PDF(1620 KB)
PDF(1620 KB)
PDF(1620 KB)
约翰·厄里“新流动范式”与传播物质性研究对社会学理论的接合与涵化
John Urry’s new mobility paradigm and articulation and cultivation of sociological theories on materiality research in communication studies
国际知名社会学家、英国兰卡斯特大学约翰·厄里教授致力于流动性理论研究，力图超越交通研究与社会研究之间的二元对立，探讨流动产生的资源和信息再分配以及社会差异。这涉及流动与非流动的关系、虚实空间的接合、流动的物质性等议题，此外还发掘流动与地域、性别、阶级、种族等因素之间的关系。本文通过对约翰·厄里“新流动范式”的细读和阐释，以及对戴维·莫利教授的半结构访谈，试图在不同理论的交光互影中探查新流动范式与传播物质性研究之间的隐显关系：一方面，新流动范式成为传播研究重返物质向度的理论支撑，建立超越媒体中心主义研究视角，拓展传播研究议程；另一方面，在交通学、社会学以及传播学等跨学科研究视角下，重新审视流动性理论与日常流动实践，使传播学研究与社会现实在更多问题上有桥接的可能，拓展传播研究新的面向。此外，厄里的流动性理论对传播学的影响也有赖于戴维·莫利、杰瑞米·帕克以及保罗·亚当斯等学者在这一过程中扮演连接者和转化者的角色。
John Urry, an internationally renowned sociologist and Professor of Lancaster University in UK, has concentrated on the research of mobility theory, trying to transcend the dichotomy between transport research and social research and explore the redistribution of resources and information and social differences generated through mobility, which involves the relationship between mobile and immobile, the articulation of virtual and material space, and the materiality of mobility, etc., and finds out the relations of mobility theory with factors such as region, gender, class and race, etc.. Through a close reading and interpretation of “new mobility paradigm” and a semi-structured interview with Professor David Morley, this paper attempts to explore the implicit relationship between new mobility paradigm and the materiality in communication studies in intricate theory pedigree. one the one hand, the paradigm functions as the theory basis of communication research to return to the material dimension, which not only transcends media centralism, but also corrects the narrow concept of communication. On the other hand, mobility theory and daily mobility practice are re-examined from the perspective of interdisciplinary research of transportation, sociology and communication, etc., which makes it possible to connect communication studies with social reality on more issues and expand the new aspect of it. In addition, the influence of Urry’s mobility theory on communication also relies on communication scholars such as David Morley, Jeremy Packer, and Paul Adams who play an important role as theory connectors and converters.
约翰·厄里 / 新流动范式 / 流动性 / 物质性 / 社会学
John Urry / new mobility paradigm / mobility / materiality / sociology
| [1] |
保罗·C·亚当斯, 安德烈·杨森(2012/2019). 传播地理学:跨越学科的桥梁(李淼、魏文秀译),《新闻记者》,(9),83-96.
|
| [2] |
保罗·C·亚当斯(2009/2020). 《媒介与传播地理学》(袁艳译). 北京: 北京广播学院出版社.
|
| [3] |
戴宇辰(2021). 传播研究的“物质性”取径:对若干核心议题的澄清. 《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(05),142-152.
|
| [4] |
戴宇辰, 孔舒越(2021). “媒介化移动”:手机与地铁乘客的移动节奏. 《国际新闻界》,(3),58-78.
|
| [5] |
冯雪峰(2019). 文化研究再定义:从再现范式到非再现范式. 《文艺争鸣》,(7),103-111.
|
| [6] |
郭小平, 李晓(2018). 流动社会的智能新媒介、移动连接与个人隐私——雷蒙德·威廉斯“流动的藏私”理论再阐释. 《现代传播(中国传媒大学学报)》,(10),19-24.
|
| [7] |
黄骏(2021). 传播是观念的交通:查尔斯·库利被忽视的运输理论及其当代启示. 《新闻与传播研究》,(3),57-74+127.
|
| [8] |
赖特·米尔斯(2000/2001). 《社会学的想象力》( 陈强、张永强译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [9] |
雷蒙·威廉斯(1989/2014). 《希望的源泉:文化、 民主、社会主义》(祁阿红、吴晓妹译). 江苏: 译林出版社.
|
| [10] |
李立峯(2019). 流动的人、流动的传播. 《传播与社会学刊》(香港),(47),页v-x.
|
| [11] |
刘海龙(2015). 《重访灰色地带:传播研究史的书写与记忆》. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [12] |
刘海龙(2018). 传播中的身体问题与传播研究的未来. 《国际新闻界》,(2),37-46.
|
| [13] |
刘英, 石雨晨(2021). “回归”抑或“转向”?——国外流动性研究的兴起、发展与最新动向. 《国外社会科学》,(2),122-132+161.
|
| [14] |
潘霁(2022). 作为媒介研究方法的空间. 《南京社会科学》,(5),91-98.
|
| [15] |
潘忠党, 於红梅(2015). 阈限性与城市空间的潜能——一个重新想象传播的维度. 《开放时代》,(3),140-157+8-9.
