从不和谐的支配到共时的神圣:关系抽取作为抽取主义的反共振

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
James E. Woods II
{"title":"从不和谐的支配到共时的神圣:关系抽取作为抽取主义的反共振","authors":"James E. Woods II","doi":"10.1111/dial.12798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is a growing tendency within various disciplines of the humanities to conflate the terms extraction and extractivism. While the first word has many everyday uses—tooth extraction, vanilla “extract”—the latter term was specifically coined to identify a malevolent imaginary that indemnifies the removal of so-called “resources,” especially when that displacement involves layers of violence and/or looks solely to satisfy a particular economic aim. Given these disparate denotations, the unqualified use of “extraction” synonymously with “extractivism” introduces unnecessary ambiguity, inviting divergent arguments that ultimately diminish an otherwise worthy discussion and losing sight of the grave issues that underlie the conversation's original intent. As such, this essay investigates the biblical origins of this false equivalency and suggests how this usage might be disentangled to properly recenter the malevolence its users are attempting to describe.</p>","PeriodicalId":42769,"journal":{"name":"Dialog-A Journal of Theology","volume":"62 2","pages":"156-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From dissonant dominance to synchronic sanctity: Relational extraction as counter-resonance to extractivism\",\"authors\":\"James E. Woods II\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dial.12798\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is a growing tendency within various disciplines of the humanities to conflate the terms extraction and extractivism. While the first word has many everyday uses—tooth extraction, vanilla “extract”—the latter term was specifically coined to identify a malevolent imaginary that indemnifies the removal of so-called “resources,” especially when that displacement involves layers of violence and/or looks solely to satisfy a particular economic aim. Given these disparate denotations, the unqualified use of “extraction” synonymously with “extractivism” introduces unnecessary ambiguity, inviting divergent arguments that ultimately diminish an otherwise worthy discussion and losing sight of the grave issues that underlie the conversation's original intent. As such, this essay investigates the biblical origins of this false equivalency and suggests how this usage might be disentangled to properly recenter the malevolence its users are attempting to describe.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":42769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialog-A Journal of Theology\",\"volume\":\"62 2\",\"pages\":\"156-164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialog-A Journal of Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dial.12798\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialog-A Journal of Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dial.12798","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在人文学科的各个学科中,越来越倾向于将提取主义和提取主义混为一谈。虽然第一个词有很多日常用途——拔牙、香草“提取物”——但后一个词是专门用来识别一种恶意的想象,这种想象可以补偿所谓的“资源”的移除,尤其是当这种流离失所涉及多层暴力和/或看起来只是为了满足特定的经济目标时。考虑到这些不同的外延,将“提取”与“提取主义”同义词无条件地使用会带来不必要的歧义,引发分歧的争论,最终削弱了原本有价值的讨论,并忽视了对话初衷背后的严重问题。因此,本文调查了这种错误对等的圣经起源,并建议如何解开这种用法,以正确地重新定位其用户试图描述的恶意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From dissonant dominance to synchronic sanctity: Relational extraction as counter-resonance to extractivism

There is a growing tendency within various disciplines of the humanities to conflate the terms extraction and extractivism. While the first word has many everyday uses—tooth extraction, vanilla “extract”—the latter term was specifically coined to identify a malevolent imaginary that indemnifies the removal of so-called “resources,” especially when that displacement involves layers of violence and/or looks solely to satisfy a particular economic aim. Given these disparate denotations, the unqualified use of “extraction” synonymously with “extractivism” introduces unnecessary ambiguity, inviting divergent arguments that ultimately diminish an otherwise worthy discussion and losing sight of the grave issues that underlie the conversation's original intent. As such, this essay investigates the biblical origins of this false equivalency and suggests how this usage might be disentangled to properly recenter the malevolence its users are attempting to describe.

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
52
×
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