PDF(1532 KB)
A New “Manifesto for Sociology of Knowledge” in Digital Times?——On the Contemporary Development of Phenom-enological Sociology
DAI Yuchen
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (2) : 56-76.
PDF(1532 KB)
PDF(1532 KB)
A New “Manifesto for Sociology of Knowledge” in Digital Times?——On the Contemporary Development of Phenom-enological Sociology
Through reactivating Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s theoretical legacy, two media theorists, Nick Couldry and Andreas Hepp rebuild social theory in their parodistic book The Mediated Construction of Reality. This article aims to explain the theoretical direction of “sociology of knowledge” in digital times. Firstly, it goes back to the theoretical context of phenomenological sociology, with the concept of “knowledge” as the basis, discussing the core issue of “sociology of knowledge” established by Berger and Luckmann. Secondly, it brings the life-world into the context of the digital age and discusses how data serves as a new social distribution mechanism of knowledge. This paper then discusses individual’s social action and agency in the digital age. At last, it critically evaluates the contemporary development of phenomenological sociology.
phenomenological sociology / knowledge / digital times / materialist phenomenology
| [1] |
陈龙(2020). “数字控制”下的劳动秩序——外卖骑手的劳动控制研究. 《社会学研究》,(6),113-135.
|
| [2] |
戴宇辰(2021). 媒介化研究的“中间道路”:物质性路径与传播型构. 《南京社会科学》,(7),104-112+121.
|
| [3] |
刘海龙, 谢卓潇, 束开荣(2021). 网络化身体:病毒和补丁. 《新闻大学》,(5),40-55.
|
| [4] |
刘建涛(2014). 社会世界的现象学——舒茨对社会世界的现象学探索.载张庆熊(主编),《现象学方法与马克思主义》(第91-119页). 上海: 上海三联书店.
|
| [5] |
刘泱育(2022). 从“型构”到“互型”:媒介化理论核心概念“figuration”的来龙去脉. 《新闻与传播研究》,(3),38-53.
|
| [6] |
吕炳强(2008). 现象学在社会学里的百年沧桑. 《社会学研究》,(1),27-52.
|
| [7] |
邱泽奇(2022). 数字社会与计算社会学的演进. 《江苏社会科学》,(1),74-83.
|
| [8] |
张萌(2022). 从规训到控制:算法社会的技术幽灵与底层战术. 《国际新闻界》,(1),156-173.
|
| [9] |
郑作彧(2021). 我们这个马赛克照片世界:当代真实的社会建构形式. 《广东社会科学》,(1),181-194.
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
This lecture reviews the history of how the status and authority of media institutions over the past century have been entangled with wider claims about social knowledge and the order of societies. It analyses those relations in terms of three successive and now overlapping myths: ‘the myth of the mediated centre’ which claims that media (traditional mass media institutions) are privileged access points to our centre of social values and social reality; the ‘myth of us’ which is now emerging around the supposedly natural collectivities that ‘we’ form on commercial social media platforms; and, from outside the media industries, the ‘myth of big data’ which proclaims big data techniques are generating an entirely new and better form of social knowledge. All these myths require deconstruction by a particular hermeneutic, but the case of the myth of big data is the most paradoxical, since its claims amount to an anti-hermeneutic, a refusal to interpret the social anymore as the resultant of processes of meaning-making. This third myth, it is argued, requires a hermeneutic of the anti-hermeneutic if it is to be deconstructed and previous conceptions of social knowledge (from Weber onwards), and the claims to possible justice and politics based upon them, are to be preserved.
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
This article argues against the assumption that agency and reflexivity disappear in an age of 'algorithmic power' (Lash 2007). Following the suggestions of Beer (2009), it proposes that, far from disappearing, new forms of agency and reflexivity around the embedding in everyday practice of not only algorithms but also analytics more broadly are emerging, as social actors continue to pursue their social ends but mediated through digital interfaces: this is the consequence of many social actors now needing their digital presence, regardless of whether they want this, to be measured and counted. The article proposes 'social analytics' as a new topic for sociology: the sociological study of social actors' uses of analytics not for the sake of measurement itself (or to make profit from measurement) but in order to fulfil better their social ends through an enhancement of their digital presence. The article places social analytics in the context of earlier debates about categorization, algorithmic power, and self-presentation online, and describes in detail a case study with a UK community organization which generated the social analytics approach. The article concludes with reflections on the implications of this approach for further sociological fieldwork in a digital world. © London School of Economics and Political Science 2016.
