這門課的主要目的讓學生熟悉過去在二十世紀裡，在歷史學家們著作中採用的一些研究與論述方法。依我個人（與某些人）之見，，書單中大部份的書籍是以社會、經濟與文化歷史中的近代古典或潛在古典為主。我們將研究這些歷史學家如何建構他們的研究對象、如何將原始的史料整理成他們的研究基本素材、他們怎麼樣在議題中建構研究的敘事方式以及論述的分析方法、以及這些不同的研究與論述方法的優缺點。

歷史學家是一個使用了各式各樣的研究方法去討論包羅萬象的主題的社群，然而我們主要質疑的是：歷史是不是一門專門學科？歷史學家們有沒有什麼共同點？還是他們只是一群剛好都對過去事物有興趣的人的亂數組合？（除了地質學家和考古學家、以及那些像新聞記者幾乎是完全不同類的人之外）。

要去調查所有歷史學家作過的研究是不可能的，我所選擇的這些作品基本上在著重於屬於長時間的社會進程、是屬於一般大眾所經驗（不管是個人或群體）、屬於群體心智的、而且是以物質生活的結構為主的。這類的作品通常對於突出的時代偉人予以輕描淡寫（像是君主、皇后、將軍、哲學家、科學家等) ，對於政治情勢的簡單陳述，或者從政治與社會背景中將概念系統加以分離而出。。他們廣泛的納入了一般與社會科學相關關的觀念（像考古學、社會學與經濟學），試圖要重建一個凡人在過去的生活經歷，而且特別關注貧窮的、受壓迫與特殊社會弱勢階層；他們試圖超越過去的歷史學家（或者一般大眾），偏狹的只將注意力集中在他們的國家領導型人物或者少數權貴的狹隘觀點。目前在麻省理工學院歷史系裡有一些成員正在做這些研究，未來有機會的話將在課堂中邀請他們，讓同學可以更進一步的認識他們和他們的研究。

這個歷史學方法的研究源自十九與二十世紀間法國的年鑑學派（Annals school）的創始者Marc Bloch與Lucien Febvre（這個學派是以他們兩個一起創辦並編輯的期刊來命名）。這個期刊創刊以後，對於全世界的歷史寫作產生了極大的影響；它同時也對非西方世界的歷史寫作有顯著的影響，特別是亞洲。當然許多其他的歷史學研究方式對年鑑學派典範的形成有一定的幫助和改變，當年鑑學派傳到了英國、美國或者加拿大之後，受到了不同環境因素的改變已經與最原始的學派有些不同。但是在經過長時間施行之後，年鑑學派的確整合了一個明確的研究方法，並且對長久以來的歷史研究問題確立了其學術方向。

我們的焦點不在於任一特定的歷史內容，而在於其史學方法的研究結構、研究方法以及其概念的形成，而且很大的比例集中在近代歐洲（粗略的來講大致是西元1500-1800）。同時就像你已經看到的，這段時期也呈現了歐洲、美國以及中國自十九世紀甚至二十世紀的歷史。我則強烈建議你去讀一些較不熟悉的本國歷史的領域，因為這裡的目的在於去了解這些類似的史學研究方法如何應用在不同的時空與文化的環境中，而不在於在這些領域中去「深究特定史實」或者成為這些領域的專家。

課程要求

1. 每個星期閱讀核心閱讀教材，同時準備好課堂裡的討論。大體上經典著作都非常長，我想你會自行摸索出最好的方式去消化理解它們（而從頭讀到尾從來不是最好的方法）。
   
   
2. 至少瀏覽補充閱讀的書單之一，每個星期上課前（應該就是週二傍晚前）請繳交一頁對於閱讀的心得討論（不是摘要，是評論；基本上要的是理性的討論與批判，不過比較激烈的評斷觀點也是可以接受的），這將有助於激發更多的討論（你可以將這份作業以電子郵件直接寄給一個我將整理出來的收信群組）。同時每個星期你也會被要求針對其中一篇補充閱讀作口頭報告，這個部分就可以有比較多評論性的摘要，讓閱讀不同補充教材的同學們可以相互交換一些重點和想法。
   
   
3. 最後，學期結束的時候要繳交一篇大概10-15頁的論文，你可以自由選擇主題，不過你得遵守以下兩個原則的其中一個：1）「水平式的」：檢視同一種史學方法應用在不同的文化以及時間裡的特徵（其中一個國家必須是非西方的）；例如十七世紀法國與日本的歷史人口統計方法和二十世紀中國與蘇俄的女性歷史研究。2）「垂直式的」：檢視在一特定的歷史主題中所使用的各種不同的史學研究方法（比如說法國大革命就是一個很典型的例子，它被像馬克思主義者、平民主義者、經濟學的、文化的、女性主義的、以及其他許多的方式所詮釋）。其他一些很好的例子像英國的工業革命、美國奴隸制度、歐洲帝國主義等等。不管所選的體裁是什麼，你必須找出這個領域裡最重要的一些著作，分析其中相互關聯的基本問題、討論在這些主題中所應用的不同的分析工具和史料、同時評價這些不同的研究方法的優缺點。或許你會對所做的分析題材的研究方式有一些個人的看法，請加以發揮。對大部分史學家的考慮而言，科學與技術通常被簡化的處理，你們當然可以試著去思考如何更有效的把他們（科學與技術）和歷史的敘述結合在一起。

