PDF(1543 KB)
PDF(1543 KB)
PDF(1543 KB)
靠“等”谋来的生计:日结零工市场“数字拒斥”现象的研究
Livelihood Through Waiting: A Study of “Digital Rejection” in Day Labor Markets
当前,我国日结零工市场仍普遍存在聚集性“等活”现象,在蓬勃的零工平台化进程中,这一现象颇为罕见。基于对此问题的调查,本文尝试超越单一的媒介采纳逻辑,提供另一种分析与理解数字技术不使用行为的思路,即“数字拒斥”(digital rejection),用以解释个体如何通过能动实践与关系联结确立数字使用边界,并以此实现对理想生活状态的掌握。在日结劳动的语境下,线下的日结零工市场不仅承载着工人“弱数字使用”的惯习,同时也维系着他们的社会关系与日常生活。因此,坚守市场“等活”并选择性地拒斥日结招聘平台成为其决定自我生活方式的一种策略。“数字拒斥”的概念主张关注技术使用者的利益表达,强调将使用者的能动性与其社会生活相勾连,有助于解释日常化的数字技术不使用行为。
This study investigates the persistence of offline gatherings in China’s day labor markets, where workers wait for job opportunities despite the rapid platformization of the gig economy. This phenomenon is particularly unusual in the context of the booming digital economy. Moving beyond a simplistic logic of media adoption, the study presents the concept of “digital rejection” as an analytical lens to better understand practices of digital non-use. Digital rejection highlights how individuals establish boundaries for digital engagement through active practices and relational connections, thereby achieving a sense of control over their preferred lifestyle. Within the context of day labor, traditional day-labor markets not only embody workers’ habits of limited digital use, but also sustain their social relationships and daily lives. As a result, the decision to wait for work offline and selectively reject recruitment platforms becomes a strategic choice for shaping their own way of life. By centering on the articulation of users’ interests and connecting their agency to their social lives, the concept of digital rejection offers a valuable framework for explaining daily practices of non-use in the digital age.
| [1] |
陈锋, 王光普(2022). 散工市场中的大龄农民工有机嵌入与“桥头”秩序. 《中国农村观察》,(6),88-102.
|
| [2] |
陈雪薇, 张鹏霞(2021). “不在线是一种奢望”:断连的理论阐释与研究进展. 《新闻与传播评论》,(4),39-48.
|
| [3] |
丁未(2021). 遭遇“平台”:另类数字劳动与新权力装置. 《新闻与传播研究》,(10),20-38+126.
|
| [4] |
董山民, 赵英(2021). “附近”的消失与再造——反思技术扩张时代的社会团结. 《福建论坛(人文社会科学版)》,(3),33-43.
|
| [5] |
段世昌(2024). 从归纳算法到审计算法:直播电商创业者的非正式算法知识研究. 《国际新闻界》,(4),52-71.
|
| [6] |
方惠, 曹璞(2020). 融入与“断连”:老年群体ICT使用的学术话语框架分析. 《国际新闻界》,(3),74-90.
|
| [7] |
郭于华, 黄斌欢(2014). 世界工厂的“中国特色”新时期工人状况的社会学鸟瞰. 《社会》,(4),49-66.
|
| [8] |
何晶(2021). “底层表达”视角下中国政治传播研究的路径创新. 《新闻大学》,(1),48-58+119.
|
| [9] |
胡鞍钢, 周绍杰(2002). 新的全球贫富差距:日益扩大的“数字鸿沟”. 《中国社会科学》,(3),34-48+205.
|
| [10] |
黄斌欢(2021). 从何而来的“大神”:日结体制与悬浮社会. 《社会发展研究》,(4),39-57+240.
|
| [11] |
黄宗智(2009). 中国被忽视的非正规经济:现实与理论. 《开放时代》,(2),51-73.
|
| [12] |
姬德强, 蒋效妹, 朱泓宇(2024). 理解数字断连:语境、意义与测量.《新闻与写作》,(8),113.
|
| [13] |
李培林, 李炜(2007). 农民工在中国转型中的经济地位和社会态度. 《社会学研究》,(3),1-17+242.
|
| [14] |
李子仪, 姬德强(2021). 数字劳工的“罢工”?——作为加速社会“减速策略”的数字反连接研究. 《新闻界》,(11),43-55.
|
| [15] |
刘国强, 颜廷旺(2022). 底层群体为何拒用智能手机?——基于重庆棒棒的扎根研究. 《国际新闻界》,(7),74-96.
|
| [16] |
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.
|
| [17] |
刘思达(2023). 社会空间:从齐美尔到戈夫曼. 《社会学研究》,(4),142-159+229.
|
| [18] |
刘子曦, 朱江华峰(2019). 经营“灵活性”:制造业劳动力市场的组织生态与制度环境——基于W市劳动力招聘的调查. 《社会学研究》,(4),73-96+243-244.
