Liang Minsu: The British Paradigm and Academic Orientation of 20th-Century Marxist Historiography
Academic history, both in China and abroad, demonstrates that within the context of radicalism and the historical milieu of the New Left, a British Marxist historical school was constructed by the collective efforts of two generations of historians. This school emerged on the 20th-century British historical stage, aided by the wide dissemination of the Marxist tradition in the UK and long immersion in the academic currents of Western New History. From the perspective of their historical era and the school’s evolution, these two generations of historians created a historiographical movement characterized by similar social experiences but divergent academic careers, complementary historiographical demands, and shared theoretical lineages. They achieved prominence in the international academic community through their extraordinary scholarly accomplishments and subtly different historiographical ideas, influencing both British and international historical trends through the dual dimensions of Marxist interpretive power and conceptual creativity. Within the dual horizons of global historiography and intellectual history, it is of great historiographical value and practical significance to trace the circumstances of the formation of the 20th-century British Marxist historiographical paradigm, to explore its logic regarding the conception of history and its intergenerational differences, and to reflect on the dynamic mechanisms, connotative characteristics, and academic transformations of the school’s evolution.
I. The British School of the Marxist Historiographical Paradigm and Its Theoretical Orientations
As the most active movement within the 20th-century Western Marxist historiographical trend, the British Marxist historical school, while not part of the mainstream within the contemporary British historiographical system, occupies an important position. It has experienced a theoretical path marked by twists, continuity, and iterative renewal. The first generation of Marxist historians, who rose to prominence from the 1930s and 1940s, was composed of figures such as Maurice Dobb, Rodney Hilton, Christopher Hill, E. P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Victor Kiernan, John Saville, George Rudé, Dorothy Thompson, and Raymond Williams. The second generation of the "New Left," which gradually rose to prominence after the 1950s and 1960s, including Perry Anderson, Robin Blackburn, Raphael Samuel, Tom Nairn, Richard Hoggart, and Stuart Hall, is known as the new generation of Marxist historians. The school has produced a prolific body of work, and most of its members have achieved eminent success. For instance, in contemporary international society and academic circles, Hobsbawm has been honored with various titles such as Britain's "new social historian, New Left historian, master of modern historiography, and Marxist historian." He published more than 40 books, nearly 20 of which were sole-authored, along with countless monographs, academic book reviews, and commentaries, manifesting both professional pursuit and a popular orientation, carrying profound academic and social value (Liang Minsu, The British School and the Historian: Hobsbawm's Marxist Historiography, Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2020). After Hobsbawm's death in 2012, the British academic community published four books concerning him, and the University of London, in conjunction with the journal Past & Present, hosted an international academic conference entitled "History after Hobsbawm" to summarize his academic legacy and discuss the direction of "History in the Post-Hobsbawm Era in Britain" and its value for 21st-century historiography. Domestic [1] academic circles have reflected on historiographical trends in the post-Hobsbawm era, positing that the key issue lies in how to interpret the "past." Based on an investigation of existing debates in domestic and international research and an analysis of relevant historical documents, the so-called "British Marxist historiographical paradigm" refers to the way two generations of British Marxist historians, proceeding from the context of 20th-century British history and guided by historical materialism and theoretical concern, followed, interpreted, and sustained traditional Marxist theory. Within a global spatio-temporal horizon and multi-dimensional historical fields, they selected specific research subjects and corresponding historical methods to construct the iterative renewal, logic of historical conception, and historical writing style of the British Marxist historical school. To see the world in a drop of water—within specific historical stages and cultural contexts, the British practice of the first generation of historians pioneered the new social history orientation of the 20th-century Marxist historiographical paradigm, attempting to combine the theoretical tradition of Marxist historiography with the practice of writing a "total" social history.
