The British Paradigm and Academic Trajectory of 20th-Century Marxist Historiography

The history of scholarship both in China and abroad shows that, against the backdrop of radicalism and the historical context of the New Left, and thanks to the widespread dissemination of the Marxist tradition in Britain as well as prolonged immersion in the academic currents of Western new historiography, the 20th-century British historical scene gave rise to a British Marxist historical school constructed jointly by two generations of historians, the older and the younger. From the perspective of historical era and the evolution of the school, these two generations of historians—sharing similar social experiences, divergent academic careers, complementary historiographical aspirations, and akin theoretical origins—successively distinguished themselves in the international academic community through their extraordinary scholarly achievements and slightly differing historiographical thoughts. From the two dimensions of the explanatory power of Marxist historiography and ideological creativity, they influenced the trends of British historiography and international historiographical currents. Within the dual horizons of global historiography and intellectual history, it holds significant historiographical value and practical relevance to sort out the conditions under which the British Marxist historiographical paradigm emerged, to explore its logic of historical views and intergenerational differences, and to examine the driving mechanisms, intrinsic characteristics, and academic transformations of the school’s evolution.

中外学术史表明，在激进主义背景与新左派历史语境下，借由马克思主义传统在英国的广泛传播，也得益于长期浸淫在西方新史学的学术潮流中，20世纪英国史坛涌现一支由新老两代史家群体共同构建的英国马克思主义历史学派。从历史时代和学派演变看，两代史家群体所造就这个社会经历相近、学术生涯迥异、史学诉求互补和理论学渊相似的史学流派，相继以卓尔不凡的学术成就与略有差异的史学思想而突显于国际学界，从马克思主义史学解释力与思想创造性两个向度，影响了英国史学趋势及国际史学潮流。在全球史学史与思想史的双重视域中，梳理20世纪英国马克思主义史学范式的生成境遇，探讨其史观逻辑及代际差异，审思学派演进的动力机制、内涵特征及学术嬗变，具有重要史学价值与现实意义。

I. The British School of the Marxist Historiographical Paradigm and Its Theoretical Orientation

一 马克思主义史学范式的英国学派及理论取向

As the most active school within the 20th-century Western Marxist historiographical trend, the British Marxist historical school, though not mainstream in the modern and contemporary British historiographical system, occupies an important position and has followed a tortuous yet sustained and renewing academic path. From the 1930s and 1940s onward, Maurice Dobb, Rodney Hilton, Christopher Hill, Edward Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Victor Kiernan, John Saville, George Rudé, Dorothy Thompson, and Raymond Williams, among others who rose to prominence, constituted the first generation of Marxist historians. After the 1950s and 1960s, the second generation of “New Left” figures such as Perry Anderson, Robin Blackburn, Raphael Samuel, Tom Nairn, Richard Hoggart, and Stuart Hall, who gradually emerged, were called the new generation of Marxist historians. The school’s members produced a wealth of writings, and most achieved outstanding success. For instance, in contemporary international society and academic circles, Hobsbawm has been labeled with various titles such as British “new social historian, New Left historian, master of modern historiography, and Marxist historian.” He published over 40 works, including nearly 20 independently authored books, and countless specialized papers, academic book reviews, and commentary articles, demonstrating a pursuit of professionalism and a popular orientation, with great academic significance and social value. [1]1 The "New Left" refers to a broad political and intellectual movement that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Britain, critical of both orthodox communism and Western capitalism, and associated with figures like E.P. Thompson and Perry Anderson. After Hobsbawm’s death in 2012, British academia published four books concerning him, and the University of London, together with the journal *Past & Present*, held an international academic conference titled “History after Hobsbawm” to summarize his academic legacy and discuss the trajectory of “British historiography in the post-Hobsbawm era” and its value for 21st-century history. Domestic academia has reflected on the historiographical trends of the post-Hobsbawm era, arguing that how to interpret the “past” is a key issue. Based on an examination of debates in existing domestic and international research and a sorting of relevant historical documents, the so-called British Marxist historiographical paradigm refers to a model that, starting from the 20th-century British historical context, the two generations of British Marxist historians, guided by historical materialism and theoretical concern, followed, interpreted, and continued the traditional Marxist theory. Within a global spatiotemporal perspective and multidimensional historiographical fields, they selected specific research objects and corresponding historiographical methods to construct the iterative renewal, logic of historical views, and historiographical writing style of the British Marxist historical school. Observing a drop of water reveals the vast ocean. In specific historical stages and cultural contexts, the British practice of the first generation of historians pioneered the new social history orientation of the 20th-century Marxist historiographical paradigm, attempting to combine the theoretical tradition of Marxist historiography with the historical writing practice of holistic social history.

作为20世纪西方马克思主义史学思潮中最活跃的流派，英国马克思主义史学派在英国现当代史学体系中虽非属主流却具有重要地位，经历了一种曲折持续和更新迭代的学术路径。20世纪三四十年代起声名鹊起的莫里斯·多布、罗德尼·希尔顿、克里斯托弗·希尔、爱德华·汤普森、艾瑞克·霍布斯鲍姆、维克托·基尔南、约翰·萨维尔、乔治·鲁德、多萝西·汤普森和雷蒙德·威廉斯等构成了第一代马克思主义史家群体。20世纪五六十年代后渐露峥嵘的佩里·安德森、罗宾·布莱克本、拉斐尔·萨缪尔、汤姆·奈恩、理查德·霍加特和斯图亚特·霍尔等第二代“新左派”则被称为新生代马克思主义史学家。学派群体著述丰硕，成员大都取得了卓越成就。譬如在当代国际社会和学术思想界，霍布斯鲍姆被冠以英国“新社会史家、新左派史家、近代史学大师、马克思主义史家”等多种称谓，出版著作40余部，其中独立撰写近20部，专题论文、学术书评和评论文章等不计其数，彰显了专业化追求和大众化取向，极具学术意义和社会价值(梁民愫：《英国学派与历史学家：霍布斯鲍姆的马克思主义史学》,北京：社会科学文献出版社2020年版)。2012年霍布斯鲍姆逝世后，英国学界出版了四本涉及霍布斯鲍姆的著作，伦敦大学与《过去与现在》杂志联合举办“霍布斯鲍姆之后的历史学”国际学术会议，总结其学术遗产，讨论“英国后霍布斯鲍姆时代的历史学”走向及其对21世纪历史学的价值。国内学界反思了后霍布斯鲍姆时代的史学趋势，认为如何解读“过去”是关键问题。基于国内外现有研究的论争考察与相关历史文献的梳理分析可知，所谓英国马克思主义史学范式，意指从20世纪英国历史脉络出发，两代英国马克思主义史家群体以唯物史观与理论关照为导向，遵循、演绎与赓续马克思主义传统理论，在全球时空视域与多维史学领域里，选择特定研究对象及相应史学方法，构建英国马克思主义史学派的迭代更新、史观逻辑及史学书写风格。观滴水而知沧海，在特定历史阶段与文化情境之中，第一代史家群体的英国实践开创20世纪马克思主义史学范式的新社会史学取向，试图把马克思主义史学的理论传统与整体社会史的历史书写实践相结合。

From the perspective of recently available foreign academic research, attention to and evaluation of British Marxist historiography began roughly simultaneously with the formation of Western new historiography and the Marxist historiographical trend. Research on the school’s historiography includes academic works, specialized papers, academic book reviews, and dissertations, which are voluminous. Among them, there are hundreds of representative papers, too numerous to list. In many academic journal databases, foreign historiographical databases, or online resources, a large number of research results reflecting the development of Marxist historiography can be found, scattered across dozens of foreign professional journals such as *The English Historical Review*, *Marxism Today*, *Past & Present*, *Radical History Review*, *New Left Review*, and *History Workshop Journal*. A survey of relevant foreign works shows that since the 1980s, British and American scholars have preliminarily examined the rise and fall of the first generation of historians, the British New Left, and the Marxist historiographical trend: First, Harvey Kaye pioneered a general study of the first generation of British Marxist historians. Second, Hall and Samuel, in works such as *The “First Generation” New Left*, *People’s History and Socialist Theory*, and *The Lost World of Communism*, prominently discussed the New Left movement, socialism, and historical changes. Third, Michael Kenny, Stephen Woodhams, Keith Laybourn, Dennis Dworkin, and the Chinese scholar Lin Chun, who studied in Britain, wrote works such as *The First New Left: British Intellectuals After Stalin*, *The Making of History: Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson and Radical Intellectuals 1936–1956*, *British Marxism: Division, Decline and Revival*, and *The British New Left*, focusing on the relationship between political culture and social change, and emphasizing the intrinsic connections and tortuous fate of the two postwar generations of New Left intellectuals and the British Marxist historiographical trend. Fourth, Bryan Palmer and Scott Hamilton analyzed the political and practical nature of Thompson and British Marxist historiography, while Gerard McCann examined Thompson’s political thought from a theoretical and historical perspective. Prakash Karat’s study of Victor Kiernan’s contributions, Paul Hirst’s research on Marxism and historical writing, and Gregory Elliott’s study of Hobsbawm from the perspective of the relationship between history and politics—all such research is highly valuable.

