动物、机器和人工智能:论现代德国文化史上的人类和非人类情感埃里卡·奎因和霍莉·亚纳切克主编(评论)

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 AREA STUDIES
Belinda Kleinhans
{"title":"动物、机器和人工智能:论现代德国文化史上的人类和非人类情感埃里卡·奎因和霍莉·亚纳切克主编(评论)","authors":"Belinda Kleinhans","doi":"10.1353/gsr.2022.0059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the study makes a strong case for the scholarly and pedagogical value of reading texts through the lens of interculturality, as eclectically and dynamically redefined by Coleman, some fundamental questions about this interpretive paradigm arise along the way. For one, we never get a clear argument for why a right to difference should be expressly codified in the discourse of human rights. Coleman’s investment in the attunement to difference, as an antidote to what she regards as a fixation on sameness in universalist discourse, leads her to overlook the ways in which the fuzzy legal persons of human rights law can already be grasped at the intersection of multiple, changing affiliations. What is juridically gained by an additional right to difference? In fact, insisting on a right to difference opens the door, as Coleman admits, to appropriation by those, such as right-wing political movements, who seek to legitimate a reductionist and discriminatory definition of group identity. Given Coleman’s repeated efforts to highlight the contingencies of cultural differences in her readings, the reader cannot help but wish for an account of how cultural differences come about. The term culture itself refers to the ancient practice of cultivating or settling land, an act of demarcation that set off a chain of signifying operations and semantic distinctions between inside/outside, own/foreign, nature/culture, civilization/barbarism, and so on. Cultural differences are not ontological, but are the result of technical interventions in the world that make a difference. Though Coleman’s discussion of soil in the chapter on expulsion points in this direction, her study runs the risk of hypostatizing cultural difference, an ahistorical tendency reinforced by the focus on twenty-first century texts. As a result, her model of intercultural competence, preoccupied with the statements of protagonists in novels, neglects the ways that cultural differences are also shaped by the medial practices through which distinctions are introduced, regulated, negotiated, and even undermined in efforts to create order in the world. Claims to the right to asylum, for instance, are inseparable from the daily operations of the passport system that is mediated by the issuing, bearing, and verifying of passports. The study of interculturality can also benefit from analysis of how literary texts explore the differences that technical media make in the world. Charlton Payne, Carl Zeiss AG","PeriodicalId":43954,"journal":{"name":"German Studies Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"606 - 608"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Animals, Machines, and AI: On Human and Non-Human Emotions in Modern German Cultural History ed. by Erika Quinn and Holly Yanacek (review)\",\"authors\":\"Belinda Kleinhans\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/gsr.2022.0059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the study makes a strong case for the scholarly and pedagogical value of reading texts through the lens of interculturality, as eclectically and dynamically redefined by Coleman, some fundamental questions about this interpretive paradigm arise along the way. For one, we never get a clear argument for why a right to difference should be expressly codified in the discourse of human rights. Coleman’s investment in the attunement to difference, as an antidote to what she regards as a fixation on sameness in universalist discourse, leads her to overlook the ways in which the fuzzy legal persons of human rights law can already be grasped at the intersection of multiple, changing affiliations. What is juridically gained by an additional right to difference? In fact, insisting on a right to difference opens the door, as Coleman admits, to appropriation by those, such as right-wing political movements, who seek to legitimate a reductionist and discriminatory definition of group identity. Given Coleman’s repeated efforts to highlight the contingencies of cultural differences in her readings, the reader cannot help but wish for an account of how cultural differences come about. The term culture itself refers to the ancient practice of cultivating or settling land, an act of demarcation that set off a chain of signifying operations and semantic distinctions between inside/outside, own/foreign, nature/culture, civilization/barbarism, and so on. Cultural differences are not ontological, but are the result of technical interventions in