{"title":"种族之前与种族之后:对欧洲中世纪种族发明论坛的回应","authors":"Geraldine Heng","doi":"10.1017/pli.2021.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dorothy Kim’s response to my 2018 book, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, opens with the quotation above, taken from the book itself. In requoting, I’ve emphasized the words thinking critically because most of the articles in this forum see that Invention of Race is scholarship that emerges out of the varied genealogical traditions of critical race theories, even as the book works to remain faithful to the premodern archives with which it transacts—so as to confront head-on, as Amrita Dhar puts it, the “charges of presentism and anachronism” that are invariably visited upon critical scholarship on premodernity.1 Before Invention of Race, euromedievalist work on race largely produced descriptive or taxonomic scholarship (e.g., scholarship that asked who belonged to the “Germanic races” or “Celtic races”), or focused on scrutinizing Muslim, Jewish, or Black characters in literary texts—often, texts of recreational/fantasy literature. Accordingly, the objection raised by the historian William Chester Jordan to discussing race in the European medieval past, in a 2001 issue of the Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies on race and ethnicity, edited by Tom","PeriodicalId":42913,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry","volume":"9 1","pages":"159 - 172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Before Race, and After Race: A Response to the Forum on The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages\",\"authors\":\"Geraldine Heng\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/pli.2021.35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dorothy Kim’s response to my 2018 book, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, opens with the quotation above, taken from the book itself. In requoting, I’ve emphasized the words thinking critically because most of the articles in this forum see that Invention of Race is scholarship that emerges out of the varied genealogical traditions of critical race theories, even as the book works to remain faithful to the premodern archives with which it transacts—so as to confront head-on, as Amrita Dhar puts it, the “charges of presentism and anachronism” that are invariably visited upon critical scholarship on premodernity.1 Before Invention of Race, euromedievalist work on race largely produced descriptive or taxonomic scholarship (e.g., scholarship that asked who belonged to the “Germanic races” or “Celtic races”), or focused on scrutinizing Muslim, Jewish, or Black characters in literary texts—often, texts of recreational/fantasy literature. Accordingly, the objection raised by the historian William Chester Jordan to discussing race in the European medieval past, in a 2001 issue of the Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies on race and ethnicity, edited by Tom\",\"PeriodicalId\":42913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"159 - 172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/pli.2021.35\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pli.2021.35","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
桃乐西·金(Dorothy Kim)对我2018年出版的《欧洲中世纪种族的发明》(The Invention of Race in europe Middle Ages)的回应,以上述摘自书中的引文开头。在重复引用中,我强调了批判性思考这个词,因为本论坛上的大多数文章都认为,《种族的发明》是一种学术研究,它从批判种族理论的各种谱系传统中浮现出来,即使这本书致力于忠实于它所处理的前现代档案——以便正面面对,正如阿姆里塔·达尔所说的,“对现世主义和时代错误的指控”,这些指控总是出现在关于前现代性的批判学术上在“种族”发明之前,欧洲中世纪关于种族的研究主要产生了描述性或分类学的学术研究(例如,研究谁属于“日耳曼种族”或“凯尔特种族”的学术研究),或者专注于仔细研究文学文本中的穆斯林、犹太人或黑人角色——通常是娱乐/幻想文学文本。因此,历史学家威廉·切斯特·乔丹(William Chester Jordan)在2001年由汤姆编辑的《中世纪和早期现代种族与民族研究杂志》(Journal of medieval and Early Modern Studies on race and ethnicity)中,对讨论欧洲中世纪历史中的种族问题提出了反对意见
Before Race, and After Race: A Response to the Forum on The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages
Dorothy Kim’s response to my 2018 book, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, opens with the quotation above, taken from the book itself. In requoting, I’ve emphasized the words thinking critically because most of the articles in this forum see that Invention of Race is scholarship that emerges out of the varied genealogical traditions of critical race theories, even as the book works to remain faithful to the premodern archives with which it transacts—so as to confront head-on, as Amrita Dhar puts it, the “charges of presentism and anachronism” that are invariably visited upon critical scholarship on premodernity.1 Before Invention of Race, euromedievalist work on race largely produced descriptive or taxonomic scholarship (e.g., scholarship that asked who belonged to the “Germanic races” or “Celtic races”), or focused on scrutinizing Muslim, Jewish, or Black characters in literary texts—often, texts of recreational/fantasy literature. Accordingly, the objection raised by the historian William Chester Jordan to discussing race in the European medieval past, in a 2001 issue of the Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies on race and ethnicity, edited by Tom