|
| [16] |
王敏, 江荣灏, 朱竑(2019). 新文化地理学中的非表征与再物质化研究进展. 《地理科学进展》,(2),153-163.
|
| [17] |
王鑫(2016). 交通工具与文化变迁——从绿皮火车到白色高铁. 《文化研究》,(1),59-71.
|
| [18] |
王鑫(2020). 物质性与流动性:对戴维·莫利传播研究议程扩展与范式转换的考察. 《国际新闻界》,(09),159-176.
|
| [19] |
王鑫, 崔思雨, 高源(2022). 《疫情防控里的“移动”和“静止”:信息与资源再分配及其社会差异》. 检索于 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/j4b6rplcBRCQI1iDrvBpjw.
|
| [20] |
袁艳(2016). 电视的物质性与流动的政治——来自两个城中村的媒介地理学观察. 《新闻与传播研究》,(6),92-104+128.
|
| [21] |
袁艳(2019). 当地理学家谈论媒介与传播时,他们谈论什么?——兼评保罗·亚当斯的《媒介与传播地理学》. 《国际新闻界》,(7),157-176.
|
| [22] |
约翰·杜翰姆·彼得斯(1999/2017). 《对空言说:传播的观念史》(邓建国译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
|
| [23] |
张梓豪, 戴宇辰(2021). 新闻传播学研究的“移动转向”. 《新闻论坛》,(4),48-49.
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
This article is concerned with transformations in ideas of home, place, belonging and identity in the context of the transnational patterns of communication and mobility which increasingly characterize our contemporary, destabilized (or, according to some, deterritorialized) world. The article examines the cultural significance of the transgression of borders of various sorts which arises from these forces, and investigates how these transgressions are regulated in different circumstances. These issues are explored at both micro and macro levels, in relation to the household, the nation and the local or transnational community as ‘spaces of belonging’. The article argues for a ‘materialist’ version of cultural studies which is sensitive to both the symbolic and the material geographies within which people’s identities are formed.
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
This article reflects on the contributions of the late John Urry to sociology and to its spatial turn especially by developing the new mobilities paradigm. The proposition of this monograph issue of Current Sociology is that space has not yet been appropriately incorporated into sociology. But although partially true, Urry argued that this misses the significance of ‘the mobilities turn’ that swept through and incorporated the spatial turn within sociology but also within other disciplines. Tracing the spatial turn back to the 1980s, the article describes how the new mobilities paradigm grew out of and extended emerging theorizations of space. It argues that Urry’s work advanced a sociology of space though his focus on mobile spatializations and relational space. This included the distribution of agency between people, places, and material assemblages of connectivity; a broader shift in the spatial imagination of mobilities towards ‘non-representational’ social theory; the emergence of new methodologies that were more eclectic, experimental, creative, and linked to arts, design, and public policy; and lastly a renewed interest in geo-ecologies, the political economy of resource flows, and the global mobilities of energy, capital, and material objects as constitutive of spatial complexity. The new mobilities paradigm furthered the spatial turn in social sciences in many crucial ways, and John Urry’s body of work on mobilities and its influence on countless adjacent research areas have spread that spatial thinking far and wide.
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
This article discusses aspirational mobility and the digital gift in the context of forced migration in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It illustrates how gifting a mobile device and data enhances the aspirational mobility of forced migrants and intervenes into political codes, which promote social and technological isolation. Through the example of fieldwork with forced migrants and social media analysis, the article shows how participation, self-presentation, and social control were encouraged through the object and data gift. The migrants amplified their aspirational mobility by participating in urban life, presenting themselves in digital space, and maintaining romantic sociality with members of other marginalized migrant groups. The article elaborates on previous notions of technology as expanding social worlds for forced migrants while also highlighting the potential of technology for social control between migrant groups. The article also points to the potential dangers of social media use by asylum seekers for refugee status determination.
|
| [66] |
"Suspension" is the translation of the Chinese term xuanfu, which has been widely used in public discussions in China since the mid-2010s. Suspension indicates a state of being in which people move frequently, conduct intensive labour, and pause routine life-in order to benefit fast and then quickly escape. People keep moving, with no end in sight, instead of changing their current conditions, of which they disapprove. As a result, frantic entrepreneurial energy coexists with political resignation. Suspension is a life strategy, a multitude of experiences, a feeling-and now, a keyword: a crystallized consciousness with which the public problematize their experiences. This special issue develops this term into an analytical approach based on ethnographic research involving labour migrants in and from China. This approach turns migration into a basis for critical analyses on issues far beyond it; enables co-research between researchers, migrants, and the broader public; and seeks to cultivate agency for change among actors. This introductory essay, based on the author's long-term field research and public engagement, outlines why we need such an approach, and how we might develop it.
|
1. 国内学界对“mobility”这一名词的翻译并无统一译法。本文结合上下文语境，会分别将之翻译为 “流动”和“移动”，或者“流动性”“移动性”。当涉及到人和物的运动（movement），前者多使用“流动”，而后者则为“移动”。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
