|
Abstract To gain a profound understanding and interpretation of the essential character of historical
materialism, we need to elucidate the original relationship between historical materialism and German
historicism in the intellectual history. There is a triple interpretation of German historicism: scientific
historicism, historical relativism, and vitalism. Scientific historicism proves the scientific status of
history through methods and procedural principles such as objectivity, systematicity, and typification in
historical research. It upholds the autonomy and uniqueness of history, rejecting the notion that the real
world is the result of transcendental deduction of reason. It examines historical facts from an empirical
nominalist standpoint, thereby grasping the coherence of historical processes. Ranke, in his scrupulous
and objective approach, examined the available sources of history. He adhered to the principle of
reconstructing the past but fell into the trap of excessive pursuit of reductivism and superficial
objectivity. Droysen focused on the understanding and interpretation of the meaning of history itself, but
his Hegelian paradigm of historical explanation made historical knowledge dependent on inevitability
logic. Burckhardt executed a major shift to emphasis on individuality, the meaning of a specific
historical culture, and the spirit of freedom, which showed his individualistic and conservative
tendencies in terms of historical progress. Therefore, scientific historicism has fallen into an inherent
tension between the pursuit of objectivity and the recognition of theological beliefs.
Unlike scientific historicism which uses the principle of objectivity to construct systematic and
scientific history, historical relativism advocates a universal validity of principle to study human nature,
the value and meaning of history, leading to justify the scientific status of history. However, historicism
cannot detach itself from the uniqueness and finitude of historical culture, thus arriving at a different
direction of relativism of nature and culture on the basis of romanticism. On the one hand, While Herder
advocated for the universality of naturalistic principles, this proposition proves ineffective when
divorced from its historical context. On the other hand, the endeavor of historicism to study the
standards of universal value for the possibility of historical knowledge faces the limitations of history.
Schiller, Dilthey, and Neo-Kantians faced this dilemma. Schiller was concerned with human history
rather than nature. Dilthey tried to understand how the universal ideas of history came to be within
individuals. Windelband and Rickert explained the conditions for universal validity, which are
inseparable from cultural particularities and subjectivism. Simmel explicitly defended the relativity of
history. These instances collectively indicate the inclination of historicism towards relativism.
Vitalism approaches history by incorporating irrational factors such as life, will, intuition, and time.
It cares about humanity itself and the meaning of life, and puts history on organic life. In this traditional
direction of historicism, figures like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche endeavored to understand life through
the lens of will and introspection. The philosophy of life, said Dilthey, comprehends the historical
process, according to the unity of fundamental category of human life experience. Bergson relied on
intuition to grasp historical change. In conclusion, vitalism turns its attention to a new direction of
exploring the possibility of historical knowledge through the will and intuition, and excludes objectivity
and sociality from the perspective of history, so it is difficult to prove the legitimacy of history as a
science.
Therefore, Marx’s historical materialism and German historicism present a genetic adherence
relationship. First, German historicists’ unwavering focus on historical facts and consciousness exerted
a profound impact on historical materialism. Second, German historicism and historical materialism
share a common thesis on explaining the nature of history and reality. Third, German historicism,
entangled in the realm of pure thought, becomes a critical target for Marx to explain history
materialistically. Historical materialism bears the entire mission of the development of German
historicism and is an objective result of the development of German historicism, which also
justifies the essential character of “historical science”.
|
|
Published: 18 February 2024
|
|
|
|
