Since the beginning of the twentieth century, romanticism has been a subject of heated debate among European scholars. In his 1919 book Political Romanticism, Carl Schmitt argued that ‘political romanticism’ privileged the boundless realm of possibility over the specificity of reality. In romanticism, according to Schmitt (2011, 126), reality did not matter so much as ‘romantic productivity, which transforms everything and makes it into the occasion for poetry’. A politics worthy of the name, by contrast, would embrace the risk, power, and authority involved in making a decision. During the same interwar moment, Walter Benjamin elaborated a theory of romanticism that sharply contrasted with Schmitt’s. Instead of placing a premium on reality and decisionism, Benjamin insisted on the ‘material content’ of romantic art. According to Michael L€owy and Robert Sayre in their seminal book Romanticism Against the Tide of Modernity, Benjamin read romanticism’s concern with possibility less as a failure to address reality than as highlighting the obstacles to egalitarianism that material conditions such as industrialism had put in its way. The object of any critical approach to romanticism, in this view, is to explore a work’s false appearance of unity – a task that might be accomplished by comparing its mode of political representation to the movement of history (L€owy and Sayre 2011, 21). Despite these opposed understandings of romanticism, they point towards the movement’s centrality in Western modernity. Emerging circa the French Revolution, romanticism brought together for the first time and with such impetus the realm of aesthetics and politics. From the 1970s to the present, debates over romanticism have continued apace, ranging from Jean-Luc Nancy and Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe’s The Literary Absolute (1978) to Jacques Ranci ere’s Aisthesis (2011). And yet, many of the discussions concerning this fundamental mode of modern philosophical thought – as Lucien Goldmann put it – have remained Eurocentric in some fundamental way (Goldmann 1967, 754; L€owy and Sayre 2011, 14). This dossier on the topic of ‘Political Romanticism in the Americas’ is an effort to examine a different history of romanticism that took place across the Atlantic. Focussed on nineteenthcentury Latin America, it brings together scholars in the field who conceptualise their work as transatlantic in order to re-consider the important – and, today, mostly forgotten – legacy of romanticism in the history of the hemisphere. The articles in this volume draw on thinkers as diverse as Eric Hobsbawm and Mary Louise Pratt to interrogate the variegated meanings of romanticism in the Americas. Some essays in the volume, such as those by Juan Pablo Dabove and B ecquer Segu ın, focus on how romanticism stretches the often assumed definitions of liberalism and conservatism. Others, such as Susan Hallstead’s and Felipe Mart ınez-Pinz on’s articles, argue for romanticism’s central role

中文翻译：

---

介绍

20世纪初以来，浪漫主义一直是欧洲学者激烈争论的话题。在他 1919 年出版的《政治浪漫主义》一书中，卡尔施密特认为“政治浪漫主义”将无限的可能性领域置于现实的特殊性之上。在浪漫主义中，根据施密特 (2011, 126) 的说法，现实并不像“浪漫生产力，它改变一切并使其成为诗歌的场合”那么重要。相比之下，名副其实的政治将包含决策所涉及的风险、权力和权威。在两次世界大战之间的同一时刻，沃尔特·本杰明 (Walter Benjamin) 阐述了一种与施密特 (Schmitt) 的理论形成鲜明对比的浪漫主义理论。本杰明并没有重视现实和决定论，而是坚持浪漫艺术的“物质内容”。根据迈克尔·洛维和罗伯特·赛尔在他们的开创性著作《反现代潮流的浪漫主义》中的说法，本杰明认为浪漫主义对可能性的关注与其说是未能解决现实问题，不如说是强调了工业主义等物质条件已经给平等主义带来的障碍。办法。在这种观点下，浪漫主义的任何批判方法的目的都是探索作品虚假的统一表象——一项可以通过将其政治表现模式与历史运动进行比较来完成的任务（L€owy and Sayre 2011, 21 ）。尽管对浪漫主义有这些相反的理解，但它们指出了该运动在西方现代性中的中心地位。大约在法国大革命期间出现的浪漫主义第一次将美学和政治领域结合在一起，并以如此强劲的势头融合在一起。从 1970 年代至今，从让-吕克·南希 (Jean-Luc Nancy) 和菲利普·拉库·拉巴特 (Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe) 的《绝对文学》(1978) 到雅克·朗西 (Jacques Ranci) 的《Aisthesis》(2011)，关于浪漫主义的争论仍在继续。然而，许多关于现代哲学思想基本模式的讨论——正如吕西安·戈德曼所说——在某些基本方面仍然以欧洲为中心（戈德曼 1967, 754; L€owy and Sayre 2011, 14）。这份以“美洲政治浪漫主义”为主题的档案旨在研究横跨大西洋的浪漫主义的不同历史。它专注于 19 世纪的拉丁美洲，汇集了该领域的学者，他们将他们的工作概念化为跨大西洋的，以重新考虑该半球历史上浪漫主义的重要遗产——今天，大部分被遗忘的遗产。本卷中的文章借鉴了埃里克·霍布斯鲍姆 (Eric Hobsbawm) 和玛丽·路易斯·普拉特 (Mary Louise Pratt) 等多元化的思想家，以询问美洲浪漫主义的各种含义。该卷中的一些文章，例如胡安·巴勃罗·达博夫 (Juan Pablo Dabove) 和 B ecquer Segu ın 的文章，重点关注浪漫主义如何扩展自由主义和保守主义的常用定义。其他人，例如 Susan Hallstead 和 Felipe Mart ınez-Pinz 的文章，主张浪漫主义的核心作用