激进的犬儒主义反思战后英国的《私家侦探》,约 1960-80 年

IF 0.7 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Tom Crook
{"title":"激进的犬儒主义反思战后英国的《私家侦探》,约 1960-80 年","authors":"Tom Crook","doi":"10.1017/jbr.2024.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to rethink the nature and significance of the fortnightly magazine <jats:italic>Private Eye</jats:italic> during its first two decades. Existing accounts have interpreted it almost exclusively through the lens of the “satire boom” (1961–63), and suggest that, in the final analysis, the magazine neither desired nor advanced any substantial critique of the political status quo. Besides neglecting its investigative facets, among other elements, these readings make the mistake of seeking to frame the significance of the magazine in conventional ideological terms. This article puts these neglected elements back into the picture and argues that the magazine is best understood as enacting a militant form of the kind of cynicism—at once outrageous and morally outraged—analyzed by Peter Sloterdijk and Michel Foucault, and other scholars in their wake. This provides a much more satisfying account of the many facets of <jats:italic>Private Eye</jats:italic> as these evolved during the 1960s and 1970s, including its affinities with various currents in postwar journalism and countercultural expression. Above all, it allows us to recast the politics of <jats:italic>Private Eye</jats:italic> as a form of moral protest that was expressed in the assumption of an intrinsically antagonistic relation toward “politics” and authority per se.","PeriodicalId":46738,"journal":{"name":"Journal of British Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Militant cynicism: Rethinking Private Eye in postwar Britain, ca. 1960–80\",\"authors\":\"Tom Crook\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jbr.2024.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article seeks to rethink the nature and significance of the fortnightly magazine <jats:italic>Private Eye</jats:italic> during its first two decades. Existing accounts have interpreted it almost exclusively through the lens of the “satire boom” (1961–63), and suggest that, in the final analysis, the magazine neither desired nor advanced any substantial critique of the political status quo. Besides neglecting its investigative facets, among other elements, these readings make the mistake of seeking to frame the significance of the magazine in conventional ideological terms. This article puts these neglected elements back into the picture and argues that the magazine is best understood as enacting a militant form of the kind of cynicism—at once outrageous and morally outraged—analyzed by Peter Sloterdijk and Michel Foucault, and other scholars in their wake. This provides a much more satisfying account of the many facets of <jats:italic>Private Eye</jats:italic> as these evolved during the 1960s and 1970s, including its affinities with various currents in postwar journalism and countercultural expression. Above all, it allows us to recast the politics of <jats:italic>Private Eye</jats:italic> as a form of moral protest that was expressed in the assumption of an intrinsically antagonistic relation toward “politics” and authority per se.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46738,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of British Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of British Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2024.5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of British Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2024.5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图重新思考《私家眼》双周刊头二十年的性质和意义。现有的论述几乎只从 "讽刺热潮"(1961-63 年)的角度对其进行解读,并认为归根结底,该杂志既不希望也没有推进对政治现状的实质性批判。这些解读除了忽视杂志的调查性等要素外,还犯了一个错误,即试图用传统的意识形态术语来框定杂志的意义。本文将这些被忽视的因素重新纳入视野,并认为最好将该杂志理解为彼得-斯洛特迪克(Peter Sloterdijk)和米歇尔-福柯(Michel Foucault)以及他们之后的其他学者所分析的那种愤世嫉俗的激进形式--既令人愤慨又在道德上令人愤怒。这为《私人眼界》在二十世纪六七十年代的发展提供了更令人满意的解释,包括它与战后新闻业和反文化表达中各种思潮的亲缘关系。最重要的是,它让我们能够将《私人眼界》的政治性重塑为一种道德抗议形式,这种抗议表现为对 "政治 "和权威本身的内在对立关系的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Militant cynicism: Rethinking Private Eye in postwar Britain, ca. 1960–80
This article seeks to rethink the nature and significance of the fortnightly magazine Private Eye during its first two decades. Existing accounts have interpreted it almost exclusively through the lens of the “satire boom” (1961–63), and suggest that, in the final analysis, the magazine neither desired nor advanced any substantial critique of the political status quo. Besides neglecting its investigative facets, among other elements, these readings make the mistake of seeking to frame the significance of the magazine in conventional ideological terms. This article puts these neglected elements back into the picture and argues that the magazine is best understood as enacting a militant form of the kind of cynicism—at once outrageous and morally outraged—analyzed by Peter Sloterdijk and Michel Foucault, and other scholars in their wake. This provides a much more satisfying account of the many facets of Private Eye as these evolved during the 1960s and 1970s, including its affinities with various currents in postwar journalism and countercultural expression. Above all, it allows us to recast the politics of Private Eye as a form of moral protest that was expressed in the assumption of an intrinsically antagonistic relation toward “politics” and authority per se.
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
163
期刊介绍: The official publication of the North American Conference on British Studies (NACBS), the Journal of British Studies, has positioned itself as the critical resource for scholars of British culture from the Middle Ages through the present. Drawing on both established and emerging approaches, JBS presents scholarly articles and books reviews from renowned international authors who share their ideas on British society, politics, law, economics, and the arts. In 2005 (Vol. 44), the journal merged with the NACBS publication Albion, creating one journal for NACBS membership. The NACBS also sponsors an annual conference , as well as several academic prizes, graduate fellowships, and undergraduate essay contests .
×
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