The History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand and the Rise of South African Social History

In the 1970s, against the backdrop of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, a “from below” social historiography gradually emerged, and the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand played a significant role in driving this process. The History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand was profoundly influenced by British Marxist historiography and the development of African historiography, largely reshaping the basic contours of South African historical research, and it continues to exert a deep influence on the trajectory of South African historiography to this day. Chinese academic circles have paid considerable attention to the general overview of South African historiography, but no specialized study on the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand has yet appeared. This article primarily discusses the founding background, main activities, and academic contributions of the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand, with the aim of deepening understanding of the evolution and latest developments in South African historiography.

20世纪70年代，在南非反种族隔离斗争背景下，“自下而上”的社会史学逐渐兴起，金山大学历史工作坊（History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand）在这一过程中起到重要的推动作用。金山大学历史工作坊受到英国马克思主义史学和非洲史学发展的深刻影响，在很大程度上重塑了南非史学研究的基本面貌，至今仍然深刻影响着南非史学的发展走向。国内学界已经较多关注南非史学史概况，但是还未见关于金山大学历史工作坊的专题研究。本文主要讨论金山大学历史工作坊的创立背景、主要活动及其学术贡献，以期深入认识南非史学的演进和最新进展。

I. The Founding Background of the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand

一、金山大学历史工作坊的创立背景

Within the evolution of African historiography, the history of South African historiography exhibits great particularity, which is closely related to the uniqueness of South Africa’s developmental path. South African historical research has a relatively clear developmental trajectory, with successive schools including the British imperialist school, the colonialist school, the Afrikaner nationalist school, the liberal school, and the radical school having appeared in the course of its evolution. Consequently, South African historiography is relatively mature; “within the study of African history, South African history has almost become an independent disciplinary branch.” [1]1 The author is quoting a Chinese scholar’s assessment; the original source is not identified in the text. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, when historical research in many African countries encountered severe setbacks, South African historiography continued to develop in depth. In the 1970s, South African society underwent drastic changes: the apartheid system became increasingly entrenched, while anti-apartheid forces also grew steadily. Against the backdrop of turbulent social transformation, South African historiography also underwent profound changes.

在非洲史学演进过程中，南非史学史呈现极大的特殊性，这与南非发展道路的独特性有较大关系。南非史学研究有着相对清晰的发展脉络，在南非史学演进过程中先后出现过英帝国主义学派、殖民主义学派、阿非利卡民族主义学派、自由主义学派和激进史学派等。因此，南非史学发展相对较为成熟，“在非洲史研究中，南非史几乎成了一门独立的学科分支”。尤其是在20世纪七八十年代很多非洲国家的史学研究遭遇严重挫折情况下，南非史学仍然深入发展。20世纪70年代，南非社会发生剧烈变化，种族隔离制度日渐巩固，而反种族隔离力量也在不断增强。在激荡的社会变革背景下，南非史学也发生着深刻变化。

The founding background of the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand mainly includes the following points. First, the anti-apartheid struggle. The rise of South African social history, represented by the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand, was closely linked to the South African labor movement and the anti-apartheid struggle. In the mid-1960s, anti-apartheid forces faced brutal suppression by the South African apartheid government; the African National Congress and its political allies, the South African Communist Party and the Pan Africanist Congress, were persecuted, and their main leaders were arrested or exiled. In the 1970s, anti-apartheid forces regrouped and grew stronger, with the Black Consciousness Movement emerging among black students, while independent black trade unions arose and staged several strikes. In 1976, the Soweto Uprising erupted and spread nationwide. [2]2 The Soweto Uprising (16 June 1976) was a series of protests led by black schoolchildren in Soweto against the imposition of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in schools, which was brutally suppressed by the apartheid police. Although the black trade union movement was severely suppressed by the apartheid government, it demonstrated that the emerging independent unions had developed into a significant political force. In 1979, the Federation of South African Trade Unions was established. In the early 1980s, the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party began coordinating anti-apartheid struggles within South Africa. In 1983, the United Democratic Front was formed, calling for the unity of all possible social forces to jointly resist the apartheid system and providing support for the African National Congress. In the 1980s, South African trade union forces grew rapidly, with union membership rising from 17,000 to 1.2 million. During this period, urbanization in South Africa accelerated, with the urban population increasing from 15.7 million in 1980 to 24.4 million in 1991. Alongside the collapse of apartheid-era urban infrastructure, new forms of urban resistance movements emerged, ultimately leading to the rise to power of the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela.

金山大学历史工作坊的创立背景主要包括下面几点。第一，反种族隔离斗争。以金山大学历史工作坊为代表的南非社会史学的兴起，与南非劳工运动和反种族隔离斗争密切相关。20世纪60年代中叶，反对种族隔离的力量遭遇南非种族隔离政府残酷镇压，非洲人国民大会及其政治盟友南非共产党、泛非主义者大会（Pan Africanist Congress）受到迫害，主要领导人遭到逮捕或流放。20世纪70年代，反对种族隔离的力量重新发展壮大，黑人学生中间兴起黑人觉醒运动（Black Consciousness Movement），与此同时，黑人独立工会兴起并且举行数次罢工。1976年，索韦托起义爆发并在全国范围内蔓延开来。尽管黑人工会运动遭到种族隔离政府严厉镇压，却表明新兴的独立工会已经发展成为一支重要的政治力量。1979年，南非工会联合会（Federation of South African Trade Unions）成立。20世纪80年代初，非洲人国民大会和南非共产党开始协调南非国内的反种族斗争。1983年，联合民主阵线（United Democratic Front）成立，它号召联合一切可能的社会力量共同反抗种族隔离制度，并为非洲人国民大会提供支持。20世纪80年代，南非工会力量迅速发展壮大，工会会员数量从1.7万增至120万。这一时期南非城镇化进程发展迅速，城镇人口从1980年的1570万增至1991年的2440万。伴随着种族隔离城镇基础设施的崩溃，全新形态的城镇反抗运动出现，最终纳尔逊·曼德拉领导的非洲人国民大会上台。

From the late 1970s to the 1980s, the apartheid system faced increasingly severe challenges. According to the Bantu Education Act promulgated by the South African apartheid government in 1953, the “Bantu education” specifically targeting black students was intended to keep black people in a permanent state of subordination. [3]3 The Bantu Education Act (1953) established a separate and inferior education system for black South Africans, designed to train them only for manual labor and subordinate roles. Therefore, the anti-apartheid struggle required educating and awakening the black populace, enabling them to understand the history of their dispossession. History became an important weapon in the South African anti-apartheid struggle. The History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand was founded precisely against the backdrop of the 1973 Durban strikes and the 1976 Soweto Uprising; in particular, the Soweto Uprising made South African scholars realize that the anti-apartheid struggle would primarily unfold in urban areas, making it necessary to focus on the daily lives of urban black people. Including the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand, South African social historical research at the time addressed extremely important social realities, such as the construction of race and ethnicity, black reserves, rural-urban migration flows, urban culture, and gender power relations. These studies undermined the political legitimacy of the apartheid regime. Moreover, some social historians actively supported or even participated in the anti-apartheid struggle. David Webster, a member of the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand, secretly joined the African National Congress and was later assassinated by the South African apartheid government. Philip Bonner actively participated in the labor movement. Luli Callinicos was in her early years a member of the Congress of Democrats, which was closely associated with the African National Congress, and also participated in trade union education activities. The History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand was born precisely in the anti-apartheid struggle; the practical needs of that struggle shaped its research interests. In a collection of papers compiled by the Workshop in 1980, it stated unequivocally: “The History Workshop attempts to write the history of ordinary people, regardless of race, gender, creed, or origin. We attempt to propose a completely new framework for historical interpretation.”

20世纪70年代末至80年代，种族隔离制度面临日益严峻的挑战。按照1953年南非种族隔离政府颁布的《班图教育法》，专门针对黑人学生的“班图教育”意在使黑人永久处于依附地位。因此，反种族隔离斗争需要教育和唤醒黑人民众，使黑人民众理解他们遭受剥夺的历史。史学成为南非反种族隔离斗争的重要武器。金山大学历史工作坊正是在1973年德班罢工和1976年索韦托起义的背景下创立的，尤其是索韦托起义使南非学者意识到南非反种族斗争将主要在城镇中展开，因此，有必要关注城镇黑人民众的日常生活。包括金山大学历史工作坊在内，当时南非社会史学研究关注的是极为重要的社会现实问题，例如种族和族群的建构、黑人保留地、城乡移民流动、城镇文化和性别权力关系等，这些研究消解了种族隔离政权的政治合法性。而且，一些社会史学家积极支持甚至参与反种族隔离斗争。金山大学历史工作坊成员戴维·韦伯斯特（David Webster）秘密加入非洲人国民大会，而后遭到南非种族隔离政府暗杀。菲利普·邦纳（Philip Bonner）积极参与劳工运动，卢利·卡利尼科斯（Luli Callinicos）早年曾是与非洲人国民大会关系密切的民主大会党（Congress of Democrats）党员，也曾参与工会教育活动。金山大学历史工作坊正是在反种族隔离斗争中诞生的，反种族隔离斗争的现实需要塑造了它的研究旨趣，工作坊在1980年编纂的论文集中开宗明义地指出：“历史工作坊试图书写普通人的历史，不论种族、性别、信仰或者出身。我们尝试提出全新的历史解释框架。”

Second, the influence of British Marxist historiography. The rise of the History Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand reflected the dramatic transformation in South African historiographical currents against the backdrop of the anti-apartheid struggle. In the 1950s and 1960s, liberal historiography dominated the anti-apartheid struggle within South African academia. Liberal historiography held that the historical roots of South African racism lay in the Great Trek of the Boers in the 19th century, thereby denying the connection between British imperialism and South African racism; it also emphasized that the apartheid system severely hindered the development of South African capitalism. Representative figures of liberal historiography include Leonard Thompson, Richard Elphick, and J.D. Omer-Cooper, with the two-volume *The Oxford History of South Africa* as its representative work.

