PDF(1991 KB)
与世界做生意：跨境电商平台的全球数字缔合实践——基于基础设施可见性/不可见性的视角
林颖, 许天敏, 谢杭萍
国际新闻界 ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (12) : 46-64.
PDF(1991 KB)
PDF(1991 KB)
与世界做生意：跨境电商平台的全球数字缔合实践——基于基础设施可见性/不可见性的视角
Doing Business with the World: Global Digital Association Practice of Cross Border E-commerce Platform——Perspective Based on Infrastructure Visibility/Invisibility
数字信息技术的高速发展使全球流动变为一种低成本的常态化存在，在经济和政治的双重助推下，跨境电商逐渐成为经济全球化的重要实践方式。本研究采用参与式观察和深度访谈的研究方法，以福建的一家跨境电商公司为例，从基础设施研究视角出发，洞察跨境电商平台、人及数字资本运作的缔合关系。本研究认为可见性与不可见性对媒介基础设施的研究而言具有本体论意义，因此按“经验/理论”的类型化原则将可见性/不可见性的分析框架提炼为：视觉/物性、感觉/意识、规制/意识形态三个层面，探讨可见性/不可见性的具体面向和指涉维度，以丰富这一概念的理论层次和学术肌理。鉴于物的表面特征与系统内在运作结构的分离，本研究进一步指出物质性结构的技术系统具有自创生特点。同时，技术系统依赖“商品数据化”与“数据商品化”的互相转化，对商品经济形式及现实社会产生了基质性影响，造就了平台基础设施实践中经济活动的属性变革。
With the rapid development of digital information technology, global mobility has become a low-cost, normalized existence. With the dual boost of economy and politics, cross-border e-commerce has gradually become an important practice of economic globalization. This research adopts the research method of participatory observation and in-depth interview, taking a cross-border e-commerce company in Fujian as an example, from the perspective of infrastructure theory, this research has insight into the multiple relationships among cross-border e-commerce platforms, people and digital capital operations. This study believes that visibility and invisibility have ontological significance for the research of media infrastructure. Therefore, the analysis framework of visibility and invisibility is divided into three levels: visual/physical, feeling/consciousness, and regulation/ideology. Through empirical research, the specific orientation and reference dimensions are discussed to enrich the theoretical level and academic texture of this concept. Since the separation between the surface characteristics of objects and the internal operation structure of the system, this study further points out that the technical system of physical structure has the characteristics of autopoiesis. At the same time, the technology system relies on the mutual transformation of “commodity datalization” and “data commercialization”, which has a matrix impact on the form of commodity economy and the real society, and has created the attribute change of economic activities in the practice of platform infrastructure.
物质性 / 跨境电商 / 互联网基础设施 / 可见性/不可见性
ateriality / cross-border e-commerce company / internet infrastructure / visibility and invisibility
| [1] |
高艺, 吴梦瑶, 陈旭, 孙萍(2022). “可见性”何以成为生意?——交友类App会员制的监视可供性研究. 《国际新闻界》,(1),137-155.
|
| [2] |
胡翼青, 王沐之(2022). 作为媒介性的可见性:对可见性问题的本体论探讨. 《新闻记者》,(4),8-19.
|
| [3] |
黄鹏, 陈靓(2021). 数字经济全球化下的世界经济运行机制与规则构建:基于要素流动理论的视角,《世界经济研究》,(3),3-13+134.
|
| [4] |
蒋晓丽, 杨钊(2023). “可见即收益”:网络文学平台化生产的可见性研究,《编辑之友》,(2),46-52.
|
| [5] |
鞠雪楠, 赵宣凯, 孙宝文(2020). 跨境电商平台克服了哪些贸易成本?——来自“敦煌网”数据的经验证据. 《经济研究》,(2),181-196.
|
| [6] |
卡尔·马克思(1861/1995). 《马克思恩格斯全集(第30卷)》(中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局). 北京: 人民出版社.
|
| [7] |
卡尔·马克思, 弗里德里希·恩格斯(1867/2009). 《马克思恩格斯文集(第八卷)》(中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译). 北京: 人民出版社.
|
| [8] |
李海舰, 赵丽(2021). 数据成为生产要素:特征、机制与价值形态演进. 《上海经济研究》,(8),48-59.
|
| [9] |
刘海龙, 谢卓潇, 束开荣(2021). 网络化身体:病毒与补丁. 《新闻大学》,(5),40-55+122-123.
|
| [10] |
陆晔, 赖楚谣(2020). 短视频平台上的职业可见性:以抖音为个案. 《国际新闻界》,(6),23-39.
|
| [11] |
马中红, 胡良益(2022). 数据基础设施:作为纵深维度的隐蔽可供性研究. 《国际新闻界》,(8),6-27.
|
| [12] |
束开荣(2021). 互联网基础设施:技术实践与话语建构的双重向度——以媒介物质性为视角的个案研究. 《新闻记者》,(2),39-50.
|
| [13] |
孙玮, 李梦颖(2014). “可见性”:社会化媒体与公共领域——以占海特“异地高考”事件为例. 《西北师大学报(社会科学版)》,(2),37-44.
|
| [14] |
王淼, 向东旭(2022). 数字资本逻辑批判的四重维度. 《经济学家》,(1),36-44.
|
| [15] |
谢康, 夏正豪, 肖静华(2020). 大数据成为现实生产要素的企业实现机制:产品创新视角. 《中国工业经济》,(5),42-60.
|
| [16] |
谢卓潇(2023). 网络化城市中视障者的“不/可见性政治”——从残障视角反思媒介技术界面. 《国际新闻界》,(5),96-120.
|
| [17] |
易前良, 唐芳云(2023). 镜与台:数字时代的“传播可见性”——两种范式的辨析和应用. 《新闻与写作》,(4),43-52.
|
| [18] |
约翰·杜海姆·彼得斯(2015/2020). 《奇云:媒介即存有》(邓建国译). 上海: 复旦大学出版社,39-40+42.
|
| [19] |
张磊, 贾文斌(2021). 互联网基础设施研究:元概念、路径与理论框架. 《中国社会科学院研究生院学报》,(5),22-32+145.
|
| [20] |
周葆华(2022). 算法、可见性与注意力分配:智能时代舆论基础逻辑的历史转换. 《西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,(1),143-152.
