What, After All, Constitutes Important Research on the History of the CPC?

Although research on the history of the CPC has its own specific disciplinary attributes, it is still connected to historiography in terms of basic research methods. Taking the collection, collation, and interpretation of primary sources as the cornerstone of research has always been the core competence of empirical historiography. However, when the Tang dynasty historian Liu Zhiji discussed the three faculties of the historian, although he listed historical talent, historical knowledge, and historical insight together, he actually placed greater emphasis on historical insight, because without insight one cannot judge meaning, without talent one cannot craft good writing, and without knowledge one cannot master the facts; meaning clearly takes precedence over writing and facts. [1]1 Liu Zhiji (661–721) was a Tang dynasty historian. The “three faculties” (三才) refer to talent (才), knowledge (学), and insight (识), discussed in his work *Shitong* (Generalities on History). Therefore, the Qing dynasty historian Zhang Xuecheng further extrapolated the concept of “historical virtue” on the basis of historical insight, stating that “one who possesses historical insight must necessarily understand historical virtue.” [2]2 Zhang Xuecheng (1738–1801) was a Qing dynasty historian and philosopher. The concept of “historical virtue” (史德) was developed in his work *Wenshi Tongyi* (General Principles of Literature and History). Since the late Qing and the Republic of China period, newly unearthed historical materials have increased dramatically, just as Wang Guowei said: “During the Guangxu-Xuantong period, there were four categories of newly unearthed historical materials in China: first, the oracle bones from the Yin Ruins; second, the bamboo and wooden slips from the Han and Jin dynasties; third, the scrolls from the Six Dynasties and the Tang; and fourth, the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasty documents from the Grand Secretariat archives.” [3]3 Wang Guowei (1877–1927) was a late Qing and early Republican scholar. The quote refers to the Guangxu (1875–1908) and Xuantong (1909–1912) reigns. Chen Yinke summarized Wang Guowei’s innovative method of applying historical materials as “mutual corroboration between underground physical objects and written documents handed down from antiquity… mutual supplementation between foreign historical records and China’s old texts… mutual cross-referencing between imported concepts and indigenous materials.” [4]4 Chen Yinke (1890–1969) was a renowned historian of the Republican period. At the same time, under the impact of empirical historiography represented by Leopold von Ranke, Fu Sinian asserted: “Modern historiography is the study of historical materials, using all the tools provided by natural science to organize all the historical materials that can be encountered.” [5]5 Fu Sinian (1896–1950) was a historian and philologist, a leading figure in the “school of historical materials.” Hence, he vigorously advocated, “Search high and low, move your hands and feet to find things!” [6]6 This phrase is a well-known slogan of Fu Sinian, urging exhaustive search for historical sources. However, this assertion by Fu Sinian was quite controversial within the historical circles of the Republican period. Although Chen Yinke was often mistakenly regarded as belonging to the same so-called “school of historical materials” as Fu Sinian, his historical achievements actually lay more in the opening up of new problems than in the excavation of new materials. He criticized both the stagnation of old historiography and the falsity of new historiography. [7]7 Chen Yinke criticized the “stagnation” (滞) of traditional historiography and the “falsity” (诬) of modernizing approaches. Qian Mu’s critical attitude toward both old and new historiography was quite similar to Chen Yinke’s. He explicitly stated that historical insight is higher than historical talent and historical knowledge. The traditional (memorization) school and the scientific school “both lean toward the aspect of historical materials, with a relatively narrow path; they may fall short in breadth but sometimes surpass in precision. The study of history by these two schools is equally lacking in system and meaning, being purely a study of texts and documents, unrelated to contemporary reality,” while the reformist school “studies history with meaning, can possess a system, can strive to connect historiography with contemporary reality, can seek to grasp the whole of history, and can constantly pay attention to the evaluation of the cultural achievements of one’s own nation and country… However, the ‘reformist school’ is eager for knowledge in its approach to history but slack in inquiring into materials.” [8]8 Qian Mu (1895–1990) was a prominent historian. The quote is from his work *Guoshi Dagang* (An Outline of National History). Liu Xianxin offered an even sharper critique of the modern overemphasis on historical materials: “Historiography can be divided into four aspects: first, verifying facts, which is historical investigation; second, judging right and wrong, which is historical commentary; third, clarifying the principles and conventions of historical writing, which is historical method; fourth, observing the trends and tendencies of historical events, which is historical insight… Verification certainly comes before completing a book, but if it cannot produce a book, it remains only fragmentary facts and cannot be called history. Commentary is certainly the aim of reading history, but without insight it is only arbitrary likes and dislikes and cannot be called scholarship. Historical insight is evident in Sima Qian and Ban Gu; historical method became obscure only from the Tang onward. Song dynasty people still preserved historical insight, but they leaned toward commentary. In recent times, reacting against the evils of commentary, people have leaned toward investigation, so that those familiar with facts now falsely claim the name of historiography, and historiography has become barren.” [9]9 Liu Xianxin (1896–1938) was a historian and scholar. The quote is from his work *Zhishi* (On Historical Knowledge).

中共党史研究虽然有其特殊的学科属性，但在研究的基本方法上还是与史学贯通的。而以第一手史料的搜集、整理和解读为研究基石，一直是实证史学的看家本领。不过，唐代史学家刘知几在论及史家三才时，尽管并称史才、史学和史识，实际上更重视史识，因为非识无以断其义、非才无以善其文、非学无以练其事，义显然在文与事之先。所以，清代史学家章学诚在史识的基础上又引申出了“史德”一说，称“能具史识者，必知史德”。晚清民国以来，新出史料陡然增多，恰如王国维所说：“光宣之间，我中国新出之史料凡四：一曰殷墟之甲骨，二曰汉晋之简牍，三曰六朝及有唐之卷轴，而内阁大库之元明及国朝文书实居其四。”陈寅恪将王国维在史料应用上的创新方法总结为“取地下之实物与纸上之遗文互相释证……取异族之故书与吾国之旧籍互相补正……取外来之观念，与固有之材料互相参证”。与此同时，在以兰克为代表的实证史学的冲击下，傅斯年断言：“近代的历史学就是史料学，利用自然科学供给我们的一切工具，整理一切可逢着的史料。”故此，他力倡“上穷碧落下黄泉，动手动脚找东西！”然而，对傅斯年的这个断言，民国时期的史学界就颇多争议。陈寅恪虽然被人误解为与傅斯年同属所谓“史料学派”，但他的史学成就实际上更多体现在新问题的开拓而非新材料的挖掘上。他既批评了旧史学之滞，又批评了新史学之诬。钱穆对新旧史学的两面批评态度与陈寅恪比较相近。他明确提出史识比史才和史学更高。传统（记诵）派和科学派“同偏于历史材料方面，路径较近；博洽有所不逮，而精密时或过之。二派之治史，同于缺乏系统，无意义，乃纯为一种书本文字之学，与当身现实无预”，而革新派“治史为有意义，能具系统，能努力使史学与当身现实相绾合，能求把握全史，能时时注意及于自己民族国家已往文化成绩之评价……虽然，‘革新派’之于史也，急于求智识，而怠于问材料”。刘咸炘对近代过于偏重史料的学风有着更为犀利的批评：“史学可分四端：一曰考证事实，是为史考。二曰论断是非，是为史论。三曰明史书之义例，是为史法。四曰观史迹之风势，是为史识……考证固在成书之先，然不能成书，则止是零碎事迹，不得为史。论断固为读史之的，然无识则止是任意爱憎，不得为学也。史识著于马、班，史法至唐始晦。宋人犹存史识，而偏于论。近世惩论之弊，乃偏于考，于是熟于事实者乃冒史学之称，而史学芜矣。”

