01/04/2026
【轉發】歡迎投稿！
_____________________________________
Unbinding Temporalities ｜ 解綁時間性
During the 1920s, the Bergson-Einstein debate regarding philosophical versus scientific knowledge of time marked a significant crossroads in the epistemological trajectory of time. Bergson’s philosophical approach to time, termed "duration," emphasizes its fluid, internal, and metaphysical features. To Bergson, the linear and spatialized "clock time" could not capture essential temporal experiences, such as memory, premonition, and anticipation (Canales 2015). In contrast, Einstein, through his groundbreaking theory of relativity, established the authority of science by viewing time as secular, measurable, and objective, and by contending that the perceived flow of time is a psychological phenomenon.
In the following century, shifting patterns in politics, economy, technology, and social relations have led to unprecedentedly deep understandings of both human and non-human time. Moving beyond the Bergson-Einstein debate, scholars have adopted variegated approaches to explore contemporary temporalities. A growing dissatisfaction with teleological, linear, and singular forms of temporality is now shared across the humanities, arts, and social sciences. The timeframe bound to a hegemonic Western history becomes anachronistic.
Foundational sociological works treat time as socially constructed and represented (Durkheim 1961, Bourdieu 1963). Marxist critiques examine timed labor, time discipline, and "time-space compression" in the development of capitalism (Thompson 1967, Ong 1987, Harvey 1989, Ingold 1995). Postcolonial scholars investigate the violence inherent in the norms of Western and settler time (Chakrabarty 1997, Rifkin 2017). Anthropologists propose the term “chronocracy” to illustrate the temporal manipulation in the governing structure (Kirtsoglou and Simpson 2020), while geographers extend multiple spatiotemporal dimensions in the world through concepts such as "timescape" and "future geographies" (May & Thrift 2001, Anderson 2010). As Laura Bear (2016) notes, the rise of the "temporal turn" is not merely a result of intellectual debate; it resonates with an increasing sense of uncertainty and insecurity in modern life, where one frequently experiences conflicts in time. By elaborating on human and non-human engagements with time, extensive scholarship has worked on: the affect in/with time (optimism, expectation, aspiration, and the “not-yet”), the labor in/of time (waiting, speculation, planning, and projectization), the pacing of time (acceleration, slowness, delay, and pause), and the economy of time (debt, credit, and the “real time” and “just-in-time” production).
Alongside these developments, recent scholarship has foregrounded the entanglement of temporality with affect and q***rness. Affect theory, for instance, has challenged the assumption that time is experienced only through conscious cognition, emphasizing instead its preconscious and embodied dimensions (Massumi 2002). Q***r theory has similarly critiqued normative temporalities organized around reproduction, linearity, and progress. From Heather Love’s (2007) notion of “backward feelings,” which reorients attention toward the lingering injuries of the past, to the refusal of reproductive futurism (Edelman 2004) and the reclaiming of the future through a call for “q***r utopia” (Munoz 2009), q***r temporalities disrupt the alignment between time and teleological development.
In light of these works, we invite authors to unbind temporalities in relation to their own research. Suggested (but not limited to) the following themes:
Temporalities and the sense of time during war
The philosophy of time
Histories and temporalities
The politics and ethics of time
Technics and time
Temporalities of social movements
Temporalities of capitalism (with respect to factory, infrastructure, logistics, and platform economy, etc.)
Haptic temporalities
Temporalities and affect
Temporality and disability/debility
Hope, despair, and the making of the future
Nostalgia, anachronism, and obsolescence
Q***r temporalities
The promise of happiness and affective expectations
Temporalities and the built environment
New reflections on time-space theories
Uncertainty
Rhythmanalysis
📌 AI Usage Disclosure
To ensure transparency in scholarly work, authors are requested to disclose any use of AI tools (e.g. for research assistance, drafting, rephrasing, translation, data analysis, or otherwise) in their full-paper submission.
📌 Submission Guidelines
Maximum length: 6,500 words (including bibliography and notes).
Language: English or Mandarin Chinese.
We accept scholarly articles, conference reviews, interviews, photo essays, video essays, and book and film reviews. We welcome both single-authored and co-authored manuscripts.
Full Paper Submission Guidelines available at https://cjdproject.web.nycu.edu.tw/submission-guidelines/.
📌 How to Submit
We invite you to submit an abstract (300-400 words in English, 450-600 characters in Mandarin) alongside information about author and affiliation at the following application form.
Submission link: https://forms.gle/wAv4GNAkeo1s5wuq8
📌 Abstract submission deadline: April 30, 2026
Selected articles will be published on the CJD website (ISSN: 2709-5479) and in a special issue of our booklet (ISSN: 2709-7943). Authors of selected articles with a Taiwanese post office bank account will be awarded 4,000 NTD per article.
For more information or any questions, please visit: https://cjdproject.web.nycu.edu.tw/, or contact us at [email protected].
