History of ideas continues iterative growth
The history of ideas has evolved far from Arthur O. Lovejoy’s definition to a new definition that incorporates the elements of intellectual history, cultural history and social history. Photo: FILE
The history of ideas has developed rapidly since its emergence in the mid-20th century. The continuous reshaping of its research paradigms has stirred academic interest in the study of ideas and thought, promoting an interdisciplinary vision. What impact does the history of ideas exert on philosophy and the social sciences? How should we create more room for the development of the history of ideas?
The history of ideas dates back to the American philosopher Arthur O. Lovejoy (1873–1962), who co-founded the History of Ideas Club at Johns Hopkins University in 1923 and founded the Journal of the History of Ideas in 1940. These events are regarded as the beginning of the history of ideas in modern times. After the 1950s, the history of ideas began to take shape as an academic discipline.
Lovejoy’s history of ideas based its research paradigms on “unit ideas,” featuring comprehensiveness, interdisciplinarity, high abstraction and no spatiotemporal limits. His definition of “ideas” was very broad, said Li Hongtu, a professor from the Department of History at Fudan University.
Zhang Xupeng, a research fellow from the Institute of Historical Theory at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that an “idea” can be a grand hypothesis or a certain word. Its complexity determines that the history of ideas is not a self-evident and single research field. Due to the field’s inherent interdisciplinarity, scholars may come from such fields as philosophy, history, literature and art.
The history of ideas focuses on both basic human thought and the evolution of various ideas in different disciplines, Li continued. It can be a holistic study or a study of a specific discipline, though it is advisable to integrate its research approaches with the theoretical methods and norms of specific disciplines.
Interdisciplinary dialogue has continuously reshaped the research paradigms of the history of ideas, said Yuan Zushe, dean of the School of Philosophy and Government at Shaanxi Normal University. Represented by Quentin Skinner, the Cambridge school of the history of ideas has altered previous traditions that merely focused on classic texts or seeking the continuity of ideas. Instead, this school advocates examining ideas through combining specific historical contexts.
In addition to historical contextualism, the history of ideas has been impacted by social history and new cultural history, further undermining its traditional research paradigms, Zhang added.
Different academic traditions have been blended into the study of the history of ideas, facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue, Yuan noted. In terms of ways of thinking, the history of ideas usually takes into account the background, context and internal and external factors when an idea performs its functions. In this sense, the history of ideas often gives multiple interpretations of specific semantics.
When continuing its unique philosophies and research methodology, the history of ideas should also draw on those in historiography, political science, sociology and cultural theory. In addition, it should learn from new philosophies in such disciplines as modern discourse theory, phenomenology, hermeneutics, analytic philosophy, modern literary theory, situationism and New Historicism.
Evolving from Lovejoy’s “unit ideas” to a new history of ideas that incorporates the elements of intellectual history, cultural history and social history, the history of ideas has experienced self-innovative growth.
The history of ideas has evolved much further than the definitions that were originally set by Lovejoy, Zhang said. Nowadays, it employs diverse research perspectives, adopts flexible research methods and displays a growing interdisciplinary nature. As grand macrohistory and in-depth microhistory have risen in recent years, scholars should also break through single specific contexts and use a grander perspective to study the history of ideas or intellectual history, invigorating its disciplinary development.
As China works to develop the disciplinary system, academic system and discourse system of philosophy and the social sciences with Chinese characteristics, researchers need to learn from the research methodology of the history of ideas, trace the roots of important ideas in philosophy and the social sciences in China, clarify the occurrence and evolvement of these ideas, and demonstrate their theoretical value and practical significance, Zhang suggested.
The perspectives of the history of ideas help clarify discourse scenes needed for building the “three systems” above. The history of ideas advocates deeply embedding the indigenous experience of knowledge generation as well as its unique cultural value and background. In this sense, the discipline contributes to expanding interdisciplinary dialogue, Yuan concluded.
Edited by YANG LANLAN