British Marxist Historiography’s Study of the Popular Radical Tradition

The structural changes within the British working class after the Second World War, as an important manifestation of the restructuring of British society, not only drove the evolution of social thought but also laid the foundation for the rise of radical social movements from the 1950s to the 1970s. The new social currents that emerged continuously impacted and profoundly influenced the research perspectives, theoretical frameworks, and methodological orientations of the historical discipline. Against this backdrop, British Marxist historians actively traced the popular radical tradition in history. While emphasizing class formation and cultural resistance, they committed themselves to excavating the agency and tradition of resistance among plebeian actors and to rebuilding the organic connection between intellectuals and the workers’ movement. In doing so, they provided rich historical resources and intellectual references for understanding contemporary social crises and exploring paths of transformation.

二战后英国工人阶级内部的结构性变化作为英国社会结构重组的重要表现，不仅推动社会思潮的演变，也为20世纪50—70年代激进主义社会运动的兴起奠定了基础，其所形成的新社会思潮持续冲击并深刻影响了历史学界的研究视野、理论框架与方法论取向。在此背景下，英国马克思主义史家积极追溯历史上的大众激进传统，在强调阶级形成与文化抵抗的同时，致力于挖掘平民行动者的能动性与反抗传统，重建知识分子与工人运动之间的有机联系，从而为理解当代社会危机和探索变革路径提供了深厚的历史资源与思想参照。

Historical Context and Intellectual Origins

历史语境与思想渊源

The British Marxist historians’ study of the popular radical tradition emerged in the 1960s. It was both a major transformation in historical methodology and an academic response to changes in social reality. The formation of this approach was deeply embedded in the multiple contexts of post-war British social change, intellectual debate, and the internal development of historiography.

英国马克思主义史家关于大众激进传统的研究兴起于20世纪60年代，既是史学方法论的重大转型，也是对社会现实变革的学术回应。这一路径的形成，深植于战后英国的社会变迁、思想争鸣与史学内在发展的多重语境之中。

After the Second World War, British society underwent rapid transformation, prompting groups and individuals to establish their identities by looking back at history. This trend impelled historians to examine in depth the historical formation of social units such as the family, occupation, class, and ethnicity. As the subjects and forms of post-war social movements became increasingly diverse, sociological theories—especially discussions of social structure, collective action, and cultural reproduction—were introduced into the field of history. This prompted researchers to pay more attention to the mechanisms of group identity formation and the internal dynamics of social change, thereby broadening research topics and methodological horizons. In this context, British Marxist historians represented by Edward Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm gradually developed a radical social history approach with a clear critical consciousness and concern for the subaltern.

二战后，英国社会经历快速转型，促使群体与个人通过回溯历史来确立身份认同，这一趋势推动历史学者深入考察家庭、职业、阶级和族群等社会单元的历史构成。随着战后社会运动的主体与形式日趋多元，社会学理论——特别是关于社会结构、集体行动与文化再生产的讨论——被引入史学领域，促使研究者更多关注群体认同的形成机制与社会变迁的内在动力，从而拓宽了研究议题与方法视野。在这一背景下，以爱德华·汤普森和埃里克·霍布斯鲍姆为代表的英国马克思主义史家，逐渐发展出一种具有明确批判意识和底层关怀的激进社会史路径。

In terms of academic lineage, British Marxist historians inherited the plebeian stance of the early communist tradition, focusing on the attitudes, beliefs, and collective actions of ordinary people, with particular attention to early or transitional forms of popular resistance such as peasant uprisings and the Luddite movement. They emphasized recovering the historical experience of oppressed groups from the cultural and practical levels. While breaking through the limitations of traditional political history, they absorbed and transformed the theoretical methods of sociology and the Annales School, striving to push history toward a holistic analysis of social structure and cultural practice. This laid the foundation for later studies in labor history, gender history, and cultural history. Compared with the earlier mainstream British historiography, which had long focused on state institutions and elite politics, the social and intellectual changes after the Second World War gradually led them to expand their vision to socio-economic processes and the daily lives of ordinary people, realizing a research shift from “high politics” to “subculture.”

