星韵地理网

 找回密码
 中文注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 798|回复: 2

[其他资源] 当代地理学要义17自然:一个有争议的概念

[复制链接]
发表于 2019-4-16 14:51:08 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 geonet 于 2019-4-19 06:43 编辑

(这本书十年前有过初版的中译本https://item.jd.com/10053777.htmlhttps://product.suning.com/0070167435/646578476.html而次年有了这个英文版修订增订版,而今十年未见中文版更新和新译本)(好的翻译既需要专业素养也需要过硬的语言掌控能力,还需要对作者和作品的领悟,而我这些都没有脱贫,是虽不能而为之的。所以只是“了解大概”的搬运工和阅读和理解都很费力。)
17自然:一个有争议的概念
Franklin Ginn和David Demeritt

Definition
Nature is a contested term that means different things to different people in different places. Generally, this contestation revolves around three main meanings:
the ‘nature’ or essence of a thing; ‘nature’ as material place external to humaity; and ‘nature’ as universal law or reality that may or may not include humans.
定义(以下蓝色字体是有道自动翻译的)
自然是一个有争议的术语,在不同的地方,对不同的人意味着不同的东西。一般来说,这种争论围绕着三个主要的含义:
事物的“本质”或本质;“自然”作为人类外部的物质场所;“自然”作为普遍规律或现实,可能包括也可能不包括人类。

(谷歌翻译)定义
自然是一个有争议的术语,对不同地方的不同人来说意味着不同的东西。 一般来说,这种争论主要围绕三个主要含义:
事物的“本质”或本质; “自然”作为人类外在的物质场所; 和“自然”作为普遍的法律或现实,可能包括也可能不包括人类。
INTRODUCTION
Natural food is all the rage. Walk down the aisle of your local supermarket and you’ll be confronted by entire ranges of products boasting ‘all natural’ or ‘organic’ ingredients. Often the packaging is decorated with pictures of verdant fields dotted with grazing dairy cows – or perhaps it’s small children frolicking. Bombarded as we are by advertising, we rarely take the time to interrogate the cascade of associations and myths it echoes and extends. Such images of bucolic countryside draw on a long tradition of pastoral art and poetry celebrating nature and the countryside as the true home of humanity. In the context of food packing, they serve to reassure consumers about the quality, freshness, safety and sustainability of particular commodities by locating them rhetorically in an idealized, Edenic environment of healthy, wholesome and leisurely living that is at once youthful and timeless, familiar and far away. There are no factory farms, pesticides, processing plants or migrant farm workers slaving away from dawn until dusk in the imagined geographies of nature depicted in most supermarkets.
介绍
天然食品风靡一时。沿着当地超市的过道走下去你将面对一系列号称“纯天然”或“纯天然”的产品“有机”成分。通常包装上装饰着青翠的图片牧场上点缀着吃草的奶牛——或者也许是小孩子在嬉戏。尽管我们被广告狂轰滥炸,但我们很少花时间去审视它联想和神话的瀑布,它的回声和延伸。这样的田园景象乡村有着悠久的田园艺术和赞美自然的诗歌传统乡村才是人类真正的家园。在食品包装的背景下,它们通过将特定的商品巧妙地放置在食品包装中,使消费者对其质量、新鲜度、安全性和可持续性放心理想的、伊甸园式的健康、健康、悠闲的生活环境既年轻又永恒,既熟悉又遥远。没有工厂化农场,杀虫剂、加工厂或外出务农的工人在黎明前辛勤劳作在大多数超市描绘的自然地理环境中,直到黄昏。

(谷歌翻译)介绍
天然食物风靡一时。走在当地超市的过道上,你会遇到一系列具有“天然”或“干燥”成分的产品。通常,包装上装饰着点缀着放牧奶牛的青翠田野的图片,或许是小孩子嬉戏。由于我们通过广告进行轰炸,我们很少花时间来询问它回声和延伸的级联联想和神话。田园乡村的这种形象借鉴了田园艺术和诗歌的悠久传统,庆祝自然和乡村作为人类的真正家园。在食品包装的背景下,他们通过将他们的修辞定位于一个健康,健康和悠闲生活的理想化的伊甸园环境中,使消费者对特定商品的质量,新鲜度,安全性和可持续性感到放心,这种环境既年轻又永恒。 ,熟悉而遥远。在大多数超市描绘的大自然的想象地理区域,没有工厂农场,农药,加工厂或农民工从黎明到黄昏。
We begin with this example to show that ‘nature’ and the ‘natural’ are not always what they seem. Behind apparently simple labels like ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ stand a whole array of regulations, and the various state, or increasingly non-governmental, inspectors charged with certifying that those standards have been met. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (2002) published a 20-page set of ‘criteria for the use of terms fresh, natural, etc. in food labelling’, while a host of non-governmental organizations, such as the Soil Association, have formulated codes of practice and other certification schemes to assure the sustainable, organic, Fair Trade or other credentials of particular products. The meaning and definition of nature are more than simply academic concerns. They have important implications for what you eat and how you live.
我们从这个例子开始来说明“自然”和“自然”并不总是它们看起来的那样。在“天然”和“有机”等看似简单的标签背后,隐藏着一系列的监管规定,以及各州(或越来越多的非政府机构)的检查员,他们负责证明这些标准得到了满足。在英国,英国食品标准局(2002)出版的一套20页的“标准条款的使用新鲜的,自然的,等在食品标签,虽然许多非政府组织,如土壤协会,制定守则和其他认证计划,以确保可持续的,有机的,公平贸易或其他特定产品的凭证。自然的意义和定义不仅仅是学术问题。它们对你的饮食和生活方式有着重要的影响。
(谷歌翻译)我们从这个例子开始,表明“自然”和“自然”并不总是他们看起来的样子。 显然简单的标签,如“自然”和“有机”,背后有各种各样的法规,各州或越来越多的非政府检查员负责证明这些标准已得到满足。 在英国,食品标准局(2002)发布了一套20页的“食品标签中使用新鲜,天然等术语的标准”,同时还有许多非政府组织,如土壤协会 ,制定了行为准则和其他认证计划,以确保特定产品的可持续,有机,公平贸易或其他凭证。 自然的含义和定义不仅仅是学术上的关注点。 它们对你吃什么和你如何生活有重要影响。
Geographers, more than most other academics, have been centrally concerned with nature. There is, as Castree (2005) notes, a very close and contested relationship between the nature of Geography as an academic discipline and the nature that geographers take as their object of study. Along with space/location, the concept and study of nature holds together physical and human geography in a single integrative discipline. For this reason alone, ‘nature’ deserves a central place in any discussion of Key Concepts in Geography. Tracing the different ways geographers have understood and studied nature, both as concept and object, provides one way to understand the history of geography as a discipline. Indeed, as we shall see, one of the most important trends in recent research is to blur this distinction between concepts and the objects to which they refer. This move challenges long-standing dualisms and the positivist ideals of objective science that depend on them, which is one reason why debates about the social construction of nature have become so heated.
地理学家比大多数学者更关注自然。正如Castree(2005)所指出的,地理学作为一门学科的性质和地理学家作为研究对象的性质之间存在着非常密切和有争议的关系。与空间/位置一样,自然的概念和研究将自然地理学和人文地理学结合在一起,形成一个统一的学科。仅仅因为这个原因,“自然”就应该在任何关于地理关键概念的讨论中占据中心位置。追溯地理学家对自然作为概念和对象的不同理解和研究方法,为理解地理学作为一门学科的历史提供了一种途径。的确,正如我们将看到的,最近研究中最重要的趋势之一是模糊概念和它们所指的对象之间的区别。这一举动挑战了长期存在的二元论和依赖于二元论的客观科学的实证主义理想,这也是关于自然的社会建构的争论如此激烈的原因之一。
(谷歌翻译)与大多数其他学者相比,地理学家一直关注自然。正如Castree(2005)所指出的那样,地理学作为一门学科的本质与地理学家作为研究对象的本质之间存在着非常密切和有争议的关系。与空间/位置一起,自然的概念和研究将物理和人文地理结合在一个整合的学科中。仅仅因为这个原因,“地理”中的关键概念的任何讨论中都占有一席之地。追踪地理学家理解和研究自然的不同方式,无论是作为概念还是对象,都提供了一种理解地理学作为学科的历史的方法。实际上,正如我们将要看到的,最近研究中最重要的趋势之一是模糊概念与它们所指的对象之间的区别。这一举动挑战了长期存在的二元论和依赖于它们的客观科学的实证主义理想,这也是为什么关于自然社会建构的争论变得如此激烈的一个原因。

HISTORY OF A CONCEPT
The literary critic Raymond Williams (1983: 219) famously observed that ‘nature’
is perhaps the most complex word in the English language. He identified three broad but complexly interconnected meanings:
1 Intrinsic nature: the essential characteristics of a thing (e.g. the nature of social exclusion).
2 External nature: the external, unmediated material world (e.g. the natural environment).
3 Universal nature: the all-encompassing force controlling things in the world (e.g. ‘natural laws’ or ‘Mother nature’)
概念的历史
文学评论家雷蒙德·威廉姆斯(Raymond Williams, 1983: 219)有一句名言:“nature”可能是英语中最复杂的单词。他确定了三个广泛而复杂的相互关联的含义:
1本质:事物的本质特征(如社会排斥的本质)。
2外在性:外在的、非中介的物质世界(如自然环境)。
3宇宙本性:控制世界万物的包罗万象的力量(如“自然规律”或“自然母亲”)

(谷歌翻译)一个概念的历史
文学评论家雷蒙德·威廉姆斯(1983:219)着名地观察到“自然”
也许是英语中最复杂的词。 他确定了三个广泛而复杂的相互关联的含义:
1内在本质:事物的本质特征(例如社会排斥的本质)。
2外在性质:外在的,无中介的物质世界(例如自然环境)。
3普遍性:控制世界事物的无所不包的力量(例如“自然法则”或“大自然”)
All three of these meanings figure in debates about the nature (meaning 1) of Geography as an academic discipline. Turner (2002: 63), for instance, sees study of the environment (meaning 2) as central to Geography’s claim to be ‘an integrated environmental science’ well placed to address real-world problems like flooding. Taking that case, physical geographers have elucidated the natural laws (meaning 3) governing the movement of water through landscapes (meaning 2), needed to predict the nature (meaning 1) and impact of flooding. Similarly,behavioural geographers have developed models to predict the factors controlling (meaning 3) public perceptions of such risks, while a host of critical human geographers have sought to ‘take the naturalness out of natural disasters’ (O’Keefe et al., 1976: 566) and to show how the nature (meaning 1) of disasters is ‘not just an act of God’ or a function of ‘extreme physical events’ (meaning 2) but is socially determined by ‘socio-economic conditions that can be modified by’ people, if we choose. Against Turner’s view that nature is a unifying object of geographical study, it is also possible to draw on other senses of the concept to distinguish human geography, concerned with meaningful human affairs, from physical geography, which studies a brute physical nature in the sense of (2) or (3) or both. This ontological difference between nature and society then forms the basis for distinguishing epistemologically between human geography as a hermeneutic social science of interpretation and physical geography as a positivist natural science of law-like prediction and explanation.
所有这三个含义都出现在关于地理学作为一门学科的性质(含义1)的争论中。例如,Turner(2002: 63)认为环境研究(意为2)是地理学宣称的“一门综合环境科学”的核心,能够很好地解决诸如洪水等现实问题。在这个案例中,物理地理学家阐明了控制水在景观中的运动的自然规律(意思3),需要预测洪水的性质(意思1)和影响。类似地,行为地理学家已经开发出模型来预测控制公众对此类风险认知的因素(也就是说3),而许多持批评态度的人类地理学家则试图“从自然灾害中获得自然性”(O’keefe et al., 1976:566),并说明灾害的性质(意为1)“不仅是上帝的行为”或“极端物理事件”(意为2)的作用,而且是由“社会经济条件”所决定的,如果我们愿意,“社会经济条件可以被人改变”。对特纳的观点,自然是一个统一的地理研究的对象,还可以利用其他感官人类地理概念的区分,关心有意义的人类事务,从自然地理研究一个蛮物理性质(2)或(3)或两者兼而有之。自然与社会的这种本体论差异,构成了在认识论上区分人文地理学作为解释学社会科学和自然地理学作为实证主义自然科学的法律式预测和解释的基础。
(谷歌翻译)所有这三个意义都在关于地理学作为一门学科的性质(意思是1)的争论中。例如,特纳(2002:63)认为环境研究(意思是2)是地理学声称“综合环境科学”的核心,它可以很好地解决洪水等现实问题。在这种情况下,物理地理学家已经阐明了管理水通过景观(意思2)的自然规律(意思是3),这是预测洪水的性质(意义1)和影响所必需的。类似地,行为地理学家已经开发出模型来预测控制(意味着3)公众对这些风险的看法的因素,而许多重要的人类地理学家试图“从自然灾害中获取自然性”(O'Keefe等。 ,1976:566)并展示灾难的本质(意义1)是“不仅仅是上帝的行为”还是“极端物理事件”(意思是2)的功能,而是由社会经济条件决定的社会经济条件如果我们选择,可以由'人修改。反对特纳认为自然是地理研究的统一对象的观点,也可以利用这一概念的其他意义来区分人类地理学,涉及有意义的人类事务,以及自然地理学,它研究了一种粗暴的物理性质。 (2)或(3)或两者兼而有之。然后,自然与社会之间的这种本体论差异构成了在人类地理学作为解释学的解释学社会科学和自然地理学之间的认识论区分的基础,作为一种类似于法律的预测和解释的自然主义自然科学。
Thus the concept of nature is central not only to Geography and the division between human and physical geographers, but also to science as a whole. Since the dawn of modern science during the seventeenth-century Enlightenment, nature has been critical to various philosophical efforts to distinguish scientific knowledge from other forms of belief. First, science has often been distinguished from religious superstitions on the grounds that its knowledge about the nature of things (meaning 1) is objective in the double sense that it is not based on subjective belief but on direct, impersonal and, in that sense, objective observation of an external and independent reality (meaning 2). Second, positivism defined science in terms of its ability to generate valid predictions from hypotheses. To this view, what human and physical geographers share in common is a search for the essentially necessary and therefore scientifically predictable properties of their respective objects of study. Thus human geographers concerned with the nature (meaning 1) of economic growth would seek to identify the laws (meaning 3) governing its behaviour, while physical geographers explain the nature (meaning 1) of hydrological systems (meaning 2) and the natural laws (meaning 3) governing the behaviour of water in different sized catchments. Though human and physical geographers may study different things, positivists insist that their knowledges are equally scientific, so long as they follow that same scientific method of testing hypotheses about the nature of things against independent observations of those same things.
(Youdao)因此,自然的概念不仅是地理和人类与自然地理学家之间的划分的中心,而且是整个科学的中心。自17世纪启蒙运动时期现代科学出现以来,自然一直是各种哲学努力的关键,以区别科学知识与其他形式的信仰。首先,科学经常被区别于宗教迷信,理由是其了解事物的本质(即1)双重意义上是客观的,它不是基于主观信念但在直接、客观的,在这个意义上,外部的客观观察和独立的现实(2)。第二,实证主义科学的定义从假设生成有效的预测能力。根据这一观点,人类地理学家和自然地理学家的共同之处在于,他们都在寻找各自研究对象本质上必要的、因而在科学上可预测的特性。因此人类地理学家关心的性质(1)经济增长将寻求识别法律(3)管理其行为,而物理地理学家解释的性质(1)水文系统(2)和自然法则(3)管理水在不同大小的集雨的行为。虽然人类地理学家和自然地理学家可能研究不同的东西,实证主义者坚持认为他们的知识是同样科学的,只要他们遵循同样的科学方法来检验关于事物本质的假设与对这些事物的独立观察。
(谷歌)因此,自然概念不仅是地理学和人类与自然地理学家之间的分裂的核心,也是整个科学的核心。自十七世纪启蒙运动开始以来,现代科学的曙光,自然界对于将科学知识与其他形式的信仰区别开来的各种哲学努力至关重要。首先,科学经常与宗教迷信有所不同,理由是它对事物本质的理解(意义1)在双重意义上是客观的,它不是基于主观信念,而是基于直接的,非个人的,在这个意义上,客观地观察外部和独立的现实(意思是2)。其次,pos?itivism根据其从假设中产生有效预测的能力来定义科学。根据这种观点,人类和自然地理学家共同参与的是寻找他们各自研究对象的基本必要的,因此具有科学可预测性的属性。因此,关注经济增长的本质(意义1)的人类地理学家将寻求识别管理其行为的法律(意义3),而物理地理学家则解释水文系统(意义2)的本质(意义1)和nat管理不同大小的捕捞水的行为的常用法律(意思是3)。尽管人类和自然地理学家可能会研究不同的东西,但实证主义者坚持认为他们的知识同样具有科学性,只要他们采用相同的科学方法来检验关于事物本质的假设,而不是对那些相同事物的独立观察。
In so far as all three of these broad meanings invoke a vision of nature that is singular, abstract and personified, there is a central ambiguity about whether or not they encompass humans. Is human nature (meaning 1) determined by some inherent, biological force (meaning 3), like our genes or, as many so-called environmental determinists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries believed, by our physical environment (meaning 2)? Or alternatively, isn’t what distinguishes humans from other animals that we can use our rationality to rise above our base biological instincts?
既然这三个宽泛的含义都唤起了一种对自然的独特、抽象和拟人化的想象,那么它们是否包括人类就存在着一个核心的模糊性。人类的本性(意为1)是由某种内在的生物力量(意为3)决定的,就像我们的基因,还是像19世纪末20世纪初许多所谓的环境决定论者所认为的那样,由我们的物理环境(意为2)决定的?或者,人类和其他动物的区别不在于我们可以用理性来超越基本的生物本能吗?
(谷歌翻译)在所有这三个广义意义都引用了一种单一的,抽象的和人格化的自然观中,关于它们是否包含人类存在着中心的模糊性。 人类的本性(意思是1)是由某种固有的生物力(意思是3)决定的,就像我们的基因一样,或者像我们的物理环境(意思是2)所认为的许多所谓的十九世纪末和二十世纪早期的环境决定论者一样。? 或者,是不是将人类与其他动物区分开来,我们可以利用我们的合理性来超越我们的基本生物本能?
A similar ambiguity runs through the Food Standards Agency’s (2002: 10) guidance on the use of the term ‘natural’ in food labelling: ‘“Natural” means essentially that the product is comprised of natural ingredients, e.g. ingredients produced by nature, not the work of man or interfered with by man.’ Here the natural is defined so as to exclude any trace of humans and their artifice. That, however, is an impossible standard in so far as all food is the product of intentional human selection. Literally speaking, it is impossible for food not to involve the work of people. The FSA regulations go on to explain that it is permissible to label as natural ‘foods, of a traditional nature’ that have been processed using ‘traditional cooking processes’ rather than ‘novel’ ones, such as ‘freezing, concentration, pasteurization, and sterilization’. In this way, defining the natural is also defining the human. By eliding ‘traditional’ with ‘natural’, FSA regulations simultaneously locate ‘novel’ food-processing techniques outside nature in a purely human realm of culture and technology, while at the same time fixing certain traditional practices in a timeless realm close to nature where change and technical development are impossible without alienation from tradition and nature.
食物标准局(2002:10)在食物标签上使用“天然”一词的指引亦有类似的含混之处:“天然”基本上是指该产品由天然成分组成,例如天然成分,而非人为制造或受人为干扰的成分。“在这里,自然的定义是为了排除任何人类痕迹和他们的诡计。然而,这是一个不可能的标准,因为所有的食物都是人类有意选择的产物。从字面上讲,食物不涉及人的工作是不可能的。英国食品标准局的规定继续解释说,可以将使用“传统烹饪工艺”而不是“新颖”工艺(如“冷冻、浓缩、巴氏杀菌和灭菌”)加工的天然“传统性质的食品”贴上标签。这样,定义自然也就定义了人。由建房情况“传统”与“自然”,FSA监管同时定位“小说”食品加工技术在一个纯粹的自然外的人类文化和科技领域,同时解决某些传统的做法在永恒领域接近大自然的变化和技术的发展是不可能没有疏远传统和自然
(谷歌翻译)类似的歧义贯穿于食品标准局(2002:10)关于在食品标签中使用术语“天然”的指导:“天然”基本上是指产品由天然成分组成,例如天然成分。由自然界产生的成分,而不是人类的工作或人类的干涉。这里的自然界定是为了排除任何人类及其技巧的痕迹。然而,这是一个不可能的标准,因为所有食物都是人为选择的产物。从字面上讲,食物不可能不涉及人们的工作。 FSA法规继续解释允许标记为使用“传统烹饪过程”而不是“新颖”过程加工的天然“传统性食物”,如“冷冻,浓缩,巴氏杀菌” ,和消毒'。通过这种方式,定义自然也定义了人类。通过将“传统”与“自然”相提并论,FSA法规在纯粹的人类文化和技术领域同时将“新颖的”食品加工技术定位于自然之外,同时在一个永恒的领域中固定某些传统实践接近自然,在不与传统和自然疏远的情况下,变革和技术发展是不可能的
This ambiguity as to whether nature encompasses humans is not new, and an historical focus demonstrates that there are powerful cultural politics at play in these distinctions. For ‘nature’, far from being a neutral term, has a contested colonial heritage. The life of ‘uncivilized man’ living traditionally in a ‘state of nature’ has famously been imagined as ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short’ (Hobbes, 1651) or, alternatively, as the free and innocent one of a ‘noble savage’ (Rousseau, 1762). In the context of European expansion overseas, the opposition between nature and civilization was easily racialized and, in the guise of scientific racism, provided a rationale for European colonial rule over more ‘primitive’ cultures and peoples who were said to be ‘naturally’ (meaning 3) less rational, civilized, and developed (see Chapter 1 on the histories of geography). Drawing on late nineteenth-century ideas of evolution, geographers like Sir Henry Harry Johnston, author of The Backward Peoples and Our Relations with Them (1920, quoted in Livingstone, 1992), argued that it was the ‘white man’s burden’ to govern less developed people and places until they became civilized enough to do it for themselves.。
关于自然是否包含人类的这种模糊性并不新鲜,一个历史焦点表明,在这些区别中有强大的文化政治在发挥作用。因为“自然”远非一个中立的词,它有着有争议的殖民遗产。传统上生活在“自然状态”中的“未开化的人”的生活被著名地想象为“孤独的、贫穷的、肮脏的、粗野的、短暂的”(霍布斯,1651年),或者,作为一个“高贵的野蛮人”的自由和天真的生活(卢梭,1762年)。在欧洲海外扩张的背景下,反对党自然与文明之间轻松地种族,假借科学种族主义、欧洲殖民统治提供了一个理由更原始的文化和人民说成是“自然”(即3)不够理性,文明和发达的历史地理(见第1章)。利用19世纪后期的思想进化,地理学家像亨利爵士哈里·约翰斯顿的作者落后民族和我们与他们的关系(1920,在利文斯通,1992),认为这是“白人的负担”治理欠发达的人和地方,直到他们成为文明足以为自己这么做。
(谷歌翻译)关于自然是否包含人类的这种模糊性并不新鲜,历史焦点表明在这些区别中存在着强大的文化政治。因为“榥”远非中立的术语,所以具有受到考验的殖民遗产。 “文明人”的生活传统上属于“自然的生命”,人们一直被认为是“生命的,贫穷的,肮脏的,野蛮的,短暂的”(Hobbes,1651),或者作为自由无辜的“野蛮人”(Rousseau,1762)。在欧洲向海外扩张的背景下,自然与文明之间的对立很容易被种族化,并以科学种族主义为幌子,为欧洲殖民统治更多的“边缘”文化和人民提供了理由,他们被称为“榩 ”。 自然的(意思是3)不那么理性,文明和发达(见第1章关于地理图形的历史)。 借鉴十九世纪晚期的进化思想,地理学家如亨利·哈里·约翰斯顿爵士,“落后民族和我们与他们的关系”(1920年,引自利文斯通,1992年)的作者,认为这是“男人的负担”。  管理欠发达的人和地方,直到他们变得文明到足以为自己做。
Europeans projected their views of nature on to the new landscapes they encountered in the Americas, Asia, the Pacific and most powerfully, perhaps, Africa. For example, early settlers in New Zealand wrote of the South Island’s plains:

But this vast tract is unpeopled; millions of acres have never been trodden by human foot since their first upheavement from the sea. It is a country fresh from nature’s rudest mint, untouched by hand of man. (Hursthouse, 1857: 225)
欧洲人把他们对自然的看法投射到他们在美洲、亚洲、太平洋,也许还有最具影响力的非洲所遇到的新景观上。例如,新西兰早期的定居者写到南岛的平原:

但是这片广阔的土地上没有人烟;自从人类第一次从海上登陆以来,数百万英亩的土地从未被人类践踏过。这是一个从大自然最粗劣的薄荷中新鲜生长出来的国家,没有人为的干预。(Hursthouse, 1857: 225)
(谷歌翻译)欧洲人将他们对大自然的看法投射到他们在美洲,亚洲,太平洋以及最强大的,也许是非洲的新景观中。 例如,新西兰的早期定居者写到了南岛的平原:
但是这条巨大的地方无人问津; 自从他们第一次从海上升天以来,数百万英亩的土地从未被人脚所践踏。 这是一个新鲜自然的最粗糙的薄荷的国家,没有人手。 (Hursthouse,1857:225)
This separation of rational man from ‘primitive natives’ helped legitimize the imposition of scientific management to bring order to and ‘improve’ the land. Where lands proved unsuited to cultivation and other economic use, they were often set aside as national parks or reserves, where nature was to be preserved in an unspoilt state for future generations to admire. But the ‘preservation’ of so-called wilderness areas was really a production of wilderness, in so far as it often involved the forcible expulsion of indigenous peoples. In Africa, Maasai were evicted to create the Amboseli National Park and allowed to remain in the Serengeti only because they were viewed as ‘part of nature’ (Neumann, 1998); in the USA the Blackfeet continue to be accused of ‘poaching’ on the lands of Glacier National Park that originally belonged to them (Cronon, 1995).
这种理性人与“原始原住民”的分离,有助于使科学管理的实施合法化,从而给土地带来秩序和“改善”。在证明不适合耕种和其他经济用途的土地上,它们往往被作为国家公园或保护区,在那里自然被保存在未受破坏的状态,供子孙后代欣赏。但是所谓的荒野地区的“保护”实际上是荒野的产物,因为它往往涉及强行驱逐土著人民。在非洲,马赛人被驱逐去创建安博塞利国家公园,只因为他们被视为“自然的一部分”而被允许留在塞伦盖蒂(Neumann, 1998);在美国,黑脚人继续被指控在原属于他们的冰川国家公园的土地上“偷猎”(Cronon, 1995)。
(谷歌翻译)理性人与“原始本地人”的这种分离有助于使科学管理的实施合法化,从而为土地带来秩序和“改善”。 如果土地被证明不适合种植和其他经济用途,那么它们通常被留作国家公园或保护区,在那里自然保护在未受破坏的状态,供后代欣赏。 但是,所谓的荒野地区的“保护”实际上是荒野的产生,因为它经常涉及强行驱逐土着人民。 在非洲,Maasai被驱逐出去创建安博塞利国家公园并允许留在塞伦盖蒂只是因为他们被视为“自然的一部分”(Neumann,1998); 在美国,Blackfeet继续被指责在最初属于他们的冰川国家公园的土地上“偷猎”(Cronon,1995)。
Wilderness, then, is a culturally and historically contingent expression of a certain colonialist way of seeing nature. It is, in short, a social construction:

Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, [wilderness] is quite profoundly a human creation – indeed, the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history. It is not a pristine sanctuary where the last remnant of an untouched, endangered, but still transcendent nature can at least for a little while longer be encountered without the contaminating taint of civilization. (Cronon, 1995: 69 )
因此,荒野是殖民主义者看待自然的一种文化和历史的偶然表达。简而言之,这是一种社会建构:
荒野远非地球上唯一一个与人类隔离的地方,它是一种深刻的人类创造——事实上,是在人类历史上非常特殊的时刻创造出非常特殊的人类文化。它不是一个原始的避难所,在那里,一个未被开发的、濒危的、但仍然超凡脱俗的大自然的最后残余,至少可以在一段时间内,在不受文明污染的情况下,被人们所接触。(克罗农,1995:69)
(谷歌翻译)因此,荒野是一种文化和历史上的偶然表达,是某种殖民主义看待自然的方式。 简而言之,它是一种社会建构:
[荒野]远非地球上与人类分离的地方,而是一种人类创造 - 在人类历史的非常特殊的时刻创造了非常特定的人类文化。 它不是一个原始的庇护所,在没有污染的文明污染的情况下,至少在不久的将来会遇到未受破坏的,濒临灭绝但仍然具有超然性质的最后残余。 (Cronon,1995:69)
RETHINKING NATURE IN GEOGRAPHY
Much recent work in critical geography has sought to question traditional understandings of nature and the Enlightenment dualisms associated with them. One of the most important moves in this regard is the claim, articulated by Cronon in the quotation above, that nature is somehow socially constructed and contingent rather than being intrinsic, external and universal. As we will see, this claim takes a variety of different forms in different traditions of critical geography (Demeritt, 2002)
地理学对自然的再思考
批判地理学最近的许多著作都试图质疑传统的自然理解以及与之相关的启蒙二元论。在这方面最重要的行动之一是克罗侬在上面的引语中提出的主张,即自然在某种程度上是社会建构的和偶然的,而不是内在的、外在的和普遍的。正如我们将看到的,这一主张在批判地理学的不同传统中采取了各种不同的形式(Demeritt, 2002)
(谷歌翻译)在地理学中重新思考自然
最近在批判地理学方面的许多工作都试图质疑传统的自然下属和与之相关的启蒙二元论。 在这方面最重要的举措之一是Cronon在上面的引文中阐述的主张,即自然在某种程度上是社会建构的和偶然的,而不是内在的,外在的和普遍的。 正如我们将要看到的,这种主张在不同的批判地理学传统中采取了各种不同的形式(Demeritt,2002)
Marxism
Karl Marx was one of the first theorists to suggest that nature was socially ‘produced’ or constructed. Marx meant this in a material sense, in that people work on the raw matter of nature to transform it into a second, social nature. However, Marx’s account of nature’s production under capitalism is highly abstract (Castree, 2005). In his book Nature’s Metropolis, the environmental historian William Cronon (1992: 266) has provided an empirically rich description of how the American Midwest was remade through the operation of the market:
马克思主义
卡尔·马克思是最早提出自然是社会“生产”或“创造”的理论家之一。马克思的意思是物质上的,人们对自然的原始物质进行研究,将其转化为第二种社会性质。然而,马克思对资本主义下自然生产的描述是高度抽象的(Castree, 2005)。环境历史学家威廉·克罗农(William Cronon, 1992: 266)在他的《自然的大都市》(Nature’s Metropolis)一书中,对美国中西部如何通过市场运作而重塑进行了丰富的经验描述:
(谷歌翻译)马克思主义
卡尔·马克思是最早提出自然是社会建构的理论家之一。 马克思在物质意义上的意思是,人们在自然的原始问题上工作,将其转化为第二种社会性质。 然而,马克思在资本主义制度下对自然生产的描述是高度抽象的(Castree,2005)。 环境历史学家William Cronon(1992:266)在他的着作“自然大都市”中提供了一个经验丰富的描述,描述了美国中西部是如何通过市场运作重建的:
Bisons and pine trees had once been members of ecosystems defined mainly by flows of energy and nutrients and by relations among neighboring organisms. Rearrayed within the second nature of the market, they became commodities: things priced, bought, and sold within a system of human exchange. From that change flowed many others. Sudden new imperatives revalued the organisms that lived upon the land. Some, like the bison, bluestem, and pine tree, were priced so low that people consumed them in the most profligate ways and they disappeared as significant elements of the regional landscape. Others, like wheat, corn, cattle, and pigs, became the new dominant species of their carefully tended ecosystems. Increasingly, the abundance of a species depended on its utility to the human economy: species thrived more by price than by direct ecological adaptation. New systems of value, radically different from their Indian predecessors, determined the fate of entire ecosystems.
Bisons和松树曾经是生态系统的成员,生态系统的定义主要是能量和营养的流动以及邻近有机体之间的关系。它们在市场的第二天性中重新排列,成为商品:在人类交换系统中定价、买卖的东西。从这一变化中还产生了许多其他的变化。突然出现的新需求重新评估了生活在陆地上的生物。有些品种,如野牛、蓝茎蓝茎和松树,价格如此之低,以至于人们以最挥霍的方式消费它们,它们作为地区景观的重要元素而消失了。其他物种,如小麦、玉米、牛和猪,成为他们精心照料的生态系统的新优势物种。一个物种的丰富性越来越依赖于它对人类经济的效用:物种的繁荣更多地是靠价格,而不是直接的生态适应。与印度前辈截然不同的新价值体系决定了整个生态系统的命运。
(谷歌翻译)北美野牛和松树曾经是生态系统的成员,主要由能量和营养物质的流动以及邻近生物之间的关系决定。 在市场的第二种性质背景下,它们成为商品:在人类交换系统中定价,购买和出售的东西。 从那个变化流过许多其他人。 突如其来的新命令重新评估了生活在这片土地上的有机体。 有些人,如野牛,蓝茎和松树,价格非常低,人们以最肆意挥霍的方式消费它们,它们作为区域景观的重要元素消失了。 其他的,如小麦,玉米,牛和猪,成为他们精心照料的生态系统的新优势种。 越来越多的物种的丰富程度取决于其对人类经济的效用:物种的价格比通过直接的生态逻辑适应更为繁荣。 新的价值体系与印度前辈完全不同,决定了整个生态系统的命运。
In addition to this material transformation, Marxist geographers have also highlighted the way in which capitalism depends on a false ideology of nature as both external and universal that serves to conceal and thereby to legitimate the social relations involved in the capitalist production of nature. In a landmark paper, Harvey (1974) attacked neo-Malthusian arguments about the natural limits to growth both for ignoring the role of economic systems in causing hunger and local resource shortages and for legitimating technical programmes, like the chemical-intensive agriculture promoted as part of the so-called Green Revolution, as the only way to overcome those problems.
除了这种物质上的转变,马克思主义地理学家还强调了资本主义是如何依赖于一种虚假的自然意识形态的,这种意识形态既是外在的,又是普遍的,其作用是掩盖自然的资本主义生产所涉及的社会关系,从而使之合法化。在具有里程碑意义的论文中,哈维(1974)攻击neo-Malthusian争论自然增长的极限都忽视经济系统的作用导致饥饿和本地资源短缺和合法技术项目,如chemical-intensive农业推广作为所谓的绿色革命的一部分,作为唯一的方式来克服这些问题。
(谷歌翻译)除了这种物质转变之外,马克思主义地理学家还强调了资本主义依赖于虚假的自然意识形态的方式,这种意识形态既包括外在的,也包括普遍的意识形态,从而掩盖并从而使资本主义自然生产中涉及的社会关系合法化。 在一篇具有里程碑意义的论文中,Harvey(1974)攻击了新马尔萨斯关于增长的自然限制的论点,既忽视了经济系统在造成饥饿和当地资源短缺方面的作用,也使技术计划合法化,例如作为一部分推广的化学密集型农业 所谓的绿色革命,是克服这些问题的唯一途径。
Feminism
Feminists have launched some of the most trenchant critiques of the nature/ culture dualism and its implications for the subordination of women. Much like Marxist critiques of the ideology of nature, feminists complain that existing and oppressive gender roles are legitimated because they are seen as natural, in the senses both of (1) and (3) we listed above. For instance, in 2005, the then president of Harvard University, Laurence Summers, sparked widespread protests for suggesting that it was biological differences, rather than sexism and discrimination, that explained why so few women succeed in mathematical and scientific careers. In attacking such claims, feminists have enthusiastically embraced constructionist arguments as a ‘strong tool for deconstructing the truth claims of hostile science by showing the radical historical specificity and so contestability of every layer of the onion of scientific and technological constructions’ (Haraway, 1991: 186, original emphasis). Construction talk enables feminists to argue that apparently innate and therefore immutable differences between the sexes are in fact socially constructed gender differences that might be changed。
女性主义
女权主义者对自然/文化二元论及其对女性从属地位的影响提出了一些最尖锐的批评。就像马克思主义对自然意识形态的批判一样,女权主义者抱怨说,现有的和压迫性的性别角色是合法的,因为它们被视为自然的,在我们上面列出的(1)和(3)的意义上。例如,2005年,当时的哈佛大学(Harvard University)校长劳伦斯·萨默斯(Laurence Summers)曾引发广泛的抗议,因为他提出,女性在数学和科学领域取得成功的原因,是生理差异,而不是性别歧视和歧视。在攻击这些主张的过程中,女权主义者热情地接受了建构主义的观点,将其作为一种“通过展现科学和技术建设的每一个层面的激进的历史特异性和争议性,来解构敌对科学的真相主张的有力工具”(Haraway, 1991: 186, original emphasis)。建构论使女权主义者能够争辩说,两性之间明显的先天差异和因此而不可改变的差异,实际上是社会建构的性别差异,可能会被改变
(谷歌翻译)女权主义者对自然/文化二元论及其对妇女从属地位的影响提出了一些最尖锐的批评。就像马克思主义对自然意识形态的批评一样,女权主义者抱怨现有的和压迫性的性别角色是合法的,因为它们被认为是自然的,在我们上面列举的(1)和(3)中都是如此。例如,在2005年,当时的哈佛大学校长Laurence Summers引发了广泛的抗议活动,这表明生理差异,而不是性别歧视和歧视,解释了为什么这么少的女性在数学和科学事业上取得成功的原因。在抨击这种主张时,女权主义者热情地接受了建构主义论点,作为通过展示激进的历史特性以及科学和技术结构的每一层洋葱的可竞争性来解构敌对科学的真理主张的一种工具 - (Haraway) ,1991:186,原始重点)。建构谈话使女权主义者认为,两性之间显然天生的,因此不可改变的差异实际上是社会建构的性别差异,可能会改变。
