在20世纪的最后30年里,西方及西方以外的历史思考和历史写作方面都出现了根本性的变化。现代历史学家确信:历史是连续的、片面的过程;坚持自己科学性权利的学术研究会把来源于客观学术研究的历史叙述置于世界历史的框架之中。到了20世纪,把历史看作“人文科学”的一种特殊类型的历史研究观逐渐被把历史看作一种“社会科学”的历史观所代替。然而,对社会科学和现代化普遍持有的信心在20世纪七、八十年代受到后现代主义哲学家和文学批评家的最激烈的声讨,也受到来自历史学家,尤其是文化历史学家的较为平静的挑战,他们的论点都导致了认识论的相对论。无论如何,只有很少数的历史工作者同意后现代主义者关于“不存在客观标准”的观点,但后现代主义和文化马克思主义的某些中心思想却对日益向文化史转变的社会历史作品产生了很大影响。统一的思想或历史倾向让路给了向小单位、地方和边缘的集中关注,与之同时则是政治史研究地位的下降。在通向21世纪的世纪交替时期,我们已经看到了广泛的研究方法的多元化。 In the last 30 years of the 20th century, fundamental changes have taken place in both historical thinking and historical writing outside the West and beyond. Modern historians are convinced that history is a continuous and one-sided process and that academic research that upholds its scientific rights places historical narratives derived from objective academic research in the frame of world history. By the 20th century, a special type of historical research view of history as “the humanities science” was gradually replaced by a historical view of history as a “social science.” However, the generally held confidence in social sciences and modernization was most vocally denounced by postmodern philosophers and literary critics in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as by historians, especially cultural historians The quieter challenge, their arguments all led to epistemological relativity. In any event, only a handful of historians agree with postmodernist views that “there is no objective standard”. However, some of the central ideas of postmodernism and cultural Marxism turn to social and historical works that are increasingly transforming into cultural history Has a great impact. The unification of ideas or historical preferences gave way to concentrated attention to small units, places and margins, while at the same time the status of political history fell. In the mid-century turn of the 21st century, we have seen the diversification of a broad range of research methods.