首页> 外文学位 >Leviathan and automaton: Technology and teleology in American literature.
【24h】

Leviathan and automaton: Technology and teleology in American literature.

机译:Leviathan和自动机:美国文学中的技术和目的论。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This dissertation examines the relationship between time and technology in American literature in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It focuses principally on the work of Herman Melville, Lewis Mumford, William Faulkner and Ralph Ellison, in the context of various historical and philosophical accounts of technology. It begins with the Leo Marx's analysis of American literature as being always concerned with the moment when the machine violently enters into the garden. The dominant American concept of technology asserts that technology is progress (which is not the same as endorsing technological progress); in Richard Heilbroner's classic formulation, "machines make history." This teleological drive within technology is ultimately eschatological: the world and the very self stand in peril of being turned into automatons. Whether or not the eschatos ends with the automation or liberation of the self, the internal teleological drive of technology threatens to end time, that is, the continuation of meaningful events, something which the mainstream of American literary criticism has failed to grasp, by focusing on technology as a contemporary crisis, rather than analyzing it as being constitutive of life itself. That is, attempts to resist technological eschatologies typically end up becoming technological eschatologies themselves, with Leo Marx serving as the perfect example.; An important tradition within American literature, however, has articulated an anti-teleological, anti-eschatological account of technology, one which denies the reality of progress in favor of change. This tradition includes the works of Herman Melville (including Moby Dick, Typee, Omoo, the Confidence Man and Clarel ) and Ralph Ellison (Invisible Man and the essays, collected and uncollected), with William Faulkner's works (especially Light in August, the Snopes books, Absalom, Absalom and Pylon) being more ambiguously included in this tradition. Lewis Mumford, in opposition to the mainstream of literary criticism, which has always endorsed an eschatological vision of technology, eventually approached Melville and Ellison's anti-eschatological position. These works present a vision which is a viable alternative to both "progressive" ideologies which advance the mechanization of humanity and reactionary anti-technological ideologies.; The dissertation argues that the Ellisonian-Melvillean anti-eschatological vision of technology precedes and is related to the critiques of progress advanced by certain contemporary theorists of biology and historians of technology, including George Basilla, Arnold Pacey, Richard Lewontin and Stephen Gould, and that this unified rejection of the very idea of progress is intellectually necessary and politically desirable. The dissertation identifies and participates in a critique not of the desirability of American progress so much as of the reality of American progress, and of the complicity of American ideologies of progress with racist traditions.
机译:本文研究了十九世纪和二十世纪美国时间与技术之间的关系。在各种技术的历史和哲学解释的背景下,它主要关注赫尔曼·梅尔维尔,刘易斯·芒福德,威廉·福克纳和拉尔夫·埃里森的工作。它始于里奥·马克思对美国文学的分析,始终与机器猛烈进入花园的时刻有关。美国占主导地位的技术概念断言技术是进步(与认可技术进步不同)。在理查德·海尔布隆纳(Richard Heilbroner)的经典表述中,“机器创造了历史”。技术中的这种目的论驱动力最终是末世论的:世界和自身陷入变成自动机的危险中。随行者是否以自我的自动化或自我解放而结束,技术的内部目的论驱动力都将威胁到结束时间,即有意义事件的延续,这是美国文学批评的主流未能通过集中把握来把握的。将技术视为当代危机,而不是将其分析为生命本身的构成。就是说,抵抗技术末世论的尝试通常最终会变成技术末世论本身,而利奥·马克思就是一个很好的例子。但是,美国文学中的一项重要传统阐明了一种对技术的反论据,对思想的阐释,它否认了赞成变革的现实。这种传统包括赫尔曼·梅尔维尔(Herman Melville)的作品(包括Moby Dick,Typee,Omoo,Confidence Man和Clarel)和拉尔夫·埃里森(Ralph Ellison)(《无形的人》和杂文,已收藏和未收藏),以及威廉·福克纳的作品(尤其是8月的《光》,《鼻梁》)书籍,押沙龙,押沙龙和铁塔)被更模糊地包含在这一传统中。刘易斯·芒福德(Lewis Mumford)一直反对文学批评的主流,而文学批评一直支持技术的末世论观点,最终走上了梅尔维尔(Melville)和埃里森(Ellison)的反思想立场。这些作品提出了一种远见,可以替代推进人类机械化的“进步”意识形态和反动反技术意识形态。论文认为,埃里森-梅尔维尔技术的反思想视野先于某些现代生物学理论家和技术史学家,包括乔治·巴西拉,阿诺德·佩西,理查德·勒旺汀和斯蒂芬·古尔德,对技术进步提出了批判,并与之相关。这种统一拒绝进步的思想在思想上是必要的,在政治上也是可取的。论文指出并参与了对美国进步的可取性的评论,而不是对美国进步现实的评论,以及对美国进步意识形态与种族主义传统的共谋的批评。

著录项

  • 作者

    Johns, John Adam.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Pittsburgh.;

  • 授予单位 University of Pittsburgh.;
  • 学科 Literature American.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 423 p.
  • 总页数 423
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 I712;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号