The provocation to ‘think the global with literature’ is one which demands that a reader/thinker adjust the framework from one which is predicated on a working definition of globalization (whether this definition is one wherein ‘globalization’ is conceived as a solely late twentieth century economic-political phenomenon, or one which stretches as far back as what a Western literary critic may call the start of the Modern era proper – the early sixteenth century), to one whose mode of speculative reason – the idea of a globe both with and without the conceptual reality of globalization – was at once prior to this and also remains prevalent today. It is a provocation that, rather than asking for an astringent set of comparative terms and reductions, asks that its exposures and articulations are open, mobile, and, even as they are grounded in evidentiary supposition, are productively speculative. The adjustment from thinking ‘globalization’ to thinking the global is one which carries over the variety of meanings, and as various disagreements, that Dan Rebellato sees as the contested hallmarks of the ‘globalization’ trend, jostling difficulties of ‘consciousness, conflict, politics, and money’ (Rebellato 2009, 4). Yet, in carrying these things over – implicated in but distinct from an idea of ‘thinking the global’ – thought is also freed up from the need to pin down a discrete structure to globalization; freed up to allow for the literary to facilitate experimentation in the possibilities of global thought. The global, after all, is a question of scale and of possibility; of evidence and of speculation; of maintenance and of disruption all predicated on the formal, geometrical, material reality of this planet. To think the global is to look not only at the interiorized Anthropocene perspective, which ‘we can only think from the inside out’ (Taylor 2017, 31), but also to allow for the radically exteriorized perspective on (and of) the earth as globe. There is a real and speculative scale at play here – from the phonemic through to a syntactic level, to the layerings and effects of plot, character, speech and form upon its readers – since literature admits both the coexistence and calling into question of different scales, modes, and possibilities of thought, then its speculative, disruptive, position in relation to other modes of articulating the global, and its, at times too easy, enactment of scalar thought,

中文翻译：

---

用文学思考全球：引言

“用文学思考全球”的挑衅是要求读者/思想家调整框架，从一个基于全球化的工作定义的框架（无论这个定义是否将“全球化”视为二十世纪后期的一个定义）一个世纪的经济政治现象，或者可以追溯到西方文学评论家所说的现代时代的开端——16 世纪早期），到一种思辨理性模式——地球的概念并且没有全球化的概念现实——在此之前并且今天仍然普遍存在。这是一种挑衅，而不是要求一组严格的比较术语和减少，而是要求其曝光和表达是开放的、可移动的，并且，即使它们以证据假设为基础，也是富有成效的推测。从思考“全球化”到思考全球的调整是一种承载着多种含义和各种分歧，丹·雷贝拉托（Dan Rebellato）将其视为“全球化”趋势的有争议的标志，推挤着“意识、冲突、政治”的困难。和金钱”（Rebellato 2009, 4）。然而，在继承这些东西的过程中——与“思考全球”的想法有牵连但又有所不同——思想也摆脱了将离散结构固定到全球化的需要；解放出来，让文学可以促进全球思想可能性的实验。毕竟，全球是一个规模和可能性的问题；证据和推测；维护和破坏都基于这个星球的形式、几何、物质现实。思考全球不仅要着眼于“我们只能从内而外思考”的内在化的人类世视角（Taylor 2017, 31），而且还要考虑到地球（和）从根本上外化的视角作为地球。这里有一个真实和推测性的尺度——从音素到句法层面，再到情节、人物、语言和形式对读者的分层和影响——因为文学承认不同尺度的共存和质疑，思维的模式和可能性，然后它的思辨性，破坏性，相对于其他表达全局模式的位置，以及它有时太容易，标量思维的制定，这个星球的物质现实。思考全球不仅要着眼于内化的人类世视角，即“我们只能从内而外思考”（Taylor 2017, 31），而且还要考虑对地球（和地球）的彻底外化视角作为地球。这里有一个真实和推测性的尺度——从音素到句法层面，再到情节、人物、语言和形式对读者的分层和影响——因为文学承认不同尺度的共存和质疑，思维的模式和可能性，然后它的思辨性，破坏性，相对于其他表达全局模式的位置，以及它有时太容易，标量思维的制定，这个星球的物质现实。思考全球不仅要着眼于“我们只能从内而外思考”的内在化的人类世视角（Taylor 2017, 31），而且还要考虑到地球（和）从根本上外化的视角作为地球。这里有一个真实和推测性的尺度——从音素到句法层面，再到情节、人物、语言和形式对读者的分层和影响——因为文学承认不同尺度的共存和质疑，思维的模式和可能性，然后它的思辨性，破坏性，与其他表达全球模式的关系的位置，以及它有时太容易，标量思维的制定，“我们只能从内而外思考”（Taylor 2017, 31），但也允许从根本上将地球（和）外化为地球。这里有一个真实和推测性的尺度——从音素到句法层面，再到情节、人物、语言和形式对读者的分层和影响——因为文学承认不同尺度的共存和质疑，思维的模式和可能性，然后它的思辨性，破坏性，与其他表达全球模式的关系的位置，以及它有时太容易，标量思维的制定，“我们只能从内而外思考”（Taylor 2017, 31），但也允许从根本上将地球（和）外化为地球。这里有一个真实和推测性的尺度——从音素到句法层面，再到情节、人物、语言和形式对读者的分层和影响——因为文学承认不同尺度的共存和质疑，思维的模式和可能性，然后它的思辨性，破坏性，相对于其他表达全局模式的位置，以及它有时太容易，标量思维的制定，