In an influential critique of the masculine bias in geography, Gillian Rose (1993) argued that the discipline’s traditions of scientific fieldwork and objective observation were grounded in an eroticized, ‘masculine’ gaze that at once objectified and feminized the landscape. But Rose’s insistence that those scientific ways of knowing are just one of many possible alternatives, begs questions about the status and credibility of feminists’ own claims to knowledge. Feminists, as Donna Haraway (1991) notes, have found themselves trying to hold on to two ends of a slippery pole at once. On the one hand, they have sought to dissolve nature/culture and object/subject dualisms so as to insist that all knowledge is essentially social, situated and relative. On the other hand, however, they have also longed for a strong notion of objectivity on which to base their claims about the reality of women’s oppression in male-dominated societies. Torn between these conflicting desires, feminists have experienced constructionism as a sort of ‘epistemological electro-shock therapy, which … lays us out … with self-induced multiple personality disorder’ (Haraway, 1991: 186).
吉莉安·罗斯(Gillian Rose, 1993)在一篇颇具影响力的批评地理中对男性偏见的文章中指出,该学科的科学田野调查和客观观察传统,是建立在一种“男性化”的色情凝视之上的,这种凝视既客观化了景观,又使其女性化。但罗斯坚持认为,这些科学的认知方式只是许多可能的选择之一,这回避了女权主义者自己所宣称的知识的地位和可信度的问题。正如唐娜•哈拉威(Donna Haraway, 1991)所指出的,女权主义者发现自己试图同时抓住一根滑溜溜的杆子的两端。一方面,他们试图消解自然/文化和客体/主体二元论,从而坚持所有知识本质上都是社会的、位置的和相对的。然而,另一方面,他们也渴望有一种强烈的客观性概念,以这种概念作为他们关于在男性占主导地位的社会中妇女受压迫的现实的主张的基础。在这些相互冲突的欲望之间,女权主义者经历了建构主义作为一种“认识论的电击疗法,它……让我们……与自我诱发的多重人格障碍”(Haraway, 1991: 186)。
(谷歌翻译)在对地理学中男性偏见的有影响力的批评中,吉莉安·罗斯(Gillian Rose,1993)认为,该学科的科学实地考察和客观观察的传统基于一种色情化的“男性化”凝视,这种凝视立刻使景观客观化和女性化。但罗斯坚持认为,那些科学的认知方式只是众多可能的替代方案之一,而是要求对女权主义者自己的知识主张的地位和可信度提出质疑。正如Donna Haraway(1991)指出的那样,女权主义者发现自己试图立刻抓住一根滑杆的两端。一方面,他们试图解散自然/文化和客体/主体二元论,以便坚持所有知识本质上是社会的,地位的和相对的。然而,另一方面,他们也渴望一种强烈的客观性概念,以此为基础,在男性主导的社会中对女性压迫的现实提出自己的主张。在这些相互冲突的欲望之间徘徊,女权主义者将建构主义视为一种“认识论电击疗法,它......让我们摆脱......自我诱发的多重人格障碍”(Haraway,1991:186)。
Another issue raised by feminist critique is whether and how we distinguish socially constructed gender differences from those of a biological nature. De-naturalizing gender roles can leave open the idea that underneath culture, men and women are biologically different. Against that view, a number of scholars have drawn on the work of social theorist Michel Foucault to argue that the sex too is shaped socially and discursively. Foucault (1980) drew on the memoirs of a nineteenth-century hermaphrodite to argue that sex does not have ontological status, and that we are sexualized as woman/man only by medical,social and political discourses. The hermaphrodite troubled sexual boundarymaking practices in France, belying the desire to classify a body as either male or female. Extending that argument, Judith Butler (1993), an influential feminist and Queer theorist, has suggested that the (hetero)sexed body is not determined naturally or biologically, but rather is performed. It comes into being through the repetition of everyday performances and routines that are regulated by wider social discourses and norms and come to shape the body and train its behaviour through an effect she likens to sedimentation.
女性主义批评提出的另一个问题是,我们是否以及如何将社会建构的性别差异与生物学性质的性别差异区分开来。去自然化的性别角色可能会让人产生这样的想法:在文化的背后,男人和女人在生理上是不同的。与此相反,许多学者借鉴了社会理论家米歇尔•福柯(Michel Foucault)的著作,认为性别也是由社会和话语塑造的。福柯(1980)引用了一位19世纪雌雄同体者的回忆录,认为性没有本体论的地位,我们被性别化为女人/男人只是通过医学、社会和政治论述。在法国,雌雄同体困扰着性别界限的划定,掩盖了将身体划分为男性或女性的愿望。朱迪思·巴特勒(Judith Butler, 1993),一位颇具影响力的女权主义者和酷儿理论家,进一步扩展了这一观点,她认为(异性恋)的身体不是由自然或生理决定的,而是由行为决定的。它是通过重复日常表演和常规而形成的,这些表演和常规受到更广泛的社会话语和规范的规范,并通过一种她称之为沉淀的效果来塑造和训练身体的行为。
(谷歌翻译)女权主义批评提出的另一个问题是,我们是否以及如何区分社会建构的性别差异与生物性别差异。消除性别角色的自然化可以使人们认识到,在文化之下,男人和女人在生理上是不同的。反对这种观点,一些学者已经借鉴了社会理论家米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)的工作,认为性别在社会和话语方面也是如此。福柯(1980)利用十九世纪雌雄同体的回忆录来论证性别没有本体论地位,并且我们仅仅通过医学,社会和政治话语将其性化为女人/男人。雌雄同体困扰着法国的性边界制造实践,不得不将身体归类为男性或女性。延伸这一论点,朱迪思巴特勒(1993),一位有影响力的女权主义者和酷儿理论家,已经提出(异性)身体不是自然或生物学决定的,而是表现的。它通过重复日常的表演和惯例而产生,这些表演和惯例受到更广泛的社会话语和规范的约束,并通过她比作沉淀的效果塑造身体并训练其行为。
RELATIONAL GEOGRAPHIES
While feminists and Queer theorists like Butler draw on Foucault to insist that sex and the body have no intrinsic and universal nature, but are instead relational achievements whose precise form and content depend on the social context in which they are shaped, other geographers have made similar arguments about the context dependence of things based on very different theoretical starting points (e.g. Harvey, 1996; Whatmore, 2002)。
关系型地理位置
虽然女权主义者和酷儿理论像巴特勒利用福柯坚持性和身体没有内在的和普遍的性质,而是关系成就其精确的形式和内容依赖于社会环境,在它们的形状,其他地理学家也有类似的争论事情的上下文依赖基于不同的理论起点(如:哈维,1996;Whatmore, 2002)。
(谷歌翻译)关系地理
虽然像巴特勒这样的女权主义者和酷儿理论家利用福柯来坚持认为性和身体没有内在和普遍的本性,但相反的是相关的成就,其精确的形式和内容取决于他们塑造的社会背景,其他地理学家已经做出了 基于非常不同的理论起点(例如Harvey,1996; Whatmore,2002),类似地论述了事物的背景依赖性。
Interest in such relational geographies reflects a wider concern, among geographers, with ontology. Ontology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence. Relational approaches to ontology consider how the nature of things, even reality itself, is context-dependent. As Donna Haraway (1992: 297) explains: ‘If the world exists for us as “nature”, this designates a kind of relationship, an achievement among many actors, not all of them human, not all of them organic, not all of them technological.’ This relational approach to ontology challenges several long-standing Enlightenment presumptions about nature and the world. In particular, the role of relations and context are emphasized over the idea that objects have any intrinsic or universal nature, while the Cartesian idea of external reality as an array of objects located absolutely in the two, separate dimensions of space and time gives way to a sense of space–time as manifold and co-constituted along with what it contains (Massey, 2005).
