「敘事史學」的復興與教學實踐

歷史敘事（narrative）與歷史解釋（interpretation）原是史學編纂的兩大要素，中西古代史家均有悠久而良好的敘事傳統，敘事體的歷史學，在科學體史學出現前，曾掌握了長時期的史學編纂權，但十九世紀以降，科學主義勃興，歷史學的科學化，消解了史學與修辭、文學之間千餘年來的聯繫，是敘事史學（narrative history）沒落，分析史學（analytical history）興起的關鍵，分析史學強調史學的科學性，重解釋，輕敘事，崇尚真實、精確，使歷史寫作中的藝術性與文學性大受貶損，如此風潮橫貫整個二十世紀。爾近，部分思想家開始有不同想法，認為史學不能建立如自然科學般的真理（或定律），因為歷史不像物體有一定規律的運動，但歷史的趨勢可以找尋，歷史也沒有最後的解釋（final interpretation），不能遵守科學的規律，不能將決定論應用到歷史，這些論述有助於促成史學界重新重視敘事。本文即以敘事的核心理念為論述重點，說明史學編纂如何在二十世紀中葉，重新重視敘事的優位，並思考此一轉向對大眾文化與歷史教學可能產生的影響，以供課程規劃及教學實踐參考。

關鍵字

敘事；敘事史學；分析史學

並列摘要

Historical narrative and historical interpretation were originally two major elements of historiography. Ancient Chinese and Western historians both have a long and good narrative tradition. Narrative history had long seized the historiographical power before the emergence of scientific history. However, following the 19^(th) century, scientism blossomed out and prevailed in the period of the 20^(th) century, weakening the interconnection among history, rhetoric, and literature, with its nature to advocate truth and precision so as to eliminate the artistry and literalness in historical writing. Recently, some thinkers began to voice different ideas, proposing that history should not be expected to establish truths (or laws) like natural sciences, because history does not have a certain regular movement like objects; instead, historical trends can be tracked, and history has no final interpretation. Thus, history does not abide by the laws of science, so we cannot apply the notion of determinism to the study of history. These arguments help promote the re-emphasis of narrative in history academia. This article focuses on the core concept of narrative, explains how historiography re-emphasizes the superiority of narrative in the middle of the 20th century, and considers the possible impact of this shift on mass culture and history teaching to further offer reference for curriculum planning and teaching practice.