影响的研究

M. Arthur
{"title":"影响的研究","authors":"M. Arthur","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Across and between political, cultural, literary, and media theory; feminist, Black, queer/trans, and disability studies; neurohumanities; critical anthropologies and geographies; ethnographic or other compositional methods; performance pedagogies; and empiricist philosophies, the notion of “affect” shifts the impetus of study toward imbrications of body and world that move at the fringes of attention, overwhelm description, or have historically been neglected. The word “affect” holds a glut of meanings in generative drift: from emotion, feeling, mood, sensation, and vibe to action, atmosphere, capacity, force, intensity, potential, or relation. Affect studies attend to those near-imperceptible, too-intense, interstitial, or in-the-making visceral forces and feelings that accompany and broker the entangled material—especially bodily—and conceptual potentials of an emergent or historical phenomenon. Affect can be invoked in the singular to gesture at an indivisible field of affecting intensities or as plural affects to give contour to specificities of event or encounter and vectors of experience. It is a rangy term that resists any easy genealogical tack, with roots spanning philosophy, psychoanalysis, and later, cultural studies. Myriad non-Western ways of knowing have long been alert to the unruliness of world- and subject-making forces beyond the capture of stratifying knowledge formations. As such, historicizing affect as a field of study hazards mistaking the citational scaffolding and circulation of a galvanizing instance of critical theory for a heterogeneity of approaches to a world in flux and wider-ranging notions of subjectivity. At base, and with political and ethical implications for subjectivity and knowledge work, affect studies short-circuit inherited representational schemes in the temporary bracketing-out of categories like cognition, intentionality, or language (as delimited from a wider field of emergence) in order to inquire of the forces and feelings that ongoingly make and are made by human, nonhuman, nonliving, and incorporeal bodies in movement, impasse, and encounter. From new materialist political ecologies to feminist of color cultural politics of emotion, affect studies rewire and disrupt configurations of and connections between the sciences and humanities, working ethologically and pedagogically to home in on the harnessing and sedimenting felt intensities that characterize an event, process, or set of relations, all the while stretching disciplinary problematics and methods. Affect calls into question the taken-for-granted status of the human and the body in science, theory, literature, and media. It is an analytic of power that takes capacities of affecting and being affected—and how such capacities are written into variously configured theoretical frameworks—as relentlessly political and informing constructions of race, sex, gender, ability, and debt. As a constellation of texts, sensibilities, theoretical stylings, and methods, affect’s ambit of expression is capacious: politicizing philosophies of immanence; writing with the always-shifting interface of bodies, knowledges, and their surrounds; and attuning to everyday vicissitudes entangled in wider forcefields of nature, culture, or technology. Given affect’s reach, this bibliography is not comprehensive but aims instead to give a sense of the theoretical and interdisciplinary liveliness of affect inquiry.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Affect Studies\",\"authors\":\"M. Arthur\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Across and between political, cultural, literary, and media theory; feminist, Black, queer/trans, and disability studies; neurohumanities; critical anthropologies and geographies; ethnographic or other compositional methods; performance pedagogies; and empiricist philosophies, the notion of “affect” shifts the impetus of study toward imbrications of body and world that move at the fringes of attention, overwhelm description, or have historically been neglected. The word “affect” holds a glut of meanings in generative drift: from emotion, feeling, mood, sensation, and vibe to action, atmosphere, capacity, force, intensity, potential, or relation. Affect studies attend to those near-imperceptible, too-intense, interstitial, or in-the-making visceral forces and feelings that accompany and broker the entangled material—especially bodily—and conceptual potentials of an emergent or historical phenomenon. Affect can be invoked in the singular to gesture at an indivisible field of affecting intensities or as plural affects to give contour to specificities of event or encounter and vectors of experience. It is a rangy term that resists any easy genealogical tack, with roots spanning philosophy, psychoanalysis, and later, cultural studies. Myriad non-Western ways of knowing have long been alert to the unruliness of world- and subject-making forces beyond the capture of stratifying knowledge formations. As such, historicizing affect as a field of study hazards mistaking the citational scaffolding and circulation of a galvanizing instance of critical theory for a heterogeneity of approaches to a world in flux and wider-ranging notions of subjectivity. At base, and with political and ethical implications for subjectivity and knowledge work, affect studies short-circuit inherited representational schemes in the temporary bracketing-out of categories like cognition, intentionality, or language (as delimited from a wider field of emergence) in order to inquire of the forces and feelings that ongoingly make and are made by human, nonhuman, nonliving, and incorporeal bodies in movement, impasse, and encounter. From new materialist political ecologies to feminist of color cultural politics of emotion, affect studies rewire and disrupt configurations of and connections between the sciences and humanities, working ethologically and pedagogically to home in on the harnessing and sedimenting felt intensities that characterize an event, process, or set of relations, all the while stretching disciplinary problematics and methods. Affect calls into question the taken-for-granted status of the human and the body in science, theory, literature, and media. It is an analytic of power that takes capacities of affecting and being affected—and how such capacities are written into variously configured theoretical frameworks—as relentlessly political and informing constructions of race, sex, gender, ability, and debt. As a constellation of texts, sensibilities, theoretical stylings, and methods, affect’s ambit of expression is capacious: politicizing philosophies of immanence; writing with the always-shifting interface of bodies, knowledges, and their surrounds; and attuning to everyday vicissitudes entangled in wider forcefields of nature, culture, or technology. Given affect’s reach, this bibliography is not comprehensive but aims instead to give a sense of the theoretical and interdisciplinary liveliness of affect inquiry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":119064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Literary and Critical Theory\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Literary and Critical Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literary and Critical Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在政治、文化、文学和媒介理论之间;女权主义、黑人、酷儿/跨性别和残疾研究;neurohumanities;批判人类学与地理学;民族志或其他组成方法;性能教育学;在经验主义哲学中,“情感”的概念将研究的动力转向了身体和世界的砖块,这些砖块在注意力的边缘移动,压倒了描述,或者在历史上被忽视。在生成漂移中,“affect”一词有着丰富的含义:从情感、感觉、情绪、感觉和氛围到行动、氛围、能力、力量、强度、潜力或关系。情感研究关注那些几乎难以察觉的、过于强烈的、间隙性的或正在形成的内在力量和感觉,这些力量和感觉伴随着并中间人纠缠在一起的物质——尤其是身体——以及新兴或历史现象的概念潜力。Affect可以用单数形式来表示影响强度的不可分割的领域,也可以用复数形式来表示事件或遭遇的特殊性和经验的向量。这是一个宽泛的术语,拒绝任何简单的家谱方法,其根源跨越哲学,精神分析,以及后来的文化研究。长期以来,无数非西方的认知方式一直警惕着超越分层知识结构捕获的世界和主题制造力量的无序性。因此,将情感历史化作为一个研究领域,有可能把引用脚手架和批判理论的一个激励实例的循环误认为是对一个不断变化的世界和更广泛的主体性概念的方法的异质性。从根本上说,在主体性和知识工作的政治和伦理意义上,影响研究在暂时的认知、意旨或语言(从更广泛的涌现领域中划分出来)的范畴之外,短路了继承的表征方案,以探究人类、非人类、无生命和非物质的身体在运动、僵局和遭遇中不断制造和被制造的力量和感觉。从新唯物主义政治生态学到色彩女权主义的情感文化政治,影响研究重新连接并破坏了科学与人文科学之间的结构和联系,从行为学和教育学的角度出发,专注于利用和沉淀表征事件、过程或一系列关系的感觉强度,同时延伸学科问题和方法。“影响”对人类和身体在科学、理论、文学和媒体中被视为理所当然的地位提出了质疑。这是一种对权力的分析,它将影响和被影响的能力——以及这种能力如何被写入各种配置的理论框架——作为种族、性别、性别、能力和债务的无情政治和信息结构。作为文本、情感、理论风格和方法的集合,情感的表达范围是广泛的:将内在哲学政治化;用身体、知识和周围环境不断变化的界面来写作;在自然、文化或技术的更广泛的力场中,调和日常的变迁。考虑到情感的影响范围,这个参考书目并不全面,而是旨在给人一种理论和跨学科的情感探究的活力感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Affect Studies
Across and between political, cultural, literary, and media theory; feminist, Black, queer/trans, and disability studies; neurohumanities; critical anthropologies and geographies; ethnographic or other compositional methods; performance pedagogies; and empiricist philosophies, the notion of “affect” shifts the impetus of study toward imbrications of body and world that move at the fringes of attention, overwhelm description, or have historically been neglected. The word “affect” holds a glut of meanings in generative drift: from emotion, feeling, mood, sensation, and vibe to action, atmosphere, capacity, force, intensity, potential, or relation. Affect studies attend to those near-imperceptible, too-intense, interstitial, or in-the-making visceral forces and feelings that accompany and broker the entangled material—especially bodily—and conceptual potentials of an emergent or historical phenomenon. Affect can be invoked in the singular to gesture at an indivisible field of affecting intensities or as plural affects to give contour to specificities of event or encounter and vectors of experience. It is a rangy term that resists any easy genealogical tack, with roots spanning philosophy, psychoanalysis, and later, cultural studies. Myriad non-Western ways of knowing have long been alert to the unruliness of world- and subject-making forces beyond the capture of stratifying knowledge formations. As such, historicizing affect as a field of study hazards mistaking the citational scaffolding and circulation of a galvanizing instance of critical theory for a heterogeneity of approaches to a world in flux and wider-ranging notions of subjectivity. At base, and with political and ethical implications for subjectivity and knowledge work, affect studies short-circuit inherited representational schemes in the temporary bracketing-out of categories like cognition, intentionality, or language (as delimited from a wider field of emergence) in order to inquire of the forces and feelings that ongoingly make and are made by human, nonhuman, nonliving, and incorporeal bodies in movement, impasse, and encounter. From new materialist political ecologies to feminist of color cultural politics of emotion, affect studies rewire and disrupt configurations of and connections between the sciences and humanities, working ethologically and pedagogically to home in on the harnessing and sedimenting felt intensities that characterize an event, process, or set of relations, all the while stretching disciplinary problematics and methods. Affect calls into question the taken-for-granted status of the human and the body in science, theory, literature, and media. It is an analytic of power that takes capacities of affecting and being affected—and how such capacities are written into variously configured theoretical frameworks—as relentlessly political and informing constructions of race, sex, gender, ability, and debt. As a constellation of texts, sensibilities, theoretical stylings, and methods, affect’s ambit of expression is capacious: politicizing philosophies of immanence; writing with the always-shifting interface of bodies, knowledges, and their surrounds; and attuning to everyday vicissitudes entangled in wider forcefields of nature, culture, or technology. Given affect’s reach, this bibliography is not comprehensive but aims instead to give a sense of the theoretical and interdisciplinary liveliness of affect inquiry.
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信