《可能性的父母:自由主义终结的故事》作者:玛格丽特·西福德·赫雷佐、尼古拉斯·帕帕斯

IF 0.4 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
Lasse Winther Jensen
{"title":"《可能性的父母:自由主义终结的故事》作者:玛格丽特·西福德·赫雷佐、尼古拉斯·帕帕斯","authors":"Lasse Winther Jensen","doi":"10.1353/pan.2022.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our still fresh decade has quickly come to be defined by cultural upheaval, political turmoil, and societal rupture of, indeed, pandemic proportions. This pervasive state of flux and crisis underscores the calls for ideological reconfigurations presented in Possibility’s Parents, which is also to say that the publication of this book is nothing if not timely. Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas waste no time announcing that their work is an ambitious and academically idiosyncratic response to an age of crisis. The first line of the preface reads: “This book’s approach to the human search for communal order is unusual” (xi). Both authors are emeritus professors of political science, but Possibility’s Parents aims to use analyses of works of literature to suggest a full-scale alternative to the tradition of classical Western liberalism from Locke to these days, which Hrezo and Pappas deem “no longer viable,” so that “political philosophy must begin searching for new possibilities in answering the questions posed by human existence” (xi). The book is first and foremost unusual in the sense that it explicitly situates itself against certain academic norms, or what the authors see as a lack of accessibility and “overspecialization” that characterizes the field of political science. The need to ameliorate this alienation between theorists and a less specialized audience of readers is presented in the preface as the reason for the book’s deployment of literature as its prism for fleshing out ideas that are more often encountered within the realm of political philosophy. Furthermore, a glossary is appended “to help with unfamiliar terms” used throughout the book (x). Another rather unusual device used in the book’s attempt to further the general relatability of its subject matter is the choice to set off each chapter with a question posed by a grandson of one of the authors — questions such as, “Do you believe in magic?” and “What do you think happens to people when they die?” Yet, contrary to the helpful and commendable pedagogical enhancements provided by the glossary and the preface, this structural device does not add anything substantial to the book’s approach. In their quest for new ways of answering the questions posed by human existence, the authors erect a philosophical and terminological scaffolding that is lucidly explained in the book’s first chapter. The identification of Western lib-","PeriodicalId":42435,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"1 1","pages":"183 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Possibility's Parents: Stories at the End of Liberalism by Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas (review)\",\"authors\":\"Lasse Winther Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pan.2022.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our still fresh decade has quickly come to be defined by cultural upheaval, political turmoil, and societal rupture of, indeed, pandemic proportions. This pervasive state of flux and crisis underscores the calls for ideological reconfigurations presented in Possibility’s Parents, which is also to say that the publication of this book is nothing if not timely. Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas waste no time announcing that their work is an ambitious and academically idiosyncratic response to an age of crisis. The first line of the preface reads: “This book’s approach to the human search for communal order is unusual” (xi). Both authors are emeritus professors of political science, but Possibility’s Parents aims to use analyses of works of literature to suggest a full-scale alternative to the tradition of classical Western liberalism from Locke to these days, which Hrezo and Pappas deem “no longer viable,” so that “political philosophy must begin searching for new possibilities in answering the questions posed by human existence” (xi). The book is first and foremost unusual in the sense that it explicitly situates itself against certain academic norms, or what the authors see as a lack of accessibility and “overspecialization” that characterizes the field of political science. The need to ameliorate this alienation between theorists and a less specialized audience of readers is presented in the preface as the reason for the book’s deployment of literature as its prism for fleshing out ideas that are more often encountered within the realm of political philosophy. Furthermore, a glossary is appended “to help with unfamiliar terms” used throughout the book (x). Another rather unusual device used in the book’s attempt to further the general relatability of its subject matter is the choice to set off