Border作为方法

PRISM Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.1215/25783491-7978539
Shuang Shen
{"title":"Border作为方法","authors":"Shuang Shen","doi":"10.1215/25783491-7978539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current state of Chinese literary studies is undergoing a process of re(b)ordering where the nation-state is no longer seen as the only acceptable framing for Chinese literature, and existing identificatory markers of Chinese literature—locality, language, ethnicity—are subject to radical rethinking. This article proposes a paradigm of border as method for Chinese literary studies, following the lead of Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson's volume by the same title. Border as method refers to a reflexive glance at the cognitive bordering that we as knowledge producers cannot avoid practicing as we set out to define our object of study or outline a polemic or paradigm. It invites questions such as, What sociological facts of compartmentalized space does the study of Chinese literature yield? If we follow the space making capacity of literature, would we take note of other trajectories of connectivity and relationality and produce alternative configurations of literary assemblage? How does the delineated space of Chinese literature engage with the unevenness and differentiation of Asia and the world? This method manifests as a constructionist engagement with Chinese literature and literary history. It also proposes a cultural geography fundamentally different from the conventional center vs. periphery model. In this new mapping, a borderscape defined in terms of a site or locality, a period, or a variety of other ways could become the de facto center that plays a definitive role in shaping the dynamics and critical terms of Chinese literature and culture as a whole.","PeriodicalId":33692,"journal":{"name":"PRISM","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Border as Method\",\"authors\":\"Shuang Shen\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/25783491-7978539\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current state of Chinese literary studies is undergoing a process of re(b)ordering where the nation-state is no longer seen as the only acceptable framing for Chinese literature, and existing identificatory markers of Chinese literature—locality, language, ethnicity—are subject to radical rethinking. This article proposes a paradigm of border as method for Chinese literary studies, following the lead of Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson's volume by the same title. Border as method refers to a reflexive glance at the cognitive bordering that we as knowledge producers cannot avoid practicing as we set out to define our object of study or outline a polemic or paradigm. It invites questions such as, What sociological facts of compartmentalized space does the study of Chinese literature yield? If we follow the space making capacity of literature, would we take note of other trajectories of connectivity and relationality and produce alternative configurations of literary assemblage? How does the delineated space of Chinese literature engage with the unevenness and differentiation of Asia and the world? This method manifests as a constructionist engagement with Chinese literature and literary history. It also proposes a cultural geography fundamentally different from the conventional center vs. periphery model. In this new mapping, a borderscape defined in terms of a site or locality, a period, or a variety of other ways could become the de facto center that plays a definitive role in shaping the dynamics and critical terms of Chinese literature and culture as a whole.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PRISM\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PRISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/25783491-7978539\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/25783491-7978539","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

中国文学研究的现状正在经历一个重新排序的过程,民族国家不再被视为中国文学的唯一可接受的框架,中国文学现有的身份标记-地方,语言,种族-受到彻底的重新思考。本文在梅扎德拉和尼尔森的同名著作的指导下,提出了一种边界范式作为中国文学研究的方法。边界作为方法指的是对认知边界的反射性一瞥,作为知识生产者的我们在开始定义我们的研究对象或概述争论或范式时无法避免实践。它引发了这样的问题:中国文学研究产生了哪些划分空间的社会学事实?如果我们遵循文学的空间制造能力,我们是否会注意到其他连通性和相关性的轨迹,并产生文学组合的替代配置?中国文学所描绘的空间是如何与亚洲和世界的不平衡和分化联系在一起的?这种方法表现为对中国文学和文学史的建构主义参与。它还提出了一种与传统的中心与边缘模式根本不同的文化地理学。在这种新的地图中,以地点或地点、时期或各种其他方式定义的边界景观可能成为事实上的中心,在塑造中国文学和文化整体的动态和关键术语方面发挥决定性作用。
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
Border as Method
The current state of Chinese literary studies is undergoing a process of re(b)ordering where the nation-state is no longer seen as the only acceptable framing for Chinese literature, and existing identificatory markers of Chinese literature—locality, language, ethnicity—are subject to radical rethinking. This article proposes a paradigm of border as method for Chinese literary studies, following the lead of Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson's volume by the same title. Border as method refers to a reflexive glance at the cognitive bordering that we as knowledge producers cannot avoid practicing as we set out to define our object of study or outline a polemic or paradigm. It invites questions such as, What sociological facts of compartmentalized space does the study of Chinese literature yield? If we follow the space making capacity of literature, would we take note of other trajectories of connectivity and relationality and produce alternative configurations of literary assemblage? How does the delineated space of Chinese literature engage with the unevenness and differentiation of Asia and the world? This method manifests as a constructionist engagement with Chinese literature and literary history. It also proposes a cultural geography fundamentally different from the conventional center vs. periphery model. In this new mapping, a borderscape defined in terms of a site or locality, a period, or a variety of other ways could become the de facto center that plays a definitive role in shaping the dynamics and critical terms of Chinese literature and culture as a whole.
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
PRISM
PRISM Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Chapter Seven: Art and Labor in Han Song's Regenerated Bricks Chapter One: Confucianism and Nature Chapter Eight: Toxic Colonialism, Alienation, and Posthuman Dystopia in Chen Qiufan Chapter Ten: Critical Ecotopia in Hao Jingfang's Vagabonds Chapter Four: We Are the Dragon King
×
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