第二，英国马克思主义史学的影响。金山大学历史工作坊的兴起折射出反种族斗争背景下南非史学思潮领域的剧烈变革。20世纪五六十年代，自由主义史学在当时南非学术界反种族斗争中居于主导地位。自由主义史学认为南非种族主义的历史根源在于19世纪布尔人的大迁徙，从而否认英国帝国主义与南非种族主义之间的联系；它还强调种族隔离制度严重阻碍了南非资本主义发展。自由主义史学的代表人物有伦纳德·汤普森（Leonard Thompson）、理查德·埃尔菲克（Richard Elphick）和J.D.奥马尔·库珀（J.D.Omer Cooper），代表作是两卷本的《牛津南非史》。

In the 1970s, revisionist historiography (also known as “radical historiography”) emerged in the process of critiquing liberal historiography. Early revisionist historiography was deeply influenced by structural Marxism and was also referred to as structuralist revisionist historiography. Some white South African historians living in exile in Britain, such as Martin Legassick, Harold Wolpe, Stanley Trapido, Frederick Johnstone, and Shula Marks, challenged the dominant liberal historiography in South African historiography at the time, hence they were called the “revisionist school.” At that time, the South African workers’ movement was at a low ebb, while racial capitalist hegemony appeared unshakeable. Therefore, revisionist historiography urgently needed to analyze the specific forms of white domination, especially the development of racial capitalism in South Africa during the 19th and 20th centuries. Revisionist historiography centered its discussion on the relationship between capital and the state, emphasizing that the apartheid system was necessary for the functioning of capitalism and that capitalism could not be maintained without the apartheid system. Revisionist historiography delved into the relationships among the South African state, capital, and labor organizations in the first half of the 20th century, aiming to analyze the reasons for the failure of the cross-racial united South African labor movement and the role played by white workers in constructing and maintaining racial capitalism. Revisionist historiography refuted the views of liberal historiography, denying that South African racism was a product of the encounter between Boers and Bantu peoples on the frontier. Instead, they emphasized that the rise and consolidation of the apartheid system were closely linked to the mining revolution of the late 19th century, the penetration of British capital and imperialism into southern Africa, and the accompanying development of the migrant labor system. Revisionist historiography also stressed that in the early stages of South African capitalist development, native reserves maintained the cheap migrant labor system. As the economies of these native reserves declined, the original model of segregation became difficult to sustain; thus, the apartheid system that emerged after 1948 was an adjustment and reinforcement of the previous segregation model. Revisionist historiography emphasized the compatibility of the apartheid system with post-World War II capitalism, thereby challenging the liberal historians’ belief that economic development would dismantle racial domination. Revisionist historiography was deeply influenced by Western European Marxism, especially the structural Marxism of Louis Pierre Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas. In the 1980s, revisionist historiography gained the upper hand in its debate with liberal historiography and increasingly became dominant in South African historiography at the time. Revisionist historiography focused on grand theoretical issues, particularly emphasizing that the apartheid system was largely shaped by capital. It paid less attention to the concrete processes of labor production and the social agency of Africans, and rarely addressed the strikes and resistance that were sweeping South Africa at the time.

20世纪70年代，修正史学（revisionist school，也被称作“激进史学”）在批判自由主义史学的过程中兴起，早期的修正史学深受结构马克思主义的影响，也被称为结构主义的修正史学。一些侨居英国的南非白人史学家，如马丁·莱加西克（Martin Legassick）、哈罗德·沃尔普（Harold Wolpe）、斯坦利·特拉皮多（Stanley Trapido）、弗里德里克·约翰斯顿（Frederick Johnstone）和舒拉·马克斯（Shula Marks）等人，对于当时南非史学中处于主导地位的自由主义史学发起挑战，故被称作“修正史学”。当时南非工人运动处于低谷，而种族资本主义霸权在当时看起来似乎牢不可破，因此，修正史学迫切需要分析白人统治的具体形式，尤其是19、20世纪南非种族资本主义的发展。修正史学围绕资本与国家的关系展开讨论，强调种族隔离制度是资本主义运转所必需的，资本主义离开种族隔离制度就无法维持。修正史学深入剖析20世纪上半叶南非国家、资本与劳工组织之间的关系，意在分析跨种族联合的南非劳工运动的失败原因，以及白人劳工在建构和维持种族资本主义方面扮演的角色。修正史学驳斥自由主义史学的观点，否认南非种族主义是布尔人与班图人在边疆地区遭遇的产物，他们转而强调种族隔离制度的兴起和巩固与19世纪末的矿业革命、英国资本和帝国主义在南部非洲的渗透以及相伴随的移民劳工体系的发展存在密切联系。修正史学还强调，在南非资本主义发展的早期阶段，土著保留地维持了廉价的移民劳工制度。随着这些土著保留地的经济衰败，原先的种族隔离模式难以维持，因而，1948年后出现的种族隔离制度是对之前的种族隔离模式的调整与强化。修正史学强调种族隔离制度与第二次世界大战后的资本主义是兼容的，从而挑战了自由主义史学家信奉的经济发展将会瓦解种族统治的观点。修正史学深受西欧马克思主义的影响，尤其是路易·皮埃尔·阿尔都塞（Louis Pierre Althusse）和尼科斯·普兰查斯（Nicos Poulantzas）的结构马克思主义的影响。20世纪80年代，修正史学在与自由主义史学的论辩中占据上风，并在当时南非史学中日益处于主导地位。修正史学侧重探讨宏大理论问题，尤其强调种族隔离制度在很大程度上是由资本塑造的，他们不太关注具体的劳动生产过程和非洲人的社会能动性，并且很少关注当时席卷南非的罢工和反抗。

The social history represented by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop also belongs to revisionist historiography. It emerged on the basis of reflecting on and critiquing structuralist revisionist historiography and was profoundly influenced by British Marxist historiography. British Marxist historians such as Edward P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, and Eugene Genovese criticized “top-down” theoretical explanations for neglecting the agency, consciousness, and experience of ordinary people. They advocated for “history from below,” emphasizing the complex connections among economy, culture, experience, and consciousness, and called for attention to marginalized social groups. These ideas provided a theoretical framework for South African social history. The influence of British Marxist historiography on the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop is specifically reflected in the research of Peter Delius and Charles van Onselen. Delius applied the concept of “moral economy” to study the history of the Transvaal countryside; van Onselen sought to uncover neglected popular history, emphasizing the role of pre-industrial social relations in shaping working-class identity, and studied informal social resistance.

金山大学历史工作坊代表的社会史学也属于修正史学，它是在反思和批判结构主义的修正史学的基础上兴起的，受到英国马克思主义史学的深刻影响。爱德华·P.汤普森（Edward P.Thompson）、艾瑞克·霍布斯鲍姆（Eric Hobsbawm）和尤金·吉诺维斯（Eugene Genovese）等英国马克思主义史学家批评“自上而下”的理论解释忽视了普通民众的能动性、意识和经历，他们主张“自下而上”的历史书写，强调经济、文化、经历与意识之间的复杂联系，呼吁关注社会边缘群体，这些都为南非社会史研究提供了理论框架。英国马克思主义史学对于金山大学历史工作坊的影响，具体体现在彼得·德利厄斯（Peter Delius）和查尔斯·凡-翁塞伦的研究中。德利厄斯运用“道义经济学”研究德兰士瓦乡村地区的历史；凡-翁塞伦试图揭示被忽视的民众历史，强调前工业化时代的社会关系对工人阶级身份认同的塑造作用，并且研究非正式的社会抵抗。

The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop drew on the experience of the British History Workshop movement. Its two founders, Belinda Bozzoli and Charles van Onselen, had attended conferences of the British History Workshop, which is a clear manifestation of its deep influence from British Marxist historiography. The British History Workshop movement emerged under the influence of the “Communist Party Historians’ Group” in Britain, widely distributing pamphlets and the *History Workshop Journal*, aiming to promote “history from below.” It was widely popular in Britain from the 1970s to the early 1980s.

金山大学历史工作坊借鉴了英国历史工作坊运动的经验，它的两位创立者贝琳达·博佐利（Belinda Bozzoli）和查尔斯·凡-翁塞伦曾参加英国历史工作坊的会议，这是它深受英国马克思主义史学影响的明显表现。英国历史工作坊运动是在“英国共产党历史学家小组”影响下兴起的，广泛发行宣传册子和《历史工作坊杂志》（Historical Workshop Journal），旨在推动“自下而上”的历史书写，20世纪70年代至80年代初在英国广为流行。

Third, the African national independence movements and the development of African historiography. In the 1960s, the rise of African national independence movements and the establishment and development of African history as a discipline had a tremendous impact on South African historiography, particularly making South African historians focus on their country’s black history. With the rise of African nation-states, African history was established as a discipline, and Jan Vansina’s research on oral tradition played a crucial role in this process. Influenced by the study of oral tradition in African historiography, South African social history researchers also attempted to “give voice to the voiceless” by collecting oral data, aiming to present the experiences of African people in the process of social change in 20th-century South Africa. Oral history research became key to the rise of South African social history, with Charles van Onselen’s work being a typical example. For instance, he conducted in-depth interviews with a sharecropper named Kas Maine and sought to reveal the changes in rural production and social relations in the Transvaal region of South Africa from 1914 to 1966 through his life experiences.

