《维多利亚时代与数字:19世纪英国的统计与社会》劳伦斯·戈德曼著

IF 0.3 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY Journal of Interdisciplinary History Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1162/jinh_r_01966
S. Stigler
{"title":"《维多利亚时代与数字:19世纪英国的统计与社会》劳伦斯·戈德曼著","authors":"S. Stigler","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"teenth century, would five suffice? Would fifty? What about 5,000? In a refreshingly honest metacritical move, Alborn describes his work in the digital archive. When he claims that sermons across Christian denominations followed a formulaic script that portrayed misers as “caricatures” rather than “sympathetic portraits of human beings,” Alborn includes a footnote that outlines his analysis of 335 religious publications (18, 36, fn 13). The notion of objective proof of cultural movements may be a self-defeating endeavor, but Alborn’s dense work in the archive demands that we confront what the digital record makes possible. Most interestingly, Alborn deliberately eschews quantitative analysis to analyze his library. Instead, he uses these texts “to add no end of nuance to the stories” that he discovers (9). He creates this nuance with rapid flight across texts and genres—both a strength and a potential area for critique. The depth of his research creates powerful integrity for his narrative. Yet his readings hurry through these texts, often quoting at length with little to no explication or providing a lengthy plot summary of a play or novel, as though they speak for themselves (115–118, 84). But this critical observation leads to a methodological challenge: If texts need interpretation to fit a narrative, the narrative might have more to say about contemporary methods than about a historical moment. Misers presents an ambitious historiography that straddles the scientific aspirations of distant reading and the hermeneutic dreams of close reading. As is often the case with innovation, Alborn’s work demonstrates the strengths and exposes the shortcomings of both methodologies. The result is a vast, rich archive that builds a foundation for both deeper investigation into particular texts or genres, as well as for a broader discussion of capitalism and culture.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":"54 1","pages":"124-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Victorians and Numbers: Statistics and Society in Nineteenth Century Britain by Lawrence Goldman\",\"authors\":\"S. Stigler\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jinh_r_01966\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"teenth century, would five suffice? Would fifty? What about 5,000? In a refreshingly honest metacritical move, Alborn describes his work in the digital archive. When he claims that sermons across Christian denominations followed a formulaic script that portrayed misers as “caricatures” rather than “sympathetic portraits of human beings,” Alborn includes a footnote that outlines his analysis of 335 religious publications (18, 36, fn 13). The notion of objective proof of cultural movements may be a self-defeating endeavor, but Alborn’s dense work in the archive demands that we confront what the digital record makes possible. Most interestingly, Alborn deliberately eschews quantitative analysis to analyze his library. Instead, he uses these texts “to add no end of nuance to the stories” that he discovers (9). He creates this nuance with rapid flight across texts and genres—both a strength and a potential area for critique. The depth of his research creates powerful integrity for his narrative. Yet his readings hurry through these texts, often quoting at length with little to no explication or providing a lengthy plot summary of a play or novel, as though they speak for themselves (115–118, 84). But this critical observation leads to a methodological challenge: If texts need interpretation to fit a narrative, the narrative might have more to say about contemporary methods than about a historical moment. Misers presents an ambitious historiography that straddles the scientific aspirations of distant reading and the hermeneutic dreams of close reading. As is often the case with innovation, Alborn’s work demonstrates the strengths and exposes the shortcomings of both methodologies. The result is a vast, rich archive that builds a foundation for both deeper investigation into particular texts or genres, as well as for a broader discussion of capitalism and culture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"124-127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01966\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01966","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

十四世纪,五个就够了吗?五十吗?5000怎么样?在一个令人耳目一新的诚实的元批判动作中,阿尔博恩描述了他在数字档案中的工作。当他声称基督教各教派的布道遵循公式化的脚本,将守财奴描绘成“漫画”,而不是“同情人类的肖像”时,Alborn包括了一个脚注,概述了他对335份宗教出版物的分析(18,36,fn 13)。客观证明文化运动的概念可能会弄巧成拙,但阿尔博恩在档案中的大量工作要求我们直面数字记录所带来的可能。最有趣的是,Alborn故意避开定量分析来分析他的图书馆。相反,他使用这些文本“为他发现的故事添加无尽的细微差别”(9)。他通过在文本和流派之间的快速传播创造了这种细微差别——这既是一种优势,也是一个潜在的批评领域。他的研究深度为他的叙述创造了强大的完整性。然而,他的阅读匆匆忙忙地阅读这些文本,经常引用很长的话,几乎没有解释,或者对戏剧或小说进行冗长的情节总结,就好像它们在为自己说话一样(115–118,84)。但这种批判性的观察导致了一个方法论的挑战:如果文本需要解读来适应叙事,那么叙事可能对当代方法的描述比对历史时刻的描述更多。米塞斯提出了一种雄心勃勃的史学,它跨越了远距离阅读的科学愿望和近距离阅读的解释学梦想。正如创新经常发生的情况一样,Alborn的工作展示了这两种方法的优势和缺点。其结果是建立了一个庞大而丰富的档案,为深入调查特定文本或流派以及更广泛地讨论资本主义和文化奠定了基础。
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
Victorians and Numbers: Statistics and Society in Nineteenth Century Britain by Lawrence Goldman
teenth century, would five suffice? Would fifty? What about 5,000? In a refreshingly honest metacritical move, Alborn describes his work in the digital archive. When he claims that sermons across Christian denominations followed a formulaic script that portrayed misers as “caricatures” rather than “sympathetic portraits of human beings,” Alborn includes a footnote that outlines his analysis of 335 religious publications (18, 36, fn 13). The notion of objective proof of cultural movements may be a self-defeating endeavor, but Alborn’s dense work in the archive demands that we confront what the digital record makes possible. Most interestingly, Alborn deliberately eschews quantitative analysis to analyze his library. Instead, he uses these texts “to add no end of nuance to the stories” that he discovers (9). He creates this nuance with rapid flight across texts and genres—both a strength and a potential area for critique. The depth of his research creates powerful integrity for his narrative. Yet his readings hurry through these texts, often quoting at length with little to no explication or providing a lengthy plot summary of a play or novel, as though they speak for themselves (115–118, 84). But this critical observation leads to a methodological challenge: If texts need interpretation to fit a narrative, the narrative might have more to say about contemporary methods than about a historical moment. Misers presents an ambitious historiography that straddles the scientific aspirations of distant reading and the hermeneutic dreams of close reading. As is often the case with innovation, Alborn’s work demonstrates the strengths and exposes the shortcomings of both methodologies. The result is a vast, rich archive that builds a foundation for both deeper investigation into particular texts or genres, as well as for a broader discussion of capitalism and culture.
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
20.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history
期刊最新文献
Marriage, Separation & Divorce in England, 1500–1700 by K. J. Kesselring and Tim Stretton Wealth, Poverty, and Charity in Jewish Antiquity by Gregg E. Gardner The Folds of Olympus: Mountains in Ancient Greek and Roman Culture by Jason König The Pope at War: The Secret History of Pius XII, Mussolini, and Hitler by David I. Kertzer Victorians and Numbers: Statistics and Society in Nineteenth Century Britain by Lawrence Goldman
×
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