Author: Liu Wenming
Source: "Historical Theory Research Official Public Account" WeChat public account
The original article was published in Theory of Historical Research, No. 6, 2021
From the middle of the 20th century, William McNeill, Marshall Hodgson, Levton Stavrianos, Philip Koding, and Jeffrey Paleclaf of the United Kingdom, advocated the teaching and research of world history, criticized the "Eurocentrism" in the compilation of European and American histories at that time and the lack of a holistic view and connection in it, and developed a "new world history" with their research and teaching practice, which emphasized the horizontal connection of the world from the perspective of the whole and the view of interaction and tried to avoid the "Eurocentrism" of "Eurocentrism" The history of the new world" is the "history of the world." Therefore, "global history" first appeared as a concept and method of compiling the general history of the world, and it is the historical practice of "global vision" and "global method" applied to the compilation of the general history of the world. By the 1990s, global history was developing as a new concept and method of historical research, and at the same time it was first developed in the United States as a new field and subdiscipline of historical research. As a specialized field of historical research, it mainly focuses on cross-national, cross-cultural and cross-regional historical phenomena, and understands certain historical phenomena in a broader context, making up for the shortcomings in the study of traditional nation-state history. By the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, global history, both as a method of historical research and as a branch of history, began to be accepted by historians in many countries, thus becoming a worldwide historical trend. So, how did global history come to China? What are the initial results achieved? How to develop global history in China? This paper attempts to briefly sort out the academic history of the rise and development of global history in China, and put forward a little thinking from this.
The concept of "global history" was introduced and emerged as a field of research
The process of introducing global history into China and its initial development in China is also a process in which Chinese scholars' cognition and understanding of global history continue to deepen. In general, the "global history" that Chinese scholars initially understood was only a general history of the world compiled in the "global historical view", and then realized that it was also a new perspective and new method of historical research. Since then, global history as a specialized field and sub-discipline of historical research has gradually been accepted by Chinese scholars.
The contact and understanding of "global history" by Chinese historians began with the translation of the British scholar Jeffrey Paleclav's "Main Trends in Contemporary Historiography" and the American scholar Stavrianos's "General History of the World". In 1987, the Chinese edition of "Major Trends in Contemporary Historiography" was published, and the translator translated a universal view of history as "a global view of history" and translated it as "transcending the boundaries of nations and regions and understanding the historical view of the whole world". At the same time, the translation of a global scale and in a global perspective in the original text is "global scope and perspective". The 1988 General History of the Globe (First Edition), which also had a Chinese edition, claimed that the book "studied the history of the globe rather than a country or region" and that "the view of this book is as different from that of an observer living on the moon when he examines the sphere in which we are located as a whole, and is therefore different from that of an observer living in London or Paris, Beijing, or Delhi.". In its subsequent elaboration, this codification concept is expressed in two concepts: global approach and global overview, which are translated in the Chinese edition as "a global exploration of history" and "a global perspective", respectively. In the introduction written for the Chinese translation, Zhang Guangyong expounded Stavrianos's views from the perspective of the history of Western historiography, and argued: "As far as the title of the book is concerned, the author does not directly call "General History of the World", but instead calls it "Global General History", which is closely related to the historical thought of the contemporary French school of annals. It should be pointed out that 'global history' is the term of historians of the French school of annals, which was originally called 'total history' or 'overall history', which refers to the comprehensive study of the history of a certain period of time in a region as a whole, such as geography, society, economy, ideology, politics, etc., to reflect the overall historical picture of this whole. Judging from the writings of historians of the Annals School, global history is sometimes synonymous with the general history of the world, or is equivalent to the history of research on a global scale. ”
The above translations and expositions show that Chinese scholars initially understood the "global view of history" and "global history", and basically regarded this kind of history as the history of the whole world or the whole world, especially the general history of the world compiled from the "global point of view". However, from the late 1980s to the 1990s, Chinese historians did not have a wide discussion of the "global history" of the West. However, some scholars have also begun to emphasize the horizontal connections in the compilation of the general history of the world, the most typical of which is the six-volume "History of the World" edited by Wu Yuliu and Qi Shirong in 1994. By the end of the 1990s, the discussion of the "global view of history" in Chinese historians began to emerge. Obviously, the term "global view of history" is a shorthand for "global view of history", and the understanding of its connotations comes mainly from the works of Balelclav and Stavrianos. Therefore, judging from the emergence of the concept of "global historical view" in China, it is both foreign and indigenous, and it is a specific concept formed in the translation process. Its exogenousness is mainly manifested in the English translation, and its connotation mainly comes from concepts such as universal view, global perspective, global approach, global overview, etc., which requires a "global" perspective, method, and perspective to examine history. Its locality is reflected in the fact that it has evolved from the "global view of history" in the English context to the "global view of history" in the Chinese context, and it is therefore difficult to translate back into English, even if it is barely translated, there are multiple corresponding words, and it is difficult to express the meaning of the Chinese "view of history". This is an important reason why the concept of "global view of history" is rarely discussed abroad but was once hotly debated in China.
