• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Rethinking History >POST-Medievalism/Modernity/Postmodernity?
【24h】

POST-Medievalism/Modernity/Postmodernity?

机译：后中世纪主义/现代性/后现代性？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Studying human history means studying the recoverable stock of past human experiences and the retrospective assessments of those experiences. But recent arguments about how and whether historians can study earlier times have not yet sufficiently highlighted the questions of periodisation. This essay urges that such a debate is long overdue. In practice, historians are eclectic and many invoke their own preferred timespans. Yet the collective ‘default’ system of the profession as currently institutionalised sticks with out-dated assumptions about the onset of the ancient world, medievalism, modernity and (perhaps) postmodernity. However, did history really change so schematically? The suggested binary ‘breaks’ between Modernity and Postmodernity at some stage in the later twentieth century are shown, upon close examination, to be subjective and inconsistent, as well as lacking in specific chronology. It also remains unclear whether this binary shift is/was applicable solely to western societies or to the entire world. Moreover, the uncertainty surrounding this supposed great transformation is as nothing in comparison with lack of clarity associated with the concept of Modernity and (not the same) Modernism. These confusions have been generated by historians and cultural critics who do believe that the past can be studied (here differing from theorists of Postmodernity); but who do not compare and contrast their own operating models. ‘Modernity’ is such a familiar term that its use seems unproblematic. The result is much repetition, but conceptual confusion. In fact, all the apparently ‘established’ chronologies have problems, including the Marxist variants of Feudalism, Capitalism and Communism. So it is time for historians, who do believe that the past can be studied, to allow for multiple dimensions - continuity, gradual change, and revolutionary upheaval - within one period. In that way, the analysis can move beyond Post-post to study multi-layered experiences in the past as in the present.View full textDownload full textKeywordshistory, stages, postmodernity, modernity, post-stages, multi-dimensionalityRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2010.482794
机译：研究人类历史意味着研究过去人类经验的可回收资源，并对这些经验进行回顾性评估。但是，最近关于历史学家如何以及是否可以研究更早时间的争论尚未充分突出分期问题。本文敦促早就进行这样的辩论。在实践中，历史学家不拘一格，许多人调用自己喜欢的时间跨度。然而，当前制度化的专业的集体“默认”体系坚持了关于古代世界，中世纪，现代性和（也许）后现代性的过时假设。但是，历史真的如此示意地变化了吗？在二十世纪后期的某个阶段，建议的在现代性和后现代性之间的二元“断裂”经仔细研究显示是主观的和前后矛盾的，并且缺乏具体的时间顺序。还不清楚这种二元转换是否仅适用于西方社会或整个世界。而且，与所谓的现代性和（不同的）现代主义概念缺乏明确性相比，围绕这种假定的巨大转变的不确定性不算什么。这些困惑是由历史学家和文化评论家引起的，他们确实相信可以研究过去（此处不同于后现代理论家）。但是谁不比较和对比自己的运营模式。 “ Modernity”是一个非常熟悉的术语，它的使用似乎没有问题。结果是重复很多，但是概念上很混乱。实际上，所有明显的“已建立”年表都有问题，包括封建主义，资本主义和共产主义的马克思主义变体。因此，现在是历史学家的时候了，他们确实相信可以研究过去，可以在一个时期内考虑到多个方面-连续性，逐渐变化和革命性动荡。通过这种方式，分析可以超越Post-post来研究过去的多层体验，就像现在一样.View全文下载全文关键词历史，阶段，后现代性，现代性，后期，多维性相关var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand ：“ Taylor＆Francis Online”，services_compact：“ citeulike，netvibes，twitter，technorati，delicious，linkedin，facebook，stumbleupon，digg，google，more”，pubid：“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2010.482794

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号