历史学的“动物转向”与“后人类史学”
|
摘要
动物史是20世纪80年代出现的史学新领域,被认为是新文化史出现之后的又一重要研究领域,史学史学者将其看作历史学上的"动物转向",动物在这一学术领域中成为被关注的重点,动物对人类社会发展的重要作用被不断彰显。动物史认为人和动物共同创造了人类历史,也共享自然和社会空间。动物史的起源和发展既有学术发展的内在理路,即社会史和文化史的延伸,也有深受左翼社会思潮和运动影响的外缘因素,动物权利保护运动,以及随之兴起的左翼批判理论在动物史的兴起过程中扮演了至关重要的角色。历史学的"动物转向"对于去人类中心主义意义重大,开辟了"后人类史学"的新路径。
Animal History is a new field that appeared in the 1980s,which is regarded as a crucial trend after the rise of the new cultural history. Contemporary historiography has viewed it as the"animal turn"in the discipline of history. In this new field,animals become the focus,and the significant roles of animal in the history of humankind are manifested more explicitly. The animal history argues that animals and humans worked together for creating the so-called history of humankind in which animals and humans shared natural and social space for social and environmental bonds. The rise and development of the animal history can be attributed to both internal reasons and external factors. First,the animal history can be seen as the extension of social history and new cultural history. Second,the animal rights movement also contributed to the rise of the animal history. The animal turn in history plays a pivotal role in decentering anthropocentrism and paves the new way for posthuman historiography.
Animal History is a new field that appeared in the 1980s,which is regarded as a crucial trend after the rise of the new cultural history. Contemporary historiography has viewed it as the"animal turn"in the discipline of history. In this new field,animals become the focus,and the significant roles of animal in the history of humankind are manifested more explicitly. The animal history argues that animals and humans worked together for creating the so-called history of humankind in which animals and humans shared natural and social space for social and environmental bonds. The rise and development of the animal history can be attributed to both internal reasons and external factors. First,the animal history can be seen as the extension of social history and new cultural history. Second,the animal rights movement also contributed to the rise of the animal history. The animal turn in history plays a pivotal role in decentering anthropocentrism and paves the new way for posthuman historiography.
引文
(1)法吉在回顾动物史兴起的历史时,提到了1974年Charles Phineas在《社会史学刊》上发表的文章,提出史学也可以考虑研究宠物,参见Erica Fudge,“A Left-handed Blow:Writing the History of Animals,”Nigel Rothfels,ed.,Representing Animals,Bloomington:Indiana University Press,2002,pp.3-18.
(1)Hilda Kean,“Animal-Human Histories,”in Sasha Handley,Rohan McW illiam,and Lucy Noakes,eds.,New Directions in Social and Cultural History,London:Bloomsbury,2018,pp.173-189.
(2)Hilda Kean,Animal Rights:Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800,London:Reaktion Books,2000.
(3)Harriet Ritvo,The Animal Estate:The English and Other Creatures in Victorian England,Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1989.
(4)Dan Vandersommers,“The Animal Turn in History,”Perspectives on History,November issue,2016.
(5)相关讨论参见Anna Peterson,“Religious Studies and the Animal Turn,”History of Religions,Vol.56,No.2(2016),pp.232-245;陈怀宇:《动物与宗教:物质主义与情动转向的理论反思》,《世界宗教研究》,2018年第1期,第147-152页。
(6)Natalie Zemon Davis,“Decentering History:Local Stories and Cultural Crossings in a Global World,”History and Theory,Vol.50,No.2(2011),pp.188-202.
(1)Erica Fudge,“A Left-handed Blow:Writing the History of Animals,”Nigel Rothfels,ed.,Representing Animals,Bloomington:Indiana University Press,2002,pp.3-18.
(1)参见笔者以前的讨论,陈怀宇:《动物与中古政治宗教秩序》,上海古籍出版社2012年版。大象则对中世纪印度伊斯兰政权构建政治权威极为重要,参见Ali Anooshahr,“The Elephant and the Sovereign:India circa 1000 CE,”Journal of Royal Asiatic Society series 3,Vol.28,No.4(2018),pp.615-644.