In 2000, the 19th International Congress of History and Science was held in Oslo, Norway, and representatives of Chinese historians were sent to attend the meeting. The conference had three main themes, one of which was "Perspectives on Global History: Concepts and Methods", which included two sub-topics: (1) Is universal history possible? (Is universal history possible?) ;(2) Cultural encounters between continents over the centuries. Wang Xianming's introduction to the conference after returning to China did not strictly distinguish between global history and universal history, but translated both as "global history", so the first sub-topic he introduced was translated as "Can global history be established?" At that time, this issue also represented the doubts of many scholars in the field of historiography, especially in the field of Chinese historiography. The second sub-topic on cultural encounters was a thematic presentation by Jerry Bentley, an arrangement that apparently served the larger theme of "Perspectives on Global History: Concepts and Methods", since cross-cultural encounters were Bentley's entry point for his work on global history. Through the introduction of this conference, domestic scholars have more understanding of global history, which can be said that Chinese scholars have begun to further realize that global history can also become a research field after contacting the "global view of history". However, in the early years of the 21st century, although Chinese historians began to have some understanding of "global history" and discussions on the "global view of history" were also carried out, there were only a few empirical studies of global history, and global history as a research field had not yet developed in China.
The establishment of the Department of Global History at Capital Normal University has played an important role in promoting the rise of empirical research on global history in China. In 2004, the Center for Global History Research of Capital Normal University was established, and a special global history research team was formed. In October 2005, the Center and the American World Historical Association jointly hosted the "International Symposium on World General History Education in Various Countries in the World", which for the first time in China discussed "Theories and Methods of Global History" as an important theme of the conference, so that Chinese scholars could have more understanding of "Global History". In 2007, the School of History of Capital Normal University established a second-level discipline of global history to recruit graduate students majoring in global history. In 2008, Liu Xincheng founded the academic journal Global History Review, which publishes global history papers and has become an important platform for displaying the research results of global history. These are important signs of the emergence of global history as a field of study and sub-discipline of history in China.
Regarding the empirical research of global history as a research field, Liu Xincheng's introduction to the study of global history by American scholar Donald White reflects the understanding of domestic scholars in this regard at the beginning of the rise of global history in China. White's "The World and the Land of Africa" represents an exploration and approach of global history research, that is, to observe the history of a certain region in a broader spatial context, thereby exploring the relationship between "small places" and "big worlds". When this kind of research path of global history works developed in Europe and the United States, Chinese scholars also began to empirically study global history, and as the results increased year by year, global history also received more and more attention and recognition in the domestic academic community. In 2014, Beijing University of Foreign Chinese established the Institute of Global History; in 2016, Shandong University established the Institute of Global History and Transnational History; and in 2019, East China Normal University established the Global Research Center for the History of Ideas on the basis of the original Cross-regional Civilization Research Center. In this way, global history as a field of historical research and sub-discipline has been initially developed in China.
II. Theoretical Discussion on Global History
In the first ten years of the rise of global history in China, academic achievements mainly focused on Western translation and theoretical discussion, and there was not much empirical research. In terms of translation, most of the influential global history works in the West, from the initial macroscopic general history to the later thematic history and micro case studies, were quickly translated, which on the one hand helped Chinese understand the development of Western global history, and on the other hand, it also affected Chinese scholars' cognition of the form of global history writing and the discussion of different themes of global history to a certain extent. Therefore, the discussion of global history theory by Chinese scholars has also undergone a process of deepening and changing concerns, and this paper basically takes this process as a clue to briefly classify and review.
(1) Discussion on the translation of global general history and the "global view of history"
Western global history has the greatest influence on Chinese readers in the category of global general history works, such as Stavrianos's "General History of the World", Pete S. N. Sterns et al.' History of Global Civilization, Jerry Bentley and Herbert Ziegler's New Global History, Philip Fernandetz-Amesto's The World: A History, William McNeill's History of the World and The Rise of the West, and so on. The discussion of the "global view of history" in Chinese historians also mainly revolves around the compilation of global general history. Most scholars in China believe that global history is a new trend of thought in the development of historiography in the context of globalization, which has positive significance in opposing "Eurocentrism" and emphasizing the holistic view of history, and its perspective and method of examining history can enrich the existing "world history". However, a small number of scholars have taken a skeptical attitude, linking the "global view of history" with Western globalization ideology, and worrying that it will serve as an instrument of Western neo-colonialism in the era of globalization. Several articles organized by Academic Research, No. 1, 2005, on this discussion of the "global view of history" are quite representative and reflect the different views of scholars on this issue. This situation is largely related to the understanding of Chinese scholars on "globalization" and "global historical view". Liu Xincheng pointed out that the "global view of history" originating in the West has encountered various interpretations in China, some of which may be unexpected by Western global historians.
