纪念莫伊舍·波斯通二世

IF 0.4 Q1 HISTORY
A. Sartori
{"title":"纪念莫伊舍·波斯通二世","authors":"A. Sartori","doi":"10.1086/699683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ver more than two decades, Moishe was my teacher, mymentor, my colleague, and my friend. In what follows, I offer my best understanding of the core concerns of his work and his pedagogy. I hope it will be clear how much of a loss his death represents to me and so many of his other former students. I first met Moishe in the spring quarter of my first year at the University of Chicago in1996,when I enrolled in his gnomically titled class, “Marx.”Wespent 10weeks largely committed to reading the first volume of Capital. It was a transformative experience in every way. Moishe led discussions that shifted constantly back and forth between close reading of specific passages and thoughtful reflection on the implicit architecture of the text’s larger expositorymethod. The classwas anything but a freewheeling discussion of the assigned readings: he led a tightly controlled Socratic dialogue. He pressed students to go beyond their immediate responses to what they had read, both in terms of their overdetermined assumptions about what there was to find in Marx’s writings and the near-universal graduate student impulse to criticize first and understand later. He pressed the class to grapple with the possibility that Marx was both entirely a figure of his time and (without contradiction) a theoretician whose thought still speaks powerfully to the present. To some students, his classroom style could seem authoritarian. In fact, Moishe alwayswelcomed all questions in class discussions and engaged with any objections he felt were being offered in good faith. His aim was not to force students into agreement with him but to lead students to think difficult thoughts thatwere not theirs and that they had not already thought before (whether or not these were thoughts they would ultimately agree with). His was a profoundly considered pedagogy, and it has had a profound influence on my own teaching. Moishe understood, I think, that there was a multiplicity of conceptual impulses traceable in the text of Capital. Yet in his teaching andwriting he always emphasized what he construed as its fundamental theoretical coherence. In particular, he highlighted howdifficult it was to pull some sentence or passage out of context andmake it speak the truth ofMarx’s position.Marx, he argued, workedwith a rigorous commitment to immanence. He therefore voiced the logic of political economy as a nec-","PeriodicalId":43410,"journal":{"name":"Critical Historical Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/699683","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remembering Moishe Postone II\",\"authors\":\"A. Sartori\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/699683\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ver more than two decades, Moishe was my teacher, mymentor, my colleague, and my friend. In what follows, I offer my best understanding of the core concerns of his work and his pedagogy. I hope it will be clear how much of a loss his death represents to me and so many of his other former students. I first met Moishe in the spring quarter of my first year at the University of Chicago in1996,when I enrolled in his gnomically titled class, “Marx.”Wespent 10weeks largely committed to reading the first volume of Capital. It was a transformative experience in every way. Moishe led discussions that shifted constantly back and forth between close reading of specific passages and thoughtful reflection on the implicit architecture of the text’s larger expositorymethod. The classwas anything but a freewheeling discussion of the assigned readings: he led a tightly controlled Socratic dialogue. He pressed students to go beyond their immediate responses to what they had read, both in terms of their overdetermined assumptions about what there was to find in Marx’s writings and the near-universal graduate student impulse to criticize first and understand later. He pressed the class to grapple with the possibility that Marx was both entirely a figure of his time and (without contradiction) a theoretician whose thought still speaks powerfully to the present. To some students, his classroom style could seem authoritarian. In fact, Moishe alwayswelcomed all questions in class discussions and engaged with any objections he felt were being offered in good faith. His aim was not to force students into agreement with