each chapter with a question posed by a grandson of one of the authors — questions such as, “Do you believe in magic?” and “What do you think happens to people when they die?” Yet, contrary to the helpful and commendable pedagogical enhancements provided by the glossary and the preface, this structural device does not add anything substantial to the book’s approach. In their quest for new ways of answering the questions posed by human existence, the authors erect a philosophical and terminological scaffolding that is lucidly explained in the book’s first chapter. The identification of Western lib-\",\"PeriodicalId\":42435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"183 - 186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2022.0008\",\"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":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2022.0008","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

我们刚刚过去的十年很快就被文化动荡、政治动荡和社会破裂所定义,事实上,这是流行病的程度。这种无处不在的变化和危机状态强调了《可能性的父母》中提出的意识形态重构的呼吁,这也就是说,这本书的出版如果不是及时的,就什么都不是。Margaret Seyford Hrezo和Nicholas Pappas毫不犹豫地宣布,他们的工作是对危机时代的雄心勃勃和学术上的特殊回应。序言的第一行写道:“这本书对人类寻求公共秩序的方法是不寻常的”(xi)。两位作者都是政治学的名誉教授,但《可能性的父母》的目的是通过对文学作品的分析,提出一种全面的替代传统的西方古典自由主义,从洛克到今天,Hrezo和Pappas认为“不再可行”。因此,“政治哲学必须开始寻找新的可能性,以回答人类存在所提出的问题”(十一)。这本书首先是不寻常的,因为它明确地将自己置于某些学术规范之上,或者作者认为缺乏可接近性和“过度专业化”是政治科学领域的特征。为了改善理论家和不太专业的读者之间的疏离,这本书在前言中提出了文学作为其棱镜的原因,以充实在政治哲学领域中更经常遇到的思想。此外,书中还附了一个词汇表,以“帮助读者理解不熟悉的术语”(x)。为了进一步提高主题的相关性,本书还采用了另一种不同寻常的方法,即在每一章开头都用一位作者的孙子提出的问题——比如“你相信魔法吗?”和“你认为人死后会发生什么?”然而,与词汇表和前言所提供的有益和值得赞扬的教学改进相反,这种结构装置并没有为本书的方法增加任何实质性的内容。在寻找回答人类存在所提出的问题的新方法的过程中,作者在书的第一章中建立了一个哲学和术语框架,并进行了清晰的解释。西方lib-的鉴定
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Possibility's Parents: Stories at the End of Liberalism by Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas (review)
Our still fresh decade has quickly come to be defined by cultural upheaval, political turmoil, and societal rupture of, indeed, pandemic proportions. This pervasive state of flux and crisis underscores the calls for ideological reconfigurations presented in Possibility’s Parents, which is also to say that the publication of this book is nothing if not timely. Margaret Seyford Hrezo and Nicholas Pappas waste no time announcing that their work is an ambitious and academically idiosyncratic response to an age of crisis. The first line of the preface reads: “This book’s approach to the human search for communal order is unusual” (xi). Both authors are emeritus professors of political science, but Possibility’s Parents aims to use analyses of works of literature to suggest a full-scale alternative to the tradition of classical Western liberalism from Locke to these days, which Hrezo and Pappas deem “no longer viable,” so that “political philosophy must begin searching for new possibilities in answering the questions posed by human existence” (xi). The book is first and foremost unusual in the sense that it explicitly situates itself against certain academic norms, or what the authors see as a lack of accessibility and “overspecialization” that characterizes the field of political science. The need to ameliorate this alienation between theorists and a less specialized audience of readers is presented in the preface as the reason for the book’s deployment of literature as its prism for fleshing out ideas that are more often encountered within the realm of political philosophy. Furthermore, a glossary is appended “to help with unfamiliar terms” used throughout the book (x). Another rather unusual device used in the book’s attempt to further the general relatability of its subject matter is the choice to set off each chapter with a question posed by a grandson of one of the authors — questions such as, “Do you believe in magic?” and “What do you think happens to people when they die?” Yet, contrary to the helpful and commendable pedagogical enhancements provided by the glossary and the preface, this structural device does not add anything substantial to the book’s approach. In their quest for new ways of answering the questions posed by human existence, the authors erect a philosophical and terminological scaffolding that is lucidly explained in the book’s first chapter. The identification of Western lib-
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
27
期刊介绍: Partial Answers is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal that focuses on the study of literature and the history of ideas. This interdisciplinary component is responsible for combining analysis of literary works with discussions of historical and theoretical issues. The journal publishes articles on various national literatures including Anglophone, Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Russian, and, predominately, English literature. Partial Answers would appeal to literature scholars, teachers, and students in addition to scholars in philosophy, cultural studies, and intellectual history.
×
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