从学术渊源看，英国马克思主义史家承继了早期共产主义传统中的平民主义立场，聚焦于民众的态度、信仰与集体行动，尤其关注农民起义、卢德运动等早期或过渡形态的民众抗争。他们强调从文化与实践层面重拾被压迫群体的历史经验，在突破传统政治史局限的同时，吸收并转化社会学与年鉴学派的理论方法，力图推动历史学走向对社会结构与文化实践的整体分析，这为后来的劳工史、性别史与文化史等研究奠定了基础。与此前英国主流史学长期聚焦国家制度与精英政治相比，二战后的社会与思想变迁促使他们逐步将视野扩展至社会经济过程与普通民众的日常生活，实现了从“高政治”向“亚文化”的研究转向。

Particularly important is that the rise of this research orientation was directly related to the contemporary historiographical debate over “Britishness” and the revolutionary tradition. In the 1950s and 1960s, the second-generation New Left, represented by Perry Anderson, argued that the prevalence of reformism in Britain after the nineteenth century had suppressed the development of revolutionary Marxism, and therefore the British working class lacked genuine revolutionary character. This assertion was opposed by older Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill and Edward Thompson. They emphasized that there existed in British history a powerful and continuous popular radical tradition, which had merely been obscured by reformist narratives. Driven by this debate, Hill, Thompson, and others began systematically to excavate the popular radical tradition in British history—from early workers’ struggles to the practice of the Chartist movement, from the germination of plebeian radical thought to the trajectory of collective action—responding to the charge that “Britain lacked revolutionary character” with empirical research, thereby laying the foundation for the study of the popular radical tradition.

尤为重要的是，该研究取向的兴起与当时围绕“英国性”与革命传统的史学争论直接相关。20世纪50—60年代，以佩里·安德森为代表的第二代新左派指出，19世纪后改良主义在英国的流行，抑制了革命的马克思主义的发展，因此英国工人阶级缺乏真正的革命性。这一论断遭到克里斯托弗·希尔和爱德华·汤普森等老一辈马克思主义史家的反对。他们强调英国历史上存在强大而持续的大众激进传统，只不过被改良主义叙事所遮蔽。正是在这一争论的推动下，希尔与汤普森等人开始系统挖掘英国历史中的大众激进传统——从早期工人抗争到宪章运动的实践，从平民激进思想的萌发到集体行动的轨迹——以实证研究回应“英国无革命性”的质疑，从而奠定了大众激进传统研究的基础。

Theoretical Content and Paradigmatic Characteristics

理论内涵与范式特点

The study of the British popular radical tradition is an important branch of post-war new social history. It shares the latter’s concern for the subaltern and everyday life, yet is distinctive for its clear Marxist stance and sense of intervention. This approach expanded the subjects and scope of historical writing and critically reshaped the understanding of power structures and historical dynamics. In terms of theoretical method, British radical social history exhibits the following core paradigmatic features.

英国大众激进传统研究是二战后新社会史的重要分支，既共享其对底层与日常生活的关注，又因鲜明的马克思主义立场与介入意识而独具特色。该路径拓展了历史书写的主体与范畴，并以批判性重塑了对权力结构与历史动力的理解。在理论方法上，英国的激进社会史表现出以下几项核心范式特征。

First, it focuses on social inequality and marginalized groups, committed to rewriting history from a subaltern perspective and revealing forms of resistance and popular subjectivity obscured by mainstream narratives. For example, Thompson emphasized that the working class completed the “making” of class theory through political and cultural practice during the Industrial Revolution; Hobsbawm expanded the scope of research on “pre-political” resistance (such as banditry and millenarian movements), demonstrating their significance as forms of subaltern struggle.

一是聚焦社会不平等与边缘群体，致力于以底层视角重写历史，揭示被主流叙事遮蔽的抗争形态与民众主体性。例如，汤普森强调工人阶级在工业革命中通过政治与文化实践完成了阶级理论的“形成”；霍布斯鲍姆则拓展了“前政治”反抗（如盗匪、千禧年运动）的研究范畴，论证其作为底层抗争的重要意义。

Second, it opposes economic determinism, emphasizes the interactive mechanisms of group consciousness, collective action, and social structure, excavates political practices and cultural symbols outside the system, and pays attention to micro-social foundations such as community, family, and emotion. For example, Dorothy Thompson’s research on the Chartist movement revealed how the working class constructed collective identity through sermons, songs, and other forms; Raymond Challinor’s study of the Lancashire miners demonstrated the connection between subaltern self-organization and the shaping of class position.

