【新刊速递】《剑桥国际事务评论》(CRIA) Vol. 37, No. 4, 2024 | 国政学人

题目：Stories of world Politics: Between History and Fiction

作者：Niyousha Bastani，加拿大多伦多大学逃避实验室和侨民与跨国研究中心的博士后研究员，剑桥大学政治与国际研究博士，兴趣领域包括全球政治中的种族、关怀、教育和心理学；

Italo Brandimarte，英国剑桥大学政治与国际研究博士候选人，兴趣主要涵盖批判性战争与安全研究、后殖民与去殖民思想以及科学技术研究领域。

摘要：国际关系学科由历史与虚构之间的根本张力所定义。一方面，历史研究方法对于追溯国际秩序的起源、为关键概念提供背景以及揭示被边缘化的声音至关重要。另一方面，该学科不可避免地陷入自我神话之中，这些神话塑造了全球政治中什么是“真实”和“正确”的观念。本期特刊并不将历史与虚构之间的模糊区别视为需要明确解决的问题，而是将这些张力视为理解、操纵，甚至颠覆和（重新）想象国际关系领域的生成力。从多个角度——从历史的书写到虚构想象的政治力量——审视这些动态，本期中的文章表明，历史与虚构之间的关系在理论和实践上都是国际事务的一种构成力量。本期特刊结合了历史和批判性视角，阐明了对历史与虚构、现实与故事讲述、事实性与想象力的观念如何塑造世界政治，同时又被世界政治所塑造。本文认为，国际关系的历史研究方法能做到的远不止在这些模糊类别之间做出裁决。在这里，我们追寻可能性。

The discipline of International Relations is defined by a fundamental tension between history and fiction. On the one hand, historical approaches are crucial in tracing the origins of international order, contextualising key concepts, and uncovering marginalised voices. On the other, the discipline is invariably caught in its own mythologies, which shape what is “real” and “true” in global politics. Instead of treating the ambiguous distinctions between history and fiction as problems to be definitively resolved, this Special Issue takes up these tensions as generative for understanding, manoeuvring, and even disrupting and (re)imagining the field of IR. Examining these dynamics from several perspectives – from the writing of history to the political force of fictional imaginaries – the articles in this Issue show that the relation between history and fiction is a constitutive force of the international, in both theory and practice. Bringing together historical and critical perspectives, the Issue elucidates how ideas of history and fiction, reality and storytelling, facticity and imagination shape and are in turn shaped by world politics. Historical approaches to IR, we argue, can do much more than adjudicate between these amorphous categories. Here, we pursue the possibilities.

题目：Sources of empire: Negotiating history and fiction in the writing of historical IR

作者：Julia Costa Lopez，荷兰格罗宁根大学国际关系史与理论助理教授，牛津大学国际关系学博士。

摘要：在将自己定位为神话破除者时，历史国际关系学者在他们与该学科的对话中刻下了历史与虚构之间的区别。然而，对于这可能对历史知识的地位意味着什么，探讨大多集中在广泛的元理论区分和辩论上。与此相反，本文认为关于历史知识及其地位的问题最好被理解为，在撰写历史的研究实践中追求特定问题和撰写特定答案的偶然性解决方案。通过探讨15世纪伊比利亚帝国早期创建阶段及其编年史提供的记载，本文试图使撰写历史过程中的协商与定性变得可见，这些过程涉及历史与虚构之间四个方面的区别：事实性、情节构建、体裁和历史情境政治。

In framing themselves as myth-busters, historical IR scholars have inscribed the distinction between history and fiction into how they speak to the discipline. And yet, engagement with what this might mean for the status of historical knowledge has mostly focused on broad metatheoretical distinctions and debates. Against this, I argue that questions about historical knowledge and its status are best understood as contingent settlements in the research practice of writing history, pursuing specific questions and writing specific answers. Through an exploration of the early stages in the creation of the Iberian Empires in the fifteenth century and the chronicles that provide an account of it, the article seeks to make visible the negotiations and settlements involved in writing history along four aspects of the distinction between history and fiction: facticity, emplotment, genre and the situated politics of history.

