{"title":"书评:十字路口的人文:对理论、文化和抵抗的反思","authors":"Ganeshdatta Poddar","doi":"10.1177/17438721221107184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"analytically. Engaging with the work of Bennett would have only, as I see it, enhanced DeBrabander’s critical treatment of privacy. Second, I found the crescendo of the argument a little disappointing. This ground has already been covered. For example, in Emergent Publics: An Essay on Social Movements and Democracy (Arbeiter Ring, 2001), Ian Angus writes about critical publics or emergent publics, and the importance of public life and public interest in the public sphere. DeBrabander does not take these ideas further. Instead, he offers a convoluted set of claims about democracy in the digital age, similar to those that some scholars drawing from Habermas have offered in the last two decades. Thus, how to make the digital sphere a place of deliberation rather than hate and disinformation is not a question the book answers in any meaningful way. Third, no other alternatives or new concepts are offered. For instance, in Radical Secrecy: The Ends of Transparency in Datafied America (University of Minnesota Press, 2021), Clare Birchall argues we should reject the notion of privacy as well as transparency. What is needed for social and political change, she claims, is an embracing of radical secrecy. I have my own problems with Birchall’s argument and how tenable cutting one’s self off from data and information is. However, at least some kind of alternative is proposed. At the end of the day, I am not sure what DeBrabander’s alternative is other than pointing back to digital democracy and the importance of the public sphere. Nonetheless, these are important discussions and ideas for navigating surveillance, privacy, and politics today. DeBrabander summarizes them well. For that reason, the book should be widely read in political science, sociology, surveillance studies, privacy studies, and beyond.","PeriodicalId":43886,"journal":{"name":"Law Culture and the Humanities","volume":"18 1","pages":"519 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: Humanities at the Crossroads: Reflections on Theory, Culture and Resistance\",\"authors\":\"Ganeshdatta Poddar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17438721221107184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"analytically. Engaging with the work of Bennett would have only, as I see it, enhanced DeBrabander’s critical treatment of privacy. Second, I found the crescendo of the argument a little disappointing. This ground has already been covered. For example, in Emergent Publics: An Essay on Social Movements and Democracy (Arbeiter Ring, 2001), Ian Angus writes about critical publics or emergent publics, and the importance of public life and public interest in the public sphere. DeBrabander does not take these ideas further. Instead, he offers a convoluted set of claims about democracy in the digital age, similar to those that some scholars drawing from Habermas have offered in the last two decades. Thus, how to make the digital sphere a place of deliberation rather than hate and disinformation is not a question the book answers in any meaningful way. Third, no other alternatives or new concepts are offered. For instance, in Radical Secrecy: The Ends of Transparency in Datafied America (University of Minnesota Press, 2021), Clare Birchall argues we should reject the notion of privacy as well as transparency. What is needed for social and political change, she claims, is an embracing of radical secrecy. I have my own problems with Birchall’s argument and how tenable cutting one’s self off from data and information is. However, at least some kind of alternative is proposed. At the end of the day, I am not sure what DeBrabander’s alternative is other than pointing back to digital democracy and the importance of the public sphere. Nonetheless, these are important discussions and ideas for navigating surveillance, privacy, and politics today. DeBrabander summarizes them well. For that reason, the book should be widely read in political science, sociology, surveillance studies, privacy studies, and beyond.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Culture and the Humanities\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"519 - 521\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Culture and the Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721221107184\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Culture and the Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721221107184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Book Review: Humanities at the Crossroads: Reflections on Theory, Culture and Resistance
analytically. Engaging with the work of Bennett would have only, as I see it, enhanced DeBrabander’s critical treatment of privacy. Second, I found the crescendo of the argument a little disappointing. This ground has already been covered. For example, in Emergent Publics: An Essay on Social Movements and Democracy (Arbeiter Ring, 2001), Ian Angus writes about critical publics or emergent publics, and the importance of public life and public interest in the public sphere. DeBrabander does not take these ideas further. Instead, he offers a convoluted set of claims about democracy in the digital age, similar to those that some scholars drawing from Habermas have offered in the last two decades. Thus, how to make the digital sphere a place of deliberation rather than hate and disinformation is not a question the book answers in any meaningful way. Third, no other alternatives or new concepts are offered. For instance, in Radical Secrecy: The Ends of Transparency in Datafied America (University of Minnesota Press, 2021), Clare Birchall argues we should reject the notion of privacy as well as transparency. What is needed for social and political change, she claims, is an embracing of radical secrecy. I have my own problems with Birchall’s argument and how tenable cutting one’s self off from data and information is. However, at least some kind of alternative is proposed. At the end of the day, I am not sure what DeBrabander’s alternative is other than pointing back to digital democracy and the importance of the public sphere. Nonetheless, these are important discussions and ideas for navigating surveillance, privacy, and politics today. DeBrabander summarizes them well. For that reason, the book should be widely read in political science, sociology, surveillance studies, privacy studies, and beyond.
期刊介绍:
Our mission is to publish high quality work at the intersection of scholarship on law, culture, and the humanities. All commentaries, articles and review essays are peer reviewed. We provide a publishing vehicle for scholars engaged in interdisciplinary, humanistically oriented legal scholarship. We publish a wide range of scholarship in legal history, legal theory and jurisprudence, law and cultural studies, law and literature, and legal hermeneutics.