全球化与理论旅行

出版社:天津人民出版社
出版日期:2009-7
ISBN:9787201061498
作者:闵冬潮
页数:236页

章节摘录

　　1　“流动的空间”与“消失的地域”——反思全球化过程中的空间与地域的想象　　近30年来，全球化作为一种宏观的研究，在经济、政治、社会、文化等领域均成为显学。然而，如果我们进一步观察分析就会发现，在有关全球化的话语中，存在着妇女／性别的失缺；而在妇女／性别研究领域，对全球化研究的忽视也是明显的。虽然这不单是中国学术界的问题。但在我们的研究中表现得更为突出。　　目前，在国内全球化研究主流中，绝大多数的有关“全球化”的定义集中在经济方面，大部分集中在新的世界经济秩序——生产和服务及金融市场的全球性流动，如WTO、北美自由贸易区、欧盟等等。全球化的话语与资本的流动、信息技术的发展、跨国公司的运转相联系，全球一体化似乎变成了巨大的、不可逆转的潮流。可以说，这些“赢家”的故事构成了全球化话语的主旋律。由于妇女、弱势群体、少数民族在上述领域占有少量的比重，于是，他们便成为与全球化不相关联的因素，或是被作为全球化的牺牲品（如女性的贫困化、从事卖淫行业妇女的国际流动等）。总之，妇女／性别的话语在全球化研究领域是“少而弱”，成了可有可无的因素。　　与此同时，在妇女／性别研究领域，对全球化的研究可以说是“大而空”。首先，我们缺少从女性主义的角度对全球化的理论概念的梳理与批判。由于缺乏对主流全球化话语的深刻反思，对其全球化的概念基本持接受的态度，于是，全球化就成为一个“大而空”的概念。常见的说法是：全球化为妇女提供了一定的发展空间。但更多的是让妇女面对残酷的挑战（见高莉娟，2004）。在多数情况下，妇女只能成为全球化背景下完全被动与消极的方面。其次，对全球化与妇女和性别方面的具体研究也非常缺乏。可以说，在妇女／性别研究领域，全球化只是一个“背景”，它并不与妇女的活动构成有机的联系。因此，这一背景可以换成“现代化”，也可以换成“发展”，反正妇女总是在一定的背景下生活，全球化只是一种空洞的背景而已。

书籍目录

自序：在全球／本土、空间／地域之间思考知识生产问题

1　“流动的空间”与“消失的地域”——反思全球化过程中的空间与地域的想象

2　从全球女性主义到跨国女性主义——兼论跨国女性主义的知识生产

3　理论旅行再出发／

4　翻译的问题也是知识生产的问题吗

5　觉醒、启蒙、分离：20世纪80年代女性主义在中国的理论旅行

6　在“两界之间”对话：翻译“feminism”的过程

7　一个旅行的概念：gender（社会性别）——以北欧、东欧和南美对gender的翻译为例

8　跨国女权主义运动快照之一：gender在中国的旅行片段

9　跨国女权主义运动快照之二：网络时代的“云南映象”

10　在不可能中创造可能——关于妇女／性别研究学科化的思考

附录

后记

编辑推荐

　　《全球化与理论旅行：跨国女性主义的知识生产》是上海大学“211工程”第三期项目，“转型期中国民间的文化生态”项目成果。　　《全球化与理论旅行：跨国女性主义的知识生产》由上海大学社会科学学院出版基金资助。

作者简介

《全球化与理论旅行:跨国女性主义的知识生产》为“妇女与社会性别学书系”中的一本。全书主要探讨了“流动的空间”与“消失的地域”——反思全球化过程中的空间与地域的想象；翻译的问题也是知识生产的问题吗；跨国女权主义运动快照之一：gender在中国的旅行片段；在不可能中创造可能——关于妇女/性别研究学科化的思考等方面的知识，供读者朋友们参考。在全球化已经在中国着陆的大背景下，如何认识全球化？全球化是否只是代表着“全球”，“国际”这些“悬在天上”的概念？说到全球化，国内还有个很流行的说法，就是“全球一体化”。那么，全球是否是一体化？如果不是，或不完全是，它又是什么？如何认识全球化的另一方面——地方化？以及与其相关的概念“地方”、“地域”，它们与全球化是个什么样的关系？