The above rough sketch of the history of Chinese historiographical criticism is intended to show that many historians do not agree with the claim that “historiography is the study of historical materials.” The distinction between superior and inferior historians lies not only in the difference in skill in excavating and interpreting historical materials, but even more in whether they possess the historical insight to comprehend the distant, observe trends, and discern tendencies. With the rapid development of informatization, networking, and especially artificial intelligence, the collection and collation of historical materials has become increasingly convenient, and the abundance of historical materials has become a common feature of historical research works. At the same time, the problem of fragmentation has become increasingly prominent. Many years ago, *Modern Chinese History Studies* and *Historical Research* organized special discussions on the issue of fragmentation in historiography, and papers published in *CPC History Studies* have also touched on this issue from time to time. However, to this day, the problem of fragmentation shows no sign of being curbed; on the contrary, it is becoming more and more serious. Over the past 20 years, research on the history of the CPC has been deeply influenced by empirical historiography, making considerable progress in the verification of historical materials, but it has also been plagued by the problem of fragmentation. Manuscripts on CPC history pile up like snowflakes in the email boxes of various core journals, and the number of CPC history articles published in academic journals has grown explosively. However, many works emphasize process without problems, abound in details but lack structure, have research but lack weight, and truly important research that makes one’s eyes light up or one’s heart skip a beat has become very rare. Therefore, although the issue of fragmentation in historiography has become a cliché, the author still feels it necessary to pose the following five questions, seeking advice from experts on the fundamental question of “what, after all, constitutes important research on the history of the CPC.”

上述对中国史学批评史的粗略勾勒意在表明，诸多史家并不同意“史学就是史料学”的讲法。史家的高下之分并不仅仅在于挖掘和解读史料的功夫差别，更在于有无疏通知远、观风察势的史识。随着信息化、网络化特别是人工智能的迅猛发展，史料的搜集和整理工作变得越来越便捷，史料丰富已经成为史学研究论著的一个共同特点。与此同时，碎片化的问题也越来越突出。多年前，《近代史研究》《历史研究》就组织过关于史学碎片化问题的专题讨论，《中共党史研究》刊载的论文对此问题也时有触及。然而，时至今日，碎片化问题非但不见遏制之势，反而越来越严重。近20年来，中共党史研究深受实证史学的影响，在史料的考证方面取得了长足进步，但也深受碎片化问题的困扰。党史研究的来稿雪片式地堆积在各个核心期刊的邮箱中，学术期刊发表的党史类文章如井喷式地增长着。然而，诸多论著重过程而无问题、多细节而弱结构、有研究而乏分量，让人眼睛发亮或心头一震的那种重要研究变得非常罕见。因此，尽管关于史学碎片化的问题已成老生常谈，但笔者仍感有必要发出以下五问，以“究竟何为重要的中共党史研究”这个基本问题就教于方家。

The first question: What are particularly important historical materials for CPC history? The distinction between primary and secondary sources in terms of their relative importance is already a consensus in academia and need not be elaborated upon. However, even among primary sources, their importance varies. This importance is determined by the position of the historical materials in general history. Among the CPC historical documents that have been officially published or issued internally, which are particularly important? The author has previously borrowed the concept of “classics and histories” from ancient Chinese thought to explain this: those documents that have an overarching and normative significance for understanding the entire Chinese communist civilization and the basic thought, line, and policy of the CPC at different historical stages can be called “classical studies”; the importance of these documents far exceeds that of other primary CPC historical documents. For example, the resolutions of the various congresses of the Communist International and its important resolutions concerning the CPC, the documents of the various national congresses of the CPC and its Central Committee plenary sessions, the various revised versions of the CPC Constitution, the organizational history materials of the CPC, and the representative works of the main leaders of the CPC, etc., are CPC historical documents with the significance of “classical studies.” So-called important research on the history of the CPC should take these documents as the center, tracing back to the source, and “using history to interpret the classics.” [10]10 “Using history to interpret the classics” (以史解经) is a methodological phrase coined by the author, drawing on traditional Chinese hermeneutics where “classics” (经) are canonical texts and “history” (史) provides contextual explanation. Similarly, among newly discovered or currently being collated CPC historical documents, those that have overall historical significance for understanding the history of the CPC are particularly important. For instance, the personal archives, management systems, meeting minutes, and work plans of nearly ten military and political schools in Russia—such as the Moscow Eastern University, the Moscow Sun Yat-sen University, the Lenin School, and the Frunze Military Academy—concerning CPC cadres who studied in the Soviet Union, which are currently being collated by some scholars, belong to this category of important documents. In the 1920s and 1930s, about 4,000 CPC cadres who had studied in the Soviet Union successively studied at various military and political schools established by the Communist International. This group of cadres became a very important source of the early CPC cadre corps. Before going to the Soviet Union, most of them were still immature students; it was precisely during their time studying in the Soviet Union that they gradually grew into important cadres on various fronts of the CPC. So, how exactly did these cadres who studied in the Soviet Union grow up during that period? What were the characteristics of the propaganda and mobilization, organizational construction, educational processes, and personal activities they experienced? What impact did these characteristics have on their later participation in the practice of the CPC revolution? Clearly, the growth process of these cadres who studied in the Soviet Union was accompanied by the origins of certain political traditions and political culture of the CPC, and tracing these political traditions and political culture back to their sources is crucial in CPC history research.

第一问：什么是特别重要的党史史料？关于第一手史料与第二手史料之间的高下之分，早已是学界共识，不必赘言。然而，在第一手史料之间，其重要性也各不相同。这种重要性是由史料在通史中的位置所决定的。在已正式出版或内部发行的党史文献中，哪些是特别重要的史料呢？笔者曾经借用中国古代思想中的“经史”概念来加以说明：那些对理解整个中国共产主义文明以及中国共产党在不同历史阶段的基本思想、路线和方针具有总体性、规范性意义的文献，堪称“经学”，这些文献的重要性是远超其他第一手党史文献的。比如，共产国际历次代表大会的决议以及关于中共的各项重要决议、中共历次代表大会及其中央全会的文献、中共历次修订的党章、中共组织史资料、中共主要领袖的代表性文献等等，就是具有“经学”意义的党史文献。所谓重要的中共党史研究就是要以这些文献为中心，做到追根溯源，“以史解经”。同样，在新发现或正在整理的党史文献中，也是那些对理解中共党史具有总体史意义的文献可谓特别重要。比如，目前有学者正在整理的俄罗斯所藏莫斯科东方大学、莫斯科中山大学、列宁学校、伏龙芝军事学院等近十所军政学校关于中共留苏干部的个人档案、管理制度、会议纪要和工作计划等，就属于这类重要文献。20世纪二三十年代，中共先后有约4000名留苏干部在共产国际设立的各类军政学校学习。这批干部成为中共早期干部队伍非常重要的来源。他们在留苏前大多还是稚气未脱的学生，正是在留苏的这些时间里，逐步成长为中共各个战线的重要干部。那么，他们在留苏期间到底是如何成长起来的？他们经历的宣传动员、组织建设、教育过程和个人活动有些什么样的特点？这些特点对他们后来参与中共革命的实践产生了什么样的影响？显然，这些留苏干部的成长过程，伴生着中共某些政治传统和政治文化的发端，而在党史研究中对这种政治传统和政治文化的追根溯源是至关重要的。

