In Purity and Exile (1995a), Liisa Malkki’s ethnography of Burundian Hutu refugees living in mid-1980s Tanzania, Malkki draws attention to a complex and paradoxical relationship between refugees and history. AsMalkki argues, the global system of nation-states, composed of national governments, United Nations bodies, and humanitarian agencies, all present “the refugee” as a kind of victim, one who has been expelled from a national and natural “home.” This point implies that “the refugee problem” is a recurring phenomenon that may be solved through proper management of this system, and without knowledge of specific histories that generate particular contexts of displacement. Most academic work in the interdisciplinary domain of refugee studies reproduces this managerial, ahistorical, and indeed, apolitical perspective.1 Nevertheless, as Malkki’s study demonstrates, historical knowledge—both in the sense of knowledge about the past and of knowledge about how people narrate the past in the present—may be immensely important for comprehending the dynamics within a given displaced community and for enabling displaced people to pursue their desired futures. From this standpoint, Malkki calls for a “radically historicizing” approach to refugees and displacement, an approach that “insists on acknowledging not only human suffering but also narrative authority, historical agency, and political memory” (Malkki 1996:398).2 In the twenty-five years since Malkki’s foundational publication, scholars across the social sciences and humanities have developed overlapping critiques of humanitarian government, including the system for governing refugees, now often referred to as “the international refugee regime.” Nevertheless, most of this critical literature does not address Malkki’s central argument about history, refugees, and displacement. Focused on themanner in which humanitarian “biopolitics” allegedly strips people of the capacity to act politically, scholars often look past the political ambitions and historical

中文翻译：

---

非洲难民历史

在《纯净与流放》（1995a）中，Liisa Malkki 关于生活在 1980 年代中期坦桑尼亚的布隆迪胡图难民的民族志，Malkki 提请注意难民与历史之间复杂而矛盾的关系。AsMalkki 认为，由各国政府、联合国机构和人道主义机构组成的全球民族国家体系都将“难民”视为一种受害者，一个被驱逐出国家和自然“家园”的人。这一点意味着“难民问题”是一个反复出现的现象，可以通过适当管理这个系统来解决，而无需了解产生特定流离失所背景的具体历史。难民研究跨学科领域的大多数学术工作都再现了这种管理的、非历史的、甚至非政治的观点。 1 然而，正如 Malkki 的研究表明的那样，历史知识——无论是关于过去的知识还是关于人们现在如何叙述过去的知识——对于理解特定流离失所社区的动态以及使流离失所者能够追求他们想要的未来。从这个角度来看，马尔基呼吁对难民和流离失所采取“彻底历史化”的方法，这种方法“不仅坚持承认人类苦难，而且承认叙事权威、历史机构和政治记忆”（Malkki 1996：398）。2自 Malkki 的基础性出版物发表 25 年以来，社会科学和人文学科的学者对人道主义政府提出了重叠的批评，包括管理难民的制度，现在通常被称为“国际难民制度”。尽管如此，这些批判性文献中的大部分都没有解决马尔基关于历史、难民和流离失所的核心论点。关注人道主义“生命政治”据称剥夺了人们政治行动能力的方式，学者们经常忽略政治野心和历史