It must have been a strange, indeed uncanny, sight to any wanderer accidentally traveling through the area. For there in the clearing, illuminated by the sparkling campfire against the dark masses of the forest and the mountains of the coast fading in the gloomy dusk, the bulk of a human torso bent over the flames where some small game was roasting. But it would not have been so much the man, whose almost certainly dark features now became visible as he looked up again, observing the thicket, who would have made our accidental witness freeze with fear. Much more terrifying, surrounding man and campfire amid a strange array of boxes and bags, would have been the great number of animals, of birds, foxes, and lizards, standing motionless, under a spell that froze them in the midst of a leap, or spreading their wings, as if bewitched in the very moment they were trying to escape from this fearful site—as, almost certainly, our solitary wanderer would have done by now. The dark magic worked on the animals of the coastal woods one fine day in the year of 1820 was, of course, none other than the spell of taxidermy. For it was then that the Museu Real (Royal Museum) of Rio de Janeiro, founded some two years earlier, dispatched its warden, porter, and preparator João de Deus e Mattos on a hunting excursion to the surrounding coastal range in order to end the museum’s notorious shortage of local animal and plant specimens. João deDeus, the presumably black servant whose multiple skills had already been employed by (and, it may be assumed, largely guaranteed the existence of) the Casa de História Natural, more commonly known as the “Casa dos Pássaros” (House of
对于任何偶然经过该地区的流浪者来说，这一定是一个奇怪的，甚至是不可思议的景象。因为在那块空地上，在一片漆黑的森林和海岸山脉的映衬下，闪闪发光的篝火照亮了那块空地，一个人的躯体正弯着身子趴在火堆上烤着一种小野味。但是，当他再次抬起头来观察灌木丛时，几乎可以肯定的是，他那黝黑的面容现在已经清晰可见了，而使我们这个偶然的目击者吓得僵住了。更可怕的是，在一排奇怪的箱子和袋子之间，围绕着人和营火的是大量的动物，鸟类、狐狸和蜥蜴，它们一动不动地站在那里，在跳跃的过程中被咒语冻结，或者张开翅膀，仿佛在它们试图逃离这个可怕的地方的那一刻被施了魔法——几乎可以肯定的是，我们孤独的流浪者现在也会这样做。1820年一个晴朗的日子里，在沿海森林里的动物身上起作用的黑魔法，当然不是别的，正是动物标本剥制术的魔力。因为就在那时，大约两年前成立的里约热内卢皇家博物馆，派遣它的管理员、看门人和筹备人jo o de Deus e Mattos到附近的沿海地区去打猎，以解决博物馆中当地动植物标本不足的臭名昭著的问题。joa o deDeus，大概是黑人仆人，他的多种技能已经被(并且可以假设，在很大程度上保证了)Casa de História Natural的存在，更广为人知的是“Casa dos Pássaros”(House of
{"title":"Empires of Nature","authors":"J. Andermann","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv10tq44x.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10tq44x.7","url":null,"abstract":"It must have been a strange, indeed uncanny, sight to any wanderer accidentally traveling through the area. For there in the clearing, illuminated by the sparkling campfire against the dark masses of the forest and the mountains of the coast fading in the gloomy dusk, the bulk of a human torso bent over the flames where some small game was roasting. But it would not have been so much the man, whose almost certainly dark features now became visible as he looked up again, observing the thicket, who would have made our accidental witness freeze with fear. Much more terrifying, surrounding man and campfire amid a strange array of boxes and bags, would have been the great number of animals, of birds, foxes, and lizards, standing motionless, under a spell that froze them in the midst of a leap, or spreading their wings, as if bewitched in the very moment they were trying to escape from this fearful site—as, almost certainly, our solitary wanderer would have done by now. The dark magic worked on the animals of the coastal woods one fine day in the year of 1820 was, of course, none other than the spell of taxidermy. For it was then that the Museu Real (Royal Museum) of Rio de Janeiro, founded some two years earlier, dispatched its warden, porter, and preparator João de Deus e Mattos on a hunting excursion to the surrounding coastal range in order to end the museum’s notorious shortage of local animal and plant specimens. João deDeus, the presumably black servant whose multiple skills had already been employed by (and, it may be assumed, largely guaranteed the existence of) the Casa de História Natural, more commonly known as the “Casa dos Pássaros” (House of","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114688708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-12-19DOI: 10.5040/9781501304538.ch-002
H. Harootunian
