1,720,980 research outputs found
Who speaks? : poetics and politics of enunciation in the Age of the Anthropocene
No full textLa question d’une politique de l’énonciation et des dispositifs formels qui la rendent possible structure de nombreux débats contemporains sur l’art. En 1972, Gilles Deleuze disait à Michel Foucault « vous nous avez enseigné l’indignité qu’il y a à parler pour les autres », ouvrant avec d’autres, le grand questionnement féministe, queer et postcolonial qui se tiendrait jusqu'à nous aujourd'hui. Lorsque l’on se demandait alors « qui parle ? », une série d’enjeux s’ouvraient, interrogeant l’histoire du cinéma documentaire, les écritures pronominales, les mécanismes du regard, autant que les instances qui structurent la parole démocratique, la légitimité du chercheur, les politiques identitaires, les sciences et ses procédures, la psychanalyse, etc. Aujourd’hui, c’est la voix silencieuse du monde qui nous rattrape, alors qu’avec l’ère de l’Anthropocène, des dispositifs d’inclusion des non-humains (animaux, végétaux, objets, etc.) se multiplient, qui en appellent à des procédés de traduction, d’éco-diplomatie, d’attention, de porte-parolat. Comment prendre en compte ce qu’ils ont à nous dire ? Et en d’autres termes, que fait l'Anthropocène aux épistémologies du point de vue et à la question « Qui parle ? ». Depuis ces questions travaillées par le biais des œuvres (principalement des images en mouvement et issues du tournant assembléiste de l’art) et depuis l’horizon d’une démocratie plus qu’humaine, ce cheminement nous amènera à envisager l’espace de l’art comme le lieu privilégié depuis lequel reformuler une politique de l’énonciation qui ne reposerait plus seulement sur une morale du minoritaire, mais sur une politique du silence et des incommensurables.The issue a politics of enunciation and the formal devices that make it possible, structures many debates about art. In 1972, Gilles Deleuze said to Michel Foucault, "you have taught us the indignity of speaking for others," opening with others the vast feminist, queer and postcolonial questioning that still stands until today. When we then wondered "who speaks", a series of issues opened up, questioning the history of documentary cinema, pronominal writings, the mechanisms of the gaze, as well as the instances that structure democratic speech, the legitimacy of the researcher, identity politics, science and its procedures, psychoanalysis, and so on. Nowadays, it is the silent voice of the world that catches up with us, whereas with the Anthropocene era, devices of inclusion of non-humans (including animals, plants, objects, etc.) proliferate, calling for translations, eco-diplomacy, attention, spokesmanship. How can we take into account what they have to say to us? In other words, what does the Anthropocene do to standpoint epistemologies and to the question "Who speaks". From these questions worked through many artworks (mainly moving images and the assembleist turn of art) and from the horizon of a democracy more than human, this path will lead us to consider the space of art as the privileged space from which to reformulate a politics of enunciation that would no longer be based solely on a morality of the minority, but on a policy of silence and of immeasurable
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
