{"title":"怪物","authors":"Y. Vanderhaeghen","doi":"10.1056/nejm183310300091202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the 12th-century representations of the ‘‘Monstrous Races’’ to the serial killer Ted Bundy and the mass murderer Anders Breivik, Alexa Wright explores the transition from morphological to behavioral monstrosity in human history. In this she follows Michel Foucault’s thinking in The Abnormal series of lectures of 1974–75 and his exploration of Otherness in his 1978 lecture ‘‘The Dangerous Individual.’’ Wright’s concern is with how a narrative of monstrosity is imposed on certain appearances and behaviors, and how it changes over time and social contexts. She bases her understanding of her subject on the etymological root of ‘‘monster,’’ ‘‘monstrosity’’ and ‘‘monstrousness’’ (whose meanings are not interchangeable) as the Latin monstrare, which means both ‘‘to show’’ and ‘‘to warn.’’ The monstrous is seen as the inverse of what is human, the warning sign at the edge of human identity before it transgresses the boundary of the amoral and unhuman. Monstrosity is the narrative imposed on a corporeal irregularity, and the monster is the subject in which these two come together. Monstrosity is not therefore a history of monsters, but an engagement with monstrosity as a visual phenomenon. In the case of the Monstrous Races and the 16th-century Monster of Ravenna, the monsters were deemed to be of this world, their representations constructed out of imagined unknown beings that were part human, part animal, the product of crossing natural boundaries, and so both warnings and indicators of social norms and disruptions. Wright takes issue with Georges Canguilhem’s proposal that the monstrous started being dismantled in the 18th century by science, and that it became tamed as a curiosity in, for example, the spectacle of freak shows [cf. Visual Anthropology, 7(2): 163–165]. It is in this period, after all, that physiognomy developed as a science that aimed to prove that there was such a thing as a criminal character and that this was manifest in the features of an individual. Against this, Wright juxtaposes the case of the ‘‘Elephant Man,’’ Joseph Merrick, whose repulsive physical deformity cloaked a figure of romance in popular society, suggesting that the transition away from equating moral monstrosity with morphological deviation was well underway. Too narrow a reading of this would not be able to account for the later flowering of eugenics, Nazism, or indeed apartheid. Visual Anthropology, 28: 458–459, 2015 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2015.1086219","PeriodicalId":74971,"journal":{"name":"The Buffalo medical journal and monthly review of medical and surgical science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1855-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monstrosity\",\"authors\":\"Y. Vanderhaeghen\",\"doi\":\"10.1056/nejm183310300091202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From the 12th-century representations of the ‘‘Monstrous Races’’ to the serial killer Ted Bundy and the mass murderer Anders Breivik, Alexa Wright explores the transition from morphological to behavioral monstrosity in human history. In this she follows Michel Foucault’s thinking in The Abnormal series of lectures of 1974–75 and his exploration of Otherness in his 1978 lecture ‘‘The Dangerous Individual.’’ Wright’s concern is with how a narrative of monstrosity is imposed on certain appearances and behaviors, and how it changes over time and social contexts. She bases her understanding of her subject on the etymological root of ‘‘monster,’’ ‘‘monstrosity’’ and ‘‘monstrousness’’ (whose meanings are not interchangeable) as the Latin monstrare, which means both ‘‘to show’’ and ‘‘to warn.’’ The monstrous is seen as the inverse of what is human, the warning sign at the edge of human identity before it transgresses the boundary of the amoral and unhuman. Monstrosity is the narrative imposed on a corporeal irregularity, and the monster is the subject in which these two come together. Monstrosity is not therefore a history of monsters, but an engagement with monstrosity as a visual phenomenon. In the case of the Monstrous Races and the 16th-century Monster of Ravenna, the monsters were deemed to be of this world, their representations constructed out of imagined unknown beings that were part human, part animal, the product of crossing natural boundaries, and so both warnings and indicators of social norms and disruptions. Wright takes issue with Georges Canguilhem’s proposal that the monstrous started being dismantled in the 18th century by science, and that it became tamed as a curiosity in, for example, the spectacle of freak shows [cf. Visual Anthropology, 7(2): 163–165]. It is in this period, after all, that physiognomy developed as a science