古还是新?巴塔耶、莱维·斯特劳斯与史前史的重写

IF 0.2 4区 文学 0 LITERATURE
PARAGRAPH Pub Date : 2021-09-21 DOI:10.3366/para.2021.0372
Michèle H. Richman
{"title":"古还是新?巴塔耶、莱维·斯特劳斯与史前史的重写","authors":"Michèle H. Richman","doi":"10.3366/para.2021.0372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article's polemical thrust begins with Georges Bataille's 1956 critique of Tristes Tropiques, where Lévi-Strauss omits the Palaeolithic while extolling the Neolithic advent of agriculture and sedentism. Whereas Lévi-Strauss describes his own thinking as Neolithic, he characterizes it in ways that resemble the behaviour of hunter-gatherers and nomads. I trace this contradiction to current scholarship willing to challenge the long-standing narrative bias that either ignores the Palaeolithic and/or derides it in favour of the Neolithic, now subject to refutations of its alleged advantages. Further theoretical backbone is provided by Ibn Khaldun and Bataille on the centrality of luxury. Thus, Palaeolithic cave art's social dimension as the expression of a privileged few is contrasted with the view of scholars who see it as the product of an egalitarian society indifferent to material gain. Bataille remains a key reference due to his exceptional commitment to prehistory, a relatively underexploited facet of his work.","PeriodicalId":44142,"journal":{"name":"PARAGRAPH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Palaeo or Neo? Bataille, Lévi-Strauss and the Rewriting of Prehistory\",\"authors\":\"Michèle H. Richman\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/para.2021.0372\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article's polemical thrust begins with Georges Bataille's 1956 critique of Tristes Tropiques, where Lévi-Strauss omits the Palaeolithic while extolling the Neolithic advent of agriculture and sedentism. Whereas Lévi-Strauss describes his own thinking as Neolithic, he characterizes it in ways that resemble the behaviour of hunter-gatherers and nomads. I trace this contradiction to current scholarship willing to challenge the long-standing narrative bias that either ignores the Palaeolithic and/or derides it in favour of the Neolithic, now subject to refutations of its alleged advantages. Further theoretical backbone is provided by Ibn Khaldun and Bataille on the centrality of luxury. Thus, Palaeolithic cave art's social dimension as the expression of a privileged few is contrasted with the view of scholars who see it as the product of an egalitarian society indifferent to material gain. Bataille remains a key reference due to his exceptional commitment to prehistory, a relatively underexploited facet of his work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PARAGRAPH\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PARAGRAPH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2021.0372\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PARAGRAPH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2021.0372","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章的争论主旨始于乔治·巴塔耶1956年对特里斯特·托皮克的批判,莱维·斯特劳斯在批判中省略了旧石器时代,同时赞扬了新石器时代农业和煽动叛乱的出现。莱维·斯特劳斯(Lévi Strauss)将自己的思想描述为新石器时代,但他将其描述为类似狩猎采集者和游牧民族的行为。我将这种矛盾追溯到目前的学术界,他们愿意挑战长期存在的叙事偏见,这种偏见要么忽视旧石器时代,要么嘲笑旧石器时代而支持新石器时代,现在却遭到了对其所谓优势的反驳。伊本·哈尔顿(Ibn Khaldun)和巴塔耶(Bataille)就奢侈品的中心性提供了进一步的理论基础。因此,旧石器时代洞穴艺术作为少数特权阶层的表达,其社会层面与学者的观点形成了鲜明对比,后者将其视为对物质利益漠不关心的平等社会的产物。巴塔耶仍然是一个关键的参考,因为他对史前史的非凡承诺,这是他工作中一个相对未被开发的方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Palaeo or Neo? Bataille, Lévi-Strauss and the Rewriting of Prehistory
This article's polemical thrust begins with Georges Bataille's 1956 critique of Tristes Tropiques, where Lévi-Strauss omits the Palaeolithic while extolling the Neolithic advent of agriculture and sedentism. Whereas Lévi-Strauss describes his own thinking as Neolithic, he characterizes it in ways that resemble the behaviour of hunter-gatherers and nomads. I trace this contradiction to current scholarship willing to challenge the long-standing narrative bias that either ignores the Palaeolithic and/or derides it in favour of the Neolithic, now subject to refutations of its alleged advantages. Further theoretical backbone is provided by Ibn Khaldun and Bataille on the centrality of luxury. Thus, Palaeolithic cave art's social dimension as the expression of a privileged few is contrasted with the view of scholars who see it as the product of an egalitarian society indifferent to material gain. Bataille remains a key reference due to his exceptional commitment to prehistory, a relatively underexploited facet of his work.
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
PARAGRAPH
PARAGRAPH LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Founded in 1983, Paragraph is a leading journal in modern critical theory. It publishes essays and review articles in English which explore critical theory in general and its application to literature, other arts and society. Regular special issues by guest editors highlight important themes and figures in modern critical theory.
×
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