从最近掌握的国外学界研究看，对于英国马克思主义史学的关注与评价，基本上与西方新史学及马克思主义史学潮流的形成同时起步，有关学派史学的研究包括学术著作、专题论文、学术书评和学位论文等，可谓卷帙浩繁，其中代表性论文有数百篇，简直不胜枚举。在许多学术期刊数据库及国外史学数据库或网络资源中，能够见到大量反映马克思主义史学发展的研究成果，散见于《英国历史评论》《今日马克思主义》《过去与现在》《激进历史评论》《新左派评论》《历史工作坊杂志》等数十种国外专业期刊。纵览国外相关论著，20世纪80年代以来，英美学者初步审视了第一代史家群体、英国新左派与马克思主义史学思潮的兴衰历程：第一，哈维·凯伊率先推出对于第一代英国马克思主义史家群体的概论性研究；第二、霍尔和萨缪尔在《“第一代”新左派》《人民的历史与社会主义理论》《共产主义的失落》等著作中突出论述了新左派运动、社会主义与历史变动情况；第三，麦克尔·肯尼、斯蒂芬·伍德海姆斯、基斯·雷伯恩、丹尼斯·德沃金、中国旅英学者林春撰写了《第一代新左派：斯大林之后的英国知识分子》《历史的形成：雷蒙·威廉斯、爱德华·汤普森与激进知识分子(1936—1956)》《英国马克思主义：分化、衰落和复兴》《英国新左派》等著作，从政治文化与社会变动的关系维度，重点论述了战后两代新左派知识分子与英国马克思主义史学思潮的内在关联及曲折命运；第四，布莱恩·帕尔默、斯科特·汉密尔顿等分析了汤普森和英国马克思主义史学的政治性和现实性，杰拉德·麦肯则从理论与历史的角度考察汤普森的政治思想研究。普拉卡什·喀拉海关于维克多·基尔南的贡献研究，保罗·赫斯特关于马克思主义与历史书写研究，格雷戈里·艾略特从历史和政治的关系角度关于霍布斯鲍姆的研究。诸如此类研究都非常有价值。

The hundreds of fruitful studies of the British Marxist historiographical school produced abroad are inseparable from the academic contributions of numerous contemporary Western scholars, among the more notable being Georg Iggers, Geoffrey Barraclough, Richard Tawney, David McLellan, Peter Burke, Nick Stevenson, Willie Thompson, Geoffrey Elton, and several dozen others. For instance, Iggers and others, from the perspective of holistic narrative, specifically address two levels of issues: first, from the angle of the relationship between Marxism and capitalism, they elucidate the influence of the Western Marxist historiographical tradition and Marxist historiography on American and North American historiography; second, from the angle of the relationship between Marxism and Marxist historiography, they discuss the historical fate of Marxism in contemporary Russian historiography from a center-to-periphery perspective, while also expounding on Marxist historical writings in post-communist Eastern European countries [Q. Edward Wang and Georg G. Iggers, eds., *Marxist Historiographies: A Global Perspective* (London and New York: Routledge, 2016)]. Oxford University Press, in the "British Academy 9th Special Issue," published an academic collection edited by Chris Wickham, which includes analyses by renowned Marxist historians, including Eric Hobsbawm, of the state of current international historiography, particularly responding in a timely manner to the post-Cold War theories of the obsolescence of Marxist theory and the end of history, affirming the powerful explanatory power and methodological significance of Marxist historical theory (Chris Wickham, ed., trans. Duan Yuan, *Marxism and 21st-Century Historical Compilation* [Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2019]). The academic concepts and basic views of foreign historians are worth drawing upon, are of great significance for understanding the "New Left" movement and the rise and fall of post-war British Marxism, and provide important political-cultural perspectives and socio-historical contexts for in-depth research. However, they also have shortcomings in research perspectives and analytical approaches, such as failing to focus, from a long-term and holistic perspective, on the evolutionary脉络 of the school's historiography and the iterative replacement of historiographical concepts. For example, Kaye takes the first-generation group of historians as the object of discussion to elucidate the school's historiographical interests and theoretical orientations, but this is somewhat inadequate: first, it broadly outlines the group portrait of the school's historians but fails to delve into the reasons for the rise and fall of its historiographical trends; second, it does not address the "new generation of Marxist" historians such as Perry Anderson, Robin Blackburn, and Stuart Hall.

国外数以百计研究英国马克思主义史学派的丰硕成果，离不开众多当代西方学者的学术贡献，举其要者有格奥尔格·伊格尔斯、杰弗里·巴勒克拉夫、理查德·托尼、大卫·麦克莱伦、彼得·伯克、尼克·史蒂文森、威利·汤普森、乔治·埃尔顿等数十人。比如伊格尔斯等人从整体性叙述的角度特别涉及两个层面问题，一是从马克思主义和资本主义的关系角度，阐释了西方马克思主义史学传统与马克思主义史学对美国及北美史学的影响；二是从马克思主义与马克思主义史学的关系角度，论述从中心到边缘视角下当代俄罗斯史学中马克思主义的历史命运，同时阐述了后共产主义时代东欧国家的马克思主义历史著述[王晴佳、伊格尔斯主编：《全球马克思主义史学史》(Q.Edward Wang and Georg G.Iggers, eds.,Marxist Historiographies:A global perspective),伦敦和纽约：劳特利奇出版社2016年版]。牛津大学出版社在“英国国家学术院第9期专刊”推出了克里斯·威克姆编著的学术文集，其中包括霍布斯鲍姆在内的著名马克思主义史家对当前国际史学的状况分析，特别是面对冷战结束后马克思主义理论过时论与历史终结论，及时做出回应，肯定马克思主义历史理论的强大解释力与方法论意义(克里斯·威克姆主编，段愿译：《马克思主义与21世纪史学编纂》,北京：中国人民大学出版社2019年版)。国外史家的学术理念与基本观点值得借鉴，对于了解“新左派”运动及战后英国马克思主义的兴衰成败具有重要意义，为深入研究提供了重要的政治文化视野与社会历史语境。但它们在研究视角和分析理路上也有所缺失，比如从长时段与整体性的角度，关注学派史学的演变脉络与史学观念的迭代更替等问题。比如凯伊以第一代史家群体为论述对象，借以阐明学派的治史趣味及理论取向，但略显不足：其一，总体勾勒了学派史家群像，却未能深究其史学思潮嬗变的兴衰之理；其二，未能涉及安德森、罗博瑟姆和霍尔等“新生代马克思主义”史家群体。

Since the birth of Marxist historiography in the 1840s, classical Marxism and Western historiographical trends have moved from confrontation and collision to dialogue and exchange. The formal formation, large-scale development, and intellectual currents of the British Marxist historiographical school have also undergone phased evolution, presenting a unique era character, historiographical connotation, and British coloring. This not only reflects a process of transformation from partisan historiography to scientific historiography and from the politicization of academia to the intellectualization of academia, but also signals the intergenerational replacement of historiographical concepts and the social continuity of historiographical practice, manifesting changes between two generations of historians in terms of theoretical origins, the political context of the New Left, and the forms of historiographical practice:

自19世纪40年代马克思主义史学诞生以来，经典马克思主义与西方史学思潮就从对抗碰撞走向对话交流，英国马克思主义史学派的正式形成、规模发展和思想流向也经历了阶段性演变，呈现了独特的时代品格、史学内涵和英国色彩，既体现了由党派史学向着科学史学转变、学术政治化走向学术思想化的历程，又昭示了史学观念的代际更替性和史学实践的社会连续性，表现了两代史家群体在理论发生渊源、新左派政治语境与史学实践形态上的变化：