評分方式

學生必須每週繳交討論的作業（占學期總成績50%），還有一篇期末的論文（也占學期總成績50%）。

The purpose of this course is to acquaint you with a variety of approaches to the past used by historians writing in the twentieth century. Most of the books on the list constitute, in my view (and others), modern classics, or potential classics, in social, economic and cultural history. We will examine how historians conceive of their object of study, how they use primary sources as a basis for their accounts, how they structure the narrative and analytic discussion of their topic, and what are the advantages and drawbacks of their various approaches.

Historians as a community pursue a huge variety of topics with widely disparate methodologies. A central concern of ours will be the question: is history a discipline? Do historians have anything in common? Or are they a rather random collection of people united only by a shared interest in the past (but excluding geologists, paleontologists and such like on one end and journalists on the other)?

It would be impossible to survey everything that historians do. The works I have chosen emphasize long term social processes, the experiences of ordinary people, individually or as a group, collective mentalities, and the structures of material life. They downplay the prominence of great leaders (kings, queens, generals, philosophers, scientists), the simple narration of political events, or the analysis of idea systems divorced from their political and social context. They share an openness to the use of concepts from related social sciences (anthropology, sociology, and economics). They aim to reconstruct the experience of everyone who lived in the past, and they pay special attention to the obscure, the oppressed, and the poor. They try to transcend the narrow boundaries inflicted on historians (and everyone else) by an exclusive concentration on the fortunes of the nation state and its leaders. Also, I have featured topics in which members of the MIT History department are currently doing research. If possible, we will invite them to the class, so that you may become acquainted with them and their work.

This approach to history originated with the French founders of the Annales school, Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, around the turn of the century. (The school is named after the journal which they founded and co-edited.) Since its founding, the Annales school has exerted tremendous influence on historical writing around the world. This approach has also made a sgnificant impact on non Western history, especially that of Asia. Of course, many other trends contributed to and altered the Annales paradigm. Things did not look the same when Annales topics migrated to England, the U.S. or China. But following the themes of this historical approach over time provides a useful way to unify the course and to get some sense of the commonality of historical problems across time and space.

Our focus is on structure, methodology, and conceptualization, not on specific historical content. A sizeable proportion of the studies here focus on early modern Europe (roughly 1500 - 1800 A.D.). As you can see, there is also representation from nineteenth and even twentieth century Europe, America, and China. I would urge you to read in areas with which you are not familiar as well as in home ground. It is not necessary to "know the facts" or become an expert in any of these areas; the point is to find out how similar historical approaches work in different cultural areas and time periods.

Course Requirements

1. Read the core readings for each week and be prepared to discuss them in class. Many of these classics are long, fat books. I will generally leave it to you to devise the best way of tackling them. (Starting at page one and plowing straight through is almost never the best method.)
   
   
2. Read or skim at least one of the works from the supplementary list. Each week you should submit before the class meeting (perhaps by Tuesday evening), a one page discussion of your reactions to the reading (not summaries, but critiques: reasoned argument is preferred, but gripes and raves are allowed). These will be useful in stimulating discussion. (You can submit these by email if you want, to a group list we will devise.) Also, you will be asked each week to report on one of the supplementary readings, orally: this can be more of a summary with critique and should be geared to the exchange of information between students reading different selections.
   
   
3. Finally, at the end of the term, a longer paper is due (10-15 pp). You are free to choose the subject, but you should take one of two tacks: 1) "Horizontal": examine the characteristics of the same historical approach used in several different countries and time periods (one of these countries should be non Western), e.g. the historical demography of 17th century France and Japan; the history of women in twentieth century Russia and China. 2) "Vertical": examine a variety of perspectives on the same historical topic (the French Revolution is the classic one: it is open to Marxist, populist, economic, cultural, feminist, and many other interpretations). Other good possibilities might include the English Industrial Revolution, American slavery, European imperialism. In either case, you need to search out the major works in the literature, analyze the basic problematique, discuss the different analytic tools and sources already employed to pursue the subject, and evaluate the relative merit of different approaches. You might even have ideas of your own about where work in this sub-field should go, which you should feel free to develop. You will find, I suspect, that science and technology get short shrift in most historians' accounts. You could certainly think about how they might usefully be more usefully integrated into general historical accounts.

Grading

Students submit discussion sheet/questions every week (50% of grade) and write a final paper (50% of grade).