Naturecultures? Science, Affect and the Non-human
Naturecultures? Science, Affect and the Non-human
复制标题
自然文化？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Miele
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Latimer;M. Miele
这里汇集的论文不是关注事件和干预措施的影响、可隔离和可测量的结果，而是提供了关于人类/非人类关系的意义和政治的情感维度的不同观点。作者首先提请人们注意人类和非人类之间被建构的不连续性，以及这种不连续性所维持的各种知识和社会，包括那些以自然-文化、主体-客体、身心、个人-社会两极为基础的东西。所呈现的文章通过不同的领域跟踪人类/非人类关系，包括：历史上的人类/非人类和动物福利科学（福吉和布勒）；我们的生活方式、对自然环境的影响和对“自然”有争议的认识之间的关系（Whatmore）；与非人类动物如马、猫鼬、老鼠和狼的日常生活和日常科学实践的舞蹈编排（Latimer, Candea, Davies, Despret）。每篇论文还提供了关于人类/非人类的不同观点，不仅仅是分裂，甚至是不对称的关系，而是相互影响的关系，然而在科学领域是看不见的和不可表达的。因此，该文集有助于形成新的认识论/本体论，这些认识论/本体论削弱了通常的关系顺序及其二分法，特别是在我们称之为科学的当代文化的主导领域。事实上，在他们捕捉“影响”的动力中，该集合超越了通常转向更具包容性的本体论，并有助于认识论和科学哲学的参与条件的根本转变。
Rather than focus on effects, the isolatable and measureable outcomes of events and interventions, the papers assembled here offer different perspectives on the affective dimension of the meaning and politics of human/non-human relations. The authors begin by drawing attention to the constructed discontinuity between humans and non-humans, and to the kinds of knowledge and socialities that this discontinuity sustains, including those underpinned by nature-culture, subject-object, body-mind, individual-society polarities. The articles presented track human/non-human relations through different domains, including: humans/non-humans in history and animal welfare science (Fudge and Buller); the relationship between the way we live, the effects on our natural environment and contested knowledges about ‘nature’ (Whatmore); choreographies of everyday life and everyday science practices with non-human animals such as horses, meerkats, mice, and wolves (Latimer, Candea, Davies, Despret). Each paper also goes on to offer different perspectives on the human/non-human not just as division, or even as an asymmetrical relation, but as relations that are mutually affective, however invisible and inexpressible in the domain of science. Thus the collection contributes to new epistemologies/ontologies that undercut the usual ordering of relations and their dichotomies, particularly in that dominant domain of contemporary culture that we call science. Indeed, in their impetus to capture ‘affect’, the collection goes beyond the usual turn towards a more inclusive ontology, and contributes to the radical shift in the epistemology and philosophy of science’s terms of engagement.