First, the school's formation phase, marked by progress amidst twists and turns (1930–1950). This phase was both a period of theoretical paradox between partisan political orientation and political disenchantment, a period of the germination and initiation of group historiographical concepts and academic norms, and a period of transition in historiographical paradigms from empiricism to idealism and the budding emergence of the British Marxist theoretical tradition. For instance, Hobsbawm and E.P. Thompson actively participated in the Society for the Study of Labour History, practicing early research on labour history, socialist history, and working-class history, presenting an academic path from the traditional British labour history towards socio-economic history. Second, the school's development phase, marked by individuality amidst commonality (1960–1970). During this phase, the school's historiographical paradigm gradually matured. Hobsbawm and Thompson advocated for socio-economic history research under an interdisciplinary theoretical perspective, while the traditional Marxist economic explanatory model and values faced criticism and challenge. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Economic History Society dominated the deep integration of radical historiographical trends with the labour history tradition, with the living conditions of labourers becoming a key research object for historians. Ultimately, in the academic context of the cultural studies and linguistic turn of the 1970s and 1980s, beginning with Thompson's pioneering analysis of class consciousness formation, class as behavioral experience, and class culture, the first generation advocated for the "cultural turn" in British Marxist holistic social historiography, highlighting the "New Left" cultural critical consciousness and its progressive significance for later historiography. Third, the school's transformation period, marked by statics amidst dynamics (1980–1990). This was a period of gradual decline and resurgence of the school's historiographical trends. In the academic circumstances of social critique and theoretical debate with the second generation of historians, and against the backdrop of post-1970s European and American deconstructionist trends, the school sought anew the internal forces for historiographical change, deepening the Marxist historiographical tradition and new socio-cultural history research. During this phase, the school's evolution again shifted from empiricist-style holistic socio-historical writing towards idealist-style social critical theory, with the historiographical narratives from Thompson to Anderson serving as a driving factor and typical example.

第一，曲折中有前进的学派形成阶段(1930—1950)。该阶段既是党派政治取向与政治祛魅的理论悖论期，也是群体史学观念与学术规范的生成发轫期，更是史学范式由经验主义向理念主义转变、英国马克思主义理论传统的萌芽勃发期。比如霍布斯鲍姆和汤普森积极参与劳工史研究协会，践行早期劳工史、社会主义史和工人阶级史研究，呈现了由英国传统劳工史转向社会经济史取向的学术路径。第二，共性中显个性的学派发展阶段(1960—1970)。该阶段学派史学范式的日渐成熟，霍布斯鲍姆和汤普森等人提倡跨学科理论视野下的社会经济史研究，马克思主义传统经济解释模式和价值观遭受批判挑战。比如20世纪六七十年代的英国经济社会史学会，主导了激进史学思潮与劳工史学传统的深度结合，劳工生存状况成为史家重点关注的研究对象。最终在20世纪70—80年代的文化研究及语言学转向的学术语境中，自汤普森首创把阶级意识形成、阶级作为行为经验与阶级文化分析始，第一代群体倡导了英国马克思主义整体社会史学的“文化转向”研究，突显了“新左派”文化批评意识及其对后世史学的进步意义。第三，动态中有静态的学派转型时期(1980—1990)。这是学派史学思潮的渐趋沉寂与衰落复苏时期，学派前辈学者在与第二代史家群体展开社会批判与理论论争的学术境遇中，在70年代后欧美解构主义思潮的背景下，重新寻求史学变革的内在力量，深化了马克思主义史学传统及新社会文化史研究。该阶段学派流变再次由经验主义式的整体社会历史书写向理念主义式的社会批判理论递变，从汤普森到安德森的史学叙事是其中的动力因素及典型范例。

The second generation of historians adjusted their academic fields amidst the British historiographical "cultural turn," continued the theoretical legacy of Thompson's historiographical "cultural turn," demonstrated the practical achievements of British Marxist historiography, and catered to the developmental direction of new socio-cultural historiography. Based on a textual analysis and theoretical attribute analysis of "historical writings from Thompson to Anderson," combined with the symbiotic conditions and academic context of 20th-century Western new historiographical trends and the British Marxist historiographical school, changes in the theoretical attributes and internal logic of Marxist historiography between the two generations of historians can be discerned: First, both, on the basis of classical theory, valued the radical stance of continental European Marxist theory and emphasized the social function of historical explanation. This reflects, for instance, the academic origins and practical effects of the historical thought from Thompson to Anderson, and also mirrors the theoretical tendencies and frameworks of the British Marxist historians. Second, within the specific social radical historical background and the academic perspective of the British cultural studies tradition, one can discern the theoretical leadership of typical historians like Thompson and Anderson over British Marxist historiographical trends, thereby clarifying the holistic narrative, creative expression, and realistic tension of the New Left political "cultural" trend in historiographical practice, highlighting the cultural theory and traditional characteristics of the British Marxist historiographical paradigm.

第二代史家群体则在英国史学“文化转向”中调整学术领域，赓续汤普森史学“文化转向”的理论遗产，展现英国马克思主义史学的实践成就，迎合了新社会文化史学的发展路向。基于“从汤普森到安德森史学著述”文本分析与理论属性论析，结合20世纪西方新史学思潮与英国马克思主义史学派的共生条件与学术语境，可发现两代史家群体在马克思主义史学理论属性及其内在逻辑上的变化：第一，他们在经典理论基础上都重视欧陆马克思主义理论的激进立场，注重历史解释的社会功能，这反映了诸如从汤普森到安德森史学思想的学术源流和实践效应，也映照了英国马克思主义史家群体的理论倾向与思维框架。第二，在特定社会激进历史背景和英国文化研究传统的学术视野中，可发现从汤普森到安德森那样的典型史家对英国马克思主义史学思潮的理论引领力，进而明确新左派政治“文化”思潮在史学实践中的整体性叙述、创造性表达与现实性张力，彰显英国马克思主义史学范式的文化理论及传统特质。

It was precisely the pioneering and enterprising spirit of the two generations of historians within the school that gradually formed a historiographical school characterized by theoretical debate, created diverse historiographical practices, laid the foundation for a rich historiographical system, and presented the research fields and stage-specific features of the school’s succession. Whether it was the first generation of historians advocating an analytical perspective “from below” or the second generation emphasizing an interpretive dimension “from above,” they jointly constructed a trajectory of holistic social history. Within the multi-dimensional fields of Marxist historiography, they advanced research on topics such as class formation, labor life, social revolution, social resistance, and institutional change, thereby gaining universally significant historiographical experience and arriving at academically valuable conclusions of specific import. Regarding historical materialism and its theoretical attributes, the school’s firmly held conviction and guiding principle were: “If the materialist conception is not used as a guide to the study of history, but as a ready-made formula with which to tailor historical facts, it is transformed into its opposite.” [3]3 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 10 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), p. 583. They did not mechanically apply ready-made historical theories but instead promoted the continuation of the Marxist historiographical paradigm and innovated numerous analytical pathways within the new historiographical trend, such as the history of subaltern experience, labor social history, women’s and gender history, and new cultural history. In the view of Western scholars, among the two generations of British Marxist historians, particularly those regarded as typical British Marxist new social historians or members of the British new social history school, when confronting a series of shared theoretical premises and historical themes, they often arrived at a common historiographical theoretical orientation and formed a distinctive historiographical methodology. Kaye [4]4 Harvey J. Kaye, a historian of historiography, known for his work on British Marxist historians. believed that the school’s historiography made at least two theoretical contributions: first, broadening the concepts of class experience and class consciousness in historical research; second, reaffirming the dynamic role of the historical subject. They firmly adhered to the Marxist theoretical system centered on historical materialism, acknowledged the foundational role of the social mode of production and its operational structure, and consistently criticized the vulgar and rigid Marxist economic determinism. In the integration of theory and practice, the British Marxist historians deconstructed the mechanistic thinking of traditional Marxist historiography, reflected on its concept of linear progress in historical totality and the theoretical model of “economic base—superstructure,” and historically examined the dialectical relationship between social existence and social consciousness in their broad interconnections, emphasizing the reactive effect of social consciousness. From the perspective of theoretical orientation and practical concern, the advancement of the British Marxist historiographical enterprise and its extraordinary academic achievements may have benefited from the school’s sustained attention to British political culture and its in-depth reflection on theoretical propositions of history.