The reason the author raises the question of what constitutes particularly important historical materials for Party history is not without purpose. With the development of local history research, a trend is emerging in the field of Party history studies that takes localities—especially the researcher’s own hometown or work region—as the focus of research. The author has previously criticized a similar tendency in sociology, where researchers uncritically take their hometown as a fieldwork site based on the principle of “convenience of access,” labeling it “hometown sociology.” [11]11 Ying Xing, “Hometown Sociology: A Methodological Reflection,” Sociological Studies, no. 5 (2006). By analogy, this tendency in Party history studies can be called “hometown Party history.” First, it must be stated that local Party history is an indispensable component of the entire work of Party history, and those engaged in local Party history work have academic value that cannot be erased or belittled. Nevertheless, it should still be recognized that the regional development of the CPC during the period of the New Democratic Revolution was highly uneven—this is one of the basic manifestations of the unevenness of the Chinese Communist revolution. Some localities were very important before the War of Resistance Against Japan, some were very important after the War of Resistance, some were consistently important throughout, while others remained marginal until the founding of New China. If we are to discuss what constitutes particularly important historical materials, this is closely tied to whether a given locality at a given time occupied an important position in Party history. The reason “hometown Party history” deserves reflection is that many researchers today determine their research objects not based on the importance of the historical materials or the significance of the research question, but based on the convenience of accessing those materials. Behind this lies the line of thinking that “historiography is the study of historical materials”—that as long as one has historical materials, one can do research. Admittedly, with sufficient primary sources, one can restore the basic features of a certain historical issue and make an incremental contribution to Party history research; this is a scholarly effort worthy of praise, and the “hometown” thus becomes an object of Party history research. However, having sufficient primary sources and a hometown as a convenient gateway to those sources does not guarantee that a researcher can produce important research. In this regard, the field of Party history should learn from the South China School of historical anthropology. [12]12 The South China School refers to a group of historians and anthropologists, primarily based at Sun Yat-sen University and Xiamen University, who study regional society in South China using field methods and local archives, emphasizing the integration of local history with broader national and historical processes. The current research objects of the South China School are mostly based in the Pearl River Delta, yet they are by no means mere chroniclers of local history. In their local history research of “entering villages to find temples, seeking steles in temples, and visiting people beyond the steles,” they have consistently maintained a concern for total history—this is the academic paradigm of regional history research. To borrow the words of the anthropologist Clifford Geertz: they do not study localities, but rather study in localities. [13]13 Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 3–30. Only by engaging in Party history research in localities with a concern for total history can we hope to produce important research.

笔者之所以要提出什么是特别重要的党史史料这个问题，并非无的放矢。随着地方史研究的发展，党史学界正在出现一种以地方特别是研究者所在的家乡或工作地区为研究重心的潮流。笔者曾针对社会学界以“进入方便”为基本原则、不加反思地将自己的家乡作为田野研究地点的做法批评为“家乡社会学”。与此类似，党史学界的这种倾向也可以称为“家乡党史”。首先需要申明的是，地方党史是整个党史工作中不可或缺的组成部分，从事地方党史的工作者自有其不可抹杀和贬低的学术价值。不过，仍然应该看到，中共在新民主主义革命时期的地区发展是非常不均衡的，这正是中共革命不平衡性的基本表现之一。有些地方在抗战前非常重要，有些地方在抗战后非常重要，还有些地方始终都比较重要，而有些地方在新中国成立前则一直比较边缘。如果要讨论什么是特别重要的史料这一问题，那么就与某地某时在党史中是否处在重要位置紧密相关。“家乡党史”之所以值得反思，是因为现在诸多研究者对研究对象的确定，不是从史料的重要性和研究问题的重要性出发，而是从史料获取的方便性出发。这背后贯彻的是“史学就是史料学”、有史料就可以做研究的思路。诚然，有了足够的一手史料，就可以还原某个历史问题的基本面相，就能对党史研究作出有增量的贡献，就是一种值得嘉许的学术工作，“家乡”由此成为党史研究的对象。不过，有了足够的一手史料，有了家乡作为获取史料的方便之门，并不能确保研究者可以作出重要的研究。在这方面，党史学界应该向历史人类学的华南学派学习。华南学派目前的研究对象大多立足于珠江三角洲，然而，他们绝不仅仅是地方史的书写者。他们在“进村找庙、庙中寻碑、碑外访人”的地方史研究中始终贯穿着总体史的关怀——这才是区域史研究的学术典范。套用人类学家格尔兹的话来说：他们研究的并不是地方，而只是在地方做研究。我们只有在地方从事具有总体史关怀的党史研究，才有望作出重要的研究。

The second question: Why does political history hold particular importance in Party history research? Since the rise of the Annales School, world historiography has seen a turn toward social history, new cultural history, microhistory, and the history of everyday life—a shift “from the attic to the cellar.” [14]14 The Annales School is a French historiographical movement that shifted focus from political events to long-term social and economic structures, often summarized as moving from “attic” (elite politics) to “cellar” (everyday life). In recent years, new branches of historiography such as global history, environmental history, gender history, technological history, and material history have become fashionable. Western academia, based on the politically correct notion of “anti-inequality,” increasingly emphasizes the importance of studying marginalized communities and marginalized populations; based on the contemporary predicament of environmental issues, it increasingly emphasizes interpreting the history of civilization through environmental history; based on the rapid development of new technologies, especially digital technology, it increasingly emphasizes the revolutionary impact of artificial intelligence and its integration with historiography. These new historiographical trends, targeting the traditional focus of historiography on political history, have opened up new topics, discovered new materials, and established new paradigms. Their academic value should not be underestimated, and they have already had a significant impact on domestic academia, especially in the field of modern and contemporary Chinese history. However, when things reach an extreme, they reverse. When political history in Western academia (including overseas Chinese studies) has declined to an extreme, and when the study of modern and contemporary Chinese history in China is flooded with research on taverns, border peoples, gender, environment, and technology, the historian Yang Nianqun acutely raised the question “Why revisit the study of ‘political history’?” as early as 20 years ago. [15]15 Yang Nianqun, “Why Revisit the Study of ‘Political History’?,” in Where Is the Space for Chinese Historiography? (Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2007). In his view, “political history” has been squeezed to the point where any political phenomenon can only be explained more finely and reasonably if it is assimilated into the framework of “local history”; “politics” has been fragmented to the extent that it seems merely an expression of local cultural practice. He emphasized that Chinese politics must be understood as a whole, because politics dominates the direction of Chinese historical development and dominates the life-world of the Chinese people. Both ideological politics and the evolution from ancient politics to modern politics deserve deeper research. Political history has always occupied a central position in the study of CPC history. However, these trends of change in world historiography and modern Chinese historiography are now having a significant impact on Party history research. Therefore, we need to take precautions and seriously consider the particular importance of political history in Party history. Undoubtedly, research at the margins and frontiers is important. But the author wants to ask: Can the importance of marginal social history research really be equated with the importance of political history research? Foucault appears to have studied only marginalized populations—the sick, prisoners, homosexuals, and perverts—and his classic studies have thus had a broad and profound influence on postmodern historiography. However, that influence is based to some extent on a misreading of Foucault’s thought. Foucault studied the few but was concerned with the many; studied the abnormal but targeted the normal; studied the other but kept the “us” in mind; studied the margins but touched the center; studied society but pointed to the state. His research on marginalized populations is only the surface; its core is a new understanding of politics, the state, and power. Therefore, Foucault did not lead a trend of social history or the study of marginalized populations; rather, he established a new paradigm for political history research. If politics already held a core position in traditional China and modern China, then in contemporary China, this importance of politics is even more pronounced. In the political system and political culture where “the Party leads everything in the realms of the Party, government, military, civilian, and academic, east, west, north, south, and center,” Party history is the pivot for understanding national history, and political history—along with the closely related organizational history and intellectual history—is the central topic of Party history. [16]16 This phrase, “the Party leads everything,” is a standard formulation of the CPC’s leadership principle, often cited from Xi Jinping’s speeches. Although Party history studies have already accumulated considerable results in political history research, measured by the three criteria of the historian—historical insight, historical method, and historical talent—the research space yet to be explored in political history remains extremely vast. Bold innovation in social history, new cultural history, microhistory, gender history, environmental history, and technological history is a sign of the vitality of Party history research; but deep cultivation and innovation in the field of political history, producing works of the highest caliber, is the fundamental lifeline of Party history research. [17]17 “Highest caliber” translates the Chinese idiom “黄钟大吕” (huangzhong dalu), which refers to the most solemn and authoritative musical tones in ancient Chinese ritual music, used metaphorically to denote works of supreme importance and quality.