(2)除了瑞特沃的著作之外,其他相关代表性作品还有很多,这里仅举数例,如Thomas Allsen,The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History,Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,2006;John M MacK enzie,The Empire of Nature:Hunting,Conservation and British Imperialism,Manchester:Manchester University Press,1988;Louise E.Robbins,Elephant Slaves and Pampered Parrots:Exotic Animals in Eighteenth-Century Paris,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,2002.
(3)比如皆川雅树:「鹦鹉の赠答―日本古代対外関係史研究の一齣」、矢野建一、李浩編:『长安都市文化と朝鲜日本』、汲古书院2007年、209-231頁。
(4)Thomas Allsen和其他学者都讨论了波斯与中亚对中华帝国贡献狮子的史事。较近的一个研究为邹振环:《郑和下西洋与明朝的麒麟外交》,《华东师范大学学报》,2018年第2期,第1-11页。
(5)仅举出一代表性作品,如Virginia DeJ ohn Anderson,Creatures of Empire:How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004.
(6)Thomas R.Trautmann,Elephants and Kings:An Environmental History,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2015,第二部分the spread of the war elephants.
(7)Wu Hung,“Rethinking Meaning in Early Chinese Art:Animal,Ancestor,and Man,”Critical Inquiry,Vol.43(2016),pp.139-190.
(1)Lynn White Jr.,“The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis,”Science,Vol.155(March,1967).pp.1203-1207.此后人文地理学家、宗教学家陆续加入讨论,如段义孚试图从中国宗教和文化传统反思它们可能对生态问题的贡献,参见“Discrepancies between Environmental Attitude and Behavior:Examples from Europe and China,”Canadian Geographer,Vol.12,No.3(1968),pp.176-191;哈佛大学则于20世纪90年代组织了一系列讨论会并结集出版了三本论文集,讨论儒释道对于生态的看法和处理方式,Mary E.Tucker,ed.,Buddhism and Ecology:The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds,Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1997;Mary E.Tucker,John H.Berthrong,eds.,Confucianism and Ecology:The Interrelation of Heaven,Earth,and Humans,Cambridge,MA:Harvard U-niversity Press,1998;Xiaogan Liu,N.J.Girardot,James Miller,eds.,Daoism and Ecology:Ways Within a Cosmic Landscape,Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,2001;此后一系列会议均对这一主题有所涉及,如Helaine Selin,ed.,Nature across Cultures:Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures,Dordrecht:Springer Science,2003.
(2)Aaron S.Gross,The Question of the Animal and Religion:Theoretical Stakes,Practical Implications,New York:Columbia University Press,2015.
(3)金鹏程即否认道家可以被看作是环境保护主义,参见Paul R.Goldin,“Why Daoism is not Environmentalism,”Journal of Chinese Philosophy,Vol.32,No.1(2005),pp.75-87.2018年5月笔者提交给特拉维夫大学亚洲动物与宗教会议的论文也对道教保护野生动物的态度和处理办法持保留意见。
(1)相关评述参见陈怀宇:《动物与宗教:物质主义与情动转向的理论反思》,《世界宗教研究》,2018年第1期,第147-152页。
(2)David Schultz,“Should we bring extinct species back from the dead?”post in:Biology,Plants&Animals,AAAS Website,September 26,2016,doi:10.1126/science.aah7343;Christine Ro,“The Increasingly Realistic Prospect of Extinct Animal Zoos,”BBC Future,28March,2018.
(1)Hilda Kean,“Animal-Human Histories,”in Sasha Handley,Rohan McW illiam,and Lucy Noakes,eds.,New Directions in Social and Cultural History,London:Bloomsbury,2018,pp.173-189.
(2)Hilda Kean,Animal Rights:Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800,London:Reaktion Books,2000.
(3)Harriet Ritvo,The Animal Estate:The English and Other Creatures in Victorian England,Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1989.
(4)Dan Vandersommers,“The Animal Turn in History,”Perspectives on History,November issue,2016.
(5)相关讨论参见Anna Peterson,“Religious Studies and the Animal Turn,”History of Religions,Vol.56,No.2(2016),pp.232-245;陈怀宇:《动物与宗教:物质主义与情动转向的理论反思》,《世界宗教研究》,2018年第1期,第147-152页。
(6)Natalie Zemon Davis,“Decentering History:Local Stories and Cultural Crossings in a Global World,”History and Theory,Vol.50,No.2(2011),pp.188-202.
