| 查看: 1400 | 回复: 4 | |||
| 本帖产生 1 个 翻译EPI ，点击这里进行查看 | |||
[交流]
英译汉已翻译，请求润色。
|
|||
|
It is the locus of this practice, the institution itself, that is the thing most lacking from Bowman’s analysis. The ivory tower, a solid, if lofty, metaphor for the academy, seems here to have melted into air. The matter of institutional context is absent. That disciplines are textual, that the institutional is textual, is not in doubt. There is, how-ever, a reluctance to read these texts as anything more than published scholarship. The greater fabric of the institution, of the contemporary university, the bodies, the buildings, the stuff ideas inhabit and are inscribed within, appears tangential to Bowman. His few remarks about pedagogy, specifically about teaching cultural studies, are disparaging. He mocks the notion that “teaching can consciously educate others and that these others might somehow ‘do something’ with the knowledge cultural studies has given them” (191). 制度本身正是这次实践的原因所在,这是鲍曼（氏）分析中最缺乏的东西。从象牙塔里走出来，一个坚固、高雅的隐喻学问，似乎在这里已经融化了到空中。体制方面的问题不存在。这学科的制度是文本，这是是毫无疑问的。有不愿读作任何事情比公布这些文本奖学金更多。对当代大学机构，建筑物，内在的思想都与鲍曼的观念看起来似乎很远。他很少评论教育学，特别是关于教学中的文化研究，这是一种蔑视。他嘲笑这个概念，即“教育教学能自觉他人，这些人可能会以某种方式来做他们的知识文化研究”(191)。 It is, however, these others, the student body, who usually end up leaving the “cloistered privacy of academic institutions” (125).Bowman is correct to query whether the effects of teaching can be guaranteed, but he appears to underestimate its political potential: the power of the contingent. The things that occur in lectures and seminars can “go unrecognized and are unpredictable in their effects” (McQuillan, 53), but this does not mean we should deny their possibility. Post-Marxism versus Cultural Studies teaches the reader many things. The theorization it offers of post-Marxism’s current failings, for instance, is a tour de force. It does not, however, afford enough attention to pedagogy as a textual practice of freedom, as a form of articulation and an act of intervention. It does not start to do justice to teaching. 学生们最终会离开“与世隔绝隐私的学术机构”(125)。鲍曼的质疑是正确的，教学的效果是否可以得到保证？但他似乎低估了其政治潜力：意外的力量。在讲座和研讨会上发生的事情有可能是“难以识别的，在他们的影响不可预测的”(麦奎伦，53)，但这并不意味着我们应该否认他们的可能性。后马克思主义与文化研究相比，交给读者许多东西。理论化的后马克思主义是当前的失败体，举例来说，它是一个绝技。但是，它没有能够承担起足够的重视，教育学作为自由的原始形式，作为衔接的一种形式和一种干预的方式。他对教学是不公平的。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
我就是申请一个面上项目而已，这评审意见是按照杰青的条件评的吧？
已经有3人回复
-
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有18人回复
-
国自然评审意见
已经有15人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有13人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有14人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有11人回复
-
有没有仍没收到信息的
已经有3人回复
-
导师吐槽：我怎么摊上了这么个极品研究生！
已经有8人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有11人回复
-
麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见（F口面上）
已经有9人回复
2楼2010-12-28 16:32:15
3楼2010-12-28 18:15:47
或者改成求英译汉
|
It is the locus of this practice, the institution itself, that is the thing most lacking from Bowman’s analysis. The ivory tower, a solid, if lofty, metaphor for the academy, seems here to have melted into air. The matter of institutional context is absent. That disciplines are textual, that the institutional is textual, is not in doubt. There is, how-ever, a reluctance to read these texts as anything more than published scholarship. The greater fabric of the institution, of the contemporary university, the bodies, the buildings, the stuff ideas inhabit and are inscribed within, appears tangential to Bowman. His few remarks about pedagogy, specifically about teaching cultural studies, are disparaging. He mocks the notion that “teaching can consciously educate others and that these others might somehow ‘do something’ with the knowledge cultural studies has given them” (191). It is, however, these others, the student body, who usually end up leaving the “cloistered privacy of academic institutions” (125).Bowman is correct to query whether the effects of teaching can be guaranteed, but he appears to underestimate its political potential: the power of the contingent. The things that occur in lectures and seminars can “go unrecognized and are unpredictable in their effects” (McQuillan, 53), but this does not mean we should deny their possibility. Post-Marxism versus Cultural Studies teaches the reader many things. The theorization it offers of post-Marxism’s current failings, for instance, is a tour de force. It does not, however, afford enough attention to pedagogy as a textual practice of freedom, as a form of articulation and an act of intervention. It does not start to do justice to teaching. |
4楼2010-12-29 15:46:34
5楼2011-01-03 18:46:50
投票:
30