“Living Document”: From Documents to Documentality, from Mimesis to Performative Indexicality

Q3 Arts and Humanities Proceedings from the Document Academy Pub Date : 2021-12-15 DOI:10.35492/docam/8/2/15
R. Day
{"title":"“Living Document”: From Documents to Documentality, from Mimesis to Performative Indexicality","authors":"R. Day","doi":"10.35492/docam/8/2/15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, in distinction to documentation as an epistemic understanding of documents, I will discuss the epistemology of documentality as an indexical theory of documental functions, which I will develop through Bruno Latour’s notion of information. This notion of indexicality is different than Suzanne Briet’s notion of indexicality (which I have discussed elsewhere (Briet, 2006)). I will begin this paper with an historical problem that illustrates the issues of viewing documents as content representation. This is the problem identified by Vincent Debaene (Debaene, 2014) in early and mid-twentieth century French field anthropology of the “two book” phenomenon, which attempted to address a perceived epistemic distance between lived experience and its representation through scientific documents. The solution to this problem of presence and representation was the writing and publication by French anthroplogists of a second, more literary, document after the production of the scientific paper or book, which supposedly represented the experience of the anthropologist and the group under study more fully. I will argue that both texts, however, followed genre conventions and practices, which are neither more or less faithful to an original experience. I will argue that the notion of an original experience reflected in the content of the text misses the performatively indexical relationship of text to world and the role that this plays in scientific and other forms of documentality. In short, what Vincent Debaene identified as the French anthropologists’ quest for producing a “living documents,” which closes the gap between life and documental representation, is a Quixotic task, since the problem is not real but rather is a product of the epistemology of re-presentation, which forecloses from our understanding what really happens with scientific and other documents.","PeriodicalId":36214,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings from the Document Academy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings from the Document Academy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35492/docam/8/2/15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, in distinction to documentation as an epistemic understanding of documents, I will discuss the epistemology of documentality as an indexical theory of documental functions, which I will develop through Bruno Latour’s notion of information. This notion of indexicality is different than Suzanne Briet’s notion of indexicality (which I have discussed elsewhere (Briet, 2006)). I will begin this paper with an historical problem that illustrates the issues of viewing documents as content representation. This is the problem identified by Vincent Debaene (Debaene, 2014) in early and mid-twentieth century French field anthropology of the “two book” phenomenon, which attempted to address a perceived epistemic distance between lived experience and its representation through scientific documents. The solution to this problem of presence and representation was the writing and publication by French anthroplogists of a second, more literary, document after the production of the scientific paper or book, which supposedly represented the experience of the anthropologist and the group under study more fully. I will argue that both texts, however, followed genre conventions and practices, which are neither more or less faithful to an original experience. I will argue that the notion of an original experience reflected in the content of the text misses the performatively indexical relationship of text to world and the role that this plays in scientific and other forms of documentality. In short, what Vincent Debaene identified as the French anthropologists’ quest for producing a “living documents,” which closes the gap between life and documental representation, is a Quixotic task, since the problem is not real but rather is a product of the epistemology of re-presentation, which forecloses from our understanding what really happens with scientific and other documents.
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
“活文献”:从文献到文献性,从模仿到表现性索引性
在本文中,与文献作为文献的认识论理解不同,我将讨论文献性认识论作为文献功能的索引理论,我将通过布鲁诺·拉图尔的信息概念来发展它。这种索引性的概念不同于苏珊娜·布里特的索引性概念(我在其他地方讨论过(布里特,2006))。我将以一个历史问题开始本文,该问题说明了将文档视为内容表示的问题。这是Vincent Debaene (Debaene, 2014)在二十世纪早期和中期的法国田野人类学“两本书”现象中发现的问题,他试图通过科学文献解决生活经验与其表征之间的认知距离。解决这个存在和表现问题的办法是,法国人类学家在发表科学论文或书籍之后,撰写并出版了第二份更具文学性的文件,据称这些文件更充分地代表了人类学家和被研究群体的经历。我想说的是,这两种文本都遵循了类型惯例和惯例,这并没有多少忠实于原始体验。我认为,反映在文本内容中的原始体验的概念错过了文本与世界的表现索引关系以及它在科学和其他形式的文献中所起的作用。简而言之,文森特·德巴纳(Vincent Debaene)所认定的法国人类学家对生产“活文献”的追求,即缩小生活与文献再现之间的差距,是一项不切实际的任务,因为这个问题不是真实的,而是再现的认识论的产物,它阻止了我们对科学文献和其他文献真正发生的事情的理解。
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
Proceedings from the Document Academy
Proceedings from the Document Academy Arts and Humanities-Conservation
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
This Sounds Like an Episode of The X-Files: Analyzing How Twitter Users Interpreted the COVID-19 Pandemic through the Lens of Sci-Fi Television "i’m mixing comic book canon and mcu canon to suit my own needs": Information Sharing as Community Building in a Fandom in Flux Fandom, Fanzines, and Archiving Science Fiction Fannish History The Library Wants to Kill You: Places of Information as Battleground and Sanctum in Halo Halliday Journals and Holodecks: Audiences and Information in Sci-Fi Fandoms: Papers from the FanLIS 2023 Symposium
×
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