Несвязанная метагеография: картография европейского пограничья конца XIX века и геополитическое конструирование пространства

Стивен Сигель

2/2007

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

В конце XIX века картографы Габсбургской и Российской империй принадлежали к общему “империуму знания”, в котором особая ценность отводилась государственным ресурсам. Процесс геополитического конструирования посредством создания географических карт интеллектуально и политически был связан с практиками европейского государственного управления и с эпистемологическими структурами европейской картографии, характерными для концептуализации национальностей в Восточной и Центральной Европе. В статье анализируются “научные” доказательства национальности/этничности, использовавшиеся в территориальном и экстратерриториальном картографировании Литвы, Украины и Польши. Картографы сравнивали “научно” выделенные практики и структуры. Анализ данной политики сравнения позволяет автору статьи увидеть корни современных метагеографических претензий на национальную аутентичность на территории оспариваемых разными группами населения имперских окраин.

Доступ

Оформите подписку, чтобы получить полный доступ к текстам

Оформить подписку

Read in English

Сноски

1.Recent work on nationalities questions, especially that examining the tendentious use of demographic statistics as information and the construction of knowledge by social-scientific categories, offers valuable insight here. See Francine Hirsch. Empire of Knowledge: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca, 2005; Juliette Cadiot. Searching for Nationality: Statistics and National Categories at the End of the Russian Empire, 1897-1917 // Russian Review. 2005. Vol. 64. No. 3. Pp. 440-455; David W. Darrow. Census as a Technology of Empire // Ab Imperio. 2002. No. 4. Pp. 145-176; David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel (Eds.). Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge, 2002; Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939. Ithaca, 2001; and Peter Holquist. “Information is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work”: Bolshevik Surveillance in Its Pan-European Context // Journal of Modern History. 1997. Vol. 69. No. 3. Pp. 415-450.↩

2.David N. Livingstone and Charles W. J. Withers (Eds.). Geography and Enlightenment. Chicago, 1999.↩

3.For historiographical context, Serhii Plokhy. Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History. Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2006; Kate Brown. A Biography of No Place: From Ethnic Borderland to Soviet Heartland. Cambridge, MA, 2004; Aleksei Miller and Alfred J. Rieber (Eds.). Imperial Rule. Budapest, 2004; Timothy Snyder. The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999. New Haven, 2003; John-Paul Himka. The Ukrainian Idea in the Second Half of the 19th Century // Kritika. 2002. Vol. 3. No. 2. Pp. 321-335; Olga Andriewsky. The Russian-Ukrainian Discourse and the Failure of the “Little Russian Solution,” 1782-1917 // Andreas Kappeler et. al. (Ed.). Culture, Nation, and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter, 1600-1945. Edmonton, Alberta, 2003. Pp. 182-214; and Roman Szporluk. The Making of Modern Ukraine: The Western Dimension // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 2001. Vol. 25. No. 1-2. Pp. 57-90.

Примечания

[1]Recent work on nationalities questions, especially that examining the tendentious use of demographic statistics as information and the construction of knowledge by social-scientific categories, offers valuable insight here. See Francine Hirsch. Empire of Knowledge: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca, 2005; Juliette Cadiot. Searching for Nationality: Statistics and National Categories at the End of the Russian Empire, 1897-1917 // Russian Review. 2005. Vol. 64. No. 3. Pp. 440-455; David W. Darrow. Census as a Technology of Empire // Ab Imperio. 2002. No. 4. Pp. 145-176; David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel (Eds.). Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge, 2002; Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939. Ithaca, 2001; and Peter Holquist. “Information is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work”: Bolshevik Surveillance in Its Pan-European Context // Journal of Modern History. 1997. Vol. 69. No. 3. Pp. 415-450.

[2]David N. Livingstone and Charles W. J. Withers (Eds.). Geography and Enlightenment. Chicago, 1999.

[3]For historiographical context, Serhii Plokhy. Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History. Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2006; Kate Brown. A Biography of No Place: From Ethnic Borderland to Soviet Heartland. Cambridge, MA, 2004; Aleksei Miller and Alfred J. Rieber (Eds.). Imperial Rule. Budapest, 2004; Timothy Snyder. The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999. New Haven, 2003; John-Paul Himka. The Ukrainian Idea in the Second Half of the 19th Century // Kritika. 2002. Vol. 3. No. 2. Pp. 321-335; Olga Andriewsky. The Russian-Ukrainian Discourse and the Failure of the “Little Russian Solution,” 1782-1917 // Andreas Kappeler et. al. (Ed.). Culture, Nation, and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter, 1600-1945. Edmonton, Alberta, 2003. Pp. 182-214; and Roman Szporluk. The Making of Modern Ukraine: The Western Dimension // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 2001. Vol. 25. No. 1-2. Pp. 57-90.

[4]Guntram Henrik Herb. Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda, 1918-1945. London and New York, 1996.