The end(s) of regeneration: naturalist frontier chronotopes and the time of US settler colonial biopolitics

IF 1.1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Settler Colonial Studies Pub Date : 2020-08-21 DOI:10.1080/2201473x.2020.1809939
Ryan Wander
{"title":"The end(s) of regeneration: naturalist frontier chronotopes and the time of US settler colonial biopolitics","authors":"Ryan Wander","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1809939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reads naturalist portrayals of “post-frontier” frontiers by Frank Norris and Jack London, two key turn-of-the-twentieth-century US literary naturalists, for their chronotopic engagement with the temporal logics and phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler colonialism. Despite its 1890 “closure,” the concept of the frontier remained central to the ongoing enactment of US settler colonialism around the turn of the twentieth century, and it remains so to this day. This article argues that Norris and London's naturalist aesthetics support the US settler state's biopolitics of white ascendance, racialized death, and Native elimination through narratives of white settler death. By considering texts whose narratives appear to contradict the white masculine triumphalism that literary critics often stress in readings of naturalist frontier fiction, I trace how texts including McTeague (1899), The Call of the Wild (1903), and “To Build a Fire” (1908) mobilize US literary naturalism's evolutionary and typological representational idiom to stage critiques of the racial and genocidal logics of US settler colonialism. Ultimately, these critiques uniquely help to consolidate the phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler biopolitics: Norris and London's narratives of white settler death turn the representation of white settler death into a source of (white) settler futurity.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Settler Colonial Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1809939","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article reads naturalist portrayals of “post-frontier” frontiers by Frank Norris and Jack London, two key turn-of-the-twentieth-century US literary naturalists, for their chronotopic engagement with the temporal logics and phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler colonialism. Despite its 1890 “closure,” the concept of the frontier remained central to the ongoing enactment of US settler colonialism around the turn of the twentieth century, and it remains so to this day. This article argues that Norris and London's naturalist aesthetics support the US settler state's biopolitics of white ascendance, racialized death, and Native elimination through narratives of white settler death. By considering texts whose narratives appear to contradict the white masculine triumphalism that literary critics often stress in readings of naturalist frontier fiction, I trace how texts including McTeague (1899), The Call of the Wild (1903), and “To Build a Fire” (1908) mobilize US literary naturalism's evolutionary and typological representational idiom to stage critiques of the racial and genocidal logics of US settler colonialism. Ultimately, these critiques uniquely help to consolidate the phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler biopolitics: Norris and London's narratives of white settler death turn the representation of white settler death into a source of (white) settler futurity.
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
再生的终结:自然主义的边疆时代与美国移民殖民生物政治的时代
本文阅读了弗兰克·诺里斯和杰克·伦敦对“后边疆”边疆的自然主义描述,他们是20世纪美国文学自然主义者的两位关键人物,他们对美国殖民主义的时间逻辑和现象学取向进行了时间顺序的研究。尽管它在1890年“关闭”,边疆的概念仍然是二十世纪之交美国殖民者殖民主义的核心,直到今天仍然如此。本文认为,诺里斯和伦敦的自然主义美学通过对白人移民死亡的叙述,支持了美国移民国家的白人优势、种族化死亡和土著消除的生命政治。通过考虑那些似乎与白人男性必胜主义相矛盾的文本,文学评论家在阅读自然主义边疆小说时经常强调白人男性必胜主义,我追溯了包括麦克蒂格(1899)、《野性的呼唤》(1903)和《生火》(1908)在内的文本是如何调动美国文学自然主义的进化和类型学代表性用语,对美国殖民主义的种族和种族灭绝逻辑进行批判的。最终,这些批评独特地有助于巩固现象学取向,这些现象学取向保证了美国定居者的生命政治:诺里斯和伦敦对白人定居者死亡的叙述将白人定居者死亡的表征变成了(白人)定居者未来的来源。
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
Settler Colonial Studies
Settler Colonial Studies SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The journal aims to establish settler colonial studies as a distinct field of scholarly research. Scholars and students will find and contribute to historically-oriented research and analyses covering contemporary issues. We also aim to present multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research, involving areas like history, law, genocide studies, indigenous, colonial and postcolonial studies, anthropology, historical geography, economics, politics, sociology, international relations, political science, literary criticism, cultural and gender studies and philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Following the yellowcake road: exploring the colonial roots and routes of Australian radioactive minerals, 1900s–1950s ‘Legal fictions and settler colonialism: the case of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories’ Germany’s anti-antisemitic complex and the question of settler colonialism From Lady Jane Franklin to #TradWife: gender, race, and class in colonial complicity in the North American High North Whānau wellbeing: reclaiming precolonial Māori perspectives of men, fathers and parenting
×
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