Materials of the mind: phrenology, race, and the global history of science 1815–1920
Materials of the mind: phrenology, race, and the global history of science 1815–1920
复制标题
心灵材料：颅相学、种族和全球科学史 1815-1920
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bill Jenkins
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bill Jenkins
芝加哥学派关于移民飞地形成的原因以及它们是否是美国景观的永久特征的观点。尽管如此，在某些地方，更有针对性的方法可能会产生更清晰的图像。举一个例子，在他对20世纪30年代的讨论中--在实际的隔都成为纳粹政策的一部分之前--施瓦茨涵盖了纳粹在德国公共空间对犹太人的限制，使用这个词作为日益严重的迫害的象征，以及讲意第绪语的知识分子之间关于被称为“回到隔都”的内向文化转向的争论。显然，在这样的研究中，不可能对每个主题进行详细的处理，但是在十页左右的篇幅内对它们进行全面的研究会让人感到肤浅。一本如此紧凑，但又如此宏大的书，在资料来源和主题的覆盖上也必然是有选择性的，这有时会显得与众不同。虽然全面论述犹太人区在犹太复国主义思想中的作用是有价值的，但对西奥多·赫茨尔的戏剧《新犹太人区》的讨论似乎与书名之外的主题没有密切联系。在其他地方，施瓦茨的长期研究使他能够得出联系，使他的观察产生特殊的共鸣。他指出，纳粹隔离区的犹太囚犯讨论了他们的处境与中世纪隔离区居民的处境相比如何，而战后反对限制性公约的非裔美国人则援引了同样的纳粹机构的幽灵。考虑到他对犹太人和黑人对这个词的调用的交织历史的迷人讨论，人们希望他在20世纪60年代探讨了犹太人在黑人聚居区学者中的主导地位，而不是将其归结为“[p] ersilo.纯属巧合”（183-184）。这只是这项有价值的研究引发的进一步研究的挑衅性途径的一个小例子。
Chicago School’s views of why immigrant enclaves form and whether they are a permanent feature of the American landscape. Still, in places a more focused approach might have yielded a sharper portrait. To cite one example, in his discussion of the 1930s – before actual ghettos became part of Nazi policy – Schwartz covers Nazi restrictions on Jews in German public space, the use of the term as a symbol of growing persecution, and debates among Yiddish-speaking intellectuals about an inward cultural turn labeled a “return to the ghetto.” Clearly a detailed treatment of each topic is not possible in such a study, but examining them all in the space of ten or so pages can feel superficial. A book so relatively compact and yet so ambitious in scope will necessarily also be selective in its coverage of sources and topics, which can occasionally seem idiosyncratic. While a full treatment of the role of the ghetto in Zionist thought would be valuable, the discussion of Theodor Herzl’s play The New Ghetto does not seem closely linked to the book’s theme beyond its title. Elsewhere the long durée of Schwartz’s study allows him to draw connections that give his observations special resonance. He notes that Jewish prisoners of Nazi ghettos discussed how their situation compared to that of medieval ghetto residents, while post-war African Americans fighting restrictive covenants invoked the specter of the same Nazi institutions. Given his fascinating discussion of the intertwined histories of Jewish and Black invocations of the term, one wishes he had explored the predominance of Jews among scholars of Black ghettos in the 1960s rather than chalking it up to “[p]erhaps... sheer coincidence” (183-184). This is but one small example of the provocative avenues for further research sparked by this valuable study.