在国内妇女研究已经步入全球化的状况下，如果只关注“本土化”或“中国化”，是否还能说明问题？如果不能，那么，全球化对中国妇女研究又意味着什么？

图书封面

 全球化与理论旅行下载 更多精彩书评


发布书评

　
　

精彩书评 (总计1条)

  •     It is a little bit weird to use English to write this book review. Because some chapters of this book are a comprehensive Chinese review of western literature which means a lot of translations in the writing. And my book review has to translate her Chinese writing into English again. The double translations may cause some misreading or wrong translation of certain words. However, as Jack told me, I should practice my English writing if I decide to write my thesis in English and expect it to be read by English readers. So I will give it a try.In the introduction, Min explained the origins of this book. When she went back to China in 1999 for field work, her research still adopted the binary framework of 1980s: how the western feminism influence China and how it was localized. But her field turned out that, all the interviewed researchers had various International experiences. Globalization had changed the center-periphery in China, and the relationship between the local and the global greatly. Since that time, Globalization became her main academic concern. And several years later, when she came back to China as a university teacher, she found that on one hand, the academy embraced the mainstream globalization without any critique, while on the other hand, it ignored alternative transnational movements, which she hardly agree with and want to debate in this book by discussing the problems in knowledge production of transnational feminism.A basic question is behind every article in the book, that is, what is globalization, and what is the relationship between the local and the global. During her study, she found that, the literature about globalization was uncountable while that of localization was not. The discourse of globalization itself contained an unequal relationship. The mainstream /major former emphasized on the aspect of politics and economy, eg. how the transnational corporations challenge and treat the status of nation-state. The marginalized / alternative latter was mainly from NGOs in developing countries, and post-colonialism and feminism in developed countries, who added localization, women, and poverty into the discussion of globalization and broke the binary of global/local and center/periphery. However, I don't agree with the terms Min used to describe these two: “winner” and “loser”, even they were in double quotation marks. The best way to break the binary distinction is to discard those binary terms rather than continue using them even in a critical way.She reviewed the arguments from Appadurai and Santos, and concluded that the imbalance and discrepancy between the globalization of knowledge and the knowledge of globalization requires the establishment of new researches on the globalization from bottom to top and a paradigm shift of the model of knowledge production to break the dualism, to establish a plural epistemology, and in addition, the knowledge production should be empirical which means the knowledge should include not only academia, but also social movements, activities of NGOs etc.Under the theme of the problems in knowledge production of transnational feminism, there are several variations:First, how to understand the relationship between the global and the local. As already mentioned before, she pointed out that the mainstream discourse of globalization is about the flow of capital, the development of ICTs, and the operation of TNCs, while women, the disadvantaged and minorities are marginalized. In regard of the area of gender studies, there are a lack of the reviews and critiques of globalization from the perspective of feminism, and the empirical study of globalization and gender/women. She reviewed two opposite concepts: the space of flows and the space of places, and their connections: the hegemony of neo-liberal globalization claims the separation of the two, and the subordination of the latter to the former, which Min strongly opposed. She suggested to break this dualism to see the different influence of the space of flows to different locations and social groups, the activities of the local, the specific practice of human being in society, and the power relationship behind, which she held as the key to reflect on the process of globalization. Only on this basis, can we see the connection between globalization and women/gender.Second, the shift from global feminism to transnational feminism. It is really interesting for me to read the brief history of The United Nations World Conference on Women and its relation with the practice of global feminism. From Mexico City(1975), Copenhagen(1980), Nairobi(1985) to Beijing(1995), the four conferences witnessed the emergence of transnational network of feminism movement and the