Over the past three decades, an ever-increasing number of concepts and methodologies have become fashionable for analysing present societies. Most of these theories underwent the fate of any fashion: they lost appeal after a few years. This appears not to be true, however, for neoliberalism. For more than 20 years, it has delineated the horizon of the political critique of phenomena such as globalization or deregulation, followed by a wave of social-scientific analyses of present societies, their economies, cultures, and politics; and there is hardly any evidence that this political perspective will lose significance in the near future. In particular, this observation applies to historiography: after the concept of neoliberalism had been expediently borrowed from the social sciences, an uncountable number of studies that either use this analysis as a heuristic tool or examine the complex histories of neoliberal thought and action have been published in the course of the past decade. Only recently, however, has a debate on the heuristic benefits and disadvantages of the concept emerged, both in historiography and in the social sciences. In a January 2018 Dissent forum, for instance, historian Daniel Rodgers argued that neoliberalism has too many meanings and that it should, therefore, be replaced by more concrete conceptual tools, such as finance capitalism and market fundamentalism. In their responses, to mention two historians’ voices, Julia Ott welcomed

中文翻译：

---

作为当代历史概念的新自由主义：一个多产的研究工具还是一个分析陷阱？

在过去的三年中，越来越多的概念和方法已成为分析当今社会的时尚。大多数这些理论都经历了任何时尚的命运：几年后它们失去了吸引力。然而，对于新自由主义来说，这似乎并非如此。20 多年来，它描绘了对全球化或放松管制等现象的政治批判的视野，随后是对当前社会、经济、文化和政治的社会科学分析浪潮；几乎没有任何证据表明这种政治观点在不久的将来会失去意义。这一观察尤其适用于史学：在新自由主义的概念被方便地从社会科学借用之后，在过去十年中，无数研究要么使用这种分析作为启发式工具，要么检查新自由主义思想和行动的复杂历史。然而，直到最近，才出现了关于这个概念的启发式优点和缺点的辩论，无论是在史学还是在社会科学中。例如，在 2018 年 1 月的异议论坛上，历史学家丹尼尔罗杰斯认为新自由主义有太多含义，因此应该被更具体的概念工具取代，例如金融资本主义和市场原教旨主义。在他们的回应中，提到两位历史学家的声音，朱莉娅奥特欢迎 在史学和社会科学中，关于这个概念的启发式优点和缺点出现了辩论。例如，在 2018 年 1 月的异议论坛上，历史学家丹尼尔·罗杰斯（Daniel Rodgers）认为，新自由主义的含义太多，因此应该被更具体的概念工具所取代，例如金融资本主义和市场原教旨主义。在他们的回应中，提到两位历史学家的声音，朱莉娅奥特欢迎 在史学和社会科学中，关于这个概念的启发式优点和缺点出现了辩论。例如，在 2018 年 1 月的异议论坛上，历史学家丹尼尔罗杰斯认为新自由主义有太多含义，因此应该被更具体的概念工具取代，例如金融资本主义和市场原教旨主义。在他们的回应中，提到两位历史学家的声音，朱莉娅奥特欢迎