第二问：为什么政治史在党史研究中具有特别的重要性？自年鉴学派兴起以来，世界史学界出现了“从顶楼到地窖”的社会史、新文化史、微观史和日常生活史转向。近年来，全球史、环境史、性别史、技术史、物质史等史学新分支风靡一时。西方学界基于“反不平等”的政治正确观，越来越强调研究边缘社区和边缘人群的重要性；基于环境问题的今日困境，越来越强调从环境史来解读文明史的重要性；基于新技术特别是数字技术的迅猛发展，越来越强调人工智能的革命性影响及其与史学的融合问题。这些史学新潮针对传统史学以政治史为中心的取向，开拓了新议题，发现了新材料，树立了新范式，其学术价值不容小觑，已经对国内学界特别是近现代史学界产生了重要影响。然而，物极必反。当政治史在西方学界（包括海外中国研究学界）已经衰微之极时，在中国近现代史学界开始满大街都是酒肆、边民、性别、环境和技术研究的时候，历史学者杨念群早在20年前就敏锐地提出了“为什么要重提‘政治史’研究”的问题。在他看来，“政治史”受挤压的程度几乎已经到了任何政治现象只有涵化到“地方史”的框架中才能得到更精细和更合理解释的地步，“政治”被碎化到了似乎只能是一种地方文化实践的表达形式。他强调必须从整体上来理解中国政治，因为政治支配着中国历史的发展方向，支配着中国人的生活世界。无论是意识形态政治还是从古代政治到近现代政治的演变，都值得更加深入的研究。政治史本来在中共党史研究中一直占据着中心地位。但是，世界史学和中国近现代史学的这种变化趋势，正在对党史研究产生重要影响。因此，我们需要未雨绸缪，认真思考政治史在党史中的特别重要性问题。毫无疑问，在边缘处和前沿处的研究是重要的。但笔者想要问的是：边缘社会史研究的重要性难道真的与政治史研究的重要性可以等量齐观吗？福柯看起来研究的全是边缘人群——病人、犯人、同性恋和变态者，他的那些经典研究也因此对后现代史学产生了广泛而深远的影响。但是，那些影响在一定程度上是建立在对福柯思想的误读基础上。福柯研究少数而关心的却是多数，研究异常而针对的却是正常，研究他者而心系的却是我们，研究边缘而触碰的却是中心，研究社会而指向的却是国家。他对边缘人群的研究只是其表，其里却是对政治、国家和权力的崭新理解。因此，福柯为我们引领的并不是什么社会史研究或边缘人群研究的潮流，而是树立了政治史研究的新典范。如果说政治在传统中国和近代中国中本就具有核心地位，那么在现当代中国，政治的这种重要性就更加凸显。在“党政军民学，东西南北中，党是领导一切的”政治制度和政治文化中，党史是理解国史的枢纽，政治史以及与之紧密相关的组织史和思想史则是党史的中心议题。尽管党史学界关于政治史的研究已有不少的成果积累，但从史识、史学和史才的史家三才来衡量，政治史尚待开拓的研究空间还极其广阔。在社会史、新文化史、微观史、性别史、环境史和技术史中锐意创新，是党史研究生机勃勃的表现；而在政治史领域深耕细作、推陈出新，拿出黄钟大吕式的作品，则是党史研究的根本命脉所在。

Third question: Why is comparison particularly important in the study of Party history? Historians generally place great emphasis on comparison among historical sources. For instance, Fu Sinian proposed that “the science of historical sources is precisely the application of the comparative method,” requiring comparison between direct and indirect sources, official records and folk accounts, domestic records and foreign records, recent records and distant records, inadvertent records and deliberate records, the matter itself and tangential references, direct statements and metaphors, and oral sources and written sources. [18]18 Fu Sinian (1896–1950) was a Chinese historian and philologist, a leading figure in the May Fourth Movement and director of the Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica. However, beyond its application to sources, comparison holds greater significance in elevating the historical insight of researchers. There is an extremely prevalent format in historiography and Party history writing that takes a certain event or person as an example or focal point. Historiography excels at using dense historical sources to unfold a narrative at a single point, linking details together and laying out the process. Yet, when moving from a specific case to a conclusion with a certain degree of generality, historiography often acts hastily and draws conclusions too abruptly. One problem this research approach brings is that it often fails to achieve what such studies claim—namely, “seeing the big from the small”—and can only achieve “seeing the small from the small.” This is precisely a major symptom of the fragmentation in Party history research today. In fact, the social sciences face a similar situation. After Fei Xiaotong completed his famous work *Peasant Life in China*, it was originally published in Britain under the title *Peasant Life in China*. [19]19 Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005) was a pioneering Chinese sociologist and anthropologist. *Peasant Life in China* (1939) was his doctoral dissertation based on fieldwork in Kaixiangong village, Jiangsu. Can a single village truly represent rural China? Influenced by comparative sociology during his studies in Britain, Fei began to reflect on this question. After returning to China in 1940, he transformed the comparative tradition of cross-societal systems in British and French anthropology into a study of typological comparisons within a single civilized society, giving rise to works such as *Three Villages in Yunnan*. [20]20 *Three Villages in Yunnan* (1945) was a collaborative study by Fei Xiaotong and Zhang Zhiyi comparing three villages in Yunnan to develop a typology of rural communities. If case studies are research at the “point” level, then comparative research is research at the “line” level, serving as the key bridge from “points” to “surfaces” (general conclusions). We can take three examples. The first is Max Weber’s study of the forms of world religious civilizations. He was the first classic master to use comparative historical analysis as the fulcrum of his entire system of thought; both his substantive analysis and his comparative method constitute a classic paradigm in social theory. His analysis of the connection between the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism can only be deeply understood in comparison with other religious civilizations, such as Catholicism, Confucianism and Daoism, and Hinduism. The second example is Michel Foucault’s study of the forms of power relations. Whether it is the contrast in *Discipline and Punish* between the “great confinement” model triggered by leprosy and the “disciplinary” model triggered by plague, or the comparison in *The History of Sexuality*, Volume 1, between the two basic forms of biopolitics, these constitute splendid chapters in what he called the genealogy of power. Gilles Deleuze, the best interpreter of Foucault’s thought, used a unique term to summarize the core of Foucault’s thought: “dispositifs” (apparatuses). [21]21 Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995) was a French philosopher. His concept of “dispositif” (apparatus) refers to a heterogeneous ensemble of discourses, institutions, laws, and practices that shape power relations. Although the meaning of “dispositif” is extremely complex, the comparison of various “lines” is an important mechanism of its operation. For example, to understand the mechanism of power’s operation, one must compare the circumstances under which power is visible or loudly proclaimed, and those under which it is invisible or murmuring. The third example is Chen Yinke. [22]22 Chen Yinke (1890–1969) was a preeminent Chinese historian known for his meticulous scholarship on medieval Chinese history and comparative cultural analysis. In his essay “After the Completion of the ‘Treatise on the Four Principles’ by Zhong Hui in the ‘Literature’ Category of *A New Account of the Tales of the World*,” he used a method of comparing social groups to outline the basic thread of political evolution in medieval China: “In the late Eastern Han period, the ruling class could be divided into two types of people. One was the eunuchs of the inner court. The other was the scholar-officials of the outer court. The eunuchs were mostly from non-Confucian humble families… The main scholar-officials were mostly from local powerful clans, or occasionally from minor clans, but the vast majority were Confucian believers… Thus, in the late Eastern Han, the scholar-officials revered the classics and moral principles, while the eunuchs valued literary refinement. The scholar-officials prized benevolence and filial piety, while the eunuchs emphasized wisdom and technique. Since their origins were already different, the developments derived from them were naturally vastly dissimilar. Wei represented the eunuch class of the Eastern Han inner court, while Jin represented the scholar-official class of the outer court. Therefore, the rise and fall and succession of Wei and Jin were a matter of victory or defeat in the competition between the two ruling classes of the late Eastern Han.” In his essay “Cui Hao and Kou Qianzhi,” one can also see Chen Yinke’s more refined comparative case analysis under this basic comparative thread. [23]23 Cui Hao (381–450) was a prominent Northern Wei official and strategist; Kou Qianzhi (365–448) was a Daoist reformer who influenced the Northern Wei court. In that essay, he not only discerned that “the chaos and ruin of the Western Jin dynasty was caused by combining the defects of both the Confucian great clans and the Legalist humble families,” but also keenly observed that the essence of the relationship between Cui Hao and Kou Qianzhi lay in the fact that “Cui Hao’s thoughts and actions were purely based on the standpoint of social class. The reason he particularly valued Kou Qianzhi was that the Kou clan was originally a great clan, unlike the Sun clan of Langya. Moreover, in the new Daoist tradition that Kou Qianzhi had purified and rectified, the meaning of ‘the rites of the chosen people’ was deeply consistent with the traditional doctrines of the Confucian great clans.” In analyzing the history of the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties, Chen Yinke used “social class” as a basic analytical concept and the comparative analysis of social classes as a basic analytical thread.