Of course, the discussion of the "global view of history" among Chinese scholars is in the context of how to construct China's world history system. During the discussion, some scholars began to think about "what is world history" and further proposed how to build a world history system with Chinese characteristics in the context of globalization. The "Seminar on the Construction of the Discipline System of Chinese World History" held in 2007 is a microcosm of this discussion. Therefore, starting from the "global view of history" to build a world history system with Chinese characteristics has become an issue that some world historians have paid attention to and discussed since the 21st century.
However, it should be pointed out that the concept of "global history" proposed by early Western global historians, in addition to being mainly based on the thinking of global general history compilation, is also influenced by the traditional European concept of "universal history", which is only a "should" concept without developing into an empirical study and becoming a field of research. Therefore, the understanding of "global history" in works such as Stavrianos's "General History of the World" has the color of cosmopolitan imagination. The academic practice of Western scholars is still the same, and correspondingly, the initial discussion of the concepts of "global history" and "global history" by Chinese scholars is often mostly a grand discourse at the level of abstract theory.
(ii) Reflect on "Eurocentrism" and explore the method of global history
Another hot topic related to the compilation of global general history in the discussion of global history theory is how to avoid "Eurocentrism", and this discussion has been promoted by the translation of some thematic global history works. For example, Gund Frank's Silver Capital: An Emphasis on the East in Economic Globalization, J.M Browt's The ColonialIst Model of the World: A Historical View of Geotransmunism and Eurocentrism, John Hobson's The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, and so on. These works seek to break the "Eurocentrism" and understand the rise of the West in terms of the relationship between east and west. Global historians are unequivocally opposed to "Eurocentrism", but to what extent can global history work achieve this goal? How can Chinese scholars write a history of the world that avoids "Eurocentrism"? Scholars have put forward different views on this. Dong Xinjie believes that although global history provides a new perspective for world history, general history works on global history often highlight the author's far-reaching historical vision at the same time, but also expose the subtle influence of "Eurocentrism" to varying degrees, so it is difficult for Western academic circles to overcome this deep-rooted problem. Ren Dongbo proposed that criticizing "Eurocentrism" is the theoretical premise and practical path for creating the "Chinese School", which is conducive to the healthy and positive mentality and ecological generation of China's world historiography. Mark Yao believes that world history works are faced with the problem of how to overcome "Eurocentrism", and although many scholars are committed to establishing a new world history, they have not yet achieved significant results. The historiography of non-Western countries and regions was established after studying Western historiography, and lacked theories established from their own history, so the current world history is only a quasi-world history.
Regardless of the extent to which global historians can avoid and overcome the "Eurocentrism", the most important thing is to have the research method of global history itself, so some scholars have discussed it as a whole. For example, in the preface to the Chinese edition of New Global History, Liu Xincheng comprehensively expounded the academic characteristics and research orientation of emerging global history. Xia Jiguo proposed that the study of global history has the value orientation of paying attention to the common destiny of mankind, attaching importance to the mode of consultation and cooperation among different civilizations, seeking common ground while reserving differences, and mutual benefit and reciprocity, and should reveal these "large-scale interactions" from different angles and at different levels. He then summarized the approach to global history research into three aspects: interaction, comparison, and construction. Liu Wenming's "Research on Global History Theory and Civilization Interaction" makes a comprehensive investigation of global history theories and methods, and proposes to study civilization interaction from the perspective of intersubjectivity of civilization. Shi Cheng commented on the important themes of global history research. Some scholars have further raised the issue of constructing a theory of global history with Chinese characteristics, which I will discuss later.
