摘要
近年来越南战争研究出现四个新视角:越南视角、国际视角、跨国视角和记忆视角。这四个新视角表明,美国外交史学家充分意识到,要全面认识美国外交,就必须加强对美国对手历史和文化的了解;他们越来越有意识地将美国外交史置于国际的、跨国的语境中描述,越来越自觉地克服"美国中心论"、"美国特殊论"、"美国例外论"的狭隘思维定式;他们力图纠正传统研究重高层决策、轻社会反应的不足,越南战争研究在社会史和文化史层面的扩展,是整个美国外交史学界近年来在扩大研究范围和丰富研究方法方面不断作出努力的一个缩影。
Four new perspectives have emerged in the study of the Vietnam War in recent years:the Vietnamese perspective,the international perspective,the cross-country perspective and the perspective of memory.American historians of foreign relations are well aware that if they wish to gain a comprehensive understanding of American foreign policy,they need to strengthen their understanding of their opponents' history and culture.There is a growing consciousness that the history of American foreign relations must be placed in an international and cross-country context and that it is necessary to transcend the narrow stereotypes of "American centralism,""American uniqueness,"and "American exceptionalism."These scholars are endeavoring to address the shortcomings of traditional research that focused more on high-level decision-making rather than the responses of society.The broadening of Vietnam War research to include social and cultural history is a microcosm of the continuing efforts of the entire American community of historians of foreign relation to broaden the scope of their research and enriching their research methods in recent years.
引文
(1)George C. Herring, America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975, 5th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 今天,阿富汗战争已经超过越南战争,成为美国历史上最长的战争。
(2)有关越战史学演变的最新评论,参见 Mark Atwood Lawrence, “Studying the Vietnam War: How the Scholarship Has Changed,” Humanities: The Magazine of the National Endowment of the Humanities, vol. 38, no. 4 (Fall 2017).
(3)“正统”观点的代表作有:John Prados, Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009.“修正” 观点的代表作有:Mark Moyar, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 有关越战史学的反思,参见David L. Anderson, “One Vietnam War Should Be Enough and Other Reflections on Diplomatic History and the Making of Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History, vol. 30, no. 1 (January 2006), pp. 1-21; Edward Miller, “War Stories: The Taylor-Buzzanco Debate and How We Think About the Vietnam War,” Journal of Vietnamese Studies, vol. 1, no. 1-2 (February/August 2006), pp. 453-484. 有关“正统”与“修正”观点之间分歧的讨论和评价,参见 Robert J. McMahon, “U.S.-Vietnamese Relations: A Historiographical Survey,” in Warren I. Cohen, ed., Pacific Passage: The Study of American-East Asian Relations on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 313-336; Andrew Wiest and Michael J. Doidge, eds., Triumph Revisited: Historians Battle for the Vietnam War, New York: Routledge, 2010.
(4)马克·阿特伍德·劳伦斯(Mark Atwood Lawrence)在他最近有关越战史学演变的评论中,介绍和分析了近期越战研究中一些具有代表性的观点,但他并没有像本文这样,将越战研究的最新成果归纳成四个新视角。参见Mark Atwood Lawrence, “Studying the Vietnam War: How the Scholarship Has Changed.”
(5)Charles S. Maier, “Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations,” in Michael Kammen, ed., The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980, pp. 355-387.梅厄的尖锐批评有如一石激起千层浪,在美国外交史学界引起很大反响,激发外交史学家对自己学科未来走向的广泛讨论和反思。《外交史》杂志专门发表了一组围绕梅厄文章的圆桌讨论,参见 “Responses to Charles S. Maier’s ‘Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations’,”Diplomatic History, vol. 5, no. 4 (Fall 1981), pp. 353-382.
(6)Michael H. Hunt, “The Long Crisis in U.S. Diplomatic History: Coming to Closure,” Diplomatic History, vol. 16, no. 1 (Winter 1992), pp. 115-140.
(7)2009年3月,《美国历史杂志》发表了科罗拉多大学汤姆斯·扎勒 (Thomas Zeiler) 教授回顾过去20年美国外交史研究发展状况的文章,并同时刊登了四位外交史学家对他的文章的回应。(参见Thomas W. Zeiler, “The Diplomatic History Bandwagon: A State of Field,” The Journal of American History, vol. 95, no. 4 (March 2009), pp. 1053-1073)关于美国外交史研究的最新理论、阐释路径、分析方法和撰写方式的介绍和评价,参见Frank Costigliola and Michael J. Hogan, eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, 3rd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
(8)有关《外交史》杂志改名的讨论,参见Michael J. Hogan, “The ‘Next Big Thing’: The Future of Diplomatic History in a Global Age,” Diplomatic History, vol. 28, no. 1 (January 2004), pp. 1-21.