Based on recently acquired research from foreign academic circles, the attention and evaluation given to British Marxist historiography basically started concurrently with the formation of Western New History and the Marxist historiographical trend. Research on the school’s historiography, including academic monographs, specialized papers, book reviews, and dissertations, is voluminous; representative papers alone number in the hundreds, making them nearly impossible to list comprehensively. In many academic journal databases and foreign historical databases or online resources, a large number of research results reflecting the development of Marxist historiography can be found, scattered across dozens of foreign professional journals such as the English Historical Review, Marxism Today, Past & Present, Radical History Review, New Left Review, and History Workshop Journal. Surveying relevant foreign works, since the 1980s, British and American scholars have conducted preliminary examinations of the rise and fall of the first generation of historians, the British New Left, and the Marxist historiographical trend: First, Harvey J. Kaye took the lead in launching an introductory study of the first generation of British Marxist historians. Second, Stuart Hall and Raphael Samuel, in works such as "The First" New Left, People's History and Socialist Theory, and The Lost World of British Communism, emphasized the New Left movement, socialism, and historical changes. Third, Michael Kenny, Stephen Woodhams, Keith Laybourn, Dennis Dworkin, and the UK-based Chinese scholar Lin Chun wrote works such as The First New Left: British Intellectuals After Stalin, History in the Making: Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson and Radical Intellectuals (1936–1956), British Marxism: Its Fall and Rise, and The British New Left. From the dimension of the relationship between political culture and social change, these works focus on the internal connection and the winding fate of the two post-war generations of New Left intellectuals and the British Marxist historiographical trend. Fourth, Bryan D. Palmer and Scott Hamilton analyzed the political and practical nature of Thompson and British Marxist historiography, while Gerard McCann examined Thompson's political thought from theoretical and historical perspectives. Other valuable studies include Prakash Karat's work on Victor Kiernan's contributions, Paul Hirst's research on Marxism and historical writing, and Gregory Elliott's study of Hobsbawm from the perspective of the relationship between history and politics.
The hundreds of fruitful foreign studies on the British Marxist historical school are inseparable from the academic contributions of many contemporary Western scholars, the most prominent of whom include Georg G. Iggers, Geoffrey Barraclough, R. H. Tawney, David McLellan, Peter Burke, Nick Stevenson, Willie Thompson, and Geoffrey Elton. For example, Iggers and others, from the perspective of a holistic narrative, specifically addressed two levels of issues: first, from the perspective of the relationship between Marxism and capitalism, they explained the Western Marxist historiographical tradition and the influence of Marxist historiography on American and North American historiography; second, from the perspective of the relationship between Marxism and Marxist historiography, they discussed the historical fate of Marxism in contemporary Russian historiography from the perspective of center and periphery, and also elucidated Marxist historical writings in Eastern European countries in the post-communist era [Q. Edward Wang and Georg G. Iggers, eds., Marxist Historiographies: A Global Perspective, London and New York: Routledge, 2016]. Oxford University Press, in the "British Academy Occasional Paper No. 9," released an academic collection edited by Chris Wickham, which includes analyses of the current state of international historiography by famous Marxist historians, including Hobsbawm. In particular, it responded promptly to the "obsolescence of Marxist theory" and the "end of history" theories following the end of the Cold War, affirming the powerful interpretive capacity and methodological significance of Marxist historical theory (Chris Wickham, ed., translated by Duan Yuan, Marxism and Twenty-First-Century Historiography, Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2019). The academic concepts and basic viewpoints of foreign historians are worth drawing upon; they are of great significance for understanding the New Left movement and the successes and failures of post-war British Marxism, providing an important political-cultural vision and socio-historical context for in-depth research. However, they also lack certain investigative perspectives and analytical paths. For example, from a long-term (longue durée) and holistic perspective, they pay insufficient attention to the evolutionary trajectory of the school's historiography and the iterative replacement of historical concepts. While Kaye used the first generation of historians as his subject to clarify the school's interests and theoretical orientations, his work is slightly deficient in two ways: first, while it sketched a collective portrait of the school's historians, it failed to delve into the reasons for the rise and fall of the school’s shifting historiographical trends; second, it failed to include the "new generation of Marxist" historians such as Anderson, Rowbotham, and Hall.
