History and the Present

Author: Chen Qining
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-01-01
Features:
Fragment: At present, historical research is no longer limited to the exploration of historical facts but requires a more critical and analytical perspective to re-examine past historical thought, in order to truly achieve the goal of "judging the past to teach the present for the benefit of the future." In this sense, those who study historiography and the philosophy of history are no longer just historians but intellectuals concerned with the fate of humanity. They bear witness to the fact that historiography, like other disciplines, faces the issue of globalization. Globalization, in essence, seeks commonality, thereby overlooking individuality. This individuality, manifested in historiography, is national identity, meaning that globalization forces historians to focus on the study of universal history.
From a temporal perspective, the emergence of historical compilation preceded the rise of nation-states. However, after the emergence of nation-states, historical compilation became closely intertwined with national identity. Historiography serves the state, and the state funds historiography—both are interdependent and progress together. If globalization were confined to the economic sphere, historiography would have the right to avoid this movement. However, the impact of globalization extends to all aspects, even to the point of denying the existence of nation-states, which in turn leads to the denial of the existence of national historiography. Although this is merely an extreme phenomenon, it reflects one aspect of globalization: the process of economic globalization is simultaneously a process of discourse globalization and the globalization of historiographical thought. Thus, it becomes necessary to redefine commonality and individuality, to re-narrate local history (national history), and to re-narrate world history (universal history).
The reality is that whether it is Western historians or Eastern historians, most interpret history based on their own cultural backgrounds, failing to understand or willing to understand the historical experiences of other nation-states. They present their conclusions as universally applicable, in fact stifling the diversification of historical experience and exacerbating the impoverishment of historical thought. Therefore, the best way to resolve this tension is to conduct comparative studies of historiographical thought. Such comparative research must first focus on the comparability of the subjects being studied. Here, we do not consider the specific types of historical comparative research but examine the comparability of time and content to understand why the comparative study of Chinese and Western literary thought is particularly favored in the field of historiography.
The ancient world's major civilizations all originated at roughly the same time. Sumerian, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and Greek civilizations hold equal status in the history of civilization, yet why is there such a strong preference for Chinese-Western comparisons? Lloyd, a professor of ancient philosophy and science at the University of Cambridge, possesses unique insights into ancient Chinese and Western civilizations. In recent years, he has been engaged in comparative studies of ancient Greece and ancient China, achieving remarkable results. He has published