(1)Erica Fudge,“A Left-handed Blow:Writing the History of Animals,”Nigel Rothfels,ed.,Representing Animals,Bloomington:Indiana University Press,2002,pp.3-18.
(1)参见笔者以前的讨论,陈怀宇:《动物与中古政治宗教秩序》,上海古籍出版社2012年版。大象则对中世纪印度伊斯兰政权构建政治权威极为重要,参见Ali Anooshahr,“The Elephant and the Sovereign:India circa 1000 CE,”Journal of Royal Asiatic Society series 3,Vol.28,No.4(2018),pp.615-644.
(2)除了瑞特沃的著作之外,其他相关代表性作品还有很多,这里仅举数例,如Thomas Allsen,The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History,Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,2006;John M MacK enzie,The Empire of Nature:Hunting,Conservation and British Imperialism,Manchester:Manchester University Press,1988;Louise E.Robbins,Elephant Slaves and Pampered Parrots:Exotic Animals in Eighteenth-Century Paris,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,2002.
(3)比如皆川雅树:「鹦鹉の赠答―日本古代対外関係史研究の一齣」、矢野建一、李浩編:『长安都市文化と朝鲜日本』、汲古书院2007年、209-231頁。
(4)Thomas Allsen和其他学者都讨论了波斯与中亚对中华帝国贡献狮子的史事。较近的一个研究为邹振环:《郑和下西洋与明朝的麒麟外交》,《华东师范大学学报》,2018年第2期,第1-11页。
(5)仅举出一代表性作品,如Virginia DeJ ohn Anderson,Creatures of Empire:How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004.
(6)Thomas R.Trautmann,Elephants and Kings:An Environmental History,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2015,第二部分the spread of the war elephants.
(7)Wu Hung,“Rethinking Meaning in Early Chinese Art:Animal,Ancestor,and Man,”Critical Inquiry,Vol.43(2016),pp.139-190.
(1)Lynn White Jr.,“The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis,”Science,Vol.155(March,1967).pp.1203-1207.此后人文地理学家、宗教学家陆续加入讨论,如段义孚试图从中国宗教和文化传统反思它们可能对生态问题的贡献,参见“Discrepancies between Environmental Attitude and Behavior:Examples from Europe and China,”Canadian Geographer,Vol.12,No.3(1968),pp.176-191;哈佛大学则于20世纪90年代组织了一系列讨论会并结集出版了三本论文集,讨论儒释道对于生态的看法和处理方式,Mary E.Tucker,ed.,Buddhism and Ecology:The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds,Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1997;Mary E.Tucker,John H.Berthrong,eds.,Confucianism and Ecology:The Interrelation of Heaven,Earth,and Humans,Cambridge,MA:Harvard U-niversity Press,1998;Xiaogan Liu,N.J.Girardot,James Miller,eds.,Daoism and Ecology:Ways Within a Cosmic Landscape,Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,2001;此后一系列会议均对这一主题有所涉及,如Helaine Selin,ed.,Nature across Cultures:Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures,Dordrecht:Springer Science,2003.
(2)Aaron S.Gross,The Question of the Animal and Religion:Theoretical Stakes,Practical Implications,New York:Columbia University Press,2015.
(3)金鹏程即否认道家可以被看作是环境保护主义,参见Paul R.Goldin,“Why Daoism is not Environmentalism,”Journal of Chinese Philosophy,Vol.32,No.1(2005),pp.75-87.2018年5月笔者提交给特拉维夫大学亚洲动物与宗教会议的论文也对道教保护野生动物的态度和处理办法持保留意见。
(1)相关评述参见陈怀宇:《动物与宗教:物质主义与情动转向的理论反思》,《世界宗教研究》,2018年第1期,第147-152页。
(2)David Schultz,“Should we bring extinct species back from the dead?”post in:Biology,Plants&Animals,AAAS Website,September 26,2016,doi:10.1126/science.aah7343;Christine Ro,“The Increasingly Realistic Prospect of Extinct Animal Zoos,”BBC Future,28March,2018.