{"title":"《解放的女儿:重新想象黑人女性和国家主体》作者:理查德·理查森(书评)","authors":"C. Henderson","doi":"10.1353/afa.2023.a903616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"themselves, as opposed to the latent possibilities found within Puritanism? Second, to what extent could this latter-day Puritan self-description compete with and perhaps displace contemporaneous formations of whiteness? This is an undertaking that could reveal affinities or antagonisms between religious and racial taxonomies. Differentiating the abolitionists’ Puritan genealogy from the whiteness of American nationalism may also require further reframing of and distance from the familiar Americanist narratives of American literary nationalism on which the book relies, its nod to Nietzsche’s concept of critical historiography notwithstanding. Perhaps the greater ongoing challenge and opportunity for abolitionist scholarship in this period of abolitionist incandescence is to recognize the constructs through which we reconstruct the antebellum abolition movement—in this case, print-mediated public culture—as “color-blind” liberal frames for inclusion, despite their value to our recovery of African American literary and political life. Indeed, the interest that drives students and scholars to modern abolition in its contemporary context may well call us to demystify the role of print and to ask not just what people were reading or even who was reading but also what people were doing with what they were reading. No doubt students interested and engaged in abolitionist social movements are asking the same questions of readers of today’s abolitionist scholarship. The dynamic, socially productive function of an abolitionist literature within African American and white reform cultures—paired with a scholarship that tracks and projects its reorganization of gendered and racialized social relations into our own time—remains the legacy of a movement that continues to unsettle us.","PeriodicalId":44779,"journal":{"name":"AFRICAN AMERICAN REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emancipation’s Daughters: Reimagining Black Femininity and the National Body by Riché Richardson (review)\",\"authors\":\"C. Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/afa.2023.a903616\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"themselves, as opposed to the latent possibilities found within Puritanism? Second, to what extent could this latter-day Puritan self-description compete with and perhaps displace contemporaneous formations of whiteness? This is an undertaking that could reveal affinities or antagonisms between religious and racial taxonomies. Differentiating the abolitionists’ Puritan genealogy from the whiteness of American nationalism may also require further reframing of and distance from the familiar Americanist narratives of American literary nationalism on which the book relies, its nod to Nietzsche’s concept of critical historiography notwithstanding. Perhaps the greater ongoing challenge and opportunity for abolitionist scholarship in this period of abolitionist incandescence is to recognize the constructs through which we reconstruct the antebellum abolition movement—in this case, print-mediated public culture—as “color-blind” liberal frames for inclusion, despite their value to our recovery of African American literary and political life. Indeed, the interest that drives students and scholars to modern abolition in its contemporary context may well call us to demystify the role of print and to ask not just what people were reading or even who was reading but also what people were doing with what they were reading. No doubt students interested and engaged in abolitionist social movements are asking the same questions of readers of today’s abolitionist scholarship. The dynamic, socially productive function of an abolitionist literature within African American and white reform cultures—paired with a scholarship that tracks and projects its reorganization of gendered and racialized social relations into our own time—remains the legacy of a movement that continues to unsettle us.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AFRICAN AMERICAN REVIEW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AFRICAN AMERICAN REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/afa.2023.a903616\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, AMERICAN\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AFRICAN AMERICAN REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/afa.2023.a903616","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
Emancipation’s Daughters: Reimagining Black Femininity and the National Body by Riché Richardson (review)
themselves, as opposed to the latent possibilities found within Puritanism? Second, to what extent could this latter-day Puritan self-description compete with and perhaps displace contemporaneous formations of whiteness? This is an undertaking that could reveal affinities or antagonisms between religious and racial taxonomies. Differentiating the abolitionists’ Puritan genealogy from the whiteness of American nationalism may also require further reframing of and distance from the familiar Americanist narratives of American literary nationalism on which the book relies, its nod to Nietzsche’s concept of critical historiography notwithstanding. Perhaps the greater ongoing challenge and opportunity for abolitionist scholarship in this period of abolitionist incandescence is to recognize the constructs through which we reconstruct the antebellum abolition movement—in this case, print-mediated public culture—as “color-blind” liberal frames for inclusion, despite their value to our recovery of African American literary and political life. Indeed, the interest that drives students and scholars to modern abolition in its contemporary context may well call us to demystify the role of print and to ask not just what people were reading or even who was reading but also what people were doing with what they were reading. No doubt students interested and engaged in abolitionist social movements are asking the same questions of readers of today’s abolitionist scholarship. The dynamic, socially productive function of an abolitionist literature within African American and white reform cultures—paired with a scholarship that tracks and projects its reorganization of gendered and racialized social relations into our own time—remains the legacy of a movement that continues to unsettle us.
期刊介绍:
As the official publication of the Division on Black American Literature and Culture of the Modern Language Association, the quarterly journal African American Review promotes a lively exchange among writers and scholars in the arts, humanities, and social sciences who hold diverse perspectives on African American literature and culture. Between 1967 and 1976, the journal appeared under the title Negro American Literature Forum and for the next fifteen years was titled Black American Literature Forum. In 1992, African American Review changed its name for a third time and expanded its mission to include the study of a broader array of cultural formations.