這篇論文從觀察一些跨國以及跨文化史學的論述開始。在傳統史學中編撰史學的方法似乎深受種族主義的影響，這種歷史的思維模式已經深植在人類的歷史意識之中，而且在不同的文化和時代都有其作用。我將種族主義描述成是一種普遍的歷史處理模式，尤其就文化認同形成過程中，歷史所扮演的角色而言。認同通常是透過「大論述」（master narratives）呈現出來的。這些論述定義異同，並以之作為認同的基礎座標，也因此製造了緊張和衝突。這些論述可以被描寫成歷史文化層次的「文明間衝突]」（clash of civilizations）。在論及跨文化的相遇、文化層次的互動、及涉及到人類族群認知自身和世界的心理過程時，這種緊張狀態是最為嚴重的問題之一。 本文將闡釋史學方法中種族主義的邏輯，呈現出種族主義的主要元素：「本位主義的價值評比」，「直線歷史終結觀」和「中心化的觀點」。之後，我將討論超越這三個元素的可能，試圖以「規範性平等」來取代「本位主義的價值評比」；以強調歷史的可取代性和不連貫性的「建構性史學概念」來取代「直線歷史終結觀」；最後以「多元觀點」來取代「中心化的觀點」。 這篇文章將提供歷史研究在理論和方法論上的大體輪廓，將人類的概念帶進史學家的著述之中，因而對新的認同文化有所貢獻。本文的著述假設前提認為：在二十一世紀的開端，這種新文化的創造將是史學甚至是所有人文領域學者的當務之急。

The paper starts with some observation on the international and intercultural discouse about historiography. It seems to be influenced by a way of historical thinking which is deeply rooted in human historical consciousness and works throughout all cultures and in all times: ethnocentrism. This ethnocentrism will be described as a wide-spread mode of doing hsitory with special respect to the role history plays in the cultural process of forming identity. Identity is presented by so-called “master-narratives”. These narratives define togetherness and difference as essential for identity in a way which causes tensions and struggles. They can be described as “clashes of civilisations” on the level of historical culture. Today tensions are one of the most severe problems of inter-cultural encounter and interaction on the level of culture, of the mental procedures by which humans understands their world and themselves. The paper explicates the logic of ethnocentrism in historical thinking. It presents its main elements: asymmetrical evaluation, teleological continuity and centralised perspective. After that there is a discussion of the possibility of overcoming these three principles by replacing asymmetrical evauation by normative equality, by replacing teleological continuity by reconstructive concepts of development, which emphasize contingency and discontinuity, and by replacing centralized perspectives by multi-perspectivity and polycentric approaches to historical experience. This change in the logic of doing history can bring about a new mode of universal history. Most ethnocentric master narratives have a universalistic scope, so the underlying universalistic concepts can serve as ideological means in the struggle for power which mostly characterizes the international and intercultural discourse on historical identity. Nevertheless there are convincing arguments in favour of a concept of human-kind with the help of which the problem of ethnocentrism can be solved. This idea of humankind conceptualizes the unity of the human species as being manifest in the variety of cultures and historical developments. This is in fact the traditional concept of historicism which can be furtheron developed towards an outlook for historiography which responses the challenges of furtheron developed towards an outlook for historiography which responses the challenges of globalization for cultural differences. Finally, the paper gives an outline of theoretical and methodical issues in historical studies which bring this idea of humankind into the work of historians thus enabling it to contribute to a new culture of recognition. The paper is based on the assumption that the creation of such a culture is the most important task of scholarly work in the humanities in general and historical studies in specific at the beginning of the 21st century.