Since the birth of Marxist historiography in the 1840s, classical Marxism and Western historiographical trends have moved from confrontation and collision toward dialogue and exchange. The formal formation, large-scale development, and intellectual trajectory of the British Marxist historical school have also undergone staged evolution, presenting a unique character of the times, historiographical connotation, and British flavor. This process reflects the transformation from partisan historiography toward scientific historiography, and from academic politicization toward academic intellectualization. It also signals the intergenerational replacement of historiographical concepts and the social continuity of historiographical practice, manifesting changes in the theoretical origins, the New Left political context, and the forms of historiographical practice between the two generations of historians:
First, the formative stage of the school characterized by progress amidst twists (1930–1950). This stage was both a period of theoretical paradox between partisan political orientation and political disenchantment, and an initial generative period for the group's historical concepts and academic norms. It was also a period of germination for the British Marxist theoretical tradition, as the historiographical paradigm shifted from empiricism toward idealism. For example, Hobsbawm and Thompson actively participated in the Society for the Study of Labour History, practicing early research on labor history, socialist history, and working-class history, presenting an academic path that shifted from traditional British labor history toward a socio-economic history orientation. Second, the development stage of the school where individuality emerged within commonality (1960–1970). During this stage, the school's historiographical paradigm matured day by day. Hobsbawm, Thompson, and others advocated for socio-economic history research under an interdisciplinary theoretical horizon, while the traditional Marxist model of economic interpretation and values faced criticism and challenges. For instance, the Economic and Social History Society in the 1960s and 1970s led the deep integration of radical historiographical trends and the labor history tradition, with the living conditions of laborers becoming a key focus for historians. Ultimately, within the academic context of the "cultural turn" and the "linguistic turn" of the 1970s and 1980s—beginning with Thompson’s pioneering analysis of class consciousness formation, class as lived experience, and class culture—the first generation advocated for "cultural turn" research within the total social history of British Marxism, highlighting the New Left’s consciousness of cultural criticism and its progressive significance for later historiography. Third, the transformation period of the school characterized by stasis within dynamics (1980–1990). This was a period when the school's historiographical trend gradually became quiet and experienced both decline and recovery. In an academic situation where senior scholars of the school engaged in social criticism and theoretical debate with the second generation of historians, and against the background of the deconstructionist trend in Europe and America after the 1970s, they sought internal forces for historiographical reform anew, deepening the Marxist historiographical tradition and research into the new socio-cultural history. During this stage, the evolution of the school shifted once again from empiricist total social history writing toward idealist social critical theory; the historical narratives from Thompson to Anderson serve as dynamic factors and typical examples of this shift.
The second generation of historians adjusted their academic fields during the "cultural turn" of British historiography, continuing the theoretical legacy of Thompson’s "cultural turn," demonstrating the practical achievements of British Marxist historiography, and conforming to the developmental direction of the new socio-cultural history. Based on a textual analysis and theoretical attribution of "historical writings from Thompson to Anderson," combined with the 20th-century context...
By observing the symbiotic conditions and scholarly context shared by 20th-century Western New History trends and the British Marxist Historians [2], one can discern shifts in the theoretical attributes and internal logic of Marxist historiography across two generations of historians. First, building upon classical theory, both generations emphasized the radical stance of Continental Marxist theory and focused on the social function of historical interpretation. This reflects the scholarly lineage and practical impact of historical thought ranging from E.P. Thompson into Perry Anderson, while also mirroring the theoretical inclinations and cognitive frameworks of the British Marxist historian collective. Second, within the specific scholarly horizon of radical social history and the British tradition of Cultural Studies, one can identify the theoretical leadership exercised by quintessential historians like Thompson and Anderson over British Marxist historical trends. This clarifies the holistic narrative, creative expression, and realistic tension of New Left political "cultural" trends in historiographical practice, highlighting the cultural theory and traditional characteristics of the British Marxist historical paradigm.
It was precisely through the pioneering spirit of these two generations that a school of history characterized by theoretical debate gradually took shape, creating diverse historical practices and establishing a rich historiographical system. This evolution manifested in shifting research fields and period-specific characteristics. Whether it was the first generation’s advocacy for an analytical perspective "from below," or the second generation’s emphasis on an interpretative dimension "from above," they collectively constructed a holistic social-history orientation. Within the multi-dimensional fields of Marxist historiography, they advanced agendas concerning class formation, laboring life, social revolution, social resistance, and institutional change, thereby gaining universally significant experience in historical writing and reaching academic conclusions of specific value. Regarding historical materialism and its theoretical attributes, the conviction and principle followed by this school was: "If the materialist method is treated not as a guide to historical study but as a ready-made formula to which one crops and trims historical facts, it will be transformed into its opposite" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 10, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 583) [3]. Rather than mechanically applying prefabricated historical theories, they promoted the continuity of the Marxist historical paradigm, innovatively practicing various analytical paths within the New History movement, such as the history of grassroots experience, the social history of labor, women's and gender history, and the New Cultural History. In the view of Western scholars, when faced with a series of shared theoretical premises and historical themes, these two generations of British Marxist historians—particularly those regarded as British Marxist "new social historians" or representative figures of the British New Social History school—frequently reached common theoretical orientations and formed a highly distinctive historical methodology. Harvey J. Kaye argues that this school made at least two theoretical contributions: first, broadening the concepts of class experience and consciousness in historical research; and second, reaffirming the dynamic role of the historical subject. They firmly believed in the Marxist theoretical system centered on historical materialism, acknowledged the foundational role of the social mode of production and its operational structure, and consistently critiqued the economic determinism of vulgar, rigid Marxism. In combining theory with practice, the British Marxist historians deconstructed the mechanical thinking of traditional Marxist historiography and reflected upon its notion of linear progressive historical totality and the "economic base–superstructure" theoretical model. Within the broad connections between social existence and social consciousness, they historically examined their dialectical relationship, emphasizing the counter-reaction of social consciousness. From the perspective of theoretical orientation and practical concern, the advancement and extraordinary academic achievements of the British Marxist historical enterprise perhaps stem from the school’s sustained attention to British political culture and its deep reflection on historical-theoretical propositions.
