{"title":"《可能性的父母:自由主义终结的故事》作者:玛格丽特·西福德·赫雷佐、尼古拉斯·帕帕斯","authors":"Lasse Winther Jensen","doi":"10.1353/pan.2022.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our still fresh decade has quickly come to be defined by cultural upheaval, political turmoil, and societal rupture of, indeed, pandemic proportions. This pervasive state of flux and crisis underscores the calls for ideological reconfigurations presented in Possibility’s Parents, which is also to say that the publication of this book is nothing if not timely. Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas waste no time announcing that their work is an ambitious and academically idiosyncratic response to an age of crisis. The first line of the preface reads: “This book’s approach to the human search for communal order is unusual” (xi). Both authors are emeritus professors of political science, but Possibility’s Parents aims to use analyses of works of literature to suggest a full-scale alternative to the tradition of classical Western liberalism from Locke to these days, which Hrezo and Pappas deem “no longer viable,” so that “political philosophy must begin searching for new possibilities in answering the questions posed by human existence” (xi). The book is first and foremost unusual in the sense that it explicitly situates itself against certain academic norms, or what the authors see as a lack of accessibility and “overspecialization” that characterizes the field of political science. The need to ameliorate this alienation between theorists and a less specialized audience of readers is presented in the preface as the reason for the book’s deployment of literature as its prism for fleshing out ideas that are more often encountered within the realm of political philosophy. Furthermore, a glossary is appended “to help with unfamiliar terms” used throughout the book (x). Another rather unusual device used in the book’s attempt to further the general relatability of its subject matter is the choice to set off each chapter with a question posed by a grandson of one of the authors — questions such as, “Do you believe in magic?” and “What do you think happens to people when they die?” Yet, contrary to the helpful and commendable pedagogical enhancements provided by the glossary and the preface, this structural device does not add anything substantial to the book’s approach. In their quest for new ways of answering the questions posed by human existence, the authors erect a philosophical and terminological scaffolding that is lucidly explained in the book’s first chapter. The identification of Western lib-","PeriodicalId":42435,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"1 1","pages":"183 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Possibility's Parents: Stories at the End of Liberalism by Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas (review)\",\"authors\":\"Lasse Winther Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pan.2022.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our still fresh decade has quickly come to be defined by cultural upheaval, political turmoil, and societal rupture of, indeed, pandemic proportions. This pervasive state of flux and crisis underscores the calls for ideological reconfigurations presented in Possibility’s Parents, which is also to say that the publication of this book is nothing if not timely. Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas waste no time announcing that their work is an ambitious and academically idiosyncratic response to an age of crisis. The first line of the preface reads: “This book’s approach to the human search for communal order is unusual” (xi). Both authors are emeritus professors of political science, but Possibility’s Parents aims to use analyses of works of literature to suggest a full-scale alternative to the tradition of classical Western liberalism from Locke to these days, which Hrezo and Pappas deem “no longer viable,” so that “political philosophy must begin searching for new possibilities in answering the questions posed by human existence” (xi). The book is first and foremost unusual in the sense that it explicitly situates itself against certain academic norms, or what the authors see as a lack of accessibility and “overspecialization” that characterizes the field of political science. The need to ameliorate this alienation between theorists and a less specialized audience of readers is presented in the preface as the reason for the book’s deployment of literature as its prism for fleshing out ideas that are more often encountered within the realm of political philosophy. Furthermore, a glossary is appended “to help with unfamiliar terms” used throughout the book (x). Another rather unusual device used in the book’s attempt to further the general relatability of its subject matter is the choice to set off each chapter with a question posed by a grandson of one of the authors — questions such as, “Do you believe in magic?” and “What do you think happens to people when they die?” Yet, contrary to the helpful and commendable pedagogical enhancements provided by the glossary and the preface, this structural device does not add anything substantial to the book’s approach. In their quest for new ways of answering the questions posed by human existence, the authors erect a philosophical and terminological scaffolding that is lucidly explained in the book’s first chapter. The identification of Western lib-\",\"PeriodicalId\":42435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"183 - 186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2022.0008\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2022.0008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Possibility's Parents: Stories at the End of Liberalism by Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas (review)
Our still fresh decade has quickly come to be defined by cultural upheaval, political turmoil, and societal rupture of, indeed, pandemic proportions. This pervasive state of flux and crisis underscores the calls for ideological reconfigurations presented in Possibility’s Parents, which is also to say that the publication of this book is nothing if not timely. Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas waste no time announcing that their work is an ambitious and academically idiosyncratic response to an age of crisis. The first line of the preface reads: “This book’s approach to the human search for communal order is unusual” (xi). Both authors are emeritus professors of political science, but Possibility’s Parents aims to use analyses of works of literature to suggest a full-scale alternative to the tradition of classical Western liberalism from Locke to these days, which Hrezo and Pappas deem “no longer viable,” so that “political philosophy must begin searching for new possibilities in answering the questions posed by human existence” (xi). The book is first and foremost unusual in the sense that it explicitly situates itself against certain academic norms, or what the authors see as a lack of accessibility and “overspecialization” that characterizes the field of political science. The need to ameliorate this alienation between theorists and a less specialized audience of readers is presented in the preface as the reason for the book’s deployment of literature as its prism for fleshing out ideas that are more often encountered within the realm of political philosophy. Furthermore, a glossary is appended “to help with unfamiliar terms” used throughout the book (x). Another rather unusual device used in the book’s attempt to further the general relatability of its subject matter is the choice to set off each chapter with a question posed by a grandson of one of the authors — questions such as, “Do you believe in magic?” and “What do you think happens to people when they die?” Yet, contrary to the helpful and commendable pedagogical enhancements provided by the glossary and the preface, this structural device does not add anything substantial to the book’s approach. In their quest for new ways of answering the questions posed by human existence, the authors erect a philosophical and terminological scaffolding that is lucidly explained in the book’s first chapter. The identification of Western lib-
期刊介绍:
Partial Answers is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal that focuses on the study of literature and the history of ideas. This interdisciplinary component is responsible for combining analysis of literary works with discussions of historical and theoretical issues. The journal publishes articles on various national literatures including Anglophone, Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Russian, and, predominately, English literature. Partial Answers would appeal to literature scholars, teachers, and students in addition to scholars in philosophy, cultural studies, and intellectual history.