理论化事物,构建世界:为什么新唯物主义值得文学想象

IF 0.5 Q3 CULTURAL STUDIES
Babette B. Tischleder
{"title":"理论化事物,构建世界:为什么新唯物主义值得文学想象","authors":"Babette B. Tischleder","doi":"10.1515/culture-2019-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The New Materialisms constitute a rich field of critical inquiry that does not represent a unified approach; yet there is a general tendency to theorise objects by highlighting their agency, independence, and withdrawnness from human actors. Jane Bennett speaks of “thing power” in order to invoke the activities of “nonsubjects,” and she suggests to marginalise questions of human subjectivity and focus instead on the trajectories and propensities of material entities themselves. This essay takes issue with Bennett’s and other New Materialist thought, and it also offers a critical engagement with Bruno Latour’s notion of nonhuman agency. In his recent work, Latour has been concerned with the question of how we can tell our “common geostory.” Taking up his literary example (by Mark Twain) and adding one of my own (by William Faulkner), this essay argues that our understanding of the powers of rivers and other nonhuman agents remains rather limited if we attend primarily to the mechanics of storytelling in the way Latour does. Rather, it is the aesthetic and experiential registers of literary worlding that offer alternative venues for imagining nonhuman beings and our interactions with them in the era of the Anthropocene.","PeriodicalId":41385,"journal":{"name":"Open Cultural Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"125 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/culture-2019-0011","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theorising Things, Building Worlds: Why the New Materialisms Deserve Literary Imagination\",\"authors\":\"Babette B. Tischleder\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/culture-2019-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The New Materialisms constitute a rich field of critical inquiry that does not represent a unified approach; yet there is a general tendency to theorise objects by highlighting their agency, independence, and withdrawnness from human actors. Jane Bennett speaks of “thing power” in order to invoke the activities of “nonsubjects,” and she suggests to marginalise questions of human subjectivity and focus instead on the trajectories and propensities of material entities themselves. This essay takes issue with Bennett’s and other New Materialist thought, and it also offers a critical engagement with Bruno Latour’s notion of nonhuman agency. In his recent work, Latour has been concerned with the question of how we can tell our “common geostory.” Taking up his literary example (by Mark Twain) and adding one of my own (by William Faulkner), this essay argues that our understanding of the powers of rivers and other nonhuman agents remains rather limited if we attend primarily to the mechanics of storytelling in the way Latour does. Rather, it is the aesthetic and experiential registers of literary worlding that offer alternative venues for imagining nonhuman beings and our interactions with them in the era of the Anthropocene.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Cultural Studies\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"125 - 134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/culture-2019-0011\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Cultural Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2019-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2019-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

新唯物主义构成了一个丰富的批判性研究领域,但并不代表一种统一的方法;然而,人们普遍倾向于通过强调对象的能动性、独立性和对人类行为者的隐退性来理论化对象。为了唤起“非主体”的活动,简·贝内特谈到了“物的力量”,她建议将人类主体性的问题边缘化,转而关注物质实体本身的轨迹和倾向。这篇文章对贝内特和其他新唯物主义思想提出了质疑,同时也对布鲁诺·拉图尔的非人类能动性概念进行了批判性的探讨。在他最近的工作中,拉图尔一直关注我们如何讲述我们“共同的历史故事”的问题。本文以他的文学作品为例(马克·吐温的作品),并加上我自己的作品(威廉·福克纳的作品),认为如果我们以拉图尔的方式主要关注讲故事的机制,那么我们对河流和其他非人类力量的理解仍然相当有限。相反,文学世界的审美和经验记录为想象非人类以及我们在人类世时代与他们的互动提供了另一种场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Theorising Things, Building Worlds: Why the New Materialisms Deserve Literary Imagination
Abstract The New Materialisms constitute a rich field of critical inquiry that does not represent a unified approach; yet there is a general tendency to theorise objects by highlighting their agency, independence, and withdrawnness from human actors. Jane Bennett speaks of “thing power” in order to invoke the activities of “nonsubjects,” and she suggests to marginalise questions of human subjectivity and focus instead on the trajectories and propensities of material entities themselves. This essay takes issue with Bennett’s and other New Materialist thought, and it also offers a critical engagement with Bruno Latour’s notion of nonhuman agency. In his recent work, Latour has been concerned with the question of how we can tell our “common geostory.” Taking up his literary example (by Mark Twain) and adding one of my own (by William Faulkner), this essay argues that our understanding of the powers of rivers and other nonhuman agents remains rather limited if we attend primarily to the mechanics of storytelling in the way Latour does. Rather, it is the aesthetic and experiential registers of literary worlding that offer alternative venues for imagining nonhuman beings and our interactions with them in the era of the Anthropocene.
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
Open Cultural Studies
Open Cultural Studies CULTURAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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