Editorial: Glocal Diasporas
Editorial: Glocal Diasporas
复制标题
社论：全球本土侨民
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Moore
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Moore
本期关于“全球本地侨民”的研讨会起源于 2009 年 9 月在兰卡斯特大学和英国曼彻斯特惠特沃斯美术馆举行的国际会议“全球本地想象：写作/移民/地方”。 1 该会议的特点是重点关注作家、电影制片人和艺术家在塑造和回应移民和地方话语方面的作用，包括那些涉及后殖民研究和地方的话语。移民、侨民、跨国、全球化和世界主义研究等同源领域。 “同源”一词源自拉丁语 cognatus，源自 co（一起）和 natus（出生），在本次“全球本土侨民”研讨会的背景下尤其引起共鸣。当前后殖民研究中的“危机”具有概念性、历史性和政治性的维度。这里收集的文章的一个焦点是在霸权和边缘化关系中阐明殖民的过去和全球化的现状，或者珍妮特·威尔逊等人所说的“后殖民现状中的新殖民主义失衡”。3另一个是家乡与祖国之间的关系。虽然“家乡”与 natus（民族，源自拉丁语 natio，源自 nat-，nasci，“出生”）有着词源和政治联系，但萨尔曼·拉什迪经常被引用的格言强调了“家”的相对弹性，这一点在 Bishnupriya Ghosh 的《When Borne Across》（2004 年）中得到了复兴：家也是地理移动所产生的（至少）部分自我翻译的结果。 4然而，拉什迪对移民的表述（主要是）庆祝性的基调是研讨会所批评的，将旅行视为劳苦（马斯特森），被迫静止和封闭的经历（诺尔斯和马斯特森）以及双重（非）归属感的可疑好处（巴纳吉和沟口）。与重新规划后殖民一样，“全球本地侨民”突出了“在国际化全球化及其众多（非）内容的当代背景下……的路线和根源的纠缠”。5“全球本地化”范式使我们的贡献者能够保持三个空间框架——地方、国家和全球——发挥作用，并且有充分的理由。正如萨姆·诺尔斯和约翰·马斯特森所指出的那样，复兴
The symposium on “Glocal Diasporas” in this issue had its origins in the international conference, “Glocal Imaginaries: Writing/Migration/ Place”, held at Lancaster University and at the Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester, UK, in September 2009.1 The conference was distinguished by its focus on the agency of writers, filmmakers and artists in shaping, as well as responding to, discourses of migration and place, including those that subtend postcolonial studies and cognate fields such as migration, diaspora, the transnational, globalization and cosmopolitan studies. The descriptor “cognate”, with its Latin origin cognatus, from co(together with) and natus (born), is particularly resonant in the context of this symposium on “glocal diasporas”. The current “crisis” in postcolonial studies2 has conceptual, historicizing and political dimensions. One focus of the articles collected here is the articulation of the colonial past and globalizing present in relations of hegemony and marginalization, or what Janet Wilson et al flag up as “neocolonial imbalances in the postcolonial present”.3 Another is the relationship between home and homeland. While “homeland” has an etymological and political connection to natus (nation, from Latin natio, derives from nat-, nasci, “to be born”), the relative elasticity of “home” is emphasized in Salman Rushdie’s oft-cited aphorism, revived in Bishnupriya Ghosh’s When Borne Across (2004): home is also an effect of the (at least) partial self-translation that results from geographical movement and, in the process, is transformed as a concept.4 The (predominantly) celebratory tenor of Rushdie’s formulation of migration, however, is something that the symposium critiques, foregrounding travel as travail (Masterson), experiences of forced immobility and enclosure (Knowles and Masterson) and the dubious benefits of a double (non-) belonging (Banerjee and Mizoguchi). Like Rerouting the Postcolonial, “Glocal Diasporas” foregrounds an entanglement of “routes and roots ... within the contemporary context of cosmopolitan globalization and its numerous (dis)contents”.5 The paradigm of the “glocal” enables our contributors to keep three spatial frameworks – local, national and global – in play, and with good reason. As both Sam Knowles and John Masterson indicate, resurgent