Michael Dutton’s “Lead Us Not into Translation” is a penetrating and informed account of how area studies grew out of (perhaps I should say genealogically descended from) philology, Oriental studies, and the privilege accorded to translation, a painful reminder of the arguments that have attended area studies since its inception, and a passionate plea to restore to it theoretical purpose that was lost in the translation. In the current situation, the status of area studies in the academic procession has been put into question from several quarters and its “discipline” has either been shown to be insubstantial (a sign of irrelevance) or is dismissed as an exhausted echo of the ColdWar. Despite the assault on what might be described as a Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs continue to enjoy an untroubled existence in the university precincts in the United States and abroad. Not too many years ago the Ford Foundation, perhaps the largest benefactor of this “theme park,” announced another round of institutional grants, cash that would give these aging relics unperturbed grazing space and a stay of extinction. This current situation doesn’t appear to beDutton’s uppermost concern; he focuses instead on providing a genealogy of, or Foucauldian “history of the present” to, area studies. But it is difficult to dissociate these more contemporary considerations from either the preoccupation with explaining why area studies has eschewed theory for applied science, or from the connection with prior forms of philological “scienticization” and the service Oriental studies has provided the colonial and colonizing project. Dutton is correct to hold up contemporary social scientific disdain for area studies because of its “unrigorous” approach (we might pause to wonder about the claims of rigor in rational choice theory and its enabling conception of human nature driven by calculation and maximalization!) and his narrative often recalls a long-standing controversy in U.S. academic
迈克尔·达顿(Michael Dutton)的《不要把我们带进翻译》(Lead Us Not into Translation)一书深刻而全面地阐述了区域研究是如何从语言学、东方研究以及翻译所赋予的特权中发展而来的(或许我应该说，从系谱上说，是从语言学、东方研究中发展而来的)，它痛苦地提醒人们，区域研究从一开始就一直存在争论，并热情地呼吁恢复其在翻译中失去的理论目的。在目前的情况下，区域研究在学术进程中的地位已经从几个方面受到质疑，它的“学科”要么被证明是无关紧要的(一种无关紧要的迹象)，要么被视为冷战的疲惫回声而被驳回。尽管这个可以被称为侏罗纪公园的地方受到了攻击，但恐龙在美国和国外的大学校园里继续享受着无忧无虑的生活。就在几年前，福特基金会(Ford Foundation)——也许是这个“主题公园”最大的捐助者——宣布了另一轮机构拨款，这些资金将为这些老化的遗迹提供不受干扰的放牧空间，并延缓它们的灭绝。目前的情况似乎并不是达顿最关心的;相反，他专注于为区域研究提供一个谱系，或者说是福柯式的“现世历史”。但是，很难将这些更现代的考虑与解释为什么区域研究避开理论而转向应用科学的关注，或与先前的语言学“科学化”形式的联系以及东方研究为殖民和殖民计划提供的服务分离开来。达顿坚持当代社会科学对区域研究的蔑视是正确的，因为它的“不严谨”的方法(我们可能会停下来想知道理性选择理论的严谨性，以及它对由计算和最大化驱动的人性的支持概念!)他的叙述经常让人想起美国学术界长期存在的争议
{"title":"Lost in the Translation","authors":"H. Harootunian","doi":"10.5040/9781501304538.ch-002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501304538.ch-002","url":null,"abstract":"Michael Dutton’s “Lead Us Not into Translation” is a penetrating and informed account of how area studies grew out of (perhaps I should say genealogically descended from) philology, Oriental studies, and the privilege accorded to translation, a painful reminder of the arguments that have attended area studies since its inception, and a passionate plea to restore to it theoretical purpose that was lost in the translation. In the current situation, the status of area studies in the academic procession has been put into question from several quarters and its “discipline” has either been shown to be insubstantial (a sign of irrelevance) or is dismissed as an exhausted echo of the ColdWar. Despite the assault on what might be described as a Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs continue to enjoy an untroubled existence in the university precincts in the United States and abroad. Not too many years ago the Ford Foundation, perhaps the largest benefactor of this “theme park,” announced another round of institutional grants, cash that would give these aging relics unperturbed grazing space and a stay of extinction. This current situation doesn’t appear to beDutton’s uppermost concern; he focuses instead on providing a genealogy of, or Foucauldian “history of the present” to, area studies. But it is difficult to dissociate these more contemporary considerations from either the preoccupation with explaining why area studies has eschewed theory for applied science, or from the connection with prior forms of philological “scienticization” and the service Oriental studies has provided the colonial and colonizing project. Dutton is correct to hold up contemporary social scientific disdain for area studies because of its “unrigorous” approach (we might pause to wonder about the claims of rigor in rational choice theory and its enabling conception of human nature driven by calculation and maximalization!) and his narrative often recalls a long-standing controversy in U.S. academic","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"518 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123106136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Francine Masiello’s The Art of Transition: Latin American Culture and Neoliberal Crisis offers a broad reflection on contemporary cultural production in Argentina and Chile, with particular attention to ways in which literature confronts problems associated with these two countries’ recent transitions from dictatorships to free