II. The Logic of Historical Outlook and Generational Differences in British Marxist Historiography
The theoretical orientation and core values of the British Marxist school are widely acclaimed in academia. Whether it is Thompson’s "cultural turn" research, Eric Hobsbawm’s studies on "nationalism," or the historical concepts and theoretical orientations of other historians, the first generation has undoubtedly garnered more attention and recognition in both Chinese and Western academic circles. Looking at the relationship between historical and social trends, as well as historical and social culture, the two generations of historians and their forms of practice jointly enacted the generational succession and the internal logic of the school’s historical paradigm. In terms of the logic of historical outlook, types of historical writing, the identity of historians, and the orientation of historical values, the school’s body of work presents and reflects the evolution of historical thought and socio-cultural styles amidst the British Zeitgeist and shifting socio-historical landscapes.
First, the development of the school is expressed through generational inheritance, theoretical lineages, and academic shifts. It achieved a transition from the first generation’s tradition of holistic socio-historical writing to the second generation’s innovative type of Marxist social-theoretical critique. This manifests in the generational succession and the function of their historical concepts in shaping social trends. The roots of this lie, first, in the long-term theoretical writing and social practice of Marx and Engels in Britain, which established a Marxist theoretical atmosphere and academic tradition. Second, the tradition and spirit of writing "People’s History" in modern British historiography has been passed down through generations, influencing the academic ideals and historical practices of British Marxist historians. Benefiting from the spirit of "tradition and change" in historical writing, the British Marxist historical paradigm was realized through the "systematic creation and application of theoretical methods that 'look from the bottom up.'" Since then, most British Marxist historians have emphasized the crucial role of the grassroots in the historical process. Based on Marxist historical materialism, this gradually expanded and evolved into a transformation of the British Marxist historical paradigm that emphasizes combining the writing of historical experiences of the lower classes with an analytical perspective on upper-class society.
Second, British socio-political trends birthed the disciplinary spirit and social value demands of the Marxist historian collective, strengthening the theoretical foundation and explanatory power of the school’s historical trends while promoting the efficiency and structural reconfiguration of its corresponding political practices. As Gregory Elliott recognized, the collective intellectual profile and individual academic talents of the British Marxist school were both deeply influenced by Marxist theory and closely related to the crisis and ideas of the New Left. However, an investigation based on the British New Left movement provides crucial political resources and social context for a deep study of this historical school, thereby helping to clarify the research interests, theoretical orientations, and academic demands of the two generations. From the symbiotic relationship between the British New Left movement, the development of social trends, and the emergence of historical trends, historians, literary theorists, and social thinkers played a vital role in pushing forward British social movements. In fact, this was closely linked to early British socialist traditions. Around 1956, the first generation of historians actively participated in the British New Left and related social movements. The school’s enthusiasm for theoretical innovation was intensely galvanized, stimulating maximum creativity in academic thought and leading to a "blowout" of historical publications. The continuous integration of social movements and historical practice shaped a positive collective profile of the historical community across basic historical concepts, professional fields, and diverse historical works: Maurice Dobb became world-famous for studying capitalist economic forms and historical processes; Christopher Hill dedicated himself to the history of the 17th-century English Revolution; Rodney Hilton focused his academic interests on feudalism and the peasantry; Hobsbawm maintained a tradition of holistic social history from a "bottom-up" perspective; Thompson was renowned for his research on the formation of the English working class; Raymond Williams was famous for socio-cultural history; and later, John Saville achieved prolific results in the fields of the labor movement and socio-economic history. As international and domestic political situations changed, and due to differences in family backgrounds, education, and individual temperaments, the research fields, historical viewpoints, and academic stances of the first generation were not entirely uniform. They exhibited even greater internal differences compared to the second generation. This generational difference essentially reflects the historical writing styles and interpretative paths of the two groups, as seen in Thompson’s discourse: "In England, to work as a Marxist historian is to work within a tradition founded by Marx, enriched by the independent and complementary insights of William Morris, and extended by the specialized research of many recent hands." [E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays, London: Merlin Press, 1978, p. 333]. Yet within these distinct differences lie the foundational premises and universal components of the school’s theory, embodying the critical selection and eventual convergence of theoretical guidance and philosophical premises in the historical traditions of both generations. As the Canadian Marxist historian Bryan D. Palmer argued, these two generations collectively transformed perceptions of Britain’s past, and their work demonstrated to the international historical community the power of historical materialism as an analytical tool.