第三问：为什么比较在党史研究中具有特别的重要性？史学家一般都非常重视史料之间的比较。比如，傅斯年就提出“史料学便是比较方法之应用”，需要比较直接与间接史料、官家记载与民间记载、本国记载与外国记载、近人记载与远人记载、不经意的记载与经意的记载、本事与旁涉、直说与隐喻、口说史料与书面史料。然而，比较除了在史料中的应用外，更重要的意义在于提升历史研究者的史识。史学和党史写作有一个极其流行的体例，即以某事、某人为例或为中心。史学擅长在一个点上运用绵密的史料展开叙事，将细节连贯起来，将过程铺陈开来。但是，在从个例上升到带有一定普遍性的结论时，史学往往就匆忙行事，草草作结。这种研究方式带来的一个问题就是往往做不到那些研究声称的“以小见大”，而只能是“以小见小”——这正是今日党史研究碎片化的一个主要症状。实际上，社会科学界也面临着类似情况。费孝通在完成其名著《江村经济》后，最早在英国出版时被出版社改名为《中国农民的生活》。一个江村是否真能代表中国乡村？费孝通在英国留学时受到比较社会学的影响，对此问题有了初步反思。他在1940年回国后，将英法人类学界关于跨社会体系的比较传统转化成了一个文明社会内部的类型比较研究，这就是他的《云南三村》等著作的由来。如果说个案研究是“点”的研究，那么，比较研究就是“线”的研究，是由“点”通向“面”（一般性结论）的关键桥梁。我们可以举三个例子。第一个例子是韦伯对世界诸宗教文明形态的研究。他是第一个将比较历史分析作为其整个思想体系支撑点的经典大家，无论是实质分析还是比较方法，都构成了社会理论中的经典范式。他对新教伦理与资本主义精神的关联分析，必须在与天主教、儒家与道教、印度教等其他宗教文明的比较意义上才能得到深刻的理解。第二个例子是福柯对权力关系形态的研究。无论是《规训与惩罚》中对麻风病所引起的“大禁闭”模型与瘟疫所引起的“规训”模型的对比，还是《性史》第一卷中对生命政治的两种基本形态的比较，都构成了他所谓权力谱系学中的华美篇章。福柯思想最好的阐释者德勒兹就此对福柯的思想核心使用了一个独特的词来概括——“配置”（dispositifs）。尽管“配置”的含义极其复杂，但各种“线”的比较是其重要的作用机制。比如，要理解权力的运作机制，就需要比较权力在什么情形下是可见的或高调发声的，什么情形下又是不可见或喃喃私语的。第三个例子是陈寅恪。他在《书世说新语文学类钟会撰四本论始毕条后》中，用社会群体比较的方式勾勒了中国中古政治演化的基本线索：“东汉中晚之世，其统治阶级可分为两类人群。一为内廷之阉宦。一为外廷之士大夫。阉宦之出身大抵为非儒家之寒族……主要之士大夫，其出身则大抵为地方豪族，或间以小族，然绝大多数则为儒家之信徒也……然则当东汉之季，其士大夫宗经义，而阉宦则尚文辞。士大夫贵仁孝，而阉宦则重智术。盖渊源已异，其衍变所致，自大不相同也。魏为东汉内廷阉宦阶级之代表，晋则外廷士大夫阶级之代表。故魏、晋之兴亡递嬗乃东汉晚年两统治阶级之竞争胜败问题。”而在《崔浩与寇谦之》一文中，又可以看到陈寅恪在这条基本比较线索下更精细的比较个案分析。他在文中既洞悉了“西晋一朝之乱亡，乃综合儒家大族及法家寒族之劣点所造成者也”，又敏察了崔浩与寇谦之的关系实质在于“浩之思想行为纯自社会阶级之点出发，其所以特重谦之者，以寇氏本为大族，不同于琅邪孙氏。又谦之所清整之新道教中，种民礼度之义深合于儒家大族之传统学说故也”。陈寅恪在分析魏晋南北朝史时，将“社会阶级”作为一个基本分析概念，将社会阶级的对比分析作为基本的分析线索。

Much early Party history research had a grand concern for problems, focusing on analysis from a broad surface, but the research was relatively crude and the empirical foundation relatively weak. Today, much Party history research prefers to verify facts and unfold problems from specific points, but the research perspective is rather narrow and fragmented. By applying comparative research more deeply and more consciously in Party history research, through comparison in both vertical and horizontal senses, we can determine the importance of the research topic and better overcome what Chen Yinke called the tension in historiography between “falsification” and “stagnation.” [24]24 Chen Yinke’s phrase “between falsification and stagnation” refers to the historian’s dilemma of either distorting facts to fit a theory or being unable to draw meaningful conclusions from facts. In a specific study, comparison does not necessarily need to be fully carried out, but only by possessing a comparative perspective can a particular study be directed toward especially important historical questions. Let us take an example from Party history research. Many scholars now recognize that in the study of the history of the Soviet areas, research on the Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area urgently needs strengthening. [25]25 The Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area was a base area established by the Fourth Front Army of the Chinese Red Army in 1932–1933, covering parts of modern Sichuan and Shaanxi provinces. The Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area developed relatively late, and the basic direction and path of its development were generally consistent with those of the Central Soviet Area. If researchers do not merely intend to fill a gap in the study of local Soviet area history, but rather to rediscover the status of the Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area in the sense of general history, then they need to use a comparative perspective to identify those relatively unique political inventions of the Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area. For example, in the history of the Red Army’s political work, the awarding of honorary titles was a very important system. In July 1933, the Military Commission of the Central Committee of the CPC issued the “Order on the Formulation and Issuance of the Red Star Medal.” [26]26 The Military Commission of the Central Committee of the CPC (中革军委) was the supreme military command organ of the Chinese Red Army during the Jiangxi Soviet period. The Red Star Medal was awarded to individual Red Army soldiers and officers; there was no reward system for Red Army combat units. In August 1932, Xingguo County formed the “Xingguo Model Division,” but this was only a local armed force. Although this division later joined the main Red Army, the name “Model Division” did not carry the meaning of combat honor. In November 1934, the Fourth Front Army of the Red Army held a Party and government work conference at Maoyu Town in Tongjiang County, Sichuan Province (historically known as the “Maoyu Town Conference”). [27]27 The Maoyu Town Conference (November 1934) was a key meeting of the Fourth Front Army that focused on political work and military discipline. The conference decided to award the 73rd and 75th Regiments of the 9th Army of the Fourth Front Army the banners “Fierce as a Tiger in Attack” and “Steadfast as Mount Tai,” award the 263rd Regiment of the 30th Army the banner “Steel Army,” the 265th Regiment the banner “Night Tiger,” award the 274th Regiment of the 31st Army the banner “Ever-Victorious Night Raider,” and the 296th Regiment of the 33rd Army the banner “Hundred Shots, Hundred Hits,” and also commended two regiments of the 4th Army and two regiments of the 31st Army. This was the first time in history that the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army awarded honorary titles to combat units, playing a significant role in boosting troop morale and soldiers’ sense of honor. It subsequently gradually became an important system in the army’s political work, continuing to this day with far-reaching influence. So why did this system originate in the Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area and the Fourth Front Army? What impact did the Maoyu Town Conference have on the Red Army’s political work? What further developments did this system undergo later? These questions are not merely issues in local Party and military history but have general significance. Even if a researcher does not specialize in a comparative study of political work between the Sichuan-Shaanxi Soviet Area and the Central Soviet Area, or between the Fourth Front Army and the First Front Army, simply by choosing to study the birth of the system of awarding honorary titles to combat units, they have already demonstrated a comparative perspective.