(9)Norman Podhoretz, Why We Were in Vietnam, New York: Simon Schuster, 1982; Gabriel Kolko, Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States and the Modern Historical Experience, New York: Random House, 1985; Ronald H. Spector, Advice and Support: The Early Years of the U.S. Army in Vietnam, 1941-1960, New York: The Free Press, 1985; Gary R. Hess, The United States’ Emergence as a Southeast Asian Power, 1940-1950, New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
(10)P.J. Honey, Communism in North Vietnam: Its Role in the Sino-Soviet Dispute, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1963; Douglass Pike, Viet Cong: The Organization and Techniques of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966; Anthony Traswick Bouscaren, The Last of the Mandarins: Diem of Vietnam, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965.
(11)Fredrik Logevall, “Bringing in the ‘Other Side’: New Scholarship on the Vietnam Wars,” Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 3, no. 3 (Fall 2001), pp. 77-93; Edward Miller and Tuong Vu, “The Vietnam War as a Vietnamese War: Agency and Society in the Study of the Second Indochina War,” Journal of Vietnamese Studies, vol. 4, no. 3 (Fall 2009), pp.1-16; Edward Miller, “The Postcolonial War: Hue-Tam Ho Tai and the ‘Vietnamese Turn’ in Vietnam War Studies,” Journal of Vietnamese Studies, vol. 12, no. 3 (October 2017), pp. 14-22.
(12)Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, Hanoi’s War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.
(13)Robert K. Brigham, Guerrilla Diplomacy: The NLF’s Foreign Relations and the Viet Nam War, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
(14)Philip E. Catton, Diem’s Final Failure: Prelude to America’s War in Vietnam, Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2002; Jessica Chapman, Cauldron of Resistance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the Unites States, and 1950s Southern Vietnam, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013; Edward Miller, Misalliance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the United States, and the Fate of South Vietnam, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013; Jessica Elkind, Aid under Fire: Nation Building and the Vietnam War, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2016; Geoffrey C. Stewart, Vietnam’s Lost Revolution: Ngo Dinh Diem’s Failure to Build an Independent Nation, 1955-1963, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
(15)Jessica Chapman, Cauldron of Resistance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the Unites States, and 1950s Southern Vietnam.
(16)Edward Miller, Misalliance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the United States, and the Fate of South Vietnam.
(17)Andrew Preston, “Rethinking the Vietnam War: Orthodoxy and Revisionism,” International Politics Review, vol.1, no. 1 (September 2013), pp. 37-39.
(18)Sean Fear, “Saigon Goes Global: South Vietnam’s Quest for International Legitimacy in the Age of Détente.” Diplomatic History, vol. 42, no. 3 (June 2018), pp. 428-455.
(19)有关国际反共右翼“跨国网络”的最新研究成果包括:Kyle Burke, Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2018.
(20)Fredrik Logevall, Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam, New York: Random House, 2012; Pierre Asselin, Hanoi’s Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.
(21)Tanya Harmer, Allende’s Chile and the Inter-American Cold War, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011; Ryan M. Irwin, Gordian Knot: Apartheid and the Unmaking of the Liberal World Order, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012; Jeffrey James Byrne, Mecca of Revolution: Algeria, Decolonization and the Third World Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
(22)Lloyd C. Gardner and Ted Gittinger, eds., International Dimensions of the Vietnam War, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000; Sutayut Osornprasop, “Amidst the Heat of the Cold War in Asia: Thailand and the American Secret War in Indochina (1960-74),” Cold War History, vol. 7, no.3 (August 2007), pp. 349-371; Ang Cheng Guan, Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War, London: Routledge, 2010; Eugenie M. Blang, Allies at Odds: America, Europe, and Vietnam, 1961-1968, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011; Nicholas Tarling, The British and the Vietnam War: Their Way with LBJ, Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2017.
(23)Ilya V. Gaiduk, The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996; Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000; Ilya V. Gaiduk, Confronting Vietnam: Soviet Policy toward the Indochina Conflict, 1954-1963, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003; Mari Olsen, Soviet-Vietnam Relations and the Role of China, 1949-64: Changing Alliances, London: Routledge, 2006.
(24)John W. Young, “The Wilson Government and the Davies Peace Mission to North Vietnam, July 1965,” Review of International Studies, vol. 24, no. 4 (October 1998), pp. 545-562; Lloyd C.Gardner and Ted Gittinger, eds., The Search for Peace in Vietnam, 1964-1968, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004.
(25)James G.Hershberg, Marigold: The Lost Chance for Peace in Vietnam, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012.
(26)Richard A. Ruth, In Buddha’s Company: Thai Soldiers in the Vietnam War, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2011.
(27)有关“新军事史”的详细介绍和评论,参见Robert M. Citino, “Military Histories Old and New: A Reintroduction,” The American Historical Review, vol. 112, no. 4 (October 2007), pp. 1070-1090.
(28)Mark Atwood Lawrence, The Vietnam War: A Concise International History, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 3-6.
(29)Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in a Global Age, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002; Louis A. Perez, Jr., “We Are the World: Internationalizing the National, Nationalizing the International,” The Journal of American History, vol. 89, no. 2 (September 2002), pp. 558-566.
