A New Republic of Letters: Memory and Scholarship in the Age of Digital Reproduction
A New Republic of Letters: Memory and Scholarship in the Age of Digital Reproduction
复制标题
新文学共和国：数字复制时代的记忆与学术
DOI：
10.1080/01576895.2014.955119
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
Katherine Bode
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Katherine Bode
世代女性主义她的结论是，Zines与早期的基层女权主义媒体实践有联系，包括由第二波女权主义者广泛制作和分发的油印宣言。因此，艾希霍恩指出了将世代女性主义分离成一系列庆祝“新”的连续“浪潮”的局限性，而不是女性主义的历史交叉授粉的持久实践。虽然艾希霍恩肯定不是第一个批评“浪潮”隐喻所暗示的物化倾向的人，但这个例子表明，杂志可以被视为历史上女权主义社区丰富媒体实践的延伸。这样的见解令人信服地说明了女权主义档案如何制定自己的无序的遭遇和神秘的时刻的接近，远远没有保存档案的固定关系的过去，让过去和现在的想象不同。因此，对艾希霍恩来说，女权主义档案的颠覆潜力在于，它通过对企业家个人主义的新自由主义投资，继续使文化生产和政治联盟的形式合法化。虽然艾希霍恩对档案馆复杂的文化生产领域（捐赠，收集，编目）进行了令人信服的调查，让我们对档案管理员和图书管理员进行的重要智力和后勤工作有了罕见的了解，但这本书也解决了更棘手的问题，即在政治和文化上，女权主义的未来处于危险之中。换句话说，它使人们看到了一些继续定义女权主义的紧张关系-作为一个激进主义和政治的网站，以及学术和知识分子参与的网站。令人耳目一新的是，这本书从未试图解决这种紧张关系，但令人信服地认为，女权主义对愤怒的情感投资存在于档案中，加强了当代女权主义作为系谱政治的一种形式。这是一本原创而富有洞察力的书，为未来的档案工作提供了一个示范性的跨学科模型，同时也展示了档案对我们讲述女权主义的过去、现在和未来的各种故事的核心重要性。
generational feminisms. Zines, she concludes, have links to earlier grassroots feminist media practices, including the mimeographed manifestos that were widely produced and distributed by second-wave feminists. As such, Eichhorn points to the limitations of segregating generational feminisms into a series of successive ‘waves’ that celebrate ‘newness’ rather than feminism’s enduring practice of historical cross-pollination. While Eichhorn is certainly not the first to critique the reifying tendencies implicated by the ‘wave’ metaphor, this example demonstrates how zines may be seen as an extension of the rich media practices of feminist communities across history. Such insights convincingly illustrate how feminist archives enact their own disorderly encounters and uncanny moments of proximity which, far from preserving the archive’s fixed relation to the past, allow the past and the present to be imagined differently. Thus for Eichhorn the subversive potential of the feminist archive lies in the way it continues to legitimise forms of cultural production and political alliances at risk by a neoliberal investment in entrepreneurial individualism. While Eichhorn’s compelling investigations of the archive’s complex field of cultural production (donating, collecting, cataloguing) give us a rare insight into the important intellectual and logistical work carried out by archivists and librarians, the book also tackles the trickier question of what is at stake, politically and culturally, for the future of feminism. In other words it brings into view some of the tensions that continue to define feminism – as a site of activism and politics as well as a site of scholarly and intellectual engagement. Refreshingly, the book never attempts to resolve this tension but convincingly argues that feminism’s emotional investment in outrage lives on in the archive, strengthening contemporary feminism as a form of genealogical politics. This is an original and perceptive book that provides an exemplary interdisciplinary model for future work on archives, all the while demonstrating the archive’s central importance to the kinds of stories we tell about feminism’s past, present and future.