二是反对经济决定论，注重群体意识、集体行动与社会结构的互动机制，挖掘体制外政治实践与文化符号，并关注社区、家庭与情感等微观社会基础。例如，多萝西·汤普森有关宪章运动的研究，揭示了工人阶级如何借助布道、歌曲等形式构建集体认同；雷蒙德·查利诺对兰开夏郡矿工的考察，则展现了底层自组织与阶级立场塑造之间的关联。

Third, it focuses on the mechanisms of the dissemination and reception of radical thought, especially the ways in which ideas are embedded in daily life and their role in driving social change. In this regard, Christopher Hill’s analysis of the “Diggers” and “Levellers” in the English Revolution elucidated how Puritan thought laid the foundation for capitalist ideology and became embedded in everyday life; George Rudé, through his study of pre-industrial protest, broke with the traditional narrative of the “mob,” revealing the social composition of protesters and their cross-regional commonalities.

三是关注激进思想的传播与接受机制，尤其注重观念嵌入日常生活的途径及其对社会变革的推动作用。对此，克里斯托弗·希尔对英国革命中“掘地派”和“平等派”的分析，阐明了清教思想如何为资本主义意识形态奠基并嵌入大众日常生活；乔治·鲁德则通过前工业化抗议研究，打破了“暴民”传统叙事，揭示抗议者的社会构成与跨地域共性。

Fourth, it critically analyzes the maintenance and operation of power relations, exposing the connections and distinctions between superstructures such as law, institutions, and culture, on the one hand, and class power and ideology, on the other, as well as how these become arenas of domination and resistance. In this respect, Greaves used song materials to present the history of colonization and resistance between Britain and Ireland; Saville meticulously analyzed the state’s use of surveillance, judicial, and ideological control measures during the Chartist movement.

四是批判性分析权力关系的维系与运作方式，揭露法律、制度和文化等上层建筑与阶级权力、意识形态之间的联系与区别，以及如何成为支配和反抗的场域。在这一方面，格里夫斯通过歌曲材料呈现英国与爱尔兰间的殖民与抵抗历程；萨维尔则细致分析了国家在宪章运动中所采用的监视、司法与意识形态控制手段。

Fifth, it possesses a clear sense of political intervention and theoretical reflexivity. This school adheres to a socialist stance; its research aims not only to restore history but also to provide theoretical and historical resources for left-wing movements. Although some scholars question its tendency toward “over-politicization,” it is precisely this value position that distinguishes it from empirical historiography and highlights the public character and critical potential of history.

五是具有明确的政治介入意识与理论反思性。该学派秉持社会主义立场，其研究不仅旨在还原历史，更试图为左翼运动提供理论与历史资源。尽管有学者质疑其“过度政治化”的倾向，但正是这种价值立场使其与实证史学有所区别，彰显了历史学的公共性与批判潜能。

Cross-Regional Expansion and Contemporary Value

跨域扩展与当代价值

Since the 1990s, the British Marxist historians’ study of the popular radical tradition, as an important component of the twentieth-century wave of historiographical innovation, has focused on critiquing traditional historiographical paradigms, attending to marginalized groups, and revealing power structures, with a long-term concentration on the interactive mechanism of “resistance and power.” Its theories and methods have not only resonated globally but have also undergone creative local transformation and critical reception in different contexts.

20世纪90年代以来，英国马克思主义史家关于大众激进传统的研究作为20世纪史学革新浪潮的重要组成部分，以批判传统史学范式、关注边缘群体、揭示权力结构为核心，长期聚焦于“抵抗—权力”的互动机制，其理论与方法不仅在全球范围内获得回响，更在不同语境中经历了创造性的在地转化与批判性接纳。

In Western academia, related research has shown a two-way deepening: on the one hand, scholars have reflected on the class theory represented by Thompson, breaking through a single radical narrative, emphasizing the complex interaction between radical and conservative forces in history, while vigorously promoting the re-examination of local archives and folk documents, extending related research to dimensions such as culture, gender, and region; on the other hand, Hobsbawm’s theory of “social resistance” has been used in studies of Latin America and Africa to analyze the “pre-political” resistance of peasant and indigenous communities, revealing the significance of these forms as sources of modern political identity.