market– based democracies. Masiello’s discussion presupposes that the transitions of the 1980s perpetuated—and in some respects deepened—the traumatic wounds suffered by Southern Cone societies in the 1970s under military dictatorship. Transition is experienced as crisis on at least two counts. On the one hand, these postdictatorship democracies have failed to pursue justice for the crimes committed under dictatorship, opting instead for the pragmatic mode of reconciliation evoked by Chilean president Patricio Aylwin’s axiomatic phrase, “justicia en la medida de lo posible.” Memories of repression and terror thus exist in an antagonistic relation with de facto and de jure impunity for military criminals. On the other hand, the total identification of democracy with a neoliberal model during the transition is seen by many as the ultimate political legitimation of a project initiated a decade earlier at gunpoint. The enforcement of free-market structural adjustments during the transition has been viewed as a principle cause of increasing social fragmentation, as well as the confirmation that previous generations’ dreams of social justice have been destroyed. For many, the transition is associated with a profound and sweeping loss of sense, a loss that casts its shadow on the very possibility of shared meaning. Masiello’s book should also be read in the context of recent academic debates about the status of “literature” today. In recent years there has been an increasing sentiment in Latin Americanist circles that literature
Francine Masiello的《过渡的艺术:拉丁美洲文化和新自由主义危机》对阿根廷和智利的当代文化生产进行了广泛的反思，特别关注了文学面对这两个国家最近从独裁统治向自由市场民主国家过渡的相关问题的方式。Masiello的讨论预设了上世纪80年代的过渡延续了——在某些方面加深了——南锥体社会在上世纪70年代军事独裁统治下所遭受的创伤。至少在两个方面，转型是一场危机。一方面，这些后独裁民主国家未能为独裁统治下犯下的罪行寻求正义，而是选择了智利总统帕特里西奥·艾尔温(Patricio Aylwin)的公理短语“justicia en la medida de lomaybe”所引发的务实和解模式。因此，镇压和恐怖的记忆与军事罪犯在事实上和法律上不受惩罚是对立的关系。另一方面，在转型过程中，民主与新自由主义模式的完全认同被许多人视为十年前在枪口下发起的项目的最终政治合法性。在过渡期间实施自由市场结构调整被视为社会日益分裂的主要原因，也证实了前几代人的社会正义梦想已被摧毁。对许多人来说，这种转变与深刻而全面的理智丧失有关，这种丧失给共享意义的可能性蒙上了阴影。马西洛的书也应该放在最近关于“文学”地位的学术辩论的背景下阅读。近年来，在拉丁美洲文学界，越来越多的人认为文学
{"title":"The Art of Transition: Latin American Culture and Neoliberal Crisis (review)","authors":"P. Dove","doi":"10.5860/choice.39-3869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-3869","url":null,"abstract":"Francine Masiello’s The Art of Transition: Latin American Culture and Neoliberal Crisis offers a broad reflection on contemporary cultural production in Argentina and Chile, with particular attention to ways in which literature confronts problems associated with these two countries’ recent transitions from dictatorships to free market– based democracies. Masiello’s discussion presupposes that the transitions of the 1980s perpetuated—and in some respects deepened—the traumatic wounds suffered by Southern Cone societies in the 1970s under military dictatorship. Transition is experienced as crisis on at least two counts. On the one hand, these postdictatorship democracies have failed to pursue justice for the crimes committed under dictatorship, opting instead for the pragmatic mode of reconciliation evoked by Chilean president Patricio Aylwin’s axiomatic phrase, “justicia en la medida de lo posible.” Memories of repression and terror thus exist in an antagonistic relation with de facto and de jure impunity for military criminals. On the other hand, the total identification of democracy with a neoliberal model during the transition is seen by many as the ultimate political legitimation of a project initiated a decade earlier at gunpoint. The enforcement of free-market structural adjustments during the transition has been viewed as a principle cause of increasing social fragmentation, as well as the confirmation that previous generations’ dreams of social justice have been destroyed. For many, the transition is associated with a profound and sweeping loss of sense, a loss that casts its shadow on the very possibility of shared meaning. Masiello’s book should also be read in the context of recent academic debates about the status of “literature” today. In recent years there has been an increasing sentiment in Latin Americanist circles that literature","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115806853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I begin this work with a simple question. Why is it impossible to imagine, much less write, a work like Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish within Asian area studies? The impossibility I am referring to is not of content but of form. It is not just about writing such a text but about having it read as something more than a description; having it read for its theoretical significance more generally. That is to say, it is about the impossibility of writing a work that is principally of a theoretical nature