Paranormal America: Ghost Encounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities in Religion and Culture
Paranormal America: Ghost Encounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities in Religion and Culture
复制标题
美国超自然现象：幽灵遭遇、不明飞行物目击、大脚怪狩猎以及宗教和文化中的其他奇事
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Schwadel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Schwadel
对个人数据收集，特别是对年轻研究人员来说，洛克说，并警告说，由需要跨学科和国际研究设计的资助基金会推动的集体研究的“专制”。第三部分的章节集中在历史学和历史问题上，这些问题是方法论民族主义陷阱的特征。在《质问方法论民族主义批判》一章中，拉迪卡·蒙贾强调，有必要将国家对移徙的控制“历史化”，以避免方法论民族主义将国家对移徙的控制视为不变的和自然化的(作为威斯特伐利亚的产品)，相当于国家空间的物化。根据蒙贾的观点，即使是对文化研究和跨国移民研究的批评也提倡一种“方法论国家主义”，当这两种观点保持着一种隐含的方法论民族主义的残余或没有考虑到国家时，就会使国家空间去历史化。她使用了19世纪和20世纪初印度次大陆国家政策的历史例子，展示了源于帝国辩论的印度政策如何促进某些移民类别的“自由移民”，而不是限制移民，因为方法论民族主义的国家概念被认为是国家不变的立场。蒙贾说，有必要寻找具体的“历史关头”，以使国家对移民的控制具有历史性。关于美国政府在1942至1964年间大量进口墨西哥大括号，她的话听起来是真的。除了方法论上的民族主义，民族主义还提出了需要在社会研究中考虑的重要问题，因为世界各地区的许多社会环境日益多变、多样化和全球相互联系的特点。无论研究是单独进行还是集体进行，都必须通过超越民族国家的分析框架，以流动性和多样性为敏感，调查跨界社会进程，并以一种跨越时间和空间的历史性变化的感觉来这样做。这当然不是今天的认识，而是马克思对资本主义现代时代的描述的一种方法论上的重复，在这个时代里，社会生活的特征是“所有社会条件的不间断干扰”和“永恒的不确定和骚动”(共产党宣言：38)。
rock’’ of individual data-gathering, especially for young researchers, and warns against the ‘‘tyranny’’ of collective research promoted by funding foundations requiring interdisciplinary and international research designs. The chapters in Part III focus on issues of historiography and history that characterize pitfalls of methodological nationalism. In the chapter ‘‘Interrogating Critiques of Methodological Nationalism,’’ Radhika Mongia emphasizes the need to ‘‘historicize’’ state control of migration to avoid methodological nationalism’s practice of viewing the state control of migration as unchanging and naturalized (as a Westphalian product), amounting to a reification of state space. According to Mongia, even the critiques of cultural studies and transnational migration studies promote a ‘‘methodological statism’’ that dehistoricize state-space when the two perspectives maintain an implicit residue of methodological nationalism or fail to take the state into account. Using historical examples of state policies of the Indian subcontinent in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, she demonstrates how Indian policies which were derived from imperial debates promoted ‘‘free migration’’ of certain emigrant categories rather than restrict migration, because the state concept of methodological nationalism was assumed to be the unchanging stance of the state. Mongia says that it is necessary to look for specific ‘‘historical junctures’’ to historicize state control of migration. Her words ring true regarding the massive importation of Mexican braceros by the U.S. state during 1942 to 1964. Beyond Methodological Nationalism raises important issues that need to be considered in social research, given the increasingly fluid, diverse, and globally interconnected character of many social environments across world regions. Whether research is undertaken individually or collectively, it is necessary to investigate cross-border social processes through analytical frameworks that extend beyond the nation-state with sensitivity for fluidity and diversity, and to do so with a sense of historical change through time and space. This of course is not a present-day realization, but a methodological refrain of Marx’s depiction of the capitalistic modern era as one in which ‘‘uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions’’ and ‘‘everlasting uncertainty and agitation’’ characterize social life (Communist Manifesto:38).