【24h】

Roundtable Introduction’

机译:圆桌会议简介’

获取原文
       

摘要

The five papers in this roundtable originated in a plenary session at the seventh annual conference of the British Society for Literature and Science in 2012 at the University of Oxford. Since the foundation of the BSLS, the papers presented at its conferences and the books reviewed on its website have been very largely historicist in their approach, following a tradition that goes back to the earlier work of critics such as George Rousseau on the eighteenth century, Gillian Beer and George Levine on the nineteenth century, and Ian F. A. Bell on modernism (each of whom has either spoken at or been honoured by the BSLS itself). Given the dominance of historicism in this field, especially in Britain, we felt that it was important to examine its conceptual possibilities and methodological demands. What, we wanted to ask, are the specific challenges for historicism in literature and science, as distinct from those facing historicism more generally. Why might historicism be both particularly crucial and particularly vexed in our field. What difference, ultimately, does it make that we are working on science, which is not only an immensely complex cultural phenomenon but an authoritative body of knowledge and a highly effective set of methods for generating understanding in its own right
机译:该圆桌会议上的五篇论文起源于2012年在牛津大学举行的英国文学与科学学会第七届年会上的一次全体会议上。自BSLS成立以来,在其会议上发表的论文和在其网站上审阅的书籍在很大程度上采用了历史主义者的手法,其传统可以追溯到18世纪乔治·卢梭(George Rousseau)等早期批评家的作品,吉利恩·比尔(Gillian Beer)和乔治·莱文(George Levine)在19世纪,伊恩·法·贝尔(Ian FA Bell)在现代主义方面(每个人都曾在BSLS上发表演讲或受到BSLS的嘉奖)。鉴于历史主义在这一领域(尤其是在英国)中的主导地位,我们认为重要的是研究其概念上的可能性和方法论上的要求。我们想问的是,文学和科学中历史主义面临的具体挑战,与更普遍面对历史主义的挑战不同。为什么历史主义在我们的领域既特别重要又特别烦恼。最终,有什么不同使我们在从事科学工作,这不仅是一种极其复杂的文化现象,而且是权威性的知识体系和一套有效的自身产生理解的方法

著录项

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