等待革命

IF 0.8 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Taushif Kara
{"title":"等待革命","authors":"Taushif Kara","doi":"10.1215/1089201x-9987983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay takes as its point of departure the conceptual problem posed by intezar, or waiting, in revolutionary Iran. Kara suggests that this problem mirrors the suspension or deferral of sovereignty implied by the logic of historicism, and thus the wider state of belatedness faced across what was once called the “third world.” Though confronted by the problem of waiting in different ways, the author shows how thinkers from revolutionary Iran and colonial India—namely Ali Shariati (1933–77) and Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938)—may have arrived at similar conclusions. Rather than reject the principle of waiting, their thought sought to augment it, mainly by discarding the future as the focus of the political in order to render an invisible present visible. But if the conceptual possibilities condensed in colonial India and Iran’s revolution reveal a shared genealogy of waiting, the resonance of this problem today is confined neither to the geography nor to the condition of coloniality that produced it. Kara concludes by suggesting that the struggle against anticipation in the twentieth century may have prefigured the planetary condition of waiting that characterizes the political in the twenty-first, a condition accentuated and elevated by the climate crisis.","PeriodicalId":51756,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Studies of South Asia Africa and the Middle East","volume":"42 1","pages":"505 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Waiting for Revolution\",\"authors\":\"Taushif Kara\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/1089201x-9987983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This essay takes as its point of departure the conceptual problem posed by intezar, or waiting, in revolutionary Iran. Kara suggests that this problem mirrors the suspension or deferral of sovereignty implied by the logic of historicism, and thus the wider state of belatedness faced across what was once called the “third world.” Though confronted by the problem of waiting in different ways, the author shows how thinkers from revolutionary Iran and colonial India—namely Ali Shariati (1933–77) and Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938)—may have arrived at similar conclusions. Rather than reject the principle of waiting, their thought sought to augment it, mainly by discarding the future as the focus of the political in order to render an invisible present visible. But if the conceptual possibilities condensed in colonial India and Iran’s revolution reveal a shared genealogy of waiting, the resonance of this problem today is confined neither to the geography nor to the condition of coloniality that produced it. Kara concludes by suggesting that the struggle against anticipation in the twentieth century may have prefigured the planetary condition of waiting that characterizes the political in the twenty-first, a condition accentuated and elevated by the climate crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Studies of South Asia Africa and the Middle East\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"505 - 516\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Studies of South Asia Africa and the Middle East\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201x-9987983\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Studies of South Asia Africa and the Middle East","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201x-9987983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文以伊朗革命中的“等待”概念问题为出发点。卡拉认为,这个问题反映了历史主义逻辑所暗示的主权的暂停或推迟,从而反映了曾经被称为“第三世界”的国家所面临的更广泛的迟来状态。尽管面临着以不同方式等待的问题,作者展示了革命的伊朗和殖民地印度的思想家——即阿里·沙里亚蒂(1933–77)和穆罕默德·伊克巴尔(1877–1938)——可能得出了类似的结论。他们的思想并没有拒绝等待的原则,而是试图增强它,主要是通过放弃未来作为政治焦点,使一个看不见的现在变得可见。但是,如果殖民地印度和伊朗革命中浓缩的概念可能性揭示了一个共同的等待谱系,那么今天这个问题的共鸣既不局限于地理,也不局限于产生它的殖民主义条件。卡拉最后指出,二十世纪与预期的斗争可能预示了二十一世纪政治的全球等待状况,气候危机加剧了这种状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Waiting for Revolution
Abstract:This essay takes as its point of departure the conceptual problem posed by intezar, or waiting, in revolutionary Iran. Kara suggests that this problem mirrors the suspension or deferral of sovereignty implied by the logic of historicism, and thus the wider state of belatedness faced across what was once called the “third world.” Though confronted by the problem of waiting in different ways, the author shows how thinkers from revolutionary Iran and colonial India—namely Ali Shariati (1933–77) and Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938)—may have arrived at similar conclusions. Rather than reject the principle of waiting, their thought sought to augment it, mainly by discarding the future as the focus of the political in order to render an invisible present visible. But if the conceptual possibilities condensed in colonial India and Iran’s revolution reveal a shared genealogy of waiting, the resonance of this problem today is confined neither to the geography nor to the condition of coloniality that produced it. Kara concludes by suggesting that the struggle against anticipation in the twentieth century may have prefigured the planetary condition of waiting that characterizes the political in the twenty-first, a condition accentuated and elevated by the climate crisis.
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
0.00%
发文量
54
×
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