Storm Eric
Leiden University, the Netherlands.
Eur Hist Q. 2018 Jan;48(1):113-129. doi: 10.1177/0265691417741830. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
Nationalism studies does not seem to be a very innovative field of research. The path-breaking views of Anderson, Gellner and Hobsbawm - all published in 1983 - still form the starting point for almost all existing investigations. Moreover, most recent studies focus on one national case, which implicitly results in a vast collection of 'unique' trajectories. However, over the last few years a number of highly original studies on the origins of nationalism, nation-state formation, banal nationalism, methodological nationalism and nation-building in a global perspective seem to announce a new dawn. Some of these refreshing interpretations - which will be discussed in this article - clearly demonstrate that historiographical nationalism still has a preponderant role in history writing. In the concluding paragraphs I will emphasize the need to overcome not only methodological nationalism, but also the terminological and normative nationalism that still dominates our discipline.
民族主义研究似乎并不是一个非常具有创新性的研究领域。安德森、盖尔纳和霍布斯鲍姆于1983年发表的开创性观点,至今仍是几乎所有现有研究的起点。此外,最近的研究大多聚焦于某一个国家的案例,这无形中导致了大量“独特”轨迹的汇集。然而,在过去几年里,一些关于民族主义起源、民族国家形成、平庸民族主义、方法论民族主义以及全球视角下国家建设的极具原创性的研究,似乎预示着一个新的开端。本文将讨论其中一些令人耳目一新的解读,它们清楚地表明,史学民族主义在历史书写中仍然占据着主导地位。在结论部分,我将强调不仅要克服方法论民族主义,还要克服仍然主导我们学科的术语民族主义和规范民族主义。