论批判的希望与非人类中心话语中的人类。关于人类世考古学的几点思考

IF 1.4 1区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY Archaeological Dialogues Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1017/S1380203821000192
Piraye Hacıgüzeller
{"title":"论批判的希望与非人类中心话语中的人类。关于人类世考古学的几点思考","authors":"Piraye Hacıgüzeller","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"163 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene\",\"authors\":\"Piraye Hacıgüzeller\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1380203821000192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological Dialogues\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"163 - 170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological Dialogues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000192\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological Dialogues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000192","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在这篇文章中,我仔细研究了社会科学和人文科学对人类世的叙述和批评所使用的非人类中心主义话语。虽然在学术人类世辩论中并不总是占主导地位,但这种论述在政治和伦理上仍然鼓舞人心,并对有关该时代的公共话语产生影响。我强调,这些话语继承了法兰克福学派批判理论特征的人类进步的希望,即“批判性希望”,一种使非人类中心主义话语自相矛盾的希望。我认为,即使这些话语设法摆脱了批判性希望的束缚,它们也会因为固有的缺乏对人际关系的关注和很大程度上的非历史性而遭受伦理和政治上的失败。最后,我主张人类世考古学对非人类中心观点的伦理和政治缺陷保持批判和学习,并呼吁对人类世进行缓慢的考古学研究。
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
On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene
Abstract In this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.
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
3.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Archaeology is undergoing rapid changes in terms of its conceptual framework and its place in contemporary society. In this challenging intellectual climate, Archaeological Dialogues has become one of the leading journals for debating innovative issues in archaeology. Firmly rooted in European archaeology, it now serves the international academic community for discussing the theories and practices of archaeology today. True to its name, debate takes a central place in Archaeological Dialogues.
期刊最新文献
How far does culture go? A study on creative object biographies. Can creative arts be a medium for understanding object–human interaction? Narratives of inequality. Towards an archaeology of structural violence in Late Iron Age Scandinavia Finding the fun: Towards a playful archaeology Archaeologists just wanna have fun
×
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