but that is empirically and geographically grounded in Asia rather than in Europe or America. Why is it that, when it comes to Asian area studies, whenever “theory” is invoked, it is invariably understood to mean “applied theory” and assumed to be of value only insofar as it helps tell the story of the “real” in a more compelling way? To some extent, what follows is an attempt to explain historically how Western area studies on Asia came to appreciate theory in this limited and limiting way. At the same time, as I began to investigate the history and prehistory of this diaphanous field, I began to recognize the possibilities of a very different form of area studies that could have emerged had different sets of pressures pushed it in a slightly different direction. This essay is therefore an attempt to recuperate these now forgotten possibilities and to build on them in order to produce a different way of seeing, writing, and theorizing Asian area studies.
{"title":"Lead Us Not into Translation: Notes toward a Theoretical Foundation for Asian Studies","authors":"M. Dutton","doi":"10.4000/TRANSTEXTS.458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/TRANSTEXTS.458","url":null,"abstract":"I begin this work with a simple question. Why is it impossible to imagine, much less write, a work like Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish within Asian area studies? The impossibility I am referring to is not of content but of form. It is not just about writing such a text but about having it read as something more than a description; having it read for its theoretical significance more generally. That is to say, it is about the impossibility of writing a work that is principally of a theoretical nature but that is empirically and geographically grounded in Asia rather than in Europe or America. Why is it that, when it comes to Asian area studies, whenever “theory” is invoked, it is invariably understood to mean “applied theory” and assumed to be of value only insofar as it helps tell the story of the “real” in a more compelling way? To some extent, what follows is an attempt to explain historically how Western area studies on Asia came to appreciate theory in this limited and limiting way. At the same time, as I began to investigate the history and prehistory of this diaphanous field, I began to recognize the possibilities of a very different form of area studies that could have emerged had different sets of pressures pushed it in a slightly different direction. This essay is therefore an attempt to recuperate these now forgotten possibilities and to build on them in order to produce a different way of seeing, writing, and theorizing Asian area studies.","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131554422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Political struggle is enormously more complex: in a certain sense, it can be compared to colonial wars or to old wars of conquest—in which the victorious army occupies, or proposes to occupy, permanently all or part of the conquered territory. Then the defeated army is disarmed and dispersed, but the struggle continues on the terrain of politics. —Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks
{"title":"Uncertain Dominance: The Colonial State and Its Contradictions (With Notes on the History of Early British India)","authors":"S. Sen","doi":"10.4324/9780429027239-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027239-8","url":null,"abstract":"Political struggle is enormously more complex: in a certain sense, it can be compared to colonial wars or to old wars of conquest—in which the victorious army occupies, or proposes to occupy, permanently all or part of the conquered territory. Then the defeated army is disarmed and dispersed, but the struggle continues on the terrain of politics. —Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127322993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-07-01DOI: 10.4324/9780429027239-10
Edgardo Lander, Mariana F. Past
In recent debates about hegemonic knowledge in the modern world, a number of basic assumptions have emerged that allow us to characterize the dominant conception of knowledge as Eurocentric (Lander 2000a). After providing a concise description of its main assumptions, Iwill explore here the pervasiveness of the Eurocentric perspective in the principles or fundamentals that guide current practices by which the global order of capital is planned, justified, and naturalized (i.e., made less artificial). Along these same lines, Iwill demonstrate the presence of the fundamentals of Eurocentrism in the international norms of protection of private investment in the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and in the protection of intellectual property set out by World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. The