为地球而战?

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
D. Kelly
{"title":"为地球而战?","authors":"D. Kelly","doi":"10.1177/16118944221113281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amid the many discussions of how environmentalism and democratic politics might intersect, perhaps the greatest challenge for historians has come from the simultaneously emergent and epochal shift into the Anthropocene. This is because the Anthropocene signals a world ‘after nature’, but that means at least two things. First, that human beings have become geological agents, and that we have become conscious of our being geological agents, through an increasingly historical awareness of how our species has transformed planetary conditions of habitability. Secondly, and related to the first point, the once seemingly accepted divisions between a humanlycurated, and thus artificial, world of politics and a natural world or environment somehow separate from it, and indicative of a certain type of Western ‘modernity’, no longer seems tenable, if it ever was. However, as we shift, or rather stumble into the complex worlds of the Anthropocene, there is no clear point of origin around which to orient its political implications. In fact, its temporalities weave in and out of deep geological time, modern democratic time, the accelerated time of the post-1945 global order, and now into a sort of Anthropocene time of revision since 2000, the moment of its formal conceptual coining. Yet the pre-eminent theorist of history writing today, François Hartog, suggests that what he has elsewhere seductively termed a regime of historicity, that is, a sense of the complex connections between different sedimentary time-scapes of past, present, and future, is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to conceptualize in the Anthropocene. Why? ‘We have some experience of the world’s time’, Hartog writes, ‘but no experience of Anthropocene temporality is possible’ for human beings. Consequently, the construction of an Anthropocene ‘regime of historicity’ must be informed by ‘chronos time’ or the time of the world of globe – those temporalities that human experience can grasp – but still try to register the time of the planet (such as those temporalities of geological and thermal processes), which we cannot directly experience.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wartime for the Planet?\",\"authors\":\"D. Kelly\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16118944221113281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Amid the many discussions of how environmentalism and democratic politics might intersect, perhaps the greatest challenge for historians has come from the simultaneously emergent and epochal shift into the Anthropocene. This is because the Anthropocene signals a world ‘after nature’, but that means at least two things. First, that human beings have become geological agents, and that we have become conscious of our being geological agents, through an increasingly historical awareness of how our species has transformed planetary conditions of habitability. Secondly, and related to the first point, the once seemingly accepted divisions between a humanlycurated, and thus artificial, world of politics and a natural world or environment somehow separate from it, and indicative of a certain type of Western ‘modernity’, no longer seems tenable, if it ever was. However, as we shift, or rather stumble into the complex worlds of the Anthropocene, there is no clear point of origin around which to orient its political implications. In fact, its temporalities weave in and out of deep geological time, modern democratic time, the accelerated time of the post-1945 global order, and now into a sort of Anthropocene time of revision since 2000, the moment of its formal conceptual coining. Yet the pre-eminent theorist of history writing today, François Hartog, suggests that what he has elsewhere seductively termed a regime of historicity, that is, a sense of the complex connections between different sedimentary time-scapes of past, present, and future, is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to conceptualize in the Anthropocene. Why? ‘We have some experience of the world’s time’, Hartog writes, ‘but no experience of Anthropocene temporality is possible’ for human beings. Consequently, the construction of an Anthropocene ‘regime of historicity’ must be informed by ‘chronos time’ or the time of the world of globe – those temporalities that human experience can grasp – but still try to register the time of the planet (such as those temporalities of geological and thermal processes), which we cannot directly experience.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221113281\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221113281","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在许多关于环保主义和民主政治如何交叉的讨论中,历史学家面临的最大挑战可能来自同时出现的、划时代的人类世转变。这是因为人类世标志着一个“自然之后”的世界,但这至少意味着两件事。首先,人类已经成为地质代理人,我们已经意识到自己是地质代理人,通过越来越多的历史意识到我们的物种如何改变了地球的宜居条件。其次,与第一点相关的是,一个人性化的、因此是人为的政治世界与一个与之分离的自然世界或环境之间曾经看似被接受的分歧,表明了某种类型的西方“现代性”,但现在似乎已经站不住脚了。然而,当我们转向,或者更确切地说,跌跌撞撞地进入人类世的复杂世界时,没有明确的起源点来确定其政治含义。事实上,它的时间性交织在深层地质时代、现代民主时代、1945年后全球秩序的加速时代,以及自2000年以来的人类世时代,即其正式概念产生的时刻。然而,今天杰出的历史写作理论家弗朗索瓦·哈托格认为,他在其他地方诱人地称之为历史性制度的东西,即过去、现在和未来不同沉积时间景观之间的复杂联系,在人类世很难概念化,如果不是不可能的话。为什么?”哈托格写道:“我们对世界时间有一些经验,但人类不可能有人类世时间性的经验。”。因此,人类世“历史性制度”的构建必须以“时间”或地球世界的时间为依据——这些时间是人类经验可以掌握的——但仍然试图记录地球的时间(例如地质和热过程的时间),而我们无法直接体验到这些时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Wartime for the Planet?
Amid the many discussions of how environmentalism and democratic politics might intersect, perhaps the greatest challenge for historians has come from the simultaneously emergent and epochal shift into the Anthropocene. This is because the Anthropocene signals a world ‘after nature’, but that means at least two things. First, that human beings have become geological agents, and that we have become conscious of our being geological agents, through an increasingly historical awareness of how our species has transformed planetary conditions of habitability. Secondly, and related to the first point, the once seemingly accepted divisions between a humanlycurated, and thus artificial, world of politics and a natural world or environment somehow separate from it, and indicative of a certain type of Western ‘modernity’, no longer seems tenable, if it ever was. However, as we shift, or rather stumble into the complex worlds of the Anthropocene, there is no clear point of origin around which to orient its political implications. In fact, its temporalities weave in and out of deep geological time, modern democratic time, the accelerated time of the post-1945 global order, and now into a sort of Anthropocene time of revision since 2000, the moment of its formal conceptual coining. Yet the pre-eminent theorist of history writing today, François Hartog, suggests that what he has elsewhere seductively termed a regime of historicity, that is, a sense of the complex connections between different sedimentary time-scapes of past, present, and future, is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to conceptualize in the Anthropocene. Why? ‘We have some experience of the world’s time’, Hartog writes, ‘but no experience of Anthropocene temporality is possible’ for human beings. Consequently, the construction of an Anthropocene ‘regime of historicity’ must be informed by ‘chronos time’ or the time of the world of globe – those temporalities that human experience can grasp – but still try to register the time of the planet (such as those temporalities of geological and thermal processes), which we cannot directly experience.
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
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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