| 摘要: | 好用過去：女性主義、酷兒、後殖民史觀女性主義、酷兒、後殖民歷史觀如何看待過去？如何在這個點上展開相互的對話？過去，如何構成三種歷史敘事（次）領域的問題？對於過去的想像如何成為一種政治的力量，又同時成為危機－想像和排除的力道？前／現代作為問題好似重複出現，區隔出未來的可能和不可能，確是這樣嗎？三年計畫的第一年，我將細讀史笛曼的系列女侍史，藉以釐清一種可能的新的女性主義歷史敘事方式和倫理：史笛曼如何與不同派別的女性主義產生對話，尤其是後殖民和跨國女性主義將是我的閱讀重點。史笛曼對於妒恨的描述和對於不生育的看重，是晚近之酷兒情感歷史研究特別側重的。第二年的研究，我將重點放在史笛曼影響到的幾位重要酷兒新秀，他們對於（壞）感情的歷史遺跡和跨代效應，如何讓我們得以分析酷兒歷史觀對於過去（的感情）獨特的掛念。第三年，我試圖並置閱讀一系列後殖民比較史／文學的書寫和方法（主要範疇為東北亞、南亞與西印度群島），藉以分析這些方法又如何面對既是不堪也可近用的過去，過程中又如何假設、或問題化，哪些情感。這三年的論述群，如何相互對話，讓過去不可怕，是整個計畫的重點，這份對話希望能夠搭起一種跨（次）領域間，主題和方法相互纏繞的好看好用。Usable pasts: feminist, queer, and post-colonial historiographies How might feminist, queer, and post-colonial historiographies speak to each other on a (differently) vexed relation to the/a past? How have specific imaginations of the/a past been enabling and political, and simultaneously in crisis – critical in repeating founding externalizations and exclusions? The old modern/pre-modern divide seems repetitively at stake here in what it is thought, in each instance, to at once render possible and impossible. The first year of this project will focus on the works of Carolyn Steedman in her responses to feminist and Marxist historiographies, how she understands service and servitude to be foundational (yet consistently excluded from thought) to and in British modernity. How does Steedman’s work represent a turn in feminist historiography where theorizing and history are not kept distinct but made into method, the one for and in the other? How is this entwined with her subject-matter, a mode of service work that is from the outset conceptualized as external to a modern (middle-class) feminine? How is Steedman’s work in tangential relation to post-structural feminist historiography (Joan Scott), post-colonial Marxist feminist theories (Gayatri Spivak), and ‘transnational feminist’ textual practices (Tani Barlow)? How is Steedman’s methodology related to a rethinking of “cold war feminisms” (Yoneyama, Koikari)? I hope to be able to clarify these questions in the first year of this project. Envy attends service and servitude, says Steedman; this focus on envy as a feeling worthy of attention has inspired a wave of queer scholars who examine bad feelings about and of the past, and the latter’s multiple relations to the present. In the second year, I will read Lauren Berlant, Heather Love, and Elizabeth Freeman, among others, so as to understand new writings on feelings out of place in queer times, past and present (J. Halberstam); in particular, what and why these feelings have to do with pasts. In the third year, I will turn to intra-region and inter-region dialogues that are also post-colonial comparatist and historiographic methods-in-progress. Writers like David Scott (West Indies) Tejaswini Niranjana (India, West Indies), Paik Nak Chung (South Korea, North Korea), Chen Kuan-hsing (Taiwan, South Korea), Amie Parry (U.S., Taiwan) among others register shifts in historical feeling through new comparative frameworks. These might be read as setting up comparative models for inter-disciplinary dialogues among feminist, queer, and post-colonial historiographies on intersections between historical pasts and literary presents with a stake in future possibilities. 研究期間：10008 ~ 10107 |