Third, the British tradition of Cultural Studies and the "cultural turn" in historical trends dictated that both generations of Marxist historians inevitably gave more weight to cultural mechanisms and psychological factors in historical change. This was especially true for the first generation, who established the school’s paradigmatic shift from a traditional socio-economic historical orientation to a New Social-Cultural History orientation. In terms of historical representation, Thompson undoubtedly set the historiographical archetype and academic example. In The Making of the English Working Class and his theory of "class" interpretation, he argued that only by integrating the analysis of cultural-psychological elements in specific historical subjects with traditional economic and political factors—and by providing a more rational, comprehensive explanation of the historical experience of social groups and individual lives—could one draw closer to the true face of historical reality. Compared to Thompson’s definition of "class," which placed class consciousness and ideology in a prominent position, Hobsbawm believed that one of the historian’s tasks was to reveal the lives and thoughts of ordinary people, clarifying their demands for an ideal society or a tolerable social reality, and what they actually wanted from such a society. Research shows that both generations of British Marxist historians emphasized that to understand the function of social elements in historical development, one must consider whether socio-cultural traditions and socio-psychological factors are directly linked to social change. As commentators have noted, to better answer such questions, historians must understand what people thought and felt, and must clarify the role of culture in determining mutual identity among groups and the order of social strata, thereby understanding the motivational role of cultural psychology in action.
Looking at the traditional origins of theory and the continuity of thought, the intellectual creations and historical practices of the first generation of British historians made significant contributions to changing the "poverty of theory" in British Marxism and promoting a consciousness of "cultural critique" within British historical and cultural circles. Commentators believe that under the intensifying influence of British Marxist historical trends, "theory, history, and culture" once became powerful terms within British historical and socio-cultural trends. Historians, culturologists, and scholars of other disciplines—whether from the tradition of cultural criticism, the perspective of historical theory, the angle of social reflection, or an interdisciplinary horizon—jointly advanced British Marxist cultural criticism and elevated the academic enterprise of the British Marxist school. This was mainly reflected in: first, breaking away from the rigid dogmas of Stalinism and establishing a scientific attitude toward Marxism as a prerequisite for all theoretical innovation and practical development; second, constructing the theoretical form of "Cultural Marxism," an endeavor inseparable from the two generations' efforts to study British historical issues under Marxist guidance in combination with British reality; third, proposing the concept of "Socialist Humanism" and its socio-historical influence, arguing that humanism and social moral norms occupy an important position in the socialist revolution and British social transformation.
Fourth, there are significant differences between the two generations in terms of historical orientation, academic insight, and fields of social activity. Observing the generational shift in the identity of historians, political stances, and theoretical identification, most members underwent a transformation from radicalism to Communism and Marxism. In the 1950s and 60s, as the international political environment and academic atmosphere changed, political stances within the British school diverged, facilitating a shift in historical value orientations. A new generation of Marxist historians emerged; some left Communist Party organizations or were non-Party members, yet they became world-renowned for adhering to the Marxist theoretical tradition. Regarding generational transition and the continuation of thought, emphasis must be placed here on the historical practice, theoretical logic, and social-critique effects of the second-generation historians. Most of them were born in the 1920s...