(3) Theoretical discussion on cross-cultural interaction and transnational history
The theory of cross-cultural interaction occupies a very important place in the global history of Chinese scholars. Jerry Bentley argues that cross-cultural interactions in world history include different themes such as cross-cultural trade, species diffusion and exchange, cultural collision and exchange, imperial expansion and colonization, immigration and discrete communities. From 2006 to 2011, Bentley was invited as a visiting professor by the Center for Global History Research of Capital Normal University, and the theory of cross-cultural interaction he advocated was also well known to teachers and students of global history at Capital Normal University and some domestic scholars. Liu Xincheng proposed that interaction is one of the driving forces of the existence of human social organization and the development of world history, and interaction lies in encountering, connecting, communicating, interacting, and influencing each other, rather than one party leading, guiding, or even shaping the other party and the whole world; the concept of interaction can become a weapon for KuangZheng's previous "Western-centrism", and at the same time provide a variety of ideas for writing a new global history. From this he summarized ten modes of interaction in the study of global history. Liu Wenming believes that the theory of cross-cultural interaction has developed global history from a grand narrative to a cross-cultural interaction research based on original data, providing a feasible path. Regarding the interaction between different civilizations, Liu Wenming put forward the concept of "subjective civilization", believing that in order to write a history of pluralistic civilizations with civilization interaction as the main line, "civilization" should first be regarded as a kind of actor and emphasize the intersubjectivity of civilization interaction. Dong Xinjie reviewed and analyzed the theory of cross-cultural interaction in the study of Western global history. Xu Shanwei reflects on the cross-cultural interaction and its use in the compilation of Western global general histories. Wang Xiaohui examined the application and development trend of "cross-cultural interaction" as a research theme in historical writing.
If the "global view of history" and the anti-"Eurocentrism" are grand discourses that need to be followed in principle in the study of global history, then "intercultural interaction" is a middle-level theory that can be applied to the study of specific problems. This change in research theory from the macro to the meso level has reduced the study of global history from what Stavrianos called "observation of the moon" to the "interpersonal interaction" advocated by Bentley, making global history a real research field and a new perspective for thinking about historical issues, which is of great significance for promoting China's global history research.
As an important genre in the study of global history, transnational history has also attracted the attention of domestic scholars. Wang Lixin introduced and discussed the rise of transnational history, the themes and their historical significance. Liu Wenming believes that transnational history is the result of the application of global history methods to the study of modern nation-states in the context of the "global turn" of history, and introduces and expounds the theories, methods and related empirical research of transnational history. With the translation of works such as Akira Irie's "Global History and Transnational History: Past, Present, and Future" and Thomas Bend's "One Nation: The Position of the United States in World History" into Chinese, domestic scholars have more understanding of transnational history, and related research has gradually increased, for example, Sun Xuan examined the "transnational turn" in American historiography from the perspective of American historiography, and Xing Ke examined the writing of nation-state history from the perspective of transnational history.
Global history is a pluralistic historical practice in the context of the "global turn" of historiography, so the relevant theoretical discussions of Chinese scholars include the ideas of some other global historical schools in addition to the above aspects. For example, Dong Xinjie's research on Baleklaugh's global history thought, Liu Wenming's investigation of related theories such as the history of species exchange, "new global history" and "new imperial history", Sun Yue's thinking on "big history", Xia Jiguo's discussion of "new maritime history", and so on.
(4) Explore the application of global history theory to the study of Chinese history
The first scholars in China to discuss and engage in the study of global history are mainly from the discipline of world history, which is the result of the influence of the domestic world history and the discipline system of Chinese history. However, Chinese historians soon realized that global history, as an emerging historical theory and method, also has important methodological significance for the study of Chinese history. Some Chinese historians have begun to think and explore this aspect.
Wang Yongping believes that how to introduce and apply the concepts and methods of global history in the study of Chinese history has become an unavoidable topic. He advocated rethinking some issues in the history of Sino-foreign exchanges from the perspective of interaction and networking, such as the Silk Road in ancient China, the spread of Buddhism to the East, and the "Huhua" issues. He said: "If we can truly apply and penetrate the global view of history into the study of Chinese history, it will bring about a major change in our research paradigm." His book "From "Tianxia" to "World": China and the World in the Han and Tang Dynasties is an attempt to apply the global history method to the history of Sino-foreign exchanges between the Han and Tang Dynasties. Jiang Mei believes that global history not only provides many new fields, topics, ideas, and materials for the study of Chinese history, but more importantly, the influence and ideological inspiration on the study of Chinese history at the theoretical level, that is, to reposition "Chinese history" in the "world history" to form a new "Chinese history" and "China" discourse that meets the needs of the times. From the perspective of global history, she discussed the following issues: first, re-examining the historical formation of "China" with the frontier as the center; second, China and the "pre-modern world system": how can we truly "open our eyes to see the world"? The third is China and the "East Asian Maritime World"; the fourth is China and the Rise of Capitalism: Re-examining the Dynamics and Dynamics of Chinese History. Hu Cheng believes that "the current discussion of how to promote our own 'transnational history' and 'global history' should not only stay in the introduction of foreign countries (especially the United States), but should think about how to base ourselves on the mainland, go to the world, and find the source of inheritance and innovation in the academic development of China's new historiography in the past hundred years, so as to develop relevant research on 'transnational history' and 'global history' with certain Chinese characteristics and qualities." ”
How to understand and study the history of the Ming and Qing dynasties from the perspective of global history is a key point of discussion among Chinese scholars. From the perspective of academic history, this discussion may be related to the problem of "the budding of Chinese capitalism" and the "great divergence" discussion proposed by the "California School". As one of the representatives of the "California School", Li Bozhong put forward some theoretical thinking mainly based on the investigation of the economy of the Ming and Qing dynasties in the south of the Jiangsu Province. In his book "Theory, Method, development trend: a new exploration of China's economic history research", on the basis of reflecting on the British model and examining the economic development status and comparison of the Ming and Qing dynasties, he proposed that the British model was not applicable to the Ming and Qing dynasties, and at the same time agreed with Wang Guobin's two-way cross-comparison method of time and space, and advocated two-way comparison between China and the West in the study, thus avoiding the "Western-centrism" in the study of Ming and Qing economic history. Wan Ming's research on the history of the Ming Dynasty has repeatedly emphasized that "the perspective should be placed in the overall process of the integration of the world at that time, with the world as the focus" and "there should be a world vision", and on this basis, research practice was carried out. Zou Zhenhuan believes that the history of the Ming and Qing dynasties is a good example of communicating and integrating the study of Chinese history and global history, so he discussed the global historical significance of the study of the history of the history of the Ming and Qing dynasties from several aspects, such as the history of east Asian maritime exchanges centered on the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Ming and Qing dynasties in the circulation of world economic trade, the interaction between the Ming and Qing dynasties and China and foreign countries, the world elements in Jiangnan culture, and the Ming and Qing dynasties under the comparative perspective of China and Europe. Dong Shaoxin believes that the Ming and Qing Ding Revolutions that occurred in the 17th century were major political events in Chinese history, and most of the previous academic research was limited to the scope of Chinese history, so he started from the historical data of global history and revealed the global characteristics of the event by introducing a number of Western literature on the Ming and Qing Ding Revolutions, thus proposing to study the rationality and possibility of the Ming and Qing Ding Revolutions from the perspective of global history.
Through the above-mentioned review of academic history, it can be seen that the theoretical discussion of global history by Chinese scholars has undergone a process of deepening from macro concepts to research methods, from the initial discussion of the "global history view" of compiling the general history of the world, to the discussion of the theories and methods of empirical research of global history, including cross-cultural interaction, transnational history, species exchange and disease transmission, new maritime history, new imperial history, etc., and with the participation of Chinese historians, at the same time explore how to apply and develop the theories and methods of global history research in the study of Chinese history.
Iii. The Initial Development of Empirical Research in Global History
Scholars in different fields of history have learned from and adopted global history methods, thus promoting the diversified development of global history research. Case studies based on the global perspective of primary sources have rapidly emerged, and global history research has entered a stage of diversified, microscopic and empirical development. "Global history" has also changed from "as it should" to "actually" in China, from the initial conceptualization of "global history" or the compilation of global general history pointed to by teaching, to an empirical study of cross-national, cross-cultural and cross-regional historical phenomena. The author reviews global history papers, works and scientific research projects.
In terms of global history papers, in recent years, many domestic academic journals have published relevant papers, among which the Global History Review, as an academic collection dedicated to global history papers, each series basically organizes papers according to the topic, which can reflect the research status of China's global history to a certain extent. The author briefly analyzes the papers published in the Global History Review Series 1 to 18 (except for teaching articles, book reviews and academic information) as an example (see Table 1).
As can be seen from Table 1, the number and proportion of papers published in the Global History Review show two trends. First, the proportion of papers (translations) by overseas authors is declining, and the proportion of original papers by domestic scholars is increasing. Second, theoretical discussion and review articles show a downward trend, while the proportion of empirical research papers is increasing. This trend indicates that domestic research on global history is moving towards original empirical and case-based research. Moreover, the reprinting of the "Global History Review" papers in the academic series of academic journals of Chinese University's reproduction of newspaper materials, as well as the good response of some of these papers in the domestic academic community, also reflects the continuous improvement of the domestic global history research level, and global history as an emerging field of historical research has been recognized by the academic community.