perspective of Eurocentric knowledge is the central axis of a discourse that not only naturalizes but renders inevitable the increasingly intense polarization between a privileged minority and the world’s excluded, oppressed majorities. Eurocentric knowledge also lies at the center of a predatory model of civilization that threatens to destroy the conditions that make life possible on Earth. For this reason, the critique of Eurocentrism and the development/recovery of alternate knowledge perspectives cannot be interpreted as merely an esoteric intellectual or academic preoccupation, or for that matter as a topic for interesting debates within a narrow community of scholars working on epistemological problems. In reality, these issues are closely related to vital political demands, both local and global, which are linked in turn to communities, organizations,
{"title":"Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the \"Natural\" Order of Global Capital","authors":"Edgardo Lander, Mariana F. Past","doi":"10.4324/9780429027239-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027239-10","url":null,"abstract":"In recent debates about hegemonic knowledge in the modern world, a number of basic assumptions have emerged that allow us to characterize the dominant conception of knowledge as Eurocentric (Lander 2000a). After providing a concise description of its main assumptions, Iwill explore here the pervasiveness of the Eurocentric perspective in the principles or fundamentals that guide current practices by which the global order of capital is planned, justified, and naturalized (i.e., made less artificial). Along these same lines, Iwill demonstrate the presence of the fundamentals of Eurocentrism in the international norms of protection of private investment in the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and in the protection of intellectual property set out by World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. The perspective of Eurocentric knowledge is the central axis of a discourse that not only naturalizes but renders inevitable the increasingly intense polarization between a privileged minority and the world’s excluded, oppressed majorities. Eurocentric knowledge also lies at the center of a predatory model of civilization that threatens to destroy the conditions that make life possible on Earth. For this reason, the critique of Eurocentrism and the development/recovery of alternate knowledge perspectives cannot be interpreted as merely an esoteric intellectual or academic preoccupation, or for that matter as a topic for interesting debates within a narrow community of scholars working on epistemological problems. In reality, these issues are closely related to vital political demands, both local and global, which are linked in turn to communities, organizations,","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122395003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The question of Orientalism, as everyone knows, has been the subject of intense debate in the last quarter century. Figuring most prominently in these discussions are the contributions of Edward Said and the reactions they have inspired. But these contributions themselves have a long history. Said’s Orientalism (1980 [1978]) is the first work in a trilogy that also includes The Question of Palestine (1979) and Covering Islam (1981).1 On various occasions, Said has reconsidered and refined the positions he took in Orientalism. Almost seventeen years after the first edition of this book, Said wrote the article “East Isn’t East: The Impending End of the Age of Orientalism” (1995).2 In fact he had already reassessed the question in “Orientalism Reconsidered” (Said 1985).3 Orientalism has met with unique fortune. The culmination of several decades of critical research, the bookhas served as the point of departure for new contributions by authors from different parts of the planet—and not only from the territories, nations, and ethnic groups that have endured the centuries-old expansion of Europe and of Europe’s extensions. Participants have also come to this project from the ex-colonial metropolises themselves, and more generally, from what we usually call the West or the Occident. Among the most conspicuous of these authors is, of course, Noam Chomsky. Others, from different areas of the globe, are not as well known but, as is the case with Talal Asad, they have contributed greatly to the clarification of these questions. As the public at large is aware, the term Orientalism is reserved in certain sectors for describing a distorted way to encounter phenomena pertaining to other cultures or civilizations, or to peoples, still subjugated or only recently liberated, located for the most part to the east of Europe.
