{"title":"我们不做巴比伦:英语政治话语中的艾琳·罗斯","authors":"J. Crossley","doi":"10.2104/BCT.V11I2.623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are several reasons why Erin Runions’ new book is important. For what it might be worth, I find myself in strong agreement with her anarchic reflections on authority, power and radical equality. In terms of the field, The Babylon Complex is a model of what biblical studies can be: it is both unashamedly from biblical studies but it also shows how biblical studies can contribute seriously to wider debates in the humanities, cultural studies and politics. In terms of the frame of reference, it is a significant contribution to the growth area of the role of the Bible in contemporary political discourses. Runions convincingly shows how the fluid and often ambiguous image of Babylon in American politics and culture is pervasive and is found in present debates about national sovereignty, hierarchy, wars, free markets, (theo-)democracy, family values, sexuality, biopolitics, and so on. What was particularly striking to me was that her general results about the Bible in American politics and culture are similar to what has been happening in my own area of research: the Bible in English politics and culture (Crossley 2014; 2015). Some emphases are obviously more prominent and polemical in American mainstream political discourses than British or English ones (e.g. explicit fears about sexuality). Nevertheless, the idea that the Bible functions as a higher authority is, as we will see, precisely what has been happening contemporaneously in English politics. One particularly important insight, which almost inevitably cuts across both contexts like a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is the idea that transcendence functions as sovereign authority in the absence of such authority when the market is prioritized. In particular, Runions shows how this effectively has to be the case “if the United States wants to continue to lay an ideological claim to world power, and if lines of privilege are to be protected against the tyranny of too much equality (i.e. revolt).” Runions adds:","PeriodicalId":53382,"journal":{"name":"The Bible and Critical Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"We Don't Do Babylon: Erin Runions in English Political Discourse\",\"authors\":\"J. Crossley\",\"doi\":\"10.2104/BCT.V11I2.623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are several reasons why Erin Runions’ new book is important. For what it might be worth, I find myself in strong agreement with her anarchic reflections on authority, power and radical equality. In terms of the field, The Babylon Complex is a model of what biblical studies can be: it is both unashamedly from biblical studies but it also shows how biblical studies can contribute seriously to wider debates in the humanities, cultural studies and politics. In terms of the frame of reference, it is a significant contribution to the growth area of the role of the Bible in contemporary political discourses. Runions convincingly shows how the fluid and often ambiguous image of Babylon in American politics and culture is pervasive and is found in present debates about national sovereignty, hierarchy, wars, free markets, (theo-)democracy, family values, sexuality, biopolitics, and so on. What was particularly striking to me was that her general results about the Bible in American politics and culture are similar to what has been happening in my own area of research: the Bible in English politics and culture (Crossley 2014; 2015). Some emphases are obviously more prominent and polemical in American mainstream political discourses than British or English ones (e.g. explicit fears about sexuality). Nevertheless, the idea that the Bible functions as a higher authority is, as we will see, precisely what has been happening contemporaneously in English politics. One particularly important insight, which almost inevitably cuts across both contexts like a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is the idea that transcendence functions as sovereign authority in the absence of such authority when the market is prioritized. In particular, Runions shows how this effectively has to be the case “if the United States wants to continue to lay an ideological claim to world power, and if lines of privilege are to be protected against the tyranny of too much equality (i.e. revolt).” Runions adds:\",\"PeriodicalId\":53382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bible and Critical Theory\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bible and Critical Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2104/BCT.V11I2.623\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bible and Critical Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2104/BCT.V11I2.623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
艾琳•罗斯的新书之所以重要,有几个原因。不管它是否值得,我发现自己非常赞同她对权威、权力和激进平等的无政府主义思考。就这个领域而言,《巴比伦情结》是圣经研究的典范:它既毫不羞耻地来自圣经研究,又表明圣经研究如何能对人文、文化研究和政治领域的广泛辩论做出重大贡献。就参考框架而言,它对圣经在当代政治话语中角色的增长领域做出了重大贡献。《联合》令人信服地表明,在美国政治和文化中,流动的、往往模棱两可的巴比伦形象是如何普遍存在的,在当前关于国家主权、等级制度、战争、自由市场、(西)民主、家庭价值观、性、生命政治等问题的辩论中也能找到这种形象。尤其令我吃惊的是,她关于圣经在美国政治和文化中的作用的总体研究结果与我自己的研究领域——英国政治和文化中的圣经——所发生的情况相似(克罗斯利,2014;2015)。在美国主流政治话语中,有些重点显然比英国或英国的主流政治话语更突出,更有争议性(例如,对性的明确恐惧)。然而,《圣经》作为一种更高权威的观点,正如我们将看到的,正是当时英国政治中所发生的。一个特别重要的洞见几乎不可避免地贯穿了《跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴关系协定》(Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)等两种背景,即当市场处于优先地位时,在缺乏这种权威的情况下,超越作为主权权威发挥作用。特别是,《联盟》表明,“如果美国想继续对世界强国提出意识形态上的要求,如果特权线要受到保护,免受过度平等的暴政(即反抗),”这种情况是如何有效地实现的。Runions补充道:
We Don't Do Babylon: Erin Runions in English Political Discourse
There are several reasons why Erin Runions’ new book is important. For what it might be worth, I find myself in strong agreement with her anarchic reflections on authority, power and radical equality. In terms of the field, The Babylon Complex is a model of what biblical studies can be: it is both unashamedly from biblical studies but it also shows how biblical studies can contribute seriously to wider debates in the humanities, cultural studies and politics. In terms of the frame of reference, it is a significant contribution to the growth area of the role of the Bible in contemporary political discourses. Runions convincingly shows how the fluid and often ambiguous image of Babylon in American politics and culture is pervasive and is found in present debates about national sovereignty, hierarchy, wars, free markets, (theo-)democracy, family values, sexuality, biopolitics, and so on. What was particularly striking to me was that her general results about the Bible in American politics and culture are similar to what has been happening in my own area of research: the Bible in English politics and culture (Crossley 2014; 2015). Some emphases are obviously more prominent and polemical in American mainstream political discourses than British or English ones (e.g. explicit fears about sexuality). Nevertheless, the idea that the Bible functions as a higher authority is, as we will see, precisely what has been happening contemporaneously in English politics. One particularly important insight, which almost inevitably cuts across both contexts like a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is the idea that transcendence functions as sovereign authority in the absence of such authority when the market is prioritized. In particular, Runions shows how this effectively has to be the case “if the United States wants to continue to lay an ideological claim to world power, and if lines of privilege are to be protected against the tyranny of too much equality (i.e. revolt).” Runions adds: