The affective and emotional dimensions of sociality have received renewed attention during the past two decades under the heading of the ‘affective turn’ (Clough and Halley 2007) and through new theoretical distinctions and vibrant discussions about the scope of affect theories in the humanities (Blackman and Venn 2010; Gregg and Seigworth 2010; Gammerl, Hutta, and Scheer 2017; Navaro 2017). In this context, affect has repeatedly been conceptualized as a matter of temporality and eventfulness, epitomized by investigations into interaction dynamics, collective bodily movements, and delays in perception such as the ‘missing half second’ (Massumi 1995; Hansen 2004; Angerer 2014). With this special issue, we ask how this ‘timing of affect’ (Angerer, Bösel, and Ott 2014) is or can be located. We chose the verb ‘locating’ rather than location to emphasize a processual perspective that remains attuned to both the timing and spatialization of affect and their specific relation. Our aim in locating affect is not to play more temporal theories of the affective off against spatial ones but, rather, to bring the spatiotemporality of affect into close enough focus that we can connect it to empirical research on space and place, on the one hand, and spatial concepts in political and social theory, on the other. Spatial theories of affect have been frequently fleshed out from the vantage point of a minimal relationalism, which attends to how bodies are affected and affecting, sending and receiving at the same time (Barad 2007; Thrift 2007; Slaby and Röttger-Rössler 2018). The integrative looping of affective forces has been conceptualized as ‘transmission’ (Brennan 2004) or ‘resonance’ (Mühlhoff 2015), thereby describing affect by means of a spatial metaphor and extensive form insofar that a transmission or resonance takes effect on something from somewhere. Others have developed notions of shared, or collective affects and emotions, hence locating affect decidedly beyond individual subjects and single objects, and instead demonstrating how the intensification of attachments relates ‘bodily space with social space’ (Ahmed 2004, 119). However, the leap from a relational to a spatial theory of affect entails a picture puzzle on the level of description: the relation acquires form only in accordance with a spatial reference system in which it is considered. Thus, rather than asking for affect’s relational extension in space, we need to rethink every time anew the different and sometimes implicit understandings of space that come along with descriptions of affect. In the diverse spectrum of affect theories, and especially in the poststructural tradition, many authors have made bodily, energetic, or vital movements rather than spatial coordinate systems the departure point for their inquiries. In such cases, the spatial shape or manifestation of affect comes across as a derivative of its temporal unfolding. But even then, spatial metaphors creep in. Brian Massumi, for example, uses the notion of ‘phase space’ (Massumi 1995, 93) to describe affect as an emergent and virtual entity. John Protevi follows Massumi but situates ‘phase space’ within complexity theory and its concepts of ‘thresholds’, ‘trajectories’, and ‘bifurcators’ (Protevi 2009, 5ff.). And Kathleen Stewart conceptualizes ‘ordinary affects’ as ‘a relay’ (Stewart 2007, 4ff., 39) circulating between people who share space, feelings, and experiences. The idea that affects cannot fully be captured by turning towards the description of space, spatialization, or spatialized time has been strongly influenced by Gilles Deleuze’s theory of affect. For example, in his cinema theory he writes that we leave the description of affective

中文翻译：

---

定位影响

在过去的二十年中，在“情感转向”（Clough and Halley 2007）的领导下，通过新的理论区分和关于人文学科情感理论范围的热烈讨论，社会性的情感和情感维度受到了新的关注。 Venn 2010； Gregg和Seigworth 2010； Gammerl，Hutta和Scheer 2017； Navaro 2017）。在这种情况下，情感被反复地概念化为时间和事件的问题，通过对相互作用动力学，集体身体运动和感知迟缓的研究来体现，例如“错过半秒”（Massumi 1995； Hansen 2004； Angerer 2014）。 。有了这个特刊，我们问这个“情感时机”（Angerer，Bösel和Ott 2014）如何定位或可以定位。我们选择动词“定位”而不是位置来强调过程视角，该视角始终与情感及其特定关系的时间和空间协调一致。我们定位情感的目的不是要把情感的时空理论与空间情感打交道，而是要把情感的时空性放在足够近的焦点上，以便我们可以将其与空间和地点的实证研究联系起来。以及政治和社会理论中的空间概念。情感的空间理论经常被从最小的关系主义的角度充实起来，这种关系论关注身体如何受到影响以及如何同时影响，发送和接收（Barad 2007; Thrift 2007; Slaby andRöttger-Rössler2018）。情感力的整体循环已被概念化为“传播”（Brennan 2004）或“共振”（Mühlhoff2015），从而通过空间隐喻和广泛形式描述了影响，即传播或共振对某处某物产生了影响。 。其他人提出了共享或集体情感和情感的概念，因此将情感明确地定位在单个主体和单个对象之外，而是表明依恋的强化是如何将“身体空间与社会空间”联系起来的（Ahmed 2004，119）。但是，从关系的情感理论到空间的情感理论的飞跃在描述的层次上带来了一个难题：该关系仅根据考虑了空间参考系统的形式获得形式。因此，而不是要求情感在空间上的关系扩展，我们需要重新思考每一次与情感描述一起带来的对空间的不同，有时是隐式的理解。在各种各样的情感理论中，尤其是在后结构传统中，许多作者已经将身体，精力充沛或活力四射的运动而不是空间坐标系作为其研究的出发点。在这种情况下，情感的空间形状或表现形式是其时间展开的衍生形式。但即使到那时，空间隐喻仍在蔓延。例如，布莱恩·马苏米（Brian Massumi）使用“相空间”的概念（Massumi 1995，93）将情感描述为一种新兴的虚拟实体。John Protevi遵循Massumi，但将“相空间”置于复杂性理论及其“阈值”概念中，“轨迹”和“分叉器”（Protevi 2009，第5ff页）。凯瑟琳·斯图尔特（Kathleen Stewart）将“普通情感”概念化为“接力者”（Stewart 2007，4ff。，39），他们在共享空间，感受和经验的人们之间循环。吉尔斯·德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）的情感理论极大地影响了人们对情感的理解，而不能完全转向对空间，空间化或空间时间的描述。例如，在他的电影理论中，他写道，我们保留了对情感的描述。吉尔斯·德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）的情感理论极大地影响了空间或空间时间。例如，在他的电影理论中，他写道，我们保留了对情感的描述。吉尔斯·德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）的情感理论极大地影响了空间或空间时间。例如，在他的电影理论中，他写道，我们保留了情感的描述。