正是学派两代史家群体的开拓进取，逐渐形成了理论争辩性的史学流派，创造了多样性的史学实践，奠定了丰富性的史学体系，呈现了学派更替的研究领域及阶段特征。不论是第一代史家群体倡导“自下而上”的分析视角，还是第二代史家群体强调“自上而下”的阐释维度，都共同构建了整体社会史学路向，在马克思主义史学多维领域中，推进有关阶级形成、劳工生活、社会革命、社会反抗和制度变动等议题，获得了普遍意义的著史经验，得出了特定价值的学术结论。就唯物史观及其理论属性而言，学派坚信的理念与遵循的原则是：“如果不把唯物主义方法当做研究历史的指南，而把它当做现成的公式，按照它来剪裁各种历史事实，那它就会转变为自己的对立物。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第10卷，北京：人民出版社2009年版，第583页)他们不是套用现成的历史理论，而是促进马克思主义史学范式延续，实践创新了新史学潮流中的底层经验史、劳工社会史、妇女性别史、新文化史等诸多分析路径。在西方学者看来，在两代英国马克思主义史家群体中，特别是那些被视为英国马克思主义新社会史家，或者英国新社会史学派的典型史家，在面对系列共同的理论前提和历史主题时，经常能够达成共有的史学理论取向，形成颇具特色的史学方法论。凯伊认为该学派史学至少有两个理论贡献，一是拓宽历史研究中阶级经验及其意识概念，二是重新肯定历史主体的动力作用。他们坚信以唯物史观为核心的马克思主义理论体系，承认社会生产方式及其运行结构的基础作用，始终批判庸俗僵化马克思主义的经济决定论。在理论运用与实践结合上，英国马克思主义史家群体解构了传统马克思主义史学的机械思维，反思其历史总体性线性进步观念与“经济基础—上层建筑”的理论模型，在社会存在与社会意识的广泛联系中，历史地考察其辩证关系，强调社会意识的反作用。从理论取向与现实关怀看，英国马克思主义史学事业得以推进并取得非凡学术建树，根由或许得益于学派对英国政治文化的持续关注及历史理论命题的深入反思。

II. The Logic of Historical View and Intergenerational Differences in British Marxist Historiography

二 英国马克思主义史学的史观逻辑及代际差异

The theoretical orientation of the British Marxist historiographical school and the core value of its historiographical currents have been praised by the academic community. Whether it is Thompson’s “cultural turn” research, Hobsbawm’s “nationalism” research, or the historiographical concepts and theoretical orientations of other historians, the first generation of historians has undoubtedly gained more recognition and attention in both Chinese and Western academic circles. From the perspective of the relationship between historiographical currents and social currents, as well as historiographical culture and social culture, the two generations of historians and their forms of historiographical practice jointly enacted the intergenerational succession of the school and the inherent logic of its historiographical paradigm. In terms of the logic of historical view and types of historiographical writing, historian identity and historiographical value orientation, the school’s body of works presents and reflects the transformation of historiographical thought and the style of social culture within the British zeitgeist and the changing historical landscape.

英国马克思主义史学派的理论取向及史学思潮的核心价值为学界称道，不管是汤普森的“文化转向”研究，还是霍布斯鲍姆的“民族主义”研究，或是其他史家的史学观念及理论取向，第一代史家群体无疑在中西学术界获得了更多关注认同。从史学思潮与社会思潮、史学文化与社会文化的关系看，两代史家群体及其史学实践形态，共同演绎了学派的代际更替及其史学范式的内涵逻辑，在史观逻辑与史学书写类型、史家身份认同与史学价值取向等方面，学派著作体系呈现和映衬了英国时代精神及社会历史变局中的史学思想嬗变与社会文化风格。

First, the school’s development manifests as intergenerational inheritance, theoretical lineage, and academic shifts, realizing a transition from the holistic social historical writing of the first generation’s Marxist historiographical tradition to the social theoretical critique type of the second generation’s Marxist historiographical innovation. This is expressed in the intergenerational inheritance of the two generations of historians and the shaping function of their historiographical concepts on social currents of thought. Tracing its roots: first, Marx and Engels’ long-term theoretical writing experience and social practice activities in Britain laid the theoretical atmosphere and academic tradition of Marxism; second, the tradition of writing “people’s history” in modern British historiography and its continuous intergenerational transmission influenced the academic concepts and historiographical practice of British Marxist historians. Precisely benefiting from the spirit of “tradition and change” in historical writing, the British Marxist historiographical paradigm was practically embodied through the “systematic establishment and application of the theoretical method of ‘looking at history from below’.” [5]5 A phrase summarizing the methodological shift toward studying history from the perspective of ordinary people rather than elites. From then on, most British Marxist historians attached importance to the significant driving role of the subaltern masses in the historical development process. On the basis of Marxist historical materialism, this gradually expanded and evolved into a transformation of the British Marxist historiographical paradigm that emphasized the combination of writing the historical experience of the lower classes with an analytical perspective on upper-class social history.

第一，学派发展表现为代际传承、理论脉络及学术转向，实现了由第一代马克思主义史学传统的整体社会历史书写转向第二代马克思主义史学创新的社会理论批判类型的过渡，表现为两代史家群体的代际传承及其史学观念对社会思潮的塑造功能。究其根源，一是马克思恩格斯在英国长期的理论著述经验与社会实践活动，奠定了马克思主义的理论风气与学术传统；二是现代英国史学的书写“人民史”传统及精神世代赓续，影响了英国马克思主义史家的学术理念及史学实践。恰是受益历史书写上“传统与变革”精神，英国马克思主义史学范式经由“系统的创立和运用‘从底层向上看’的理论方法”得到实践体现。自此英国马克思主义史家大都重视底层民众在历史发展过程中的重要推动作用，在马克思主义唯物史观的基础上，逐渐扩展并演化为一种强调下层民众历史经验书写与上层社会历史分析视角相结合的英国马克思主义史学范式嬗变。

Second, British social and political currents of thought gave rise to the disciplinary spiritual constitution and social value demands of the Marxist historian community, strengthened the theoretical foundation and explanatory power of the school’s historiographical currents, and promoted the efficiency and power reconstruction of their corresponding political practice. As Eliot [6]6 Gregory Elliott, a scholar of British Marxism and the New Left. recognized, the overall intellectual portrait and individual academic endowments of the British Marxist historiographical school were not only deeply influenced by Marxist theory but also closely related to the New Left crisis and its thought. However, an examination based on the British New Left movement provides important political resources and social context for in-depth study of this historiographical school, thereby helping to elucidate the historiographical interests, theoretical orientations, and academic aspirations of the two generations of historians. From the symbiotic relationship among the British New Left movement, the development of social currents of thought, and the successive emergence of historiographical currents, historians, literary theorists, and social thinkers played an important driving role in the development of British social movements. In fact, this is closely related to the early British socialist tradition. Around 1956, the first generation of historians actively participated in the British New Left movement and related social practice movements. The school’s enthusiasm for theoretical innovation was greatly stimulated, academic thought creation received maximum encouragement, and historians’ writings emerged in a burst. The successive combination of social movements and historiographical practice shaped the overall positive image of the historiographical community in terms of basic historiographical concepts, different professional fields, and diverse historiographical works: Dobb was renowned for studying the economic forms and historical processes of capitalism; Hill devoted himself to the history of the 17th-century English Revolution; Hilton focused on feudalism and peasant issues; Hobsbawm established a tradition of holistic social history based on a subaltern perspective; Thompson was famous for his study of the formation of the English working class; Williams was known for studying social and cultural history; and Saville achieved remarkable results in the study of labor movements and socio-economic history. With changes in the international and domestic political situation, and due to differences in family background, cultural education, and individual endowments, the research fields, historiographical views, and academic positions of the first generation of historians were not entirely consistent. Compared with the second generation, they exhibited greater internal differences. This intergenerational difference essentially reflected the historiographical writing styles and historiographical interpretive pathways of the two generations of historians, as can be seen in Thompson’s historiographical discourse: “To work as a Marxist historian in England means to work within a tradition founded by Marx, enriched by the independent and supplementary insights of William Morris, and enlarged by the specialized studies of more recent figures.” [7]7 E.P. Thompson, *The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays* (London: Merlin Press, 1978), p. 333. However, within this marked divergence, there also lay the basic premises and common components of the school’s theory, reflecting the critical selection and ultimate convergence of the theoretical guidance and philosophical premises of the historical research tradition of the two generations of historians. As the Canadian Marxist historian Palmer argued, the two generations of historians as a whole changed people’s views on British past history, and their achievements demonstrated to the international historiographical community the power of historical materialism as an analytical tool.

