PDF(1603 KB)
Whether We are Worldly through New Medium Usage? : From the Social and Political Theory of Arendt
LI Jing
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (10) : 98-119.
PDF(1603 KB)
PDF(1603 KB)
Whether We are Worldly through New Medium Usage? : From the Social and Political Theory of Arendt
The publicity of new medium becomes the hot academic topic as the technology of web2.0 renew the form of social interaction. Most studies turned to the theoretical framework of Jurgen Habermas for analysis and almost neglect the perspective of Hannah Arendt. The most important difference between the two theories is that Habermas’s thought can not escape the pattern of means-end which is totally transcended in Arendt’s theory. To put it more clearly, Arendt’s theory gives an emphasis on the plurality of action which means the self-performance of people. In this sense, people can get involved in the world and attach their meaning to it. Under today’s circumstance, Arendt’s theory inspires us to ask a new question: does diversity and difference brought by the new media really equal the plurality of action? This paper investigates the intertwined relationship between “publicity” and “privacy” in the internet space based on Arendt’s analysis of the distinction between “publicity” and “the social”, and transforms the definition of “the social” from the sense of “content” to the sense of “metaphor” so as to analysis the three different types of the network platform. Through exploring, this paper gives a negative answer to the following question.
| [1] |
安德鲁·芬伯格(2002/2005). 《技术批判理论》(韩连庆,曹观法译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
|
| [2] |
陈琰娇(2017). 豆瓣时代的文学研究:打开《打开文学的方式》. 《中国图书评论》,(8),39-44.
|
| [3] |
达娜·维拉(2016). 阿伦特、亚里士多德与行动(陶东风编译).载陶东风,周宪主编,《文化研究》(第26辑)(第151-179页). 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
|
| [4] |
汉娜·阿伦特(1958/2009). 《人的境况》(王寅丽译). 上海: 上海世纪出版集团.
|
| [5] |
汉娜·阿伦特(1961/2011). 《过去与未来之间》(王寅丽译). 北京: 译林出版社.
|
| [6] |
帕特里夏·奥坦伯德·约翰逊(2000/2014). 《最伟大的思想家:阿伦特》(王永生译). 北京: 中华书局.
|
| [7] |
乌尔里希·贝克, 安东尼·吉登斯, 斯科特·拉什(1994/2014). 《自反性现代化:现代社会秩序中的政治、传统与美学》(赵文书译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
|
| [8] |
马克斯·韦伯(1919/2013). 以政治为业.载韦伯(著),《学术与政治:韦伯的两篇演说》(冯克利译). 上海: 三联书店.
|
| [9] |
尤尔根·哈贝马斯(1981/2018). 《交往行为理论(第一卷)》(曹卫东译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
Current internet research has been influenced by application developers and computer engineers who see the development of the Web as being divided into three different stages: Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. This article will argue that this understanding – although important when analysing the political economy of the Web – can have serious limitations when applied to everyday contexts and the lived experience of technologies. Drawing from the context of the Italian student movement, we show that the division between Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is often deconstructed by activists’ media practices. Therefore, we highlight the importance of developing an approach that – by focusing on practice – draws attention to the interplay between Web platforms rather than their transition. This approach, we believe, is essential to the understanding of the complex relationship between Web developments, human negotiations and everyday social contexts.
|
| [13] |
Canovan, M(1994). Hannah Arendt:A Reinterpretation of her Political Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
|
| [14] |
We explore Arendt’s idiom of ‘new beginnings’ which, for her, constitute the very heart of the political in the light of two case studies. Drawing on examples of political action in the human rights organization of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and among sex workers in London, this article engages with the complex and productive interface of what Arendt calls praxis and poiesis. We suggest that it is precisely through this interface that these women activists have articulated ‘a new beginning’. Their actions call into question the distinctions that Arendt also makes between private and public insofar as these are given beforehand or assumed independently of such action. They also, we hope, contribute to a broader consideration of activism and ethnography.
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
1. 阿伦特把人类的积极活动区分为劳动、制作和行动三类，它们在与世界的关系上是完全不同的：劳动是对生命的满足和消耗，根本上是“无世界性”的，制作的技艺人可以为世界增添内容，但技艺人诉诸于手段—目的，产品的诞生就是制作的终结，它可以填充世界但不能带给世界以意义。只有行动是对目的论的彻底超越，行动本身就赋予了世界以意义。当然它还需要依赖于物质的手段被记录和传播。后文将详述。
2. 阿伦特在其著作《过去与未来之间》及相关论文中集中地谈过大众文化的问题，涉及到报纸、电影等大众媒介，但其主题是对文化与现时代的讨论，媒介不作为重点。
3. 关于哈贝马斯和伯恩斯坦对阿伦特政治理论的批判可参见相关著作：Habermas(1983).Hannah Arendt: On the Concept of Power. In Habermas(Eds.) Philosophical Political Profiles(pp.172-173.), Translated by Frederic Lawrence. Cambridge, UK: MT Press; Richard J.Bernstein(2006). In Williams, G. (Eds.). Hannah Arendt (Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers，III) (pp.247). London, UK: Routledge.
4. 言说也是一种行动，且是极其重要的行动的方式。后文将做详述。
5. 参见该德语专访的网络视频资源（有中文字幕）。
6. 亚里士多德指的是区别于古希腊城邦政治经验的、处于“前政治”层次的某些古代亚洲国家，亚里士多德批判它们是野蛮的。
7. 参见阿伦特的此篇论文，Arendt,H.(
8. Performance一词在《人的境况》中翻译为“表演”。阿伦特用performance来形容行动，强调的是行动的非目的性和超越了手段范畴的人的自由。Performance有“技艺”的向度，行动的意义就在于技艺精湛的表演本身。虽然在古希腊哲学中也用performance来指涉行动，但亚里士多德在强调政治是一种技艺的同时，还认为仅有技艺是不够的，行动还需要合乎“德行”（good character）才是好的统一。而阿伦特返回古典，另一方面又对隐含在古典中的目的论色彩做了彻底的清除，强调政治行动的意义仅在于过程本身，这个过程本身就是“善”的，而非所获得、达到的目标。考虑到“表演”一词在中文中的意味，在缺少充分语境阐释的情况下，容易引起读者误解。故笔者在此处使用“行动本身的展开过程”以作替代。
9. 公共空间，在这里是一个单纯的非术语的表述，即能够公开表达的网络平台。不同于公共领域/公共空间/公共性的术语指称。
10. 这里排除掉作为“劳动”之表征的“消费性”虚拟空间，关于这一点的论述，在前文对第一类平台的分析中已谈及。
11. 尤其对于“实体性”（substantive）批判理论来说，这种悲观性作为内在维度难以避免。技术是一种环境和生活方式，技术构成一种新的文化体系，它将整个世界重新构造成一种控制的对象。海德格尔是实体性批判理论的典型代表，而阿伦特是他的学生，在理论上也潜移默化地受其影响。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
