Massive Deception Masquerading as Information and Communication: A (largely) Derridean Perspective

IF 0.7 0 PHILOSOPHY Phronimon Pub Date : 2022-05-30 DOI:10.25159/2413-3086/10811
B. Olivier
{"title":"Massive Deception Masquerading as Information and Communication: A (largely) Derridean Perspective","authors":"B. Olivier","doi":"10.25159/2413-3086/10811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We live in a time of major events in civilisational history, currently centred on the so-called Covid-19 “pandemic.” In this global context, contemporary people are at the mercy, largely, of powerful media companies that disseminate officially sanctioned news and opinion pieces about all aspects pertaining to the “pandemic.” The very same thing that makes this mainstream media hegemony possible, however, namely the Internet, also allows alternative news sources to circulate censored news and critical opinion so that one witnesses an information and communication-divide on a scale never seen before in history. This paper sets out to reconstruct this information and communication chasm with reference to representative instances of each of the adversarial sides in what may be called a “war of information” and attempts to make this intelligible by interpreting these mainly through the theoretical lens of Jacques Derrida, supplemented by a coda enlisting Jürgen Habermas’s work on communication. While the latter does foresee the possibility of authentic communication (“communicative action”) despite the constant spectre of miscommunication (“strategic action”), Derrida is less optimistic about this. Instead, taking his cue from Joyce’s Ulysses, he insists that the very means of “reaching” the other in the act of communicating are also, ineluctably, the means for failing to reach them, and that “receiving” a message from someone can thus either result in a mechanical repetition of the message, or a paradoxical “repeating differently.” Moreover, elsewhere he indicates the paradoxical implications of a change of “context” as far as an utterance is concerned. This difference between these two thinkers allows one to get an intellectual grip on the situation unfolding in the world in 2021–2022; a world of ubiquitous information exchanges, implicitly claiming to be communicational exchanges. More specifically, Derrida and Habermas equip one with the communication-theoretical means to ascertain what this plethora of information exchanges amounts to.","PeriodicalId":42048,"journal":{"name":"Phronimon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phronimon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2413-3086/10811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

We live in a time of major events in civilisational history, currently centred on the so-called Covid-19 “pandemic.” In this global context, contemporary people are at the mercy, largely, of powerful media companies that disseminate officially sanctioned news and opinion pieces about all aspects pertaining to the “pandemic.” The very same thing that makes this mainstream media hegemony possible, however, namely the Internet, also allows alternative news sources to circulate censored news and critical opinion so that one witnesses an information and communication-divide on a scale never seen before in history. This paper sets out to reconstruct this information and communication chasm with reference to representative instances of each of the adversarial sides in what may be called a “war of information” and attempts to make this intelligible by interpreting these mainly through the theoretical lens of Jacques Derrida, supplemented by a coda enlisting Jürgen Habermas’s work on communication. While the latter does foresee the possibility of authentic communication (“communicative action”) despite the constant spectre of miscommunication (“strategic action”), Derrida is less optimistic about this. Instead, taking his cue from Joyce’s Ulysses, he insists that the very means of “reaching” the other in the act of communicating are also, ineluctably, the means for failing to reach them, and that “receiving” a message from someone can thus either result in a mechanical repetition of the message, or a paradoxical “repeating differently.” Moreover, elsewhere he indicates the paradoxical implications of a change of “context” as far as an utterance is concerned. This difference between these two thinkers allows one to get an intellectual grip on the situation unfolding in the world in 2021–2022; a world of ubiquitous information exchanges, implicitly claiming to be communicational exchanges. More specifically, Derrida and Habermas equip one with the communication-theoretical means to ascertain what this plethora of information exchanges amounts to.
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
伪装成信息和交流的大规模欺骗:一个(很大程度上)Derridean的视角
我们生活在一个文明史上发生重大事件的时代,目前的中心是所谓的Covid-19“大流行”。在这种全球背景下,当代人在很大程度上受到强大媒体公司的摆布,这些媒体公司传播官方批准的关于“大流行”各个方面的新闻和观点。然而,使这种主流媒体霸权成为可能的同一件事,即互联网,也允许其他新闻来源传播经过审查的新闻和批评意见,因此人们目睹了历史上从未见过的规模的信息和交流鸿沟。本文通过参考可称为“信息战”的敌对双方的代表性实例,着手重建这种信息和通信鸿沟,并试图通过主要通过雅克·德里达的理论镜头来解释这些,并辅以j根·哈贝马斯关于通信的工作,从而使这种鸿沟变得容易理解。虽然后者确实预见了真实沟通的可能性(“沟通行动”),尽管不断出现沟通不端的幽灵(“战略行动”),德里达对此并不乐观。相反,他从乔伊斯的《尤利西斯》(Ulysses)中得到启示,坚持认为,在交流行为中“接触”他人的手段,也不可避免地是无法接触到他们的手段,因此,“接受”某人的信息,要么导致信息的机械重复,要么是矛盾的“不同的重复”。此外,他在其他地方指出,就话语而言,“语境”变化的矛盾含义。这两位思想家之间的差异使人们能够对2021-2022年的世界形势有一个理智的把握;一个无处不在的信息交换的世界,含蓄地声称是通信交换。更具体地说,德里达和哈贝马斯为人们提供了交流理论手段,以确定这种过多的信息交换意味着什么。
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
Phronimon
Phronimon PHILOSOPHY-
自引率
25.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Environmental Racism in Nigeria’s Niger Delta: An Ethical Appraisal Copyright Law and the Ruse of Culture: ‘Traditional Cultural Expressions and Expressions of Folklore’ as a Conception of Racial Difference Reproducing the Conqueror’s South Africa: An Azanian Critique of the Constitutionalist Endorsement of Assisted Reproductive and Reprogenetic Technologies The Evolution of Constitutionalism in Conqueror South Africa. Was Jan Smuts Right? An Ubu-ntu Response Who Must Lead Decoloniality: A Practical Theological Interrogation on the Possible Qualification to Lead Decolonisation: A South African Study
×
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