第二，英国社会政治思潮催生了马克思主义史家群体的学科精神构成与社会价值诉求，强化了学派史学思潮的理论基础及解释能力，促进了其相应政治实践的行动效率及力量重构。犹如艾略特所认识那样，英国马克思主义史学派的整体思想群像与个性学术禀赋，既深受马克思主义理论影响，又都与新左派危机及思想密切关系。然而立足英国新左派运动的考察，则为深入研究该史学流派提供重要的政治资源与社会语境，继而有助于阐明两代史家群体的治史趣味、理论取向和学术诉求。从英国新左派运动、社会思潮发展和史学思潮迭出的共生关系看，历史学家、文学理论家及社会思想家对英国社会运动的发展起到了重要推动作用。实际上这与英国早期社会主义传统关系密切，到1956年前后，第一代史家群体积极投入英国新左派运动及相关社会实践运动，学派理论创新热情极度焕发，学术思想创造最大激励，史家著述成就涌现井喷。社会运动与史学实践的相续结合，在基本史学观念、不同专业领域和多元史学著作方面，形塑了史学共同体的整体良好群像：既有多布以研究资本主义经济形态及历史进程而闻名于世，也有希尔致力英国17世纪革命史领域，希尔顿以封建主义与农民问题为学术旨趣，更有霍布斯鲍姆基于底层视野的整体社会史研究传统，汤普森以英国工人阶级形成研究而著称，还有以研究社会文化史而闻名的威廉斯，以及后有萨维尔在劳工运动和社会经济史研究领域成果斐然。随着国际国内政治局势的变化，概因家庭背景、文化教育和禀赋个性的差异，第一代史家的研究领域、史学观点和学术立场也非完全一致，相较于第二代史家则更具内在差异性，这种代际差异实质反映了两代史家群体的史学书写风格及史学解释路径，这从汤普森史学论述中可见一斑：“在英国，以一位马克思主义历史学家的身份工作，它意味着在马克思所奠定的一种传统内工作，这种传统因威廉·莫里斯独立和补充性的见识而得以丰富，因近来一些人的专门研究而得以扩大。”[E.P.汤普森：《理论的贫困及其他论文》(E.P.Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays),伦敦：梅林出版社1978年版，第333页]然而在此迥然有别中，也蕴含着学派理论的基础前提与普遍构件，体现了两代史家群体历史研究传统的理论指导与哲学前提的批判选择及殊途同归。正如加拿大马克思主义史学家帕尔默所认为，两代史家群体从整体上改变了人们对英国过去历史的看法，他们的成果向国际史学界展示出历史唯物主义作为分析工具的威力。

Third, the British tradition of cultural studies and the cultural turn in historiographical thought determined that two generations of Marxist historians were bound to pay greater attention to cultural mechanisms and psychological factors in historical change. It was especially the first generation of historians that, through this, laid the foundation for the school’s paradigm shift from a traditional socioeconomic historiographical orientation to a new sociocultural historiographical orientation. From the perspective of historical representation, E. P. Thompson undoubtedly set a historiographical model and academic example. In *The Making of the English Working Class* and his theory of the interpretation of “class,” he argued that only by integrating the analysis of cultural-psychological elements within a specific historical object with traditional economic, political, and other factors, and by providing a more reasonable comprehensive explanation for the historical experience of social groups and individual lives, could one come closer to the true face of historical reality. Compared with Thompson’s definition of the concept of “class,” which placed class consciousness and its ideology in a prominently important position, Eric Hobsbawm held that one of the historian’s tasks was to reveal the lives and thoughts of ordinary people, to clarify what people expected from an ideal society, or from a tolerable social reality and its genuine demands, and what they actually wanted to obtain from such a society. Research shows that both generations of British Marxist historians emphasized that, in order to understand the functional role of social elements in historical development, one should pay attention to whether social cultural traditions and social psychological factors are directly related to social change. As one commentator put it, to better answer such questions, historians must understand what the people think and believe, must clarify the role of culture in determining mutual identification among groups and the order of social strata, and thereby understand the motivating effect of cultural psychology on action.

第三，英国文化研究传统与史学思潮的文化转向，决定了两代马克思主义史家群体必然给予历史变迁中的文化机制、心态因素更多重视，尤其第一代史家群体籍此奠定了学派由传统社会经济史学取向到新社会文化史学取向的范式转换。从历史表述看，汤普森无疑树立了史学典型与学术榜样，在《英国工人阶级的形成》及其“阶级”阐释理论中，他认为唯有将特定历史对象中的文化心理要素分析与传统的经济、政治等因素融合，为社会群体和个人生活的历史经验提供更合理的综合解释，才能更接近历史事实的真实面貌。相较于汤普森“阶级”概念界定将阶级觉悟及其意识形态放在了突出重要位置，霍布斯鲍姆则认为史家任务之一就是揭示普通百姓的生活和思想，弄清人民对一个理想社会，或者可以忍受的社会现实及其真正要求是什么，他们到底想从这样的社会中得到什么。研究可见两代英国马克思主义史家群体强调，为了理解在历史发展中社会要素的功能作用，就应重视社会文化传统和社会心理因素是否与社会变迁存在直接关联。恰如论者所言，为更好回答类似问题，史家必须了解人民的所思所想，必须明晰文化在确定群体间相互认同与社会阶层秩序的作用，从而了解文化心理对于行动的激励作用。

From the perspective of the traditional origins of theory and the continuity of thought, in British historiography and cultural studies, the intellectual creation and historiographical practice of the first generation of British historians made important contributions to changing the “theoretical poverty” of British Marxism and to promoting the consciousness of “cultural critique.” The commentator argues that, under the continuously intensifying influence of the British Marxist historiographical trend, “theory, history, and culture” once became powerful terms in British historiographical and sociocultural trends. Historians, cultural scholars, and scholars from other disciplines, whether from the tradition of cultural criticism, from the perspective of historical theory, from the angle of social reflection, or from an interdisciplinary perspective, jointly advanced British Marxist cultural criticism research and elevated the academic enterprise of the British Marxist historiographical school. This is mainly reflected in the following: first, breaking free from the rigid dogmas of Stalinism and establishing a scientific attitude toward Marxism became the prerequisite for all theoretical innovation and practical development; second, constructing the theoretical form of “cultural Marxism”—this theoretical creation was inseparable from the efforts of two generations of historians who, combining British realities, studied British historical issues under the guidance of Marxist theory; third, putting forward the concept of “socialist humanism” and its social historical influence, holding that humanism and social moral norms occupied an important position in socialist revolution and British social transformation.

从理论的传统渊源与思想的传承赓续看，在英国史学界和文化学界，英国第一代史学家群体的思想创造与史学实践为改变英国马克思主义“理论贫困”面貌、为促进“文化批判”自觉做出了重要贡献。论者认为，在英国马克思主义史学思潮不断强化的影响下，“理论、历史和文化”一度成为英国史学思潮与社会文化思潮中的强大术语，历史学家、文化学家和其他学科学者，或从文化批评传统，或从历史理论视角，或从社会反思角度，或从跨学科视野，共同推进了英国马克思主义文化批评研究，提升了英国马克思主义史学派的学术事业。主要体现在：一则，摆脱斯大林主义的僵化教条，树立对待马克思主义的科学态度，成为一切理论创新与实践发展的前提；二则，构建“文化马克思主义”理论形态，这种理论创设与两代史家群体结合英国实际，在马克思主义理论指导下研究英国历史问题的努力分不开；三则，提出“社会主义人道主义”观念及社会历史影响，认为人道主义和社会道德规范在社会主义革命与英国社会变革中占有重要地位。

Fourth, there were considerable differences between the two generations of historians in historiographical orientation, academic views, and the field of social activities. From the perspective of the intergenerational shift in historian identity, political stance, and theoretical identification, most members underwent a transformation from radicalism to communism and then to Marxism. In the 1950s and 1960s, changes in the international political environment and academic atmosphere led to political polarization within the British school, which prompted a shift in historiographical value orientation and gave rise to a new generation of Marxist historians. Some of them left the Communist Party organization, while others were not Communist Party members, yet they were renowned for adhering to the Marxist theoretical tradition. From the perspective of the school’s intergenerational transition and the continuity of its thought, it is necessary to emphasize here the historiographical practice, theoretical logic, and social critical effects of the second generation of historians. Most of them were born in the 1930s and 1940s; the members were mostly radical New Left undergraduates and graduate students from universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics. In the early period of the rise of the British New Left movement, they fought side by side with the first generation of historians. Subsequently, influenced by the complex, vigorous, and tumultuous revolutionary movements of the Third World, these young students acquired a more international perspective and exhibited a more reflective Marxist theoretical demand in their socio-historical consciousness and political ideal goals. This was markedly different from the older generation of historians, who focused more on the domestic horizon and the native soil of British history. Although both generations of historians were personally immersed in the international political environment of the 1956 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Hungarian Uprising, the Suez Canal Crisis, and the first Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and most of them truly experienced the severe setbacks of Soviet socialist practice and felt the disillusionment and dual tragedy of Western liberalism, in political movements and historiographical practice, the second generation of historians displayed a more radical tendency, seeking to adopt more radical New Left movement practices and socio-historical explanatory models than their predecessors. With the rise and fall of the British New Left movement in the 1960s and 1970s, the second generation of historians, such as Perry Anderson, soon moved away from radical politics, focusing on academia and expanding the field of historiographical practice. Their thematic scope touched upon many disciplinary theories, including philosophy, political science, economics, cultural studies, and history: first, research on the social and cultural characteristics of Britain and Europe, the path of social development, and theories of social formations; second, research on New Left political theory, party political propositions, and the Western Marxist tradition; third, focusing on the transition from modernity to postmodernity in society and on historical and practical issues, exploring the relationship between historical origins, historical thought, social culture, and social change. As typical representatives of the second generation of historians, they published papers and books, achieved new theoretical constructions, expanded new academic paradigms, and opened up a new situation in historiography.