早期的许多党史研究有大的问题关怀，注重从面上来展开分析，但研究较为粗疏，实证基础较为薄弱；而今的许多党史研究则喜欢从点来考证事实、铺展问题，但研究的视野又较为褊狭、零碎。将比较研究更深入、更自觉地运用在党史研究中，通过纵向意义和横向意义上的比较，我们才能确定所研究主题的重要性，才能更好地克服陈寅恪所谓史学处在“诬”与“滞”之间的张力。在一个具体的研究中，并不一定都需要展开比较，但只有具备比较的眼光，才能使特定研究指向特别重要的历史问题。我们举一个党史研究中的例子。现在许多学者已经认识到了，在苏区史研究中，川陕苏区研究亟待加强。川陕苏区发展得比较晚，其发展的基本方向和道路与中央苏区是大体一致的。如果研究者不是仅仅意在填补地方苏区史研究的空白，而是要在总体史意义上重新发现川陕苏区的地位，那么就需要通过比较的眼光找到川陕苏区那些比较独特的政治发明。比如，在红军政治工作史中，荣誉称号的授予是一项非常重要的制度。1933年7月，中革军委颁布了《关于制定、颁发红星奖章的命令》。红星奖章是奖励到红军将士个人的，对红军战斗团队还没有奖励制度。1932年8月，兴国县组建“兴国模范师”，但这只是地方武装。虽然该师后来加入主力红军，但“模范师”的名称并不具有战斗荣誉的意义。1934年11月，红四方面军在四川省通江县毛浴镇召开党政工作会议（史称“毛浴镇会议”），决定授予红四方面军第9军73团、75团以“攻如猛虎”“守如泰山”的奖旗，授予第30军263团以“钢军”、265团以“夜老虎”的奖旗，授予第31军274团以“夜袭常胜军”、第33军296团以“百发百中”的奖旗，还表扬了第4军的两个团和第31军的两个团。这是中国工农红军在历史上首次授予战斗团队以荣誉称号，对提高部队的士气和将士的荣誉感起到了很大作用。此后逐步成为军队政治工作的一项重要制度，延续至今，影响深远。那么，这项制度为什么会诞生在川陕苏区和红四方面军？毛浴镇会议对红军政治工作产生了什么样的影响？这项制度以后又有什么样的发展？这些问题就不仅仅是地方党史、军史上的问题，而是具有总体性意义。即使研究者不专门从事川陕苏区与中央苏区或红四方面军与红一方面军的政治工作比较研究，单是选择了研究战斗团队荣誉制度的诞生这个主题，就已经体现出了比较的眼光。

Fourth question: What kind of theory is truly important to draw on for research on Party history? As is well known, historiography requires theory, and research on Party history requires theory even more so. The question is what kind of theory is needed. For some younger scholars, the intention to overcome the problem of fragmentation by actively borrowing theoretical concepts and analytical methods from the social sciences is commendable. However, they often unconsciously fall into the trap of "middle-range theory," which is very popular in Euro-American social science. This is because they are not entirely clear that while historiography indeed has a problem of fragmentary historical materials, the social sciences also have a problem of fragmentary theory; the two are merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. [28]28 A Chinese idiom meaning that two parties are equally at fault, with neither being superior to the other. The author has pointed out elsewhere that the so-called problem of fragmentary theory mainly refers to the problems caused by the abuse of "middle-range theory" in the social sciences. "Middle-range theory" is known for its clear and concise concepts and strong analytical operability, which has attracted many scholars, including historians. However, this kind of theory often treats history extremely crudely, lacking both the ability and the patience to deal with the complexity and contingency of history. If scholars of Party history use "middle-range theory" to decorate their analysis of historical materials, it is like putting on a coat that does not fit them at all. In fact, the most important theoretical resources that Party history needs to draw from still come from great thinkers such as Marx, Tocqueville, Weber, and Foucault. However, drawing on this kind of theory requires extremely arduous labor; it is by no means something that can be done by simply applying one of their concepts or paradigms in a short time. In a sense, classical theory is very impractical, because the questions it concerns are full of tension, the methods it uses are very complex, and even the forms of writing have their own styles, making them difficult for beginners to imitate. Between the concrete empirical questions faced by scholars of Party history and the complex theoretical questions that classical theory seeks to address, there is a vast distance; they cannot be directly connected. However, after exceptionally arduous labor, the imagination and insight that classical theory endows researchers with are far beyond what "middle-range theory" can match. This is precisely what the ancients meant: "In learning poetry, one takes insight as the master; the entrance must be correct, the aspiration must be high. Take the Han, Wei, Jin, and High Tang as teachers; do not become a figure below the Kaiyuan and Tianbao eras. [29]29 The Kaiyuan (713–741) and Tianbao (742–756) eras of the Tang dynasty are traditionally considered the peak of Tang poetry, after which a decline set in. If one retreats and yields, then inferior poetic demons will enter one's heart and lungs, because the aspiration is not high. If one's practice has not yet reached the goal, one can work harder; if the path is mistaken from the start, the more one rushes, the farther one goes astray, because the entrance is not correct. Therefore it is said: Learning from the superior, one only attains the middle; learning from the middle, one attains the inferior." [30]30 A quotation from the Song dynasty poetry theorist Yan Yu's *Canglang shihua* (Canglang's Remarks on Poetry). It is particularly important to note that scholars of Party history often limit their understanding of theoretical creation to the "invention" of concepts, while neglecting that theory has another important mode of expression—the "discovery" of concepts. The latter refers to, relying on theoretical insight, having a uniquely discerning eye to "discover" the theoretical significance of a certain statement or practice within the vast sea of historical materials. Compared to the "invention" of concepts, the "discovery" of concepts is more accessible to scholars familiar with historical materials and can often more aptly find the point of connection between theory and history. Let me give two examples here. At the beginning of *Discipline and Punish*, Foucault directly excerpts two pieces of historical material—the scene of Damiens, who attempted to assassinate the king in the 18th century, being executed by torture, and the timetable of the Parisian juvenile detention center 80 years later—and then asserts that these two events represent a change of an era. This way of handling historical materials is rare in conventional empirical historiography. The "telling" in a master's "telling of a story" is actually a manifestation of theoretical skill. Another example: Chen Yinke [31]31 Chen Yinke (1890–1969), a preeminent Chinese historian, known for his erudition in both Chinese classical learning and Western scholarship. studied abroad in Europe and America for many years and was deeply steeped in social science theory. However, his historical works rarely use social science concepts; they seem to raise questions directly from historical materials. Because his skill in handling historical materials was consummate and his linguistic foundation was profound, he was mistakenly regarded as belonging to some "school of historical materials." In fact, Chen Yinke's formulations about the "Guanlong standard," [32]32 A concept used by Chen Yinke to describe the political and military power base of the Sui and early Tang dynasties, centered on the Guanzhong region (ancient Guanlong). his analyses of the origins and evolution of the Sui and Tang systems, and the connections he drew between the coastal regions and the Way of the Celestial Masters [33]33 The Way of the Celestial Masters (Tianshi Dao) was a Daoist religious movement that originated in the Eastern Han dynasty. reflect far more than the skill of handling historical materials itself; they reflect a lofty historical insight—an insight that is revealed in the constant movement between theory and historical materials, just as the Chan school says: "Thirty years ago, before I engaged in meditation, I saw mountains as mountains and water as water. Later, when I came to see knowledge personally, I had an entry point; I saw mountains not as mountains and water not as water. Now that I have found a place of rest, I see mountains as mountains and water as water as before." [34]34 A famous Chan (Zen) Buddhist saying, often attributed to the Tang dynasty Chan master Qingyuan Weixin, describing three stages of spiritual insight. Seeing mountains as mountains again—this is the "dharma eye" [35]35 A Buddhist term for the enlightened faculty of perception that sees reality as it is. gained by returning to historical materials after being steeped in theory.