changes of the idea of global feminism. As I also reviewed the problematic global sisterhood which claims that women can make coalition without considering the differences of race, class, nationalities, sexuality etc to resist the universal patriarchy. And in response to the critiques of global feminism, politics of location(Rich,1987) and situated knowledge(Haraway, 1988) were raised by feminists to rethink and rediscover the importance of historical and social practices in specific locations. The discussion of transnational feminism replaced that of global feminism, and by using the “transnational”, the inequality of flows during the process of globalization can be revealed(Grewal & Kaplan, 1994). However, I think transnational is still problematic, and as I suggested in my literature review, nation-state as the unit of analysis is still nation-centered. In comparison, translocalism is better to understand the complex globalization process of feminism. Instead of the center-periphery, western-nonwestern, the global North-South view of Cultural Imperialism, tranlocalism is a network view of periphery-periphery connection (e.g. nonwestern vs nonwestern, South-to-South). Thus this new view enables an understanding of the local–global dialectic through the comparative study of multiple locales by adopting multisited ethnography.Third, how theories travel globally. Min reviewed the literature of post-colonialism and feminism on traveling theory, and raised her own questions: 1. what is the motivations behind traveling theory(when, where, who and why)?2. Said's model of traveling theory is too linear, what changes will happen when the routine of traveling becomes complex? These questions link traveling theory from post-colonialism to "politics of location" from feminism. Min wanted to view the production of theories as a process rooted in specific time, space and place. She criticized the fetish of masters and trends in theory reception, and the lack of the sense of questions and the ignorance of theories from the black, minorities and third-world. Her combination of traveling theory and politics of location calls for the critical thinking of positioning theories in the process of globalization, which requires mapping the routine of traveling theories, analyze the material factors and motivations of traveling theory, and what's more, draw a new map of knowledge production of transnational feminism.Fourth, the politics of translation. Again, it is really inspiring for me to read Min's recall on why she got this idea, or how she generated her research questions from her own life experiences. That really matters. Because as her reflection on the discourses of globalization and the process of translation, unequal power relationship behind was unexamined or take-for-granted, which will help reproducing the existing hierarchy. In chapter 4-7, she treated translation not only a problem of techniques, but also a problem of epistemology and methodology, which corresponds to the combination of Walter Benjamin's the task of the translator and the cultural turn. She discussed several important issues in translation: equivalence, translatability and untranslatability of culture, faithful and faithless translation, the criteria of translation, the definition of cultural translation, and the role of translator. Then she took "feminism" and "gender" as two cases to illustrate how translators in different historical periods and different social positions articulated and negotiated the meanings of feminism(eg. 女权主义 VS女性主义 in China), and how certain concept encounter with different contexts of locations(eg. Different acceptance and influence of gender theories in North Europe and Latin America).This book inspired me a lot in several ways:First, three topics of her book which I reviewed: how to understand the relationship between the global and the local, how theories travel globally, and the politics of translation, can also be applied to “the circuit of culture”(du Gay et al. ,1997), which in my case, the global traveling of The Vagina Monologues.Second, her review on the shift from global feminism to transnational feminism, can be furthered by adding the perspectives of translocalism and meshwork (she introduced the concept of meshwork in chapter 9). Only by adopting this historical understanding of feminism, can I clearly understand the disputes around The Vagina Monologues.Third, the reason why we do research. The significance of a study should not only rely on the standard of academic criteria, but also its influence on social reality. And for the researchers themselves, their study should first answer the questions they encounter during their life rather than simply repeat others’ questions without any reflection (for example, we should first answer the questions located in the context of contemporary China).

