CRITICAL QUARTERLY最新文献_第2页

Ethnographies of Paper in Early Modern England 近代早期英国的纸人种志

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-07-27 DOI: 10.1111/criq.70005

Helen Smith

引用次数: 0

Introduction: Paper and Poetry – Interventions in Theory and Practice 导论：论文与诗歌——理论与实践的介入

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-07-24 DOI: 10.1111/criq.70001

Georgina Wilson, Orietta Da Rold

引用次数: 0

A Paper Chase: Call a Group of Foxes 纸上追逐：召集一群狐狸

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-07-24 DOI: 10.1111/criq.70002

Charmaine Cadeau

引用次数: 0

Conducting Liquids in Pursuit of Romance: Reading Ed Ruscha's Stains 传导液体追求浪漫：阅读埃德·拉斯查的《污渍》

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-07-23 DOI: 10.1111/criq.70003

Annabelle Hondier

引用次数: 0

Experience 经验

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-06-03 DOI: 10.1111/criq.12825

Peter Womack

That placing does not explain, though, what qualifies this particular word for its originary function. Simply to define it as ‘what is there first’ is too austerely schematic; it makes it sound as if the word is a sort of philosopher's placeholder, like ‘being’ or ‘the real’, handily designating a conceptual requirement but intrinsically empty. But the word itself doesn't work like that at all. Together with its cognates such as ‘experiment’ or ‘expert’, it implies practical content, the very reverse of abstraction. And because it is a verb as well as a noun, it foregrounds a subjective process—that is, ‘experience’ is not simply stuff that is out there, it is what somebody experiences, which means that it becomes part of who they are. Hence its characteristic Leavisite collocates: lived, felt. These draw out the implication that experience is more than an idea—that, on the contrary, the use of the word amounts to an assertion that cultural forms are traces of real, substantial lives. Arguably, it was this materialistic dimension that aligned the usage, roughly and broadly, with the political left. Certainly that contributes to its force in Baldwin's context, and (as a feeble echo) in Sewell's.‘Experience’, then, is in a position of what might be called ontological privilege. That is, whereas an ordinary proposition can be queried, denied, amended or disagreed with, experience is unquestionable. It is not a statement of fact or opinion. It is more like a sprained ankle or a thunderstorm, something that cannot be refuted because it is not a discursive form but an event. So my experience is inherently valid; it is not negotiable, it is what I just know.Secondly, the expression is marked by a rather ludicrous grandiloquence. To take a COVID-19 test, you go to a testing centre, stick a swab up your nose, put it in a bag and hand it in. To characterise this procedure as ‘the testing experience’ accords it a dignity which its immediate details don't quite justify. I recently stayed in a hotel which invited patrons to post online reviews, and came upon one that read: ‘The breakfast let our exsperiance down it was like some of it was cold.’ This makes it sound as if there is more at stake than just the temperature of the coffee or the eggs; what matters is the integrity of the whole thing, which is in danger of being betrayed by failures in its constituent parts. Even the misspelling is suggestive—the reviewer seems not to own the crucial term normally or comfortably, but to have borrowed it from a language with more cultural power, like a medieval litigant resorting to Latin.This pretentiousness corresponds to quite specific developments within organisations. About 5 years ago, my own university department, like most others, created the role of Associate Dean for Student Experience; the job description of this person includes chairing the department's Student Experience Group and representing the department o

然而，这个位置并不能解释是什么让这个词有资格拥有它最初的功能。简单地把它定义为“先有什么”，未免过于简洁；这使它听起来好像这个词是哲学家的一种占位符，就像“存在”或“实在”一样，方便地指定一个概念上的要求，但本质上是空的。但这个词本身并不是这样的。它同它的同系词如“实验”或“专家”一起，就意味着实际的内容，与抽象正好相反。因为它既是动词又是名词，所以它强调了一个主观过程——也就是说，“经验”不仅仅是外在的东西，它是人们所经历的，这意味着它成为了他们自身的一部分。于是它的特点就是：住的、摸的。这些都暗示了经验不仅仅是一种观念——相反，这个词的使用等于断言文化形式是真实的、充实的生活的痕迹。可以说，正是这种物质主义的维度使这种用法大致上和广泛地与政治左派保持一致。当然，这在鲍德温的语境中起到了一定的作用，在休厄尔的语境中也起到了微弱的呼应作用。因此，“经验”处于一种可以称为本体论特权的地位。也就是说，一个普通的命题可以被质疑、否定、修正或反对，而经验是不容置疑的。它不是对事实或观点的陈述。它更像是扭伤的脚踝或雷雨，是无法反驳的东西，因为它不是一个话语形式，而是一个事件。所以我的经验本质上是有效的；没有商量的余地，这是我所知道的。其次，这种表达带有一种相当滑稽的夸张。要进行COVID-19检测，你要去检测中心，把棉签伸进鼻子，放进一个袋子里，然后交上去。将这个过程描述为“测试经验”赋予了它一种尊严，而它的直接细节并不能完全证明这一点。我最近住在一家酒店，这家酒店邀请顾客在网上发表评论，其中有一条评论是这样写的：“早餐让我们的体验很失望，有些东西好像很冷。”“这听起来似乎比咖啡或鸡蛋的温度更重要；重要的是整个事物的完整性，它有被其组成部分的失败所背叛的危险。甚至连拼写错误都是暗含的——审稿人似乎并没有正常或舒适地掌握这个关键术语，而是从一种更有文化力量的语言中借用了它，就像中世纪的诉讼当事人求助于拉丁语一样。这种自命不凡与组织内部相当具体的发展相对应。大约5年前，我所在的大学院系，像大多数其他院系一样，设立了负责学生体验的副院长一职；这个人的工作描述包括主持该部门的学生体验小组，并代表该部门参加大学的学生体验委员会。这种相互定义的委员会和角色网络本身就是对政府倡议的回应，政府倡议使大学的资助以提供令人满意的“学生体验”为条件。一旦那些有经济权力的人把这种经历提名为决定性的，就很自然地把它作为某人工作的内容，然后，同样自然地，机构的方言会发生变化，以促进该内容的尊严和重要性。这种逻辑并非高等教育独有。例如，国民信托的高级管理团队包括一名游客体验总监。在更广泛的在线市场中，很容易找到一个“帮助组织提供增强的社交媒体体验”的平台，也很容易找到另一个提供全套“体验管理”软件的平台，这些软件采用通用的方法来管理消费者、员工和合作伙伴的体验诸如此类，总是伴随着一系列会议、培训项目、专业协会和内部期刊。“经验”不仅仅是指发生在我们身上的事情；这也是越来越多的人赖以谋生的职业，而他们的职业抱负正是通过这种令人不安的自以为是的语气表达出来的。即便如此，这个词也不是愤世嫉俗或不诚实的简单反映；它的力量（和它的普遍性）来自于比这更深的根源。就拿维珍无情而刻板的“体验”来说吧：英国酒吧。几年前，我住在曼彻斯特，经常开车去伦敦，在回家的路上，我经常在德比郡一个小镇的酒吧里休息。离M1高速公路有几英里远，里面的装饰肯定比高速公路早。没有音乐；除了缓慢的谈话，唯一的声音是时钟的滴答声和篝火的沙沙声。那里有闪亮的黑色长凳和长椅，石板地上铺着破地毯，灯罩上有粉红色的玫瑰，手泵上有两三瓶苦味酒。我记得我坐着，喝着酒，有意识地感觉高速公路上刺耳的节奏在我内心平静下来。当我绕着乡间小路去找这个地方，而不是直接回家时，我在追寻什么？不只是啤酒，不只是人（我在镇上一个人都不认识），也不只是风景如画（这个地方足够漂亮，但在我回忆的时候，我到那里的时候天已经黑了）。如果你需要一个词来概括所有的快乐、感觉和联想，你可以说我去那里是为了体验。那是在20世纪70年代，从那以后我就再也没有回去过。当然，我想知道现在是什么样子，这个问题，即使没有答案，也会引发一些围绕“体验”的尴尬问题。也许它已经完全改变了——这并不令人惊讶或有趣。但是，如果我明天去那里，发现一切都是一样的呢？我认为，这必然意味着，房东或经理已经注意到我所描述的经历是愉快而有价值的，并开始确保酒吧继续提供这种体验：拒绝安装音响系统，重新给木凳涂上新的黑色光泽，在“被喜爱的”网站上梳理30年代的地毯和灯罩，所有这些都是以什么名义？一个酒吧的美学概念，一个一贯的设计，参观它的经验。简而言之，把一个给定的印象集合想象成一种“经验”，就是为制造它创造条件。“体验”这个词剥夺了它的天真，就在那里的即时性，并把它变成了一种场景。但在这种情况下，我们称什么为真正的客体，即首先存在然后被证伪的事物？好吧，“经验”这个词也适用于此。体验是真实的和虚假的。