第三，非洲民族独立运动和非洲史学的发展。20世纪60年代，非洲民族独立运动兴起以及非洲史学科的确立与发展，对南非史学产生巨大影响，尤其使南非史学家关注本国的黑人历史。伴随非洲民族国家兴起，非洲史作为一门学科确立下来，特别是让·范西纳（Jan Vansina）有关口头传统的研究在这一过程中发挥了重要作用。受到非洲史学的口头传统研究的影响，南非社会史研究者也试图通过收集口述资料从而“让无声者发声”，意在展现20世纪南非社会变迁历程中的非洲民众经历。口述史研究成为南非社会史学得以兴起的关键，这方面较为典型的是查尔斯·凡-翁塞伦的研究。例如，他深入采访一位名叫卡斯·梅因（Kas Maine）的分成佃农，并试图通过他的生平经历来揭示1914—1966年南非德兰士瓦的农村生产和社会关系变迁。

The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop was also directly influenced by British African studies. During the British Empire period, cultural ties between Britain and South Africa were close. Britain was the preferred destination for South African students studying abroad, and the British academic environment greatly influenced the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop. More than half of the early members of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop had graduated from British universities. Influenced by the independence of African nation-states, African studies emerged in Britain and paid close attention to the historical agency of African people. For example, the Department of African History at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, a major British institution for African studies, focused on issues such as African resistance, black national self-determination, and pre-colonial state formation. British African historiography profoundly influenced the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop. African historians Leonard Thompson and Shula Marks supervised many students from South Africa, many of whom became the backbone of South African social history research, including William Beinart, Peter Delius, Deborah Gaitskell, Jeff Guy, Heather Hughes, Tim Keegan, Sheila Meintjies, Susan Newton-King, Kevin Shillington, Rob Turrell, and Brian Willan.

金山大学历史工作坊还直接受到英国的非洲史研究的影响。英帝国时期，英国本土和南非之间文化联系密切，英国是南非学生海外留学的首选目的地，英国的学术环境极大地影响到金山大学历史工作坊。金山大学历史工作坊的早期成员中有一半以上毕业于英国高校。受到非洲民族国家独立的影响，非洲史研究在英国兴起并且高度关注非洲人的历史能动性。例如，当时英国主要的非洲史研究机构伦敦大学亚非学院非洲史系关注非洲人的抵抗、黑人民族自决以及前殖民时代的国家建构等问题。英国的非洲史学研究深刻影响到金山大学历史工作坊。非洲史学家伦纳多·汤普森和舒拉·马克斯指导了很多来自南非的学生，他们中间很多人成为南非社会史研究的中坚力量，如威廉·贝纳特（William Beinart）、彼得·德利厄斯、黛博拉·盖茨克尔（Deborah Gaitskell）、杰夫·盖伊（Jeff Guy）、希瑟·休斯（Heather Hughes）、蒂姆·基根（Tim Keegan）、希拉·梅因杰斯（Sheila Meintjies）、苏珊·牛顿-金（Susan Newton-King）、凯文·希林顿（Kevin Shillington）、罗布·特里尔（Rob Turrell）和布莱恩·威廉（Brian Willan）等人。

Fourth, the transformation of South African universities. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, South African universities underwent drastic changes, providing conditions for the development of anti-apartheid thought. At that time, there were three types of universities in South Africa: Afrikaner universities, which firmly supported the apartheid system; black universities established by the government and implementing apartheid, which, although they became "hotbeds" of black student protest, were dominated by pro-government Afrikaner professors and government officials; and universities led by English-speaking whites, where social history research emerged. In the late 1970s, English-speaking white universities expanded the number of black students they admitted. The number of black students at the University of the Witwatersrand increased rapidly, reaching a quarter of the total student body by the early 1990s. Moreover, the surge of black students was concentrated in the humanities and social sciences; during high school or in the towns where they originally lived, they had actively participated in political activities and often clashed with white military police. At the same time, in white-dominated universities, white students also formed the left-wing National Union of South African Students. In such a campus atmosphere, undergraduate courses in history and the social sciences were deeply influenced by Marxism, especially the theories of E. P. Thompson on labor, culture, and politics. This was the case at the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Natal, the University of Cape Town, Rhodes University, and the University of the Western Cape. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop was born precisely in such a university environment.

第四，南非高校变革。20世纪70年代末80年代初，南非高校发生剧烈变革，为反种族隔离思想的发展提供了条件。当时南非有三种类型的高校：阿非利加人的高校，它们坚定支持种族隔离制度；由政府创办、实行种族隔离的黑人高校，尽管它们成为黑人学生抗议活动的“温床”，但是在这类高校中占主导地位的是亲政府的阿非利加人教授和政府官员；英国裔白人主导的高校，社会史研究正是在这类高校中兴起的。20世纪70年代末，讲英语的白人高校扩大了黑人学生招收数量。金山大学的黑人学生数量迅速增多，到20世纪90年代初增至学生总数的1/4。而且，激增的黑人学生主要集中在人文社会科学专业，他们在高中读书期间或者原来居住的城镇中曾积极参与政治活动，常与白人军警发生冲突。与此同时，在白人主导的高校中，白人学生也组建左翼的南非学生全国联合会（National Union of South African Students）。在这样的校园氛围中，历史学和社会科学专业的本科生课程深受马克思主义影响，尤其是爱德华·P.汤普森关于劳动力、文化和政治的理论的影响。金山大学、纳塔尔大学、开普敦大学、罗德斯大学和西开普大学均是如此，金山大学历史工作坊正是诞生于这样的高校环境中。

II. Main Activities of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop

二、金山大学历史工作坊的主要活动

In 1976, historian Philip Bonner and sociologist Eddie Webster convened the first academic conference on South African labor history, laying the foundation for the establishment of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop was formally established in 1977 and held its first academic conference in early 1978. The collected papers published from this conference reflect how the struggle against apartheid profoundly shaped the research interests of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop. In the introduction to the collected papers, Belinda Bozzoli articulated the academic purpose of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop: "(We) attempt to present the history of the Witwatersrand region from the perspective of 'the people,' such as factory and mine workers, domestic servants, traders, or unemployed 'vagrants'… We try to rewrite the history of the Witwatersrand region from the perspective of the masses."

1976年，历史学家菲利普·邦纳和社会学家埃迪·韦伯斯特主持召开首届南非劳工史学术会议，为金山大学历史工作坊的创建奠定了基础。金山大学历史工作坊于1977年正式成立，并在1978年初举行首次学术会议，这次会议结集出版的论文集反映出种族隔离斗争深刻塑造了金山大学历史工作坊的研究旨趣。在论文集的导言中，贝琳达·博佐利阐述了金山大学历史工作坊的学术宗旨：“（我们）试图从‘民众’的角度来呈现金山地区的历史，如厂矿工人、家庭佣工、商贩或者无业‘游民’……我们尝试从大众的视角来重写金山地区的历史。”

Although the members of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop had vastly different academic ideas, diverse disciplinary backgrounds, and wide-ranging research interests, the core personnel were mostly historical researchers, some of whom had studied under Shula Marks at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, and Stanley Trapido at the University of Oxford. Belinda Bozzoli was responsible for the work of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop until 1987, after which she was succeeded by Philip Bonner and then Noor Nieftagodien. In the more than thirty years since its founding, "the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop has developed into the most important group of historians in South Africa." The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop was an interdisciplinary research network responsible for organizing academic conferences, seminars, and exhibitions. It mainly focused on 19th- and 20th-century history, advocating for the study of South African history over longer time spans, covering topics including proletarianization, urbanization, migration and mobility, cultural activities, forms of labor organization, and leisure and recreation. Interdisciplinary research was relatively common in African studies programs at European and American universities at the time, but it was a pioneering initiative within the humanities and social sciences in South Africa.