精彩短评 (总计9条)

  •     毫无内容泛泛而谈
  •     很多值得我们细细思考的问题。
  •     　　It is a little bit weird to use English to write this book review. Because some chapters of this book are a comprehensive Chinese review of western literature which means a lot of translations in the writing. And my book review has to translate her Chinese writing into English again. The double translations may cause some misreading or wrong translation of certain words. However, as Jack told me, I should practice my English writing if I decide to write my thesis in English and expect it to be read by English readers. So I will give it a try.
    　　
    　　In the introduction, Min explained the origins of this book. When she went back to China in 1999 for field work, her research still adopted the binary framework of 1980s: how the western feminism influence China and how it was localized. But her field turned out that, all the interviewed researchers had various International experiences. Globalization had changed the center-periphery in China, and the relationship between the local and the global greatly. Since that time, Globalization became her main academic concern. And several years later, when she came back to China as a university teacher, she found that on one hand, the academy embraced the mainstream globalization without any critique, while on the other hand, it ignored alternative transnational movements, which she hardly agree with and want to debate in this book by discussing the problems in knowledge production of transnational feminism.
    　　
    　　A basic question is behind every article in the book, that is, what is globalization, and what is the relationship between the local and the global. During her study, she found that, the literature about globalization was uncountable while that of localization was not. The discourse of globalization itself contained an unequal relationship. The mainstream /major former emphasized on the aspect of politics and economy, eg. how the transnational corporations challenge and treat the status of nation-state. The marginalized / alternative latter was mainly from NGOs in developing countries, and post-colonialism and feminism in developed countries, who added localization, women, and poverty into the discussion of globalization and broke the binary of global/local and center/periphery. However, I don't agree with the terms Min used to describe these two: “winner” and “loser”, even they were in double quotation marks. The best way to break the binary distinction is to discard those binary terms rather than continue using them even in a critical way.
    　　
    　　She reviewed the arguments from Appadurai and Santos, and concluded that the imbalance and discrepancy between the globalization of knowledge and the knowledge of globalization requires the establishment of new researches on the globalization from bottom to top and a paradigm shift of the model of knowledge production to break the dualism, to establish a plural epistemology, and in addition, the knowledge production should be empirical which means the knowledge should include not only academia, but also social movements, activities of NGOs etc.
    　　
    　　Under the theme of the problems in knowledge production of transnational feminism, there are several variations:
    　　
    　　First, how to understand the relationship between the global and the local. As already mentioned before, she pointed out that the mainstream discourse of globalization is about the flow of capital, the development of ICTs, and the operation of TNCs, while women, the disadvantaged and minorities are marginalized. In regard of the area of gender studies, there are a lack of the reviews and critiques of globalization from the perspective of feminism, and the empirical study of globalization and gender/women. She reviewed two opposite concepts: the space of flows and the space of places, and their connections: the hegemony of neo-liberal globalization claims the separation of the two, and the subordination of the latter to the former, which Min strongly opposed. She suggested to break this dualism to see the different influence of the space of flows to different locations and social groups, the activities of the local, the specific practice of human being in society, and the power relationship behind, which she held as the key to reflect on the process of globalization. Only on this basis, can we see the connection between globalization and women/gender.
    　　
