On the Inconvenience of Other People by Lauren Berlant (review)

IF 0.3 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN
Ana Schwartz
{"title":"On the Inconvenience of Other People by Lauren Berlant (review)","authors":"Ana Schwartz","doi":"10.1353/eal.2024.a918924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>On the Inconvenience of Other People</em> by Lauren Berlant <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Ana Schwartz (bio) </li> </ul> <em>On the Inconvenience of Other People</em><br/> <small>lauren berlant</small><br/> Duke University Press, 2022<br/> 252 pp. <p>Where does history end and personality begin? This isn't exactly Lauren Berlant's question in <em>On the Inconvenience of Other People</em>. But for those of us reading from the field of early American studies, it's a question we may find occasion to return to, if we've asked it to ourselves quietly before. That we tend not to ask it explicitly in our work is, like our own individual personalities' tussles with history, not exactly our fault. Methodologically, our field indirectly still seems to be wrestling with its own historical foundation in hagiographic intellectual history, its prior ambition to vindicate the mind and its personal expressions against historical forces, to keep drawing, as Emerson expressively put it, new circles. The mood of this historiography is earnest. Everyone it narrates is sincere. There are few <strong>[End Page 204]</strong> protagonists here who aren't white. Since then, the field has reinvested in something like historical materialism, has begun seeking more comprehensively to recover the material conditions and their ideological consequences that together shaped the history we've inherited. We've widened our scope. \"Everyone\" now includes those not so richly documented in the sources earlier critics had used to write their accounts of the past. And because those underrepresented in the archive faced concomitant material predations and dispossessions, we often find it powerful to generalize about the mood and material expression of resistance that these individuals shared.</p> <p>The challenge here, though—and it's one we're beginning to take on better in the twenty-first century—is to begin to understand historical individuals experientially, to appreciate better the contours of their lived histories within those unchosen conditions. The answers may not always be pleasant. The parties we have spent our lives understanding may turn out to be less individually heroic than we have wanted to believe them to be. And where, to extend my lease on Sharon Marcus and Stephen Best's most searing critique of our desires in historicist recovery projects, would be the heroism for us in that? This is a rhetorical question, mostly, but it's also a screen for an earnest inquiry. The place where history ends and personality begins might also be the weird surprise-filled place where we see the leap beyond historical circumscription that, for some famous figures of the past, bound the otherwise unglamorous individual with partially circumstantial heroism. And there of course were many who didn't make that leap. There we might see better how hard such a leap was, and why some failed in making it. We might learn other things, too, that we don't expect. I learned to think about this question from Ajay Batra, who learned it, I think, from reading Cedric Robinson. But we can all learn to think about it from reading Berlant, who is a thrilling guide in pursuing this question, and this is so not least because of their commitment to the possibility that the most potent place to look for what we might, archly, call a frontier between personality and history is in the unheroic, itchy, sometimes devastating, but often just profoundly ambivalent episodes of quotidian life.</p> <p>Berlant's chapters are few: three plus an intro and a coda. They are also hard to read. They're tough in at least two regards. First, their sentences are extremely rich. This isn't exactly a surprise, but they're harder to read in this book than they were in <em>Cruel Optimism</em> (Duke UP, 2011). The sentences <strong>[End Page 205]</strong> often require testing, rereading backward, or cross-referencing pronouns over here with nouns over there. This is true for the short sentences as well as the long ones. Not all critics can write like this, and surely literary and cultural studies would decelerate profoundly if we all tried. Berlant explains the reason for this prose style in their introduction, and here is my best synthetic paraphrase: <em>Real life is full of seemingly ineffable nuance, nowhere more so than in the strangeness of other persons...</em></p> </p>","PeriodicalId":44043,"journal":{"name":"EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eal.2024.a918924","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

  • On the Inconvenience of Other People by Lauren Berlant
  • Ana Schwartz (bio)
On the Inconvenience of Other People
lauren berlant
Duke University Press, 2022
252 pp.

Where does history end and personality begin? This isn't exactly Lauren Berlant's question in On the Inconvenience of Other People. But for those of us reading from the field of early American studies, it's a question we may find occasion to return to, if we've asked it to ourselves quietly before. That we tend not to ask it explicitly in our work is, like our own individual personalities' tussles with history, not exactly our fault. Methodologically, our field indirectly still seems to be wrestling with its own historical foundation in hagiographic intellectual history, its prior ambition to vindicate the mind and its personal expressions against historical forces, to keep drawing, as Emerson expressively put it, new circles. The mood of this historiography is earnest. Everyone it narrates is sincere. There are few [End Page 204] protagonists here who aren't white. Since then, the field has reinvested in something like historical materialism, has begun seeking more comprehensively to recover the material conditions and their ideological consequences that together shaped the history we've inherited. We've widened our scope. "Everyone" now includes those not so richly documented in the sources earlier critics had used to write their accounts of the past. And because those underrepresented in the archive faced concomitant material predations and dispossessions, we often find it powerful to generalize about the mood and material expression of resistance that these individuals shared.

The challenge here, though—and it's one we're beginning to take on better in the twenty-first century—is to begin to understand historical individuals experientially, to appreciate better the contours of their lived histories within those unchosen conditions. The answers may not always be pleasant. The parties we have spent our lives understanding may turn out to be less individually heroic than we have wanted to believe them to be. And where, to extend my lease on Sharon Marcus and Stephen Best's most searing critique of our desires in historicist recovery projects, would be the heroism for us in that? This is a rhetorical question, mostly, but it's also a screen for an earnest inquiry. The place where history ends and personality begins might also be the weird surprise-filled place where we see the leap beyond historical circumscription that, for some famous figures of the past, bound the otherwise unglamorous individual with partially circumstantial heroism. And there of course were many who didn't make that leap. There we might see better how hard such a leap was, and why some failed in making it. We might learn other things, too, that we don't expect. I learned to think about this question from Ajay Batra, who learned it, I think, from reading Cedric Robinson. But we can all learn to think about it from reading Berlant, who is a thrilling guide in pursuing this question, and this is so not least because of their commitment to the possibility that the most potent place to look for what we might, archly, call a frontier between personality and history is in the unheroic, itchy, sometimes devastating, but often just profoundly ambivalent episodes of quotidian life.

Berlant's chapters are few: three plus an intro and a coda. They are also hard to read. They're tough in at least two regards. First, their sentences are extremely rich. This isn't exactly a surprise, but they're harder to read in this book than they were in Cruel Optimism (Duke UP, 2011). The sentences [End Page 205] often require testing, rereading backward, or cross-referencing pronouns over here with nouns over there. This is true for the short sentences as well as the long ones. Not all critics can write like this, and surely literary and cultural studies would decelerate profoundly if we all tried. Berlant explains the reason for this prose style in their introduction, and here is my best synthetic paraphrase: Real life is full of seemingly ineffable nuance, nowhere more so than in the strangeness of other persons...

劳伦-贝兰特的《论他人的不便》(评论)
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者 论他人的不便》 Lauren Berlant 著 安娜-施瓦茨(简历) 《论他人的不便》 Lauren Berlant 著 杜克大学出版社,2022 年,252 页。历史在哪里结束,个性在哪里开始?这并不是劳伦-贝兰特在《论他人的不便》一书中提出的问题。但对于我们这些早期美国研究领域的读者来说,如果我们曾经悄悄地问过自己这个问题,那么我们可能会有机会回到这个问题上来。我们往往不会在我们的工作中明确地提出这个问题,就像我们的个人性格与历史的纠葛一样,这并不完全是我们的错。从方法论上讲,我们的研究领域间接地似乎仍在与自己的历史基础--神化的思想史--搏斗,其先前的野心是为思想及其个人表达平反历史力量,正如爱默生所表达的那样,不断划出新的圈子。这种史学的情绪是认真的。它所叙述的每个人都是真诚的。这里的主人公很少 [第 204 页完] 不是白人。从那时起,这一领域重新投资于类似历史唯物主义的东西,开始更全面地寻求恢复共同塑造了我们所继承的历史的物质条件及其意识形态后果。我们扩大了研究范围。现在,"每个人 "都包括那些在早期批评家用来描述过去的资料中没有如此丰富记载的人。而且,由于那些在档案中代表性不足的人同时面临着物质掠夺和剥夺,我们常常发现,概括这些人共同的抵抗情绪和物质表现是非常有力的。不过,这里的挑战--也是我们在 21 世纪开始更好地应对的挑战--是开始从经验上理解历史上的个人,更好地理解他们在那些未被选择的条件下的生活史轮廓。答案可能并不总是令人愉快的。我们用毕生精力去理解的当事人,其个人英雄主义可能并不如我们所希望的那样。沙龙-马库斯(Sharon Marcus)和斯蒂芬-贝斯特(Stephen Best)对我们在历史主义复兴计划中的愿望进行了最尖锐的批判。这主要是一个反问句,但也是一个认真探究的屏障。历史的终点和个性的起点可能也是一个充满惊喜的奇怪地方,在那里我们可以看到超越历史局限的飞跃,对于过去的一些著名人物来说,这种飞跃将原本并不光彩的个人与部分间接的英雄主义联系在一起。当然,也有许多人没有实现这一飞跃。在那里,我们可以更好地了解这种飞跃有多难,以及为什么有些人没有成功。我们还可能学到其他我们意想不到的东西。我从阿杰-巴特拉那里学会了思考这个问题,我想他是从阅读塞德里克-罗宾逊的文章中学到的。但我们都可以通过阅读贝兰特的著作来思考这个问题,贝兰特是追寻这个问题的一个令人兴奋的向导,之所以如此,不仅仅是因为他们致力于这样一种可能性,即寻找我们可以巧妙地称之为个性与历史之间的边界的最有力的地方,就在那些非英雄式的、痒痒的、有时是毁灭性的,但往往只是深刻的矛盾的庸常生活事件中。贝兰特的章节不多:三章,外加引言和尾声。它们也很难读。它们至少在两个方面很难读。首先,它们的句子非常丰富。这并不令人惊讶,但本书中的句子比《残酷的乐观主义》(杜克大学出版社,2011 年)中的句子更难读。这些句子 [尾页 205]常常需要检验、倒读,或将这边的代词与那边的名词进行对照。短句如此,长句也是如此。并不是所有评论家都能这样写作,如果我们都尝试这样写,文学和文化研究肯定会大大减速。贝兰特在导言中解释了采用这种散文风格的原因,以下是我的最佳综合解析:现实生活中充满了看似难以言喻的细微差别,其中最明显的莫过于他人的陌生感...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE
EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE LITERATURE, AMERICAN-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
62
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信