忠诚是不稳定存在的次霸权解毒剂:对彼得-本·史密特的回应

Suzan Sierksma-Agteres
{"title":"忠诚是不稳定存在的次霸权解毒剂:对彼得-本·史密特的回应","authors":"Suzan Sierksma-Agteres","doi":"10.5325/jstudpaullett.9.1-2.0080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this response to Peter-Ben Smit’s article in this volume, two questions are discussed. The first intends to review critically one of the main tenets of Peter-Ben Smit’s contribution by asking exactly how fluid and discursive the construction of gender in the Pastoral Epistles was. The second question is whether hegemonic performance of masculinity is the best explanation for the manner of expressing authority in the Pastorals. As a mostly additional yet partly challenging perspective, a related interpretive frame is introduced: philosophical imitation in virtue. As authority is expressed in terms of imitation in virtuous living, it can be better understood as a form of, in Smit’s vocabulary, “subhegemonic” masculinity: a critical rephrasing of the cultural hegemonic norm in terms of self-control that enables participation of “every body,” male and female. Crucial to this philosophical ideal of masculinity is control over one’s self (sōphrosunē) instead of the hegemonic ideal of control over the world outside. In addition to this virtue, it will be argued that in all three Pastoral Epistles the virtue of pistis, “trust” or “faithfulness,” functions to create a reciprocal, inclusive, and divinely modelled network of imitation. Rather than supporting the author’s masculine self-presentation, as Smit holds, pistis functions to balance hegemonically gendered power play.","PeriodicalId":29841,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Faithfulness as Subhegemonic Antidote to a Precarious Existence: A Response to Peter-Ben Smit\",\"authors\":\"Suzan Sierksma-Agteres\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/jstudpaullett.9.1-2.0080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this response to Peter-Ben Smit’s article in this volume, two questions are discussed. The first intends to review critically one of the main tenets of Peter-Ben Smit’s contribution by asking exactly how fluid and discursive the construction of gender in the Pastoral Epistles was. The second question is whether hegemonic performance of masculinity is the best explanation for the manner of expressing authority in the Pastorals. As a mostly additional yet partly challenging perspective, a related interpretive frame is introduced: philosophical imitation in virtue. As authority is expressed in terms of imitation in virtuous living, it can be better understood as a form of, in Smit’s vocabulary, “subhegemonic” masculinity: a critical rephrasing of the cultural hegemonic norm in terms of self-control that enables participation of “every body,” male and female. Crucial to this philosophical ideal of masculinity is control over one’s self (sōphrosunē) instead of the hegemonic ideal of control over the world outside. In addition to this virtue, it will be argued that in all three Pastoral Epistles the virtue of pistis, “trust” or “faithfulness,” functions to create a reciprocal, inclusive, and divinely modelled network of imitation. Rather than supporting the author’s masculine self-presentation, as Smit holds, pistis functions to balance hegemonically gendered power play.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/jstudpaullett.9.1-2.0080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jstudpaullett.9.1-2.0080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在对Peter-Ben Smit在本卷中的文章的回应中,讨论了两个问题。第一部分旨在批判性地回顾彼得-本·斯密特贡献的主要原则之一,询问教牧书信中性别的建构到底是多么流畅和话语化。第二个问题是,对于《牧歌》中表达权威的方式,男性气概的霸权表现是否是最好的解释。作为一个主要是附加但部分具有挑战性的视角,引入了一个相关的解释框架:美德的哲学模仿。由于权威是通过对美德生活的模仿来表达的,用Smit的话来说,它可以更好地理解为一种形式的“亚霸权”男性气质:一种对文化霸权规范的批判性重新表述,以自我控制的方式,使“每个人”,男性和女性都能参与其中。对于这种哲学意义上的男子气概来说,关键在于控制自己(sōphrosunē),而不是控制外部世界的霸权理想。除了这种美德之外,我们还会争论,在所有三封牧函中,pistis的美德,即“信任”或“忠诚”,其功能是创造一个相互的、包容的、神圣的模仿网络。而不是支持作者的男性自我表现,如Smit所认为的那样,pistis的功能是平衡霸权的性别权力游戏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Faithfulness as Subhegemonic Antidote to a Precarious Existence: A Response to Peter-Ben Smit
In this response to Peter-Ben Smit’s article in this volume, two questions are discussed. The first intends to review critically one of the main tenets of Peter-Ben Smit’s contribution by asking exactly how fluid and discursive the construction of gender in the Pastoral Epistles was. The second question is whether hegemonic performance of masculinity is the best explanation for the manner of expressing authority in the Pastorals. As a mostly additional yet partly challenging perspective, a related interpretive frame is introduced: philosophical imitation in virtue. As authority is expressed in terms of imitation in virtuous living, it can be better understood as a form of, in Smit’s vocabulary, “subhegemonic” masculinity: a critical rephrasing of the cultural hegemonic norm in terms of self-control that enables participation of “every body,” male and female. Crucial to this philosophical ideal of masculinity is control over one’s self (sōphrosunē) instead of the hegemonic ideal of control over the world outside. In addition to this virtue, it will be argued that in all three Pastoral Epistles the virtue of pistis, “trust” or “faithfulness,” functions to create a reciprocal, inclusive, and divinely modelled network of imitation. Rather than supporting the author’s masculine self-presentation, as Smit holds, pistis functions to balance hegemonically gendered power play.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信