Geographies of Peace and Antiviolence
Geographies of Peace and Antiviolence
复制标题
和平与反暴力的地理
DOI：
10.1111/j.1749-8198.2012.00502.x
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Jenna M. Loyd
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jenna M. Loyd
地理与战争、领土和帝国征服的联系是众所周知的。地理学也为和平研究做出了贡献。近年来，地理学家就战争与和平研究与暴力研究的概念和方法框架之间的关系展开了一场丰富的辩论。本文回顾了近年来有关和平地理的活跃文献，其中有两个突出的共识。首先，必须将和平理解为一个进程。第二，定义和平是一个定义暴力的问题。这些共识反过来又引发了关于研究地点和方法的问题。为了充实其中的一些问题，本文转向加尔东关于和平与结构性暴力的理论。结构性暴力的概念影响很大，但仍不够理论性。第三部分详细介绍了女权主义理论和研究暴力的方法，这些暴力挑战了战争、和平和结构性暴力的一成不变的格局。第四节举例说明了和平是一个过程的思想和暴力的认识论。我勾勒出过去30年来美国出现“反暴力”组织的背景和术语。反暴力是由反种族主义者、女权主义活动家和理论家最集中地发展起来的，它不仅为理解各种形式的暴力与不均衡的伤害和福祉空间之间的联系提供了强有力的分析，而且还提供了一种实用的方式，在原本可能保持离散的组织范围之间架起一座桥梁。最后，我提出反暴力实践对战争与和平的地理研究的影响。
Geography’s ties with war-making, territorial and imperial conquest are well known. Geography has also made contributions to the study of peace. In recent years, geographers have been engaged in a rich debate over the relations between studies of war and peace and the conceptual and methodological frameworks for approaching studies of violence. This paper reviews the vibrant recent literature on geographies of peace, which features two striking points of consensus. First, peace must be understood as a process. Second, defining peace is a question of defining violence. These points of consensus, in turn, raise questions about research sites and methods. To flesh out some of these issues, this paper turns to Galtung’s theorizing on peace and structural violence. The concept of structural violence has been very influential, but remains undertheorized. The third section, in turn, details feminist theories and methods of researching violence that challenge undifferentiated landscapes of war, peace and structural violence. The fourth section illustrates the ideas of peace as a process and epistemologies of violence by way of example. I sketch the context and terms through which ‘‘antiviolence’’ organizing emerged in the United States over the past 30 years. Antiviolence, as developed most centrally by antiracist, feminist activists and theorists, offers not only a powerful analytic for understanding connections among forms of violence and uneven spaces of harm and well-being, but also a practical way of bridging spheres of organizing that might otherwise remain discrete. I conclude by offering implications drawn from antiviolence praxis for geographic studies of war and peace.