{"title":"Experience","authors":"Peter Womack","doi":"10.1111/criq.12825","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/criq.12825","url":null,"abstract":"That placing does not explain, though, what qualifies this particular word for its originary function. Simply to define it as ‘what is there first’ is too austerely schematic; it makes it sound as if the word is a sort of philosopher's placeholder, like ‘being’ or ‘the real’, handily designating a conceptual requirement but intrinsically empty. But the word itself doesn't work like that at all. Together with its cognates such as ‘experiment’ or ‘expert’, it implies practical content, the very reverse of abstraction. And because it is a verb as well as a noun, it foregrounds a subjective process—that is, ‘experience’ is not simply stuff that is out there, it is what somebody experiences, which means that it becomes part of who they are. Hence its characteristic Leavisite collocates: lived, felt. These draw out the implication that experience is more than an idea—that, on the contrary, the use of the word amounts to an assertion that cultural forms are traces of real, substantial lives. Arguably, it was this materialistic dimension that aligned the usage, roughly and broadly, with the political left. Certainly that contributes to its force in Baldwin's context, and (as a feeble echo) in Sewell's.‘Experience’, then, is in a position of what might be called ontological privilege. That is, whereas an ordinary proposition can be queried, denied, amended or disagreed with, experience is unquestionable. It is not a statement of fact or opinion. It is more like a sprained ankle or a thunderstorm, something that cannot be refuted because it is not a discursive form but an event. So my experience is inherently valid; it is not negotiable, it is what I just know.Secondly, the expression is marked by a rather ludicrous grandiloquence. To take a COVID-19 test, you go to a testing centre, stick a swab up your nose, put it in a bag and hand it in. To characterise this procedure as ‘the testing experience’ accords it a dignity which its immediate details don't quite justify. I recently stayed in a hotel which invited patrons to post online reviews, and came upon one that read: ‘The breakfast let our exsperiance down it was like some of it was cold.’ This makes it sound as if there is more at stake than just the temperature of the coffee or the eggs; what matters is the integrity of the whole thing, which is in danger of being betrayed by failures in its constituent parts. Even the misspelling is suggestive—the reviewer seems not to own the crucial term normally or comfortably, but to have borrowed it from a language with more cultural power, like a medieval litigant resorting to Latin.This pretentiousness corresponds to quite specific developments within organisations. About 5 years ago, my own university department, like most others, created the role of Associate Dean for Student Experience; the job description of this person includes chairing the department's Student Experience Group and representing the department o","PeriodicalId":44341,"journal":{"name":"CRITICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"67 2","pages":"101-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/criq.12825","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145271737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

From Messianic Subjectivity to Immaculate Objectivity: An Etymology 从弥赛亚的主体性到完美的客观性：一个词源学

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-04-22 DOI: 10.1111/criq.12821

Nick Groom

Words are porous, but these ripples and tickles in language are what make it humane.In the Western world, humans have for centuries claimed to be objective: the adjectival use of the word is first recorded in English in the year 1490 as relating to an object, and derived from Middle French and post-classical Latin.2 This is a predictable tautology, but it does remind us of our messy world of objects and things that have recently excited philosophers of a speculative-realist/object-oriented-ontological bent, thus allowing them to advocate a plethora of non-anthropocentric perspectives that acknowledge the non-human dimensions of the world and consequently de-centre us from it. (I use the word us deliberately, but that argument is for ‘Another time, another time’.3) So, this early link to objects seems, on the face of it, to be credible enough. But mediaeval objects are not the same as modern objects. Both scholastic philosophy (derived from Aristotelian ratiocination), as well as mediaeval theology, referred to the properties of things objectively – ‘as they are perceived or conceived by the mind’ – in contrast to the properties of things subjectively, being things ‘as they are in themselves’: in other words, inherent. Over the course of the next two centuries these positions reversed as European philosophers identified apperception, or the mind’s ‘consciousness of itself’, as the first stage of philosophical inquiry, and, following this, the subject became the person who was engaged in perceiving or thinking, as opposed to the object of that perception or thought.4 This overlap and exchange of meanings recurs through the history of objectivity and subjectivity and was hardly settled by the time the word accrued its current meanings.In the middle of the seventeenth century, subjective could still, as it had in the Middle Ages, refer to the intrinsic qualities of a thing (things ‘as they are in themselves’) as opposed to the objective or relative qualities (things ‘as they are perceived or conceived by the mind’). Hence the prominent ecclesiastic (and later Bishop) Jeremy Taylor’s remark in 1647 discussing whether it was St Peter’s confession or his person upon which Christ would build his church: ‘This confession was the objective foundation of Faith, and Christ and his Apostles the subjective, Christ principally, and S. Peter instrumentally’.5 Taylor’s definitions are rooted in scholasticism: the subjective being the essential truth (‘Christ and his Apostles’, things ‘as they are in themselves’), whereas the objective is the experience of things in the mind (the instrument of confession), which is their human truth. It is not difficult, then, to misread Taylor by applying present-day meanings of objective to his writings.So it is the objective</i

