نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• محمدجلال ماخانی ¹
• علیرضا ملائی توانی ²

¹ دانشجوی دورۀ دکتری تاریخ، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران

² استاد پژوهشکده تاریخ، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

تاریخ اجتماعی یکی از شاخه‌های مشهور در مطالعات تاریخی است و این مقاله در پی ارائۀ تصویری از چارچوب دانشِ تاریخ اجتماعی است. اگرچه «چیستی» و «ماهیت» این دانش همواره مورد توجه دانشوران این حوزه بوده است، با این حال به نظر می‌رسد که بررسی این مسئله با رویکردی مفهومی-نظری می‌تواندْ زمینه‌ای را برای تفاهم و تحدید این مفهوم از برای اهل نظر فراهم آورد. گستردگی این حوزه و نیز تعریف‌گریزی آن، همواره، کژفهمی‌هایی را موجب شده و از همین‌روی، می‌کوشیم تا ضمن بررسی و تحلیل تعاریف موجود به سنخ‌شناسی آن‌ها و نیز مقولات موجود در تاریخ اجتماعی بپردازیم. این پژوهش در پی این سئوال است که براستی تاریخ اجتماعی چیست؟ برای پاسخ به این پرسش ضمن ارائۀ تاریخچۀ برآمدن تاریخ اجتماعی، برای درک زمینه‌های این دانش، به کاوش در «چیستی» و «ماهیت» این رهیافت با توجه به تعاریف موجود از سوی صاحب‌نظران این عرصه می‌پردازیم. این مقاله با روشِ توصیفی-تحلیلی آبشخورهای اصلی رشته‌ها و زیررشته‌های تشکیل‌دهندۀ تاریخ اجتماعی، عناصر تشکیل‌دهندۀ و نیز مواضع صاحب‌نظران مشهور را در مقابل این مقولات نشان می‌دهد و تصویری مفهومی-نظری از این دانش ترسیم می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• تاریخ اجتماعی
• تاریخ‌نگاری
• تاریخ
• روایت اجتماعی
• اجتماعی

موضوعات

• تاریخ اجتماعی

Extended Abstract

 The "Nature" of Social History: A Reflection

"Social history" is one of the famous branches in historical studies and this article seeks to present a definition of it. The "nature" of social history in historical studies has always been the focus of scholars in the field, while examining this with a conceptual and theoretical approach can provide a basis for an accurate understanding and also a conceptual framework for those who think about it; because the breadth of the field and its lack of definition has always caused misunderstandings. Having said that, the importance of social history demands more attention to such researches. This research seeks the question of “what social history is?”. To answer the question, we will try to present a history of the rise of social history and the afore-mentioned approach in historical studies, so that the concept of this interdisciplinary knowledge becomes more apparent. In this article, after presenting the definitions and a history of social history, the main streams of social history and its disciplines and sub-disciplines that constitute it, together with the constituent elements of social history, as well as the positions of scholars against these elements, have been examined.

Introduction: First of all, is there an independent category called "social history" or is social history the same as existing "social narratives"? The complexity of giving answers to those questions have been the concern of some experts (see in Hobsbawm, 1971: 20-25, Joyce 2010 and Mūsāpūr Bešlī, E. 2008). It is clear that our answer to those questions are positive, and to answer them accurately, we ought to examine the definitions of the pioneers of the field and demonstrate the existing categories in social history. Before opening the discussion, it is necessary to explain that, currently, social history is a separate genre with its own methodology and literature, which seeks to understand society, the social issue and its changes. Albite, we have to cautious in applying the title of social history to "social narratives", one should be because existing social narratives cannot simply be considered social history in a strict sense: social narratives are the ingredients of social history and not the ones.

There is no misunderstanding in the cognition of these meanings in the general perception of history, political history, or famous types of history; in fact, adjectives such as political, diplomatic, military and …, which come after the word history are something like a difference/ diffrentia in the science of logic, and by limiting the area of the intended study, they make the subject clearer for us, while the social adjective does not have such a status before the word history. Because not only it does not limit the area of the research, but also brings more potentialities to mind, due to the fact that unlike the previous types, social history investigates different areas.

Conclusion: The aim of the following article was to present a perspective for a type of historiography called “social historiography” which was born in the West; after the introduction, we brought some definitions regarding social history. The definitions in this filed are very scattered and to some extent contradictory, and this meaning doubles the difficulty of this task, but it is possible to reach common meanings for "description of the conflict". Then, we talked about the coordinates of a type of modern historiography against the old historiography, so that the difference of this new type becomes more apparent and the objectivity of social history is also clarified. Our attempt in this research was to provide a background for the understanding of social history in Iran by examining different perspectives on social history and to explain the relationship between the knowledge of social history and its adjacent knowledge. Despite the existing disputes regarding the meaning of social history, one can think of Perkin (Harold J. Perkin 1926-2004) who said: "social history is not a part of history", but "the whole history from a social perspective" (Henretta , previous: 98). And if we want to sum up and present our definition of this filed, we can say: social history is the knowledge of the narrator of history, in the context of society, with emphasis on the social issue.

Keywords: Social History, Historiography, History, Social Narrative, Social