de Chadarevian Soraya
Department of History, University of California Los Angeles, 6265 Bunche Hall, Box 951473, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1473, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2009 Mar;40(1):13-9. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.12.003. Epub 2009 Feb 23.
Microstudies and big picture accounts are often counterposed. This paper investigates the supposed dichotomy between the two historiographical approaches. In particular it investigates how the discussions are reflected in the historiography of molecular biology and the special questions posed by the disciplinary context. Taking inspiration from the microhistory tradition as exemplified by the works of Carlo Ginzburg, Jacques Revel, and David Sabean among others, the paper highlights the heuristic value of microstudies to reconstruct the multiple contexts that link apparently small events with broader structures. In a parallel fashion, the paper argues for using microstudies to open up the history of molecular biology to other fields of study and thus moving beyond the confines of the disciplinary framework. Such an approach does not dismiss the search for big pictures. Yet rather than opposing big pictures to microstudies, it sees microstudies as a valid way to gain new and broad vistas.
微观研究与宏观叙述常常形成对比。本文探讨了这两种史学方法之间所谓的二分法。具体而言,它研究了这些讨论如何在分子生物学史学中得到体现,以及学科背景所提出的特殊问题。本文从以卡洛·金兹伯格、雅克·勒韦尔和大卫·萨贝安等人的作品为代表的微观史传统中汲取灵感,强调微观研究对于重构将看似微小的事件与更广泛结构联系起来的多重背景的启发价值。同样,本文主张利用微观研究将分子生物学史拓展到其他研究领域,从而突破学科框架的限制。这种方法并不排斥对宏观叙述的探寻。然而,它并非将宏观叙述与微观研究对立起来,而是将微观研究视为获得新的广阔视野的有效途径。