|
| [19] |
马克斯·韦伯(1978/2010). 《经济与社会》(第二卷)(阎克文译). 上海人民出版社.
|
| [20] |
马子琪, 张广利(2021). 马路劳务市场的组织生态与控制机制——基于Z市的实证调查. 《青年研究》,(6),83-90+93.
|
| [21] |
彭兰(2019). 连接与反连接:互联网法则的摇摆. 《国际新闻界》,(2),20-37.
|
| [22] |
皮埃尔·布迪厄(1981/2022). 《社会学的问题》(曹金羽译). 上海文艺出版社.
|
| [23] |
乔丽娟(2024). “具身媒介空间”偏向与“差序格局”的重构——一个空心村的实证案例研究. 《国际新闻界》,(6),91-109.
|
| [24] |
邱泽奇(2020). 零工经济:智能时代的工作革命. 《探索与争鸣》,(7),5-8.
|
| [25] |
束开荣(2024). 跨介质的数字交往如何可能?——论数字技术语境下的人-物联结. 《当代传播》,(1),77-81.
|
| [26] |
田丰, 林凯玄(2020). 《岂不怀归: 三和青年调查》. 海豚出版社.
|
| [27] |
佟新(2002). 社会变迁与工人社会身份的重构——“失业危机”对工人的意义. 《社会学研究》,(6),1-12.
|
| [28] |
王海侠, 余甜, 倪坤晓, 温铁军(2014). 零工市场“被动闲暇”的行为抉择及市场影响——天津市西青区“15号桥”零工市场调查案例分析. 《贵州社会科学》,(1),7-14.
|
| [29] |
魏廷烨(2022). 打磨田野手艺:北京市A区日结工市场调查反思. 《社会研究方法评论》,(2),173-199.
|
| [30] |
项飚(2000). 《跨越边界的社区: 北京“浙江村”的生活史》. 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [31] |
宣长春, 侯雨飞(2024). 重识老龄传播:空间、身体与老人的再社会化. 《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(6),116-127.
|
| [32] |
袁红, 黄庆庆(2024). 数字融入困难群体数字排斥行为关键影响因素探究. 《人口与社会》,(4),54-66.
|
| [33] |
张杰, 杨欣怡, 黄从严(2025). 疏联:中国式数字断连与差序格局变迁——以微信“已读延回”为中心. 《国际新闻界》,(1),114-134.
|
| [34] |
张锡明, 程福财(2021). 何处依归:“三和大神”是如何形成的. 《青年学报》,(1),62-69.
|
| [35] |
赵启南(2019). 关系性压力下青年使用者社交媒体倦怠影响及其行为结果. 《新闻与传播研究》,(6),59-75+127.
|
| [36] |
周大鸣(1994). 广州“外来散工”的调查与分析. 《社会学研究》,(4),47-55.
|
| [37] |
周潇(2021). 数字平台、行业重组与群体生计——以公路货运市场车货匹配模式的变迁为例. 《社会学研究》,(5),47-69+227.
|
| [38] |
周雪光(2015). 无组织的利益与集体行动. 《社会发展研究》,(1),182-208+246.
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
Taking the “right to disconnect” discussion as a starting point, this article considers how the im/possibility of “opting out” is ruminated in scholarly discourses on technology non-use, media resistance, and media disruption. I argue that while very different in scope, these discourses converge in that they all revolve around a structuring paradox. On one hand, this paradox is set in place by the paradox of dis/connectivity itself (no disconnectivity without connectivity). On the other hand, I argue, it is incited and reinforced by the use of scholarly methods that appear to be at odds with the gesture of disconnectivity itself, whether they be empirical, discursive, or technical (or legislative). This article stakes a claim for the importance looking at these discourses on dis/connectivity from the point of view of this structuring paradox, for it is here, I argue, that the limits of our current “culture of connectivity” are most forcefully negotiated.
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
Disconnection and avoidance have been theorized various ways, e.g., by analyzing communicative and non-communicative affordances of devices and platforms; categorizing tactics and patterns of non-use; and through analogy with historical ways of seeking solitude and resisting technologies. This article, however, treats history not only as a source of analogies for momentary disconnections, but also as a timescale on which to understand slower undercurrents of resistance. I define “strategic illiteracies” as: purposeful, committed refusals to learn expected communication and technology skills, not only as individual people in specific moments, but also in communities over time. This concept connects technology refusal to historical lineages of resistance to linguistic and orthographic imperialism, analyzing examples including the Greek alphabet in antiquity, Chinese characters in Asia, and the Latin alphabet through European colonization. This new framework and genealogy of avoidance and technology refusal elucidates ways forward, slowly, for successive generations to reclaim their communicative futures.
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |