{"title":"Critical Global Studies and Planetary History: New Perspectives on the Enlightenment","authors":"Iwan-Michelangelo D'Aprile","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Though doing so invites methodological problems, the concept of ‘ the Enlightenment ’ is nevertheless in need of widening: it can no longer be reduced to any one historical period; nor can it be restricted to Europe. As a process of rationalization, scientification, technification, secularization, or democratiza-tion, forms of Enlightenment can be identified in many periods and regions. I wish to argue here that an expanded meaning opens up opportunities for an enhanced and interdisciplinary Enlightenment research. On the basis of two recent approaches to the Enlightenment — by Felicity A. Nussbaum and Dipesh Chakrabarty — I will try to show the interdependency of period and process notions, and ponder the ways in which they inform one another. A combined reading of both approaches shows how they might serve as models for a specific form of interdisciplinary global history in the heritage of the Enlightenment.","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Globalization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
: Though doing so invites methodological problems, the concept of ‘ the Enlightenment ’ is nevertheless in need of widening: it can no longer be reduced to any one historical period; nor can it be restricted to Europe. As a process of rationalization, scientification, technification, secularization, or democratiza-tion, forms of Enlightenment can be identified in many periods and regions. I wish to argue here that an expanded meaning opens up opportunities for an enhanced and interdisciplinary Enlightenment research. On the basis of two recent approaches to the Enlightenment — by Felicity A. Nussbaum and Dipesh Chakrabarty — I will try to show the interdependency of period and process notions, and ponder the ways in which they inform one another. A combined reading of both approaches shows how they might serve as models for a specific form of interdisciplinary global history in the heritage of the Enlightenment.
虽然这样做会引起方法论上的问题,但“启蒙运动”的概念仍然需要扩大:它不能再被缩小到任何一个历史时期;也不能局限于欧洲。作为一个理性化、科学化、技术化、世俗化或民主化的过程,启蒙运动的形式可以在许多时期和地区被识别出来。我想在此指出,扩大的意义为加强和跨学科的启蒙研究开辟了机会。基于费利西蒂·a·努斯鲍姆(Felicity A. Nussbaum)和迪佩什·查克拉巴蒂(Dipesh Chakrabarty)最近对启蒙运动的两种研究方法,我将尝试展示时期和过程概念的相互依赖性,并思考它们相互联系的方式。对这两种方法的综合解读表明,它们如何可以作为启蒙运动遗产中跨学科全球历史的特定形式的模型。