that aimed to prove that there was such a thing as a criminal character and that this was manifest in the features of an individual. Against this, Wright juxtaposes the case of the ‘‘Elephant Man,’’ Joseph Merrick, whose repulsive physical deformity cloaked a figure of romance in popular society, suggesting that the transition away from equating moral monstrosity with morphological deviation was well underway. Too narrow a reading of this would not be able to account for the later flowering of eugenics, Nazism, or indeed apartheid. Visual Anthropology, 28: 458–459, 2015 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2015.1086219\",\"PeriodicalId\":74971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Buffalo medical journal and monthly review of medical and surgical science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1855-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Buffalo medical journal and monthly review of medical and surgical science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm183310300091202\",\"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 Buffalo medical journal and monthly review of medical and surgical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm183310300091202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

从12世纪的“怪物种族”到连环杀手泰德·邦迪和大屠杀凶手安德斯·布雷维克,亚历克萨·赖特探索了人类历史上从形态到行为的怪物转变。在这一点上,她遵循了米歇尔·福柯在1974 - 1975年的《变态》系列讲座中的思想,以及他在1978年的演讲《危险的个体》中对他者的探索。赖特关注的是如何将怪物的叙述强加于某些外表和行为,以及它如何随着时间和社会背景而变化。她对她的主题的理解基于“怪物”、“怪物”和“怪物”(它们的意思是不可互换的)的词源,就像拉丁语中的monstrare,意思是“显示”和“警告”。“怪物被视为人性的反面,是人类身份边缘的警告标志,在它超越不道德和非人类的界限之前。”怪物是一种强加于不规则物质上的叙事,怪物是这两者结合的主题。因此,《怪物》并不是一部关于怪物的历史,而是将怪物作为一种视觉现象进行探讨。在怪物种族和16世纪拉文纳怪物的例子中,怪物被认为是这个世界的,他们的代表是想象中的未知生物,一部分是人,一部分是动物,是跨越自然边界的产物,既是社会规范和混乱的警告和指示。george Canguilhem认为,怪物在18世纪开始被科学所摧毁,并且在怪异表演的奇观中被驯服为一种好奇心[参见视觉人类学,7(2):163-165]。毕竟,正是在这一时期,相面学发展成为一门科学,旨在证明存在着犯罪的性格,这在个人的特征中是显而易见的。与此相反,赖特将“象人”约瑟夫·梅里克(Joseph Merrick)的例子放在一起,他令人厌恶的身体畸形掩盖了大众社会中的浪漫形象,这表明,将道德怪物等同于形态偏差的转变正在顺利进行。过于狭隘的解读将无法解释后来优生学、纳粹主义或种族隔离的盛行。视觉人类学,28:458-459,2015版权所有# Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2015.1086219
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
Monstrosity
From the 12th-century representations of the ‘‘Monstrous Races’’ to the serial killer Ted Bundy and the mass murderer Anders Breivik, Alexa Wright explores the transition from morphological to behavioral monstrosity in human history. In this she follows Michel Foucault’s thinking in The Abnormal series of lectures of 1974–75 and his exploration of Otherness in his 1978 lecture ‘‘The Dangerous Individual.’’ Wright’s concern is with how a narrative of monstrosity is imposed on certain appearances and behaviors, and how it changes over time and social contexts. She bases her understanding of her subject on the etymological root of ‘‘monster,’’ ‘‘monstrosity’’ and ‘‘monstrousness’’ (whose meanings are not interchangeable) as the Latin monstrare, which means both ‘‘to show’’ and ‘‘to warn.’’ The monstrous is seen as the inverse of what is human, the warning sign at the edge of human identity before it transgresses the boundary of the amoral and unhuman. Monstrosity is the narrative imposed on a corporeal irregularity, and the monster is the subject in which these two come together. Monstrosity is not therefore a history of monsters, but an engagement with monstrosity as a visual phenomenon. In the case of the Monstrous Races and the 16th-century Monster of Ravenna, the monsters were deemed to be of this world, their representations constructed out of imagined unknown beings that were part human, part animal, the product of crossing natural boundaries, and so both warnings and indicators of social norms and disruptions. Wright takes issue with Georges Canguilhem’s proposal that the monstrous started being dismantled in the 18th century by science, and that it became tamed as a curiosity in, for example, the spectacle of freak shows [cf. Visual Anthropology, 7(2): 163–165]. It is in this period, after all, that physiognomy developed as a science that aimed to prove that there was such a thing as a criminal character and that this was manifest in the features of an individual. Against this, Wright juxtaposes the case of the ‘‘Elephant Man,’’ Joseph Merrick, whose repulsive physical deformity cloaked a figure of romance in popular society, suggesting that the transition away from equating moral monstrosity with morphological deviation was well underway. Too narrow a reading of this would not be able to account for the later flowering of eugenics, Nazism, or indeed apartheid. Visual Anthropology, 28: 458–459, 2015 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2015.1086219
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Varicocele. A Case of Spontaneous Hydrophobia The Mammoth Cave Varicocele Letter from Prof. Flint.
×
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