对这种关系地理的兴趣反映了地理学家对本体的更广泛的关注。本体论是研究存在本质的哲学分支。本体的关系方法考虑事物的本质,甚至是现实本身,是如何依赖于上下文的。正如唐娜·哈拉威(Donna Haraway, 1992: 297)所解释的那样:“如果世界对我们来说是‘自然’的存在,那么这就意味着一种关系,一种许多行动者之间的成就,不是所有行动者都是人,不是所有行动者都是有机的,也不是所有行动者都是技术的。”这种本体论的关系方法挑战了启蒙运动对自然和世界的一些长期假设。特别强调关系的角色和上下文对象的观念有内在的或普遍的自然,而外部现实的笛卡尔思想对象数组绝对位于两个不同维度的时间和空间让位于一种时空歧管和co-constituted连同它包含(梅西,2005)。
(谷歌翻译)对这种关系地理位置的兴趣反映了地理学家对本体论的广泛关注。本体论是关注存在本质的哲学的分支。本体论的关系方法考虑事物的本质,甚至是现实本身,是如何依赖于上下文的。正如唐娜·哈拉威(Donna Haraway,1992:297)所解释的那样:“如果世界为我们存在为”自然“,那么这就是一种关系,是许多演员之间的成就,不是所有演员都是人类,不是所有演员都是有机的,不是全部的。这种关联本体论的方法挑战了几个关于自然和世界的长期启蒙思想。特别是,关系和背景的作用强调对象具有任何内在或普遍性的观点,而笛卡尔的外部现实观作为绝对位于空间和时间的两个独立维度的对象数组让位于时空感是多样的,并与其所包含的内容共同构成(Massey,2005)
There are several sources of inspiration for such relational thinking. Within the sciences, developments in complexity and chaos theory emphasize the possibility for systems to become self-organizing as complex higherorder behaviour emerges out of lower-order interactions (Manson, 2001). For instance, a school of fish, containing many thousands of individuals, comes to swim as if it were a single entity, through co-ordination of the lower-order endency of the individuals within it to follow the movement of their nearest neighbours.
这种关系思维有几个灵感来源。在科学领域,复杂性和混沌理论的发展强调了系统成为自组织的可能性,因为复杂的高阶行为出现在低阶交互中(Manson, 2001)。例如,一群鱼,包括成千上万的个体,通过协调其内部个体的低阶末端,跟随其最近邻居的运动,来游动,就好像它是一个单一的实体。
(谷歌翻译)这种关系思维有几种灵感来源。 在科学中,复杂性和混沌理论的发展强调了系统变得自组织的可能性,因为复杂的高阶行为是从低阶相互作用中产生的(Manson,2001)。 例如,一个包含成千上万个人的鱼群,就像它是一个单一的实体一样游泳,通过协调其中个体的低阶依赖来跟随他们最近邻居的运动。
In addition to emergence, complexity theory also highlights the sensitive dependence of some systems upon their initial conditions and changing external factors. For example, it is difficult to forecast future weather conditions beyond more than a week or two both because of the potential for storm systems to ‘emerge’ suddenly and because of the difficulties of knowing with any certainty all of the factors to which their future evolution might prove sensitive (Phillips, 1999). Likewise at the sub-atomic scale, the development of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle both emphasize the limits of predictability and the dependence of our experimental knowledge of the world on the context in which it is generated。
复杂性理论除了出现,还强调了一些系统对其初始条件和不断变化的外部因素的敏感依赖。例如,很难预测未来的天气状况超出了一个多星期或两个都因为潜在的风暴系统突然出现的,因为确定的知道所有的困难的因素,他们的未来进化可能敏感(菲利普斯,1999)。同样,在亚原子尺度上,量子力学的发展和海森堡的不确定性原理都强调了可预测性的局限性,以及我们对世界的实验知识对其产生环境的依赖。
(谷歌翻译)除了出现之外,复杂性理论还强调了一些系统对其初始条件和外部因素变化的敏感依赖性。 例如,很难预测未来一天或两天以上的未来天气状况,因为风暴系统可能难以合并,并且由于难以确切地知道他们的所有因素。 未来的进化可能证明是敏感的(Phillips,1999)。 同样在亚原子尺度上,量子力学的发展和海森堡的不确定性原则都强调了可预测性的局限性以及我们对世界的实验知识对其产生的背景的依赖性。
One effect of this new awareness of emergence, contingence and indeterminacy within the environmental sciences has been to challenge the trend towards ever-greater reductionism. Instead of breaking fields of study into smaller and smaller parts, a new integrationist Earth Systems Science seeks to study the earth as a single integrated physical and social system (Pitman, 2005). Within ecology, another effect of complexity and chaos theory has been to undermine the idea of the ‘balance of nature’ (Perry, 2002), which environmentalists have often used to critique human disturbance of the environment as unnatural. Many environmentalists fear that these new ecological ideas may lead to relativism by depriving any clear scientific grounds for distinguishing an anthropogenic impact from ‘natural’ change (Demeritt, 1994).
