PDF(1676 KB)
PDF(1676 KB)
PDF(1676 KB)
数字签名与身份旅行:普米族青年网络昵称的田野考察
Digital Signatures and Identity Travel: A Field Study about Pumi Youth Online Nicknames
本文使用“签名理论”与“身份旅行”的理论视角,通过田野观察和深度访谈的方法,系统考察了普米族青年以网络昵称为主要线索的网络文化标记物。文章提出“数字签名”的概念,以此描述处于城乡流动中的普米族青年创建、更改和运用网络昵称及其他网络标记物的过程。研究发现,身处城乡流动过程或是有着相关流动经历的普米族青年,通过数字签名的实践完成他们在传统村民与都市打工者、少数民族青年与现代企业职工等多重身份中的旅行。数字签名作为普米族青年定位自身和书写自我的策略,不仅表达了社会转型期的签名者观看、识别、标记、使用以及构建各自身份认同的意愿,同时也显示出普米族青年运用数字技术应对生活处境的能力以及主体重塑的创造力。本文对网络昵称及其他标记物在特定社会情境中被创造和使用的关注,是将签名理论与数字时代中国少数民族青年流动经验结合起来分析的尝试。
Using the theory of “signature theory” and “identity travel”, through field observation and in-depth interview, this paper systematically investigates the Internet cultural markers of Pumi youth with Internet nicknames as the main clue. This paper puts forward the concept of “digital signature” to describe the process of creating, changing and using Internet nicknames and other Internet markers among Pumi young people moving in urban and rural areas. It is found that Pumi youth who are in the process of urban and rural mobility or have relevant mobility experiences complete their travel in multiple identities such as traditional villagers and urban workers, ethnic minority youth and modern enterprise workers through the practice of digital signature. As a strategy for Pumi youth to position themselves and write themselves, digital signature not only expresses the willingness of signers in the social transition period to watch, identify, mark, use and construct their own identity, but also shows the ability of Pumi youth to use digital technology to cope with life situations and the creativity of subject reshaping. This paper focuses on the creation and use of Internet nicknames and other markers in specific social contexts, which is an attempt to combine signature theory with the mobile experience of Chinese minority youth in the digital age.
urban-rural mobility / digital signer / Pumi youth / identity travel
| [1] |
安东尼·吉登斯(2001/2003). 《社会学(第4版)》(赵旭东,齐心,王兵,马戎,阎书昌等译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [2] |
安东尼·吉登斯(1991/2016). 《现代性与自我认同:晚期现代中的自我与社会》(夏璐译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
|
| [3] |
安东尼·D. 史密斯(1991/2018). 《民族认同》(王娟译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [4] |
陈心想(2022). 生命历程研究质性取向及其意义. 《中国社会科学评价》,(4),109-121.
|
| [5] |
大卫·贝尔等(编)(2004/2020). 《赛博文化的关键概念》(郝靓译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [6] |
但午剑(2016). 《网络匿名表达研究》. 成都: 四川大学出版社.
|
| [7] |
丁道群(2005). 网络空间的自我呈现——以网名为例. 《湖南师范大学教育科学学报》,(3),97-100.
|
| [8] |
董晨宇, 丁依然(2018). 当戈夫曼遇到互联网——社交媒体中的自我呈现与表演. 《新闻与写作》,(1),56-62.
|
| [9] |
董晨宇, 段采薏(2020). 反向自我呈现:分手者在社交媒体中的自我消除行为研究. 《新闻记者》,(5),14-24.
|
| [10] |
吉奥乔·阿甘本(2008/2017). 《万物的签名:论方法》(尉光吉译). 北京: 中央编译出版社.
|
| [11] |
吉奥乔·阿甘本(2007/2021). 《王国与荣耀:安济与治理的神学谱系》(蓝江译). 南京: 南京大学出版社.
|
| [12] |
米拉德·杜艾伊(2014). 数字人文时代的身份认同.载让-保罗·富尔芒托等(著),《数字身份认同:表达与可追溯性》(第25-31页). 北京: 中国传媒大学出版社.
