表面是

IF 0.2 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
Andrea Bachner
{"title":"表面是","authors":"Andrea Bachner","doi":"10.1353/dia.2021.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Recent methodological innovations in the humanities call on us to turn our attention toward the surface. Instead of looking for meaning beyond the objects under analysis we are asked to work with their textual and visual surfaces, thus eschewing symptomatic readings or critical exegesis. But this turn to the surface is not new. It does not even constitute a case of methodology catching up to theoretical trends of the past several decades where one of the foci was—time and again—an attention to surfaces: from poststructuralist obsessions with marked and textured surfaces to swan songs to complexity and opacity in the age of digital superficiality. When Donna Haraway diagnosed the turn from depth to surface as one of the traits of a paradigm shift from old hierarchies toward new networks of information and domination in her “Cyborg Manifesto,” she showed how surface turns are synchronized with changes in mediascapes and material imaginaries. By the same token, how “surface” is defined, imagined, and conceptualized in each instantiation of these turns differs widely. And each plea for work with the surface, often tied to claims of demystification, comes with its own agenda. In the face of repeated injunctions to turn toward the surface, we have either never been superficial enough or we have never been deep to begin with. And as the power of surface turns remains implicitly beholden to dichotomies (such as surface and depth), they do not do justice to the surface themselves, as they reduce and police a multiplicity of surface imaginaries. This essay proposes a new type of surface reading, not a reading of a textual surface, but a reading of surface figures; not a plea for defining a surface turn (or surface turns), but a reflection on how surface figures and claims for theoretical innovation can be thought together. After scrutinizing several turns to surfaces in theory, the essay turns to instances in which figures of the surface and of circularity intersect as a way of rethinking the binary between surface and depth and as a conduit for analyzing the force of the figure of the turn.","PeriodicalId":46840,"journal":{"name":"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surface Turns\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Bachner\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/dia.2021.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Recent methodological innovations in the humanities call on us to turn our attention toward the surface. Instead of looking for meaning beyond the objects under analysis we are asked to work with their textual and visual surfaces, thus eschewing symptomatic readings or critical exegesis. But this turn to the surface is not new. It does not even constitute a case of methodology catching up to theoretical trends of the past several decades where one of the foci was—time and again—an attention to surfaces: from poststructuralist obsessions with marked and textured surfaces to swan songs to complexity and opacity in the age of digital superficiality. When Donna Haraway diagnosed the turn from depth to surface as one of the traits of a paradigm shift from old hierarchies toward new networks of information and domination in her “Cyborg Manifesto,” she showed how surface turns are synchronized with changes in mediascapes and material imaginaries. By the same token, how “surface” is defined, imagined, and conceptualized in each instantiation of these turns differs widely. And each plea for work with the surface, often tied to claims of demystification, comes with its own agenda. In the face of repeated injunctions to turn toward the surface, we have either never been superficial enough or we have never been deep to begin with. And as the power of surface turns remains implicitly beholden to dichotomies (such as surface and depth), they do not do justice to the surface themselves, as they reduce and police a multiplicity of surface imaginaries. This essay proposes a new type of surface reading, not a reading of a textual surface, but a reading of surface figures; not a plea for defining a surface turn (or surface turns), but a reflection on how surface figures and claims for theoretical innovation can be thought together. After scrutinizing several turns to surfaces in theory, the essay turns to instances in which figures of the surface and of circularity intersect as a way of rethinking the binary between surface and depth and as a conduit for analyzing the force of the figure of the turn.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/dia.2021.0006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dia.2021.0006","RegionNum":4,"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: 1

摘要

摘要:近年来人文学科方法论的创新要求我们将注意力转向表面。而不是在分析对象之外寻找意义,我们被要求与他们的文本和视觉表面一起工作,从而避免有症状的阅读或批判性的注释。但这种转向表面的做法并不新鲜。它甚至不构成一个方法论案例,赶上过去几十年的理论趋势,其中一个焦点是一次又一次地关注表面:从后结构主义对标记和纹理表面的痴迷到天鹅之歌,再到数字肤浅时代的复杂性和不透明性。唐娜·哈拉威(Donna Haraway)在她的《电子人宣言》(Cyborg Manifesto)中,将从深度到表面的转变诊断为从旧的等级制度到新的信息和统治网络的范式转变的特征之一,她展示了表面的转变是如何与媒介景观和物质想象的变化同步的。同样,在这些回合的每个实例中,“表面”的定义、想象和概念化方式也大不相同。每一次要求与表面打交道的请求,通常都与去神秘化的主张联系在一起,都有自己的议程。面对要我们转向表面的一再告诫,我们要么从来不够肤浅,要么从一开始就不够深刻。由于表面转换的力量仍然隐含地依赖于二分法(如表面和深度),它们不能公正地对待表面本身,因为它们减少和管理了表面想象的多样性。本文提出了一种新的表层阅读方式,不是对文本表层的阅读,而是对表层人物的阅读;不是请求定义一个(或多个)表面转向,而是对如何将表面数字和理论创新的主张结合在一起进行思考的反思。在从理论上考察了几次曲面的转向之后,本文转向了曲面图形和圆形图形相交的实例,作为重新思考表面和深度之间二元关系的一种方式,并作为分析转弯图形力量的渠道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surface Turns
Abstract:Recent methodological innovations in the humanities call on us to turn our attention toward the surface. Instead of looking for meaning beyond the objects under analysis we are asked to work with their textual and visual surfaces, thus eschewing symptomatic readings or critical exegesis. But this turn to the surface is not new. It does not even constitute a case of methodology catching up to theoretical trends of the past several decades where one of the foci was—time and again—an attention to surfaces: from poststructuralist obsessions with marked and textured surfaces to swan songs to complexity and opacity in the age of digital superficiality. When Donna Haraway diagnosed the turn from depth to surface as one of the traits of a paradigm shift from old hierarchies toward new networks of information and domination in her “Cyborg Manifesto,” she showed how surface turns are synchronized with changes in mediascapes and material imaginaries. By the same token, how “surface” is defined, imagined, and conceptualized in each instantiation of these turns differs widely. And each plea for work with the surface, often tied to claims of demystification, comes with its own agenda. In the face of repeated injunctions to turn toward the surface, we have either never been superficial enough or we have never been deep to begin with. And as the power of surface turns remains implicitly beholden to dichotomies (such as surface and depth), they do not do justice to the surface themselves, as they reduce and police a multiplicity of surface imaginaries. This essay proposes a new type of surface reading, not a reading of a textual surface, but a reading of surface figures; not a plea for defining a surface turn (or surface turns), but a reflection on how surface figures and claims for theoretical innovation can be thought together. After scrutinizing several turns to surfaces in theory, the essay turns to instances in which figures of the surface and of circularity intersect as a way of rethinking the binary between surface and depth and as a conduit for analyzing the force of the figure of the turn.
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
DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM
DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: For over thirty years, diacritics has been an exceptional and influential forum for scholars writing on the problems of literary criticism. Each issue features articles in which contributors compare and analyze books on particular theoretical works and develop their own positions on the theses, methods, and theoretical implications of those works.
×
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