Имперские Языки: Постскриптум Для AI
Имперские Языки: Постскриптум Для AI
复制标题
AI：Постскриптум Для AI
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Марина Могильнер
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Эндрю С. Томпсон;Марина Могильнер
总结：在“帝国语言：《后记》重构了其文章的思想史，并对帝国“身份政治”研究的未来进行了反思。对他理解帝国语言影响最大的是A.汤普森引用了大卫伊斯特伍德的开创性文章《罗伯特苏塞和爱国主义的意义》（1992年），科布纳和施密特的《帝国主义》。一个政治词汇的故事和意义，1840-1960”（）;休·坎宁安的“爱国者的语言，1750-1914”（1981）;研究“民族主义”和“帝国主义”的语义写在“自治领”史学。更一般地说，他描述了几位学者--最著名的是约翰·达尔文、菲尔·巴克纳、卡尔·布里奇、肯特·费多洛维奇--正在形成“不列颠（帝国）世界”的想法，从而将帝国的定居者社会（新不列颠人）重新定位在英联邦-帝国史学的中心。这些趋势促使汤普森着手将“英国世界”的历史绘制成维多利亚时代后期和爱德华时代英国的一个政治概念。在他的文章的主要思想是为了传达汤普森挑出的作用，帝国的政治福利，解决周围的自治或定居地区的帝国，并努力适应热带附属国-印度包括在内。第二，他想说明在19世纪末和20世纪初，“民族”和“帝国”的定义是多么紧密地联系在一起。在这样做的时候，他打算超越“官方”或高级政治话语，从英国政治的“下层群体”来看待帝国的表现。所有这些主题都在他的新书《帝国反击战》中得到了进一步的发展。帝国主义对英国的影响从世纪中期（2005年）。汤普森欢迎其他帝国的历史学家现在也在努力解决类似的问题，但他建议思考一个更大的问题：“我们下一步要去哪里？"即“身份政治”在21世纪世纪帝国史学中的未来走向。在这种背景下，他发现Ab Imperio对欧洲帝国与民族国家崛起之间关系的探索非常及时。
SUMMARY: In the “Imperial Languages: Postscript” Andrew Thompson reconstructs intellectual history of his article and reflects on the future of imperial “identity politics” studies. Among the biggest influences on his understanding of imperial languages A. Thompson cites David Eastwood’s pioneering essay “Robert Southey and the Meanings of Patriotism” (1992), Koebner’s and Schmidt’s “Imperialism. The Story and Significance of a Political Word, 1840–1960” (); Hugh Cunningham’s “The Language of Patriotism, 1750–1914” (1981); studies on the semantic of “nationalism” and “imperialism” written in terms of “dominion” historiography. More generally, he describes the context in which several scholars – most notably, John Darwin, Phil Buckner, Carl Bridge, Kent Fedorowich – were formulating the idea of a “British (imperial) world”, thereby re-positioning the empire’s settler societies (neo-Britains) at the center of Commonwealth-Imperial historiography. These trends inspired Thompson to embark on the task of charting the history of the “British world” as a political concept in later-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Among the main ideas his article was meant to convey Thompson singles out the role of political imaginings of empire that resolved around the self-governing or settler regions of empire, and struggled to accommodate the tropical dependencies – India included. Second, he wanted to show how closely entwined were definitions of “nation” and “empire” in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In doing this, he intended to go beyond “official” or high political discourses to look at representations of empire from the “subaltern groups” of British politics. All these themes are developed further in his new book, The Empire Strikes Back? The Impact of Imperialism on Britain from the Mid-Nineteenth Century (2005). Thompson welcomes the fact that historians of other empires are now grappling with similar questions, but suggest to think about the bigger question of “where we go next?”, namely about the future of “identity politics” in twenty-first century imperial historiography. Set in this context, he founds Ab Imperio’s exploration of the relationship between European empires and the rise of the nation-state very timely.