《轨道》异托邦空间中的伦理张力——国际空间站的容器困境
Ethical Tension in the Heterotopia of Orbital—The Container Dilemma of the International Space Station
DOI: 10.12677/wls.2026.144068, PDF,   
作者: 李宸阳:四川大学外国语学院,四川 成都
关键词: 《轨道》异托邦伦理困境Orbital Heterotopia Ethical Dilemma
摘要: 《轨道》中的国际空间站作为典型的异托邦,融合了技术异托邦与伦理困境的双重特性。文章通过空间叙事与伦理学的交叉视角,从隔离、规训与并置三个维度,分析小说空间叙事中的伦理张力:循环时间消解线性进步叙事导致伦理感知麻痹与责任异化;封闭空间内的权力规训复刻政治分歧并暴露技术对身体与生命的工具化改造;多重空间的叙事并置则凸显了全知视角下的道德冷漠、身份认同撕裂以及人类共同理想与现实政治的鸿沟。作为异托邦的国际空间站并非伦理困境的根源或解决方案,而是技术时代全球性伦理挑战的浓缩镜像,为反思当代人类在技术发展、政治博弈与生态危机中的处境提供了独特的叙事视角。
Abstract: The International Space Station in Orbital, as a quintessential heterotopia, possesses the dual nature of a technological heterotopia and a locus of ethical dilemmas. Through the intersecting perspectives of spatial narrative and ethics, this paper analyzes the ethical tensions within the novel’s spatial narrative along three dimensions: isolation, discipline, and juxtaposition. Cyclical time dissolves the linear progressive narrative, leading to a numbing of ethical perception and the alienation of responsibility; the disciplinary power within the enclosed space replicates political divisions and exposes technology’s instrumental transformation of the body and life; the narrative juxtaposition of multiple spaces highlights moral indifference from an omniscient viewpoint, the fracturing of identity, and the gap between the ideal of a shared humanity and political realities. As a heterotopia, the International Space Station is neither the root cause of nor the solution to these ethical dilemmas; rather, it serves as a condensed mirror of the global ethical challenges of the technological age, offering a unique narrative perspective for reflecting on the contemporary human condition amid technological development, political maneuvering, and ecological crisis.
文章引用:李宸阳. 《轨道》异托邦空间中的伦理张力——国际空间站的容器困境[J]. 世界文学研究, 2026, 14(4): 482-488. https://doi.org/10.12677/wls.2026.144068

参考文献

[1] Schwartz, J.S. and Milligan, T. (2016) The Ethics of Space Exploration. Springer International Publishing.
[2] 王影君. 后人类时代的种群危机——阿特伍德异乌托邦三部曲的生态女性主义研究[J]. 江苏大学学报(社会科学版), 2018, 20(3): 28-34.
[3] 宋明炜, 毕坤. 中国当代科幻小说的乌托邦变奏[J]. 中国比较文学, 2015(3): 101-114.
[4] Sandel, M.J. (2011) Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Boston University Law Review, 91, 1303-1310.
[5] Sudradjat, I. (2012) Foucault, the Other Spaces, and Human Behaviour. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 28-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.004
[6] 萨曼莎哈维. 轨道[M]. 林庆新, 译. 北京: 中译出版社, 2023.
[7] 宁晓萌. 空间性与身体性——海德格尔与梅洛庞蒂在对“空间性”的生存论解说上的分歧[J]. 首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2006(6): 59-64.
[8] 保罗∙维利里奥. 解放的速度[M]. 陆元昶, 译. 南京: 江苏人民出版社, 2004.
[9] 哈特穆特∙罗萨. 新异化的诞生: 社会加速批判理论大纲[M]. 郑作彧, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2018.
[10] 米歇尔∙福柯. 规训与惩罚: 监狱的诞生[M]. 修订第5版. 刘北成, 杨远婴, 译. 北京: 生活∙读书∙新知三联书店, 2019.
[11] 潘可礼. 亨利∙列斐伏尔的社会空间理论[J]. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), 2015(1): 13-20.
[12] 刘辉. 世界主义与身份伦理[J]. 外国语文研究, 2024, 10(1): 9-15.