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
This paper presents a historical view of the emergence of what is known as the communicative paradigm. Through a personal reminiscence of his long career, Thomas Luckmann entangles the main sources of what was a radical shift of the role of language and communication in the humanities and social sciences. In doing so, Luckmann shows that the epistemological and ontological assumptions on which the contemporary study of social interaction and communicative processes rely were practically non-existent half a century ago. While sociology and linguistics seemed to exist in separate universes during Luckmann’s student days, a dialogical approach to language and social life eventually appeared – for example, in ethnomethodology, conversational analysis and French structuralism – and laid the foundation to the (today taken for granted) idea that social realities are the result of human activities. Human social reality and the worldview that motivates and guides interaction are mainly constructed in communicative processes. If social reality is constructed in communicative interaction our most reliable knowledge of that reality comes from reconstructions of these processes. Such reconstructions have been greatly facilitated by technological innovation, such as tape- and video-recorder, which, alongside theoretical advancements, may explain the timing of the communicative turn. Finally, this paper marks the benefits of sequential analysis in enabling us to trace step-by-step the processes by which social reality is constructed and reconstructed.
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
This paper traces the eventful legacy of The Social Construction of Reality, by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, which has been widely acclaimed as a classic text in sociology, but also has been subject to glaring and persistent misinterpretations. The paper discusses the inception and significance of the title along with the principal arguments of the authors’ work. The main achievements and shortfalls of the intellectual project behind the book are considered. The paper also introduces the contents of a special issue of Cultural Sociology to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the book’s publication.
|
| [32] |
Social media continues to change how advocacy organizations mobilize, educate, and connect with their constituents. One of the most unique yet understudied tools available on social media platforms is the hashtag. Little research exists on how social work and advocacy organizations use hashtags, much less on how such use can be effective. This study examines the hashtag use by 105 constituent members of the National Health Council, a national US-based patient/health advocacy coalition. The study presents an inductive coding scheme of the types of hashtags employed, analyzes inter-sectoral differences in hashtag usage, and examines the relationship between hashtag use and measures of the effectiveness of social media messages.
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
1. 所有标注的术语均出自（Berger & Luckmann，
2. 在笔者看来，伯格和卢克曼的理论搭建从一开始就存在着“双重辩证”：其一是从个体行动与知识之间关系的角度来看，即正文所述的“个体/社会”辩证关系；其二是从社会角度来看，即包含“内化（internalization）——外化（externalization）——客观化（objectivation）”三个环节的辩证关系。由于这部分内容并非笔者所述的重点，所以暂且略过。
3. 需要说明的是，现实的中介化建构并不意味着原来的现实建构过程不存在了，而只是在新时代背景下，一种新的社会现实的建构过程正通过数据行动而展开。
4. “分类”与“范畴化”是涂尔干和莫斯理解社会性/机制性的要素如何被注入个体性的核心术语。参见（Durkheim & Mauss，
5. 对比
6. 本文对这一观点的论述受益于匿名评审的建议，作者在此表示感谢。
7. 例如张萌（
8. 当然，就经验层面来看，部分数字行动（例如“网络聊天”）也是以“他者”作为互动对象，但即使上述情况中的他者也在最低限度上被“数字化”了，以一种特定的数字形象呈现为互动基础（例如聊天中使用各种数字表情、或者在聊天中插入其他超链接文本）。因而数字行动的对象的一个重要特征体现在其黑箱化的“程度”（degree）：他者越是与我的生活世界相关——例如我的“亲朋好友”，那么其黑箱化的程度越低；反之，他者则向我呈现为一种高度黑箱化的形象——例如通过刻意网络曝光打造某种“人设”。
9. 库尔德利与赫普借鉴诺贝特·埃利亚斯（Norbert Elias）的理论，将媒介中介下建构的社会秩序理解为“传播型构”（communicative figuration）。限于篇幅及与讨论主题的相关性，笔者在这里不做展开。可参见（戴宇辰，
10. 具体而言，他们用“物质化”（materialization）和“制度化”（institutionalization）两个不同维度解释物质主义的具体内涵。“物质化”表达的是媒介技术自身就是一种“物质化的载体”，包含着一系列的物质性的材料以及围绕该技术的知识、观念与准则。我们不是“理所当然地”在生活世界中使用媒介，它关系到行动者对于其物质实在及其实践知识的把握与阐释。而“制度化”则表明特定的媒介技术可以制度化我们的传播实践行为：诸如我们如何与媒介互动，如何在特定的媒介环境中协调自身的行为，如何运用媒介进行社会行动此类问题无一不是由特定的媒介形式所构建出来的（Hepp，
11. 例如，舒茨曾提及，“现代生活的一个基本特征交互匿名性（reciprocal anonymity）的扩展”，意味着“我们（的社会性）越来越少地依赖于各种直接交互的他者，而更多地与那些没有固定空间位置，相对匿名化的他者相关”（Schütz，
12. 对比阅读伯格、卢克曼对日常生活中的时间结构的讨论（Berger & Luckmann，
13. 本文对这一观点的判断受益于匿名评审的建议，作者在此表示感谢。
14. 例如，在数字平台对外卖骑手的劳动控制个案中，骑手所能采纳的一个典型的“反身性行动”就是针对平台或者软件的某种监管漏洞进行“挂单”等虚假报备行动，从而为自己争夺到更多的派单资源（陈龙，
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
