Fielding transnationalism: an introduction Fielding transnationalism: an introduction
Fielding transnationalism: an introduction Fielding transnationalism: an introduction
复制标题
菲尔丁跨国主义：简介 菲尔丁跨国主义：简介
DOI：
10.1002/2059-7932.12000
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Go J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Go J
自1990年代以来，对跨国现象的新兴趣产生了跨社会科学的广泛研究。在历史学科中，入江明（Akira Iriye，1989：2）呼吁历史学家“寻找跨越国界的有意义的历史主题和概念”，这一呼吁得到了新全球和跨国历史的回应。在社会学领域，“全球社会学”的议程来自美国社会学协会前主席Michael Burawoy（2000，2008）和欧洲著名理论家Ulrich Beck（2006）等。与此同时，伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦（Immanuel Wallerstein）长期以来一直敦促社会科学家“放弃”国家中心主义，并在更全球范围内进行理论化（Wallerstein，2001）。它在使用各种概念、理论和文献时有时也是“无纪律的”。我们发现的研究领域并不是以理论为指导的总体研究计划，而是完全不同的研究领域：移民研究、全球城市研究、新自由主义研究、新帝国主义研究、组织形式的全球扩散研究等等。例如，它导致了跨越界限的令人惊讶的对话，这些界限有时会将学科内的理论流派分开。它也带来了潜在的缺点：它可能意味着，除其他外，任何一种理论方法的全部潜力都没有得到充分的探索。这些经验领域都很丰富，但它们都产生了独立的中间理论，例如移民理论，全球城市理论，全球文化理论等等，除了下面要讨论的少数例外之外，跨子领域的跨国过程共同的理论框架或概念非常缺乏。本文集中的论文专门探讨了布迪厄传统中的“场”概念在分析跨国过程中的潜力。在他的整个职业生涯中，尤其是在他的后半期，布迪厄将“场域”理论化为他总体理论语料库的重要组成部分，与实践，惯习和资本等概念并列并成为其一部分（Swartz，1997）。他探索了一个
The new interest in transnational phenomena since the 1990s has produced a wide range of studies across the social sciences. In the discipline of history, Akira Iriye (1989: 2) has called for historians to ‘search for historical themes and conceptions that are meaningful across national boundaries’, a call echoed by the new global and transnational history. In sociology, agendas for a ‘global sociology’have come from former President of the American Sociological Association, Michael Burawoy (2000, 2008) and prominent European theorist Ulrich Beck (2006), among others. Meanwhile, Immanuel Wallerstein has long urged social scientists to ‘unthink’state-centrism and theorize on a more global scale (Wallerstein, 2001).The intellectual space constituted by this work has been interdisciplinary. It has also sometimes been ‘undisciplined’in its use of diverse concepts, theories and literatures. Rather than overarching theoretically guided research programmes, we find disparate areas of research: studies of immigration, global cities, neoliberalism, neoimperialism, the global diffusion of organizational forms, and so on. The interdisciplinary and undisciplined nature of this space has had its advantages. It has led, for example, to surprising dialogues across the boundaries that sometimes separate theoretical schools within disciplines. It also brings with it potential disadvantages: It might mean, among other things, that the full potential of any one theoretical approach is not fully explored. Each of these empirical areas are rich but they have yielded, and engage with, separated theories of the middle-range: for example, theories of immigration, theories of global cities, theories of global culture, and so on. Besides a few exceptions, to be discussed below, shared theoretical frameworks or concepts on transnational processes across the subfields are comparably lacking. The papers in this collection specifically explore the potential of the concept of the ‘field’in the Bourdieusian tradition for analysing transnational processes. Throughout his career, but especially in his latter half, Bourdieu theorized ‘field’as an important part of his overarching theoretical corpus, alongside and part of concepts like practice, habitus, and capital (Swartz, 1997). He explored a