书评:十字路口的人文:对理论、文化和抵抗的反思

Ganeshdatta Poddar
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分析。在我看来,参与贝内特的工作只会加强德布拉班德对隐私的批判性处理。其次,我发现争论的高潮有点令人失望。这块地已经被覆盖了。例如,在《新兴公众:论社会运动与民主》(Arbeiter Ring, 2001)一书中,伊恩·安格斯(Ian Angus)论述了批判性公众或新兴公众,以及公共生活和公共利益在公共领域的重要性。DeBrabander并没有进一步阐述这些观点。相反,他提出了一套关于数字时代民主的复杂主张,类似于过去20年一些学者借鉴哈贝马斯的观点。因此,如何让数字世界成为一个讨论的地方,而不是一个充满仇恨和虚假信息的地方,这本书并没有以任何有意义的方式回答这个问题。第三,没有提供其他替代方案或新概念。例如,在《彻底保密:数据化美国透明度的终结》(明尼苏达大学出版社,2021年)一书中,克莱尔·伯查尔认为我们应该拒绝隐私和透明度的概念。她声称,社会和政治变革所需要的是拥抱彻底的保密。对于Birchall的观点,我也有自己的问题,以及把自己与数据和信息隔离开来的做法有多站得住脚。然而,至少有人提出了某种替代方案。在一天结束的时候,我不确定DeBrabander的替代方案是什么,除了指向数字民主和公共领域的重要性。尽管如此,这些都是对当今监控、隐私和政治导航的重要讨论和想法。DeBrabander总结得很好。因此,这本书应该在政治学、社会学、监控研究、隐私研究等领域广泛阅读。
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
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.
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
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.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: The Living from the Dead: Disaffirming Biopolitics Book Review: King Leopold’s Ghostwriter: The Creation of Persons and States in the Nineteenth Century Book Review: The Pen, The Sword, and the Law: Dueling and Democracy in Uruguay Book Review: Earthbound: The Aesthetics of Sovereignty in the Anthropocene Diagnosing Dignity’s De-Realization: Lessons From The ‘Laws Of Captivity’ Thesis
×
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