论波兹曼媒介理论中的技术话语研究

发布时间：2018-06-02 01:17

本文选题：技术 + 话语　；参考：《广西师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：大数据时代“信息”泛滥,信息的产生与传播离不开“技术”的革新。近年来,“技术”在人们日常生活中的所占的地位愈来愈突出,“微信”、“微博”、“QQ”等信息传播的软件越来越改变人们的生活。普通民众对“技术”的追捧与热烈欢迎带有一定的盲目性,传播学界与文艺界对“技术”的认识较为深刻,或赞扬,或批判。也就是说,“技术”是一把双刃剑,这是人们的共识。但技术对人们的生活带来哪些变化,却是各个理论家深究的问题。美国媒介批判理论家—尼尔·波兹曼是对上述问题深思的理论家之一,他对技术“持悲观消极态度。波兹曼对“媒介技术”的批评,主要集中于其三部曲(即《娱乐至死》《童年的消逝》《技术垄断——文化向技术投降》)中,批判“电子媒介技术”对政治、宗教、新闻、童年等文化领域的冲击。他死死地顶着“电子媒介技术”的缺点,呼吁人们保护“印刷文化”。通过梳理波兹曼的“技术”话语,可以清楚地看到贯穿其理论的一条主线:媒介技术与文化的关系。他始终在关注“技术”给“文化”带来了什么。无论是他推崇的“印刷术”,还是极力批判的“电子媒介技术”(以电视为代表),他对两者的关系的界定是“媒介技术”对文化产生“宰制”性的决定作用。所以,笔者认为,他大加批判媒介技术,但始终是“技术论”者,只是不同于如麦克卢汉等持乐观心态的理论家。在给波兹曼作了派系划分之后,笔者进一步探究其他“技术论”者(如英尼斯、麦克卢汉、梅罗维兹)的“技术”话语言说,既加深了笔者对“技术论”观点的认识,又作为波兹曼“技术”话语的一个知识谱系的溯源而存在。他自己称是麦克卢汉的孩子,只是一个不听话的孩子。他的“技术”话语具有典型性,他这种极度消极悲观之态度没有继承“技术论”者的先辈们,用“话语”理论分析其中的原因,他深受“大众社会”、“后现代”时代话语影响。20世纪七十年代,“大众社会”出现,又叫“群众社会”,这里的“群众”在大众社会中称为“社会大众”。“社会大众”对国家政治参与后逐渐失去热情,他们生产、宣传、享受娱乐性极强的通俗文化,这种通俗文化的普遍流行,导致了社会大众文化对精神生活的全面占领,部分社会成员在流行的趋势和压力下被迫成为接受者。“娱乐性”是“大众文化”的典型特征。波兹曼是“传统文化”(指传统的、精英的印刷文化)的捍卫者,对娱乐性极强的大众文化猛烈抨击是合情合理的。再者,20世纪“后现代”哲学思潮崛起,代表人物有尼采,福柯,海德格尔等,他们开始对“现代性”反思,反思“理性”、“科学技术”、“井然有序的秩序”造就的社会,波兹曼对“电子媒介技术”的批判,带有“后现代”的时代特征,纵然他自己始终坚持认为他是“现代性”的捍卫者。本文逻辑上始终贯穿“话语”理论。所以,笔者有必要于此把“话语”理论阐释清楚。本文中“话语”有两种含义,一是意识形态、观念、时代潜意识等。也就是说,透过“话语”,追究波兹曼进行“技术”言说的背景是什么,深挖其“言说”的主体。我们承认波兹曼是言说的主体,他受“技术论”先辈的影响,一个更为深藏的主体确是“时代话语”,这是一种时代的“潜意识”,笔者将其挖掘,进行细致分析探究波兹曼的“技术”言说的原因何在。这就构成了本文第一部分的内容。二是言说、建构。即波兹曼在其“三部曲”中是如何言说或者建构“技术”的。这是本文的第二部分内容,也是本文的主体部分;第三部分的内容仍然贯穿了“话语”理论,在研究方法上稍作变通,采用“比较”的方法,把“技术论”的“技术”话语和“文化选择论”的“技术”话语进行对比反思,前者认为“技术决定文化”(波兹曼的“技术”话语也是如此),技术对文化起到的作用是宰制统治。后者认为“技术论”完全否定了文化的基础作用,文化也可以作为一种物质基础,对技术产生“召唤”,不能否定文化的作用。笔者分析透彻两派的观点,最后落脚点回归波兹曼探讨的问题——技术与文化的关系问题。所以,本文以波兹曼的媒介技术论为代表,以“话语”理论贯穿全文,探究波兹曼悲观消极的“技术论”产生的知识谱系和时代话语。以波兹曼为代表,抛砖引玉,看“技术论”的观点,最后,通过比较“技术论”和“文化选择论”,辨思现代社会“技术”与“文化”的双向运动关系。
[Abstract]:In the era of big data, "information" is overflowing, the creation and dissemination of information can not be separated from the innovation of "technology". In recent years, "technology" has become more and more prominent in people's daily life. The software of "WeChat", "micro-blog", "QQ" and other information dissemination software have changed people's life more and more. Warmly welcome with a certain blindness, the dissemination of academic and literary and artistic circles have a profound understanding of "technology", or praise, or criticism. That is to say, "technology" is a double-edged sword, which is the common understanding of the people. But it is a problem which the theoreticians have studied by the theorists. Neil Bozeman is one of the theorists of the above problems. He has a pessimistic negative attitude to technology. The criticism of "media technology" by Boltzmann is mainly focused on its Trilogy (namely, "entertainment to death > < the death of childhood > < technical monopoly, culture to technical surrender >), and criticizes" electronic media technology "to politics, religion, news, The impact of childhood and other cultural fields. He is dead and dead on the shortcoming of "electronic media technology" and calls for people to protect "print culture". By combing Bozeman's "technology" discourse, he can clearly see a thread that runs through its theory: the relationship between media technology and culture. He always pays attention to "technology" to "culture". What is it? Whether it is the "printing" he admired, or the highly critical "electronic media technology" (represented by television), his definition of the relationship between the two is the decisive role of "media technology" to produce "prime" culture. The theorist of optimism, such as Mcluhan, has further explored the "technical" language of other "technical" people (such as Innis, Mcluhan, Melo Weitz) after the factional division of Boltzmann, which not only deepened my understanding