金山大学历史工作坊的成员尽管学术思想差异巨大，学科背景多样，并且研究兴趣广泛，但是核心人员多是史学研究者，其中一些人曾经在伦敦大学英联邦研究所的舒拉·马克斯和牛津大学的斯坦利·特拉皮多指导下学习。贝琳达·博佐利在1987年以前一直负责金山大学历史工作坊的工作，之后相继由菲利普·邦纳和努尔·涅夫塔格迪恩（Noor Nieftagodien）接替。在创立之后的三十多年时间里，“金山大学历史工作坊已发展为南非最重要的历史学家团体”。金山大学历史工作坊是一个跨学科的研究网络，负责组织学术会议、研讨班和展览，它主要关注19、20世纪历史，倡导从更长的时段来研究南非历史，涉及话题包括无产阶级化、城镇化、迁徙流动、文化活动、劳工组织方式和休闲娱乐等。跨学科研究在当时欧美高校的非洲研究项目中较为常见，但在当时南非人文社会科学领域属于首创。

Starting in 1978, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop held an academic conference every three years, promoting "history from below" social history and focusing on the history, culture, and ideas of ordinary people in rural and urban areas. The theme of the 1978 conference was "Labor, Towns, and Patterns of Protest on the Witwatersrand," advocating for rewriting the history of the Witwatersrand region from a "grassroots" perspective; the 1981 conference theme was "Town and Countryside in the Transvaal"; the 1984 conference theme was "Class, Community, and Conflict: Local Perspectives"; the 1987 conference theme was "The Making of Class." The scope of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop conferences continuously expanded, gradually extending to the whole of South Africa. Since the 1990s, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop has become more theoretically diverse; for example, the 1990 conference "Structure and Experience in the Making of Apartheid" focused not only on "history from below" but also on state institutions. The 1992 conference theme was "Myths, Monuments, and Museums," focusing on the cultural politics of nationalism. The number of forum participants also gradually increased, from an initial twenty or thirty people to over a hundred. The series of papers, monographs, and collected volumes published by scholars of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop greatly advanced the development of South African historiography.

从1978年开始，金山大学历史工作坊每三年举办一次学术会议，推动“自下而上”的社会史研究，关注农村和城镇普通民众的历史、文化和思想观念。1978年会议主题是“金山的劳动力、城镇与抗议模式”，主张从“草根”视角重新书写金山地区的历史；1981年会议主题是“德兰士瓦的城镇与乡村”；1984年会议主题是“阶级、社会与冲突：地方的视角”；1987年会议主题是“阶级的形成”。金山大学历史工作坊会议的涵盖范围不断扩大，逐渐拓展至整个南非。20世纪90年代以来，金山大学历史工作坊在理论方面更加多元化，如1990年“种族隔离制度形成过程中的结构与经历”会议不只是关注“自下而上”的民众历史，同时也关注国家制度。1992年会议主题为“神话、纪念碑与博物馆”，关注民族主义的文化政治。论坛参会者数量也逐渐增多，从最初的二三十人增至上百人。金山大学历史工作坊学者发表的一系列论文、专著和论文集，极大地推动了南非史学发展。

The abolition of the apartheid system profoundly affected the development of South African historiography, and the social function of history in the new South Africa became the primary concern of South African historians. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop advocated for history to play an active role in the nation-building of the new South Africa. In 1994, the theme of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop annual conference was "Democracy: Popular Precedents, Popular Practice, and Popular Culture," focusing not only on nationalism and nation-building but also prominently emphasizing issues of power and the state. In 1999, the academic conference of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop focused on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, concentrating on discussions of historical memory, reflecting its deep influence by the cultural turn. In 2001, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop annual conference took AIDS as its theme; while focusing on the disease, it also deeply explored the relationship between sexuality and social power. In the same year, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop jointly held an academic symposium with the newly established Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research titled "The Burden of Race? 'Whiteness' and 'Blackness' in Modern South Africa." This was the first academic conference in South Africa specifically dedicated to discussing the topic of race, reflecting the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop's increasing engagement with the political and social challenges facing the new South Africa. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop also established close ties with international labor history organizations in Paris, Amsterdam, and Vienna, and held international academic conferences in 2006 and 2008, promoting the study of South African labor history from a global historical perspective.

种族隔离制度的废除深刻影响到南非史学发展，史学在新南非的社会功用成为南非史学家关心的首要问题。金山大学历史工作坊倡导史学在新南非民族国家建构中扮演积极作用。1994年，金山大学历史工作坊年度会议的主题为“民主：大众先例、大众实践与大众文化”，不只是关注民族主义和民族建构，而且突出强调权力和国家问题。1999年，金山大学历史工作坊的学术会议关注南非真相与和解委员会，集中讨论历史记忆问题，反映出它深受文化转向的影响。2001年，金山大学历史工作坊年度会议以艾滋病为主题，在关注疾病的同时，也深入探讨性与社会权力的关系问题。同年，金山大学历史工作坊与新成立的金山大学社会与经济研究所（Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research）联合举办“种族的负担？现代南非的‘白人’与‘黑人’”学术研讨会，这是南非首次举办专门讨论种族议题的学术会议，反映出金山大学历史工作坊日益介入新南非面临的政治与社会挑战。金山大学历史工作坊还与巴黎、阿姆斯特丹和维也纳的国际劳工史组织建立密切联系，并于2006年、2008年举办国际学术会议，推动从全球史视野来研究南非劳工史。

As mentioned above, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop emerged on the basis of inheriting and critiquing structuralist revisionist historiography. It criticized structuralist revisionist historiography for appearing too crude when compared with empirical research, for unrealistically transplanting European theories to Africa, and for overemphasizing the determining role of economic factors in South African history, thereby severely obliterating the historical agency of the people. Compared with structuralist revisionist historiography, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop paid more attention to the important roles of culture, consciousness, and identity in the historical process of South Africa. The historical concepts of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop include the following.

如前所述，金山大学历史工作坊是在继承和批判结构主义的修正史学的基础上兴起的。它批判结构主义的修正史学在实证研究的比照下显得过于粗糙，并且将欧洲理论不切实际地照搬到非洲，过于强调经济因素在南非历史中的决定作用，从而严重抹煞了民众的历史能动性。与结构主义的修正史学相比，金山大学历史工作坊更关注文化、意识和认同因素在南非历史进程中的重要作用。金山大学历史工作坊的史学观念包括如下内容。

First, regarding the relationship between capital and the state, it emphasizes that the apartheid regime was not a “monolithic bloc” but rather contained serious internal divisions. Structuralist revisionist historiography emphasizes that the South African state secured a cheap and easily controlled labor supply in accordance with the interests of the bourgeoisie, focusing on how interest groups united to compete for state power. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, by contrast, emphasizes that the apartheid regime had serious internal divisions; municipalities and the central government, as well as different government departments, were often in conflict with one another or pursued contradictory policies, and did not always implement policies as the dominant class expected. To maintain the illusion of social stability, the apartheid government needed to maintain a certain degree of balance among capitalists, the white working class, regional and ethnic interests, influential intellectuals, religious lobbying groups, and some black leaders. All levels of the South African government could not simply suppress black resistance; they also had to adopt conciliatory policies.

第一，关于资本与国家的关系，它强调种族隔离政权并非“铁板一块”，而是存在严重的内部分歧。结构主义的修正史学强调南非国家按照资产阶级的利益来确保廉价而且易受控制的劳动力供应，关注的是利益团体联合起来争夺国家权力。金山大学历史工作坊则强调，种族隔离政权存在着严重的内部分歧，市镇和中央政府之间，不同的政府部门之间，往往是相互冲突的，或者有着矛盾性的政策，并且也不总是按照主导阶层的期待来推行政策。为了维持社会稳定的假象，种族隔离政府需要在资本家、白人劳工阶级、地区和族群利益、有影响的知识分子、宗教游说团体以及部分黑人领袖之间维持一定程度的平衡。南非各级政府不能只是镇压黑人抵抗，同时也要采取安抚政策。

Second, regarding the formation of the migrant labor system, it argues that race and class are fluid and constantly change with historical conditions. Structuralist revisionist historiography emphasizes that the migrant labor system was the foundation of the South African capitalist system, and that this system was imposed “from above” by white rulers to create an extremely cheap labor supply. Harold Wolpe proposed the “cheap labor-power hypothesis,” emphasizing that the system of native reserves subsidized the modern capitalist economy by providing basic subsistence and kinship-based social welfare networks. According to this theory, the South African migrant labor system needed to maintain a certain balance: the reserve population had to be poor enough to seek employment in the capitalist economy, yet not so poor that it undermined the reserve’s subsidy function for the capitalist economy. As production efficiency within the reserves declined, the apartheid government increasingly relied on repressive measures to maintain this system. Deeply influenced by British Marxist historiography, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop criticized the serious limitations of the structuralist school’s class analysis framework. While acknowledging the subsidy function of black native reserves for the capitalist economy, it also emphasized that the formation of the migrant labor system was driven by the needs of reserve peasants. They also stressed the “formation” of the South African working class, paying greater attention to the agency and daily life of black laborers, and sought to write a more complex cultural and social history.

第二，关于移民劳动体系的形成，它主张种族和阶级是流动的并且随着历史条件的变化而不断变化。结构主义的修正史学强调，移民劳动体系是南非资本主义制度的基础，这一移民劳动体系是由白人统治者“自上而下”强加的，目的是创造出极为廉价的劳动力供应。哈罗德·沃尔普提出“廉价劳动力假说”，强调土著保留地制度通过提供基本生存和以亲缘为基础的社会福利网络，从而为现代资本主义经济提供补贴。按照这一理论，南非移民劳动体系需要维持一定程度的平衡：既要使保留地人口足够贫穷，因而只能在资本主义经济之中寻找就业机会；与此同时，保留地人口也不能过于贫穷，以免影响保留地对资本主义经济的补贴功能。随着保留地之内的生产效力变低，种族隔离政府日益依靠压制手段来维持这一体系。金山大学历史工作坊深受英国马克思主义史学的影响，批评结构主义史学的阶级分析框架存在严重局限，在承认黑人土著保留地对于资本主义经济的补贴功能的同时，也强调移民劳动制度的形成是由保留地农民的需求推动的。他们还强调南非工人阶级的“形成”，更关注黑人劳工的能动性和日常生活，试图书写更为复杂的文化史和社会生活史。

Third, it focuses on black urban culture. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop examined African urbanization, the liquor economy, urban gang culture, the working class’s pursuit of respectability, and the emergence of an educated elite, aiming to demonstrate the complexity of black urban culture. These studies emphasize that black townships were not merely places of residence for black laborers and their families, but also created conditions for the rise of black urban culture. They also focused on the cultural links between urban and rural populations, a dimension neglected by structuralist revisionist historiography. For example, Charles van Onselen’s research on the early history of the Witwatersrand towns was influential, especially his studies of the liquor economy, gangs, and informal trade, which shaped later urban history research.