(30)Akira Iriye, Global and Transnational History: The Past, Present, and Future, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Pierre-Yves Saunier, Transnational History: Theory and History, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. 关于跨国史研究在美国史学界的兴盛,参见Andrew Preston and Doug Rossinow, eds., Outside In: The Transnational Circuity of US History, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016; Petra Goedde, “Power, Culture, and the Rise of Transnational History in the United States,” The International History Review, vol. 40, no. 3, 2018, pp. 592-608;王立新:《在国家之外发现历史:美国史研究的国际化与跨国史的兴起》,《历史研究》2014年第1期。美国的两大主流历史研究杂志《美国历史杂志》和《美国历史评论》都围绕跨国史研究出版过专题圆桌讨论,见JAH Forum, “The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History,” The Journal of American History, vol. 86, no. 3 (December 1999), pp. 953-1307; AHR Conversation: “On Transnational History,” The American Historical Review, vol. 111, no. 5 (December 2006), pp. 1441-1464.
(31)Mark Atwood Lawrence, Assuming the Burden: Europe and the American Commitment to War in Vietnam, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
(32)Judy Tzu-Chun Wu, Radicals on the Road: Internationalism, Orientalism, and Feminism during the Vietnam Era, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013.
(33)David Zierler, The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientists Who Changed the Way We Think about the Environment, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2011.
(34)Mark Atwood Lawrence, Assuming the Burden: Europe and the American Commitment to War in Vietnam.
(35)Judy Tzu-Chun Wu, Radicals on the Road: Internationalism, Orientalism, and Feminism during the Vietnam Era.
(36)Max Elbaum, Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao, and Che, London: Verso, 2002; Robin D.G. Kelley and Betsy Esch, “Black Like Mao,” in Fred Ho and Bill Mullen, eds., Afro Asia: Revolutionary Political and Cultural Connections between African Americans and Asian Americans, Durham: Duke University Press, 2008; Benjamin R. Young, “Juche in the United States: The Black Panther Party’s Relations with North Korea, 1969-1971,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, vol. 13, issue 12, no. 2 (30 March 2015).
(37)David Zierler, The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientists Who Changed the Way We Think about the Environment.齐尔勒有关美国领导人在越南使用“橙剂”时丝毫没有考虑此举的生态后果的结论,被另一个学者的研究所印证,参见Edwin A. Martini, Agent Orange: History, Science, and the Politics of Uncertainty, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012.
(38)有关20世纪70年代全球环境保护运动的跨国意义的论述,参见Akira Iriye, “Historicizing the Cold War,” in Richard H. Immerman and Petra Goedde, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Cold War, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 12-31.
(39)有关记忆研究的详细论述,参见Allan Megill, Historical Knowledge, Historical Error: A Contemporary Guide to Practice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007; Geoffrey Cubitt, History and Memory, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007; 彭刚:《历史记忆与历史书写——史学理论视野下的“记忆转向”》,《史学史研究》2014年第2期。
(40)John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992; Michael Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture, New York: Knopf, 1991; Robert J. McMahon, “Contested Memory: The Vietnam War and American Society, 1975-2001,” Diplomatic History, vol. 26, no. 2 (Spring 2002), pp. 159-184.
(41)Patrick Hagopian, The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2009.
(42)John A. Wood, Veteran Narratives and the Collective Memory of the Vietnam War, Athens: Ohio University Press, 2016.
(43)Scott Laderman, Tours of Vietnam: War, Travel Guides, and Memory, Durham: Duke University Press, 2009.
(44)Christina Schwenkel, The American War in Contemporary Vietnam: Transnational Remembrance and Representation, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.
(45)Nguyen Viet Thanh, Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017.
(46)有关美国外交史领域日益重视记忆研究的论述,参见Robert D. Schulzinger, “Memory, History, and the Study of U.S. Foreign Relations,” in Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson, eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, 2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
(47)比如:吉尔·勒普对17世纪英国殖民者与土著印第安部落战争记忆的研究,参见Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity, New York: Knopf, 1998;卡罗尔·瑞尔登对19世纪南北战争记忆的研究,参见Carol Reardon, Pickett’s Charge in History and Memory, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997;艾米莉·罗森伯格对20世纪珍珠港事件和太平洋战争记忆的研究,参见Emily Rosenberg, A Date Which Will Live: Pearl Harbor in American Memory, Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.
(48)Torben Gülstorff, “Warming Up a Cooling War: An Introductory Guide to the CIAS and Other Globally Operating Anti-Communist Networks at the Beginning of the Cold War Decade of Détente,” Cold War International History Project Working Paper, no.75, Washington, D.C. (February 20, 2015).
(49)有关南越社会 “第三种力量”的唯一研究成果是:Sophie Quinn-Judge, The Third Force in the Vietnam War: The Elusive Search for Peace, 1954-1975, London: I.B. Tauris, 2017.