the world that make a difference. Though Coleman’s discussion of soil in the chapter on expulsion points in this direction, her study runs the risk of hypostatizing cultural difference, an ahistorical tendency reinforced by the focus on twenty-first century texts. As a result, her model of intercultural competence, preoccupied with the statements of protagonists in novels, neglects the ways that cultural differences are also shaped by the medial practices through which distinctions are introduced, regulated, negotiated, and even undermined in efforts to create order in the world. Claims to the right to asylum, for instance, are inseparable from the daily operations of the passport system that is mediated by the issuing, bearing, and verifying of passports. The study of interculturality can also benefit from analysis of how literary texts explore the differences that technical media make in the world. Charlton Payne, Carl Zeiss AG\",\"PeriodicalId\":43954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German Studies Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"606 - 608\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German Studies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2022.0059\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2022.0059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然这项研究有力地证明了通过跨文化视角阅读文本的学术和教学价值,正如科尔曼所作的折衷和动态的重新定义,但关于这种解释范式的一些基本问题也随之而来。首先,我们从来没有明确的论点来解释为什么在人权话语中应该明确规定差异权。科尔曼在调和差异方面的投资,作为她认为的普世主义话语中对相同性的执着的解药,导致她忽视了人权法中模糊的法人在多种不断变化的从属关系的交叉点上已经可以被理解的方式。额外的差异权在法律上获得了什么?事实上,正如科尔曼所承认的那样,坚持差异权为右翼政治运动等试图为简化主义和歧视性的群体身份定义合法化的人的挪用打开了大门。鉴于科尔曼一再努力在她的阅读中强调文化差异的偶然性,读者不禁希望了解文化差异是如何产生的。“文化”一词本身指的是耕种或定居土地的古老实践,这是一种划分行为,在内部/外部、自身/外部、自然/文化、文明/野蛮等之间引发了一系列象征性操作和语义区分。文化差异不是本体论的,而是世界上技术干预的结果。尽管科尔曼在关于驱逐的章节中对土壤的讨论指向了这个方向,但她的研究存在着将文化差异实质化的风险,这种非历史性的倾向因对21世纪文本的关注而得到加强。因此,她的跨文化能力模型专注于小说中主人公的陈述,忽略了文化差异也是由中间实践形成的,通过这些中间实践,在创造世界秩序的努力中引入、规范、协商甚至破坏了差异。例如,对庇护权的要求与护照系统的日常运作是分不开的,而护照系统是通过签发、携带和核实护照来调解的。对跨文化性的研究也可以受益于对文学文本如何探索技术媒体在世界上造成的差异的分析。查尔顿-佩恩,卡尔蔡司股份公司
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Animals, Machines, and AI: On Human and Non-Human Emotions in Modern German Cultural History ed. by Erika Quinn and Holly Yanacek (review)
While the study makes a strong case for the scholarly and pedagogical value of reading texts through the lens of interculturality, as eclectically and dynamically redefined by Coleman, some fundamental questions about this interpretive paradigm arise along the way. For one, we never get a clear argument for why a right to difference should be expressly codified in the discourse of human rights. Coleman’s investment in the attunement to difference, as an antidote to what she regards as a fixation on sameness in universalist discourse, leads her to overlook the ways in which the fuzzy legal persons of human rights law can already be grasped at the intersection of multiple, changing affiliations. What is juridically gained by an additional right to difference? In fact, insisting on a right to difference opens the door, as Coleman admits, to appropriation by those, such as right-wing political movements, who seek to legitimate a reductionist and discriminatory definition of group identity. Given Coleman’s repeated efforts to highlight the contingencies of cultural differences in her readings, the reader cannot help but wish for an account of how cultural differences come about. The term culture itself refers to the ancient practice of cultivating or settling land, an act of demarcation that set off a chain of signifying operations and semantic distinctions between inside/outside, own/foreign, nature/culture, civilization/barbarism, and so on. Cultural differences are not ontological, but are the result of technical interventions in the world that make a difference. Though Coleman’s discussion of soil in the chapter on expulsion points in this direction, her study runs the risk of hypostatizing cultural difference, an ahistorical tendency reinforced by the focus on twenty-first century texts. As a result, her model of intercultural competence, preoccupied with the statements of protagonists in novels, neglects the ways that cultural differences are also shaped by the medial practices through which distinctions are introduced, regulated, negotiated, and even undermined in efforts to create order in the world. Claims to the right to asylum, for instance, are inseparable from the daily operations of the passport system that is mediated by the issuing, bearing, and verifying of passports. The study of interculturality can also benefit from analysis of how literary texts explore the differences that technical media make in the world. Charlton Payne, Carl Zeiss AG
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
×
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