    　　Second, the shift from global feminism to transnational feminism. It is really interesting for me to read the brief history of The United Nations World Conference on Women and its relation with the practice of global feminism. From Mexico City(1975), Copenhagen(1980), Nairobi(1985) to Beijing(1995), the four conferences witnessed the emergence of transnational network of feminism movement and the changes of the idea of global feminism. As I also reviewed the problematic global sisterhood which claims that women can make coalition without considering the differences of race, class, nationalities, sexuality etc to resist the universal patriarchy. And in response to the critiques of global feminism, politics of location(Rich,1987) and situated knowledge(Haraway, 1988) were raised by feminists to rethink and rediscover the importance of historical and social practices in specific locations. The discussion of transnational feminism replaced that of global feminism, and by using the “transnational”, the inequality of flows during the process of globalization can be revealed(Grewal & Kaplan, 1994). However, I think transnational is still problematic, and as I suggested in my literature review, nation-state as the unit of analysis is still nation-centered. In comparison, translocalism is better to understand the complex globalization process of feminism. Instead of the center-periphery, western-nonwestern, the global North-South view of Cultural Imperialism, tranlocalism is a network view of periphery-periphery connection (e.g. nonwestern vs nonwestern, South-to-South). Thus this new view enables an understanding of the local–global dialectic through the comparative study of multiple locales by adopting multisited ethnography.
    　　
    　　Third, how theories travel globally. Min reviewed the literature of post-colonialism and feminism on traveling theory, and raised her own questions: 1. what is the motivations behind traveling theory(when, where, who and why)?2. Said's model of traveling theory is too linear, what changes will happen when the routine of traveling becomes complex? These questions link traveling theory from post-colonialism to "politics of location" from feminism. Min wanted to view the production of theories as a process rooted in specific time, space and place. She criticized the fetish of masters and trends in theory reception, and the lack of the sense of questions and the ignorance of theories from the black, minorities and third-world. Her combination of traveling theory and politics of location calls for the critical thinking of positioning theories in the process of globalization, which requires mapping the routine of traveling theories, analyze the material factors and motivations of traveling theory, and what's more, draw a new map of knowledge production of transnational feminism.
    　　
    　　Fourth, the politics of translation. Again, it is really inspiring for me to read Min's recall on why she got this idea, or how she generated her research questions from her own life experiences. That really matters. Because as her reflection on the discourses of globalization and the process of translation, unequal power relationship behind was unexamined or take-for-granted, which will help reproducing the existing hierarchy. In chapter 4-7, she treated translation not only a problem of techniques, but also a problem of epistemology and methodology, which corresponds to the combination of Walter Benjamin's the task of the translator and the cultural turn. She discussed several important issues in translation: equivalence, translatability and untranslatability of culture, faithful and faithless translation, the criteria of translation, the definition of cultural translation, and the role of translator. Then she took "feminism" and "gender" as two cases to illustrate how translators in different historical periods and different social positions articulated and negotiated the meanings of feminism(eg. 女权主义 VS女性主义 in China), and how certain concept encounter with different contexts of locations(eg. Different acceptance and influence of gender theories in North Europe and Latin America).
    　　
    　　This book inspired me a lot in several ways:
    　　First, three topics of her book which I reviewed: how to understand the relationship between the global and the local, how theories travel globally, and the politics of translation, can also be applied to “the circuit of culture”(du Gay et al. ,1997), which in my case, the global traveling of The Vagina Monologues.
    　　Second, her review on the shift from global feminism to transnational feminism, can be furthered by adding the perspectives of translocalism and meshwork (she introduced the concept of meshwork in chapter 9). Only by adopting this historical understanding of feminism, can I clearly understand the disputes around The Vagina Monologues.
    　　Third, the reason why we do research. The significance of a study should not only rely on the standard of academic criteria, but also its influence on social reality. And for the researchers themselves, their study should first answer the questions they encounter during their life rather than simply repeat others’ questions without any reflection (for example, we should first answer the questions located in the context of contemporary China).
    　　
  •     作者基本上处理不了理论层面的全球化，而借用said“理论旅行”的概念又没有能结合自己的empirical question。作者其实就是梳理了79年以来中国的妇女研究，完全陷入cultural turn里面，回避学科知识生产背后的权力结构问题。结尾抱怨妇女学科/行动后继无人。然后就结束了！
  •     旅行理论。
  •     没什么人好好做关于女性的empirical study, 研究女性研究的书倒是写得蛮仔细的……
  •     [南开大学图书馆藏书]
  •     是个随笔吧 有些点可以深究
  •     这资料综述介绍得云里雾里的……
 

外国儿童文学,篆刻,百科,生物科学,科普,初中通用,育儿亲子,美容护肤PDF图书下载,。 零度图书网 

零度图书网 @ 2024