analysis, even if they had their normative agendas. But none of these latter works are as superfused with critical intent as Johnson’s book. But it is my contention that theory does more than merely function as an auxiliary to critique here. I would suggest that theory is, in its own way, ethnographic, although one has to understand ethnography in an expressive, and not descriptive, sense of the word. While Johnson relies on a variety of theoretical frames in her book, one in particular plays a central role: affect. While not all theory is affect theory here, affect theory is always the final intellectual horizon of any other theoretical account. It is affect that ties together the recasting of Christian marriages as cryptopornography, the militaristic images and the stoking of fears, the social cruelty of the church members, and much more. Additionally, affect even ties together the PTSD-like conditions of many of Mars Hill’s former congregants when they realize that they have been duped. But one of the most difficult things about affect is its transitory, gossamer nature. The embodied, contagious, yet fleeting precursor to the more conceptual category of “emotion,” affect is often that which escapes. Affect is often invisible. Many of those hurt by Mars Hill were also invisible in their own ways, too. They often felt so psychically wounded that they were incapable of speaking up, and when they did, Driscoll would depersonalize and erase the victims by complaining about “anonymous” accusations. But concretizing and monumentalizing affect undoes that violence. Affect theory becomes a way to testify to the pain of the victims of Mars Hill and also a way for Johnson to testify about her own pain, too, given how closely she clearly relates to and identifies with those Mars Hill survivors. Here affect theory not only commemorates the truth of the affects that transited those caught up in Mars Hill but through its mechanisms also gives that affect a solidity that cannot be erased. In its own way, it is affect theory that allows Johnson to say that Driscoll’s victims are not anonymous and that their pain is entirely real.

中文翻译：

---

不要惊慌。这只是理论

分析，即使他们有自己的规范议程。但后面这些作品都没有像约翰逊的书那样充满批判性意图。但我的论点是，理论不仅仅是在这里起到批判的辅助作用。我认为理论以它自己的方式是民族志，尽管人们必须从表达性而非描述性的意义上来理解民族志。虽然约翰逊在她的书中依赖了各种理论框架，但其中一个尤其起着核心作用：影响。虽然这里并非所有理论都是情感理论，但情感理论始终是任何其他理论解释的最终知识视野。正是情感将基督教婚姻重铸为密码色情、军国主义形象和恐惧的煽动、教会成员的社会残忍等等联系在一起。此外，当 Mars Hill 的许多前会众意识到自己被欺骗时，他们甚至将类似 PTSD 的状况联系在一起。但是关于情感的最困难的事情之一是它的短暂性和游丝性。情感是更具概念性的“情感”类别的具身性、传染性但稍纵即逝的前身，它通常是逃避的东西。影响往往是看不见的。许多被火星山伤害的人也以自己的方式隐形。他们经常感到精神上受到了伤害，以至于无法说出来，当他们说出来时，德里斯科尔会通过抱怨“匿名”指控来使受害者失去个性并抹去他们的踪迹。但是具体化和纪念性的影响会消除这种暴力。情感理论成为证明火星山受害者痛苦的一种方式，也是约翰逊证明自己痛苦的一种方式，因为她与那些火星山幸存者的关系和认同程度如此之高。在这里，情感理论不仅纪念了那些被困在火星山上的人所经历的情感的真相，而且通过它的机制也赋予了这种情感一种无法抹去的坚固性。以自己的方式，正是情感理论让约翰逊能够说德里斯科尔的受害者不是匿名的，他们的痛苦是完全真实的。在这里，情感理论不仅纪念了那些被困在火星山上的人所经历的情感的真相，而且通过它的机制也赋予了这种情感一种无法抹去的坚固性。以自己的方式，正是情感理论让约翰逊能够说德里斯科尔的受害者不是匿名的，他们的痛苦是完全真实的。在这里，情感理论不仅纪念了那些被困在火星山上的人所经历的情感的真相，而且通过它的机制也赋予了这种情感一种无法抹去的坚固性。以自己的方式，正是情感理论让约翰逊能够说德里斯科尔的受害者不是匿名的，他们的痛苦是完全真实的。