In the 1930s and 40s, the membership of the British Marxist historians' group consisted largely of radical New Left undergraduates and graduates from universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics; in the early stages of the British New Left movement [7], they fought side-by-side with the first generation of historians. Subsequently, influenced by the complex, intense, and burgeoning Third World revolutionary movements, these young students developed a more internationalist outlook. They manifested a more reflexive demand for Marxist theory in their socio-historical consciousness and politico-idealistic goals—a marked departure from their predecessors, who focused more on the domestic horizon and the local context of British history. Although both generations were immersed in the same international political environment—the 1956 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Hungarian Uprising, the Suez Crisis, and the first Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—and most realistically experienced the severe setbacks of Soviet socialist practice and the disillusionment and double tragedy of Western liberalism, the second generation exhibited a more radical tendency in both political movements and historiographical practice. They sought a mode of New Left practice and socio-historical interpretation more radical than that of their predecessors. Following the rise and subsequent quietus of the British New Left movement in the 1960s and 70s, Perry Anderson and other second-generation historians quickly distanced themselves from radical politics to focus on scholarship and pioneering new fields of historiography. Their thematic scope touched upon theories across many disciplines, including philosophy, political science, economics, cultural studies, and history. First, they researched the socio-cultural specificities of Britain and Europe, paths of social development, and theories of social formations. Second, they studied New Left political theory, party-political programs, and the tradition of Western Marxism. Third, they focused on the transition from modernity to postmodernity and problems of historical reality, exploring the relationship between historical origins, historical thought, socio-culture, and social transformation. As typical representatives of the second generation, they published essays and books, established new theoretical constructs, expanded academic paradigms, and opened new frontiers in historiography.
Overall, viewed from the shifts in historiographical thought and the trends in social thought, the tide of the times seems to continually prove that the British Marxist historiographical trend also contains conflicts between change and continuity brought about by generational replacement, presenting a comprehensive scene of intersecting ideas and dynamic transitions. By 1962, marked by Anderson’s appointment as editor of the New Left Review, the political "fissure" between the two generations of historians transformed into an intellectual "chasm." The second generation turned toward the lineage of Continental Marxism, with Althusser’s "structuralist Marxism" becoming the direct theoretical source for their historical principles. They positioned themselves as the masters of an intellectual weapon that criticized and superseded "Cultural Marxism," constructing what they considered a more revolutionary and scientific form of neo-Marxist theory, which inevitably led to occasional deviations in theoretical position. Facing the conceptual critiques and theoretical tendencies of the new generation, E.P. Thompson struck back, even declaring Althusserianism to be "the last form of Stalinism, theorized ideology" (E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays, p. 182). However, one cannot simply view the Marxist intellectual trend by pitting the structuralist transition against "Cultural Marxism." In their historical writings and social practice, the second generation—situated in a period of paradigm shift—actually drew theoretical resources from "structuralist Marxism," enhancing the degree of theorization in contemporary British historical research. While inheriting the traditions of their predecessors in methodology, they constantly attempted practical innovations. For instance, Anderson achieved excellence through his research on Western New Political History, British labor history, and the history of European social formations; Blackburn gained renown in the historical field for his studies on the history of American slavery; Rowbotham’s reputation grew through her research on gender and feminist historiography; and even Raphael Samuel, who had long been overlooked, drew attention by writing people’s history from the perspective of New Cultural History. Through this, an iterative advancement of the Marxist historiographical paradigm was achieved. In fact, an intricate relationship existed between the two generations of Marxist historians. First, as a new force in the postwar British historical community, the second generation became widely known through the "History Workshop Movement" [8] of the 1960s within the field of Marxist feminist historiography, contributing to the revival and dissemination of British feminist history after the 70s. Second, as a later generation of historians, social theorists, and cultural critics, they eliminated the empiricist and non-theoretical tendencies within the existing academic territory of "Cultural Marxism," making the school’s historiographical trend more critical and prominent in the international academic community.