这种环境科学中涌现性、偶然性和不确定性的新意识的一个影响是,它挑战了越来越大的还原论的趋势。地球系统科学不是把研究领域分割成越来越小的部分,而是寻求把地球作为一个单一的综合物理和社会系统来研究(Pitman, 2005)。在生态学中,复杂性和混沌理论的另一个影响是破坏了“自然平衡”的概念(Perry, 2002),环保主义者经常用这个概念来批评人类对环境的干扰是不自然的。许多环境学家担心,这些新的生态观念可能会导致相对主义,因为它们剥夺了任何明确的科学依据,来区分人为影响和“自然”变化(Demeritt, 1994)。
(谷歌翻译)这种对环境科学中出现,应变和不确定性的新认识的一个影响是挑战趋向于更大的还原论的趋势。 新的整合主义者地球系统科学不是将研究领域分成越来越小的部分,而是将地球作为一个单一的综合物理和社会系统来研究(Pitman,2005)。 在生态学中,复杂性和混沌理论的另一个影响就是破坏了“自然的概念”(Perry,2002),环境主义者经常用它来批评人类对环境的干扰是不自然的。 许多环保主义者担心,这些新的生态观念可能会通过剥夺任何明确的科学理由来区分人类的影响与“自然”的变化(Demeritt,1994)。
However, in a world of genetic engineering and global warming, geographers are increasingly sceptical of even using ‘natural’ and ‘social’ as categories of analysis. One influential source for the idea that nature and culture are inextricably ‘mixed up’ is the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour. In a series of influential books, Latour has developed a unique vocabulary to describe agency, material effectivity, even existence itself, as emergent properties that are realized through historically and geographically contingent relations among the heterogeneous ‘actants’ of a more than human world. Latour uses the term ‘actant’, which he takes from semiotics, to emphasize, first, that humans are not the only actors in these relationships and, second, that agency is something that is dependent on a wider structure of relations through which it is produced. Rejecting traditional Enlightenment distinctions between nature and culture, objects and subjects, people and machines, material and imaginary, actor-network theory insists that all elements of a network be described in the same symmetrical terms.
然而,在一个基因工程和全球变暖的世界里,地理学家甚至越来越怀疑用“自然”和“社会”作为分析的范畴。布鲁诺·拉图尔(Bruno Latour)的演员网络理论是自然和文化不可避免地“混在一起”这一观点的一个有影响力的来源。在一系列影响深远的著作中,拉图尔发展了一套独特的词汇来描述能动、物质的效力,甚至存在本身,它们是通过历史和地理上的偶然性关系来实现的,这些关系是在一个超越人类世界的异质“行动者”之间实现的。拉图尔从符号学中借用了“行为者”一词来强调,首先,在这些关系中,人类不是唯一的行动者,其次,代理是一种依赖于更广泛的关系结构的东西,它是通过这种关系产生的。行动者网络理论摒弃了传统的启蒙思想对自然与文化、客体与主体、人与机器、物质与想象的区分,坚持用同样对称的术语来描述网络的所有要素。
(谷歌翻译)然而,在基因工程和全球变暖的世界中,地理绘图者越来越怀疑甚至使用“自然”和“正”这类分析。自然与文化不可分割的观点的一个有影响力的来源是布鲁诺拉图尔的演员网络理论。在一系列有影响力的着作中,拉图尔开发了一种独特的词汇来描述代理,物质有效性,甚至存在本身,作为通过历史和地理上的偶然关系来实现的新兴属性,这些关系是超人类世界的异质“行为者”之间的关系。 拉图尔使用术语“代理人”,他从符号学中提取,首先强调人类不是这些关系中的唯一参与者,其次,该代理人是依赖于更广泛的关系结构的东西。产生的。 拒绝传统的启蒙运动在自然与文化,物体与主体,人与机器,物质与虚构之间的区别,行动者网络理论坚持认为网络的所有元素都以相同的对称术语来描述。
Latour speaks of actor-networks as networked assemblages that operate by ‘enrolling’, or incorporating, various hybrid actants (which are themselves also composites of heterogeneous, networked elements) into longer, stronger and more durable networks. Sailing ships, for example, were able to circumnavigate the globe only by ‘enrolling’ the power of the wind, the seaworthy designs of experienced shipwrights, and navigational aids developed through trial and error. If any one of those elements of the network breaks down – for instance if poor navigation or crashing waves make the ship flounder – the network making the ship a ship ceases to hold and the ship literally breaks apart into its constituent elements – boards, bodies, ropes and rigging (Law, 1986).
拉图尔将行为者网络称为网络组合,通过“注册”或将各种混合行为者(它们本身也是异构的网络元素的组合)整合到更长的、更强的和更持久的网络中来运行。例如,帆船只有借助风力、经验丰富的造船专家设计的适合航海的设计,以及通过反复试验开发出来的助航设备,才能实现环球航行。如果其中任何一个元素的网络分解——例如如果贫穷的导航或海浪让船挣扎——网络使船船停止,船真的分裂为它的组成元素——董事会,身体,绳索和操纵(法律,1986)。
(谷歌翻译)拉图尔将演员网络称为网络组合,通过“注册”或将各种混合行为者(其本身也是异构的,网络元素的组合)整合到更长,更强和更持久的网络中来运作。 例如,帆船只能通过“注册”风的力量,经验丰富的船员的适航设计以及通过反复试验开发的导航设备来环绕地球。 如果网络中的任何一个元素发生故障 - 例如,如果导航不良或海浪汹涌造成船舶挣扎 - 船舶停泊的船舶网络停止运输,船舶完全分解成其构成要素 - 板,车身, 绳索和索具(Law,1986)。
Such an understanding of the world has potentially far-reaching theoretical and political implications. By extending agency to non-humans, actor-network theory challenges human exceptionalism and the long-standing divisions based upon it between the social and natural sciences. While some geographers insist that trees can be said to ‘act’ in the same way as people do (e.g. Jones and Cloke, 2002), critics of actor-network theory often note that, in practice, actor-network theorists tend to violate their principle of explanatory symmetry by centring their accounts of network building around purely human actors (Murdoch, 1997). Nevertheless by rejecting human exceptionalism, actor-network theory raises important questions about ‘how the we of ethical communities is to be renegotiated on account of its heterogeneous, intercorporal composition’ (Whatmore, 2002: 166). Rising to that challenge, Latour (2004) has recently outlined an expanded sense of ‘cosmopolitics’. In Latour’s ‘parliament of things’, questions must be put not just to non-humans as well:
这种对世界的理解可能具有深远的理论和政治意义。通过将代理扩展到非人类,行为者网络理论挑战了人类例外论以及基于它的社会科学和自然科学之间长期存在的分歧。有些地理学家坚持认为树木可以表示“行为”一样的人(例如琼斯和斗篷,2002),批评者actor-network理论经常注意,在实践中,actor-network理论家倾向于违反自己原则说明对称的定心的网络建立在纯粹的人类演员(默多克,1997)。尽管如此,通过拒绝人类例外论,行为者网络理论提出了一个重要的问题,即“我们的道德群体如何因其异质的、跨肉体的组成而重新谈判”(Whatmore, 2002: 166)。为了迎接这一挑战,拉图尔(2004)最近概述了“宇宙政治学”的扩展概念。在拉图尔的“万物议会”中,问题不仅要问非人类:
(谷歌翻译)对世界的这种理解具有潜在的深远的理论和政治意义。通过将代理扩展到非人类,行动者网络理论挑战了人类的例外论以及社会科学和自然科学之间长期存在的分歧。虽然一些地理学家坚持认为树木可以说与人们一样(例如琼斯和克洛克,2002),但演员 - 网络理论的批评者经常注意到,在实践中,演员 - 网络理论家倾向于通过将他们对纯粹人类行为者的网络建设的描述集中在一起,违反了他们解释性对称的原则(Murdoch,1997)。尽管如此,通过拒绝人类例外主义,行动者网络理论提出了一个重要问题:“我们的伦理社区是由于其异质性,跨部门组成而被重新谈判”(Whatmore,2002:166)。面对这一挑战,Latour(2004)最近概述了一种扩展的“渗透政治”意义 - 在拉图尔“对事物的审视”中,问题必须不仅仅针对非人类:

You want to save the elephants in Kenya’s parks by having them graze separately from cows? Excellent, but how are you going to get an opinion from the Masai who have been cut off from the cows, and from the cows deprived of elephants who clear