语言是多孔的，但语言中的这些涟漪和搔痒使它变得人性化。在西方世界，几个世纪以来，人类一直声称自己是客观的：这个词的形容词用法最早出现在1490年的英语中，与一个物体有关，源于中古法语和后古典拉丁语。这是一个可以预见的重复，但它确实提醒我们，我们混乱的世界里有很多物体和事物，这些物体和事物最近让思辨现实主义/对象导向本体论倾向的哲学家们兴奋不已。因此，他们提倡大量的非人类中心主义观点，承认世界的非人类维度，从而使我们脱离世界的中心。(我故意用了“我们”这个词，但这个论点是“另一次，另一次”。因此，从表面上看，这种与物体的早期联系似乎是足够可信的。但是中世纪的物品和现代的物品是不一样的。无论是经院哲学（源自亚里士多德的推理），还是中世纪神学，都认为事物的属性是客观的，是“被心灵感知或想象的”，而不是主观的，是“事物的本质”，换句话说，是固有的。在接下来的两个世纪中，随着欧洲哲学家将统觉或心灵的“自我意识”确定为哲学探究的第一阶段，这些立场发生了逆转。在此之后，主体变成了从事感知或思考的人，而不是感知或思考的客体这种意义的重叠和交换在客观性和主观性的历史中反复出现，并且在这个词积累其当前含义时几乎没有得到解决。在17世纪中叶，“主观”仍然可以像中世纪一样，指事物的内在品质（事物的“本质”），而不是客观或相对品质（事物的“被心灵感知或构想”）。因此，著名的教会人士（后来的主教）杰里米·泰勒（Jeremy Taylor）在1647年讨论是否圣彼得的忏悔或他的个人，基督将建立他的教会时说：“这种忏悔是信仰的客观基础，基督和他的使徒是主观的，基督主要是基督，圣彼得是工具。泰勒的定义根植于经院哲学：主观是本质的真理（基督和他的使徒，事物的本真），而客观是事物在头脑中的经验（忏悔的工具），这是人类的真理。因此，用客观的现代含义来解读泰勒的作品并不难。所以现在的目标是“在上帝或他的创造物中适合被享受的所有美善”——完全的上帝；双重加上帝——特拉赫恩对这个词的使用在18世纪的神学家和19世纪的神学家的著作中引起了共鸣与此同时，这个词在透镜、光学和感知领域也有重要意义，这与当时的哲学探究（和神学）直接相关——最明显的是在伽利略·伽利莱和艾萨克·牛顿的研究中。8在光学中，物镜是一个限定术语，指的是离被观察物体最近的焦点，就好像一个人越接近神性，就越清晰；在接下来的一个世纪里，这个词仍然很常见，在钱伯斯（Ephraim Chambers）的标准参考著作《Cyclopædia》（1738）中被引用。因此，用瓦茨的话来说，伯克利的上帝也是主观的，因为他超越了人类对世界的感知的限制，不受个人情感的影响；而客观的“确定性”则相反，是感官的，因此是扭曲的。这些例子表明，术语显然是不稳定的，摇摆不定的；单词互换意思。主观的定义，甚至比客观的更早被记录下来，其根源在于统治者的主体，即臣服，社会服从，这在西方基督教中也有神学基础，因为人类是上帝的主体，也是天堂的继承人。但是这种主观主义越来越多地与独特的个人经历联系在一起，这与17世纪新教徒和18世纪辉格党的思想推动下，英国政治中对个性的日益强调相吻合。辉格党的世界观看重个人主义、独创性、创造力和企业家精神，而不是托利党的传统价值观，即社会等级、对过去的尊重——尤其是对古典历史和文化的尊重——以及专制统治。这些价值观被转化为哲学著作，从沙夫茨伯里伯爵安东尼·阿什利·库珀的《人的特征、礼仪、观点、时代》（1711年）到埃德蒙·伯克的《崇高与美丽的哲学探究》（1757年）。这些重要的论著赋予了存在于一个独特思想中的东西以特权，而不是通过君主或统治阶级的权威强加给个人和社会的外部法律、价值观和意识形态所支配的东西。正是这些价值观开启了英国浪漫主义运动浪漫主义把艺术中原始的创造性天才提升到了预言的高度——尽管这也有黑暗的一面，因此主观主义偶尔会被嘲笑地与虚幻的个人幻想和幻觉混为一谈：对疯狂诗人的刻板印象。因此，19世纪客观性一词的使用出现了，因为主体性在浪漫主义中作为真理和真实性的坩埚而重新焕发活力。他们也受到伊曼努尔•康德（Immanuel Kant）哲学的影响（如果不是受其影响的话），后者持久地将这些不同辨别力之间的错位理论化。正是在这一点上，具体的词客观性和主观性进入英语语言。英语中第一次使用客观性这个词（作为名词）出现在查尔斯·维勒斯（Charles Villers）的《康德哲学》（Philosophie de Kant, Metz, 1801）的一篇没有署名的长篇评论中，该评论于1803年1月发表在《爱丁堡评论》上；这篇评论是由苏格兰哲学家和诗人托马斯·布朗（1778-1820）撰写的，他是该杂志的创始人之一，后来在1810年成为爱丁堡大学道德哲学主席。14尽管布朗过早去世，在他自己发表大部分作品之前，他被描述为“非常受学生欢迎”，所以当他死后的演讲出版时，他们“受到热烈欢迎，广泛阅读，跑了很多版本。无论是在英国还是在美国，都持续了几十年。15但在评价布朗的评论之前，有一个重要的警告：布朗没有读过康德——他只读过维勒斯。16因此，接下来的不是康德对客观性意义的影响的描述，甚至不是布朗对康德影响的解释，而是布朗对维勒斯的康德的解释——而维勒斯，根据著名评论家ren<s:1>·韦勒克的说法，“从未正确理解康德哲学的实际意义”（!）韦勒克继续说：“布朗的攻击，经常是非常深刻的，因此是对维勒斯创造的幽灵的攻击，而不是对真正的历史康德的攻击。18但布朗的评论在客观性的词源学中仍然具有相当重要的意义——至少在许多年里（再次引用韦勒克的话），它是“大众对康德知识的主要来源”。布朗的评论内容广泛：他首先挑战了“文学共和国”不受任何地缘政治边界管辖或定义的观点，因为他在维勒斯那本相当糟糕的书中看到了这些边界。根据布朗的说法，康德的德国先验唯心主义可能受到法国“感官主义”的阻碍，后者既无视其神秘的魅力，又以维勒斯风格华丽的叙述为例——充斥着不恰当的隐喻，并不断被最近的革命历史和拿破仑帝国的建设所分心对布朗来说，想法本身是有背景的，不会轻易传播；它们必须个性化。布朗接着考虑了哲学和文学之间的关系，认为在欧洲，诗人和小说家已经取代了“圣人”（ER, 254）。事实上，根据他最近的传记作者j·c·斯图尔特-罗伯逊的说法，布朗本人曾试图将哲学与诗歌结合起来，多次尝试“将哲学的洞察力和‘爱的精神’融入诗歌的魅力”此外，这也是布朗后来名声的特点，使得19世纪的政治作家和辉格党历史学家詹姆斯·麦金托什爵士将布朗描述为拥有“孤独的梦想家的灵魂”。根据麦金托什的说法，布朗“以形而上学者的眼光观察人类和更广阔的世界”，因此，“当他回顾这些沉思的黑暗结果时，他的灵魂常常充满了既宏大又忧郁的情感，这是真正富有诗意的”。因此，布朗对康德的概念（又如维勒斯所宣扬的）强调了不可知性。换句话说，经验哲学认为世界是完全可读的，因此是可理解的；然而，先验哲学（康德的游戏）引入了“理性”——或者更确切地说，是对理性的“批判”：这种对理性的批判不是理性或逻辑，更不是对理性的更高的形而上学或幻想，而是心灵在做出和感知先验判断的局限性时所做的工作。对布朗来说，事物并不像它们所呈现的那样——用他的话说，它们“在特定情况下与它们的