众所周知，在过去的25年里，东方学的问题一直是激烈争论的主题。在这些讨论中最突出的是爱德华·萨义德的贡献和他们所激发的反应。但这些贡献本身有着悠久的历史。赛义德的《东方主义》(1980[1978])是他三部曲中的第一部，其他三部曲还包括《巴勒斯坦问题》(1979)和《覆盖伊斯兰》(1981)在不同的场合，赛义德重新思考和完善了他在东方主义中的立场。在本书第一版出版近17年后，赛义德写了一篇文章《东方不是东方:东方主义时代即将结束》(1995)事实上，他已经在《重新考虑东方主义》(Orientalism Reconsidered, Said 1985)中重新评估了这个问题东方主义遭遇了独特的命运。这本书是几十年批判性研究的巅峰之作，它已经成为了来自地球不同地区的作者们做出新贡献的起点——不仅来自那些经历了几个世纪以来欧洲扩张和欧洲延伸的地区、国家和种族群体。参与这个项目的人也来自前殖民大都市本身，更广泛地说，来自我们通常所说的西方或西方。这些作家中最引人注目的当然是诺姆·乔姆斯基。来自全球不同地区的其他人并不为人所熟知，但是，就像塔拉勒·阿萨德的情况一样，他们对澄清这些问题作出了很大贡献。正如大众所知，东方主义这个术语在某些领域被保留下来，用来描述一种扭曲的方式来遭遇与其他文化或文明有关的现象，或者是那些仍然被征服或最近才解放的民族，这些民族大部分位于欧洲东部。
{"title":"Orientalism, Anti-Orientalism, Relativism","authors":"R. Chuaqui, M. Brudzinski","doi":"10.4324/9780429027239-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027239-6","url":null,"abstract":"The question of Orientalism, as everyone knows, has been the subject of intense debate in the last quarter century. Figuring most prominently in these discussions are the contributions of Edward Said and the reactions they have inspired. But these contributions themselves have a long history. Said’s Orientalism (1980 [1978]) is the first work in a trilogy that also includes The Question of Palestine (1979) and Covering Islam (1981).1 On various occasions, Said has reconsidered and refined the positions he took in Orientalism. Almost seventeen years after the first edition of this book, Said wrote the article “East Isn’t East: The Impending End of the Age of Orientalism” (1995).2 In fact he had already reassessed the question in “Orientalism Reconsidered” (Said 1985).3 Orientalism has met with unique fortune. The culmination of several decades of critical research, the bookhas served as the point of departure for new contributions by authors from different parts of the planet—and not only from the territories, nations, and ethnic groups that have endured the centuries-old expansion of Europe and of Europe’s extensions. Participants have also come to this project from the ex-colonial metropolises themselves, and more generally, from what we usually call the West or the Occident. Among the most conspicuous of these authors is, of course, Noam Chomsky. Others, from different areas of the globe, are not as well known but, as is the case with Talal Asad, they have contributed greatly to the clarification of these questions. As the public at large is aware, the term Orientalism is reserved in certain sectors for describing a distorted way to encounter phenomena pertaining to other cultures or civilizations, or to peoples, still subjugated or only recently liberated, located for the most part to the east of Europe.","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115736381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this short text I begin anew a reflection that has concernedme since the beginning of the 1960s. I will radicalize some theoretical options by finding in recent scholarship very plausible hypotheses that have until now been regarded as trivial. Understanding the “centrality” of Europe as just two centuries old allows us to suppose that what has not been subsumed by modernity stands a good chance of emerging strongly and being rediscovered not as an antihistorical miracle, but as the resurgence of a recent potentiality in many of the cultures blinded by the dazzling “brightness”—in many cases only apparent—of Western culture and modernity. This modernity’s technical and economic globality is far from being a cultural globalization of everyday life that valorizes the majority of humanity. From this omitted potentiality and altering “exteriority” emerges a project of “trans”-modernity, a “beyond” that transcends Western modernity (since the West has never adopted it but, rather, has scorned it and valued it as “nothing”) and that will have a creative function of great significance in the twenty-first century. To repeat: the thesis advanced in this essay is that modernity’s recent impact on the planet’s multiple cultures (Chinese, Southeast Asian, Hindu, Islamic, Bantu, Latin American) produced a varied “reply” by all of them to the modern “challenge.” Renewed, they are now erupting on a cultural horizon “beyond” modernity. I call the reality of that fertile multicultural moment “trans”-modernity (since “post”-modernity is just the latest moment ofWesternmodernity). China, a privileged but not exclusive example, shows us just how recent a phenomenon European hegemony is, only two centuries old and only beginning to influence the intimacy of non-European everyday life in the last fifty years (since World War II), principally because of the mass media, especially television.1