III. The Academic Direction of British Marxist Historiographical Research
From the perspective of comparative historiography and holism, related research at home and abroad has, to date, generally touched upon the historical understanding and historiographical cognition of the school and its intellectual trends. However, most have not yet comprehensively and systematically explored the academic value and direction inherent in British Marxist historiography from a holistic perspective of the academic lineage and a comparative analysis of the conceptual shifts of both generations. Regarding the Chinese academic community, an overview of the few related studies in Hong Kong and Taiwan discloses representative works such as Chen Weihong’s introductory article "British Marxism" and Chou Liang-kai’s book The Dialectic of Historiographical Thought and Realistic Consciousness: A Study of Modern British Leftist Historians; the latter focuses on the first generation and their basic historiographical concepts, but beyond this, no innovative results are yet visible. Research in the Mainland during the 1980s and 90s manifested at two levels: First, foundational historiographical introductions and translations, which explored the theoretical conceptions and academic achievements of the school’s historians either from the perspective of related academic history or the relationship between typical cases and Western New History trends. Representative scholars such as Chen Qineng, Yu Pei, Pang Zhuoheng, Zhang Guangzhi, Jiang Peng, Liu Jun, Xu Hao, Qian Chengdan, and Cheng Handa did much work in this regard. Second, dozens of young and middle-aged scholars such as Qiao Ruijin, Zhang Liang, He Wuyi, Liu Yaohui, and Chu Qingdong focused on discussions of typical historians through academic interviews, thematic essays, academic reviews, and books, resulting in over 60 related papers and several academic monographs. Master’s and doctoral theses from university research institutions focused on historians like Thompson, Hobsbawm, Hill, Hilton, Anderson, Saville, and Nairn. From different angles and academic orientations, these studies initially demonstrated the overall fortunes, intellectual characteristics, and academic achievements of this school.
Since entering the 21st century, the Chinese academic community has paid increasing attention to the historiographical achievements and academic contributions of the British Marxist historians. The first generation, including Hobsbawm, has consistently received more attention, laying the academic foundation for deeply revealing the generational inheritance and the intellectual logic of the historiographical trend. However, research that systematically explores their historiographical theories and core concepts remains insufficient. For example, there is a lack of investigation into how temporal concepts of "past, present, and future" obtain historical expression and practical articulation in British Marxist historical texts, and what theoretical logic and historiographical narrative they form. The reasons for this are: First, limited by research goals and subjective orientations, scholars have neglected systematic comparisons of typical historians and the collective portrait of the school from a long-term (longue durée) perspective. Second, limited by original archival materials and research conditions, there is a lack of in-depth analysis and generational comparison of the second generation. For instance, within the context of social systems and the academic environment, and based on a holistic view of Marxist historiography, how does one deeply analyze the complex facets and internal logic of the school as a whole and its typical historians during the rise of socio-economic history in the 60s and 70s, the revival of socio-cultural history in the 70s and 80s, and the "cultural turn" of the New Social History? All these issues and related fields should be given serious attention in historiographical theoretical reflection and the practice of historical research.
Viewing current domestic and international research and dynamic trends: On one hand, foreign scholars took the lead in emphasizing the life experiences, mentorship lineages, family backgrounds, and bibliographic analysis of typical historians. This research orientation is itself deeply influenced by the socio-political culture of British empiricism and party radicalism in which the historians' ideas were rooted; thus, existing foreign results manifest multi-perspective and complex characteristics. On the other hand, since the 1980s, the Chinese academic community has produced works on the intellectual history and differences between the two generations (Thompson, Hobsbawm, Anderson, etc.), but both in quantity and depth/breadth, further development is needed. Amidst the recursive interplay between social and academic trends, the future direction of domestic and international research, based on a Marxist theoretical horizon, should be: First, integrating the socio-historical environment to investigate political traditions and the constitution of historical outlooks, continuing to focus on and deepen the understanding of the historiographical intellectual content of typical historians; second, emphasizing comparative studies of specific historians and the dissemination of historiographical thought from the perspective of the interaction between radical history and historiographical culture; third, within the generational inheritance and the genealogical evolution of historiographical concepts, prioritizing research on the intellectual comparison, contemporary value, and social influence of the two generations.