{"title":"From Messianic Subjectivity to Immaculate Objectivity: An Etymology","authors":"Nick Groom","doi":"10.1111/criq.12821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/criq.12821","url":null,"abstract":"Words are porous, but these ripples and tickles in language are what make it humane.In the Western world, humans have for centuries claimed to be objective: the adjectival use of the word is first recorded in English in the year 1490 as relating to an object, and derived from Middle French and post-classical Latin.2 This is a predictable tautology, but it does remind us of our messy world of objects and things that have recently excited philosophers of a speculative-realist/object-oriented-ontological bent, thus allowing them to advocate a plethora of non-anthropocentric perspectives that acknowledge the non-human dimensions of the world and consequently de-centre us from it. (I use the word us deliberately, but that argument is for ‘Another time, another time’.3) So, this early link to objects seems, on the face of it, to be credible enough. But mediaeval objects are not the same as modern objects. Both scholastic philosophy (derived from Aristotelian ratiocination), as well as mediaeval theology, referred to the properties of things objectively – ‘as they are perceived or conceived by the mind’ – in contrast to the properties of things subjectively, being things ‘as they are in themselves’: in other words, inherent. Over the course of the next two centuries these positions reversed as European philosophers identified apperception, or the mind’s ‘consciousness of itself’, as the first stage of philosophical inquiry, and, following this, the subject became the person who was engaged in perceiving or thinking, as opposed to the object of that perception or thought.4 This overlap and exchange of meanings recurs through the history of objectivity and subjectivity and was hardly settled by the time the word accrued its current meanings.In the middle of the seventeenth century, subjective could still, as it had in the Middle Ages, refer to the intrinsic qualities of a thing (things ‘as they are in themselves’) as opposed to the objective or relative qualities (things ‘as they are perceived or conceived by the mind’). Hence the prominent ecclesiastic (and later Bishop) Jeremy Taylor’s remark in 1647 discussing whether it was St Peter’s confession or his person upon which Christ would build his church: ‘This confession was the objective foundation of Faith, and Christ and his Apostles the subjective, Christ principally, and S. Peter instrumentally’.5 Taylor’s definitions are rooted in scholasticism: the subjective being the essential truth (‘Christ and his Apostles’, things ‘as they are in themselves’), whereas the objective is the experience of things in the mind (the instrument of confession), which is their human truth. It is not difficult, then, to misread Taylor by applying present-day meanings of objective to his writings.So it is the objective</i","PeriodicalId":44341,"journal":{"name":"CRITICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"67 2","pages":"74-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/criq.12821","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145272993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Objectivity and the Historian: Beyond the Fried Egg Test 客观性与历史学家：超越煎蛋测试

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-04-18 DOI: 10.1111/criq.12824

