学术讲座 & 通识课“文艺视角中的西方社会”特别课程II

Pubblicato: aprile 20, 2011 in Eventi 活动, Zona 區
Tag:, , ,

讲座题目:地中海的多元文化 主讲:Prof. Iain Chambers,那不勒斯东方大学社会学教授 (Sociology of cultural processes, Università degli Studi di Napoli, “L’Orientale”) 主持人:山谷(Diego Gullotta) 时间:4月25日(星期一),16:20 - 18:00 地点:四川外语学院 西区阶梯教室C2-1 讲座内容:从后殖民主义研究的角度来看地中海,意味着重新来看“西方现代性”。以前是从民族国家主义的角度来叙述地中海的;而最近几十年,面对具有复杂性的地中海,叙述发生了巨大变化:文化、文学与艺术交融影响了叙述地中海的方式。一元的地中海历史消失了,呈现出一种新的空间:混合的,不确定的,具有冲突性的空间。从这一角度来看,地中海文化没有一个固定的源头,而是一个不断变化的多元空间。 通过文化交融和多元文化的音乐,Iain Chambers教授在通识课“文艺视角中的西方社会”带我们走进“地中海”。

                                            Cultural and Postcolonial Studies

Cultural studies seek to propose a series of critical innovations in the social and human sciences through paying attention to those cultural forms and forces that have tended to be excluded, negated and rendered subaltern by institutional definitions of culture. In particular, cultural studies have historically sought to go beyond the limits of a culture conceived in largely literary terms.  With this perspective, cultural studies includes amongst its concerns those languages – cinematic, musical, visual – that have tended to be excluded from the more traditional concentration on the ‘text, thereby radically widening the fields of analysis and critical competences. Bringing back into play aspects that have been hidden by more traditional definitions means that the concept of culture itself is extended ultimately to include a ‘whole way of life’ (Raymond Williams). An anthropological perspective, attentive to the historical and social powers that seek to organise and define ‘culture’, here replaces a narrow and elitist definition of culture. There is, in other words, a continual struggle for hegemony in and through the realm of culture itself. Cultural studies attempts to register the lived complexities of cultural practices – and therefore draws upon an interdisciplinary approach – that contribute to the historical formation and daily exercise of culture. To this critical approach we can also add the more recent developments in postcolonial studies, in part developed in the interdisciplinary wake of cultural studies. The term post- does not so much indicate a chronological moment – what comes after colonialism ¬– as a diverse critical modality that invites to revaluate the world that proposed and produced modern Occidental colonialism. This implies a re-configuration of modernity itself in the light of those bodies, lives, histories and cultures that have been repressed, cancelled and denied in the elaboration of a modernity concentrated almost exclusively in the history of Europe. Postcolonial studies introduce us to a new geography of powers and diverse understanding of the spaces and temporalities of modernity. The repressed, embodied in the colonised, the ‘native’ and the ‘others’, enters the picture to reframe modernity itself. With these perspective, postcolonial studies operates a traversal cut on the sequential sequence of ‘progress’. Through the introduction of other histories and cultures, through other modes of narrating the world, we are confronted with a complex and differentiated modernity that cannot be reduced to a unique point of view. The Western subject who up until now has been accustomed to see himself mirrored in the world, now finds himself interrogated and interrupted by other voices and histories that increasingly inhabit shared languages (the novel, film, audio and visual arts, reproduced music) while exceeding his semantic control. Different routes through a modernity that has become the modern world announce the survival of something (histories, cultures, diversities) not as a residual but as a constant interrogation of a modernity unilaterally conceived as homogeneous. As Antonio Gramsci put it, the struggle is not between tradition and modernity, but rather between the subaltern and hegemony for the sense and direction of the world. We are not dealing with separate realities, but with constellations of powers. It is here that there emerges the centrality of the power of culture; that is, of culture as power. At this point, it becomes imperative to reopen the archive of the West. Through a critical appropriation that connects Antonio Gramsci (but also Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida) to the works of postcolonial critics such as Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Homi Bhabha, the West is transported elsewhere, exposed to interrogations it has not authorised and required to renegotiate its relationship to a modernity that is not only its to define and control. Iain Chambers Chongqing, April 2011

                                               文化研究和后殖民主义研究

文化研究通过关注那些被官方定义的“文化”排除在外的属民文化,力图在社科和人文领域提出一系列新的评论方式。文化研究特别试图超越只是在文学领域来理解文化的局限。从这一角度出发,文化研究包括以下“语言”:电影的、音乐的、视觉的,这些领域在传统上是被排除在“文本”之外的。于是文化研究从根本上扩大了分析、评论领域。

重新引入排除在传统定义之外的这些层面意味这扩大了文化概念本身的范围,进而包含一个“完整的生活方式”。 (雷蒙德·威廉斯Raymond Williams).

