共同体与技术批判:一个基本概念的修正主义阐释

Q1 Social Sciences Capitalism, Nature, Socialism Pub Date : 2021-04-23 DOI:10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198
Clayton Fordahl
{"title":"共同体与技术批判:一个基本概念的修正主义阐释","authors":"Clayton Fordahl","doi":"10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Though the concept of community has been of central concern to the social sciences and social theory since the 19th century, it has also been a frequent target of criticism. Community is often accused of being a vague and sentimental concept. These criticisms are often accompanied by the claim that sociologists and social theorists have used the concept of community to cloak their political agendas. This article compares a range of radical, classical social theorists on three topics that intersect with discussions of community in the classical and contemporary periods: place, pace, and power. This comparison suggests that while the community concept in classical theory was sentimental in nature, it was also used to critique specific technological developments, from the rise of railways to the spread of industrial manufacturing. This revisionist reading of the concept of community achieves three things for contemporary radical theory: (1) it suggests that technological change should be at the center of social critique; (2) it demonstrates the interdependence of technology with other macro-historical social changes; and (3) it offers a model of how a sentimental concept can be used to develop critical and theoretical accounts of technological change.","PeriodicalId":39549,"journal":{"name":"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community and the Critique of Technology: A Revisionist Account of an Essential Concept\",\"authors\":\"Clayton Fordahl\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Though the concept of community has been of central concern to the social sciences and social theory since the 19th century, it has also been a frequent target of criticism. Community is often accused of being a vague and sentimental concept. These criticisms are often accompanied by the claim that sociologists and social theorists have used the concept of community to cloak their political agendas. This article compares a range of radical, classical social theorists on three topics that intersect with discussions of community in the classical and contemporary periods: place, pace, and power. This comparison suggests that while the community concept in classical theory was sentimental in nature, it was also used to critique specific technological developments, from the rise of railways to the spread of industrial manufacturing. This revisionist reading of the concept of community achieves three things for contemporary radical theory: (1) it suggests that technological change should be at the center of social critique; (2) it demonstrates the interdependence of technology with other macro-historical social changes; and (3) it offers a model of how a sentimental concept can be used to develop critical and theoretical accounts of technological change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2021.1918198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自19世纪以来,社区概念一直是社会科学和社会理论关注的中心问题,但它也经常成为批评的对象。社区经常被指责为一个模糊和多愁善感的概念。这些批评常常伴随着这样的说法,即社会学家和社会理论家利用社区的概念来掩盖他们的政治议程。这篇文章比较了一系列激进的古典社会理论家关于三个主题的讨论,这些主题与古典和当代社区的讨论相交:地点、速度和权力。这种比较表明,虽然古典理论中的社区概念本质上是感性的,但它也被用来批评具体的技术发展,从铁路的兴起到工业制造业的传播。这种对共同体概念的修正主义解读为当代激进理论实现了三件事:(1)它表明技术变革应该是社会批判的中心;(2)展示了技术与其他宏观历史社会变迁的相互依存关系;(3)它提供了一个模型,说明如何使用情感概念来发展对技术变革的批判和理论描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Community and the Critique of Technology: A Revisionist Account of an Essential Concept
ABSTRACT Though the concept of community has been of central concern to the social sciences and social theory since the 19th century, it has also been a frequent target of criticism. Community is often accused of being a vague and sentimental concept. These criticisms are often accompanied by the claim that sociologists and social theorists have used the concept of community to cloak their political agendas. This article compares a range of radical, classical social theorists on three topics that intersect with discussions of community in the classical and contemporary periods: place, pace, and power. This comparison suggests that while the community concept in classical theory was sentimental in nature, it was also used to critique specific technological developments, from the rise of railways to the spread of industrial manufacturing. This revisionist reading of the concept of community achieves three things for contemporary radical theory: (1) it suggests that technological change should be at the center of social critique; (2) it demonstrates the interdependence of technology with other macro-historical social changes; and (3) it offers a model of how a sentimental concept can be used to develop critical and theoretical accounts of technological change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: CNS is a journal of ecosocialism. We welcome submissions on red-green politics and the anti-globalization movement; environmental history; workplace labor struggles; land/community struggles; political economy of ecology; and other themes in political ecology. CNS especially wants to join (relate) discourses on labor, feminist, and environmental movements, and theories of political ecology and radical democracy. Works on ecology and socialism are particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
The Political Implications of Unequal Exchange: Towards a Common Agenda for Global Social Movements State of Exception, Necropolitics, and Puerto Rico: Naturalizing Disaster and Naturalizing Difference The Quest for Revolutionary Love: John P. Clark Interviews Javier Sethness about Queer Tolstoy Beyond Trash and Garbage: Shifting Perspectives on Discard Discard studies: wasting, systems, and power , Max Liboiron and Josh Lepawsky, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2022, 212 pages, $30 (paperback), ISBN: 9780262543651 Rooted-South Feminisms: Disobedient Epistemologies and Transformative Politics
×
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