{"title":"WATER","authors":"Ewa Macura-Nnamdi, T. Sikora","doi":"10.1080/0969725X.2023.2167778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"W isława Szymborska’s poetic take on water is driven by a paradox. On the one hand, the poem speaks to, and celebrates, water’s material heterogeneity and the multiplicity of its forms and hence meanings. On the other, however, it points to the impossibility to grasp the abundant materiality of water and to the inadequacy of language to keep up with its fugitive realities and shapes. The “names” are provisional and potentially countless, the lines suggest, turning the poem, it might seem, into a dubious exercise in poetic creation. Indeed, Szymborska’s piece does what it declares impossible: it offers beautifully crafted names in an explicit recognition of their insufficiency and futility. And yet the lines also, and perhaps by this very reason, suggest that there are no other ways to access water except through the endless acts of naming (as Jamie Linton provocatively puts it: “Water is what we make of it” (3)). What is at stake, however, is much more than water’s “symbolic potency” or its discursive life (MacLeod 40). These acts posit us as always in a relation to water – as observers, (ab)users, thinkers, admirers, and survivors, to name only the few the poem references. This is why in Szymborska’s poem, water is at once elusive though palpably material; offering itself but also withholding; historical and yet to come; life-giving and life-taking; scarce and excessive; violent and benign; an object of our deeds, needs, and thoughts and an agent constantly chiselling the limits of what we do, need, and think. Szymborska’s 1962 poem beautifully encapsulates some of the major currents of thought coalescing around what Cecilia Chen et al. have named a “hydrological turn” (3). More specifically, they have offered “thinking with water” in place of “thinking about water” as an approach most sensitive and attentive to the materialities of water and their political and poetic significance. To think with water, they argue, is to place water alongside our intellectual endeavours recognizing it is meaningcreating matter. It is also to acknowledge that water is a creative subject in its own right, generating our worlds, communities, and ways of knowing, frequently redefining our knowledges","PeriodicalId":45929,"journal":{"name":"ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES","volume":"28 1","pages":"3 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2023.2167778","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
W isława Szymborska’s poetic take on water is driven by a paradox. On the one hand, the poem speaks to, and celebrates, water’s material heterogeneity and the multiplicity of its forms and hence meanings. On the other, however, it points to the impossibility to grasp the abundant materiality of water and to the inadequacy of language to keep up with its fugitive realities and shapes. The “names” are provisional and potentially countless, the lines suggest, turning the poem, it might seem, into a dubious exercise in poetic creation. Indeed, Szymborska’s piece does what it declares impossible: it offers beautifully crafted names in an explicit recognition of their insufficiency and futility. And yet the lines also, and perhaps by this very reason, suggest that there are no other ways to access water except through the endless acts of naming (as Jamie Linton provocatively puts it: “Water is what we make of it” (3)). What is at stake, however, is much more than water’s “symbolic potency” or its discursive life (MacLeod 40). These acts posit us as always in a relation to water – as observers, (ab)users, thinkers, admirers, and survivors, to name only the few the poem references. This is why in Szymborska’s poem, water is at once elusive though palpably material; offering itself but also withholding; historical and yet to come; life-giving and life-taking; scarce and excessive; violent and benign; an object of our deeds, needs, and thoughts and an agent constantly chiselling the limits of what we do, need, and think. Szymborska’s 1962 poem beautifully encapsulates some of the major currents of thought coalescing around what Cecilia Chen et al. have named a “hydrological turn” (3). More specifically, they have offered “thinking with water” in place of “thinking about water” as an approach most sensitive and attentive to the materialities of water and their political and poetic significance. To think with water, they argue, is to place water alongside our intellectual endeavours recognizing it is meaningcreating matter. It is also to acknowledge that water is a creative subject in its own right, generating our worlds, communities, and ways of knowing, frequently redefining our knowledges
W isława辛波斯卡对水的诗意诠释是由一个悖论驱动的。一方面,这首诗讲述并颂扬了水的物质异质性以及水的形式和意义的多样性。然而,另一方面,它指出了掌握水的丰富物质性的不可能性,以及语言的不足,以跟上其短暂的现实和形状。这些“名字”是临时的,可能是无数的,诗句暗示着,把这首诗变成了一个可疑的诗歌创作练习。事实上,辛博斯卡的作品做了它宣称不可能的事情:它提供了精心设计的名字,明确承认它们的不足和无用。然而,也许正是由于这个原因,这些诗句也表明,除了无休止的命名行为(正如杰米·林顿(Jamie Linton)挑衅性地说的那样:“水是我们创造出来的”)之外,没有其他途径可以获得水。然而,利害攸关的不仅仅是水的“象征效力”或它的话语生命(MacLeod 40)。这些行为使我们始终处于与水的关系中——作为观察者,(ab)使用者,思想家,崇拜者和幸存者,这只是诗中提到的少数几个。这就是为什么在辛波斯卡的诗中,水是既难以捉摸又显而易见的物质;奉献自己,但也保留自己;历史的和尚未到来的;给予生命和索取生命;稀少的和过多的;暴力的和良性的;它是我们行为、需要和思想的对象,也是一个不断地凿出我们所做、所需要和所想的界限的代理人。辛波斯卡1962年的这首诗优美地概括了围绕Cecilia Chen等人所命名的“水文转向”的一些主要思潮(3)。更具体地说,他们提出了“与水一起思考”来代替“思考水”,作为一种最敏感、最关注水的物质性及其政治和诗歌意义的方法。他们认为,用水来思考,就是把水和我们的智力活动放在一起,认识到水是创造意义的物质。我们也要承认,水本身就是一个创造性的主题,它创造了我们的世界、社区和认知方式,并经常重新定义我们的知识
期刊介绍:
Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities was established in September 1993 to provide an international forum for vanguard work in the theoretical humanities. In itself a contentious category, "theoretical humanities" represents the productive nexus of work in the disciplinary fields of literary criticism and theory, philosophy, and cultural studies. The journal is dedicated to the refreshing of intellectual coordinates, and to the challenging and vivifying process of re-thinking. Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities encourages a critical engagement with theory in terms of disciplinary development and intellectual and political usefulness, the inquiry into and articulation of culture.