城市气候政治的“宇宙”是什么?

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Science and Technology Studies Pub Date : 2020-03-10 DOI:10.23987/STS.84500
A. Blok
{"title":"城市气候政治的“宇宙”是什么?","authors":"A. Blok","doi":"10.23987/STS.84500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While Bruno Latour's criticism of Ulrich Beck's cosmopolitanism helped set the stage 15 years ago for the highly productive research approach of cosmopolitics, including as concerns urban ecological politics, a nagging doubt remains that more blood was spilled than necessary in the exchange. In this short discussion piece, I re-stage the Latour-Beck debate as part of on-going inquiries into the more-than-human politics of climate adaptation in Copenhagen, exploring what exact senses of 'cosmos' might be helpful in making sense of this increasingly common-place situation. At issue, I suggest, is the question of what it means to say that ‘natures’, in the plural, are put at stake in such settings. Far from any synthesis, in turn, I conclude that scholars in STS and beyond might do well to extend a shared hesitation towards both sides of the debate - cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism - and thus take the opportunity to share unresolved conceptual tensions in the service of posing better problems.","PeriodicalId":45119,"journal":{"name":"Science and Technology Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics?\",\"authors\":\"A. Blok\",\"doi\":\"10.23987/STS.84500\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While Bruno Latour's criticism of Ulrich Beck's cosmopolitanism helped set the stage 15 years ago for the highly productive research approach of cosmopolitics, including as concerns urban ecological politics, a nagging doubt remains that more blood was spilled than necessary in the exchange. In this short discussion piece, I re-stage the Latour-Beck debate as part of on-going inquiries into the more-than-human politics of climate adaptation in Copenhagen, exploring what exact senses of 'cosmos' might be helpful in making sense of this increasingly common-place situation. At issue, I suggest, is the question of what it means to say that ‘natures’, in the plural, are put at stake in such settings. Far from any synthesis, in turn, I conclude that scholars in STS and beyond might do well to extend a shared hesitation towards both sides of the debate - cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism - and thus take the opportunity to share unresolved conceptual tensions in the service of posing better problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Technology Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Technology Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23987/STS.84500\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Technology Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23987/STS.84500","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然布鲁诺·拉图尔对乌尔里希·贝克世界主义的批评在15年前为卓有成效的世界政治研究方法(包括对城市生态政治的关注)奠定了基础,但一个令人困扰的疑问仍然存在,即在这种交流中,流血过多。在这篇简短的讨论文章中,我将拉图尔-贝克的辩论作为正在进行的关于哥本哈根气候适应的超越人类政治的调查的一部分,探索“宇宙”的确切含义可能有助于理解这种日益普遍的情况。我认为,问题在于,在这种情况下,“自然”的复数形式处于危险之中,这意味着什么。反过来,我的结论是,STS和其他领域的学者可能会很好地将共同的犹豫延伸到辩论的双方——世界政治,世界主义——从而抓住机会分享未解决的概念紧张关系,以提出更好的问题。
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
What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics?
While Bruno Latour's criticism of Ulrich Beck's cosmopolitanism helped set the stage 15 years ago for the highly productive research approach of cosmopolitics, including as concerns urban ecological politics, a nagging doubt remains that more blood was spilled than necessary in the exchange. In this short discussion piece, I re-stage the Latour-Beck debate as part of on-going inquiries into the more-than-human politics of climate adaptation in Copenhagen, exploring what exact senses of 'cosmos' might be helpful in making sense of this increasingly common-place situation. At issue, I suggest, is the question of what it means to say that ‘natures’, in the plural, are put at stake in such settings. Far from any synthesis, in turn, I conclude that scholars in STS and beyond might do well to extend a shared hesitation towards both sides of the debate - cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism - and thus take the opportunity to share unresolved conceptual tensions in the service of posing better problems.
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
Science and Technology Studies
Science and Technology Studies HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Facilitating the Movement of Knowledge in Occupational Health Services Elliott Anthony (2023) Algorithmic Intimacy. The Digital Revolution in Personal Relationships West Darrel M and Allen John R (2020) Turning Point: Policymaking in the Era of Artificial Intelligence “Should We Stay or Should We Go now?” Knox Hannah (2020) Thinking Like a Climate: Governing a City in Times of Environmental Change
×
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