合法辩护

IF 0.1 0 ART
Gerard Aching
{"title":"合法辩护","authors":"Gerard Aching","doi":"10.1215/10757163-9435793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to demands from French Communist Party officials for surrealists to define the nature of their relationship to communism, André Breton published Legitimate Defense (1926), a pamphlet in which he described surrealism’s ideological and political stance and identified some of the principal debates and challenges that the group faced in Europe. What lie at stake in the surrealists’ effort to encompass metaphysical and dialectical methods are both the legitimacy of their claims on the term revolutionary and their insistence on a revolution of the mind. In this context, the author examines Breton’s concept of the “marvelous” that affirms the feasibility of equilibrium between the work of the mind and political engagement. He compares Breton’s stance to that of a group of Martiniquan students in Paris, who in 1932 published a legitimate defense of their own. Unlike Breton’s pamphlet, the Martiniquan publication wholeheartedly embraced the communist Third International organization and the universal application of Marx’s dialectical materialism, and associated surrealism with a form of human expression rather than with a radical revolution of the mind. Nevertheless, the Martiniquans embrace Marx’s dialectical materialism without questioning why Marx’s scientific explanation of universal history failed to account for the absence of a Black proletariat in Martinique. The author’s comparison between Breton and the Martiniquan texts concludes that the most evident difference between them is the ease with which the Martiniquan students embrace surrealism without sensing any possible contradictions, thereby perceiving ambivalence as a countercultural strategy.","PeriodicalId":41573,"journal":{"name":"Nka-Journal of Contemporary African Art","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Legitimate Defense\",\"authors\":\"Gerard Aching\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/10757163-9435793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In response to demands from French Communist Party officials for surrealists to define the nature of their relationship to communism, André Breton published Legitimate Defense (1926), a pamphlet in which he described surrealism’s ideological and political stance and identified some of the principal debates and challenges that the group faced in Europe. What lie at stake in the surrealists’ effort to encompass metaphysical and dialectical methods are both the legitimacy of their claims on the term revolutionary and their insistence on a revolution of the mind. In this context, the author examines Breton’s concept of the “marvelous” that affirms the feasibility of equilibrium between the work of the mind and political engagement. He compares Breton’s stance to that of a group of Martiniquan students in Paris, who in 1932 published a legitimate defense of their own. Unlike Breton’s pamphlet, the Martiniquan publication wholeheartedly embraced the communist Third International organization and the universal application of Marx’s dialectical materialism, and associated surrealism with a form of human expression rather than with a radical revolution of the mind. Nevertheless, the Martiniquans embrace Marx’s dialectical materialism without questioning why Marx’s scientific explanation of universal history failed to account for the absence of a Black proletariat in Martinique. The author’s comparison between Breton and the Martiniquan texts concludes that the most evident difference between them is the ease with which the Martiniquan students embrace surrealism without sensing any possible contradictions, thereby perceiving ambivalence as a countercultural strategy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nka-Journal of Contemporary African Art\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nka-Journal of Contemporary African Art\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/10757163-9435793\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nka-Journal of Contemporary African Art","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10757163-9435793","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

为了回应法国共产党官员要求超现实主义者定义他们与共产主义关系的本质的要求,安德烈·布列东出版了《合法辩护》(1926),这本小册子描述了超现实主义的意识形态和政治立场,并确定了该团体在欧洲面临的一些主要辩论和挑战。在超现实主义者试图包含形而上学和辩证方法的努力中,关键在于他们对“革命”一词的主张的合法性,以及他们对思想革命的坚持。在此背景下,作者考察了布列塔尼的“不可思议”概念,该概念肯定了思想工作与政治参与之间平衡的可行性。他将布列塔尼的立场与巴黎一群马提尼泉学生的立场进行了比较,后者在1932年发表了一篇合法的辩护文章。与布列塔尼的小册子不同,马提尼泉的出版物全心全意地拥护共产主义第三国际组织和马克思辩证唯物主义的普遍应用,并将超现实主义与人类表达的一种形式联系起来,而不是与思想的激进革命联系起来。然而,马提尼克人信奉马克思的辩证唯物主义,而没有质疑为什么马克思对世界历史的科学解释不能解释马提尼克没有黑人无产阶级。作者通过比较布列塔尼和马提尼泉的文本得出结论,两者之间最明显的区别是马提尼泉的学生轻松地接受超现实主义,而没有感觉到任何可能的矛盾,从而将矛盾心理视为一种反文化策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In Legitimate Defense
In response to demands from French Communist Party officials for surrealists to define the nature of their relationship to communism, André Breton published Legitimate Defense (1926), a pamphlet in which he described surrealism’s ideological and political stance and identified some of the principal debates and challenges that the group faced in Europe. What lie at stake in the surrealists’ effort to encompass metaphysical and dialectical methods are both the legitimacy of their claims on the term revolutionary and their insistence on a revolution of the mind. In this context, the author examines Breton’s concept of the “marvelous” that affirms the feasibility of equilibrium between the work of the mind and political engagement. He compares Breton’s stance to that of a group of Martiniquan students in Paris, who in 1932 published a legitimate defense of their own. Unlike Breton’s pamphlet, the Martiniquan publication wholeheartedly embraced the communist Third International organization and the universal application of Marx’s dialectical materialism, and associated surrealism with a form of human expression rather than with a radical revolution of the mind. Nevertheless, the Martiniquans embrace Marx’s dialectical materialism without questioning why Marx’s scientific explanation of universal history failed to account for the absence of a Black proletariat in Martinique. The author’s comparison between Breton and the Martiniquan texts concludes that the most evident difference between them is the ease with which the Martiniquan students embrace surrealism without sensing any possible contradictions, thereby perceiving ambivalence as a countercultural strategy.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
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