第四问：究竟借鉴什么样的理论对党史研究是重要的？众所周知，史学需要理论，党史研究尤其需要理论，问题是需要什么样的理论。对一些年轻学人来说，为了克服碎片化问题，积极从社会科学领域借鉴理论概念和分析方法，其旨趣是值得肯定的。不过，他们经常不自觉地陷入欧美社会科学非常流行的“中层理论”（middle-range theory）陷阱。因为，他们并不十分清楚，史学界固然有史料的碎片化问题，而社科学界亦存在理论的碎片化问题，二者不过是五十步与百步之遥。笔者已经另文指出，所谓理论的碎片化问题，主要是指由社会科学“中层理论”的滥用所导致的问题。“中层理论”以其概念简明清晰、分析操作性强见长，由此吸引了包括历史学人在内的众多学者的追随。然而，这种理论往往极其粗暴地对待历史，既没有能力也没有耐心处理历史的复杂性和偶变性问题。党史学人如果用“中层理论”来装饰自己的史料分析，就如同给自己罩上了一件非常不贴身的外套。实际上，党史需要汲取的理论资源最主要的还是来自马克思、托克维尔、韦伯、福柯这样的思想大师。不过，这种理论汲取需要付出极其艰苦的劳作，绝非一时半会就可以拿他们的某个概念或范式来套用。从某种意义上说，经典理论是非常不实用的，因为它们关心的问题充满了张力，使用的方法也甚为复杂，连书写的形式都各具风格，对初学者来说是很难模仿的。党史学人所面对的具体经验问题，与经典理论要处理的复杂理论问题，中间隔着千山万水，它们是无法直接连通的。然而，在经过了异常艰苦的劳作后，经典理论赋予研究者的那种想象力和洞察力，远非“中层理论”所可比拟。这正是古人所谓：“夫学诗者以识为主，入门须正，立志须高，以汉、魏、晋、盛唐为师，不作开元、天宝以下人物。若自退屈，即有下劣诗魔入其肺腑之间，由立志之不高也。行有未至，可加工力；路头一差，愈骛愈远，由入门之不正也。故曰：学其上，仅得其中；学其中，斯为下矣。”需要特别注意的是，党史学人对理论创造的理解往往限于概念的“发明”，而忽略了理论还有另一种重要的表现方式——概念的“发现”。后者指的是，凭借着理论的洞察力，在浩如烟海的史料中独具慧眼地“发现”某个说法或做法的理论意义。相比概念的“发明”，概念的“发现”对熟悉史料的学人来说更具亲和性，往往也能更贴切地找到理论和历史的相通之处。此处试举两例加以说明。福柯在《规训与惩罚》开篇就直接剪裁了18世纪谋刺国王的达米安被酷刑处死的场面和80年后巴黎少年犯监管所作息表这两段史料，然后断言：这两个事代表的是一个时代的变化。这种处理史料的方式是通常的实证史学所罕见的。高手“讲故事”的“讲”，其实就是理论功夫的体现。再如，陈寅恪负笈欧美多年，在社会科学理论中有极深的浸润。然而，他的史学论著极少使用社会科学概念，看似都是直接从史料中提出问题的。由于他史料功夫娴熟、语言功底精深，所以才会被误认为是什么“史料学派”。其实，陈寅恪关于“关陇本位”的那些提法，关于隋唐制度源流的那些分析，关于滨海地域与天师道之间的那种勾连，体现的远非处理史料本身的功夫，而是史识的高远——这种史识是在不断进出理论与史料之间所展现出来的，恰如禅宗所谓：“三十年前未参禅时，见山是山，见水是水。及至后来，亲见知识，有个入处。见山不是山，见水不是水。而今得个休歇处，依前见山只是山，见水只是水。”见山还是山——这就是经过了理论熏陶后重返史料所获得的“法眼”。

The Fifth Question: Why does research on Party history urgently require studies that “observe the wind and discern the trend”? The significance of “wind” (feng) in historiography was first proposed by the Republican-era historian Liu Xianxin. In his view, “What is valuable about history is that it clearly records the changes and rises and falls of governance, customs, and talent. Governance is enacted from above, customs take shape below, and talent serves as the pivot. In any given era, these three aspects have many facets; each facet is a matter, and each matter constitutes one dimension of historical insight.” “Facts are solid, while the wind is intangible; governance and talent are both within the wind. To see the wind through events, to seek the intangible from the tangible—this is what is meant by history possessing the intent of philosophy. Hence, shallow pedants who take judging people as the sole task of history, merely indulging their own opinions, are certainly not to be valued; while erudite but miscellaneous textual critics who take investigating events as the sole task of history are merely practicing the study of picking up bones.” “Reading history has two methods: entering and exiting. Observing the full course of events is entering; discerning the changes of wind and trend is exiting.” “The beauty of the solid lies in its rigor and precision, but its flaw is that it enters without being able to exit, and its failing is stupidity. The beauty of the intangible lies in its comprehensiveness and partial conciseness, but its flaw is that it exits without being able to enter, and its failing is dissipation.” These discussions have already made it very clear that historiography cannot merely pursue the “solid”; it must also learn the “intangible.” Only by maneuvering and flexibly adjusting between “solid” and “intangible,” “events” and “wind,” “entering” and “exiting,” can one attain the ideal realm of historiography. “Solid” and “intangible” are not two opposing lines of thought. A researcher must be able to stand at the height of history to observe the wind and discern the trend, possessing the keen ear to hear the “wind,” the sharp eye to see the “wind,” and the wisdom to capture the “wind,” combining the study of “wind” with the concrete analysis of ideological struggle, political power, factional networks, interest patterns, and local popular sentiment. The “wind” is not mystical, but neither is it empirical; rather, it is an atmosphere, a direction, a climate, and a trend of the times embodied behind the tangible level—just as Gong Zizhen put it: “Myriad forms yet formless, myriad shapes yet shapeless,” “the wind that rises at the tip of duckweed becomes the gale at the mouth of an earthen sack.” [36]36 Gong Zizhen (1792–1841), a late Qing dynasty poet and thinker. The phrase “wind that rises at the tip of duckweed” is an allusion to Song Yu’s “Wind Fu” (Rhapsody on the Wind), describing how a wind begins as a tiny movement and grows into a powerful force. Wang Fansen once offered a brilliant interpretation of Liu Xianxin’s thought on “observing the wind.” He affirmed that the objective study of collecting and researching historical materials emphasized by Liu Xianxin is only half of historiography; the other half is subjective study, that is, the study of discerning trends that describes and depicts the “wind.” The historical form capable of capturing the “wind” must take into account both the vertical “wind of the times” (connected to the longitudinal comparison mentioned earlier) and the horizontal “local wind” (connected to the latitudinal comparison). Subsequently, drawing on social science theory, he further pointed out that the mechanism of the “wind” is extremely complex—an unceasing, “not even for an instant” interaction between various interfaces. Sometimes it is an influence like “when Mount Tong collapses, the bell in Luo responds”; [37]37 A classical Chinese idiom from the *Book of the Later Han*: “When Mount Tong collapses, the bell in Luo responds,” meaning that things of the same kind resonate with each other across distances. sometimes it is “transformation”; sometimes it is “permeation”; sometimes it is a kind of “atmosphere,” under which “even the wise cannot escape.” In fact, many of Wang Fansen’s own studies have deeply grasped the subtlety of observing the wind and discerning the trend. For example, his analysis of the “ennui” (fánmèn) sentiment prevalent among May Fourth youth from the New Culture Movement to the 1930s, and his dissection of the “era of isms,” are precisely a study of “wind.” If Ishikawa Yoshihiro’s *The Founding History of the Chinese Communist Party* is a typical representative of the “solid,” then Wang Fansen’s study of why communist thought attracted May Fourth youth is a typical representative of the “intangible.” The combination of “solid” and “intangible” enables later researchers to gain a more genuine and profound understanding of the birth and rapid growth of the CPC on Chinese soil. Let me give another example. In his “On the Achievements of Wang Dao in the Eastern Jin,” Chen Yinke pointed out that “living in another’s territory, the heart is ever ashamed” was the basic mentality of the northern émigré scholar-officials represented by Wang Dao in the Eastern Jin, leading them to adopt a policy of co-opting the Wu local gentry, thereby laying the foundation for the three-hundred-year political situation of the Eastern Jin and Southern Dynasties. The route of the northerners’ southward migration and the issue of their settlement areas were in fact the key to the three-hundred-year political, economic, and social history of Jiangzuo; [38]38 Jiangzuo (literally “east of the Yangtze”) is a historical term for the region south of the lower Yangtze River, often used to refer to the territory of the Eastern Jin and Southern Dynasties. and “Jiangling has always feared the people of Xiangyang” was the key to the great political and social upheavals in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River during the same historical period. A single sentence from Emperor Yuan of Jin in *Shishuo Xinyu* and a common saying from the *Book of Liang* were used by Chen Yinke to outline the grand trend of the three-hundred-year history of the Eastern Jin and Southern Dynasties, allowing us to feel a palpable force of wind. If scholars of Party history can borrow such power to observe the wind and discern the trend, they can produce their own masterpieces.