第四，两代史家群体在史学取向、学术见解和社会活动领域都存在较大差异，从史家身份、政治立场和理论认同的代际转向看，成员大都经历了从激进主义到共产主义及马克思主义的转变。20世纪五六十年代国际政治环境和学术氛围发生变化，英国学派内部产生了政治立场分化，促成了史学价值取向转换，涌现了新生代马克思主义史家群体，他们或脱离共产党组织，或具非共产党员身份，却以遵循马克思主义理论传统著称于世。从学派代际转换及其思想赓续看，这里要强调第二代史家群体的史学实践、理论逻辑及社会批判效应。他们大都生于20世纪三四十年代，成员多是牛津、剑桥、伦敦经济学院等高校激进新左派本科生和研究生，英国新左派运动兴起初期都曾与第一代史家群体并肩战斗。随后，由于受到错综复杂激烈蓬勃的第三世界革命运动影响，这些青年学生拥有了更具国际化的眼光，在社会历史意识及政治理想目标上表现出更具反思性的马克思主义理论诉求，这与前辈史家更多聚焦国内视域与英国历史本土有着明显不同。虽然两代史家群体身临其境于1956年苏共二十大、匈牙利事件、苏伊士运河事件和第一次核裁军运动等国际政治环境，大都切实体验了苏联社会主义实践的严重挫折，感受了西方自由主义的理想幻灭及双重悲剧，但在政治运动和史学实践上，第二代史家群体却更具激进主义倾向，试图寻求比前辈史家更为激进的新左派运动实践方式与社会历史解释模式。伴随六七十年代英国新左派运动实践的兴衰沉寂，安德森等第二代史家群体旋即远离激进政治，专注学术与开拓史学实践领域，主题论域触及哲学、政治学、经济学、文化学和历史学等诸多学科理论：一是英国及欧洲社会文化特性、社会发展道路和社会形态理论研究；二是新左派政治理论、政党政治主张和西方马克思主义传统研究；三是聚焦社会的现代性到后现代性及历史现实问题，探究历史源流、历史思想、社会文化与社会变革的关系。作为第二代史家群体典型代表，他们发表论文，出版著作，造就理论新建树，拓展学术新范式，开创史学新局面。

Overall, from the perspective of the shifts in historiographical thought and the direction of social thought, the trends of the times seem to continuously demonstrate that the British Marxist historiographical trend also contains conceptual conflicts of change and constancy brought about by epochal transitions, presenting an overall picture of intertwined ideas and dynamic transformation. By 1962, marked by Anderson’s assumption of the editorship of *New Left Review*, the political “rift” between the two generations of historians had become an ideological “chasm.” The second generation of historians turned toward the lineage of Continental Marxism, with Althusser’s “structuralist Marxism” becoming the direct theoretical source of their principles for writing history. They positioned themselves as critics who had sublated the ideological weapon of “cultural Marxism,” constructing what they believed to be a more revolutionary and scientific new form of Marxist theory, which inevitably led to occasional deviations in theoretical stance. Faced with the conceptual critiques and theoretical tendencies of the younger generation of historians, Thompson also responded tit-for-tat, even declaring Althusserianism to be “the last Stalinism, the ideology of theorization” (E.P. Thompson, *The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays*, p. 182). However, no one can simply oppose the structuralist transformation to “cultural Marxism” when viewing the Marxist trend. In historiographical writing and social practice, the second generation of historians, undergoing a paradigm shift in theory, essentially drew theoretical resources from “structuralist Marxism,” raising the level of theorization in contemporary British historical research. While inheriting the methodological traditions of their predecessors, they continuously attempted practical innovations. For example, Anderson achieved excellence through his study of new Western political history, the history of the British workers’ movement, and the history of European social formations; Blackburn gained renown in the historical field for his study of the history of slavery in the Americas; Rowbotham’s reputation grew steadily through her research on gender and feminist historiography; and Samuel, long overlooked, attracted attention by writing people’s history from the perspective of new cultural history. Thus, they achieved iterative progress in the Marxist historiographical paradigm. In reality, the two generations of Marxist historians had complex interrelations. First, as a new force in post-war British historiography, the second generation of historians gained widespread recognition through the 1960s British “History Workshop Movement” in the field of Marxist feminist historiography, contributing to the revival and dissemination of British feminist historiography after the 1970s. Second, as rising historians, social theorists, and cultural critics, the second generation of historians, within the existing academic territory of “cultural Marxism,” eliminated its tendencies toward empiricism and non-theorization, making the school’s historiographical trend more critically conscious and prominent in the international academic community.

总体上，从史学思想的变动与社会思想的走向看，时代潮流似乎不断证明，英国马克思主义史学思潮也存在着因时代更替的变与不变的观念冲突，呈现了思想交错和动态变迁的整体景象。到1962年以安德森任职《新左派评论》主编为标志，两代史家群体的政治“裂痕”变成了思想“鸿沟”,第二代史家群体转向了欧陆马克思主义谱系，阿尔都塞“结构主义马克思主义”成为其治史原则的直接理论来源，他们以批判、扬弃“文化马克思主义”思想武器自居，建构自认为更加革命与科学的新马克思主义理论形态，难免导致理论立场时有偏离。面对新生代史家群体的观念批判及理论倾向，虽然汤普森也针锋相对甚至宣称阿尔都塞主义是“最后的斯大林主义，理论化的意识形态”(E.P.汤普森：《理论的贫困及其他论文》,第182页)。但是任何人都不能简单把结构主义转型与“文化马克思主义”对立而看待马克思主义思潮。在史学著述与社会实践中，处于理论范式转变的第二代史家群体实质上从“结构主义马克思主义”中汲取了理论资源，提高了当代英国史学研究的理论化程度，在方法论上继承前辈史家传统的基础上，不断尝试实践创新。譬如，安德森以研究西方新政治史、英国工人运动史、欧洲社会形态发展史而成就卓越，布莱克本以研究美洲奴隶制史而蜚声史坛，罗博瑟姆以社会性别与女性主义史学研究而声誉渐隆，甚至长期被忽视的萨缪尔则从新文化史视野书写人民历史而引人注目，由此获得了马克思主义史学范式的迭代进步。实际上两代马克思主义史家群体存在着错综复杂的关系。一是，第二代史家群体作为战后英国史学界的一种新生力量，在马克思主义女性主义史学领域里，经由20世纪60年代英国“历史工作坊运动”声名远播，对70年代后英国女性主义史学复兴及传播做出了贡献；二是，第二代史家群体作为后起的历史学家、社会理论家和文化批判家，在“文化马克思主义”既有学术疆域中，革除其经验主义倾向与非理论化趋向，使得学派史学思潮更具批判意识而凸显于国际学界。

III. The Academic Trajectory of British Marxist Historiographical Research

三 英国马克思主义史学研究的学术路向

From the perspective of historiographical comparison and holism, relevant research in domestic and international academic circles to date has generally touched upon the historical understanding and historiographical cognition of the relevant school and its historiographical trend. However, most have not yet proceeded from the overall perspective of the academic lineage of the two generations of Marxist historians and a comparative analysis of conceptual shifts to comprehensively and systematically explore the academic value and academic trajectory inherent in British Marxist historiography. Looking at Chinese academic circles, surveying the few relevant studies in Hong Kong and Taiwan, representative works include Chen Weihong’s popular article “British Marxism” and Zhou Liangkai’s book *The Dialectic of Historiographical Thought and Realistic Consciousness: A Study of Modern British Left-Wing Historians*. The latter focuses on the first generation of historians and their basic historiographical concepts; apart from this, no innovative results have been seen. Relevant research in mainland Chinese academic circles in the 1980s and 1990s manifested at two levels: First, foundational introductory works on historiography and translations of works, either from the perspective of relevant academic history or from the angle of the relationship between typical historians’ cases and the trend of new Western historiography, initially exploring the theoretical conceptions and academic achievements of the school’s historians. Representative scholars such as Chen Qineng, Yu Pei, Pang Zhuoheng, Zhang Guangzhi, Jiang Peng, Liu Jun, Xu Hao, Qian Chengdan, and Cheng Handa did much work in this regard. Second, dozens of young and middle-aged scholars, including Qiao Ruijin, Zhang Liang, He Wuyi, Liu Yaohui, and Chu Qingdong, respectively, through academic interviews, thematic papers, academic reviews, and book forms, focused on discussions of typical historians of the school, yielding slightly more than 60 related papers and several academic monographs. Master’s and doctoral dissertations from university research institutions selected topics focusing on historians such as Thompson, Hobsbawm, Hill, Hilton, Anderson, Saville, and Nairn. These studies, from different angles and academic orientations, have preliminarily revealed the overall circumstances, ideological characteristics, and academic achievements of this school.

