当前位置: X-MOL 学术Critical Horizons › 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.)
From Amy Allen to Abbé Raynal: Critical Theory, the Enlightenment and Colonialism
Critical Horizons Pub Date : 2019-04-03 , DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2019.1596220
Matthew Sharpe 1
Affiliation  

ABSTRACT This paper is a critical response to Amy Allen’s The End of Progress: Decolonising the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. We take up her book’s call for a “problematizing” history which challenges “taken-for-granted” preconceptions in order to contest Allen’s own representation of the thought of the enlightenment. Allen accepts that all the enlighteners agreed upon a stadial, progressive account of history, which she critiques epistemically and normatively (Part 1). But we show in Part 2, drawing on the work of Henri Vyverberg and other historians of eighteenth century ideas, that a cyclical, rise and fall account of historical succession was more prominent than the progressive narrative in leading enlighteners such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert, Condillac, Jancourt, Grimm, and Raynal, all of whom Allen does not mention. In Part 3, we show that not all thinkers of the enlightenment were pro-colonial or pro-imperialist, as Allen also presupposes in The End of Progress. By examining Abbé Raynal’s History of The Two Indies in Part 3, and notably its Diderotian interpolations, we show that many enlighteners propounded fierce criticisms of European colonialism and the slave trade, even calling directly for armed resistance against European infractions. In critical theorists’ search for chastened normative foundations, our concluding remarks contend, there is a need to develop more accurate, balanced, post-postmodern reckonings of the enlightenment.

中文翻译:

从艾米·艾伦到艾伯·雷纳尔:批判理论,启蒙运动和殖民主义

摘要本文是对艾米·艾伦(Amy Allen)的《进步的终结:批判批判理论的规范基础》的批评。我们接受她的书中关于“问题化”历史的呼吁,该历史挑战“理所当然”的先入之见,以便与艾伦自己对启蒙思想的表述相抗衡。艾伦(Allen)接受所有启蒙者都同意对历史进行固定的,渐进的描述,她从认识论和规范论进行了批评(第1部分)。但是我们在第2部分中展示了借鉴Henri Vyverberg和其他18世纪思想史学家的工作,对历史继承的周期性,上升和下降的解释比孟德斯鸠,伏尔泰,狄德罗等主要启蒙者的进步叙事更突出,达朗伯,康迪拉克,扬科特,格林和雷纳尔,Allen没有提及。在第3部分中,我们展示了并非所有的启蒙思想家都是亲殖民主义的或帝国主义的,正如艾伦(Allen)在《进步的终结》中所预设的那样。通过研究阿贝·雷纳尔(AbbéRaynal)的《两个印度的历史》,特别是其狄德罗式插值法,我们发现,许多启蒙者对欧洲殖民主义和奴隶贸易提出了激烈的批评,甚至直接呼吁武装抵抗欧洲的违法行为。我们的结论认为,在批判理论家寻求严苛的规范基础的过程中,有必要发展对启蒙运动的更准确,平衡,后后现代的认识。通过研究阿贝·雷纳尔(AbbéRaynal)的《两个印度的历史》,特别是其狄德罗式插值法,我们发现,许多启蒙者对欧洲殖民主义和奴隶贸易提出了激烈的批评,甚至直接呼吁武装抵抗欧洲的违法行为。我们的结论认为,在批判理论家寻求严苛的规范基础的过程中,有必要发展对启蒙运动的更准确,平衡,后后现代的认识。通过研究阿贝·雷纳尔(AbbéRaynal)的《两个印度的历史》,特别是其狄德罗式插值法,我们发现,许多启蒙者对欧洲殖民主义和奴隶贸易提出了激烈的批评,甚至直接呼吁武装抵抗欧洲的违法行为。我们的结论认为,在批判理论家寻求严苛的规范基础的过程中,有必要发展对启蒙运动的更准确,平衡,后后现代的认识。
更新日期:2019-04-03
down
wechat
bug