David Stack

Is objectivity bad for a historian? I am asking for a friend. Whereas once objectivity might have been considered the historian's superpower—an enviable ability to rise above the fray and see all sides of the mountain (more on this mountain later)—it now seems that it might be a malady. The postmodernists, of course, have long diagnosed objectivity as a self-serving delusion or sleight of hand with which we bolster ourselves and seduce our readers.1 But could it be worse than that? In an age where employees are urged to ‘Speak Your Truth’, and the Harvard Business Review advises us to bring ‘our whole, authentic self to work’, is the suppression of self that objectivity might be thought to entail the reason why so many of my colleagues seem unhappy?2 Are we engaged in a collective act of ascetic self-harm in which our individual perspectives are sacrificed in pursuit of a chimaera?The trouble, if trouble it is, is usually traced to Leopold von Ranke, the so-called ‘father’ of modern historical scholarship.3 The ambition he set in the preface to his History of the Latin and Teutonic Peoples (1824), to empirically establish ‘as things really were’ (‘wie es eigentlich gewesen’), through a wide-ranging examination of primary source materials, has provided the profession with its enduring rationale. On one hand, it was a claim of demurring modesty: Ranke was not interested in ‘judging the past’, and he eschewed the 18th-century ambition—epitomised in Voltaire—of learning ‘lessons’ from history.4 On the other, it was a vaulting ambition, which demanded historians ‘extinguish’ their own personality in order to ‘immerse themselves in the epoch and assess it in a manner appropriate for that time’.5It is tempting to say that the objective of being objective haunted historians thereafter, but it is more accurate to say that an aspiration for, and a sense of justification in, the notion of objectivity was imbibed and internalised but less frequently theorised by the profession. It was no doubt comforting to think of one's trade as an empirical science (the translation of Ranke's Wissenschaft did a lot of heavy lifting in the Anglophone world), and most historians assumed that they were, or ought to be, objective, but it would be a mistake to assume that historians ever held to a clear, consistent view of what that actually meant.6 The major theme of Peter Novick's That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (1988) was the fragility of the profession's foundational conviction.7 The ‘noble dream’ in his title derived from a 1935 Charles Beard jeremiad that concluded: ‘The formula of Ranke and its extension as Historicism do not and have never formed the official creed of the [American Historical] Association’.8 Four years earlier, in 1931, Carl L. Becker had summed up what he saw as the ine

客观对历史学家不利吗？我在找一个朋友。虽然客观曾经被认为是历史学家的超级力量——一种令人羡慕的能力，可以超越争论，看到山的方方面面（稍后将详细介绍这座山）——但现在看来，它可能是一种疾病。当然，后现代主义者长期以来一直认为客观性是一种自私自利的错觉，或者是我们用来支撑自己、引诱读者的花招但还有比这更糟的吗？在一个员工被敦促“说出你的真相”、《哈佛商业评论》（Harvard Business Review）建议我们“带着完整的、真实的自我去工作”的时代，对自我的压制、客观性可能会被认为是我的许多同事看起来不开心的原因吗？我们是否正在从事一种集体的苦行僧自残行为，牺牲我们的个人观点来追求一种幻想？麻烦，如果真是麻烦的话，通常可以追溯到利奥波德·冯·兰克，所谓的现代历史学术之父他在《拉丁人和条顿人的历史》（1824年）的序言中提出的雄心壮志是，通过对原始资料的广泛研究，以经验的方式确立“事物本来的样子”（“wie es eigentlich gewesen”），这为该专业提供了持久的理论依据。一方面，这是一种谦虚的主张：兰克对“评判过去”不感兴趣，他回避了18世纪伏尔泰的那种从历史中吸取“教训”的雄心另一方面，这是一个巨大的野心，它要求历史学家“熄灭”自己的个性，以便“沉浸在时代中，并以适合当时的方式对其进行评估”。人们很容易说，客观的目标此后一直困扰着历史学家，但更准确的说法是，对客观概念的渴望和正当性的感觉被吸收和内化，但很少被专业人士理论化。毫无疑问，把一个人的贸易看作是一门经验科学是令人欣慰的（兰克的《观点》的翻译在英语世界做了很多繁重的工作），大多数历史学家认为他们是，或者应该是客观的，但如果认为历史学家对其实际含义有一个清晰、一致的看法，那就错了彼得·诺维克的《那崇高的梦想：“客观性问题”与美国历史专业》（1988）的主题是该专业基本信念的脆弱性他标题中的“高贵的梦想”来源于1935年查尔斯·比尔德的一段哀诉，这段哀诉总结道：“兰克的公式及其作为历史主义的延伸，没有也从来没有成为[美国历史]协会的官方信条。四年前，也就是1931年，卡尔·l·贝克尔（Carl L. Becker）在他的美国历史学会主席演讲《每个人都是自己的历史学家》（Every Man his Own history）中总结了他所认为的历史知识的不可根除的相对主义。总的来说，历史学家倾向于同意客观理解过去的重要性，但是，随着e.h.卡尔的《什么是历史？》（1961）和杰弗里·埃尔顿（Geoffrey Elton）的《历史的实践》（1967）表明，实现这一目标的方法并不总是最好的。然而，对于像Keith Jenkins这样的后现代主义评论家来说，卡尔（对相对主义持一定程度的开放态度）和埃尔顿（在他的历史客观性概念上更加强硬）之间的差异与他们共同的失败相比就不算什么了。他编辑的文集《后现代历史读本》（1997）在很大程度上促进了英国历史学界对后现代主义的理解。他在《什么是历史？》（1995），应该放弃作为方法论指南的地位，转而支持理查德•罗蒂和海登•怀特。詹金斯认为，卡尔和埃尔顿致力于与非史学上构成的“过去即历史”的“现实”进行对话，这与后现代的条件是不合适的相比之下，罗蒂和怀特则因为呼吁人们关注他们自己的生产过程，标记他们自己的假设，明确地、反复地指出他们的指涉物“历史化的过去”的构成而不是发现的性质而受到称赞。在对书写客观历史的可能性的攻击中，三个相互重叠又相互关联的因素被捆绑在一起。首先，也是最根本的一点，詹金斯认为，无论一个人如何深深沉浸在过去，历史学家都无法触及镜像现实。发生的历史和书写的历史之间总是有一段距离。汉斯-乔治·伽达默尔（Hans-George Gadamer）对我们存在的历史性的限制，米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）对权力对话语影响的洞见，以及雅克·德里达（Jacques Derrida）对稳定意义缺失的强调，都与获得客观历史知识的可能性相悖。第二，历史学家远不能像兰克所希望的那样“消灭”我们自己，詹金斯指出，历史学家总是“令人不安地出现”在对过去的生产中。我们不能把自己从自己中解放出来，所有的“历史思考”，正如伽达默尔所说，“必须考虑到它自己的历史性”第三，历史学家不是像哥伦布那样去发现一个“真实的”过去，而是总是积极地从他们在研究过程中收集到的混乱的数据集中构建一种叙事。海登·怀特（Hayden White）采用了法国哲学家保罗·里科尔（Paul Ricoeur）创造的术语“就业”（employment）。档案和历史书之间存在着至少三个程序的争论——选择、整理和解释——一个活生生的、有呼吸的、活跃的历史学家的个性、意识形态和实践介入其中，这很难说是一个启示。毕竟，卡尔本人强调了历史学家的作用让这个行业感到困扰的是一个令人不安的结论：因为所有的历史在某种意义上都是被建构出来的，没有一个过去像它那样是可以接近的，所以对过去的所有描述可能都同样有效。面对这种绝对的相对主义，历史学家试图发展出各种被描述为“有条件的客观性”、“实用的现实主义”或“谨慎的相对主义”的立场对于他们的批评者来说，这些术语中的每一个都试图挽救一些残留的客观性，无法令人信服。但是对于实践历史学家来说——形容词是关键——这些术语，无论在理论上多么脆弱，都抓住了他们的感觉，即一些描述比其他描述更客观，一个好的历史学家可以区分党派宣传和公平诚实地讲述真相的尝试。我们可以称之为客观常识方法的伟大拥护者是令人敬畏的理查德·埃文斯。他的《为历史辩护》（1997）是一部大胆的作品，它以“客观的历史知识既可取又可得”的观点取悦了许多专业人士埃文斯赞许地引用了卡尔的论点，即一座山从不同的视角呈现出不同的形状，并不意味着它根本没有形状，也不意味着它有无限多个形状事实上，埃文斯对这个比喻如此着迷，以至于他在后来的一本书中以一种修饰的形式重新使用了这个比喻，他把历史学家比作“具象画家”，他们坐在一座山的不同地方，每幅画都有不同的风格，运用不同的技术，在不同的光线下描绘它。不管他们画的是多么的不同，他们都一致认为他们画的是一座山。任何画火车引擎或煎蛋的人都是苍白的客观有其局限性——历史学家无法从上帝的视角看到这座山——但相对主义也有其局限性。山永远是山，从来不是煎蛋。“一个客观的历史学家”，埃文斯写道，“只是一个在这些范围内工作的人。”这些限制允许对同一文件或来源的不同解释有很大的自由度，但它们都是限制并非所有的描述都同样有效；有些（基于彻底的研究）比其他更有效；还有一些根本无效历史必须通过煎蛋测试。《为历史辩护》之所以受欢迎，至少在某种程度上是因为埃文斯根据自己的经验——作为一名杰出的现代德国历史学家——阐述了对历史客观性的理解，从而直接谈到了该领域人士的日常实践。这使他比詹金斯和其他后现代主义批评家有了不可估量的优势。对许多读者来说，这本书是一个“在职历史学家”的宣言，尽管对于那些批评该学科声称客观性的人来说，这个角色本身就有问题。根据多米尼克·拉卡普拉（Dominick LaCapra）的说法，将“工作”或“实践”历史学家与理论家区分开来，是一种“令人反感的二元对立”，它延续了一种过时的研究范式，“松散地以某种客观化的科学理念为模

