但我不是偏执狂!

Gopinaath Kannabiran
{"title":"但我不是偏执狂!","authors":"Gopinaath Kannabiran","doi":"10.1145/3588997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The above Tamil adage roughly translates to “Every shadow is a ghost to the eyes that hold fear!” To dismiss someone’s fear as paranoia is a contention for power about what can be admitted as “reasonable” while persuading others. Therefore, an ethical consideration of paranoia behooves us to ask who benefits from dismissing others’ fears and how such reasoning is enmeshed within design discourses. Expanding beyond a pathologizing conceptualization, I explore paranoia as a sociotechnical episteme—a way of knowing and making sense—that can offer a multitude of competing explanations and speculative expressions that arise out of suspicion. John Farrell offers a genealogy of suspicion in modern Western thought and characterizes paranoia as “a psychological tendency in which the intellectual powers of the sufferer are neither entirely undermined nor completely cut off from reality, but rather deployed with a particular distortion” [2]. Paranoid thinking deserves careful consideration because it cannot be readily dismissed as persecutory delusions of an individual. Farrell argues that “modern people identify with the paranoid character [because they] feel the need to account for their individual and collective failures, to set their own lives meaningfully in the context of their moral relations with others” [2]. Paranoia then can be characterized as an Other-oriented episteme that is inherently relational. Made manifest and mediated through a sociotechnical matrix of interactions, paranoid thinking becomes a form of “group thinking” that involves an orienting belief about “possessing a special insight into the epistemologies of enmity” [1]. Ieva Jusionyte and Daniel M. Goldstein illustrate “the multiple and shifting intersections of in/visibility and in/ security in today’s security-minded world” [3]. They assert that “paranoid concealment and creative camouflage are the modi operandi of contemporary security regimes, and the ability to manipulate visibility and to penetrate the opaque are key techno-discursive components of ongoing state projects of security” [3]. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun provocatively states, “To be paranoid is to think like a machine” [4]. Thus, to leave no stone unturned is a machine-logic response to perceived threat. We use digital vaccine passports that determine how human bodies can move across human-made borders and There was no place for him to go. No place he could hide. No place where his enemy didn’t exist. No escape from unconscious wakefulness. There was no rest. And so he just lay there with the nauseous pain of exhaustion.... Yet it was this constant and all-pervading pain that seemed to allow him to survive for without it the overwhelming anguish and terror of his mind would have destroyed him. — Hubert Selby Jr. (The Room, 1971)","PeriodicalId":73404,"journal":{"name":"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)","volume":" ","pages":"18 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"But I'm Not Paranoid!\",\"authors\":\"Gopinaath Kannabiran\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3588997\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The above Tamil adage roughly translates to “Every shadow is a ghost to the eyes that hold fear!” To dismiss someone’s fear as paranoia is a contention for power about what can be admitted as “reasonable” while persuading others. Therefore, an ethical consideration of paranoia behooves us to ask who benefits from dismissing others’ fears and how such reasoning is enmeshed within design discourses. Expanding beyond a pathologizing conceptualization, I explore paranoia as a sociotechnical episteme—a way of knowing and making sense—that can offer a multitude of competing explanations and speculative expressions that arise out of suspicion. John Farrell offers a genealogy of suspicion in modern Western thought and characterizes paranoia as “a psychological tendency in which the intellectual powers of the sufferer are neither entirely undermined nor completely cut off from reality, but rather deployed with a particular distortion” [2]. Paranoid thinking deserves careful consideration because it cannot be readily dismissed as persecutory delusions of an individual. Farrell argues that “modern people identify with the paranoid character [because they] feel the need to account for their individual and collective failures, to set their own lives meaningfully in the context of their moral relations with others” [2]. Paranoia then can be characterized as an Other-oriented episteme that is inherently relational. Made manifest and mediated through a sociotechnical matrix of interactions, paranoid thinking becomes a form of “group thinking” that involves an orienting belief about “possessing a special insight into the epistemologies of enmity” [1]. Ieva Jusionyte and Daniel M. Goldstein illustrate “the multiple and shifting intersections of in/visibility and in/ security in today’s security-minded world” [3]. They assert that “paranoid concealment and creative camouflage are the modi operandi of contemporary security regimes, and the ability to manipulate visibility and to penetrate the opaque are key techno-discursive components of ongoing state projects of security” [3]. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun provocatively states, “To be paranoid is to think like a machine” [4]. Thus, to leave no stone unturned is a machine-logic response to perceived threat. We use digital vaccine passports that determine how human bodies can move across human-made borders and There was no place for him to go. No place he could hide. No place where his enemy didn’t exist. No escape from unconscious wakefulness. There was no rest. And so he just lay there with the nauseous pain of exhaustion.... Yet it was this constant and all-pervading pain that seemed to allow him to survive for without it the overwhelming anguish and terror of his mind would have destroyed him. — Hubert Selby Jr. (The Room, 1971)\",\"PeriodicalId\":73404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"18 - 20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3588997\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3588997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

上面的泰米尔语格言大致翻译为“每一个阴影对恐惧的眼睛来说都是一个幽灵!”将某人的恐惧视为偏执狂,是在说服他人的同时,对什么可以被承认为“合理”的权力的争夺。因此,对偏执狂的伦理考虑让我们有责任问,谁从消除他人的恐惧中受益,以及这种推理是如何融入设计话语的。超越病理化的概念化,我探索偏执狂作为一种社会技术认识论——一种了解和理解的方式——它可以提供大量相互竞争的解释和出于怀疑而产生的推测性表达。约翰·法雷尔(John Farrell)提出了现代西方思想中的怀疑谱系,并将妄想症描述为“一种心理倾向,在这种倾向中,患者的智力既没有被完全削弱,也没有与现实完全隔绝,而是以一种特殊的扭曲来部署”[2]。偏执思维值得仔细考虑,因为它不能轻易被视为个人的迫害妄想。法雷尔认为,“现代人认同偏执狂的性格,[因为]他们觉得有必要为自己的个人和集体失败负责,在与他人的道德关系中有意义地设定自己的生活”[2]。偏执狂可以被描述为一种内在关系的、面向他人的认识论。偏执思维通过互动的社会技术矩阵表现和中介,成为“群体思维”的一种形式,涉及一种关于“对敌意的认识论有特殊见解”的定向信念[1]。Ieva Jusionyte和Daniel M.Goldstein阐述了“在当今具有安全意识的世界中,in/visibility和in/security的多重交叉点和不断变化的交叉点”[3]。他们断言,“偏执的隐蔽和创造性的伪装是当代安全制度的运作方式,操纵可见性和穿透不透明的能力是正在进行的国家安全项目的关键技术讨论组成部分”[3]。Wendy Hui Kyong Chun挑衅地说:“偏执就是像机器一样思考”[4]。因此,想尽一切办法是对感知到的威胁的机器逻辑反应。我们使用数字疫苗护照来确定人体如何跨越人造边界,他无处可去。他无法藏身。没有一个地方不存在他的敌人。无法摆脱无意识的清醒。没有休息。所以他躺在那里,忍受着疲惫的恶心疼痛。。。。然而,正是这种持续的、无处不在的痛苦似乎让他得以生存,因为如果没有它,他内心的巨大痛苦和恐惧就会摧毁他小休伯特·塞尔比(《房间》,1971年)
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
But I'm Not Paranoid!
The above Tamil adage roughly translates to “Every shadow is a ghost to the eyes that hold fear!” To dismiss someone’s fear as paranoia is a contention for power about what can be admitted as “reasonable” while persuading others. Therefore, an ethical consideration of paranoia behooves us to ask who benefits from dismissing others’ fears and how such reasoning is enmeshed within design discourses. Expanding beyond a pathologizing conceptualization, I explore paranoia as a sociotechnical episteme—a way of knowing and making sense—that can offer a multitude of competing explanations and speculative expressions that arise out of suspicion. John Farrell offers a genealogy of suspicion in modern Western thought and characterizes paranoia as “a psychological tendency in which the intellectual powers of the sufferer are neither entirely undermined nor completely cut off from reality, but rather deployed with a particular distortion” [2]. Paranoid thinking deserves careful consideration because it cannot be readily dismissed as persecutory delusions of an individual. Farrell argues that “modern people identify with the paranoid character [because they] feel the need to account for their individual and collective failures, to set their own lives meaningfully in the context of their moral relations with others” [2]. Paranoia then can be characterized as an Other-oriented episteme that is inherently relational. Made manifest and mediated through a sociotechnical matrix of interactions, paranoid thinking becomes a form of “group thinking” that involves an orienting belief about “possessing a special insight into the epistemologies of enmity” [1]. Ieva Jusionyte and Daniel M. Goldstein illustrate “the multiple and shifting intersections of in/visibility and in/ security in today’s security-minded world” [3]. They assert that “paranoid concealment and creative camouflage are the modi operandi of contemporary security regimes, and the ability to manipulate visibility and to penetrate the opaque are key techno-discursive components of ongoing state projects of security” [3]. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun provocatively states, “To be paranoid is to think like a machine” [4]. Thus, to leave no stone unturned is a machine-logic response to perceived threat. We use digital vaccine passports that determine how human bodies can move across human-made borders and There was no place for him to go. No place he could hide. No place where his enemy didn’t exist. No escape from unconscious wakefulness. There was no rest. And so he just lay there with the nauseous pain of exhaustion.... Yet it was this constant and all-pervading pain that seemed to allow him to survive for without it the overwhelming anguish and terror of his mind would have destroyed him. — Hubert Selby Jr. (The Room, 1971)
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Jie Li Memory Bites: From Earth to Space and Back Money as an Interface Out in the Cold: Recalcitrant Robots Building Dreams Beyond Labor: Worker Autonomy in the Age of AI
×
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