第三，关注黑人城镇文化。金山大学历史工作坊关注非洲的城镇化、酒类经济、城镇黑帮文化、工人阶级对于体面地位的追求以及受过教育的精英阶层的出现，意图展示黑人城镇文化的复杂性。这些研究强调黑人城镇不只是黑人劳工及其家庭的居住场所，同时也为黑人城镇文化的兴起创造条件。这些研究还关注城镇与乡村人口之间的文化联系，而这也是结构主义的修正史学所忽视的。例如，翁塞伦关于早期金山城镇史的研究富有影响，尤其是关于酒类经济、匪帮和非正式贸易的研究对后来的城镇史研究产生影响。

III. The Academic Contributions of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop

三、金山大学历史工作坊的学术贡献

In the South African historiography of the 1970s and 1980s, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop was not alone in pursuing social history. The University of Cape Town held academic conferences on Cape local history, and the University of Natal actively promoted Natal history. At the same time, South African historians abroad also advanced South African social history. For instance, Shula Marks, Richard Rathbone, and Stanley Trapido, then teaching in Britain, jointly organized conferences with the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop and co-published essay collections. The importance of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop lies in its role as the primary platform for South African social history at the time, bringing together researchers from different disciplines to study South African social history, thereby developing a social historiography with distinctly South African characteristics. In summary, the academic contributions of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop can be grouped into four main points.

在20世纪七八十年代的南非史学界，不只是金山大学历史工作坊在致力于社会史研究，如开普敦大学围绕开普地方史举办学术会议，纳塔尔大学也积极推动纳塔尔史研究。与此同时，身在海外的南非史学家也在推动南非社会史研究，如当时在英国任教的舒拉·马克斯、理查德·拉斯本和斯坦利·特拉皮多与金山大学历史工作坊联合举办会议，合作出版论文集。金山大学历史工作坊的重要性在于，它作为当时南非社会史学最主要的阵地，将不同学科的研究者聚集起来，围绕南非社会史展开研究，从而发展出有南非本土特色的社会史学。概括起来，金山大学历史工作坊的学术贡献主要有四点。

First, it emphasized local history. Before the emergence of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop in the 1970s, local history had received little attention in South African historiography. The existing local history literature was largely published by municipal authorities, aimed at glorifying the history of white towns, with black people appearing only as marginal social forces. The outbreak of the Soweto Uprising [7]7 The Soweto Uprising (1976) was a series of student-led protests in the Soweto township against the apartheid government’s policy of enforcing Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in schools, which sparked broader resistance. made many South African scholars realize that the anti-apartheid struggle would primarily unfold in urban settings, unlike the anti-colonial struggles in many other parts of Africa. Therefore, it was necessary to deeply study the nature of conflict and inequality in South African towns and explore possible solutions. By focusing on the local, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop brought local history and the black history it reflected into mainstream historical research. Although scholars at other South African universities also began writing local history, the unique contribution of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop lay in combining local history with social history. The local history perspective was particularly suited to the “history from below” approach emphasized by social history and aligned with its advocacy for the lived experiences of ordinary people. Belinda Bozzoli, at the founding of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, had already pointed out that black townships were a product of the apartheid system and were closely linked to many social problems facing contemporary South Africa; research on these townships should be “the most noteworthy aspect of the neglected history of the South African working class.” Urban history has since remained a key focus of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop.

第一，注重地方史研究。20世纪70年代金山大学历史工作坊出现之前，地方史在南非史学界并未受到关注。当时的地方史文献基本上是由市镇当局出版的，旨在宣扬白人城镇的历史，黑人在其中只是边缘的社会力量。索韦托起义的爆发，使得很多南非学者意识到反种族斗争将主要在城镇环境中发生，这与非洲很多地区的反殖民斗争是不同的，因此，有必要深入研究南非城镇中的冲突和不平等的性质并探索可能的解决途径。金山大学历史工作坊聚焦于地方，使得地方历史及其反映出来的黑人历史进入主流的历史研究之中。尽管当时南非其他高校学者也开始书写地方史，而金山大学历史工作坊的独特贡献在于实现地方史和社会史的结合。地方史视角尤其契合社会史强调的“自下而上”的历史研究路径，符合它所倡导的普通民众的生活经历。贝琳达·博佐利在金山大学历史工作坊创立之初即已指出，黑人城镇是种族隔离制度催生出来的，与当今南非面临的诸多社会问题息息相关，对于这些城镇的研究应当是“被忽视的南非工人阶级历史之中最值得关注的”。城镇史研究此后一直是金山大学历史工作坊的关注重点之一。

In the 1970s and 1980s, social historians also focused on how newly arrived women in towns struggled to survive in slums, on black teachers and nurses attempting to become urban elites, and on how urban youth creatively shaped a new mass culture. In these social history studies, ordinary people were no longer seen as nameless figures in historical processes, but as individuals shaping their own history. At the same time, the scope of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop gradually expanded beyond the Witwatersrand urban area. Although towns remained the central focus of these social historians, rural areas and urban-rural relations began to receive attention. These studies highlighted the agency of ordinary people and contributed to a deeper understanding of class formation in black residential areas.

20世纪七八十年代，社会史学家还关注新进入城镇的妇女如何在贫民窟中艰难谋生，关注黑人教师和护士试图跻身成为城镇精英，以及研究城镇年轻人如何创造性地塑造全新的大众文化。在这些社会史研究中，普通民众不再被视作历史进程中的无名者，而是塑造自身历史的个体。与此同时，金山大学历史工作坊的关注范围逐渐扩展到金山的城镇地区之外。尽管城镇仍然是这些社会史学家的关注中心，但是乡村地区以及城乡关系开始受到关注。这些研究凸显了普通民众的能动性，并且有助于深入认识黑人居住区的阶级形成问题。

In the early 1990s, with the establishment of the new South African government, the influence of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop reached its peak. Members of the Workshop actively participated in discussions on post-apartheid urban reconstruction and were commissioned by the government to write a series of semi-official town histories. For example, the Workshop focused on the black township settlements of Soweto and Kathorus. While exploring “views from below,” these studies also began to examine influences “from above,” consciously “bringing the state back into the historical picture, emphasizing that the anti-apartheid struggle was a combination of bottom-up struggle and top-down intervention.” Writing urban history became an important contribution of the Workshop to urban reconstruction, exemplified by the “Alexandra Social History Project.” Alexandra’s location was convenient for black laborers seeking employment opportunities. After the government relaxed controls on black laborers entering towns in the mid-1980s, the town’s population increased dramatically, and the problem of inadequate urban infrastructure became increasingly prominent. In 2001, the Alexandra municipal government planned to invest 1.3 billion rand over seven years to improve municipal facilities and achieve urban renewal, with historical heritage preservation as an important component. Noor Nieftagodien and Philip Bonner’s book *Alexandra: A History* was completed on the basis of this project.

20世纪90年代新南非政府成立之初，金山大学历史工作坊的影响达到顶点。金山大学历史工作坊的成员积极参与讨论后种族隔离时代的城镇重建问题，并且受政府委托撰写了一系列半官方的城镇历史。例如，金山大学历史工作坊关注索韦托和凯索罗斯（Kathorus）这两处黑人城镇定居点。这些研究在探讨“来自下层的观点”的同时，也开始关注“自上而下”的影响，有意识地“将国家纳入历史图景中，强调反种族隔离斗争是自下而上的斗争和自上而下的干预的结合”。城镇史书写成为金山大学历史工作坊对于城镇重建的重要贡献，这方面的典型是“亚历山德拉社会史项目（Alexandra Social History Project）”。亚历山德拉的地理位置适宜黑人劳工寻找就业机会，在20世纪80年代中期政府放松对黑人劳工进入城镇的控制措施之后，该城镇人口急剧增多，城镇基础设施落后问题日益凸显。2001年，亚历山德拉市政府计划在七年时间里投入13亿兰特用于改善市政设施，以实现城镇复兴，而历史遗产保护是其中的一项重要内容。努尔·涅夫塔格迪恩和菲利普·邦纳的《亚历山德拉史》一书正是在该项目的基础上完成的。

Around 2010, the research geography of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop expanded from primarily urban centers to small towns and rural areas in inland provinces, conducting extensive local history research in Gauteng, Free State, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, and North West provinces. The rise of these local history projects was closely linked to widespread protest activities across South Africa. These protests mainly occurred in the poorest and most marginalized regions, reflecting that the government and academia had not fully recognized the dynamics and complexity of local politics, particularly regarding the violent xenophobic incidents that erupted in several South African towns in 2008. [8]8 The African National Congress (ANC) was founded in 1912 to oppose racial discrimination and became the leading force in the anti-apartheid struggle. It was legalized in 1990 and has governed South Africa since the first democratic elections in 1994. Furthermore, the History Workshop’s research on small towns also held special theoretical significance. In the early 1990s, the mainstream historical narrative in South African historiography regarded the founding of the African National Congress in 1912 as the starting point of the anti-apartheid struggle and the ANC’s assumption of power in 1994 as its culmination. This historical narrative overemphasized national political organizations such as the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party, and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, while neglecting the important roles played by towns, schools, and factories in the anti-apartheid movement.

2010年前后，金山大学历史工作坊的研究地域从主要的城镇中心扩展至小城镇和内陆省份的乡村地区，在豪登省（Gauteng）、自由邦省（Free State）、姆普马兰加省（Mpumalanga）、林波波省（Limpopo）和西北省广泛开展地方史研究。这些地方史项目的兴起，与南非各地普遍发生的抗议活动密切相关。这些抗议活动主要发生在最贫穷、被边缘化程度最深的地区，反映出政府和学界未充分认识到地方政治的动力和复杂性，尤其是关于2008年南非多个城镇爆发的暴力排外事件。此外，金山大学历史工作坊关于小城镇的研究还具有特殊的理论意义。20世纪90年代初，南非史学主流的历史话语将1912年非洲人国民大会成立视作反种族隔离斗争的起点，而将1994年非洲人国民大会执政视作反种族隔离斗争的顶点。这一历史叙事过于强调非洲人国民大会、南非共产党和泛非主义大会党等全国政党组织，而忽视了城镇、学校和工厂在反种族隔离运动中扮演的重要角色。

In 2007, the South African National Research Foundation provided funding for Philip Bonner’s research project “Local History and Current Realities.” In 2012, the National Research Foundation continued to support Noor Nieftagodien in conducting urban history research. Additionally, the History Workshop collaborated with the University of the Witwatersrand’s Centre for Urbanism and Built Environment Studies and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Society, Work and Development Institute. Furthermore, the Centre for Social Research at the University of Johannesburg and the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal were also engaged in urban history research. The activities of these research centers indicate the growing prosperity of urban and local history research in South Africa, while also reflecting the profound influence of the urban history research pioneered by the History Workshop during the anti-apartheid struggle.

2007年，南非国家研究基金会（National Research Foundation）为菲利普·邦纳的“地方史与当前现实”研究项目提供资助。2012年，南非国家研究基金会继续支持努尔·涅夫塔格迪恩开展城市史研究。除此之外，金山大学历史工作坊还与金山大学的城镇与建筑环境研究中心（Center for Urbanism and Built Environment Studies）、金山大学社会与经济研究所展开合作。另外，约翰内斯堡大学的社会研究中心（Centre for Social Research）、夸祖鲁-纳塔尔大学的公民社会中心（Center for Civil Society at the University of Kwazulu Natal）也在从事城镇史研究。这些研究中心的活动，表明南非城镇史和地方史研究日益兴盛，同时也反映出金山大学历史工作坊在种族隔离斗争时期开创的城镇史研究的深远影响。

Second, advocating public history oriented toward the people. From its inception, the History Workshop focused on labor history and workers’ education, later developing a strong interest in mass resistance movements and school education. The 1976 Soweto Uprising and the large-scale anti-apartheid struggles in South African towns during the 1980s led social historians to incorporate culture into their research paradigms, thereby deepening the understanding of class formation. [9]9 The Soweto Uprising began on June 16, 1976, when thousands of black students in Soweto protested against the mandatory use of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in schools. The protests were met with violent police repression, sparking widespread resistance across the country. Eddie Webster and Philip Bonner of the History Workshop were long-term participants in the trade union movement; through their practical struggles, they realized the need to support the black trade union movement through public history education. At the same time, the History Workshop maintained close ties with the United Democratic Front, which also created an urgent need for the History Workshop to compile historical teaching materials. [10]10 The United Democratic Front (UDF) was a major anti-apartheid coalition formed in 1983, bringing together hundreds of civic, trade union, student, and religious organizations to oppose the apartheid government’s new constitutional reforms. Additionally, key members of the History Workshop, Charles van Onselen and Belinda Bozzoli, had participated in the activities of the British History Workshop. Deeply influenced by the British History Workshop, they actively worked to promote the development of public history.

第二，倡导面向民众的公共史学。金山大学历史工作坊从一开始就关注劳工史和工人教育，后来逐渐对大众抵抗运动和学校教育表现出浓厚兴趣。1976年索韦托起义和20世纪80年代南非城镇大规模的反种族隔离斗争，使得社会史学家将文化纳入研究范式之中，从而深化对阶级形成问题的认识。金山大学历史工作坊的埃迪·韦伯斯特(Eddie Webster)和菲利普·邦纳长期参与工会运动，他们在实际斗争过程中意识到需要通过公共史学教育来为黑人工会运动提供支持。与此同时，金山大学历史工作坊与联合民主阵线保持着密切联系，也对金山大学历史工作坊提出了编纂史学教材的迫切需求。另外，金山大学历史工作坊的主要成员查尔斯·凡-翁塞伦和贝琳达·博佐利曾经参与英国历史工作坊的活动，他们深受英国历史工作坊的影响，也积极致力于推动公共史学发展。

First, the History Workshop disseminated research findings to the public. The History Workshop took the experiences of the dispossessed, the working class, and the lower strata as its research subjects, linking historical research with political activism. It sought to disseminate historical knowledge through accessible, non-academic publications. Luli Callinicos compiled a three-volume work, *A People’s History of South Africa*, covering themes such as the formation of the black working class, the emergence of migrant labor, workers’ lives, and the social and cultural history of towns. The first volume, *Gold and Workers, 1886–1924*, was widely circulated among the South African public and became a textbook in the 1990s. Callinicos’s subsequent two works focused on South Africa’s industrialization and urbanization in the mid-20th century. The second volume, *Working Life: Factories, Towns, and Popular Culture on the Rand, 1886–1940*, won the 1988 Noma Award for Publishing in Africa. The third volume, *The Place of the City: The Rand on the Eve of Apartheid*, discusses South Africa’s industrialization process, working-class struggles, and the rise of the apartheid system in the 1940s. Philip Bonner and Lauren Segal’s *Soweto: A History* provides a detailed account of the establishment and development of the famous black community of Soweto, which was later made into a documentary. Furthermore, from 1986 to 1990, the History Workshop published a series of articles on South African history in the *New Nation* newspaper, providing black people with a new framework for understanding and analyzing South African society under apartheid, thereby boosting the morale of the anti-apartheid struggle. This series of articles was later compiled and published as the book *New Nation, New History*.

首先，金山大学历史工作坊面向大众推广研究成果。金山大学历史工作坊将被剥夺人口、工人阶级和下层民众的经历作为研究主题，并且将历史研究与政治活动联系起来。金山大学历史工作坊试图通过提供民众能接受的、非学术的出版物来传播历史知识。卢利·卡利尼科斯编撰了三卷本的《南非人民的历史》，内容涉及黑人工人阶级的形成、移民劳动力的出现以及工人的生活和城镇社会文化史等主题。第一卷《黄金与工人，1886—1924年》在南非公众中间广泛流传，并且在20世纪90年代成为教科书。卡利尼科斯的后两部著作关注20世纪中叶南非工业化和城镇化进程。第二卷《工作生活：兰德的工厂、城镇和大众文化，1886—1940年》荣获1988年“野间非洲出版奖（Noma Award for Publishing in Africa）”。第三卷《城中之地：种族隔离制度前夕的兰德》讨论20世纪40年代南非工业化进程、工人阶级斗争与种族隔离制度的兴起。菲利普·邦纳和劳伦·西格尔的《索韦托史》详细记述了索韦托这一著名黑人社区的建立与发展，而后又被拍摄为纪录片。另外，1986—1990年，金山大学历史工作坊在《新民族》（New Nation）报上发表了一系列南非史主题文章，为黑人民众提供理解和分析种族隔离制度之下南非社会状况的全新框架，鼓舞黑人民众反种族隔离斗争的士气。这组文章后来结集出版为《新民族，新历史》一书。

Second, the History Workshop established open days. From its inception, the History Workshop sought to engage with ordinary people; alongside its annual academic conferences, it also held open-day events. This activity continued for over a decade, attracting workers, students, and social activists to participate in public cultural activities. These included organizing workers’ choirs, dance troupes, and drama societies, as well as holding concerts, exhibitions, and public lectures by scholars. With the end of the apartheid system in the early 1990s, people had more channels to express their demands, and the meaning of public history underwent profound changes. The History Workshop no longer viewed society outside the university as “occasional visitors” but as “partners” in historical writing. The History Workshop played an active constructive role in the new South Africa, building a platform for communication between academia and social activists, public intellectuals, policy researchers, and government officials, providing historical perspectives for understanding the urgent practical problems facing South Africa, such as historical truth, national reconciliation, AIDS, and racism. The History Workshop innovated in public history; it directly participated in and advocated for public history, providing important information for museums, monuments, exhibitions, and commemorative days, such as promoting the establishment of the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg. The historical narrative presented by the museum focuses not only on the apartheid government’s repression of black people but also on the daily lives and culture of black laborers, reflecting the distinctive characteristics of the History Workshop. The museum has become one of Johannesburg’s tourist landmarks. In 2016, the History Workshop’s “Everyday and Public History” project received funding from the South African National Research Foundation.

