“受害民族主义”的批判与理论再思考——以波罗的海地区的民族受害为例

K. Okawara
{"title":"“受害民族主义”的批判与理论再思考——以波罗的海地区的民族受害为例","authors":"K. Okawara","doi":"10.1515/bjes-2019-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There are many arguments to support the idea that the Baltic nations (and other “victimized” areas) adhere to ‘victimhood nationalism’, a form of nationalism that explains the region’s recognition of its history and the related problems. Since the start of the 21st century, memory and area studies experts have used the concept of ‘victimhood nationalism’. However, the framework of victimhood nationalism is critically flawed. Its original conceptual architecture is weak and its effectiveness as an explanatory variable requires critical examination. This paper presents a theoretical examination of victimhood nationalism from the perspective of political and social historiology. Further, the paper criticizes the concept from the perspective of the empirical area studies of the Baltic region. First, it argues that the killing or damaging of one community by another does not automatically transform into a nationalism of victimhood. Unless it has been established that one community was the ‘victim’ and the other the perpetrator of the crime, these events will not be remembered as the basis of victimhood nationalism. Second, the effectiveness of this concept is criticized from two perspectives: “tangle” as an explanatory variable and its doctrinal history. It is tautological to claim that victimhood nationalism explains political issues, as was already being implied in the early twentieth-century collective memory studies. In conclusion, the assumption of victimhood is a preliminary necessity to a community claiming victimhood nationalism. Victimhood nationalism is not an explanatory, but an explained, variable. Therefore, the concept should be renamed otherwise. The alternative framework of collective memory studies framework of “victimhood” is needed. This research argues that Baltic area studies, particularly regarding history recognition, should be phenomenologically reconsidered to reimagine the framework of “victimhood”.","PeriodicalId":42700,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of European Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical and Theoretical Re-imagining of ‘Victimhood Nationalism’: The Case of National Victimhood of the Baltic Region\",\"authors\":\"K. Okawara\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/bjes-2019-0043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract There are many arguments to support the idea that the Baltic nations (and other “victimized” areas) adhere to ‘victimhood nationalism’, a form of nationalism that explains the region’s recognition of its history and the related problems. Since the start of the 21st century, memory and area studies experts have used the concept of ‘victimhood nationalism’. However, the framework of victimhood nationalism is critically flawed. Its original conceptual architecture is weak and its effectiveness as an explanatory variable requires critical examination. This paper presents a theoretical examination of victimhood nationalism from the perspective of political and social historiology. Further, the paper criticizes the concept from the perspective of the empirical area studies of the Baltic region. First, it argues that the killing or damaging of one community by another does not automatically transform into a nationalism of victimhood. Unless it has been established that one community was the ‘victim’ and the other the perpetrator of the crime, these events will not be remembered as the basis of victimhood nationalism. Second, the effectiveness of this concept is criticized from two perspectives: “tangle” as an explanatory variable and its doctrinal history. It is tautological to claim that victimhood nationalism explains political issues, as was already being implied in the early twentieth-century collective memory studies. In conclusion, the assumption of victimhood is a preliminary necessity to a community claiming victimhood nationalism. Victimhood nationalism is not an explanatory, but an explained, variable. Therefore, the concept should be renamed otherwise. The alternative framework of collective memory studies framework of “victimhood” is needed. This research argues that Baltic area studies, particularly regarding history recognition, should be phenomenologically reconsidered to reimagine the framework of “victimhood”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baltic Journal of European Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baltic Journal of European Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-0043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of European Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

有许多论据支持波罗的海国家(和其他“受害”地区)坚持“受害民族主义”的观点,这种民族主义形式解释了该地区对其历史和相关问题的认识。自21世纪初以来,记忆和区域研究专家使用了“受害者民族主义”的概念。然而,受害者民族主义的框架存在严重缺陷。其最初的概念架构是薄弱的,其有效性作为一个解释变量需要严格审查。本文从政治与社会史学的角度对受害民族主义进行理论考察。此外,本文还从波罗的海地区实证区域研究的角度对这一概念进行了批判。首先,它认为一个社区对另一个社区的杀戮或破坏不会自动转化为受害者的民族主义。除非确定一个社区是“受害者”,另一个社区是犯罪的肇事者,否则这些事件将不会作为受害者民族主义的基础而被铭记。其次,从“缠结”作为解释变量及其理论历史两个角度对这一概念的有效性进行了批判。声称受害者民族主义解释政治问题是重复的,就像在20世纪早期的集体记忆研究中已经暗示的那样。综上所述,受害者身份假设是社区主张受害者身份民族主义的先决条件。受害者民族主义不是一个解释性的变量,而是一个被解释的变量。因此,这个概念应该重命名。集体记忆研究的替代框架“受害者”框架是必要的。这项研究认为,波罗的海地区的研究,特别是关于历史认识的研究,应该从现象学上重新考虑,以重新想象“受害者”的框架。
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
A Critical and Theoretical Re-imagining of ‘Victimhood Nationalism’: The Case of National Victimhood of the Baltic Region
Abstract There are many arguments to support the idea that the Baltic nations (and other “victimized” areas) adhere to ‘victimhood nationalism’, a form of nationalism that explains the region’s recognition of its history and the related problems. Since the start of the 21st century, memory and area studies experts have used the concept of ‘victimhood nationalism’. However, the framework of victimhood nationalism is critically flawed. Its original conceptual architecture is weak and its effectiveness as an explanatory variable requires critical examination. This paper presents a theoretical examination of victimhood nationalism from the perspective of political and social historiology. Further, the paper criticizes the concept from the perspective of the empirical area studies of the Baltic region. First, it argues that the killing or damaging of one community by another does not automatically transform into a nationalism of victimhood. Unless it has been established that one community was the ‘victim’ and the other the perpetrator of the crime, these events will not be remembered as the basis of victimhood nationalism. Second, the effectiveness of this concept is criticized from two perspectives: “tangle” as an explanatory variable and its doctrinal history. It is tautological to claim that victimhood nationalism explains political issues, as was already being implied in the early twentieth-century collective memory studies. In conclusion, the assumption of victimhood is a preliminary necessity to a community claiming victimhood nationalism. Victimhood nationalism is not an explanatory, but an explained, variable. Therefore, the concept should be renamed otherwise. The alternative framework of collective memory studies framework of “victimhood” is needed. This research argues that Baltic area studies, particularly regarding history recognition, should be phenomenologically reconsidered to reimagine the framework of “victimhood”.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Baltic Journal of European Studies (abbreviation BJES) is a semiannual double blind peer-reviewed international research journal (formerly known as Proceedings of the Institute for European Studies) with an international editorial office and extensive international editorial board, abstracted in EBSCO and other relevant databases.The scope of the journal comprises a wide spectrum of social, political, economic and cultural issues related to recent developments in the European Union and its member states.
期刊最新文献
Euroscepticism in a Pro-European State on the Basis of Media Content Analysis Ambitious or Ambiguous? The Implications of Smart Specialisation for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and Slovakia A Critical and Theoretical Re-imagining of ‘Victimhood Nationalism’: The Case of National Victimhood of the Baltic Region The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond Keeping Safe Distance: Chapters from Randomised (Non)Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before Polish Constitutional Tribunal
×
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