从史学比较与整体主义的角度看，迄今为止，国内外学界的相关研究大体触及了有关学派及史学思潮的历史认识和史学认知，但是大都尚未从两代马克思主义史家群体学术脉络的整体视角和观念转变的比较分析出发，全面系统探讨英国马克思主义史学所蕴含的学术价值与学术路向。就中国学界看，概览港台学界为数不多的相关研究，代表性论著有陈玮鸿的普及性文章《英国马克思主义》和周樑楷的著作《史学思想与现实意识的辩证：近代英国左派史家的研究》,后者集中讨论了第一代史家群体及其基本史学观念，除此尚未见有创新性成果。大陆学界20世纪八九十年代的相关研究表现为两个层面：其一，基础性的史学概论著作及著作翻译，或从相关学术史角度，或从典型史家个案与西方新史学潮流的关系角度，初探学派史家的理论构想与学术成就，陈启能、于沛、庞卓恒、张广智、姜芃、刘军、徐浩、钱乘旦和程汉大等代表学者在这方面做了许多工作；其二，乔瑞金、张亮、贺五一、刘耀辉、初庆东等数十位中青年学者分别通过学术专访、专题论文、学术评述与著作形式，聚焦学派典型史家的讨论，略有60余篇相关论文与多部学术著作。高校科研机构相关硕博士学位论文，选题聚焦了汤普森、霍布斯鲍姆、希尔、希尔顿、安德森、萨维尔、奈恩等史家研究。这些研究从不同角度与学术取向上，初步展现了该学派的整体际遇、思想特征与学术成就。

Since entering the 21st century, Chinese academic circles have increasingly paid attention to the historiographical achievements and academic contributions of the British Marxist historians. The first generation of historians, such as Hobsbawm, has consistently received greater attention, laying an academic foundation for deeply revealing the intergenerational transmission of the school’s evolution and the ideological logic of its historiographical trend. However, systematic exploration of its historiographical theory and core concepts remains insufficient. For instance, how the concept of time—“past, present, and future”—achieves historical representation and practical expression in British Marxist historiographical texts, and what theoretical logic and historiographical narrative it forms, such investigations are still lacking. The reasons are: first, limited by research objectives and subjective orientations, scholars have neglected systematic comparisons of typical historians and the overall group portrait of the school from a long-term perspective; second, limited by original archival materials and academic research conditions, there is a lack of in-depth analysis of the second generation of historians and intergenerational comparisons. For example, within the context of social systems and academic environments, based on an overall perspective of Marxist historiography, how to deeply analyze the complex facets and internal logic of the school as a whole and its typical historians during the process of the rise of socio-economic history in the 1960s and 1970s, the revival of socio-cultural history in the 1970s and 1980s, and the “cultural turn” of new social history—all these issues and related fields should receive attention and concern in the reflection on historiographical theory and in the practice of historical research.

进入21世纪以来，中国学界越发关注英国马克思主义史家群体的著史成就及学术贡献，霍布斯鲍姆等第一代史家群体始终受到更多的重视，为深入揭示学派流变的代际传承和史学思潮的思想逻辑，奠定了学术基础，但系统探讨其史学理论及核心观念的研究却不充分。譬如有关“过去、现在和未来”时间观念在英国马克思主义史学文本中如何获得历史表现与实践表达，形成了怎样的理论逻辑与史学叙述，这类考察尚显不足。究其原因，一是，限于研究目标和主观取向，学者忽视了在长时段视野下，针对学派典型史家与整体群像的系统比较；二是，限于原始档案资料和学术研究条件，缺乏对于学派第二代史家群体的深入分析与代际比较。例如，在社会制度与学术环境的语境中，基于马克思主义史学的整体视野，如何深入分析在从20世纪六七十年代社会经济史学兴起、七八十年代社会文化史学复兴及新社会史学的“文化转向”过程中，学派整体与典型史家的复杂面相及内在逻辑，凡此问题及相关领域都应在史学理论反思及历史研究实践中给予重视与关注。

Looking at current domestic and international research and dynamic trends, on the one hand, foreign scholarship has taken the lead in focusing on the life circumstances, teacher-student lineages, family academic traditions, and textual analysis of typical historians of the school. This research orientation itself is deeply influenced by the social, political, and cultural context in which the school’s historians’ concepts are rooted in British empiricism and partisan radicalism. Hence, existing foreign achievements exhibit multiple perspectives and complex characteristics. On the other hand, since the 1980s, domestic academic circles have seen the publication of works on academic thought issues and related treatises concerning Thompson, Hobsbawm, Anderson, and the differences between the two generations of historians. Whether in terms of the quantity of results or their breadth and depth, further work is needed. In the interactive variation of social trends and academic trends, based on the theoretical perspective of Marxism, the future trends of relevant research at home and abroad should be: first, combining the social and historical environment to examine its political traditions and the composition of its historical views, continuing to focus on and deepen the study of the historiographical thought connotations of typical historians; second, emphasizing, from the perspective of the interaction between radical history and historiographical culture, comparative studies of specific historians and research on the dissemination of historiographical thought; third, within the intergenerational transmission of historiographical trends and the genealogical transformation of historiographical concepts, attaching importance to the study of ideological comparisons, contemporary value, and social impact of the two generations of historians.

就当前国内外研究及动态趋势看，一方面，国外率先注重学派典型史家的人生境遇、师承谱系、家学渊源及著述分析，这种研究取向本身也深受学派史家观念根植于英国经验主义和党派激进主义的社会政治文化影响，因而国外既有成果表现出多重视角与复杂性特征；另一方面，20世纪80年代起，国内学界就有关于汤普森、霍布斯鲍姆、安德森等及其两代史家群体差异的学术思想问题和相关论著问世，无论成果数量还是广度深度，都有待深入。在社会思潮与学术思潮的交互变奏中，基于马克思主义的理论视野，国内外相关研究的未来趋势应是：第一，结合社会历史环境，考察其政治传统及史观构成，继续关注和深化有关典型史家的史学思想内涵；第二、强调在激进历史与史学文化的互动视角中，针对具体史家比较与史学思想的传播研究；第三、在史学思潮的代际传承及史学观念的谱系嬗变中，重视两代史家群体的思想比较、当代价值及社会影响研究。

The future path of research on British Marxist historiography depends on how thoroughly we explicate its theoretical tradition, the logic of its historical views, its practical characteristics, and its academic trajectory. Continuing to attend to the intergenerational succession of two generations of British Marxist historians requires constructing two academic premises. First, emphasis must be placed on consolidating the foundation of historical materials, collecting and organizing primary documentary sources. For example, excavating the archival files of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the institutions of the school, organizing the primary historical materials of academic exchanges and daily social activities both within and outside the school, and, from the perspective of empathetic understanding of the research subjects, paying attention to biographical studies of the historian group and the organization and interpretation of their writings and works. Second, it is necessary to construct a theoretical-methodological perspective, broaden the analytical horizon of the objects of study, and comprehensively analyze the life circumstances, academic politics, and historiographical concepts of representative historians. For instance, from the perspective of the logic of historical concepts and historiographical epistemology, drawing on the theoretical methods of the social sciences to construct analytical models, thereby penetrating the theoretical logic and century-spanning transformations of the two generations of historian groups. The research orientation and future path of the school can be unfolded in two aspects. First, strengthen the research approach of global history of historiography. For example, from the perspective of historiographical reception and the dissemination of influence, sort out the role of professional journals such as *Radical History Review*, *New Left Review*, and *Past & Present* as arenas of contention and vehicles of ideas in presenting and publishing the works and historiographical thought of British Marxist historians. It is also necessary, from the perspective of the transformation of historiographical concepts and the dissemination of historiographical practice, to focus on a longer historical period and systematically clarify the value reception and overseas repercussions of the school’s historiography within Chinese and Western academic circles. In recent years, some scholars have examined the founding process, editorial aims, and subsequent evolution of *Past & Present*, which not only helps to clarify the developmental landscape of British Marxist historiography but also aids in understanding the concepts and practices of British Marxist historical writing. Second, emphasize the research path of global intellectual history. Based on the global distribution and influence of Marxism, analyze the rise and fall, strengths and weaknesses of the British Marxist historiographical school, sort out the intellectual evolution of the two generations of historian groups, and highlight the disciplinary contributions of their historiographical practice.