The future path for British Marxist historiographical research depends on how to deeply interpret its theoretical traditions, logic of historical outlook, practical characteristics, and academic directions. Continuing to focus on the generational replacement of the two groups requires the construction of two academic prerequisites: First, emphasizing the consolidation of the source base by collecting and organizing original documents. This includes unearthing archives of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the school’s institutions, and organizing original materials concerning academic exchanges and daily social activities both within and outside the school. From the perspective of empathetic understanding of the research subjects, importance should be placed on biographical research and the interpretation of their collected works. Second, constructing a horizon of theoretical methodology to broaden the analytical perspective, comprehensively analyzing the life fortunes, academic politics, and historiographical concepts of typical historians. For example, in terms of the logic of historical concepts and historiographical epistemology, one could borrow methods from social science theory to construct analytical models that peer through the theoretical logic and centennial evolution of the two generations. The research orientation and future path can unfold in two stages: First, strengthening the approach of global historiography (historiographie). For instance, from the perspective of reception and dissemination, one could trace how professional journals like Radical History Review, New Left Review, and Past & Present served as battlegrounds for displaying and publishing the works and thoughts of British Marxist historians and functioned as conceptual carriers. One should also look at the evolution of historiographical concepts and the dissemination of practice, taking a long-term view to systematically clarify the reception of the school’s value and its international response in Chinese and Western academic circles. In recent years, some scholars have investigated the founding process, editorial mission, and subsequent evolution of Past & Present, which helps to clarify the developmental landscape of British Marxist historiography and to understand the concepts and practices of British Marxist historical writing. Second, emphasizing the research path of global intellectual history. Based on the global distribution and influence of Marxism, one should analyze the successes and failures of the British Marxist school, trace the intellectual evolution of the two generations, and highlight the disciplinary contributions of their historiographical practice.
In short, discovering new materials, switching to new perspectives, applying new methods, selecting typical historical outlooks of the school’s historians for exploration, reading their representative historical works, analyzing their historiographical context and concepts, and revealing their intellectual characteristics and academic interests remain the proper meaning of studying the shifts in British Marxist historiography. Therefore, deepening the research on the transformation of the Marxist historiographical paradigm requires continued emphasis on a two-way comparative analysis: On the one hand, at the level of global historiography, deepening the historical logic and empirical analysis of the school’s historiographical context and its social generative context. British Marxist historiographical trends both originated in a specific British socio-historical era and promoted the replacement of social trends in Britain. The school’s cultural interpretations and views on socio-cultural constitution exerted a subtle but important influence on the specific history of British society. In the process of the modernization of British historiography, the school’s historians focused on real-world politics and social problems, analyzing and understanding the socio-historical changes in which they were situated, and constructing reasonable socio-historical theories and scientific historiographical understandings. Their creative historical cognition, capacity for action, and modes of thinking in historiographical practice undoubtedly played a directional role in correcting socio-cultural trends and shaping a new historical atmosphere. On the other hand, at the level of global intellectual history, deepening the analysis of the causal factors and mechanisms underlying the institutional structures and generational transitions of British Marxist historiography. From the perspective of the rise, fall, and driving forces of historiographical trends, the dynamic factors behind the generational shift were rooted both in the disciplinary "cultural turn" of Western New History and in the theoretical self-reflection and practical tension of Marxist historiographical trends as they responded to Western social fluctuations and took historical action. For a long period, as described by Thompson and the British Marxist New Social History...
Just as the "cultural turn" exerted a profound influence on cross-border historiographical trends, the British Marxist historiographical movement was also widely propagated, producing a global impact. The evolutionary history of this school demonstrates the practical renewal and empirical pathways of Western historiographical paradigms since the 1960s. It reflects the historiographical strategies and epistemological demands of Marxist theoretical reflection, highlighting the theoretical logic and conscious orientation provided by dialectical materialism and historical materialism for two generations of historians and their historiographical practices. In terms of the richness, divergence, and social nature of their academic thought, fierce debates occurred between the Old and New Left [9] historians surrounding the transition from feudalism to capitalism and the potential and legitimacy of socialist revolution. On one hand, these two generations of historians remained interconnected and compatible based on Marxist theoretical methods and scholarly traditions; on the other hand, certain barriers and distinct characteristics in their views of history and historiography were precisely the possible paths through which they pursued historiographical efficacy—different roads leading to the same destination in their historiographical practice. From the perspective of internal and external contexts of the school and comparative historiography, the ideological differences between British Marxist historians and non-Marxist historians coexisted alongside the spiritual affinities and theoretical disagreements between Marxist historians of the same or different eras.
What still requires attention and warrants exploration is that while the Marxist historiographical tradition was able to construct a remarkable collective school in Britain, the British Marxist historiographical paradigm also possessed several major deficiencies. These stemmed both from the intergenerational differences between the two groups of historians and the internal and external debates over their historiographical thought, as well as from their failure to form a consistent historical philosophy and academic system. This ultimately weakened their creative influence on British academic trends and diminished their capacity for the realistic expression of socio-cultural intellectual currents.
(The author is a Professor at the College of Humanities, Shanghai Normal University) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Journal of Historiography (Shixue yuekan), Issue 7, 2022.