冷战解放:苏联和葡萄牙帝国在非洲的崩溃,1961-1975,娜塔莉亚·特勒普涅娃

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Cold War Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1162/jcws_r_01131
Matt Mulhern
{"title":"冷战解放:苏联和葡萄牙帝国在非洲的崩溃,1961-1975,娜塔莉亚·特勒普涅娃","authors":"Matt Mulhern","doi":"10.1162/jcws_r_01131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"dimension of U.S. global hegemony and political ambitions in the context of the Cold War, as Nicolas Dirks and I recently explained in The Cambridge History of America and the World, vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Still, the authors are right to point out that the significance of U.S.-led or sponsored work often changed when it moved across national borders and into dialogue with local political and social scientific research contexts. Many U.S. social scientists were themselves well aware of this, often producing their work in partnership with local social scientists who were not just passive recipients of American social science but would instead actively shape the thinking of their U.S. partners—as was the case with the anthropologist Charles Wagley, who collaborated closely with Brazilian colleagues in developing his ideas (as Sebastian Gil-Riaño’s contribution suggests). Conversely, ideas that emerged out of a disciplinary or local political context that might have little per se to do with the Cold War could, upon traveling across borders, become enrolled in Cold War disputes, as was the case with dependency theory, which began as a debate within the Latin American left over industrialization strategies, but which upon arrival in the United States was deployed primarily as a counter–Cold War social scientific critique of modernization theory (as Margarita Fajardo’s contribution explains). A particular strength of the volume is its clear focus on the importance of UNESCO as an early Cold War–era institution for promoting social scientific inquiry worldwide. Several essays in the volume mention UNESCO’s role as a vehicle for funding the production and transmission of social scientific knowledge, but Per Wisselgren’s piece in particular highlights how the vision of social science promoted by UNESCO during its first decade was in fact at odds with the kind of social science that became hegemonic in the American academy during the 1950s and 1960s. Under the leadership of Alva Myrdal, UNESCO’s Social Science Department promoted methods and forms of social science whose normative baseline was not the promotion of liberal democratic capitalism but the development of world government, international peace, and “One Worldism.” An intriguing question left by this volume is how global social science might have unfolded differently had UNESCO rather than U.S. government-aligned visions of social science become the globally hegemonic ones in the second half of the twentieth century.","PeriodicalId":45551,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cold War Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cold War Liberation: The Soviet Union and the Collapse of the Portuguese Empire in Africa, 1961–1975 by Natalia Telepneva\",\"authors\":\"Matt Mulhern\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jcws_r_01131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"dimension of U.S. global hegemony and political ambitions in the context of the Cold War, as Nicolas Dirks and I recently explained in The Cambridge History of America and the World, vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Still, the authors are right to point out that the significance of U.S.-led or sponsored work often changed when it moved across national borders and into dialogue with local political and social scientific research contexts. Many U.S. social scientists were themselves well aware of this, often producing their work in partnership with local social scientists who were not just passive recipients of American social science but would instead actively shape the thinking of their U.S. partners—as was the case with the anthropologist Charles Wagley, who collaborated closely with Brazilian colleagues in developing his ideas (as Sebastian Gil-Riaño’s contribution suggests). Conversely, ideas that emerged out of a disciplinary or local political context that might have little per se to do with the Cold War could, upon traveling across borders, become enrolled in Cold War disputes, as was the case with dependency theory, which began as a debate within the Latin American left over industrialization strategies, but which upon arrival in the United States was deployed primarily as a counter–Cold War social scientific critique of modernization theory (as Margarita Fajardo’s contribution explains). A particular strength of the volume is its clear focus on the importance of UNESCO as an early Cold War–era institution for promoting social scientific inquiry worldwide. Several essays in the volume mention UNESCO’s role as a vehicle for funding the production and transmission of social scientific knowledge, but Per Wisselgren’s piece in particular highlights how the vision of social science promoted by UNESCO during its first decade was in fact at odds with the kind of social science that became hegemonic in the American academy during the 1950s and 1960s. Under the leadership of Alva Myrdal, UNESCO’s Social Science Department promoted methods and forms of social science whose normative baseline was not the promotion of liberal democratic capitalism but the development of world government, international peace, and “One Worldism.” An intriguing question left by this volume is how global social science might have unfolded differently had UNESCO rather than U.S. government-aligned visions of social science become the globally hegemonic ones in the second half of the twentieth century.