《离家:英国、欧洲与乌托邦

S. Bruce
{"title":"《离家:英国、欧洲与乌托邦","authors":"S. Bruce","doi":"10.18193/SAH.V5I1.156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the lead-up to the Brexit referendum politicians and journalists invoked the concept of utopia to disparage positions diametrically opposed. On the one hand, the adjective ‘utopian’ was deployed to describe appeals to the possibility of a rediscovered national self-determination and ‘control’. On the other, it was utilized to characterise the conception of a European federation that might subsume or trump the autonomy of separate nation states. I argue here that the deployment of the adjective on both sides of the debate is not a mere accident of language. Rather, it betrays a deeper correspondence between the idea of Europe and the conception of utopia – not just any utopia, but, specifically, that of Thomas More. In More’s text we can read a prolepsis of the profound tensions that underlie the U.K.’s relation to Europe today: Utopia anticipates both a retreat into an illusory, isolationist conviction of the possibility of national integrity, and, at the same time, the dream of a Europe not (yet) achieved, whose most ambitious and thus far unrealised objectives – peace, collaboration, respect for human dignity and succour for the dispossessed – flicker into being in the utopian imaginary of a text written over half a millennia before our own fragile and highly contested historical moment.","PeriodicalId":31069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Arts and Humanities","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leaving Home: England, Europe, and Utopia\",\"authors\":\"S. Bruce\",\"doi\":\"10.18193/SAH.V5I1.156\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the lead-up to the Brexit referendum politicians and journalists invoked the concept of utopia to disparage positions diametrically opposed. On the one hand, the adjective ‘utopian’ was deployed to describe appeals to the possibility of a rediscovered national self-determination and ‘control’. On the other, it was utilized to characterise the conception of a European federation that might subsume or trump the autonomy of separate nation states. I argue here that the deployment of the adjective on both sides of the debate is not a mere accident of language. Rather, it betrays a deeper correspondence between the idea of Europe and the conception of utopia – not just any utopia, but, specifically, that of Thomas More. In More’s text we can read a prolepsis of the profound tensions that underlie the U.K.’s relation to Europe today: Utopia anticipates both a retreat into an illusory, isolationist conviction of the possibility of national integrity, and, at the same time, the dream of a Europe not (yet) achieved, whose most ambitious and thus far unrealised objectives – peace, collaboration, respect for human dignity and succour for the dispossessed – flicker into being in the utopian imaginary of a text written over half a millennia before our own fragile and highly contested historical moment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Arts and Humanities\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Arts and Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18193/SAH.V5I1.156\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Arts and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18193/SAH.V5I1.156","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

在英国退欧公投前夕,政客和记者们援引乌托邦的概念来贬低截然相反的立场。一方面,形容词“乌托邦”被用来描述对重新发现的民族自决和“控制”的可能性的呼吁。另一方面,它被用来描述一个欧洲联邦的概念,这个概念可能包含或超越独立民族国家的自治。我在这里认为,辩论双方对形容词的使用不仅仅是语言上的偶然。相反,它暴露了欧洲观念与乌托邦概念之间更深层次的对应关系——不是随便什么乌托邦,而是托马斯·莫尔的乌托邦。在莫尔的文章中,我们可以读到一种深刻的紧张关系的预言,这种紧张关系是当今英国与欧洲关系的基础:《乌托邦》既期待着一种对国家完整可能性的虚幻的孤立主义信念的退缩,同时也期待着一个(尚未)实现的欧洲之梦,其最雄心勃勃的、迄今尚未实现的目标——和平、合作、尊重人类尊严和救助被剥夺者——在我们这个脆弱而充满争议的历史时刻之前的50多年里,在一篇乌托邦式的想象中闪现出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Leaving Home: England, Europe, and Utopia
In the lead-up to the Brexit referendum politicians and journalists invoked the concept of utopia to disparage positions diametrically opposed. On the one hand, the adjective ‘utopian’ was deployed to describe appeals to the possibility of a rediscovered national self-determination and ‘control’. On the other, it was utilized to characterise the conception of a European federation that might subsume or trump the autonomy of separate nation states. I argue here that the deployment of the adjective on both sides of the debate is not a mere accident of language. Rather, it betrays a deeper correspondence between the idea of Europe and the conception of utopia – not just any utopia, but, specifically, that of Thomas More. In More’s text we can read a prolepsis of the profound tensions that underlie the U.K.’s relation to Europe today: Utopia anticipates both a retreat into an illusory, isolationist conviction of the possibility of national integrity, and, at the same time, the dream of a Europe not (yet) achieved, whose most ambitious and thus far unrealised objectives – peace, collaboration, respect for human dignity and succour for the dispossessed – flicker into being in the utopian imaginary of a text written over half a millennia before our own fragile and highly contested historical moment.
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
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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