{"title":"World-System and \"Trans\"-Modernity","authors":"Enrique D. Dussel, Alessandro Fornazzari","doi":"10.4324/9780429027239-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027239-9","url":null,"abstract":"In this short text I begin anew a reflection that has concernedme since the beginning of the 1960s. I will radicalize some theoretical options by finding in recent scholarship very plausible hypotheses that have until now been regarded as trivial. Understanding the “centrality” of Europe as just two centuries old allows us to suppose that what has not been subsumed by modernity stands a good chance of emerging strongly and being rediscovered not as an antihistorical miracle, but as the resurgence of a recent potentiality in many of the cultures blinded by the dazzling “brightness”—in many cases only apparent—of Western culture and modernity. This modernity’s technical and economic globality is far from being a cultural globalization of everyday life that valorizes the majority of humanity. From this omitted potentiality and altering “exteriority” emerges a project of “trans”-modernity, a “beyond” that transcends Western modernity (since the West has never adopted it but, rather, has scorned it and valued it as “nothing”) and that will have a creative function of great significance in the twenty-first century. To repeat: the thesis advanced in this essay is that modernity’s recent impact on the planet’s multiple cultures (Chinese, Southeast Asian, Hindu, Islamic, Bantu, Latin American) produced a varied “reply” by all of them to the modern “challenge.” Renewed, they are now erupting on a cultural horizon “beyond” modernity. I call the reality of that fertile multicultural moment “trans”-modernity (since “post”-modernity is just the latest moment ofWesternmodernity). China, a privileged but not exclusive example, shows us just how recent a phenomenon European hegemony is, only two centuries old and only beginning to influence the intimacy of non-European everyday life in the last fifty years (since World War II), principally because of the mass media, especially television.1","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127821040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a 1990 essay, Cornel West identifies a key shift in U.S. cultural politics since the 1960s, the era widely termed “postmodern,” arguing that the “new cultural politics of difference” is distinguished by its emphasis on particularity and diversity as part of a reaction against the universalizing bent of modern politics (19). Drawing on West, Edward Soja and Barbara Hooper assert, in “The Spaces That Difference Makes” (1993, 184), that the emphasis on locally based micropolitics is a defining feature of the postmodern turn in U.S. culture, and that a renewed focus on spatiality is central to this politics. The postmodern emphasis on space is intended to highlight the situated nature of all political knowledge and action, and to disavow the view from nowhere—the global and disembedded claims of modern knowledge and politics. It is not surprising that postmodern cultural politics takes space rather than time as the dimension within which social differences can be made visible and active, given that the self-definition of European modernity has monopolized time, subsuming varied histories into a singular and teleological narrative of History. The hitherto underprivileged category of space offers a way of interrupting modernity’s global march as well as of restoring the divergent histories that have contributed to the modern legacy. The renewed interest in the regional specificity of the U.S. South in recent years offers an instance of this kind of spatialized cultural politics of difference. Since the mid-1970s, U.S. historians, sociologists, novelists, literary critics, and cultural commentators seem to have become obsessed with the South, reviving the enduring debate about what makes the region distinct from the rest of the nation. In this essay, I examine the turn south
{"title":"Postmodern Geographies of the U.S. South","authors":"Madhu Dubey","doi":"10.4324/9780429027239-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027239-5","url":null,"abstract":"In a 1990 essay, Cornel West identifies a key shift in U.S. cultural politics since the 1960s, the era widely termed “postmodern,” arguing that the “new cultural politics of difference” is distinguished by its emphasis on particularity and diversity as part of a reaction against the universalizing bent of modern politics (19). Drawing on West, Edward Soja and Barbara Hooper assert, in “The Spaces That Difference Makes” (1993, 184), that the emphasis on locally based micropolitics is a defining feature of the postmodern turn in U.S. culture, and that a renewed focus on spatiality is central to this politics. The postmodern emphasis on space is intended to highlight the situated nature of all political knowledge and action, and to disavow the view from nowhere—the global and disembedded claims of modern knowledge and politics. It is not surprising that