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cold War Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cold War Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01131\",\"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":"Journal of Cold War Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01131","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

正如尼古拉斯·德克斯和我最近在《剑桥美国和世界历史》第4卷(剑桥大学出版社,2021年)中所解释的那样,冷战背景下美国全球霸权和政治野心的维度。然而,作者正确地指出,当美国领导或赞助的研究跨越国界,与当地政治和社会科学研究背景进行对话时,其意义往往会发生变化。许多美国社会科学家自己也很清楚这一点,他们经常与当地的社会科学家合作完成他们的工作,这些社会科学家不仅是美国社会科学的被动接受者,而且会积极地塑造他们美国合作伙伴的思想——就像人类学家查尔斯·瓦格利(Charles Wagley)的例子一样,他与巴西同事密切合作,发展了他的想法(正如塞巴斯蒂安Gil-Riaño的贡献所表明的那样)。相反,从学科或地方政治背景中产生的思想本身可能与冷战没有什么关系,在跨越国界时,可能会成为冷战争端的一部分,就像依赖理论一样,它始于拉丁美洲遗留工业化战略的辩论,但在抵达美国后,它主要被用作对现代化理论的反冷战社会科学批判(正如玛格丽塔·法哈多的贡献所解释的那样)。本书的一个特别优点是它明确强调教科文组织作为冷战时期早期促进全球社会科学探究的机构的重要性。这本书中的几篇文章提到了联合国教科文组织作为资助社会科学知识的生产和传播的工具的作用,但是Per Wisselgren的文章特别强调了联合国教科文组织在其第一个十年中所倡导的社会科学愿景实际上与20世纪50年代和60年代在美国学术界占据主导地位的那种社会科学不一致。在阿尔瓦·默达尔的领导下,联合国教科文组织社会科学部推广了社会科学的方法和形式,其规范基准不是促进自由民主资本主义,而是发展世界政府、国际和平和“一个世界主义”。这本书留下的一个有趣的问题是,如果联合国教科文组织而不是美国政府支持的社会科学愿景在20世纪下半叶成为全球霸权,全球社会科学的发展可能会有怎样的不同。
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
Cold War Liberation: The Soviet Union and the Collapse of the Portuguese Empire in Africa, 1961–1975 by Natalia Telepneva
dimension of U.S. global hegemony and political ambitions in the context of the Cold War, as Nicolas Dirks and I recently explained in The Cambridge History of America and the World, vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Still, the authors are right to point out that the significance of U.S.-led or sponsored work often changed when it moved across national borders and into dialogue with local political and social scientific research contexts. Many U.S. social scientists were themselves well aware of this, often producing their work in partnership with local social scientists who were not just passive recipients of American social science but would instead actively shape the thinking of their U.S. partners—as was the case with the anthropologist Charles Wagley, who collaborated closely with Brazilian colleagues in developing his ideas (as Sebastian Gil-Riaño’s contribution suggests). Conversely, ideas that emerged out of a disciplinary or local political context that might have little per se to do with the Cold War could, upon traveling across borders, become enrolled in Cold War disputes, as was the case with dependency theory, which began as a debate within the Latin American left over industrialization strategies, but which upon arrival in the United States was deployed primarily as a counter–Cold War social scientific critique of modernization theory (as Margarita Fajardo’s contribution explains). A particular strength of the volume is its clear focus on the importance of UNESCO as an early Cold War–era institution for promoting social scientific inquiry worldwide. Several essays in the volume mention UNESCO’s role as a vehicle for funding the production and transmission of social scientific knowledge, but Per Wisselgren’s piece in particular highlights how the vision of social science promoted by UNESCO during its first decade was in fact at odds with the kind of social science that became hegemonic in the American academy during the 1950s and 1960s. Under the leadership of Alva Myrdal, UNESCO’s Social Science Department promoted methods and forms of social science whose normative baseline was not the promotion of liberal democratic capitalism but the development of world government, international peace, and “One Worldism.” An intriguing question left by this volume is how global social science might have unfolded differently had UNESCO rather than U.S. government-aligned visions of social science become the globally hegemonic ones in the second half of the twentieth century.
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
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
The Liar: How a Double Agent in the CIA Became the Cold War's Last Honest Man by Benjamin Cunningham Beatriz Allende: A Revolutionary Life in Cold War Latin America by Tanya Harmer The Nonconformists: American and Czech Writers across the Iron Curtain by Brian K. Goodman Beginning of Winter: The George H.W. Bush Administration, the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, and the Emergence of the Post–Cold War World The Autobahn Crises of 1963: The U.S. Military and the Last Major Cold War Showdowns over Berlin
×
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