这是一种人类学的视角,结合历史和社会权力,力求重组并重新定义“文化”,取代对文化的狭隘和精英式定义。文化领域当中不断有文化霸权的争斗。

文化研究尝试记录文化实践的复杂性,是一种跨学科的研究方式,同时作用于塑造历史和日常的文化实践。在这一批评方法之上,我们还可以加上后殖民主义研究的最新发展,部分发展也是在文化研究的跨学科研究中发展起来的。Post “后”在这里不是完全指时间上的先后,不能简单地理解为“殖民主义”之后的。作为一种不同的批评方法,“后殖民主义”对现代西方的“殖民主义”所塑造的世界进行重新评价。这也意味着对“现代性”本身进行重塑,因为以前的“现代性”几乎完全集中在“欧洲史”,许多不同的身体、生命、历史被压制、取消和否定。

 后殖民主义带给我们一种新的权力“地图”概念,以及对现代性的多个空间和时间的不同理解。被压制的、被殖民的“本国人”与“他者”,进入历史画面去重塑现代性本身。

从以上视角出发,后殖民主义研究切断所谓的不断“进步”的单一进程。通过引入其它历史和文化,通过引入“叙述”世界的其它方式,我们面对的是一个复杂的、有差异的现代性,而不能再被简化为单一的视角。

西方过去习惯将自己看成世界的参照,而现在发现自己被其它声音和其它历史质疑。这些声音和历史超出语言本身的逻辑,越来越多的体现在多种表达方式中(小说、电影、视听艺术、复制音乐)。

以不同的路径走过现代世界所具有的现代性,宣告某种东西(不同的历史、文化、差异性)的幸存,不是作为一个剩余部分,而是对单方面被当作是同一的现代性的一种不断的质疑。正如安东尼奥·葛兰西所说,斗争不是在传统与现代之间,而是在属民与霸权之间,在他们针对世界的意义和方向这个问题上的斗争。

 我们谈的不是分离的现实,而是权力群体。正是在这里兴起文化权力的集中;即就是,将文化看成一种权力。

 于是,重新开启西方的“档案”就变得十分迫切。通过评论,将安东尼奥·葛兰西(还有福柯和德里达)与萨义德、斯皮瓦克和霍米巴巴的后殖民主义的作品联系起来,西方被带到另一个地方,暴露在它自己并不同意的质询下,被要求重谈它与现代性的关系,一种不仅由西方定义和控制的现代性。

A. Gramsci葛兰西:《狱中札记》,曹雷雨等译,北京,中国社会科学出版社2000年版。 E. Said 萨义德,介绍  著作 G. Spivak 佳亚特里•斯皮瓦克, 介绍 斯皮瓦克主要著作: 《底层人能说话吗?》 (1985) 《底层研究:解构历史编撰学》 (1985) 《读德里达之后读马克思》 (1987) 《后结构主义、边缘性、后殖民性和价值》 (1990) 《底层人能说话吗?——2006年清华大学讲演》 (2006) Gayatri C. Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak? “In Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory, pp66-111 , edited by Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman ,New York and London : Harvester wheatsheaf Press,1993。中译文参考了这篇文章的节译本《从属阶级能发言吗?》,邱彦彬、李翠芬译,载《中外文学》第24卷6期(1995年11月)页94-123。 Homi K. Bhabha (霍米 巴巴),介绍http://book.douban.com/subject/1385331/ 文化研究: http://book.douban.com/subject/3398340/ 后殖民主义研究: http://wenku.baidu.com/view/9c4029c72cc58bd63186bd2e.html

Annunci

I commenti sono chiusi.