其次，金山大学历史工作坊设立开放日活动。金山大学历史工作坊自创立之初就尝试与普通民众结合，它在举办年度学术会议的同时还举行开放日活动。这项活动持续了十多年时间，吸引工人、学生和社会活动家参与公共文化活动。如组织工人合唱团、舞蹈团和剧社，并且举办演唱会、展览和学者公开演讲等活动。随着20世纪90年代初种族隔离制度的终结，民众有了更多渠道来表达诉求，公共史学的含义发生深刻变化，金山大学历史工作坊不再将大学之外的社会视作“偶尔的访客”，而是参与历史书写的“伙伴”。金山大学历史工作坊在新南非扮演积极的建设作用，为学界和社会活动家、公共知识分子、政策研究者和政府官员搭建沟通平台，为理解南非面临的紧迫的现实问题提供历史视角，如历史真相、民族和解、艾滋病和种族主义等。金山大学历史工作坊在公共史学方面做出创新，它直接参与和倡导公共史学，为博物馆、纪念碑、展览和纪念日提供重要信息，例如推动建立约翰内斯堡种族隔离制度纪念馆。纪念馆呈现的历史叙述不仅关注种族隔离政府对于黑人民众的镇压，同时也展现黑人劳工的日常生活与文化，显示出金山大学历史工作坊的鲜明特征，该纪念馆已经成为约翰内斯堡的旅游地标之一。2016年，金山大学历史工作坊的“日常和公共史”项目获得南非国家研究基金会资助。

Furthermore, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop also played an important role in planning secondary school history curricula. As early as the 1980s, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop had already begun to focus on the important role secondary school teachers played in the field of public history, and it specially established an annual teachers’ workshop. As South African society engaged in heated debate around the crisis of the school education system and the issue of “people’s education,” the history syllabus became a focus of attention. Two members of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, Susan Krige and Luli Callinicos, called on the historical profession to strengthen exchanges with secondary school teachers in order to eliminate racist elements from secondary school history textbooks. After the abolition of the apartheid system, South Africa’s secondary school history syllabus and education policy underwent profound changes; the new syllabus made oral history one of its central contents, but the syllabus did not provide operational guidelines. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop had long experience in oral history research and therefore actively filled this gap. It resumed holding the annual teachers’ workshop, teaching teachers the basic knowledge of oral history and specific methods for its application in classroom teaching.

再者，金山大学历史工作坊还在中学历史课程规划方面扮演重要角色。早在20世纪80年代，金山大学历史工作坊已经开始关注中学教师在公共史学领域扮演的重要角色，它专门创立了一年一度的教师工作坊。随着南非社会围绕学校教育制度危机和“人民教育”问题展开激烈讨论，历史教学大纲成为关注焦点。金山大学历史工作坊的两位成员，苏珊·克雷格（Susan Krige）和卢利·卡利尼科斯呼吁史学界加强与中学教师的交流，以消除中学历史教科书中的种族主义因素。种族隔离制度废除后，南非的中学历史教学大纲和教育政策发生深刻改变，新大纲将口述史列为中心内容之一，但是大纲并未给出具有操作性的指南。金山大学历史工作坊在口述史研究方面有着长期经验，因而积极填补这一空缺。它恢复举办一年一度的教师工作坊，向教师讲授口述史基本知识以及在课堂教学中的具体运用方法。

Third, emphasizing the importance of oral history research. The emphasis on oral history research was an important contribution of the Witwatersrand History Workshop in terms of research methods. One of the preconditions for making “history from below” possible was the application of oral history research methods. South African social historians, including those of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, advocated overcoming the limitations of written documents through oral history research, emphasizing that the stories and voices revealed by oral historical materials were not “ornaments to the historical archive” but rather integrated issues of agency, experience, and consciousness into a profound understanding of class formation and capital accumulation. Under the apartheid system, black South Africans before the 1960s were only permitted to receive primary education, and black experiences could rarely be preserved in the form of written documents. Moreover, black activities were only recorded when they were deemed problematic by the apartheid regime; therefore, most aspects of black production and daily life went unrecorded. For this reason, oral interviews constituted an important source for researching the social and political history of black South Africans. South African social historians applied oral history research methods to historical research in factories, mines, and rural areas in order to reveal many aspects of South African social change, such as the formation of the black proletariat, working-class life and culture, the living conditions of black laborers, the “moral economy” of urban miners, the consciousness and political associations of migrant laborers, and criminal activities under urban apartheid. Besides the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, other institutions engaged in oral history research included the Oral Documentation Project of the University of the Witwatersrand’s African Studies Institute, the Cape Town Oral History Project, and the Natal Worker History Project.

第三，强调口述史研究的重要性。对口述史研究的重视，是金山历史工作坊在研究方法方面的重要贡献。“自下而上”的社会史书写之所以成为可能，其先决条件之一就是口述史研究方法的运用。包括金山大学历史工作坊在内的南非社会史学家主张通过口述史研究克服书面文献的局限，强调口述史料揭示出来的故事和声音并不是“历史档案的点缀”，而是将能动性、经历和意识问题融入关于阶级形成和资本积累的深刻理解之中。在种族隔离制度之下，南非黑人在20世纪60年代以前只被允许接受小学教育，黑人经历很少能以书面文献的形式保存下来。而且，黑人活动只有在被种族隔离政权视作问题的情况下才会记录下来，因此，黑人生产生活的大部分内容未被记录。正因如此，口述访谈构成研究南非黑人社会史和政治史的重要资料来源。南非社会史学家将口述史研究方法运用到厂矿和乡村地区的历史研究之中，以揭示南非社会变迁的诸多方面，如黑人无产阶级的形成、工人阶级生活与文化、黑人劳工生活状况、城镇矿工的“道德经济”、移民劳工的意识和政治结社、城镇种族隔离之下的犯罪活动等。除了金山大学历史工作坊以外，从事口述史研究的还包括金山大学非洲研究所的口述档案项目（Oral Documentation Project）、开普敦口述史项目（Cape Town Oral History Project）和纳塔尔劳工史项目（Natal Worker History Project）等。

Fourth, promoting gender history research. In the 1980s, a group of social historians, including Belinda Bozzoli of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, actively advocated for gender history research. They called for attention to cross-class forces such as gender and ethnicity, criticized structuralist revisionist historiography for seriously neglecting the historical agency of African women, and opposed understanding women’s social roles in the oppressive system of racial capitalism simply as a matter of the social reproduction of labor power. They questioned previous South African historiographical schools, criticizing nationalist or liberal approaches for primarily focusing on white or black men. Although earlier research on trade union organizing had already touched on African women, the analytical framework emphasized by feminist historians focused not only on women as workers but also on their social identity as women. Research on rural households, migrant labor, urbanization patterns, and urban culture extensively discussed issues of gender and generational relations. Driven by these social historians, gender history research gradually became popular in South African historiography.

第四，推动性别史研究。20世纪80年代，包括金山大学历史工作坊的贝琳达·博佐利在内，一批社会史学家积极倡导性别史研究，她们呼吁关注诸如性别和族群这样跨阶级的力量、批评结构主义修正史学严重忽视了非洲女性的历史能动性、反对将妇女在种族资本主义压迫体制中的社会角色简单地理解为劳动力社会再生产问题。她们对之前的南非史学流派提出质疑，批评民族主义或者自由主义主要关注南非白人或者黑人男性的做法。尽管之前有关工会结社活动的研究已经涉及非洲妇女，但是女性主义史学家强调的分析框架，关注的不仅是妇女作为工人的身份，而且是作为女性的社会认同。有关乡村家庭、移民劳工、城镇化模式和城镇文化的研究，大量讨论性别和代际关系问题。在这些社会史学家的推动下，性别史研究在南非史学界日渐流行。

IV. Basic Evaluation

四、基本评价

The 1980s and 1990s were the period when radical historiography had the greatest influence in South Africa, and the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, as the most influential radical historiography research network at the time, “was the core institution that propelled ‘history from below’ social history to a dominant position in South African historiography.” The social history represented by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop emerged in the process of challenging the then-mainstream structuralist Marxism in South African historiography. Against the backdrop of the anti-apartheid struggle, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop paid particular attention to the history of ordinary people and urban history, using historical research and knowledge dissemination as means of anti-racial struggle. It highly emphasized the agency of Africans, advocated for “history from below,” focused on conflicts and accommodations in the daily lives of different classes and groups, and stressed that these seemingly ordinary changes constituted the foundation upon which South Africa’s specific class, cultural, and ideological patterns were formed. After the abolition of the apartheid system, it adapted to the trends of the times and contributed to the reconstruction of the new South African society. The social history represented by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop greatly expanded the scope of modern South African historiography, promoting South African history as one of the most dynamic and innovative fields of African historiography.