postmodern cultural politics takes space rather than time as the dimension within which social differences can be made visible and active, given that the self-definition of European modernity has monopolized time, subsuming varied histories into a singular and teleological narrative of History. The hitherto underprivileged category of space offers a way of interrupting modernity’s global march as well as of restoring the divergent histories that have contributed to the modern legacy. The renewed interest in the regional specificity of the U.S. South in recent years offers an instance of this kind of spatialized cultural politics of difference. Since the mid-1970s, U.S. historians, sociologists, novelists, literary critics, and cultural commentators seem to have become obsessed with the South, reviving the enduring debate about what makes the region distinct from the rest of the nation. In this essay, I examine the turn south","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117059858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Another Reason is an exploration of science’s history as a sign of Indian modernity, of “science’s cultural authority as the legitimating sign of rationality and progress” (7). Gyan Prakash seeks to understand the work of science through the analytic of translation rather than, as is conventional, an emphasis on imposition, adaptation, or dialectic. In the process, he provides a thought-provoking and far-reaching analysis of Indian and colonial modernity. As Prakash suggests, the question of science and scientific reason is a charged one in colonial situations. The new language of rule and knowledge that emerged in early-nineteenth-century colonial India—as theBritish produced encyclopedic histories, surveys, studies, and censuses— effectively constituted India through the empirical sciences. Another Reason focuses in particular on two intimately linked and yet very different ways of translating universal scientific reason onto the Indian stage: those of the British and those of the colonized elite. For the British, the empirical sciences were a universal knowledge charged with the mission of dissolving and secularizing the religious worldviews of the native; in other words, they were supposed to rationalize native societies. In colonial practices, then, scientific reason was a despotism practiced in order to liberate the colonized. In an important departure from recent postcolonial scholarship, which has looked at museums and exhibitions as forms of colonial domination, Prakash points out that this dominant discourse of science led a “distorted life” (19). Colonial pedagogy sought to instruct natives “by exhibiting their own products and knowledge organized and authorized by the science of classification” (23).
{"title":"Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India (review)","authors":"A. Skaria","doi":"10.5860/choice.37-4046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.37-4046","url":null,"abstract":"Another Reason is an exploration of science’s history as a sign of Indian modernity, of “science’s cultural authority as the legitimating sign of rationality and progress” (7). Gyan Prakash seeks to understand the work of science through the analytic of translation rather than, as is conventional, an emphasis on imposition, adaptation, or dialectic. In the process, he provides a thought-provoking and far-reaching analysis of Indian and colonial modernity. As Prakash suggests, the question of science and scientific reason is a charged one in colonial situations. The new language of rule and knowledge that emerged in early-nineteenth-century colonial India—as theBritish produced encyclopedic histories, surveys, studies, and censuses— effectively constituted India through the empirical sciences. Another Reason focuses in particular on two intimately linked and yet very different ways of translating universal scientific reason onto the Indian stage: those of the British and those of the colonized elite. For the British, the empirical sciences were a universal knowledge charged with the mission of dissolving and secularizing the religious worldviews of the native; in other words, they were supposed to rationalize native societies. In colonial practices, then, scientific reason was a despotism practiced in order to liberate the colonized. In an important departure from recent postcolonial scholarship, which has looked at museums and exhibitions as forms of colonial domination, Prakash points out that this dominant discourse of science led a “distorted life” (19). Colonial pedagogy sought to instruct natives “by exhibiting their own products and knowledge organized and authorized by the science of classification” (23).","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128758315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：