拉图尔、天安门和水晶鞋;或者,当我们谈论中国研究的时候,我们在谈论什么

PRISM Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1215/25783491-8690444
Haiyan Lee
{"title":"拉图尔、天安门和水晶鞋;或者,当我们谈论中国研究的时候,我们在谈论什么","authors":"Haiyan Lee","doi":"10.1215/25783491-8690444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article revisits a controversy that initially unfolded three decades ago. The immediate impetus for revisiting the controversy is the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 protests that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square. An intermediate reason is to reflect on how the methodological questions at the heart of that controversy are still very much alive as the protean field of Chinese studies continues reinventing itself in relation to theory. A still deeper reason is to rethink, via Bruno Latour, the status of fiction in the age of posttruth and fake news—a task incumbent upon all of us who call ourselves literary scholars.","PeriodicalId":33692,"journal":{"name":"PRISM","volume":"39 1","pages":"457-474"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Latour, Tiananmen, and Glass Slippers; or, What We Talk about When We Talk about Chinese Studies\",\"authors\":\"Haiyan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/25783491-8690444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article revisits a controversy that initially unfolded three decades ago. The immediate impetus for revisiting the controversy is the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 protests that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square. An intermediate reason is to reflect on how the methodological questions at the heart of that controversy are still very much alive as the protean field of Chinese studies continues reinventing itself in relation to theory. A still deeper reason is to rethink, via Bruno Latour, the status of fiction in the age of posttruth and fake news—a task incumbent upon all of us who call ourselves literary scholars.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PRISM\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"457-474\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PRISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/25783491-8690444\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/25783491-8690444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章重新审视了一场始于30年前的争议。重新审视这一争议的直接动力是1989年以天安门广场大屠杀告终的抗议活动30周年。一个中间原因是反思,当中国研究的多变领域继续在理论方面重塑自己时,处于争议核心的方法论问题如何仍然非常活跃。一个更深层次的原因是,通过布鲁诺·拉图尔(Bruno Latour),重新思考小说在后真相和假新闻时代的地位——这是我们所有自称为文学学者的人的责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Latour, Tiananmen, and Glass Slippers; or, What We Talk about When We Talk about Chinese Studies
This article revisits a controversy that initially unfolded three decades ago. The immediate impetus for revisiting the controversy is the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 protests that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square. An intermediate reason is to reflect on how the methodological questions at the heart of that controversy are still very much alive as the protean field of Chinese studies continues reinventing itself in relation to theory. A still deeper reason is to rethink, via Bruno Latour, the status of fiction in the age of posttruth and fake news—a task incumbent upon all of us who call ourselves literary scholars.
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
PRISM
PRISM Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信