{"title":"权力玩","authors":"K. Simmons","doi":"10.1163/15743012-02503005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This essay examines how the rhetoric of recovery and reclamation functions in scholarly projects that aim to switch traditional or historical narrative codes. After describing the discourse on “post-blackness” as an example of how prefixes serve as problematic stabilizers in academe, I will offer a few moments in recent popular commemorative culture – especially the events that recognized desegregation at the University of Alabama – as narrative sites where the limitations of recovery work become apparent.","PeriodicalId":100333,"journal":{"name":"Conversations in Religion & Theology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Power Play\",\"authors\":\"K. Simmons\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15743012-02503005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This essay examines how the rhetoric of recovery and reclamation functions in scholarly projects that aim to switch traditional or historical narrative codes. After describing the discourse on “post-blackness” as an example of how prefixes serve as problematic stabilizers in academe, I will offer a few moments in recent popular commemorative culture – especially the events that recognized desegregation at the University of Alabama – as narrative sites where the limitations of recovery work become apparent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conversations in Religion & Theology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conversations in Religion & Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-02503005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conversations in Religion & Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-02503005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay examines how the rhetoric of recovery and reclamation functions in scholarly projects that aim to switch traditional or historical narrative codes. After describing the discourse on “post-blackness” as an example of how prefixes serve as problematic stabilizers in academe, I will offer a few moments in recent popular commemorative culture – especially the events that recognized desegregation at the University of Alabama – as narrative sites where the limitations of recovery work become apparent.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