题目：Stories we live by: the rise of Historical IR and the move to concepts

作者：Oliver Kessler，德国埃尔福特大学国际关系教授，研究重点包括偶然性、风险和不确定性的社会理论以及跨学科研究的历史；Halvard Leira，挪威国际事务研究所（NUPI）国际关系研究教授，研究涵盖外交、外交政策、概念史、国际思想和国际秩序。

摘要：人文学科和社会科学学者必然是讲故事的人。因此，构建叙事是国际关系学术实践不可避免的特征。我们讲述过去的故事，以在当下定位自己并展望未来。历史国际关系大大扩展了可用叙事元素的范畴。然而，当我们通过现在的棱镜阅读过去时，可能会失去以不同方式想象现在和未来的机会。本文承认HIR（历史国际关系）在过去几十年中所取得的进步，但也提出，更紧密地接触概念史将会进一步增强其潜力，使我们能够探索更广泛的经验空间如何也能拓宽我们的期望视野。

Scholars of the humanities and social sciences are necessarily storytellers. Thus, crafting narratives is an inescapable feature of the practice of International Relations scholarship. We tell stories about the past to orient ourselves in the present and envision the future. Historical International Relations has greatly expanded the repertoire of available narrative elements. However, when we read the past through the prism of our present, we risk closing down opportunities for different ways of imagining both the present and the future. In this article, we acknowledge the advances made in HIR over the last decades but suggest that a closer engagement with conceptual history would enhance its potential even further, making it possible to explore how a wider space of experience can also widen our horizon of expectations.

题目：Epistemic security and the redemptive hegemony of magical realism

作者：Xymena Kurowska，意大利佛罗伦萨欧洲大学学院社会与政治科学博士，维也纳中欧大学国际关系副教授。

摘要：本文将认识论安全的概念发展为一种本体安全的形式。认识论安全指的是一种救赎性霸权感，它源自参与认识论权威的仪式化体系。这类体系由转变为守护型专家的专家们进行策略性地识别和培育，他们将知识生产仪式化以产生集体赋权。认识论安全对本体安全研究中给现代专业知识和反思性能动性的概念提出了质疑。守护型专家将知识形成嵌入传统而非方法论怀疑主义中，并否认其解释框架的认识论暴力。本文在与“魔幻现实主义”（magical realism）的互动中发展出这一论点——“魔幻现实主义”是俄罗斯亲政权学术话语中现实主义国际关系理论的一种仪式化脚本。通过仪式性的掌控，魔幻现实主义的守护型专家实现从科学框架到神圣框架的“神奇滑移”，使俄乌冲突具有霸权性的救赎意义，成为一种科学推导的、历史注定的以及政治上审慎的大国行动。

This article develops the concept of epistemic security as a form of ontological security. Epistemic security denotes a sense of redemptive hegemony that derives from participation in ritualised schemes of epistemic authority. Such schemes are strategically identified and cultivated by experts turned guardian experts who ritualise knowledge production to generate collective empowerment. Epistemic security troubles the notion of modern expertise and reflexive agency in ontological security studies. Guardian experts embed knowledge formation in tradition rather than methodological scepticism and disavow epistemic violence of their interpretative frameworks. I develop the argument in engagement with ‘magical realism’—a ritualised script of the realist International Relations theory in the pro-regime Russian academic discourse. Through ritual mastery, the guardian experts of magical realism perform ‘magic slippage’ from scientific to sacred frames to render Russia’s war on Ukraine hegemonically redemptive, as a scientifically derived, historically preordained, and politically prudent act of a great power.

题目：Counter-mapping the archive: a decolonial feminist research method

作者：Alice E. Finden，英国杜伦大学国际政治助理教授。

摘要：在过去十年中，人们对“转向历史”的兴趣日益浓厚，与此同时，对档案进行反向解读也成为了对当代治理实践提出质疑的一种手段。在这篇文章中，探讨了一种去殖民女性主义方法如何应用于殖民档案，并通过开发一种涉及反制图的研究方法来实现。这种方法包括在2019年至2020年期间进行参与式访谈，让受访者为开罗的殖民地图做标注，并共同创建一幅替代地图。这种方法提供了一个去殖民化的空间，在这个空间里，研究者和参与者共同调查城市地点作为“安全威胁”和“危险社区”的空间安全化问题。在这个过程中，我们共同审视了殖民档案所构建的某些安全“真相”是如何以新的后殖民安全化形式超越殖民/现代连续体在埃及存在的。地图上的安全化空间则被重新想象为解放和生活的空间。同时，参与者之间的性别差异也指向了埃及性别方面的殖民性。鉴于此，本文也讨论了代表性方法的问题，以及对去殖民化研究方法采取交叉女性主义方法的需求。

