地理学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 69 ›› Issue (9): 1369-1384.doi: 10.11821/dlxb201409010

• • 上一篇    下一篇

地理学史研究范式——科学地理学史与知识地理学史

孙俊1,2(), 潘玉君1,3(), 武友德4, 赫维人1   

  1. 1. 云南师范大学旅游与地理科学学院, 昆明 650500
    2. 云南师范大学社会发展学院, 昆明 650500
    3. 云南师范大学教育部民族教育信息化重点实验室, 昆明 650500
    4. 云南师范大学华文学院, 昆明 650500
  • 收稿日期:2013-11-23 修回日期:2014-04-21 出版日期:2014-09-17 发布日期:2014-11-19
  • 作者简介:

    作者简介:孙俊 (1985-), 男, 云南泸西人, 博士研究生, 中国地理学会会员 (S110009241A), 研究方向为地理思想史、本土地理研究、民族地理。E-mail: TSWwiththinkwithgp@126.com

  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目 (40761001, 41261033);国家哲学社会科学基金项目 (BHA100058);National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.40761001,No.41261033;National Philosophy Social Science of China, No.BHA100058

Paradigms in historiography of geography: Science history and knowledge history

Jun SUN1,2(), Yujun PAN1,3(), Youde WU4, Weiren HE1   

  1. 1. College of Tourism and Geographical Sciences, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650500, China
    2. College of Social development, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650500, China
    3. Key Laboratory of Educational Information for Nationalities (Yunnan Normal University), Ministry of Education, Kunming 650500, China
    4. Yunnan Chinese Language and Culture College, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650500, China;
  • Received:2013-11-23 Revised:2014-04-21 Online:2014-09-17 Published:2014-11-19

摘要:

当前主流地理学史研究可归结为两种互补性范式。一种是科学地理学史:① 从近现代地理学形象出发,遵循“自上而下”的叙事模式,选择性地建构切合当前地理学的历史;② 主张一元传统的科学史观,从而导致了不同传统的对立;③ 其性质是建构性的、抽象性的,造成了自然与人文的分裂;④ 强纲领的叙事模式不仅造成了“古代思想的现代解读”,且挣扎于科学分化的大潮中。另一种是在批判科学地理学史基础上兴起的知识地理学史:① 从地理实践本身出发,遵循“自下而上”的叙事模式,从地理学知识体系的底层诠释历史;② 主张多元论传统的科学史观,从而一定程度上消解了不同地理学传统之间的对立,为多样的地理学传统纳入叙事框架奠定了基础;③ 其历史的性质是实践论的或语境论的,旨在阐发不同地理学知识形态的意义;④ 表现为对称性原则的叙事纲领,大大扩展了地理学史研究的视野,为理解作为地理学与自然并社会统一的实践统一体提供了可能。科学地理学史和知识地理学史当前表现为一种批评性关系,但这并不意味着应当制造更多的二元论对立,相反,整体的方向应当是加强科学精神与人文主义的相互对话。

关键词: 地理学史研究, 科学史, 知识史, 科学观, 科学史观, 编史性质, 叙事模式

Abstract:

In this article, from a historiographical perspective, we examined the ways that geographers and historians used to construct their geographical histories. We start with an overview of ideas that argue for a 'scientific' history in geography. Then, we discuss how some geographers construct their 'scientific history' in a 'strong program' pattern, while the others contrast a 'knowledge history' which does not give a damn to the comparative dimension with early modern geography. In conclusion, our aim is tantamount to proposing a bidirectional perspective to understand our histories and future. At the same time, we propose the dualism between Anglophone and non-Anglophone Geography what is unnecessary or pseudo rather than real. Until recently, the history of geography was drafted in narrow, uncritical terms usually invoked to legitimize the activities and perspectives of different geographical constituencies in a modernistic view, sealed off from external economic, social, political or cultural forces. For example, currently popular All Possible Worlds, developed an "essentialist" historiography which postulates what geography is as a science "in essence", and constructs geography's history in an essentialist light. The "top to down" narrative pattern in this history makes: only the Anglophone geographical tradition is legitimate; the nature of history is constructed, abstracted; traditions beyond Anglophone are always absent (e.g. Chinese geography), or sometime, explained in an anachronism way; and natural geography and human geography are divided into two different intellective enterprises. The shaping of geography as a discipline has resulted from a combination of productive and successful communication and missed opportunities, of presence and absence, of fluid travels of ideas and projects, but also of closures, impediments, good lessons that got lost. So, a history of geography should be concerned with the past for its own sake, rather than the ways in which it can be understood in the light of the present-day practice of the subject. We suggest that history should be constructed from the root, knowledge, and then explain why it is important and how it changes. The history like this is what we called knowledge history, a history in a "bottom to top" narrative path which implies geography in various places and times is so dissimilar and the aim of writing is an annotation. By comparing the "top to down" and "bottom to top" narrative paths, we suggest both the construction and explanation are necessary for a history. It will be purely admirable if a history presents a history "from the physical and biological, through the social and economic, to the humanistic".

Key words: historiography of geography, science history, knowledge history, concept of science, concept of science history, nature of history, narrative paths