In the empirical research of global history in China, there are relatively many studies on the theme of the flow of goods and the imagination of others, such as long-distance trade, commodity circulation, cultural transmission, diaspora communities, disease transmission, and the image of China in the West in the history of the world. For example, Li Bozhong understands the demise of the Ming Dynasty from the global "17th century crisis", Liu Wenming understands why Nigeria became a cassava producer from the "domino effect" of the global spread of influenza in 1918, and Xue Bingqing re-examines the origin and nature of the American Revolution from the correlation between the Wilkes event in the United Kingdom and the North American independence movement from the 1760s to the early 1770s. Meng Fan re-examined the 1794 U.S.-British Jay Treaty from the perspective of transatlantic political and cultural interaction. These are all re-examination and understanding of certain historical events from cross-national and cross-regional linkages. In addition, Wan Ming's research on Zheng He's voyage to the West and the monetization of the late Ming Dynasty expounds the role of the Ming Dynasty in the process of globalization from the perspective of global history. She believes that Zheng He's voyage to the West promoted an international system of the Indian Ocean, and the late understanding of silver monetization made Asia, america and Europe constitute a world of silver circulation; the Ming Dynasty was not passively in contact with the world under the impact of the West as generally believed in the past, but actively went to the world and participated in the initial construction of the world economic system, which had an important historical contribution to the emergence of the overall world.
Compared with the results of the paper, there are far fewer domestic monographs on global history research. Wang Lixin's "American Missionaries and the Modernization of China in the Late Qing Dynasty" (1997) and "U.S. Policy toward China and the Chinese Nationalist Movement (1904-1928)" (2000) combined with the external factors of China's historical development, examined some problems in modern China from the perspective of world history. Zhong Weimin's Tea and Opium: China in the Nineteenth Century Economic Globalization (2010) explores China's situation in the crisis of globalization in the 19th century and China's difficult journey from traditional to modern society through a comparative study of the 19th century tea and opium trade. In 2013, Qian Chengdan edited the "Global History and Macao" series of books, including Xu Jian's "Going to the East": Germany and Oriental Trade in the 16th and 18th Centuries, Zang Xiaohua's "Land-Sea Junction: Macao in the Early World Trading System", Xu Ping, Lu Yi and others' "Macao Chronicle: Observations of China by Three Frenchmen in the 18th and 19th Centuries", Zhou Xiang, Li Aili and others's "Oyster Mirror Reflecting west lake: Exchanges between China and the West in the Qing Dynasty in Shielding and Buffering", Li Xiaoping and Wang Qingyang's "China-West Exchanges in the Qing Dynasty" by Li Xiaoping and Wang Qingyang "Globalization and the Changes in Macao's Civil and Commercial Law" and so on, put the history of Macao in the perspective of global history. Hu Cheng's "Medicine, Health and the World of China (1820-1937)" (2013) places medical and health issues in modern China from the perspective of transnational history. In 2015, Liu Xincheng edited the "Research Series on the Interaction and Symbiosis of Multiple Civilizations in the Process of World History", which examines the interaction between Chinese and foreign civilizations in different historical periods from the perspective of global history.
Li Bozhong's study of the economic history of the Ming and Qing dynasties from the perspective of Chinese and Western comparisons has an international influence and is classified as one of the representatives of the "California School". His book Early Industrialization of Jiangnan (1550-1850) (2000) analyzes the possible prospects for industrial development in the Ming and Qing dynasties by comparing the industrial development of the Ming and Qing dynasties with the "British model". "China's Early Modern Economy" compares the GDP of the Huating-Louxian area from 1823 to 1829 with the Netherlands in the 1810s, and proposes that the Jiangnan economy in the early 19th century has developed into a "modern economy" dominated by industry and commerce. His "Musket and Account Books: China and the East Asian World in the Era of Early Economic Globalization" is "a global history research work that embodies the new trend of international scholarship and is oriented to the general public", which examines the late Ming Dynasty China in the great changes in world history from several dimensions such as world trade, military revolution, religious expansion, and international relations.
