作为极限概念的物种谱系

Ingrid Diran
{"title":"作为极限概念的物种谱系","authors":"Ingrid Diran","doi":"10.1353/tae.2024.a925041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This essay problematizes \"species\" at a moment when this concept has become ubiquitous in and indispensable to ecological thought. Through a reading of Dipesh Chakrabarty and Alexandre Kojève—who, I argue, is a key precursor of Chakrabarty's thought—I show how \"species\" sits in dialectical tension with the category of the \"human,\" and argue that while the latter has been thoroughly problematized across fields, its dialectical relation to \"species\" has not. I thus attend to \"species\" as an anthropological \"limit-concept,\" illuminating how this term has been constructed as an antithesis to the historical human that is itself constitutively without history and without speech. I not only question this assumption, but, via genealogy, also trace it back to a colonial matrix that makes clear the ways in which anti-Blackness modulates this dialectic between \"human\" and \"species,\" consigning Black subjects to the position of the specimen. In genealogical perspective, moreover, one sees that the \"species\" limit-concept also includes a decolonial counter-analytic, which I locate in the work of Frantz Fanon and Sylvia Wynter. Both thinkers trouble \"species\" as a category of racialized experience, proposing, in turn, that those forced to inhabit \"species\" might also interrupt its production of the human as Man. When the movement of the anthropological dialectic is stalled, I claim, it appears now as a material image, an insurgent visuality. Ultimately, then, I contend that critical attention to the history of the (de-historicized and de-historicizing) concept of \"species\" and to the role of race within it enables us to see our ecological conjuncture otherwise. Deepening our engagement with this history can help us understand what this category has done to the myriad others-to-Man to whom it is addressed, and what they have done in response.","PeriodicalId":176857,"journal":{"name":"Theory & Event","volume":"429 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genealogy of Species as a Limit-Concept\",\"authors\":\"Ingrid Diran\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/tae.2024.a925041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: This essay problematizes \\\"species\\\" at a moment when this concept has become ubiquitous in and indispensable to ecological thought. Through a reading of Dipesh Chakrabarty and Alexandre Kojève—who, I argue, is a key precursor of Chakrabarty's thought—I show how \\\"species\\\" sits in dialectical tension with the category of the \\\"human,\\\" and argue that while the latter has been thoroughly problematized across fields, its dialectical relation to \\\"species\\\" has not. I thus attend to \\\"species\\\" as an anthropological \\\"limit-concept,\\\" illuminating how this term has been constructed as an antithesis to the historical human that is itself constitutively without history and without speech. I not only question this assumption, but, via genealogy, also trace it back to a colonial matrix that makes clear the ways in which anti-Blackness modulates this dialectic between \\\"human\\\" and \\\"species,\\\" consigning Black subjects to the position of the specimen. In genealogical perspective, moreover, one sees that the \\\"species\\\" limit-concept also includes a decolonial counter-analytic, which I locate in the work of Frantz Fanon and Sylvia Wynter. Both thinkers trouble \\\"species\\\" as a category of racialized experience, proposing, in turn, that those forced to inhabit \\\"species\\\" might also interrupt its production of the human as Man. When the movement of the anthropological dialectic is stalled, I claim, it appears now as a material image, an insurgent visuality. Ultimately, then, I contend that critical attention to the history of the (de-historicized and de-historicizing) concept of \\\"species\\\" and to the role of race within it enables us to see our ecological conjuncture otherwise. Deepening our engagement with this history can help us understand what this category has done to the myriad others-to-Man to whom it is addressed, and what they have done in response.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory & Event\",\"volume\":\"429 24\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory & Event\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2024.a925041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory & Event","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2024.a925041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在 "物种 "这一概念在生态学思想中无处不在且不可或缺的时刻,本文对其进行了质疑。通过对迪佩什-查克拉巴蒂(Dipesh Chakrabarty)和亚历山大-科耶夫(Alexandre Kojève,我认为他是查克拉巴蒂思想的重要先驱)的解读,我展示了 "物种 "是如何与 "人类 "这一范畴形成辩证紧张关系的,并认为尽管后者已经在各个领域被彻底问题化,但它与 "物种 "的辩证关系却没有被彻底问题化。因此,我将 "物种 "视为人类学的 "极限概念",揭示这一术语如何被建构为历史人类的对立面,而历史人类本身构成性地没有历史和语言。我不仅对这一假设提出质疑,而且通过谱系学,将其追溯到殖民母体,从而明确反黑人如何调节 "人类 "与 "物种 "之间的辩证关系,将黑人主体置于标本的地位。此外,从谱系学的角度来看,我们会发现 "物种 "的限制概念还包括一种非殖民化的反分析,我将其定位在弗朗茨-法农(Frantz Fanon)和西尔维娅-温特(Sylvia Wynter)的著作中。这两位思想家都对作为种族化经验范畴的 "物种 "提出了质疑,并反过来提出,那些被迫居住在 "物种 "中的人也可能会打断 "物种 "对作为人的人类的生产。我认为,当人类学辩证法的运动停滞不前时,它就会以一种物质形象、一种叛逆的视觉性出现。最后,我认为,批判性地关注 "物种 "概念(去历史化和去历史化)的历史以及种族在其中的作用,能让我们以另一种方式看待我们的生态环境。加深我们对这段历史的了解,有助于我们理解这一范畴对它所针对的无数其他人--人类--所做的一切,以及他们所做的回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Genealogy of Species as a Limit-Concept
Abstract: This essay problematizes "species" at a moment when this concept has become ubiquitous in and indispensable to ecological thought. Through a reading of Dipesh Chakrabarty and Alexandre Kojève—who, I argue, is a key precursor of Chakrabarty's thought—I show how "species" sits in dialectical tension with the category of the "human," and argue that while the latter has been thoroughly problematized across fields, its dialectical relation to "species" has not. I thus attend to "species" as an anthropological "limit-concept," illuminating how this term has been constructed as an antithesis to the historical human that is itself constitutively without history and without speech. I not only question this assumption, but, via genealogy, also trace it back to a colonial matrix that makes clear the ways in which anti-Blackness modulates this dialectic between "human" and "species," consigning Black subjects to the position of the specimen. In genealogical perspective, moreover, one sees that the "species" limit-concept also includes a decolonial counter-analytic, which I locate in the work of Frantz Fanon and Sylvia Wynter. Both thinkers trouble "species" as a category of racialized experience, proposing, in turn, that those forced to inhabit "species" might also interrupt its production of the human as Man. When the movement of the anthropological dialectic is stalled, I claim, it appears now as a material image, an insurgent visuality. Ultimately, then, I contend that critical attention to the history of the (de-historicized and de-historicizing) concept of "species" and to the role of race within it enables us to see our ecological conjuncture otherwise. Deepening our engagement with this history can help us understand what this category has done to the myriad others-to-Man to whom it is addressed, and what they have done in response.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信