“分离,而非分裂”:意大利南部对“活的阴谋论”的看法

Q3 Arts and Humanities Anthropologica Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.18357/anthropologica65120232597
Giovanna Parmigiani
{"title":"“分离,而非分裂”:意大利南部对“活的阴谋论”的看法","authors":"Giovanna Parmigiani","doi":"10.18357/anthropologica65120232597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conspirituality—that is, the connection between conspiracy theories and spirituality—has recently gained popularity in academic and non-academic circles. Often associated with populist and irrational beliefs, it has been linked to right-wing politics, faulty thinking, and disruptive and potentially violent behaviour (Greenwood 2022; Russell 2022). While these connections have been proven to be true in some cases, in this paper, rooted in my long-standing ethnographic research, I offer a contribution that illuminates other aspects of conspirituality—in line with recent attempts to honour the complexity and internal variability of the phenomenon (for example, Greenwood 2022; Ong 2021). In particular, differently from the overwhelming majority of current approaches in the study of conspirituality, I propose to frame the study of conspirituality not only by focusing on ideas and beliefs, but in conversation with the study of “lived religion” (see, for example, Ammerman 2021; Hall 2001; McGuire 2008) in a way that distinguishes the actual experience of persons from normative beliefs and practices. Similarly to what the study of “lived religion” does to the study of religion, I claim that the study of “lived conspirituality” could offer insights into the phenomenon of conspiracism, today (Ong 2020). By analyzing discourses and practices of conspiritualists that I observed on the field, I will challenge mainstream interpretations of the role of the individual and of marginality in New Age conspirituality.","PeriodicalId":35455,"journal":{"name":"Anthropologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Separation, but not Division”: A Southern Italian Perspective on “Lived Conspirituality”\",\"authors\":\"Giovanna Parmigiani\",\"doi\":\"10.18357/anthropologica65120232597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Conspirituality—that is, the connection between conspiracy theories and spirituality—has recently gained popularity in academic and non-academic circles. Often associated with populist and irrational beliefs, it has been linked to right-wing politics, faulty thinking, and disruptive and potentially violent behaviour (Greenwood 2022; Russell 2022). While these connections have been proven to be true in some cases, in this paper, rooted in my long-standing ethnographic research, I offer a contribution that illuminates other aspects of conspirituality—in line with recent attempts to honour the complexity and internal variability of the phenomenon (for example, Greenwood 2022; Ong 2021). In particular, differently from the overwhelming majority of current approaches in the study of conspirituality, I propose to frame the study of conspirituality not only by focusing on ideas and beliefs, but in conversation with the study of “lived religion” (see, for example, Ammerman 2021; Hall 2001; McGuire 2008) in a way that distinguishes the actual experience of persons from normative beliefs and practices. Similarly to what the study of “lived religion” does to the study of religion, I claim that the study of “lived conspirituality” could offer insights into the phenomenon of conspiracism, today (Ong 2020). By analyzing discourses and practices of conspiritualists that I observed on the field, I will challenge mainstream interpretations of the role of the individual and of marginality in New Age conspirituality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropologica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18357/anthropologica65120232597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18357/anthropologica65120232597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

阴谋论——也就是阴谋论和灵性之间的联系——最近在学术界和非学术界都很流行。它通常与民粹主义和非理性信仰联系在一起,与右翼政治、错误思维、破坏性和潜在的暴力行为联系在一起(Greenwood 2022;罗素2022)。虽然这些联系在某些情况下被证明是正确的,但在本文中,基于我长期的民族志研究,我提供了一个贡献,阐明了阴谋论的其他方面——与最近试图尊重这种现象的复杂性和内部可变性(例如,Greenwood 2022;王2021)。特别是,与目前绝大多数研究阴谋论的方法不同,我建议不仅通过关注思想和信仰来构建阴谋论的研究,而且通过与“生活宗教”研究的对话来构建阴谋论的研究(例如,参见Ammerman 2021;大厅2001;McGuire 2008),以一种将人的实际经验与规范性信念和实践区分开来的方式。与“活的宗教”研究对宗教研究的影响类似,我声称“活的阴谋论”研究可以为今天的阴谋论现象提供见解(Ong 2020)。通过分析我在这个领域观察到的阴谋论者的话语和实践,我将挑战对新时代阴谋论中个人和边缘性角色的主流解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
“Separation, but not Division”: A Southern Italian Perspective on “Lived Conspirituality”
Conspirituality—that is, the connection between conspiracy theories and spirituality—has recently gained popularity in academic and non-academic circles. Often associated with populist and irrational beliefs, it has been linked to right-wing politics, faulty thinking, and disruptive and potentially violent behaviour (Greenwood 2022; Russell 2022). While these connections have been proven to be true in some cases, in this paper, rooted in my long-standing ethnographic research, I offer a contribution that illuminates other aspects of conspirituality—in line with recent attempts to honour the complexity and internal variability of the phenomenon (for example, Greenwood 2022; Ong 2021). In particular, differently from the overwhelming majority of current approaches in the study of conspirituality, I propose to frame the study of conspirituality not only by focusing on ideas and beliefs, but in conversation with the study of “lived religion” (see, for example, Ammerman 2021; Hall 2001; McGuire 2008) in a way that distinguishes the actual experience of persons from normative beliefs and practices. Similarly to what the study of “lived religion” does to the study of religion, I claim that the study of “lived conspirituality” could offer insights into the phenomenon of conspiracism, today (Ong 2020). By analyzing discourses and practices of conspiritualists that I observed on the field, I will challenge mainstream interpretations of the role of the individual and of marginality in New Age conspirituality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anthropologica
Anthropologica Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Anthropologica is the official publication of the Canadian Anthropology Society / Société canadienne d"anthropologie. A biannual journal, it publishes peer-reviewed articles in both French and English devoted to social and cultural issues whether they are pre-historic, historic, contemporary, biological, linguistic, applied or theoretical in orientation.
期刊最新文献
Hopefully a Good Life: Cosmopolitan Chinese Migrant Families in Urban Italy Arctique, par Nicolas Escach, Camille Escudé et Benoît Goffin (dir.) An Escalade, a Briefcase, and Respect: Latinx Youth’s Imaginings of Middle-Class Status and a Cosmopolitan Good Life in Nashville, Tennessee The New Science of the Enchanted Universe: An Anthropology of Most of Humanity, by Marshall Sahlins Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic, by Narges Bajoghli
×
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