The achievement of many global historical research results is also related to the funding of relevant scientific research projects to a large extent. In recent years, the Ministry of Education or the National Social Science Foundation of China in the field of global history research have approved projects such as Liu Xincheng's "Research on the Interaction and Symbiosis of Multiple Civilizations in the Process of World History", Liu Wenming's "Infectious Diseases in the Perspective of Global History: A Case Study on the 1918 Influenza Pandemic" and "Research on Public Opinion in British and American Newspapers and Periodicals of the Sino-Japanese Sino-Japanese War", Dong Xinjie's "Western Global Historiography Research", Liang Zhanjun's "Historical Narrative of China's War of Resistance Against Japan in Foreign History Textbooks", and Xia Jiguo's "Mediterranean History Research in the 7th-15th Centuries". Wang Yongping's "Research on Exotic And Exotic Styles in the Interaction of Multiple Civilizations on the Han-Tang Silk Road from the Perspective of Global History", Tian Ruying's "Study on the Spice Trade in the Western Section of the Maritime Silk Road and Its Impact on Western Europe (7th-18th Century)", Mo Yumei's "Research on Jewish Merchants and Cross-ecological Exchanges on the Silk Road (6th-15th Century)", Kong Yuan's "Research on the Cross-ethnic, Cross-Continental and Cross-Cultural Characteristics of Early Exchanges between China and Russia in the 17th Century from the Perspective of Global History", Yang Jie's "Research on the Cross-ethnic, Transcontinental and Cross-Cultural Characteristics of Early Exchanges between China and Russia in the 17th Century" by Yang Jie Research on the Foreign Population of Modern Hawaii from the Perspective of Globalization", Li Qing's "Research on East Asian Seas and Early Globalization in the 16th-17th Centuries", Chen Yufang's "The Jesuits in Asia" Archival Documents and the History of Sino-European Exchanges from the 16th to the 18th Centuries", Zhang Xiaomin's "Research on the North Pacific Shipping Route and its Construction in The Historical Space (Late 18th To the End of the 19th Century)", Zan Tao's "Research on the Turkish Revolution and Change from the Perspective of Global History", Liu Xiaoli's "Research on the Creation of the United Nations from the Perspective of Global History", Yue Xiukun's "Historical Research on the 'Global Turn' of Historiography", etc. There is no doubt that these fund projects have contributed significantly to the study of global history in The Country.
Conclusion
As an emerging branch of history, global history pays attention to the cross-national, cross-cultural and cross-regional historical phenomena that have been ignored in traditional historiography in the past, and the research topics include the collision and exchange of different cultures, international migration and diaspora communities, cross-cultural trade, species exchange and ecological change, imperial expansion and colonization, historical comparison of different regions, etc., and through these studies, we can reveal the interaction between different civilizations in the global perspective, and explore the political, economic, cultural, and cultural aspects in the process of globalization. Changes in the ecological environment and its global and local relationship. Therefore, global history places certain historical phenomena in a broad context to understand, which is a useful supplement to the history of the nation-state in the past, which has been recognized by more and more scholars in China.
However, the development of global history in China faces a different disciplinary environment than most countries in the world. From the perspective of the existing discipline system, the discipline of "world history" in China was established earlier than that of European and American countries, as early as the middle of the 20th century, and the discipline of "world history" in Europe and the United States was the product of the rise of "new world history" (global history) in the early 1990s. In this way, the discipline of "world history" in Europe and the United States has been global history since its inception, and when this "global history" was introduced to China, it was faced with a "world history" that already had its own tradition in China. Therefore, compared with Europe and the United States, on the one hand, the good teaching tradition of world general history in the discipline of "world history" that has long existed in China has become an important foundation for the rise of global history in China; on the other hand, China's "world history" as a research field still seems to be dominated by the study of national history, and this kind of "world history" is completely different from the emerging global history in terms of research concepts, methods and themes. Chinese the two concepts of "world history" and "global history" are literally synonymous or synonymous in the context of the world, but the connotations are different. Therefore, at the beginning of the introduction of "global history" to China, some scholars believed that "the concept of 'global history' is very unscientific, and it should be called 'global historiography' or 'global history' as a methodology; otherwise, the words 'global history' and 'world history' are really not much different from the Chinese point of view." This view actually reflects the dilemma encountered when the concept of "global history" entered China — "world history" has long existed, and "global history" seems unnecessary. Of course, as global history develops in China, both as a research method and as a field of study, this doubt and misunderstanding slowly disappears, but there are still different understandings of "global history".
For example, some scholars have a tendency to simplify the understanding of "global history", believing that global history is to study historical connections or flows, and to argue for such connections or flows as the goal of research. Such research papers are not uncommon in current global historical research. In fact, connection and flow are only the perspective or dimension of the global history researcher's thinking, and by examining certain connections or flows in history, the purpose is to explore the mechanisms behind this connection and flow, and its impact on the course of history. Therefore, the "interaction" mentioned in global history is not to study the "interaction" itself, but to think about history from the perspective and method of "interaction". For example, when we study the propagation of a concept, when examining its transmission process and path, it is more important to take into account the cross-cultural nature of the dissemination in a large space, and analyze the changes that occur in the process of its dissemination, so that it is possible to achieve a global understanding of the concept and its implications.
It is precisely because of the simplistic understanding of global history that some non-global history research results are also labeled as "global history". For example, some studies do not reflect the correlation analysis of external factors when explaining local historical phenomena, but also title "research from a global perspective"; while some studies have a "global perspective", they link the contemporaneous historical phenomena in a large range that lack historical evidence and are not closely related to the logical relationship in the analysis, and exaggerate the historical relevance. This kind of research does not only exist in China, but also in European and American historians also have so-called "Fake Global History". The famous historian Sanjay Subramaniam co-authored a book review with two scholars, "How to Write a Pseudo-Global History," criticizing the kind of loose historical research done in the name of "global history," including Valerie Hansen's book "1000 AD: The Beginning of Globalization."
