Introduction: Afterlife of Events: Perspectives on Mnemohistory
Introduction: Afterlife of Events: Perspectives on Mnemohistory
复制标题
简介：事件的来世：记忆史的视角
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Tamm
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Tamm
在过去的几十年里，我们目睹了西方社会中过去、现在和未来之间的传统关系的重新表达。英国小说家J.G.巴拉德在他的邪典小说《撞车》法文版的导言中预见并很好地捕捉到了这一点：“越来越多的人被迫修正我们对过去、现在和未来的概念。正如过去在社会和心理方面成为广岛和核时代的牺牲品一样，未来也将不复存在，被贪婪的现在吞噬“（Ballard [1974] 1985：5）。对这一变化最有影响力的解释者之一，弗朗索瓦·哈托格（Francois Hartog）称之为“历史性制度”的变化（Hartog 2003; cf. Delacroix等人，2009年; Hartog，2010年）。虽然在过去的几个世纪里，占主导地位的西方历史制度是面向未来的，在过去的几十年里，方向已经发生了变化--哈托格选择的象征性转折点是1989年柏林围墙的倒塌--未来显然放弃了作为解释历史经验的主要工具的地位，让位于一个面向现在的政权，他称之为“现在主义”（Hartog 2003：111-62; cf. Hartog 2008，2013：28-33，99-107）。1一个历史性的现在主义制度意味着一种理解时间性的新方式，放弃了以前的历史性的现代主义制度所特有的线性、因果和同质的时间概念。
In the last few decades, we have witnessed a rearticulation of the traditional relationship between the categories of past, present and future in Western societies. The English novelist J. G. Ballard anticipated and captured it well in his introduction to the French edition of his cult novel Crash: ‘Increasingly, our concepts of past, present and future are being forced to revise themselves. Just as the past, in social and psychological terms, became a casualty of Hiroshima and the nuclear age, so in its turn the future is ceasing to exist, devoured by the all-voracious present’ (Ballard [1974] 1985: 5). One of the most influential interpreters of this alteration, Francois Hartog, has called it a change of the ‘regime of historicity’ (Hartog 2003; cf. Delacroix et al. 2009; Hartog 2010). While for the past couple of centuries the dominant Western regime of historicity was future-oriented, the orientation has shifted during the last decades — the symbolic turning point selected by Hartog being the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 — with the future clearly relinquishing its position as the main tool for interpreting historical experience and giving way to a present-oriented regime that he terms ‘presentism’ (Hartog 2003: 111–62; cf. Hartog 2008, 2013: 28–33, 99–107).1 A presentist regime of historicity implies a new way of understanding temporality, an abandoning of the linear, causal and homogeneous conception of time characteristic of the previous, modernist regime of historicity.