无政府的错位:黑人研究的阅读模式

IF 0.2 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
M. Scully
{"title":"无政府的错位:黑人研究的阅读模式","authors":"M. Scully","doi":"10.1353/dia.2020.0000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay reviews Stephen Best’s None Like Us: Blackness, Belonging, Aesthetic Life in relation to the ongoing reading debates in literary studies and the methodological practices of black studies. Best’s work, I argue, expands upon the practice of surface reading he and Sharon Marcus introduced to reveal how an attention to surfaces, which I recharacterize as “topological reading,” disrupts misleading seductions of interpretation that remain grounded in allegory. In doing so, Best further reveals the value of surface reading for black studies in particular, which, with its focus on recovery in the archive, is particularly susceptible to “deep” reading practices that aim to construct utopian communitarian notions of black being and belonging. I conclude the review by explicating a brief allusion Best makes to Afropessimism in order to detail the political implications of Best’s insistence on negativity and the “anti-communitarian undertone” he locates in black studies.","PeriodicalId":46840,"journal":{"name":"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM","volume":"48 1","pages":"28 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dia.2020.0000","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anarchival Dislocations: Modes of Reading (in) Black Studies\",\"authors\":\"M. Scully\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/dia.2020.0000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This essay reviews Stephen Best’s None Like Us: Blackness, Belonging, Aesthetic Life in relation to the ongoing reading debates in literary studies and the methodological practices of black studies. Best’s work, I argue, expands upon the practice of surface reading he and Sharon Marcus introduced to reveal how an attention to surfaces, which I recharacterize as “topological reading,” disrupts misleading seductions of interpretation that remain grounded in allegory. In doing so, Best further reveals the value of surface reading for black studies in particular, which, with its focus on recovery in the archive, is particularly susceptible to “deep” reading practices that aim to construct utopian communitarian notions of black being and belonging. I conclude the review by explicating a brief allusion Best makes to Afropessimism in order to detail the political implications of Best’s insistence on negativity and the “anti-communitarian undertone” he locates in black studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"28 - 4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dia.2020.0000\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/dia.2020.0000\",\"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.2020.0000","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: 0

摘要

摘要:本文从文学研究中正在进行的阅读辩论和黑人研究的方法论实践两个方面回顾了斯蒂芬·贝斯特的《非诚勿扰:黑人、归属、审美生活》。我认为,贝斯特的作品扩展了他和莎朗·马库斯引入的表面阅读实践,揭示了对表面的关注,我将其重新定性为“拓扑阅读”,是如何破坏仍然基于寓言的误导性解释诱惑的。在这样做的过程中,贝斯特进一步揭示了表面阅读对黑人研究的价值,尤其是对档案中恢复的关注,特别容易受到旨在构建乌托邦式的黑人存在和归属的社群主义观念的“深层”阅读实践的影响。在结束这篇评论时,我解释了贝斯特对非洲主义的简短提及,以详细说明贝斯特坚持消极性的政治含义,以及他在黑人研究中所处的“反社群主义的潜台词”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anarchival Dislocations: Modes of Reading (in) Black Studies
Abstract:This essay reviews Stephen Best’s None Like Us: Blackness, Belonging, Aesthetic Life in relation to the ongoing reading debates in literary studies and the methodological practices of black studies. Best’s work, I argue, expands upon the practice of surface reading he and Sharon Marcus introduced to reveal how an attention to surfaces, which I recharacterize as “topological reading,” disrupts misleading seductions of interpretation that remain grounded in allegory. In doing so, Best further reveals the value of surface reading for black studies in particular, which, with its focus on recovery in the archive, is particularly susceptible to “deep” reading practices that aim to construct utopian communitarian notions of black being and belonging. I conclude the review by explicating a brief allusion Best makes to Afropessimism in order to detail the political implications of Best’s insistence on negativity and the “anti-communitarian undertone” he locates in black studies.
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