{"title":"Objectivity and the Historian: Beyond the Fried Egg Test","authors":"David Stack","doi":"10.1111/criq.12824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/criq.12824","url":null,"abstract":"Is objectivity bad for a historian? I am asking for a friend. Whereas once objectivity might have been considered the historian's superpower—an enviable ability to rise above the fray and see all sides of the mountain (more on this mountain later)—it now seems that it might be a malady. The postmodernists, of course, have long diagnosed objectivity as a self-serving delusion or sleight of hand with which we bolster ourselves and seduce our readers.1 But could it be worse than that? In an age where employees are urged to ‘Speak Your Truth’, and the Harvard Business Review advises us to bring ‘our whole, authentic self to work’, is the suppression of self that objectivity might be thought to entail the reason why so many of my colleagues seem unhappy?2 Are we engaged in a collective act of ascetic self-harm in which our individual perspectives are sacrificed in pursuit of a chimaera?The trouble, if trouble it is, is usually traced to Leopold von Ranke, the so-called ‘father’ of modern historical scholarship.3 The ambition he set in the preface to his History of the Latin and Teutonic Peoples (1824), to empirically establish ‘as things really were’ (‘wie es eigentlich gewesen’), through a wide-ranging examination of primary source materials, has provided the profession with its enduring rationale. On one hand, it was a claim of demurring modesty: Ranke was not interested in ‘judging the past’, and he eschewed the 18th-century ambition—epitomised in Voltaire—of learning ‘lessons’ from history.4 On the other, it was a vaulting ambition, which demanded historians ‘extinguish’ their own personality in order to ‘immerse themselves in the epoch and assess it in a manner appropriate for that time’.5It is tempting to say that the objective of being objective haunted historians thereafter, but it is more accurate to say that an aspiration for, and a sense of justification in, the notion of objectivity was imbibed and internalised but less frequently theorised by the profession. It was no doubt comforting to think of one's trade as an empirical science (the translation of Ranke's Wissenschaft did a lot of heavy lifting in the Anglophone world), and most historians assumed that they were, or ought to be, objective, but it would be a mistake to assume that historians ever held to a clear, consistent view of what that actually meant.6 The major theme of Peter Novick's That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (1988) was the fragility of the profession's foundational conviction.7 The ‘noble dream’ in his title derived from a 1935 Charles Beard jeremiad that concluded: ‘The formula of Ranke and its extension as Historicism do not and have never formed the official creed of the [American Historical] Association’.8 Four years earlier, in 1931, Carl L. Becker had summed up what he saw as the ine","PeriodicalId":44341,"journal":{"name":"CRITICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"67 2","pages":"63-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/criq.12824","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145272761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Objectivity in the Age of Story 故事时代的客观性

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI: 10.1111/criq.12820

Jenny McCartney

引用次数: 0

Failing Better: Inauthenticity, Collusion and the Politics of Truth 《做得更好：不真实、共谋和真相政治》

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI: 10.1111/criq.12819

Kathy Smith

引用次数: 0

Sri Lanka 斯里兰卡

IF 0.2 4区文学 0 LITERARY REVIEWS

CRITICAL QUARTERLY

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1111/criq.12802

Angelique Richardson

In the river that runs beneath Kallady Bridge, Batticaloa, on the eastern coast of Sri Lanka, there are singing fish. They are known as Oorie Coolooroo Cradoo, which is Tamil for ‘crying shells’. Their song is said to have stopped during the civil war between the Tamils and the Sinhalese that broke out in 1983 and endured for 26 long years. Now, it is diminished by the effects of overfishing, pollution and climate breakdown. But for centuries, this underwater song caught the attention of fishermen and passersby who listened.

Minoli Salgado's collection of stories, Twelve Cries from Home: In Search of Sri Lanka's Disappeared, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, is shocking, powerful and courageous. It is work that follows a war. The first record of civilian testimonies on the civil war from across this beautiful island, it documents extraordinary violence from the perspective of ordinary people who are both victims and survivors. They have seen torture, bombing, shelling and extrajudicial killings. Colonialism has long dictated the lives of Sri Lankans, with its aftermath still brutally felt. Tens of thousands of young people were killed, lost or ‘disappeared’. Gendered violence was part of the war, and women were brutally raped. Bearing witness to atrocity, it is not possible for Salgado to give answers.

As the survivors seek to tell their stories, to piece together what parts of the past they can, their agency is restored. Dahanayake (she gives her family name only) lost her youngest brother, Bandula, to abductors while waiting at Matara bus station. She searched for him for 10 years. He was ‘the beating heart’ of the family, ‘a scamp’, ‘a mentor’, who was, most movingly, ‘above difference’. Salgado provides a record of what happens when political divisions become entrenched, differences intensified, and the possibilities of peace eroded. For some of the survivors, justice is a need to strike at those who have harmed them, but forms of forgiveness are emerging. For many, it is a time to move and to heal. Sujatha keeps focused on her husband's love and a courtship that began with a bicycle bell. In some cases, through a deep humanism, time builds bonds between a perpetrator and a survivor's family. Asking Dahanayake if she has a message for those outside Sri Lanka, Salgado realises her story is about the most basic of human rights, the right to security, the right to life.

Following the preferential treatment of Tamils under colonial rule, the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 marginalised the Tamil community in all areas of civic life from employment to higher education. Universal adult franchise had been extended, in theory, to all Sri Lankans in 1931 under the Donoughmore Constitution. While this was an unprecedented development under colonial rule in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, with the commissioners appointed by the socialist Sidney Webb, Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Lib-Lab coalition government of 1927, ther

在斯里兰卡东海岸的拜提克洛亚，卡拉迪大桥下的河流里，有会唱歌的鱼。他们被称为Oorie Coolooroo Cradoo，在泰米尔语中是“哭泣的贝壳”的意思。据说他们的歌在1983年泰米尔人和僧伽罗人爆发内战期间停止了，这场内战持续了26年之久。现在，由于过度捕捞、污染和气候崩溃的影响，它正在减少。但几个世纪以来，这首水下之歌吸引了渔夫和路人的注意。米诺利·萨尔加多的故事集《来自家乡的十二声呼喊：寻找斯里兰卡的失踪者》由莱弗尔姆信托基金资助，令人震惊，有力而勇敢。这是一场战争之后的工作。这是这个美丽的岛屿上关于内战的第一次平民证词记录，它从受害者和幸存者的普通人的角度记录了非同寻常的暴力。他们目睹了酷刑、轰炸、炮击和法外杀戮。长期以来，殖民主义支配着斯里兰卡人的生活，其后果至今仍令人感到残酷。成千上万的年轻人被杀害、失踪或“失踪”。性别暴力是战争的一部分，妇女被残忍地强奸。目睹了暴行，萨尔加多不可能给出答案。当幸存者试图讲述他们的故事，拼凑出他们所能拼凑的过去时，他们的代理机构又恢复了。Dahanayake（她只透露了自己的姓氏）在Matara汽车站等车时失去了她最小的弟弟Bandula。她找了他十年。他是这个家庭“跳动的心脏”，“一个无赖”，“一个导师”，最令人感动的是，他“超越差异”。萨尔加多记录了当政治分歧变得根深蒂固、分歧加剧、和平的可能性被削弱时会发生什么。对于一些幸存者来说，正义需要打击那些伤害他们的人，但宽恕的形式正在出现。对许多人来说，这是一个移动和治愈的时刻。苏嘉塔一直专注于她丈夫的爱情和一段始于自行车铃声的求爱。在某些情况下，通过深刻的人文主义，时间在犯罪者和幸存者的家庭之间建立了联系。当问及Dahanayake是否有话要对斯里兰卡以外的人说时，Salgado意识到她的故事是关于最基本的人权，安全的权利，生命的权利。继殖民统治下对泰米尔人的优惠待遇之后，1956年的《僧伽罗专属法案》在从就业到高等教育的所有公民生活领域将泰米尔社区边缘化。1931年，根据《多诺莫尔宪法》（Donoughmore Constitution），成人普遍选举权理论上已扩展到所有斯里兰卡人。虽然这在亚洲、非洲和加勒比地区的殖民统治下是前所未有的发展，专员由1927年自由党-工党联合政府的殖民地事务大臣、社会主义者西德尼·韦伯（Sidney Webb）任命，但没有规定保障少数民族的权利。这导致大量泰米尔人（近100万）被剥夺公民权，其中包括那些被带到斯里兰卡在茶叶和咖啡种植园工作的人的后代，并通过让僧伽罗人在议会中占三分之二多数，确保了僧伽罗人的统治地位。1979年7月，四名警察被杀，据说是泰米尔伊拉姆猛虎解放组织（LTTE）所为，事态达到了顶峰。一周后，议会通过了《防止恐怖主义法案》。它包括有权在未经审判的情况下将被指控参与恐怖活动的个人监禁长达18个月，并给予安全部队实际上免于起诉的豁免权。内战期间平民的死亡不仅是叛乱分子造成的，也是国家恐怖主义造成的。该法案于1982年成为永久法律，至今仍然有效，没有按照国际法进行改革。人权倡导者、前联合国暴力侵害妇女问题特别报告员、联合国副秘书长、儿童与武装冲突问题特别代表拉迪卡·库马拉斯瓦米在序言中看到，在这段共同的人类苦难历史中，有得到承认、承认和治愈的希望。拥有心理学博士学位的佛教神父保罗·萨库纳亚甘敦促恢复人的尊严。他感兴趣的是受创伤的人，普遍存在的人。他与艺术家保罗·霍根和医生罗比·蔡斯共同创立了斯里兰卡的蝴蝶和平花园，这是一个于1996年在巴蒂克洛设立的避难所，旨在帮助受内战影响的儿童。2004年，它还成为了一个帮助海啸灾民的中心。斯里兰卡国家和平委员会坚持非暴力、尊重人权和自由表达思想的价值观。它始于1994年7月一个由个人和组织组成的跨宗教团体发起的反对选举暴力的运动，并于1995年成立。钱德里卡抱着他们五个月大的孩子，看着他消失在黑暗中。他的罪过在于他的同情心：“他憎恨不公，热爱人民，仅此而已。瓦迪维尔是六个孩子中的第四个，他的妻子是家里主要的经济支柱，他在一旁照顾着妻子。作为一名木匠，锯屑使他患上了哮喘。他的父母在一次土地掠夺中失去了土地和生计，被僧伽罗家庭抢走。Vadivel上了两年学，直到七岁，然后开始在父母的水田工作。1983年，他的长子桑吉文（Sanjeevan）遭到警察严刑拷打。Sanjeevan提前一年参加了O级考试。他是一名优秀的学生，擅长泰米尔语和数学。他的考试成绩是在他死后拿到的。对于那些经历过内战的人来说，西方记者关注的政治问题，用萨尔加多的话来说，“太大、太明显、太客观了”。对于西方媒体来说，这是一场泰米尔人和僧伽罗人之间的战争，但对于那些生活在日常冲突现实中的人来说，这场战争谈论的不是兄弟、母亲、父亲、孩子、朋友和邻居。每个人都需要尊严和一个称之为家的地方。萨尔加多收藏的核心是共享人性的深刻人文主义。斯里兰卡是萨尔加多的祖籍，也是我的故乡我的父亲约翰尼·理查森（Johnny Richardson）在科伦坡长大，和信奉佛教、基督教、印度教和穆斯林的朋友们一起玩耍。在20世纪30年代，他们骑着自行车沿着城市的街道，在海里游泳，去那些在科伦坡开始出现的带有帝国和帝王名字的画室。当第二次世界大战来到斯里兰卡，日本和英国在科伦坡和亭可马里展开空战时，我父亲一家搬到了马塔莱。大约一个世纪前的1848年，这里曾是康提亚劳工反抗英国压迫者的马塔莱起义（Matale Rebellion）发生地。煽动起义的贡加莱戈达·班达被控叛国罪，因为他与英国人作战，并声称自己是康提的国王。这次叛乱不是孤立的内乱行为，而是争取独立斗争的一部分。父亲在第二次世界大战中失去了父亲，他在20世纪40年代后期离开了家，为一家从事Inginiyagala Gal Oya灌溉项目的美国公司工作，该项目旨在为东海岸的稻田和村庄提供水力发电和灌溉。但他的梦想是去伦敦。1953年，22岁的他多次试图偷渡，他响应了英国对移民工人帮助战后重建的呼吁，登上了从战时服役退役的皇家海军猎户座号。这艘船穿过阿拉伯海、红海和地中海，停靠在亚丁、塞得港、那不勒斯、直布罗陀、马赛和蒂尔伯里。在伦敦，火车站和商店橱窗里都贴着“有色人种、爱尔兰人、狗不得入内”的住宿广告，但他很快就在西伦敦与斯里兰卡和爱尔兰移民一起找到了家。小说家Ambalavaner Sivanandan于1958年离开斯里兰卡，1972年成为伦敦种族关系研究所（IRR）所长，他说：“我们在这里，因为你们在那里。”几年后，我的哥哥和我在伦敦西部长大，母亲是英国人，父亲是斯里兰卡人。学校里的男孩会埋伏在那里等着我们，他们被种族主义搞得目瞪口呆，不受约束，甚至得到家人和老师的认可。有时女孩们抱着金发娃娃站在旁边。但你记得的是那些尽其所能为你说话的人。在今天的英国，人口增长最快的是混合种族，这推翻了没有生物学基础的种族分类，并将二元和它们所支撑的两极置于一种合理的混乱之中。但在我成长的英国，如果你是黑人、亚洲人或混血儿，或者以其他方式显得格格不入，如果你看起来与众不同，或者你的名字听起来与众不同，你就是被唾骂的对象。在斯里兰卡，自20世纪中叶以来，种族和宗教分歧时有消长，但也加剧为极端主义。1995年，纳达拉贾在斯里兰

{"title":"Sri Lanka","authors":"Angelique Richardson","doi":"10.1111/criq.12802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/criq.12802","url":null,"abstract":"In the river that runs beneath Kallady Bridge, Batticaloa, on the eastern coast of Sri Lanka, there are singing fish. They are known as Oorie Coolooroo Cradoo, which is Tamil for ‘crying shells’. Their song is said to have stopped during the civil war between the Tamils and the Sinhalese that broke out in 1983 and endured for 26 long years. Now, it is diminished by the effects of overfishing, pollution and climate breakdown. But for centuries, this underwater song caught the attention of fishermen and passersby who listened.Minoli Salgado's collection of stories, Twelve Cries from Home: In Search of Sri Lanka's Disappeared, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, is shocking, powerful and courageous. It is work that follows a war. The first record of civilian testimonies on the civil war from across this beautiful island, it documents extraordinary violence from the perspective of ordinary people who are both victims and survivors. They have seen torture, bombing, shelling and extrajudicial killings. Colonialism has long dictated the lives of Sri Lankans, with its aftermath still brutally felt. Tens of thousands of young people were killed, lost or ‘disappeared’. Gendered violence was part of the war, and women were brutally raped. Bearing witness to atrocity, it is not possible for Salgado to give answers.As the survivors seek to tell their stories, to piece together what parts of the past they can, their agency is restored. Dahanayake (she gives her family name only) lost her youngest brother, Bandula, to abductors while waiting at Matara bus station. She searched for him for 10 years. He was ‘the beating heart’ of the family, ‘a scamp’, ‘a mentor’, who was, most movingly, ‘above difference’. Salgado provides a record of what happens when political divisions become entrenched, differences intensified, and the possibilities of peace eroded. For some of the survivors, justice is a need to strike at those who have harmed them, but forms of forgiveness are emerging. For many, it is a time to move and to heal. Sujatha keeps focused on her husband's love and a courtship that began with a bicycle bell. In some cases, through a deep humanism, time builds bonds between a perpetrator and a survivor's family. Asking Dahanayake if she has a message for those outside Sri Lanka, Salgado realises her story is about the most basic of human rights, the right to security, the right to life.Following the preferential treatment of Tamils under colonial rule, the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 marginalised the Tamil community in all areas of civic life from employment to higher education. Universal adult franchise had been extended, in theory, to all Sri Lankans in 1931 under the Donoughmore Constitution. While this was an unprecedented development under colonial rule in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, with the commissioners appointed by the socialist Sidney Webb, Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Lib-Lab coalition government of 1927, ther","PeriodicalId":44341,"journal":{"name":"CRITICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"67 2","pages":"107-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/criq.12802","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145271767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0