英国马克思主义史学研究的未来进路，取决于如何深入阐释英国马克思主义史学的理论传统、史观逻辑、实践特征及学术路向，继续关注两代英国马克思主义史家群体的代际更替需要构建两个学术前提：一是重视夯实史料基础，收集整理原始文献资料。比如挖掘英国共产党与学派机构的档案文件，整理学派内外学术交往和社会活动日常的原始史料，从研究对象的同情共感角度，重视包括关于史家群体的传记研究及著述文献的整理阐释。二是构建理论方法视域，拓宽对象分析视野，综合分析典型史家的人生际遇、学术政治及其史学观念。比如从历史观念逻辑与史学认识论上，借鉴社会科学理论方法，构建分析模式，透视两代史学群体的理论逻辑及世纪嬗变。学派研究取向及未来路径，可从两方面逐次展开：一则，强化全球史学史的研究进路。比如从史学接受与影响传播的角度，梳理《激进历史评论》《新左派评论》《过去与现在》等专业期刊在展示与发表英国马克思主义史家论著及史学思想的阵地交锋作用与观念载体功能。还应该从史学观念嬗变与史学实践传播的角度，着眼较长的历史时段，系统明晰其学派史学在中西方学术界的价值接受及域外反响。近年有学者考察《过去与现在》的创刊历程、办刊主旨及后续演变，既有助于廓清英国马克思主义史学的发展图景，也有助于了解英国马克思主义史学书写的观念与实践。二则，重视全球思想史的研究路径。基于马克思主义的全球分布及影响传播，分析英国马克思主义史学派的兴衰利弊，梳理两代史家群体的思想流变，彰显其史学实践的学科贡献。

In short, discovering new materials, shifting perspectives, applying new methods, selecting and exploring the typical historical views of historians within the school, reading their representative historical works, analyzing their historiographical context and concepts, and revealing their intellectual characteristics and academic interests remain essential tasks in studying the changes in the currents of British Marxist historiography. Therefore, deepening research on the transformation of the Marxist historiographical paradigm requires continued attention to the bidirectional dimension of comparative analysis. First, from the level of global history of historiography, deepen the historical logic and empirical analysis of the school’s historiographical context and its social generative context. The currents of British Marxist historiography not only originated from the specific social and historical era of Britain but also propelled the replacement of British social currents. The historians of the school exerted a subtle yet significant influence on the cultural interpretation and socio-cultural composition of specific British social history. In the process of the modernization of British historiography, the school’s historians focused on real-world politics and social issues, analyzed and understood the social and historical changes in which they were situated, and constructed reasonable social historical theories and scientific historiographical epistemological understanding. Their creative historical understanding, capacity for action, and methods of thinking in historiographical practice undoubtedly played a directional role in revising socio-cultural currents and their developmental direction, as well as in forming a new historical ethos. Second, from the level of global intellectual history, deepen the analysis of the causes and mechanisms of the institutional mechanisms and intergenerational transformation of British Marxist historiography. From the perspective of the rise, fall, transformation, and developmental dynamics of historiographical currents, the driving factors for the intergenerational succession of the two generations of British Marxist historian groups stem not only from the disciplinary cultural turn of Western new historiography but also from the theoretical self-reflection and practical tension of Marxist historiographical currents in responding to Western social changes and undertaking historical action. Over a considerable period, just as Thompson and the “cultural turn” of British Marxist new social historiography profoundly influenced overseas historiographical currents, the currents of British Marxist historiography were also widely disseminated and exerted a global impact. The evolutionary history of the school demonstrates the practical renewal and empirical pathways of Western historiographical paradigms since the 1960s, embodies the historiographical strategies and epistemological demands of Marxist theoretical reflection, and highlights the theoretical logic and conscious guidance of dialectical materialism and historical materialism for the two generations of historian groups and their historiographical practice. In terms of the richness, diversity, and sociality of academic thought, regarding issues such as the transition from feudalism to capitalism and the possibility and legitimacy of socialist revolution, there were intense debates between the old and new Left historians. On the one hand, the two generations of historian groups were also interconnected and mutually compatible based on Marxist theoretical methods and scholarly traditions; on the other hand, certain estrangements and distinct manifestations in the historical views and historiographical concepts of the two generations of historian groups were precisely the possible pathways for their pursuit of historiographical functional effects and the convergence of their historiographical practice methods through different means. From the perspective of the intra- and extra-school context and comparative historiography, the intellectual differences between British Marxist historians and non-Marxist historians, as well as the spiritual resonance and theoretical divergences among Marxist historians of the same or different eras, coexisted in opposition. What still requires attention and is worth exploring is that, as a Marxist historiographical tradition capable of forming a remarkable school group in Britain, the British Marxist historiographical paradigm also has some major shortcomings. These stem not only from the intergenerational differences between the two groups of historians and the internal and external debates over their historiographical thought but also from the failure to form a consistent historical thought and academic system, thereby weakening its creative influence on British academic currents and reducing its realistic expressive power over socio-cultural currents.

简言之，发现新材料，转换新视角，运用新方法，选择探讨学派史家的典型史观，阅读其代表性历史著述，分析其史学语境与史学观念，揭示其思想特色与学术旨趣，仍然是研究英国马克思主义史学思潮变迁的题中之义。因此深化马克思主义史学范式的转换研究，需要继续重视比较分析的双向维度：其一，从全球史学史的层面，深化学派史学语境与社会生成语境的历史逻辑及实证分析。英国马克思主义史学思潮既源于英国特定社会历史时代，又推动了英国社会思潮的更替，学派史家对英国特定社会历史的文化解释与社会文化构成产生了潜移默化的重要影响。在英国史学现代化进程中，学派史家关注现实政治和社会问题，分析和理解身处其中的社会历史变化，构建合理的社会历史理论和科学的史学思想认识，他们在史学实践中创造性的历史认识、活动能力和思维方法，无疑具有修正社会文化思潮及发展方向、形成历史崭新风气的定向作用。其二，从全球思想史的层面，深化有关英国马克思主义史学制度机制和代际转换的动因分析及机理探析。从史学思潮兴衰嬗变及发展动力角度看，两代英国马克思主义史家群体代际更替的动力因素，既源于西方新史学潮流的学科文化转向，也根植于马克思主义史学思潮应对西方社会变动与采取历史行动时的理论自省及实践张力。在相当长时期内，确如汤普森和英国马克思主义新社会史学的“文化转向”对域外史学思潮产生深远影响那样，英国马克思主义史学思潮也得到广泛传播，产生了全球影响。学派演化史表明了20世纪60年代以来西方史学范式的实践更新与实证途径，体现了马克思主义理论反思的史学策略与认识论诉求，彰显了辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义对两代史家群体及其史学实践的理论逻辑及自觉导向。就学术思想的丰富性、差异性及社会性而言，围绕封建主义向资本主义过渡问题、社会主义革命的可能性与合法性问题，新老左派史家之间论争激烈，一方面两代史家群体也基于马克思主义理论方法及治学传统而相互关联与相互兼容，另一方面两代史学群体在历史观与史学观的某种隔阂及鲜明表征，正是其追求史学功能效应的可能路径和史学实践方式的殊途同归。从学派内外语境与比较史学的角度看，英国马克思主义史家与非马克思主义史家之间的思想差异、同时代或不同时代马克思主义史家之间的心灵神合和理论分歧又是对视并存的。尚且需要重视和值得探究的是，作为马克思主义史学传统能够在英国构筑令人瞩目的流派群体，英国马克思主义史学范式也存在一些主要缺陷，这既源于存在两代史家群体的代际差异，及其史学思想内外论争，又囿于没有形成一以贯之的历史思想与学术体系，从而弱化了其对英国学术思潮的创造性影响力，也减弱了对社会文化思潮的现实性表达力。

(The author is a professor at the College of Humanities, Shanghai Normal University)

（作者系上海师范大学人文学院教授）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