在西方学术界，相关研究呈现双向深化：一方面，学者对汤普森所代表的阶级理论进行反思，在突破单一激进叙事，强调历史上激进与保守力量复杂互动的同时，着力推动地方档案与民间文书的重审，将相关研究拓展至文化、性别和地域等维度；另一方面，霍布斯鲍姆的“社会反抗”理论在拉丁美洲与非洲的研究被用于分析农民与土著社区的“前政治”抵抗，揭示这些形式作为现代政治认同源泉的重要意义。

At the same time, this paradigm has profoundly influenced the historical writing of scholars in the Global South, providing key analytical tools for post-colonial identity politics research (such as Subaltern Studies and Afrocentric historiography) and helping them challenge the intellectual hegemony of Eurocentrism. African scholars have used it to focus on the cultural practices and informal resistance of laborers within colonial systems; Latin American academia has integrated class culture, moral economy, and critiques of transnational capitalism, highlighting the symbiotic relationship between economic and cultural demands in struggles.

与此同时，该范式深刻影响了全球南方学者的历史书写，为后殖民社会身份政治研究（如庶民研究与非洲中心主义史学）提供关键分析工具，助力其挑战欧洲中心主义知识霸权。非洲学者借此关注殖民体系中劳工的文化实践与非正式抵抗，拉美学术界则整合阶级文化、道德经济与跨国资本主义批判，凸显经济与文化诉求在抗争中的共生关系。

At present, this field increasingly applies a pluralistic and cross-cutting perspective: methodologically, it integrates feminism, postcolonial theory, and cultural studies, incorporating categories such as race, gender, coloniality, and religion into the analysis; in terms of research themes, it extends from institutional struggle to cultural practice, memory construction, and the dimension of emotion; in scope, it emphasizes transnational comparison and global connections. By revealing the historical agency of obscured groups and the power essence of the “natural order,” radical social history has not only promoted innovation in historiographical methods but also provided critical intellectual resources for contemporary responses to issues such as inequality and ecological crisis.

当前，该领域更多应用多元交叉视角：在方法上，融汇女性主义、后殖民理论及文化研究，将种族、性别、殖民性与宗教等范畴纳入分析；在研究主题上，从制度斗争延伸至文化实践、记忆建构与情感维度；在视野上，注重跨国比较与全球关联。通过揭示被遮蔽群体的历史能动性与“自然秩序”的权力本质，激进社会史不仅推动了史学方法革新，亦为当代应对不平等、生态危机等议题提供了批判性思想资源。

In both academic and political senses, radical social history has not only reconstructed the subjects and content of historical writing but also deeply intervened in the critique of structural power and the pursuit of social justice. It is committed to restoring the historical presence and agency of obscured actors (workers, women, the colonial masses, ethnic minorities) and revealing the social construction and power essence of the so-called “natural order.” This paradigm has promoted the self-innovation of historiographical methodology, advocating the use of non-traditional historical sources, the development of micro-narratives, and the integration of global perspectives, thereby achieving a deeper interpretation of mechanisms of oppression and demonstrating that history can provide resources of legitimacy and bases for identity for contemporary struggles. At a time when the contradictions of globalization are deepening, inequality is intensifying, and ecological crisis is imminent, the problem consciousness and methodology of British Marxist historians regarding the study of the popular radical tradition still provide irreplaceable intellectual resources and discursive pathways for understanding the past and examining the present.

在学术与政治的双重意义上，激进社会史不仅重构了历史书写的主体与内容，更深刻介入对结构性权力的批判与社会正义的追求。它致力于复原被遮蔽的行动主体（工人、女性、殖民地大众、少数族裔）的历史在场性与能动性，揭示所谓“自然秩序”的社会建构与权力本质。该范式推动了史学方法论的自我革新，倡导利用非传统史料、开展微观叙事与全球视野整合，实现对压迫机制的更深刻解读，表明历史可为当代抗争提供合法性资源与认同依据。在全球化矛盾深化、不平等加剧与生态危机迫近的当下，英国马克思主义史家关于大众激进传统研究的问题意识与方法论，仍为理解过去、审视当下提供了不可替代的思想资源与话语路径。

(The authors are, respectively, a doctoral student at the College of Humanities, Shanghai Normal University, and a dean and professor at the College of History, Shanghai Normal University.)

（作者系上海师范大学人文学院博士研究生；上海师范大学历史学院院长、教授）