20世纪八九十年代是激进史学在南非影响最大的时期，而金山大学历史工作坊作为当时最具影响的激进史学研究网络，“是推动‘自下而上’的社会史学在南非史学中占据主导地位的核心机构”。以金山大学历史工作坊为代表的社会史学是在挑战当时南非史学中主流的结构主义的马克思主义的过程中兴起的。在反种族隔离斗争的背景下，金山大学历史工作坊尤其关注普通民众历史和城镇史，将史学研究和知识传播作为反种族斗争的手段，它高度关注非洲人的能动性，倡导“自下而上”的历史书写，关注不同阶级、群体日常生活中的冲突与调和，强调这些看似寻常的变化构成南非特定的阶级、文化和意识形态模式得以形成的基础。到种族隔离制度废除之后，它又顺应时代潮流为新南非社会重建贡献力量。以金山大学历史工作坊为代表的社会史学极大拓展了南非现代史学的研究范围，推动南非史成为最具活力和创新性的非洲史学领域之一。

After the abolition of the apartheid system in the 1990s, South Africa entered a completely new period of development. The ideological and cultural sphere became increasingly pluralistic, and post-colonialism and postmodernism in particular posed challenges to the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop and the social history it represented. Against this background, social history needed to prove its continued legitimacy in the post-apartheid era. More seriously, it was not only social history; South African historiography as a whole showed signs of decline. In summary, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop faced criticism mainly in three areas.

20世纪90年代种族隔离制度废除后，南非进入全新发展时期，思想文化领域日益多元化，尤其是后殖民主义和后现代主义对金山大学历史工作坊及其代表的社会史学提出挑战。在这一背景下，社会史学需要证明自身在后种族隔离时代继续存在的合法性。更为严峻的是，不只是社会史学，南非史学整体呈现衰败迹象。概括而言，金山大学历史工作坊主要在三个方面遭受批评。

First, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop paid relatively little attention to theoretical discussion. Some critics argued that the research at the inception of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop mostly proceeded along the main line of class, focusing primarily on themes such as urbanization, generational relations, and urban-rural political culture, with little clarification of concepts or epistemological foundations. In the 1990s, South African social history research rarely participated in international academic discussions on post-colonialism. This stood in stark contrast to India’s “Subaltern Studies.” “Subaltern Studies” also developed out of social history research; on the basis of summarizing Indian experience, it actively participated in theoretical discussions in the international academic community and exerted enormous influence. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop showed little interest in similar theoretical explorations, instead focusing more on empirical research, which to some extent limited its academic influence.

第一，金山大学历史工作坊较少关注理论探讨。一些批评者认为，金山大学历史工作坊创立之初的研究大多以阶级为主线展开，主要围绕城镇化、代际关系、城乡政治文化等主题，很少阐明概念或者认识论基础。20世纪90年代，南非社会史研究很少参与国际学术界有关后殖民主义的学术讨论。这与印度的“庶民研究”形成鲜明对比。“庶民研究”同样是从社会史研究中发展出来的，它在总结印度经验的基础上，积极参与国际学术界的理论讨论并产生巨大影响。金山大学历史工作坊对于类似的理论探讨并未表现出太多兴趣，而是更多关注实证研究，这在一定程度上限制了它的学术影响力。

Second, the participants in the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop were mainly white scholars. At the series of academic conferences held by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, the number of black scholars gradually increased, but they still remained a minority. This issue did not receive much attention in the 1980s, because at that time left-wing scholars and students at the University of the Witwatersrand and other universities were united in opposing the apartheid system. In the 1990s, black students clashed with university authorities over racial issues, which was something left-wing white professors were reluctant to see. The University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop increasingly faced criticism, mainly because its historical research remained dominated by whites, and they rarely engaged in historical discussions of other regions of the African continent; they focused too much on local history while lacking generalization and synthesis; the analytical framework of social historians overemphasized class issues while evading the problem of racial oppression; and they failed to fully draw on research methods from other disciplines. Critics also charged that most white social historians had not mastered African languages and could only rely mainly on black assistants to conduct research, and that the academic contributions of these black assistants were neglected in the process.

第二，金山大学历史工作坊的参与者主要以白人学者为主。在金山大学历史工作坊举办的一系列学术会议中，黑人学者数量逐渐增多，但仍然属于少数。这一问题在20世纪80年代并未受到太多关注，因为当时金山大学和其他大学的左派学者与学生团结对抗种族隔离制度。20世纪90年代，黑人学生围绕种族问题与校方发生冲突，而这是左翼的白人教授们不愿看到的。金山大学历史工作坊日益遭受批评，主要是金山大学历史工作坊的历史研究仍然是白人主导的，而且他们很少介入非洲大陆其他地区的历史研讨；过于关注地方史，而缺少归纳与总结；社会史学家的分析框架过于强调阶级问题，而回避了种族压迫问题；未能全面借鉴其他学科的研究方法。质疑者还批评大多数白人社会史学家并未熟练掌握非洲语言，只能是主要依靠黑人助手来展开研究，而黑人助手在这一过程中的学术贡献遭到忽视。

Third, the research methods of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop have also been questioned. The increasingly prominent postcolonialism and postmodernism in recent years oppose the isolated study of South African townships, criticizing that the township history research advocated by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop is more “history in the township” than “history of the township.” They advocate understanding the history of South African townships in conjunction with the process of globalization, viewing South African townships as “testing grounds” for African modernity, a manifestation of globalism in Africa, and emphasizing that African townships can be studied in the same way as international metropolises such as New York and London. The oral history research method advocated by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop has also been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to the issue of historical memory, but rather only purposefully seeking materials useful for one’s own research, neglecting the power relations in the process of oral interviews.

第三，金山大学历史工作坊的研究方法也遭受质疑。近年来日益兴起的后殖民主义和后现代主义反对孤立地研究南非城镇，批评金山大学历史工作坊倡导的城镇史研究更多是“城镇中的历史”，而非“城镇的历史”。他们主张结合全球化进程来认识南非城镇史，将南非城镇视作非洲现代性的“试验场”，是全球主义在非洲的体现，强调可以将非洲城镇与纽约、伦敦等国际大都市一样加以研究。金山大学历史工作坊倡导的口述史研究方法也被批评并未充分关注历史记忆问题，而只是有目的地寻找对自己研究有用的资料，忽视了口述访谈过程中的权力关系。

Some researchers from the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop have responded to these criticisms. For example, workshop member Isabel Hofmeyr advocates a cautious approach to “orality” in oral historical materials, viewing it more as a “genre of history” rather than a “repository” of memory; Belinda Bozzoli also emphasizes that oral historical materials as texts “cannot perfectly reflect life, and therefore cannot accurately reveal ‘cultural and psychological myths,’” advocating the treatment of life histories as texts and their study using literary analysis methods. Moreover, since receiving funding from the South African National Research Foundation, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop has been committed to cultivating a new generation of historical researchers, especially Black scholars.

金山大学历史工作坊的一些研究者对这些批评意见作出回应。例如，工作坊成员伊莎贝尔·霍米尔（Isabel Hofmeyr）主张谨慎地对待口述史料中的“口头表达”（orality），将它更多地视作“历史的呈现形式之一”（genre of history），而不是记忆的“存储库”（repository）；贝琳达·博佐利也强调口述史料作为文本“不能完美地反映生活，因而不能准确地揭示出‘文化和心理意义上的神话’”，主张将生活史视作一种文本并且运用文学分析方法加以研究。而且，自从获得南非国家研究基金会资助后，金山大学历史工作坊致力于培养新一代的史学研究者，尤其是黑人学者。

In recent years, South African historiography has become increasingly diverse. A series of research results emerging around fields such as gender history, intellectual history, historical memory, Afrikaner society, the South African state, and art history indicate that the research themes and methods of South African history are increasingly diverse, while the attention paid to traditional social history has somewhat diminished. Nevertheless, the contribution of the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop to the development of South African historiography cannot be ignored: in the 1980s, the social history research it advocated greatly changed the basic landscape of South African historiography and contributed to the anti-apartheid struggle; after the abolition of the apartheid system, it actively participated in the construction of secondary school history curricula in the new South Africa, providing historical information for museums, monuments, exhibitions, and anniversaries, thereby contributing to public history; it also provided important historical perspectives on social issues facing the new South Africa, such as historical truth, national reconciliation, and AIDS; in today’s era when new perspectives and methods in historical research emerge one after another, the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop still insists on oral history research and local history research, which is particularly valuable. To this day, the practical concern presented by the University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop continues to profoundly influence the writing of South African history.

近年来，南非史学日益多样化，围绕着性别史、思想史、历史记忆、阿非利加社会、南非国家、艺术史等领域涌现出的一系列研究成果，表明南非史研究主题和研究方法日益多样，而传统的社会史研究受关注程度有所降低。尽管如此，金山大学历史工作坊对南非史学发展的贡献不容忽视：20世纪80年代它倡导的社会史学研究极大地改变了南非史学的基本面貌，为反种族隔离斗争贡献力量；种族隔离制度废除之后，它积极参与新南非的中学历史课程建设，为博物馆、纪念碑、展览和周年纪念日提供历史信息，从而为公共史学作出了贡献；它还为新南非面临的诸如历史真相、民族和解和艾滋病等社会问题提供重要的历史视角；在史学研究新视角和新方法层出不穷的今天，金山大学历史工作坊仍然坚持口述史研究和地方史研究，尤为可贵。时至今日，金山大学历史工作坊呈现的现实关怀仍在深刻地影响着南非的历史书写。

(Author’s bio: Li Pengtao, Research Fellow at the Institute of African Studies, Zhejiang Normal University)

（作者简介：李鹏涛，浙江师范大学非洲研究院研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心