解綁時間性
在1920年代，關於時間的哲學知識與科學知識之間的爭論——亦即柏格森與愛因斯坦之辯——標誌著時間認識論發展中的一個重要分岔點。柏格森提出的時間哲學概念「綿延」（duration），強調時間的流動性、內在性與形上學特質。在他看來，線性且被空間化的「鐘錶時間」無法捕捉時間經驗的核心面向，例如記憶、預感與期待（Canales 2015）。與之相反，愛因斯坦透過其突破性的相對論，確立了科學在時間問題上的權威：他將時間視為世俗的、可測量的與客觀的，並主張時間的流逝感乃是一種心理現象。
在隨後的一個世紀中，政治、經濟、技術與社會關係的變遷，使人類與非人類時間的理解達到前所未有的深度。當代學者已逐步超越柏格森—愛因斯坦的對立，採取多樣化的路徑來探討時間性。如今，人文學科、藝術與社會科學之間普遍共享著對目的論、線性與單一時間形式的不滿。以西方霸權歷史為基準的時間框架，逐漸顯得過時且失去解釋力。
經典社會學研究將時間視為一種社會建構與表徵（Durkheim 1961；Bourdieu 1963）。馬克思主義批判則關注資本主義發展中的時間化勞動、時間紀律，以及「時空壓縮」（Thompson 1967；Ong 1987；Harvey 1989；Ingold 1995）。後殖民學者則揭示西方與殖民定居者時間規範中所蘊含的暴力（Chakrabarty 1997；Rifkin 2017）。人類學家提出「時間治理」（chronocracy）一詞，以說明治理結構中的時間操控（Kirtsoglou 與 Simpson 2020）；地理學者則透過「時間景觀」（timescape）與「未來地理」（future geographies）等概念，拓展多重時空維度（May 與 Thrift 2001；Anderson 2010）。如 Laura Bear（2016）所指出，「時間轉向」（temporal turn）的興起不僅源於學術辯論，也回應了現代生活中日益加劇的不確定與不安全感，人們經常在時間之中經驗到衝突。圍繞人類與非人類對時間的參與，相關研究已廣泛展開，包括：時間中的／與時間相關的情感（如樂觀、期待、渴望與「尚未到來」）、時間的勞動（等待、投機、規劃與專案化）、時間的節奏（加速、緩慢、延遲與暫停），以及時間的經濟（債務、信用、「即時」（real time）與「準時生產」（just-in-time））。
與此同時，近期研究亦凸顯時間性與情動（affect）及酷兒性的交織關係。例如，情動理論挑戰了時間僅透過意識認知被經驗的假設，轉而強調其前意識與具身化的維度（Massumi 2002）。酷兒理論同樣批判以再生產、線性與進步為核心的規範性時間結構。從 Heather Love（2007）提出的「向後的情感」（backward feelings）——將注意力重新導向過去殘留的創傷——到對「生殖未來主義」（reproductive futurism）的拒斥（Edelman 2004），以及透過「酷兒烏托邦」（q***r utopia）召喚未來的再奪回（Muñoz 2009），酷兒時間性打破了時間與目的論發展之間的對齊關係。
基於上述研究，我們邀請作者從自身研究出發，對時間性進行「解綁」。建議主題包括（但不限於）：
戰爭中的時間性與時間感
時間哲學
歷史與時間性
時間的政治與倫理
技術與時間
社會運動的時間性
資本主義的時間性（如工廠、基礎設施、物流與平台經濟等）
觸覺時間性（haptic temporalities）
時間性與情動
時間性與障礙／衰弱（disability/debility）
希望、絕望與未來的生成
懷舊、錯置（anachronism）與過時性（obsolescence）
酷兒時間性
幸福承諾與情感期待
時間性與建成環境
對時空理論的新反思
不確定性
節奏分析（rhythmanalysis）
📌 AI 使用需公開
為確保學術工作的透明性，作者需在全文投稿中公開任何AI工具的使用情況（例如：研究輔助、草稿撰寫、改寫、翻譯、數據分析或其他用途）。
📌 投稿規範
字數上限：6,500字（含參考文獻與註釋）
語言：英文或中文
我們接受學術論文、會議評論、訪談、攝影論文、影像論文，以及書評與影評。歡迎單一作者或多人作者合作投稿。
全文格式要求：https://cjdproject.web.nycu.edu.tw/submission-guidelines/.
📌投稿方式
請提交摘要（英文300–400字；中文450–600字），並附上作者資訊與所屬單位，透過申請表提交。
申請表：https://forms.gle/wAv4GNAkeo1s5wuq8
摘要截止日期：2026年4月30日
入選文章將會發表在「衝突、正義與解殖：21世紀轉型中的亞洲」（CJD）平台（ISSN: 2709-5479）及特刊（ISSN: 2709-7943）上。如果作者居住在台灣並擁有台灣的銀行帳戶，我們將提供每篇文章 新台幣4,000 元稿酬。
有任何問題，敬請訪問我們的網站 https://cjdproject.web.nycu.edu.tw/，或寄送電子郵件至 [email protected]。
References | 參考文獻
Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 777-798.
Bear, L. (2016). Time as Technique. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45, 487-502.
Edelman, L. (2004). No Future: Q***r Theory and the Death Drive. Duke University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1963). The attitude of the Algerian peasant toward time. In: Pitt-Rivers J (ed.) Mediterranean Countrymen, Paris: Mouton and Co, pp. 55–72.
Canales, J. (2015). The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time. Princeton University Press. 3.
Durkheim, E. (1961). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by Joseph W. Swaian. New York: Macmillan.
Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell.
Ingold, T. (1995). Work, Time and Industry. Time & Society, 4(1), 5-28.
Kirtsoglou, E. and Simpson, B. (2020). The Time of Anthropology: Studies of Contemporary Chronopolitics. Routledge.
Love, H. (2007). Feeling Backward: Loss and the Politics of Q***r History. Harvard University Press.
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11smvr0
May, J. and Thrift, N. (2001). Timescape: Geographies of Temporality. Routledge.
Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Q***r Futurity. NYU Press.
Ong, A. (1987). Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline. State University of New York Press.
Rifkin, M. (2017). Beyond Settler Time: Temporal Sovereignty and Indigenous Self-Determination. Duke University Press.
