Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons
Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons
复制标题
重新魅力世界：女权主义与公地政治
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Katrina Hamilton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Katrina Hamilton
在美国第一位黑人总统的手中。因此，对他来说，把奥巴马描绘成马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther King Jr.）遗产的继承者不仅是糟糕的历史，而且是对所有那些认为金是美国最伟大的和平与非暴力斗士的人的道德侮辱。这本书还有很多其他有价值的东西，尤其是关于军国主义和包括大规模枪击在内的日常暴力在当代美国文化中被正常化的方式。波拉克对我国政府及其近期领导人的道德控诉尤其令人信服。然而，我认为他的“相互渗透”概念并不能完全解释他们为捍卫美国冷战后外交政策而采取行动的动机。虽然推进“以有利的贸易和投资机会为目的，在塑造全球稳定方面的单方面主导地位”（214）仍然是战争和不断准备新战争的内在和重要原因；在包括外太空和网络空间在内的所有地方维持军事优势，已成为美国无休止战争的主要动机。外交政策建制派用“单极”这样的术语来描述和美化这种全球野心。但在2006年，乔治•w•布什（George W. Bush）总统坚称美国是中东问题的“决定者”，他使用了人人都能理解的通俗语言。美国声称自己是决策者，有权利和能力在遥远的土地上决定政治结果，反对任何和所有挑战者的反对，无论他们是像基地组织和ISIS这样的非国家行为体，像俄罗斯和中国这样的强国，还是像伊朗和朝鲜这样的“流氓国家”，今天仍然是古罗马的样子，帝国主义的本质。
years is on the hands of America’s first black President. Thus, for him, depicting Obama as inheritor of the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. is not just bad history, but a moral insult to all those who recognize King as America’s greatest champion of peace and nonviolence. There is much else of value in this book, especially on the ways that militarism and daily violence, including mass shootings, has been normalized in contemporary American culture. Pollack’s moral indictment of our government and its recent leaders is especially convincing. However, I think his concept of “interpenetration” does not fully explain the motivations for their actions in defense of America’s post Cold War foreign policy. While advancing “unilateral dominance in shaping global stabilization for purposes of advantageous trade-andinvestment opportunities” (214) remains an intrinsic and important reason for war and constant preparation for new wars; the maintenance of military dominance everywhere, including outer space and cyberspace, has become the principal motive for America’s ceaseless warfare. The foreign policy establishment uses jargon terms like “unipolarity” to describe and sanitize this global ambition. But in 2006 President George W. Bush used plain language everyone could understand when he insisted America was “the decider” in the Middle East. The United States’ assertion that it is the decider possessing both the right and ability to determine political outcomes in far away lands against the opposition of any and all challengers whether they are non-state actors like al-Qaeda and ISIS, powerful countries like Russia and China, or “rogue states” like Iran and North Korea remains today what it was for ancient Rome, the essence of imperialism.