当前位置: X-MOL 学术Theory, Culture & Society › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Oceans as the Paradigm of History
Theory, Culture & Society ( IF 2.517 ) Pub Date : 2021-02-08 , DOI: 10.1177/0263276420984538
Prasenjit Duara 1
Affiliation  

The temporality of historical flows can be understood through the paradigm of oceanic circulations of water. Historical processes are not linear and tunneled but circulatory and global, like oceanic currents. The argument of distributed agency deriving from the ‘ontological turn’ dovetails with the oceanic paradigm of circulatory histories. The latter allows us to grasp modes of both natural and historical inter-temporal communication through the medium of the natural and built environment. Yet the inclination in these new studies to deny any particular privilege to human will or design risks neglecting the changing role of human agency. Analytically I distinguish historiographical time from historical time. Historiographical time may be seen as the purposive capture of historical processes for various goals whereas historical time is more continuous with natural flows. More than origins and causes, the paradigm emphasizes the ramifying con-sequences of purposive actions. The gap in our understanding of the two temporalities has had a devastating impact on the planet.



中文翻译:

海洋作为历史范式

可以通过海洋水循环的范式来理解历史流量的时间性。历史过程不是线性的,穿越隧道的,而是循环的,全局的,就像洋流一样。源自“本体论转向”的分布式代理论证与循环历史的海洋范式相吻合。后者使我们能够通过自然和建筑环境的媒介掌握自然和历史的跨时期交流的模式。然而,这些新研究倾向于拒绝赋予人类意志或设计以任何特殊特权,却有可能忽视人类代理机构不断变化的作用。从分析上讲,我将历史时间历史时间区分开。史学时间可以看作是对各种目标的历史过程的有目的的捕捉,而历史时间与自然流则更为连续。除了起源和原因之外,范式还强调了目的性行为的后果。我们对这两种时间性的理解上的差距对地球产生了毁灭性的影响。

更新日期:2021-02-08
down
wechat
bug