In the course of the development of global history, there are two issues that we must face, which are related to what kind of global history we want to write and develop. We'll explore it a little bit here.
First of all, how to deal with the relationship between the world perspective and the nation-state perspective, that is, how historians with national identity write global history. Since its inception, global history has been in the tension between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. This tension comes from what the writing of global history should have. Scholars with cosmopolitan or idealistic overtones argue that global history should be a history acceptable to all peoples everywhere, written from the perspective of a "citizen of the world", free from the traditional nation-state position and against various central narratives. From the perspective of historical circles, this kind of scholar is mainly from the early "global history" scholars in European and American societies, who based on the concept of "universal history" in Europe in the past, put forward what "global history" should be, with a strong ideal color, the most prominent representative of which is Stavrianos, who believes that global history should be a narrative formed by standing on the moon and observing the earth, advocating the writing of a history from the perspective of a "world citizen". However, many historians of global history acknowledge the reality that they still live in the nation-state and have national identity, and believe that any kind of historical writing under these conditions has a subjective positionality, that is, historical writing has its own perspective and starting point. They realized that it was impossible for historians to be de-nationalized when the state was still the dominant form of group life in the world, and that historians living in the nation-state could not fail to brand the nation-state. Therefore, when they write global history, they do not pay much attention to the "ideal" of cosmopolitanism, but are devoted to exploring practical historical "problems", and the microscopic and empirical research of global history has also developed.
The development of global history in the past three decades shows that as global history develops into a sub-field or sub-discipline of history, the combination of macroscopic vision and microscopic cases has increasingly become the mainstream of global history research. Most scholars have gradually abandoned the earlier concept of cosmopolitanism and reached a new consensus with the traditional history of the nation-state, so that the contradiction between the world perspective and the nation-state perspective in global history writing has been largely resolved. Books such as "The Evolution of the World: A History of the 19th Century", "The Cotton Empire: A Global History of Capitalism", and "All Nations and One State: The Place of the United States in World History" have received more attention or praise from historians. However, there are still a few scholars in China who understand global history from a philosophical perspective, and regard global history as "a product of 'world cosmopolitanism' in the 18th century Enlightenment, and its educational purpose is to cultivate a sense of 'world citizenship'", which seems to pull back the empirical global history that is booming in China back to the original abstract concept with imaginative colors. The author believes that the global history developed in China should and must be a kind of historical research based on China and looking at the world.
Second, how to deal with the relationship between the outside and the local, that is, how to construct a global history theory with Chinese characteristics. Global history as a trend of historical thought arose in Europe and the United States, so it is undeniable that China's global history research theories and methods draw on European and American academic achievements. However, in the process of exploring global history theory, Chinese scholars have also realized that they should not adopt a taking-ism attitude toward Western global history theory, but should start from China to write global history with Chinese characteristics. As early as 2006, Yu Pei proposed that any nation has its own independent historical memory, which includes both the history of its own nation and the history of other peoples and the global history, so each country and nation has its own global history in its own soul, and the diversity of cultures determines the diversity of global history. Dong Xinjie believes that China's global history should be distinguished from the global history of the West, and China's global history, including concepts and methods defined from the perspective of historical theory, as well as various special topic studies, has become an important part of the discipline construction and academic development of China's world history itself; China's global history should summarize theories and methods on the basis of referring to Western global history, analyze its possible ideas for future development, and promote the further development of China's global history. Liu Xincheng clearly proposed to "build a global history with Chinese characteristics." He proposed that contemporary Chinese world historians should have a sense of mission, because the innovation of global history needs to be realized by Chinese scholars, the advantages of China's compilation of world general history need to be further developed, the "law of global history development" needs to be explored in depth by Chinese scholars, and the "global history" needs to be constructed by Chinese scholars. Zhang Xupeng proposed, "This dialectical relationship between global history and national narrative provides a possibility for the construction of global history with Chinese characteristics. The author believes that these discussions will undoubtedly effectively promote the development of China's global history theory, coupled with the fact that Chinese historians will combine global history theory with Chinese history and jointly explore global history research with Chinese characteristics, and the discourse power of Chinese scholars in the international global historiography community will be further enhanced.
The author, Liu Wenming, is a professor at the School of History of Capital Normal University
Comments from omitted, the full version please refer to the original text.
Editor: Xiang Yu
Proofreader: Water Life
Official subscription number of the Chinese Academy of History
Historical China WeChat subscription account