After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism, and Politics in the Third World
After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism, and Politics in the Third World
复制标题
东方主义之后：第三世界的文化、批评和政治
DOI：
10.1017/s0010417500017461
复制
发表时间：
1992
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
D. Washbrook
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rosalind O’Hanlon;D. Washbrook
在过去的十年里，“第三世界”的历史和文化的研究已经在很大程度上借鉴了后结构主义和后现代主义提供的理论视角。随着1978年爱德华·萨义德的著作《东方主义》的出版，这些观点--现在融合并扩展成一种独特的混合体，包括文化批判、福柯的权力方法、参与的“差异政治”以及后现代主义对中心化和异质性的强调--开始以一种主要的方式被挪用于非欧洲历史和文化的研究。当然，在我们自己的印度殖民史领域，赛义德对这些主题的独特融合现在实际上已经成为新一代历史学家和人类学家的典范。这些方向最近在Gyan Prakash的讨论中得到了强烈的支持，“写作第三世界的后东方主义历史：印度史学的观点”。
Over the last decade, studies of ‘third world’ histories and cultures have come to draw to a very considerable extent upon the theoretical perspectives provided by poststructuralism and postmodernism. With the publication in 1978 of Edward Said's work, Orientalism, these perspectives—now fused and extended into a distinctive amalgam of cultural critique, Foucauldian approaches to power, engaged ‘politics of difference,’ and postmodernist emphases on the decentered and the heterogeneous—began to be appropriated in a major way for the study of non-European histories and cultures. Certainly in our own field of Indian colonial history, Said's characteristic blending of these themes has now become virtually a paradigm for a new generation of historians and anthropologists. These directions have been most recently and sharply endorsed in Gyan Prakash's discussion, ‘Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography.’