of the "technical theory", but also as a word of the "technology" of the Boltzmann. The source of a knowledge pedigree. He himself called Mcluhan's child, only a disobedient child. His "technical" discourse was typical. His extreme negative pessimistic attitude did not inherit the "technical" predecessors, and analyzed the reasons with the "Discourse" theory. He was deeply "after the mass society". In the 70s of the.20 century, the "mass society" appeared and called "mass society". The "masses" here are called "the masses" in the mass society. "The public" gradually loses enthusiasm after the political participation of the state. They produce, publicize, enjoy the popular popular culture of entertainment, such a popular culture. The popular popularity has led to the overall occupation of the spiritual life of the social mass culture. Some members of the society are forced to be the recipients of the popular trend and pressure. "Entertaining" is a typical feature of "popular culture". In twentieth Century, the "post-modern" philosophy trend of thought rose up, and the representative figures were Nietzsche, Foucault and Heidegger. They began to reflect on "Modernity" and reflect on the society of "rationality", "science and technology", "orderly order", and the criticism of "electronic media technology" by Boltzmann, With the characteristics of "post modernity", even though he has always insisted that he is the defender of "Modernity", this article is always through the "Discourse" theory. Therefore, the author is necessary to explain the "Discourse" theory clearly. In this article, "Discourse" has two meanings, one is ideology, ideas, subconscious of the times and so on. That is to say, through "Discourse", what is the background of Bozeman's "technology" and the subject of his "speech", we admit that Bozeman is the main body of the words, that he is influenced by the forefathers of the "technical", and that a more deep subject is indeed the "time discourse", which is a "subconscious" of the times, and I dug it out. Dig, carry on the careful analysis and explore the reason why Bozeman's "technology" is in. This constitutes the content of the first part of this article. Two is the words and construction. That is, how Bozeman speaks or constructs "technology" in his "trilogy". This is the second part of this article, the main part of this article, and the content of the third part. It still runs through the theory of "Discourse", makes a slight change in the method of research, and compares the "technical" discourse with the "technical" discourse of "cultural choice theory" by means of "comparison". The former thinks that "technology determination culture" (Bozeman's "technical" discourse is also the same), technology plays a role in culture. The role is domination. The latter thinks that "technical theory" completely negates the basic role of culture. Culture can also be used as a material basis, to produce "call" to technology, and can not negate the role of culture. The author analyzes the views of the two schools and finally returns to the question of the relationship between technology and culture. Therefore, this paper, represented by Bozeman's theory of media technology, penetrates the full text with the theory of "Discourse" and explores the knowledge pedigree and time discourse produced by Bozeman's pessimistic and negative "technical theory". With Bozeman as the representative, it takes a brick and a brick to see the viewpoint of "technical theory", and finally, by comparing "technical" and "cultural choice theory", distinguishes it from the theory of "technology" and "cultural choice". Think about the two-way movement relationship between "technology" and "culture" in modern society.
【学位授予单位】：广西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：G206

【参考文献】