Foreigners in Pre-Modernity

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.5840/jems20198214
Peter Strohschneider
{"title":"Foreigners in Pre-Modernity","authors":"Peter Strohschneider","doi":"10.5840/jems20198214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The essay draws on the concept of ‘asymmetric counter-concepts’ as developed by Reinhart Koselleck starting with twin-formulas such as ‘the familiar and the unfamiliar’ which are generally used to establish collective des­ignations of the self and others and which institutionalize the axiological and the epistemological. These counter-concepts can have different semantic temperatures. The focus is on the underlying meaning-production schemes which produce value-asymmetries. The essay tries to show that a process of heating up these value-asymmetries is only one side of the history of such asymmetric counter-concepts from medieval to modern times. Simultaneously a cooling down can be observed in written texts from different periods; examples include the 12th century Rolandslied and the 16th century Essais of Michel de Montaigne. Full negation eliminates uncertainties and value insecurities. But the complexities and contingencies that emerge since Early Modern times then lead to losses of negatability (Negierbarkeitsverluste), which in turn render gains in unfamiliarity. The modern experience of the foreign is indeterminate otherness instead of determined negation that characterized pre-modern alterity. Modern societies therefore need to mediate between validity and contingency under the circumstances of plurality. Interpretational demands and uncertainty about the relevant interpretive frames increase. Foreignness is then experienced as unfamiliarity. This presupposes intellectual attitudes like irritability, curiosity, and willingness to learn. The modern concept of ‘culture’ then is proposed as a comparative pattern where only unavoidable structural asymmetry remains. It explains cultural differences and the experience of foreignness through heterogeneity. Using this specifically modern pattern, there is no longer a legitimate value slope between one’s own position and its negation. The distinction is then between the familiar and the unfamiliar.","PeriodicalId":53837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/jems20198214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The essay draws on the concept of ‘asymmetric counter-concepts’ as developed by Reinhart Koselleck starting with twin-formulas such as ‘the familiar and the unfamiliar’ which are generally used to establish collective des­ignations of the self and others and which institutionalize the axiological and the epistemological. These counter-concepts can have different semantic temperatures. The focus is on the underlying meaning-production schemes which produce value-asymmetries. The essay tries to show that a process of heating up these value-asymmetries is only one side of the history of such asymmetric counter-concepts from medieval to modern times. Simultaneously a cooling down can be observed in written texts from different periods; examples include the 12th century Rolandslied and the 16th century Essais of Michel de Montaigne. Full negation eliminates uncertainties and value insecurities. But the complexities and contingencies that emerge since Early Modern times then lead to losses of negatability (Negierbarkeitsverluste), which in turn render gains in unfamiliarity. The modern experience of the foreign is indeterminate otherness instead of determined negation that characterized pre-modern alterity. Modern societies therefore need to mediate between validity and contingency under the circumstances of plurality. Interpretational demands and uncertainty about the relevant interpretive frames increase. Foreignness is then experienced as unfamiliarity. This presupposes intellectual attitudes like irritability, curiosity, and willingness to learn. The modern concept of ‘culture’ then is proposed as a comparative pattern where only unavoidable structural asymmetry remains. It explains cultural differences and the experience of foreignness through heterogeneity. Using this specifically modern pattern, there is no longer a legitimate value slope between one’s own position and its negation. The distinction is then between the familiar and the unfamiliar.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前现代性中的外国人
本文借鉴了莱因哈特·科塞莱克(Reinhart Koselleck)提出的“不对称反概念”概念,从“熟悉和不熟悉”等双公式开始,这些公式通常用于建立自我和他人的集体命名,并将价值论和认识论制度化。这些反概念可以有不同的语义温度。重点是产生价值不对称的潜在意义生产方案。本文试图表明,这些价值不对称的升温过程只是从中世纪到现代这种不对称反概念历史的一面。同时,在不同时期的书面文本中可以观察到一种冷却;例如12世纪的罗兰德斯利德和16世纪的蒙田随笔。完全否定消除了不确定性和价值不安全感。但是,自近代早期以来出现的复杂性和偶然性导致了可否定性的丧失(Negierbarkeitsverluste),这反过来又带来了不熟悉的收益。外族的现代经验是不确定的他者性,而不是前现代替代性的确定否定性。因此,现代社会需要在多元环境下的有效性和偶然性之间进行调解。对相关解释框架的解释需求和不确定性增加。在这种情况下,外来的体验就是不熟悉。这预设了智力态度,如易怒、好奇和愿意学习。因此,“文化”的现代概念被提出作为一种比较模式,其中只有不可避免的结构不对称仍然存在。它通过异质性来解释文化差异和异域体验。使用这种特殊的现代模式,在一个人自己的立场和它的否定之间不再有合法的价值斜率。于是,熟悉和不熟悉就有了区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania
Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Theatrum vitae humanae: Shakespeare’s Cosmographic Imagination ‘Playing at Bo-peep with the world’ The Author/Actor in Charlotte Charke’s Narrative Practical Cosmography in Early Modern Iberia: Alonso de Chaves and his Espejo de Navegantes Getting the Message of Abraham Ortelius’ Heart-Shaped Map and Atlas Cosmography, Knowledge in Transit: A Conspectus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1