Sophie vs. the Machine: Neo-Luddism as Response to Technical-Colonial Corruption of the General Intellect

IF 1.1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Rhetoric Society Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-05-23 DOI:10.1080/02773945.2023.2200699
Jonathan S. Carter, Misti Yang
{"title":"Sophie vs. the Machine: Neo-Luddism as Response to Technical-Colonial Corruption of the General Intellect","authors":"Jonathan S. Carter, Misti Yang","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Historically, the commons is conceptually rooted in concerns over shared expertise derived from material resources. Contemporary understandings increasingly examine varied commons rooted in the general intellect—an affective and ideational production across people. Too often, this focus reduces technology to either a tool for, or impediment to, building and accessing robust commons, and overlooks the colonial inheritance of contemporary theory. As a corrective, we follow efforts to rehabilitate the Luddites as not antitechnology, but as technology ethicists, and theorize technology as a coproducer of the general intellect. Situating Sophie Zhang’s and others’ activism as exemplary of a productive neo-Luddism, we argue that technology constitutively remediates the general intellect and as such is central to the ethics of the commons. From this, we advance the argument that rhetorical sabotage is key to promoting a general intellect against the corporate interests and technical-colonialism too often coded into commons.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200699","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Historically, the commons is conceptually rooted in concerns over shared expertise derived from material resources. Contemporary understandings increasingly examine varied commons rooted in the general intellect—an affective and ideational production across people. Too often, this focus reduces technology to either a tool for, or impediment to, building and accessing robust commons, and overlooks the colonial inheritance of contemporary theory. As a corrective, we follow efforts to rehabilitate the Luddites as not antitechnology, but as technology ethicists, and theorize technology as a coproducer of the general intellect. Situating Sophie Zhang’s and others’ activism as exemplary of a productive neo-Luddism, we argue that technology constitutively remediates the general intellect and as such is central to the ethics of the commons. From this, we advance the argument that rhetorical sabotage is key to promoting a general intellect against the corporate interests and technical-colonialism too often coded into commons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苏菲与机器:新卢德主义对普通知识分子技术殖民腐败的回应
摘要从历史上看,公域在概念上植根于对物质资源共享专业知识的关注。当代的理解越来越多地考察植根于一般智力的各种共同点——一种跨人的情感和观念产物。这种关注往往将技术简化为建立和访问强大公共空间的工具或障碍,并忽视了当代理论的殖民继承。作为一种纠正,我们努力将卢德分子改造成技术伦理学家,而不是反技术分子,并将技术理论化为普通智力的共同创造者。将张等人的激进主义视为富有成效的新卢德主义的典范,我们认为技术构成了对一般智力的补救,因此是公共伦理的核心。从这一点出发,我们提出了这样一个论点,即修辞破坏是促进反对企业利益和技术殖民主义的普遍智慧的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
What Can a Body Do?: How We Meet the Built World A Forum on Neurorhetorics: Conscious of the Past, Mindful of the Future Nestwork: New Material Rhetorics for Precarious Species Ambient Engineering: Hyper-Nudging, Hyper-Relevance, and Rhetorics of Nearness and Farness in a Post-AI Algorithmic World Conspiracy Theater of the Absurd: “Birds Aren’t Real” as Parodic Hypermimesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1