POST-COLONIALISM COMPARED: POTENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA
POST-COLONIALISM COMPARED: POTENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA
复制标题
后殖民主义比较：中东和中亚的潜力和局限性
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
D. Kandiyoti
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Kandiyoti
“后殖民”一词在西方社会科学术语中相对较新。尽管关于殖民主义和帝国主义统治的影响的讨论并不新鲜，但前缀“后”的各种含义以及对后殖民特征的不同理解继续使这个术语成为一个有争议的术语。霍尔（Hall, 1996）全面回顾了针对它的批评，其中包括粗心大意地将经验同质化的危险，就像白人移民殖民地（如澳大利亚和加拿大）的经验一样不同；拉丁美洲大陆的独立战争发生在19世纪；以及印度、尼日利亚或阿尔及利亚等国家，它们在二战后经历了截然不同的殖民遭遇。然而，他认为，“这个概念可能有助于我们描述或描述全球关系的转变，这种转变标志着（必然是不平衡的）从帝国时代过渡到后独立和后非殖民化时刻”（Hall 1996, 246）。Rattansi（1997）提出了“后殖民主义”和“后殖民主义研究”之间的区别，“后殖民主义”或“后殖民主义研究”指的是一种特殊形式的知识探究，其核心定义主题是殖民者和被殖民者在塑造主导大国和帝国和殖民项目接受者的身份方面所扮演的相互构成的角色。在后殖民研究本身的领域内，Moore-Gilbert（1997）指出了“后殖民批评”和“后殖民理论”之间的区别，前者在参与反殖民斗争的人的著作中有更早的先例，后者通过将源自当代欧洲文化理论的方法论范式纳入对殖民再现系统和文化生产的讨论中，将自己与前者区分开来。无论对这一术语的各种解释或与之相关的各种时间性如何，霍尔声称后殖民“标志着对宏大的整体史学叙事的一个关键中断，在自由史学和韦伯历史社会学中，以及在西方马克思主义的主导传统中，这一叙事赋予了全球维度在一个故事中的从属存在，这个故事基本上可以从其欧洲参数中讲述”（霍尔1996,250）。在接下来的内容中，我将尝试简要讨论导致这一概念出现的一些情况，并询问它在多大程度上有助于对中东和中亚社会的现代轨迹进行有意义的比较。
The term “post-colonial” is a relative newcomer to the jargon of Western social science. Although discussions about the effects of colonial and imperialist domination are by no means new, the various meanings attached to the prefix “post-” and different understandings of what characterizes the post-colonial continue to make this term a controversial one. Among the criticisms leveled against it, reviewed comprehensively by Hall (1996), are the dangers of careless homogenizing of experiences as disparate as those of white settler colonies, such as Australia and Canada; of the Latin American continent, whose independence battles were fought in the 19th century; and countries such as India, Nigeria, or Algeria that emerged from very different colonial encounters in the post-World War II era. He suggests, nevertheless, that “What the concept may help us to do is to describe or characterise the shift in global relations which marks the (necessarily uneven) transition from the age of Empires to the post-independence and post-decolonisation moment” (Hall 1996, 246). Rattansi (1997) proposes a distinction between “post-coloniality” to designate a set of historical epochs and “post-colonialism” or “post-colonialist studies” to refer to a particular form of intellectual inquiry that has as its central defining theme the mutually constitutive role played by colonizer and colonized in shaping the identities of both the dominant power and those at the receiving end of imperial and colonial projects. Within the field of post-colonial studies itself, Moore-Gilbert (1997) points to the divide between “post-colonial criticism,” which has much earlier antecedents in the writings of those involved in anti-colonial struggles, and “post-colonial theory,” which distinguishes itself from the former by the incoporation of methodological paradigms derived from contemporary European cultural theories into discussions of colonial systems of representation and cultural production. Whatever the various interpretations of the term or the various temporalities associated with it might be, Hall claims that the post-colonial “marks a critical interruption into that grand whole historiographical narrative which, in liberal historiography and Weberian historical sociology, as much as in the dominant traditions of Western Marxism, gave this global dimension a subordinate presence in a story that could essentially be told from its European parameters” (Hall 1996, 250). In what follows, I will attempt a brief discussion of some of the circumstances leading to the emergence of this concept and interrogate the extent to which it lends itself to a meaningful comparison of the modern trajectories of societies in the Middle East and Central Asia.