PDF(1477 KB)
Latin American Social Communication Studies: An Archaeological Perspective
ZHU Zhenming
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2022, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (3) : 115-138.
PDF(1477 KB)
PDF(1477 KB)
Latin American Social Communication Studies: An Archaeological Perspective
From the archeological perspective of Michel Foucault, this paper analyzes the tradition of social communication studies in Latin America in the 20th century, not only pointing out the discursive episteme of “social communication” with the theme of “development and liberation” and its six sets of discursive announcements: “functionalism”, “critical thinking”, “national communication policy”, “post (modern) paradigm”, “interdisciplinary practice”, and “birth of scientific consciousness”, but also elaborating on its fundamental discursive characteristics of “academic position”, “academic organizations”, “objects of study”, “transformation of epistemological perspective”, and “methodological perspective” which are different from other regions. The article concludes that Latin America’s communication studies are more of a technology to serve the development and liberation in Latin American society, they use communication knowledge production and common practice to produce a discursive grammar of communication thoughts different from Europe and America. Meanwhile it proposes that the localization of knowledge is not to copy others’ theory-methods, but to make a critical appropriation according to the local social, to construct local academic discourse, and to realize the combination of local consciousness and foreign communication ideas.
Latin America / social communication / development and liberation / critical-utopian
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
Este trabajo tiene como objetivo realizar un recorrido cronológico acerca de la investigación en Comunicación en Latinoamérica, identificando sus principales hitos y precisando si epistemológicamente ha existido una Escuela Latinoamericana de Comunicación. El método utilizado es la revisión crítica de literatura académica, organizando los aportes en decenios estructurados y el cotejo de los hallazgos con relación a otros estudios de la materia. Los principales resultados destacan que ha habido períodos de desarrollo epistemológico independiente, aun cuando no existe uniformidad en la producción y difusión científica. Asimismo se destaca el papel integrador que han tenido los esfuerzos asociativos de la investigación latinoamericana.
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
1. 在《全球传播的起源》中,马特拉以欧洲(法国)从17世纪到20世纪初的社会现实为背景,以福柯考古学的方法展现了欧洲“传播学知识及其话语”的产生条件:流动的社会、普遍联系的乌托邦、作为“统计理性”的个体测量和地缘政治空间; 揭示了以“社会整合”为基础的西方世界的“现代传播”起源(Paillart,
2. 如同“话语对象(如疯癫),这是某个话语的对象参照系,其他陈述对象都是此对象参照系中的分布元素”(Foucault,
3. 福柯注意到存在于“历史先验”与“康德先验”间的差别。“康德先验”在于寻找认识可能性的超验条件,而“历史先验”没有把认识的可能性条件指向任何超验的存在,只是指向它的规则的、偶然的历史形式 (Castro,
4. 在拉美学者看来,存在着两个现代性:一种伴随16、17世纪西班牙和葡萄牙跨大西洋扩张的“第一现代性”;另一种自18、19世纪以来伴随英法扩张的“第二现代性”(Blanco,
5. 对于构成系统应理解为一束像规则那样运作的复杂关系:它规定着在某个话语实践中什么东西必须放入关系之中,以便使话语实践指向某个对象,使某个陈述发挥作用,使用某个概念,组织某种策略(Foucault,
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |