废除将走向何方?

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q3 CULTURAL STUDIES Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1215/10407391-10713805
Patrick Teed
{"title":"废除将走向何方?","authors":"Patrick Teed","doi":"10.1215/10407391-10713805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes that a brutal empiricism, constituted in abolitionism’s originary iterations, authorizes contemporary abolitionist politics, interrogating how the focalization of the prison over slavery reveals politicallibidinal investments in the reproduction of antiblackness. It argues that asserting the prison as the object of abolition both presumes and reifies an antiblack historiography, repeating the ruse of Emancipation (therefore imagining racial slavery to be a historical condition) while simultaneously deploying slavery’s idiom to animate a contemporary postracial politics. To arrive at this critique, the essay offers an analysis of the epistemic brutality subtending abolitionist politics during the long nineteenth century to put pressure on its circulation within ostensibly radical political imaginaries today. In other words, it argues that just as the originary abolitionists distorted the political demands of the enslaved to consolidate liberal humanism, so, too, do contemporary deployments of abolition similarly sediment enslavement as a regime of power.","PeriodicalId":46313,"journal":{"name":"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whither Abolition?\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Teed\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/10407391-10713805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article proposes that a brutal empiricism, constituted in abolitionism’s originary iterations, authorizes contemporary abolitionist politics, interrogating how the focalization of the prison over slavery reveals politicallibidinal investments in the reproduction of antiblackness. It argues that asserting the prison as the object of abolition both presumes and reifies an antiblack historiography, repeating the ruse of Emancipation (therefore imagining racial slavery to be a historical condition) while simultaneously deploying slavery’s idiom to animate a contemporary postracial politics. To arrive at this critique, the essay offers an analysis of the epistemic brutality subtending abolitionist politics during the long nineteenth century to put pressure on its circulation within ostensibly radical political imaginaries today. In other words, it argues that just as the originary abolitionists distorted the political demands of the enslaved to consolidate liberal humanism, so, too, do contemporary deployments of abolition similarly sediment enslavement as a regime of power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-10713805\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-10713805","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了一种残酷的经验主义,在废奴主义的原始迭代中构成,授权当代废奴主义政治,质疑监狱对奴隶制的关注如何揭示了反黑人的再生产中的政治投资。它认为,将监狱作为废除的对象既假定又具体化了一种反黑人的史学,重复了解放的诡计(因此想象种族奴隶制是一种历史条件),同时利用奴隶制的习语来激活当代的后种族政治。为了得出这一批判,本文分析了在漫长的19世纪中,废奴主义政治的认知残暴,以对其在今天表面上激进的政治想象中的传播施加压力。换句话说,它认为,正如最初的废奴主义者扭曲了被奴役者的政治要求以巩固自由人文主义一样,当代废奴的部署也同样将奴役作为一种权力制度。
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
Whither Abolition?
This article proposes that a brutal empiricism, constituted in abolitionism’s originary iterations, authorizes contemporary abolitionist politics, interrogating how the focalization of the prison over slavery reveals politicallibidinal investments in the reproduction of antiblackness. It argues that asserting the prison as the object of abolition both presumes and reifies an antiblack historiography, repeating the ruse of Emancipation (therefore imagining racial slavery to be a historical condition) while simultaneously deploying slavery’s idiom to animate a contemporary postracial politics. To arrive at this critique, the essay offers an analysis of the epistemic brutality subtending abolitionist politics during the long nineteenth century to put pressure on its circulation within ostensibly radical political imaginaries today. In other words, it argues that just as the originary abolitionists distorted the political demands of the enslaved to consolidate liberal humanism, so, too, do contemporary deployments of abolition similarly sediment enslavement as a regime of power.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies first appeared in 1989 at the moment of a critical encounter—a head-on collision, one might say—of theories of difference (primarily Continental) and the politics of diversity (primarily American). In the ensuing years, the journal has established a critical forum where the problematic of differences is explored in texts ranging from the literary and the visual to the political and social. differences highlights theoretical debates across the disciplines that address the ways concepts and categories of difference—notably but not exclusively gender—operate within culture.
期刊最新文献
Parasymptomatic Reading: Medical Kink, Care, and the Surface/Depth Debate The Typewriter Cuts Whither Abolition? Family Corporation v. Minstrel Feminism: Reproducing Religious Freedom from Hobby Lobby to Notorious R.B.G. Epicures in Kissing: Asexuality in Venus and Adonis
×
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