Is the insistence that nature is artifactual not more evidence of the extremity of the violation of a nature outside and other to the arrogant ravages of our technophilic civilization, which, after all, we were taught began with the heliotropisms of enlightment projects to dominate nature with blinding light focused by optical technology?　　　　　　--------------------------------------　　这是美国科学学者堂娜·哈拉维的“怪兽的承诺”中的一句。背景可以在网上搜到。但我实际上仅仅是想知道这句话的主干结构，最后的非限定性从句可以不管，所以背景知识也并不重要。　　不过我还是把前后文贴出来，因为她的东东的确比较晦涩。　　　　　　　　　　nature for us is made, as both fiction and fact. If organisms are natural objects, it is crucial to remember that or they are made in world-changing technoscientific practices by particular collective actors in particular times and places. In the belly of the local/global monster in which I am gestating, often called the postmodern world,6 global technology appears to denature everything, to make everything a malleable matter of strategic decisions and mobile production and reproduction processes (Hayles, 1990). Technological decontextualization is ordinary experience for hundreds of millions if not billions of human beings, as well as other organisms. I suggest that this is not a denaturing so much as a particular production of nature. The preoccupation with productionism that has characterized so much parochial Western discourse and practice seems to have hypertrophied into something quite marvelous: the whole world is remade in the image of commodity production.’　　　　　　　　　　　　　　How, in the face of this marvel, can I seriously insist that to see nature as artifactual is an oppositional, or better, a differential siting?8 Is the insistence that nature is artifactual not more evidence of the extremity of the violation of a nature outside and other to the arrogant ravages of our technophilic civilization, which, after all, we were taught began with the heliotropisms of enlightment projects to dominate nature with blinding light focused by optical technology?9 Haven’t eco-feminists and other multicultural and intercultural radicals begun to convince us that nature is precisely not to be seen in the guise of the Eurocentric productionism and anthropocentrism that have threatened to reproduce, literally, all the world in the deadly image of the Same?　　　　　　　　　　　　　　I think the answer to this serious political and analytical question lies in two related turns: 1) unblinding ourselves from the sun-worshiping stories about the history of science and technology as para and 2) refiguring the actors in the construction of the ethno-specific categories of nature and culture. The actors are not all &us.& 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.10 In its scientific embodiments as well as in other forms nature is made, but no it is a co-construction among humans and non-humans. This is a very different vision from the postmodernist observation that all the world is denatured and reproduced in images or replicated in copies. That specific kind of violent and reductive artifactualism, in the form of a hyper-productionism actually practiced widely throughout the planet, becomes contestable in theory and other kinds of praxis, without recourse to a resurgent transcendental naturalism. Hyper-productionism refuses the witty agency of all the actors but O that is a dangerous strategy-for everybody. But transcendental naturalism also refuses a world full of cacophonous agencies and settles for a mirror image sameness that only pretends to difference. The commonplace nature I seek, a public culture, has many houses with many inhabitants which/who can refigure the earth. Perhaps those other actors/actants, the ones who are not human, are our topick gods, organic and inorganic.
楼主发言：1次 发图：0张 | 更多
　　我实际上仅仅是想知道这句话的主干结构，最后的非限定性从句可以不管，所以背景知识也并不重要。
　　这是一个不需要回答的设问句.　　
　　我把一些背景解释一下吧。　　　　堂娜主张自然的人造主义，自然是人造的。　　　　她是将自然的研究转为文化研究。　　　　她的主要概念是赛伯格，即后现代社会中有机体（包括人）与机器的混合物。光学机器是最典型的机器。　　　　她既反对科学主义，又不同于生产主义。　　　　总之，她要将自然从人与自然这种二元对立的传统中解放出来。自然不是我们的资源，不是工具，不是改造的对象，也不是他者。
　　我感到不明白的地方主要是一些句式：　　　　可以简化为：……is not more evidence of
……吗？这是一个比较句吗？比较的双方是什么？　　　　后面的“and other to ……”这一段跟前面是什么关系？或者我断句不对？　　　　outside应该修饰nature,成为外部自然，还是连接后面outside and other？有这样的用法吗？　　　　nature前面用了不定冠词，是不是就不是自然的意思了？不是的话，又是什么呢？还跟outside连在一起？　　
　　对了，这句还有作者的注释，但主要是针对最后的从句：　　　　9. My debt is extensive in these paragraphs to Luce Irigaray’s wonderful critique of the allegory of the cave in Spaeculum de l’autrefemme (1974). Unfortunately, Irigaray, like almost all white Europeans and Americans after the mid-nineteenth-century consolidation of the myth that the &West& originated in a classical Greece unsullied by Semitic and African roots, transplants, colonizations, and loans, never questioned the &original& status of Plato’s fathership of philosophy, enlightenment, and rationality. lf Europe was colonized first by Africans, that historical narrative element would change the story of the birth of Western philosophy and science. Martin Bernal’s extraordinarily important book, Black Athena, Vol. 1, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece,
(1987), initiates a groundbreaking re-evaluation of the founding premises of the myth of the uniquences and self-generation of Western culture, most certainly including those pinnacles of Man’s self-birthing, science and philosophy. Bernal’s is an account of the determinative role of racism and Romanticism in the fabrication of the story of Western rationality. Perhaps ironically, Martin Bernal is the son of J. D. Bernal, the major pre-World War II British biochemist and Marxist whose four-volume Science in History movingly argued the superior rationality of a science freed from the chains of capitalism. Science, freedom, and socialism were to be, finally, the legacy of the West. For all its warts, that surely would have been better than Reagan’s and Thatcher’s version! See Gary Wersky, The Invisible College: The Collective Biography of British Socialist Scientists in the 1930s (1978).　　　　 　　　　Famous in his own generation for his passionate heterosexual affairs, J. D. Bernal, in the image of enlightenment second birthing so wryly exposed by Irigaray, wrote his own vision of the future in The Word, the Flesh, and the Devil as a science-based speculation that had human beings evolving into disembodied intelligences. In her manuscript (May, 1990) &Talking about Science in Three Colors: Bernal and Gender Politics in the Social Studies of Science,& Hilary Rose discusses this fantasy and its importance for &science, politics, and silences.& J. D. Bernal was also actively supportive of independent women scientists. Rosalind Franklin moved to his laboratory after her nucleic acid crystallographic work was stolen by the flamboyantly sexist and heroic James Watson on his way to the immortalizing, luminous fame of the Double Helix of the 1950s and 60s and its replicant of the 1980s and 90s, the Human Genome Project. The story of DNA has been an archetypical tale of blinding modern enlightenment and untrammeled, disembodied, autochthonous origins. See Ann Sayre (1975); Mary Jacobus (1982); Evelyn Fox Keller (1990).
　　看来太难了？
　　……is not more evidence of ……不是比较句.可以理解为&....的进一步的证据或更多的证据&.and other to应该是表示并列.　　　　个人观点.
　　Is the insistence that nature is artifactual/ not more evidence of the extremity of the violation of a nature outside /and other/ to the arrogant ravages of our technophilic civilization, which, after all, we were taught/ began with the heliotropisms of enlightment projects /to dominate nature with blinding light focused by optical technology?　　个人观点
　　Is the insistence (that nature is artifactual) not more evidence of /the extremity of ......outside and other to ......?　　个人观点