土著非殖民化议程如何影响人类世史学?

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Rethinking History Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/13642529.2021.1985811
J. Coope
{"title":"土著非殖民化议程如何影响人类世史学?","authors":"J. Coope","doi":"10.1080/13642529.2021.1985811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many Indigenous and post-development commentators view the hegemony of western conceptions of ‘development’ as profoundly implicated in the Anthropocene’s global ecological crises and underpinned by modernity’s extractivist and anthropocentric worldview and sensibilities. Meanwhile, as Kothari et al. note, secular modernity’s defenders persist in the presumption that modern science affords the definitive account of nature and reality, while the worldviews of Indigenous peoples are frequently delegitimised as unsophisticated or mere superstition. Accordingly, many Indigenous critics call for today’s Indigenous movements globally to challenge the dominance of western ‘heteropatriarchal’ styles of thinking. They suggest modernity needs to learn from Indigenous movements and traditions, not least for insights into ethical relationality with the animate Earth. Likewise, Arturo Escobar insists that contemporary academic ‘theory’ needs re-enlivening: bringing it closer to life and the Earth and to the work of those who struggle to defend them. This paper asks how Indigenous decolonization agendas, which struggle in defense of life and the Earth, might inform historiography in the Anthropocene. For example, Beverley Southgate has suggested that history has a utopian and therapeutic purpose – helping us escape the thrall of the past and orientate ourselves towards emancipatory futures. This paper suggests – in an era of ecological emergency – that history’s utopian imaginaries will need to be commensurate with that vivid experience of sensed ethical reciprocity with nature, to which indigenous traditional ecological knowledges (ITEK) bear witness. Some western historians question whether a coherent story for humanity is possible, given how systems thinking suggests global feedback and radical uncertainty condition our future. However, systems thinking also highlights the hierarchical nature of human-ecological systems and suggests that the deepest level for intervening in any human-ecological system is at the level of a society’s ‘mental models’ and ‘worldview’. This is the level at which interventions have the greatest leverage for radical system transformation and is the level that this essay focuses upon.","PeriodicalId":46004,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How might Indigenous decolonization agendas inform Anthropocene historiography?\",\"authors\":\"J. Coope\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13642529.2021.1985811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Many Indigenous and post-development commentators view the hegemony of western conceptions of ‘development’ as profoundly implicated in the Anthropocene’s global ecological crises and underpinned by modernity’s extractivist and anthropocentric worldview and sensibilities. Meanwhile, as Kothari et al. note, secular modernity’s defenders persist in the presumption that modern science affords the definitive account of nature and reality, while the worldviews of Indigenous peoples are frequently delegitimised as unsophisticated or mere superstition. Accordingly, many Indigenous critics call for today’s Indigenous movements globally to challenge the dominance of western ‘heteropatriarchal’ styles of thinking. They suggest modernity needs to learn from Indigenous movements and traditions, not least for insights into ethical relationality with the animate Earth. Likewise, Arturo Escobar insists that contemporary academic ‘theory’ needs re-enlivening: bringing it closer to life and the Earth and to the work of those who struggle to defend them. This paper asks how Indigenous decolonization agendas, which struggle in defense of life and the Earth, might inform historiography in the Anthropocene. For example, Beverley Southgate has suggested that history has a utopian and therapeutic purpose – helping us escape the thrall of the past and orientate ourselves towards emancipatory futures. This paper suggests – in an era of ecological emergency – that history’s utopian imaginaries will need to be commensurate with that vivid experience of sensed ethical reciprocity with nature, to which indigenous traditional ecological knowledges (ITEK) bear witness. Some western historians question whether a coherent story for humanity is possible, given how systems thinking suggests global feedback and radical uncertainty condition our future. However, systems thinking also highlights the hierarchical nature of human-ecological systems and suggests that the deepest level for intervening in any human-ecological system is at the level of a society’s ‘mental models’ and ‘worldview’. This is the level at which interventions have the greatest leverage for radical system transformation and is the level that this essay focuses upon.