in their work and when they are sufficiently skilled and self-aware to be so. Its wider implications have been largely invisible. This article argues that historiography’s most fundamental unresolving tension derives from the opposition between Determinism and Contingency. It also argues that the project of ‘modern’ Western historiography is characterized by two further unresolving tensions, between Present and Past and between General and Particular. The article notes the emergence in Germany from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth century of rival traditions of ‘dialectical’ and ‘nondialectical’ (nonresolving) historiography (identified by Ian Hunter). Reaching from history to practice, the article recommends that historians follow a nondialectical path, attending to history’s unresolving tensions rather than denying them, overlooking them or purporting to resolve them. Finally, it suggests some rules of thumb as indications and reminders of how this would be done.

摘要

历史表征的一个突出但经常被忽视的特征是其中存在着某种“张力”，这种张力无法在历史表征本身的范围内解决。当历史学家致力于在工作中承担认知责任时，以及当他们足够熟练并具有自我意识时，这种不解决就最容易看出来。其更广泛的含义在很大程度上是看不见的。本文认为，史学最根本的解决张力来自决定论与偶然性之间的对立。它还认为，“现代”西方史学研究的项目的特点是现在与过去之间以及一般与特殊之间存在两个无法解决的紧张关系。这篇文章指出了在16世纪至19世纪德国出现了“方言”和“非方言”（非分辨）史学（由Ian Hunter识别）的对立传统。从历史到实践，文章建议历史学家遵循一条非辩证的道路，关注历史未解决的紧张局势，而不是否认，忽视或声称要解决它们。最后，它提出了一些经验法则，以指示和提醒如何进行。