Consensual attending

IF 1.2 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Nathaniel A. Rivers
{"title":"Consensual attending","authors":"Nathaniel A. Rivers","doi":"10.1177/2057047320950629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Consensual attending addresses the ecological and relational conditions in which any act of assent or dissent materializes. I argue that consent is not an act undertaken by individuals, but is a relational endeavor that individuates. Any solitary act of assent—of thinking, perceiving, feeling—is predicated upon prior and ongoing consensual acts. The terms of consensual attending modulate one another: consensual distributes attention beyond the individual and attending intensifies the consensual in marking how our joint and collective attention individuates us as sensing beings. Consensual attending is predicated not upon individual rhetorical acts of assent but ambient formations in which rhetorical capacities emerge. To arrive at such a consent, I retune William James’ articulation of attention as a function of agreement by looking toward ecologies of attention. This retuning necessarily entails thinking through the ethical and political implications of consensual attending in our present political moment, wherein the virality of #resist and #metoo registers anxiety about our individual and collective (in)capacities to dis/agree. I engage feminist scholarship on consent in the context of sexual relations in thinking through the contextual composition of consent. Thinking through scholarship on sexual consent complicates consensual attending, and addressing sexual consent itself serves as an example of the trouble lurking in the reduction of consent to assent. Such a reduction leaves unaddressed the ecologies in which such collective capacities are composed. I conclude by returning to attention in order to speculate how such consensual capacities might be composed.","PeriodicalId":44233,"journal":{"name":"Communication and the Public","volume":"5 1","pages":"55 - 64"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057047320950629","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and the Public","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047320950629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Consensual attending addresses the ecological and relational conditions in which any act of assent or dissent materializes. I argue that consent is not an act undertaken by individuals, but is a relational endeavor that individuates. Any solitary act of assent—of thinking, perceiving, feeling—is predicated upon prior and ongoing consensual acts. The terms of consensual attending modulate one another: consensual distributes attention beyond the individual and attending intensifies the consensual in marking how our joint and collective attention individuates us as sensing beings. Consensual attending is predicated not upon individual rhetorical acts of assent but ambient formations in which rhetorical capacities emerge. To arrive at such a consent, I retune William James’ articulation of attention as a function of agreement by looking toward ecologies of attention. This retuning necessarily entails thinking through the ethical and political implications of consensual attending in our present political moment, wherein the virality of #resist and #metoo registers anxiety about our individual and collective (in)capacities to dis/agree. I engage feminist scholarship on consent in the context of sexual relations in thinking through the contextual composition of consent. Thinking through scholarship on sexual consent complicates consensual attending, and addressing sexual consent itself serves as an example of the trouble lurking in the reduction of consent to assent. Such a reduction leaves unaddressed the ecologies in which such collective capacities are composed. I conclude by returning to attention in order to speculate how such consensual capacities might be composed.
同意出席
双方同意的出席解决了生态和关系条件,其中任何同意或不同意见的行为具体化。我认为同意不是个人的行为,而是一种个性化的关系努力。任何单独的同意行为——思考、感知、感觉——都是基于先前和正在进行的双方同意的行为。自愿性参与的术语相互调节:自愿性将注意力分配到个人之外,而参与强化了自愿性,标志着我们的共同和集体注意力如何将我们作为感知生物个体化。双方同意的参与不是基于个人的同意的修辞行为,而是基于修辞能力出现的环境形成。为了达成这样的共识,我通过关注生态,将威廉·詹姆斯的注意力作为一种共识的功能加以阐述。这种回归必然需要思考在我们当前的政治时刻,自愿参加的伦理和政治含义,其中,#抵抗和#我也是的病毒式传播表明了我们对个人和集体(在)能力上不同意/不同意的焦虑。我在两性关系的背景下研究同意的女权主义学术通过思考同意的语境构成。通过对性同意的学术思考,使双方同意的参与变得复杂,而处理性同意本身就是一个例子,说明了从同意到同意的减少中潜藏着的麻烦。这种减少没有处理构成这种集体能力的生态。最后,我回到注意力上来,以便推测这种双方同意的能力是如何形成的。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
2.80%
发文量
13
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信