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rethinking History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rethinking History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2021.1985811\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rethinking History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2021.1985811","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多土著和后发展评论家认为,西方“发展”概念的霸权与人类世的全球生态危机有着深刻的联系,并受到现代性的采掘主义和人类中心主义世界观和情感的支撑。与此同时,正如Kothari等人指出的那样,世俗现代性的捍卫者坚持认为现代科学提供了对自然和现实的最终解释,而土著人民的世界观经常被视为不成熟或纯粹的迷信而被剥夺了合法性。因此,许多土著批评家呼吁今天的全球土著运动挑战西方“异族父权制”思维方式的主导地位。他们认为,现代性需要从土著运动和传统中学习,尤其是为了洞察与有生命的地球的伦理关系。同样,阿图罗·埃斯科瓦尔坚持认为,当代学术“理论”需要重新活跃起来:使它更接近生活和地球,更接近那些为捍卫它们而奋斗的人的工作。这篇论文探讨了土著人在捍卫生命和地球的斗争中如何去殖民化议程,可能会影响人类世的史学。例如,贝弗利·索斯盖特(Beverley Southgate)提出,历史具有乌托邦和治疗的目的——帮助我们摆脱过去的束缚,让我们走向解放的未来。这篇论文提出——在一个生态紧急的时代——历史的乌托邦想象将需要与与自然的道德互惠感的生动体验相称,这是土著传统生态知识(ITEK)的见证。一些西方历史学家质疑,考虑到系统思维所暗示的全球反馈和根本的不确定性决定了我们的未来,是否有可能为人类创造一个连贯的故事。然而,系统思维也强调了人类生态系统的层次性,并表明干预任何人类生态系统的最深层次是在社会的“心智模型”和“世界观”的层面上。这是干预对激进的系统转型具有最大杠杆作用的水平,也是本文关注的水平。
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
How might Indigenous decolonization agendas inform Anthropocene historiography?
ABSTRACT Many Indigenous and post-development commentators view the hegemony of western conceptions of ‘development’ as profoundly implicated in the Anthropocene’s global ecological crises and underpinned by modernity’s extractivist and anthropocentric worldview and sensibilities. Meanwhile, as Kothari et al. note, secular modernity’s defenders persist in the presumption that modern science affords the definitive account of nature and reality, while the worldviews of Indigenous peoples are frequently delegitimised as unsophisticated or mere superstition. Accordingly, many Indigenous critics call for today’s Indigenous movements globally to challenge the dominance of western ‘heteropatriarchal’ styles of thinking. They suggest modernity needs to learn from Indigenous movements and traditions, not least for insights into ethical relationality with the animate Earth. Likewise, Arturo Escobar insists that contemporary academic ‘theory’ needs re-enlivening: bringing it closer to life and the Earth and to the work of those who struggle to defend them. This paper asks how Indigenous decolonization agendas, which struggle in defense of life and the Earth, might inform historiography in the Anthropocene. For example, Beverley Southgate has suggested that history has a utopian and therapeutic purpose – helping us escape the thrall of the past and orientate ourselves towards emancipatory futures. This paper suggests – in an era of ecological emergency – that history’s utopian imaginaries will need to be commensurate with that vivid experience of sensed ethical reciprocity with nature, to which indigenous traditional ecological knowledges (ITEK) bear witness. Some western historians question whether a coherent story for humanity is possible, given how systems thinking suggests global feedback and radical uncertainty condition our future. However, systems thinking also highlights the hierarchical nature of human-ecological systems and suggests that the deepest level for intervening in any human-ecological system is at the level of a society’s ‘mental models’ and ‘worldview’. This is the level at which interventions have the greatest leverage for radical system transformation and is the level that this essay focuses upon.
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
Rethinking History
Rethinking History Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This acclaimed journal allows historians in a broad range of specialities to experiment with new ways of presenting and interpreting history. Rethinking History challenges the accepted ways of doing history and rethinks the traditional paradigms, providing a unique forum in which practitioners and theorists can debate and expand the boundaries of the discipline.
期刊最新文献
“The dead do not negotiate”: Hilary Mantel, The Mirror and the Light , and Britain’s obsession with history The ethics of narrative: a readers’ dialogue Militarism in medievalism: the Prince of Thieves video game and the Gulf War Two concepts of apocalypse and apocalyptic history today Pietistic atheism and the modern breakthrough: on the narrative culture of secularity
×
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