第五问：党史研究为什么亟须“观风察势”的研究？关于“风”在史学中的重要意义，最早是由民国历史学家刘咸炘提出来的。在他看来，“所贵乎史者，为明著其政事、风俗、人才之变迁升降也。政事施于上，风俗成于下，而人才为之枢，一代之中，此三者有多端，每一端为一事，即为史识之一义”，“事实实而风气虚，政事、人才皆在风中。即事见风，即实求虚，所谓史而有子意也。故浅陋之学究专以论人为史学，徒骋己见，固不足贵，而博杂之考据家专以考事为史学，亦只为拾骨之学”，“读史有出入二法，观事实之始末，入也；察风势之变迁，出也”，“实之美，严整而审谛，其弊入而不能出，其失也愚；虚之美，圆通而偏约，其弊出而不能入，其失也荡”。这些论述已经非常清楚地告诉我们，史学不能仅仅追求“实”，还要学会“虚”。只有在“实”与“虚”、“事”与“风”、“入”与“出”之间辗转腾挪、伸缩有度，方能达致理想的史学境界。“实”与“虚”并不是两种对立的思路。一个研究者要能站在历史的高度观风察势，具备听“风”的灵耳、看“风”的慧眼和捕“风”的睿智，把“风”的研究与实实在在的思想斗争、政治权力、派系网络、利益格局和地方民情的分析结合起来。“风”不是玄虚的，但也不是实证的，而是体现在实在层面背后的一种氛围、风向、气候和时潮，正如龚自珍所谓：“万状而无状，万形而无形”，“起于萍末之风，为怒于土囊之口之风”。王汎森曾对刘咸炘的“观风”思想做过精彩的阐释。他肯定了刘咸炘所强调的搜集和研究史料的客观之学只是史学的一半，还有一半是主观之学，亦即撰述描绘“风”的观势之学，能捕捉“风”的史体要能兼顾上下之时风（与前文所说的纵向意义的比较相通）和左右之土风（与横向意义上的比较相通）。而后，他在借鉴社会科学理论的基础上，进一步指出“风”的作用机制是极其复杂的，是各种界面之间永不间断、“不能以一瞬”的交互作用，有时是“铜山崩而洛钟应”式的影响，有时是“化”，有时是“熏习”，有时是一种“空气”，在此“空气”之下，“虽有智者，亦逃不出”。事实上，王汎森本人的许多研究也深得观风察势之妙。比如，他对“五四”青年在从新文化运动到20世纪30年代期间流行一时的“烦闷”情绪的分析以及对于“主义时代”的透析，就是一种“风”的研究。如果说石川祯浩的《中国共产党成立史》是典型的“实”的代表，那么王汎森对共产主义思想何以吸引了“五四”青年的研究就是典型的“虚”的代表。“实”“虚”两相结合，才能使后世研究者对中共在中国大地的诞生和快速成长获得更加真切而深入的理解。再举一个例子。陈寅恪在《述东晋王导之功业》中指出，“寄人国土，心常怀惭”是东晋以王导为代表的南来北人士族的基本心态，因此他们对吴地士族采取了笼络政策，由此奠定了东晋南朝三百年世局的基础；北人南来之路线及其居住地域问题，实为江左三百年政治社会经济史之关键所在，而“江陵素畏襄阳人”又是同一历史时期长江上游三百年政治社会大变动之关键所在。《世说新语》中晋元帝的一句话、《梁书》中的一句俗语，竟被陈寅恪用来勾勒东晋南朝三百年历史的大势，让我们凛然感到了一股扑面而来的风力。党史学者若能借得这样的观风察势之力，方可拿得出自己的扛鼎之作。

In summary, fragmented research on Party history, as long as the historical materials are reliable and sufficient and the interpretation is clear and reasonable, is undoubtedly of academic value. If a researcher is determined to take historical materials as the foundation and the pursuit of truth as the aim, with no intention of delving into the question of importance, then naturally there is no need to heed the five questions I have raised above. However, historical research has its grades; we must still acknowledge that there are distinctions between high and low in scholarship. Tian Yuqing once earnestly advised a student: although “the article has original insights,” “the weight of the topic is insufficient.” [39]39 Tian Yuqing (1924–2014), a renowned historian of early medieval China, known for his meticulous studies of the political history of the Eastern Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties. If a researcher of Party history is willing to “set high aspirations” and “learn from the best,” and aspires to transcend fragmented research, then they need to seriously consider whether their own research carries sufficient weight, rather than merely taking convenience of materials as the method, rapid and prolific output as the guide, and avoiding difficulties to indulge in self-satisfaction. Research on Party history has certain special circumstances, and every researcher of Party history should have a long-term historical perspective, being responsible to scholarship, to history, and thus to themselves. Without consideration of the importance of research, a gust of wind may scatter those lightweight studies. Since superior historiography esteems the “wind,” researchers must understand this principle: “The wind has its source and its flow. The source is that which blows, acting with purpose. The flow is that which is blown, acting without knowing why.” So-called important research is that which “blows the wind,” not that which “is blown.”

综上所述，碎片式的党史研究，只要史料可靠而充分，阐释清晰而合理，无疑都是有学术价值的。如果一个研究者立志以史料为本、以求实为旨，无意深究重要性的问题，那么自然不用理会笔者在上文中所提出的五问。然而，史学研究是讲品的，我们还是得承认研究有高下之分。田余庆先生曾经这样语重心长地点拨一个学生：虽然“文章有创获”，但是“题目分量不够”。如果一个党史研究者愿意“立志高”“学其上”，有志于超越碎片式的研究，那就需要严肃地思考自己的研究是否够分量的问题，而不能徒以史料方便为法门、以多出快产为指针、以避难就易而自得。党史研究有某些特殊的处境，而每个党史研究者都应该有长远的历史眼光，对学术负责、对历史负责从而对自己负责。如果没有对研究重要性的考量，那么可能一阵风就会把那些轻飘的研究吹散了。上品的史学既然推崇“风”，那研究者就要明白这一道理：“风有源有流。源也者，吹之者也，有所为而然者也。流也者，受吹者也，不知其然而然者也。”所谓重要的研究，就是“吹风者”，而非“受吹者”。

(Author’s bio: Ying Xing, Professor, Department of Sociology, Tsinghua University)

（作者简介：应星，清华大学社会学系教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心