The past decade has seen a growing interest in the ‘turn to history’ which has coincided with a counter-reading of the archive as a means to trouble contemporary practices of governance. In this article, I explore what a decolonial feminist approach to the colonial archive can look like through the development of a research method that involves counter-mapping. This method included the use of participatory interviews, carried out between 2019–2020, that involved asking interviewees to annotate colonial maps of Cairo, and the co-creation of an alternative map. This method presented a decolonial space where I, the researcher, and the participants, co-investigated the spatial securitisation of urban sites as ‘security threats’ and ‘dangerous communities’. In doing so, we co-examined how certain security ‘truths’ constructed by the colonial archive transcend the colonial/modern continuum in new postcolonial forms of securitisation in Egypt. Securitised spaces on the map were, instead, reimagined as spaces of emancipation and life. At the same time, the gendered differences between participants also point to the coloniality of gender in Egypt. In light of this, I thereby also discuss the troubles of representative methods, and the need for an intersectional feminist approach to decolonial research methods.

题目：Everyday nuclear histories and futures in the Middle East, 1945–1948

作者：Hebatalla Taha，瑞典隆德大学政治学系和中东高级研究中心副高级讲师，研究涉及中东地区经济、技术与战争的交汇点，特别是巴勒斯坦、以色列和埃及。

摘要：本文考察了中东阿拉伯语地区的核想象。它将阿拉伯世界的人们纳入核思维，探讨原子时代如何迅速成为日常生活的一部分。本文认为现实与虚构不仅深度交织而且共同构成的特征，它分析了在日本轰炸之后，人们日常与核状况的互动，涵盖了广泛的来源。文章认为，这些半虚构的历史来源——回忆录、伪科学预测、报纸上发表的投机性报告、科普书籍甚至谣言——捕捉了原子时代初期的情感时刻，其特点是歇斯底里、广泛的猜测和夸张。关于核武器的讨论，正因为其破坏程度似乎难以想象，模糊了“真实”与“虚构”之间的界限，为反思世界政治故事以及历史国际关系中的紧张关系提供了独特的机会。

This article examines nuclear imaginaries in the Arabic-speaking Middle East. It situates people from the Arab world into nuclear thought, looking at how the atomic age rapidly became part of everyday lives. Embracing the idea that reality and fiction are not only deeply intertwined but also co-constitutive, it analyses everyday engagements with the nuclear condition in the aftermath of the bombing of Japan, across a wide range of sources. The article argues that these semi-fictional historical sources—memoirs, pseudo-scientific predictions, speculative reports published in newspapers, popular science books and even rumours—capture an affective moment at the beginning of the atomic age, which was marked by hysteria, widespread speculation and exaggeration. Discussions on nuclear weapons, precisely because the extent of their destruction seems unimaginable, blur the boundaries between ‘real’ and ‘fictional’, offering a unique opportunity to reflect on stories of world politics and on the tensions within historical International Relations.

题目：China’s search for the future to answer the past: Liu Cixin, (science-)fiction and Chinese developmentalism

作者：Aleš Karmazin, 捷克布拉格都市大学亚洲研究系和安全研究中心助理教授，关注从不同视角分析政治秩序，尤其关注中国、印度及全球秩序。

摘要：本文分析了刘慈欣的《地球往事》，也被称为《三体》三部曲，以及它与中国政治和历史国际关系（IR）的联系。本文考察了这部三部曲作品作为一个当代流行文化艺术品和虚构叙事如何维持、重塑并对历史进行了批判性的处理。这里的历史被视为历史建构、历史轨迹和关键历史挑战。本文响应了本期特刊的号召，考虑了故事讲述和历史国际关系如何具有颠覆性的新维度。在理论层面，本文借助实用主义和后殖民主义区分了外部和内部颠覆（批判）的概念。在实证层面，本文认为三部曲通过表达其讽刺和不确定性，对中国长期以来的发展主义现代化痴迷进行了内部批判。它通过展示发展（主义）最终是无法实现、不必要且不可控制的，揭示了发展的局限性（“边缘”）。换句话说，内部颠覆源于揭露给定传统的最终边界，在那里其内部逻辑开始崩溃。

This paper analyses Remembrance of Earth’s Past, also known as The Three-Body Trilogy, by Liu Cixin and its connections to Chinese politics and Historical IR. I examine how the Trilogy as a contemporary pop-cultural artefact and a fictional narrative sustains, recrafts and critically deals with the historical, conceived here as constructions of history, historical trajectories and the key historic challenges. I respond to the call of this special issue to consider new dimensions of how storytelling and Historical IR can be disruptive. On the theoretical level, I distinguish the notions of external and internal disruptions (critiques) with the help of pragmatism and post-colonialism. On the empirical level, I argue that the Trilogy offers an internal critique of China’s long-term obsession with developmentalist modernisation by expressing ironies and uncertainties of it. It reveals limits (‘selvedges’) of development(alism) by showing that it is ultimately unachievable, unnecessary and uncontrollable. In other words, the internal disruption stems from exposing the final frontiers of the given tradition where its internal logic starts to crumble.

题目：A haunting past: British defence, historical narratives, and the politics of presentism

作者：

David Morgan-Owen，英国伦敦国王学院战争史高级讲师；Aimée Fox，英国伦敦国王学院高级讲师；Huw Bennett，英国卡迪夫大学国际关系高级讲师。

摘要：本文将历史虚构作为一种社会过程进行考察，在这个过程中，有关冲突和战争的观念在社会中被构建和叙述。以英国为例，它探讨了在应用背景下关于过去的“真相讲述”，审视了构建和维持关于英国军事过往叙事的努力，以及这些叙事在支持政治和社会共识形式中的作用，这些共识支撑着军事力量的发展和使用。本文提出了西方自由国家在其独特的军国主义和军民关系形式中塑造和动员历史小说的方式的类型学：“讲述故事”——通过公共展览、博物馆和仪式来培养和维持对军事力量的社会理解；“隐藏过去”——利用国家权力来塑造学术研究并掩盖军事历史的某些方面；以及“认识战争”——合法化国家武装部队对战争和安全权威知识的垄断主张。

This article examines historical fictions as social processes by which ideas about conflict and warfare are constructed and narrated within society. Focusing on Britain, it explores ‘truth telling’ about the past in an applied context, examining efforts to construct and sustain narratives about Britain’s military past and their role in upholding forms of political and societal consensus that underpin the development and use of military power. We offer a typology of the ways in which Western liberal states shape and mobilise historical fictions within their distinctive forms of militarism and civil-military relations: ‘Telling Stories’—curating and sustaining social understandings of military power through public displays, museums, and ceremonies; ‘Hiding Pasts’—using state power to shape academic research and to occlude aspects of the military past; and ‘Knowing War’—legitimating the state and armed forces’ claims to a monopoly of authoritative knowledge about war and security.

题目：Sylvia Wynter in the Arctic: early modern expeditionary narratives and the construction of ‘Man’

作者：Alister Wedderburn，英国格拉斯哥大学国际关系讲师。研究专注于批判性国际关系理论以及视觉、文学和流行文化的政治，尤其是文本制作与北极帝国探索之间的关系。

摘要：本文将马丁·弗罗比舍在1576年、1577年和1578年对北美北极的航行与牙买加批评家和理论家西尔维亚·温特的思想联系起来。在温特看来，哥伦布发现美洲后的定居和殖民化既是一个熔炉，也是一个试验场，用于形成一种新的、种族化的人类理解，她称之为“人类”。文章专注于弗罗比舍三次前往巴芬岛航行中水手们撰写的探险叙事，将这些叙事视为旅行写作的例子，这是一种在历史和虚构之间流动、不稳定的体裁，经常调节对差异、等级和（国际）秩序的理解。文章着重分析这些文本对种族和他者的处理，认为北极是一个关键的场所，在这里，支配英国人与所谓的“新世界”及其人民互动的关系性条款在犹豫、笨拙且常常是暴力的情况下被制定出来。

This article locates Martin Frobisher’s voyages to the North American Arctic in 1576, 1577 and 1578 in relation to the thought of Jamaican critic and theorist Sylvia Wynter. For Wynter, the post-Columbian settlement and colonisation of the Americas functioned as both a crucible and proving ground for a new, racialised understanding of the human, which she calls ‘Man’. Focusing on expeditionary narratives written by sailors on Frobisher’s three voyages to Baffin Island, the article treats these narratives as examples of travel writing, a genre occupying the mobile, labile threshold between history and fiction which has often mediated the comprehension of difference, hierarchy and (international) order. Focusing on these texts’ treatments of race and otherness, the article argues that the Arctic was a key site where the terms of relationality governing English interaction with the so-called ‘New World’ and its people were hesitatingly, clumsily and often violently worked out.