权利和力量:近似的真理和道德判断

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Identities-Global Studies in Culture and Power Pub Date : 1998-06-01 DOI:10.1080/1070289X.1998.9962597
S. Reyna
{"title":"权利和力量:近似的真理和道德判断","authors":"S. Reyna","doi":"10.1080/1070289X.1998.9962597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explains why the community of scholars in the current conjuncture of the capitalist development of power experiences problems distinguishing between right and might and suggests a way of reducing such difficulties. It claims that the mightys’ operation of regimes of truth in conjunction with intellectuals’ adoption of postmodern sentiments erodes the ability to judge whether those with might have it right. This position is argued by considering a particular assertion of righteousness. The Indonesian and US mighty, as represented by Geertz, claimed that the Indonesian military's 1965–66 massacres were in self‐defense. “Causal moral analysis” is formulated as a method of assessing this claim.","PeriodicalId":47227,"journal":{"name":"Identities-Global Studies in Culture and Power","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"1998-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Right and might: of approximate truths and moral judgements\",\"authors\":\"S. Reyna\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1070289X.1998.9962597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explains why the community of scholars in the current conjuncture of the capitalist development of power experiences problems distinguishing between right and might and suggests a way of reducing such difficulties. It claims that the mightys’ operation of regimes of truth in conjunction with intellectuals’ adoption of postmodern sentiments erodes the ability to judge whether those with might have it right. This position is argued by considering a particular assertion of righteousness. The Indonesian and US mighty, as represented by Geertz, claimed that the Indonesian military's 1965–66 massacres were in self‐defense. “Causal moral analysis” is formulated as a method of assessing this claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Identities-Global Studies in Culture and Power\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Identities-Global Studies in Culture and Power\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.1998.9962597\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Identities-Global Studies in Culture and Power","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.1998.9962597","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本文解释了为什么在资本主义权力发展的当前关头,学者群体遇到了区分权利和力量的问题,并提出了一种减少这种困难的方法。它声称,强者对真理政权的运作,加上知识分子对后现代情绪的接纳,削弱了判断强者是否正确的能力。这个立场是通过考虑一个特定的正义主张来论证的。以格尔茨为代表的印尼和美国强权声称,印尼军队1965年至1966年的大屠杀是出于自卫。“因果道德分析”是作为评估这一主张的一种方法而制定的。
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
Right and might: of approximate truths and moral judgements
This article explains why the community of scholars in the current conjuncture of the capitalist development of power experiences problems distinguishing between right and might and suggests a way of reducing such difficulties. It claims that the mightys’ operation of regimes of truth in conjunction with intellectuals’ adoption of postmodern sentiments erodes the ability to judge whether those with might have it right. This position is argued by considering a particular assertion of righteousness. The Indonesian and US mighty, as represented by Geertz, claimed that the Indonesian military's 1965–66 massacres were in self‐defense. “Causal moral analysis” is formulated as a method of assessing this claim.
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
5.90%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Identities explores the relationship of racial, ethnic and national identities and power hierarchies within national and global arenas. It examines the collective representations of social, political, economic and cultural boundaries as aspects of processes of domination, struggle and resistance, and it probes the unidentified and unarticulated class structures and gender relations that remain integral to both maintaining and challenging subordination. Identities responds to the paradox of our time: the growth of a global economy and transnational movements of populations produce or perpetuate distinctive cultural practices and differentiated identities.
期刊最新文献
Essentialism and intersectionality in the selection and recruitment of staff: the devaluation of migrant women’s skills in France and Italy Caring for political memory: a response to my critics Contribution to symposium on Political Memory and the Aesthetics of Care: The Art of Complicity and Resistance Contribution to symposium on Political Memory and the Aesthetics of Care: The Art of Complicity and Resistance , By Mihaela Mihai, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2022, 295pp, £25.95, paperback. Remembering is caring (or: what is complicitous memory?) Book review of political memory and the aesthetics of care: the art of complicity and resistance , by Mihaela Mihai, Reviewed by Sakiru Adebayo, Stanford University Press, 2022, pp., 312. “We are here, but our hearts are in Haiti”: temporal and racialized emotive existences of ethnically identified Haitian Americans
×
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