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
Can visibility be counted as a general category for the social sciences? The attempt to provide an answer to this question entails both describing actual phenomena of visibility, and defining the characteristics of visibility as a workable, unified category. This article analyses the relational, strategic and processual aspects of visibility as constituting a single field. The importance of this field is rooted in the deep epistemology of seeing present in our society, as well as in its ratio vis-a-vis the other human sensory dimensions and extensions. At the substantive level, the article addresses the question of the ambivalences of visibility and its effects, according to social places and subjects. Recognition and control are understood and explained as two opposing outcomes of visibility. It is argued that empowerment does not rest univocally either with visibility (as it is assumed by the tradition of recognition) or with invisibility (as it is assumed by the arcana imperii tradition).
|
| [23] |
In the last few years, leading-edge research from information systems, strategic management, and economics have separately informed our understanding of platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Our motivation for undertaking this special issue rests in the conviction that it is significant to discuss platforms and infrastructures concomitantly, while enabling knowledge from diverse disciplines to cross-pollinate to address critical, pressing policy challenges and inform strategic thinking across both social and business spheres. In this editorial, we review key insights from the literature on digital infrastructures and platforms, present emerging research themes, highlight the contributions developed from each of the six articles in this special issue, and conclude with suggestions for further research.
|
| [24] |
Algorithms are said to affect social realities, often in unseen ways. This article explores conscious, instrumental interactions with algorithms, as a window into the complexities and extent of algorithmic power. Through a thematic analysis of online discussions among Instagram influencers, I observed that influencers’ pursuit of influence resembles a game constructed around “rules” encoded in algorithms. Within the “visibility game,” influencers’ interpretations of Instagram’s algorithmic architecture—and the “game” more broadly—act as a lens through which to view and mechanize the rules of the game. Illustrating this point, this article describes two prominent interpretations, which combine information influencers glean about Instagram’s algorithms with preexisting discourses within influencer communities on authenticity and entrepreneurship. This article shows how directing inquiries toward the visibility game makes present the interdependency between users, algorithms, and platform owners and demonstrates how algorithms structure, but do not unilaterally determine user behavior.
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
The digitization, digitalization, and datafication of work and communication, coupled with social and technical infrastructures that enable connectivity, are making it increasingly easy for the behaviors of people, collectives, and technological devices to see and be seen. Such digital connectivity gives rise to the important phenomenon of behavioral visibility. We argue that studying the antecedents, processes, and consequences of behavioral visibility should be a central concern for scholars of organizing. We attempt to set the cornerstones for the study of behavioral visibility by considering the social and technological contexts that are enabling behavioral visibility, developing the concept of behavioral visibility by defining its various components, considering the conditions through which it is commonly produced, and outlining potential consequences of behavioral visibility in the form of three paradoxes. We conclude with some conjectures about the kinds of research questions, empirical foci, and methodological strategies that scholars will need to embrace in order to understand how behavioral visibility shapes and is shaped by the process of organizing as we catapult, swiftly, into an era where artificial intelligence, learning algorithms, and social tools are changing the way people work.
|
| [35] |
Two theoretical approaches have recently emerged to characterize new digital objects of study in the media landscape: infrastructure studies and platform studies. Despite their separate origins and different features, we demonstrate in this article how the cross-articulation of these two perspectives improves our understanding of current digital media. We use case studies of the Open Web, Facebook, and Google to demonstrate that infrastructure studies provides a valuable approach to the evolution of shared, widely accessible systems and services of the type often provided or regulated by governments in the public interest. On the other hand, platform studies captures how communication and expression are both enabled and constrained by new digital systems and new media. In these environments, platform-based services acquire characteristics of infrastructure, while both new and existing infrastructures are built or reorganized on the logic of platforms. We conclude by underlining the potential of this combined framework for future case studies.
|
| [36] |
This article asks methodological questions about studying infrastructure with some of the tools and perspectives of ethnography. Infrastructure is both relational and ecological—it means different things to different groups and it is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment, inseparable from them. It also is frequently mundane to the point of boredom, involving things such as plugs, standards, and bureaucratic forms. Some of the difficulties of studying infrastructure are how to scale up from traditional ethnographic sites, how to manage large quantities of data such as those produced by transaction logs, and how to understand the interplay of online and offline behavior. Some of the tricks of the trade involved in meeting these challenges include studying the design of infrastructure, understanding the paradoxes of infrastructure as both transparent and opaque, including invisible work in the ecological analysis, and pinpointing the epistemological status of indictors.
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
1. 参见人民网（2020年4月20日）。发改委明确“新基建”范围将重点做好四方面工作。检索于
2. 参见网易（2019年3月19日）。Lazada成为东南亚访问量最大的电商平台。检索于
3. “参考群体”概念指涉的是个体在行动时，行动倾向往往取决于其认可的参考群体。参考群体主要是身处其中的群体，但也可以是想要加入的群体。详见罗伯特·K·默顿（Merton,R.K.）著；唐少杰等译《社会理论与社会结构》，南京：译林出版社，2008。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