him but to lead students to think difficult thoughts thatwere not theirs and that they had not already thought before (whether or not these were thoughts they would ultimately agree with). His was a profoundly considered pedagogy, and it has had a profound influence on my own teaching. Moishe understood, I think, that there was a multiplicity of conceptual impulses traceable in the text of Capital. Yet in his teaching andwriting he always emphasized what he construed as its fundamental theoretical coherence. In particular, he highlighted howdifficult it was to pull some sentence or passage out of context andmake it speak the truth ofMarx’s position.Marx, he argued, workedwith a rigorous commitment to immanence. He therefore voiced the logic of political economy as a nec-\",\"PeriodicalId\":43410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Historical Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/699683\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Historical Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/699683\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Historical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/699683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二十多年来,莫伊什一直是我的老师、导师、同事和朋友。在接下来的文章中,我将提供我对他的工作和他的教学法的核心问题的最好理解。我希望大家都能明白,他的离世对我和他以前的许多学生来说是多么大的损失。我第一次见到莫伊什是在1996年我在芝加哥大学一年级的春季学期,当时我选了他那门以“马克思”命名的课。韦斯特花了10周的时间来阅读《资本论》第一卷。从各个方面来说,这都是一次变革的经历。Moishe领导的讨论在仔细阅读特定段落和对文本更大的说明性方法的隐含架构进行深思熟虑之间不断地来回转换。这堂课绝不是对指定阅读材料的随意讨论:他进行了严格控制的苏格拉底式对话。他敦促学生们超越他们对所读内容的直接反应,无论是在他们对马克思著作中可以找到什么的过度假设方面,还是在研究生几乎普遍的先批评后理解的冲动方面。他敦促学生们去思考这样一种可能性,即马克思既完全是他那个时代的人物,又(毫无矛盾地)是一位理论家,他的思想至今仍具有强大的说服力。对一些学生来说,他的课堂风格似乎是专制的。事实上,在课堂讨论中,Moishe总是欢迎所有的问题,并接受任何他认为是善意提出的反对意见。他的目的不是强迫学生同意他的观点,而是引导学生思考那些他们以前没有想过的困难的想法(不管这些想法最终是否会得到他们的同意)。这是一种经过深思熟虑的教学法,对我自己的教学产生了深远的影响。我认为,莫伊斯明白,在《资本论》的文本中,存在着多重的概念冲动。然而,在他的教学和写作中,他总是强调他所理解的基本理论连贯性。他特别强调,要断章取义地说出马克思的真实立场是多么困难。他认为,马克思对内在性有着严格的承诺。因此,他把政治经济学的逻辑说成是一门学科
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Remembering Moishe Postone II
ver more than two decades, Moishe was my teacher, mymentor, my colleague, and my friend. In what follows, I offer my best understanding of the core concerns of his work and his pedagogy. I hope it will be clear how much of a loss his death represents to me and so many of his other former students. I first met Moishe in the spring quarter of my first year at the University of Chicago in1996,when I enrolled in his gnomically titled class, “Marx.”Wespent 10weeks largely committed to reading the first volume of Capital. It was a transformative experience in every way. Moishe led discussions that shifted constantly back and forth between close reading of specific passages and thoughtful reflection on the implicit architecture of the text’s larger expositorymethod. The classwas anything but a freewheeling discussion of the assigned readings: he led a tightly controlled Socratic dialogue. He pressed students to go beyond their immediate responses to what they had read, both in terms of their overdetermined assumptions about what there was to find in Marx’s writings and the near-universal graduate student impulse to criticize first and understand later. He pressed the class to grapple with the possibility that Marx was both entirely a figure of his time and (without contradiction) a theoretician whose thought still speaks powerfully to the present. To some students, his classroom style could seem authoritarian. In fact, Moishe alwayswelcomed all questions in class discussions and engaged with any objections he felt were being offered in good faith. His aim was not to force students into agreement with him but to lead students to think difficult thoughts thatwere not theirs and that they had not already thought before (whether or not these were thoughts they would ultimately agree with). His was a profoundly considered pedagogy, and it has had a profound influence on my own teaching. Moishe understood, I think, that there was a multiplicity of conceptual impulses traceable in the text of Capital. Yet in his teaching andwriting he always emphasized what he construed as its fundamental theoretical coherence. In particular, he highlighted howdifficult it was to pull some sentence or passage out of context andmake it speak the truth ofMarx’s position.Marx, he argued, workedwith a rigorous commitment to immanence. He therefore voiced the logic of political economy as a nec-
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
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