人类大家庭:世界主义和赫胥黎,1850-1950

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL ISSUES
A. Bashford
{"title":"人类大家庭:世界主义和赫胥黎,1850-1950","authors":"A. Bashford","doi":"10.1353/hum.2021.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay considers the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley and his twentieth-century grandson Julian Huxley as cosmopolitans. Perhaps their foundational shared question was how to comprehend human unity and human difference, both biologically and politically; how to comprehend humans as one. Both Huxleys insisted on the singularity of the human species, but as evolutionary theorists insisted also on individual biological variation and distinction. For this reason, they offer the opportunity to consider the history of cosmopolitanism alongside the intellectual history of thought on species, and on the species: Homo sapiens. They were both deeply engaged with the idea of human unity—variously biological, cultural, political—while remaining confident about their own epistemological privilege and capacity to pronounce on humanity as a whole. The history of cosmopolitanism is ill-served by attempts to pinpoint the truest, purest, exponents. The Huxleys’ flawed metropolitan cosmopolitanism was perhaps the commonest sort in practice.","PeriodicalId":44775,"journal":{"name":"Humanity-An International Journal of Human Rights Humanitarianism and Development","volume":"12 1","pages":"102 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/hum.2021.0006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Family of Man: Cosmopolitanism and the Huxleys, 1850–1950\",\"authors\":\"A. Bashford\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/hum.2021.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This essay considers the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley and his twentieth-century grandson Julian Huxley as cosmopolitans. Perhaps their foundational shared question was how to comprehend human unity and human difference, both biologically and politically; how to comprehend humans as one. Both Huxleys insisted on the singularity of the human species, but as evolutionary theorists insisted also on individual biological variation and distinction. For this reason, they offer the opportunity to consider the history of cosmopolitanism alongside the intellectual history of thought on species, and on the species: Homo sapiens. They were both deeply engaged with the idea of human unity—variously biological, cultural, political—while remaining confident about their own epistemological privilege and capacity to pronounce on humanity as a whole. The history of cosmopolitanism is ill-served by attempts to pinpoint the truest, purest, exponents. The Huxleys’ flawed metropolitan cosmopolitanism was perhaps the commonest sort in practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44775,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Humanity-An International Journal of Human Rights Humanitarianism and Development\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"102 - 87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/hum.2021.0006\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Humanity-An International Journal of Human Rights Humanitarianism and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/hum.2021.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Humanity-An International Journal of Human Rights Humanitarianism and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hum.2021.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文将生物学家托马斯·亨利·赫胥黎及其二十世纪的孙子朱利安·赫胥黎视为世界主义者。也许他们最基本的共同问题是如何从生物学和政治上理解人类的统一性和差异性;如何将人类理解为一个整体。赫胥黎两人都坚持人类物种的独特性,但正如进化理论家所坚持的那样,他们也坚持个体生物的变异和区别。出于这个原因,他们提供了一个机会来考虑世界主义的历史和关于物种的思想史,以及关于物种:智人的思想史。他们都深深投身于人类统一性的思想——从生物学、文化和政治的角度出发——同时对自己的认识论特权和将人类作为一个整体发表意见的能力保持信心。试图找出最真实、最纯粹的倡导者,对世界主义的历史是无益的。赫胥黎夫妇有缺陷的大都会世界主义也许是实践中最常见的一种。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Family of Man: Cosmopolitanism and the Huxleys, 1850–1950
Abstract:This essay considers the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley and his twentieth-century grandson Julian Huxley as cosmopolitans. Perhaps their foundational shared question was how to comprehend human unity and human difference, both biologically and politically; how to comprehend humans as one. Both Huxleys insisted on the singularity of the human species, but as evolutionary theorists insisted also on individual biological variation and distinction. For this reason, they offer the opportunity to consider the history of cosmopolitanism alongside the intellectual history of thought on species, and on the species: Homo sapiens. They were both deeply engaged with the idea of human unity—variously biological, cultural, political—while remaining confident about their own epistemological privilege and capacity to pronounce on humanity as a whole. The history of cosmopolitanism is ill-served by attempts to pinpoint the truest, purest, exponents. The Huxleys’ flawed metropolitan cosmopolitanism was perhaps the commonest sort in practice.
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
16
×
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