|
| [13] |
米歇尔·福柯(2016). 自我技术.载汪民安(主编),《自我技术:福柯文选Ⅲ》(第49-104页). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [14] |
迈克尔·萨迈斯, 迈克尔·科利尔(2009/2022). 《迁移》(张华等译). 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
|
| [15] |
茅亚萍(2003). 浅析网络的匿名传播. 《当代传播》,(6),59-61.
|
| [16] |
廖宏勇(2014). 咖啡的现代性与媒介镜像. 《厦门大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),(1),11-17.
|
| [17] |
兰坪县民族事务委员会, 兰坪县政协民族研究室(2000). 《普米族志》. 昆明: 云南民族出版社.
|
| [18] |
李欣, 刘汀芷(2022). 互联网空间的意义再生产:对“打工人”概念的知识考古. 《新闻大学》,(11),79-88.
|
| [19] |
南希·拜厄姆(2010/2020). 《交往在云端:数字时代的人际关系:第2版》(董晨宇,唐悦哲译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
|
| [20] |
欧文·戈夫曼(1959/2008). 《日常生活中的自我呈现》(冯钢译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [21] |
《普米族简史》编写组(2009). 《普米族简史》. 北京: 民族出版社.
|
| [22] |
孙信茹(2016). 微信的“书写”与“勾连”——对一个普米族村民微信群的考察. 《新闻与传播研究》,(10),6-24.
|
| [23] |
孙信茹, 王东林(2021). 作为记忆的地点——数码时代中社交媒体与地点互构研究. 《新闻与传播研究》,(5),66-84.
|
| [24] |
孙信茹, 钱浩(2022). 生命历程与技术想象:独龙族女性手机使用的媒介人类学研究. 《新闻与写作》,(2),67-76.
|
| [25] |
孙黎, 马中红(2019). 小镇青年的“快手”世界:城乡关系的个体叙事与情感表达. 《中国青年研究》,(11),29-36.
|
| [26] |
文森特·米勒(2011/2017). 《数字文化精粹》(晏青,江凌,姚志文编译). 北京: 清华大学出版社.
|
| [27] |
薛倩(2019). 《命名与身份建构——金凯德作品研究》. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江大学出版社.
|
| [28] |
扬·阿斯曼(2007/2015). 《文化记忆:早期高级文化中的文字、回忆和政治身份》(金寿福,黄晓晨译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [29] |
约翰·厄里, 乔纳斯·拉森(2011/2016). 《游客的凝视:第3版》(黄宛瑜译). 上海: 格致出版社.
|
| [30] |
曾国屏, 李正风, 段伟文, 黄锫坚, 孙喜杰(2002). 《赛博空间的哲学探索》. 北京: 清华大学出版社.
|
| [31] |
兹拉特科·斯科瑞比斯, 伊恩·伍德沃德(2008/2021). 《世界主义:观念的使用》(张进,聂成军译). 北京: 知识产权出版社.
|
| [32] |
Nicknames distribute power within a social group: they can be imposed, or they can be used by agreement between namer and named. This is not the difference between political and apolitical uses of nicknames: agreement is a political act, the result of social negotiation, in which the nickname is a token. Agreement is a matter of pragmatics and politeness, so a theory of nicknames and nicknaming depends on the pragmatics of nicknames and the politeness structures implicated in them, rather than conventional logico-semantic accounts of names. Negotiation of social power within the constraints of speech acts and maxims of politeness leads to iterations of “naming contracts” between named and namer, such that nicknames are politically focusing social objects.
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
Online communities depend upon the commitment and voluntary participation of their members. Community design — site navigation, community structure and features, and organizational policies — is critical in this regard. Community design affects how people can interact, the information they receive about one another and the community, and how they can participate in community activities. We argue that the constraints and opportunities inherent in online community design influence how people become attached to the community and whether they are willing to expend effort on its behalf. We examine two theories of group attachment and link these theories with design decisions for online communities. Common identity theory makes predictions about the causes and consequences of people's attachment to the group as a whole. Common bond theory makes predictions about the causes and consequences of people's attachment to individual group members. We review causes of common identity and common bond, and show how they result in different kinds of attachment and group outcomes. We then show how design decisions, such as those focused on recruiting newcomers versus retaining existing members, constraining or promoting off-topic discussion, and limiting group size or allowing uncontrolled growth, can lead to common identity or interpersonal bonds among community members, and consequently to different levels and forms of community participation by those so motivated.
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |