西方历史学在 2 0世纪后期面临萎缩的窘境 ,其中一个突出的表现是其影响已经体现在了中学和大学的历史课程设置中 ,后现代主义理论应当为这种尴尬局面承担重要责任 ,而后现代主义者对这一点缺乏反思。后现代主义者对政治观念的过分倚重和某种程度的滥用 ,既使其对学术活动的攻击不合时宜 ,又使其在社会批判和历史学批判中的破坏性远远大于建设性。《保卫历史学》和《历史的真相》为处于继承传统和应对挑战两难境地的西方历史学自身的建设做出了突出的贡献。前者看到 ,“一旦后现代主义的理论被运用到它自身 ,其很多观点就会因自相矛盾而无法立足”。同时也是一部近年来对历史学研究方式和过程进行自我审视的力作 ,而这又得益于后现代主义的挑战 ;后者则是一部由哲学家所做出的最佳的历史学回应 ,它将传统历史学与后现代主义的争论引向深入 ,从而使其更像是一场哲学论辩 ,尤其是在语言学层面对后现代主义的挑战作了有力回应 ,而其“相关论”真理观提示了针对文化理论批判的应对策略。大量历史事实的存在足以打破将整个历史学笼罩于怀疑论阴影之下的企图 ,从认识论的攻击是站不住脚的 ;当历史的客观性成为共识 ,历史学家的偏见就能在最大程度上被避免 ,跨文化的交流也成为可能。对客观事实和自我批判的追? Western historiography faced a dwindling situation in the late 20th century. One of the outstanding manifestations is that its influence has been reflected in the setting of history curriculums in high schools and universities. Postmodern theory should assume an important responsibility for this embarrassing situation. After that, There is a lack of reflection on this point by the activists. Post-modernism’s excessive reliance on political concepts and some degree of abuse make it not only time-consuming for its attacks on academic activities, but also its destructiveness in social criticism and historical criticism far outweighs constructiveness. “Defending Historiography” and “The Truth of History” have made outstanding contributions to the construction of the western historiography itself that inherits the tradition and tackles the dilemma of challenge. The former saw that “once the theory of postmodernism has been applied to itself, many of its ideas can not be fought out of self-contradiction.” It is also a masterpiece of self-examination of historical research methods and processes in recent years, which in turn benefits from the challenges posed by postmodernism. The latter is a best historical response by philosophers , Which diverts the debate between traditional history and postmodernism to make it more like a philosophical argument, especially in response to the postmodern challenge at the linguistic level, while its “theory of relevance” The concept of truth suggests a coping strategy for criticizing cultural theory. The existence of a large number of historical facts is enough to break the attempt to overshadow the entire history in the shadow of skepticism. Attacks from epistemology are untenable. When the objectivity of history becomes a consensus, historians’ prejudices can be maximized To be avoided, cross-cultural communication is also possible. Chasing objective facts and self-criticism?