除以0。《无名氏》自述中的重言与悖论

Davide Beraldo
{"title":"除以0。《无名氏》自述中的重言与悖论","authors":"Davide Beraldo","doi":"10.26754/OJS_JOS/JOS.202014246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper engages with the loosely bounded, ill-defined Anonymous movement, in order to develop a theoretical reflection on the process of self-reference within contemporary collectives. It is grounded on a socio-cybernetic framework and builds on a computationallly-assisted interpretative analysis of a huge dataset of Facebook posts related to Anonymous’ self-descriptions. As selected examples show, Anonymous results inherently contradictory. Its boundaries are radically contingent and performative, to the extent that it is impossible to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic. The collective defines itself as ontologically multiple and radically anti-essentialist. Moreover, whereas Anonymous’ actions are systematically contradictory, Anonymous self-descriptions, relying on arguments mirroring poststructuralist theories, can only be tautologically or paradoxically expressed. Building on Luhmann’s claim that the reproduction of modern societies depends on concealing their self-referential foundations, the conclusion argues that Anonymous, by embracing its own constitutive paradox, pushes the process of autopoiesis to a new, radically recursive logic, departing in this even from recent theorizations on reflexivity.","PeriodicalId":130009,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sociocybernetics","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dividing by Zero. Tautology and Paradox in the Self-Descriptions of Anonymous\",\"authors\":\"Davide Beraldo\",\"doi\":\"10.26754/OJS_JOS/JOS.202014246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper engages with the loosely bounded, ill-defined Anonymous movement, in order to develop a theoretical reflection on the process of self-reference within contemporary collectives. It is grounded on a socio-cybernetic framework and builds on a computationallly-assisted interpretative analysis of a huge dataset of Facebook posts related to Anonymous’ self-descriptions. As selected examples show, Anonymous results inherently contradictory. Its boundaries are radically contingent and performative, to the extent that it is impossible to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic. The collective defines itself as ontologically multiple and radically anti-essentialist. Moreover, whereas Anonymous’ actions are systematically contradictory, Anonymous self-descriptions, relying on arguments mirroring poststructuralist theories, can only be tautologically or paradoxically expressed. Building on Luhmann’s claim that the reproduction of modern societies depends on concealing their self-referential foundations, the conclusion argues that Anonymous, by embracing its own constitutive paradox, pushes the process of autopoiesis to a new, radically recursive logic, departing in this even from recent theorizations on reflexivity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":130009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sociocybernetics\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sociocybernetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26754/OJS_JOS/JOS.202014246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sociocybernetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26754/OJS_JOS/JOS.202014246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文涉及范围松散、定义不清的匿名运动,旨在对当代集体内部的自我参照过程进行理论反思。它建立在社会控制论框架的基础上,并建立在对与匿名者自我描述相关的Facebook帖子的庞大数据集的计算辅助解释分析的基础上。正如所选的例子所示,匿名的结果本质上是矛盾的。它的边界从根本上说是偶然的和表现性的,以至于不可能区分真实与不真实。集体将自己定义为本体论上的多元和激进的反本质主义。此外,尽管“匿名者”的行为是系统矛盾的,但“匿名者”的自我描述,依赖于反映后结构主义理论的论点,只能重复或矛盾地表达。基于卢曼关于现代社会的再生产依赖于隐藏其自我参照基础的主张,结论认为,《匿名者》通过拥抱自己的构成悖论,将自创生过程推向了一种新的、彻底的递归逻辑,在这一点上甚至背离了最近关于反身性的理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dividing by Zero. Tautology and Paradox in the Self-Descriptions of Anonymous
This paper engages with the loosely bounded, ill-defined Anonymous movement, in order to develop a theoretical reflection on the process of self-reference within contemporary collectives. It is grounded on a socio-cybernetic framework and builds on a computationallly-assisted interpretative analysis of a huge dataset of Facebook posts related to Anonymous’ self-descriptions. As selected examples show, Anonymous results inherently contradictory. Its boundaries are radically contingent and performative, to the extent that it is impossible to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic. The collective defines itself as ontologically multiple and radically anti-essentialist. Moreover, whereas Anonymous’ actions are systematically contradictory, Anonymous self-descriptions, relying on arguments mirroring poststructuralist theories, can only be tautologically or paradoxically expressed. Building on Luhmann’s claim that the reproduction of modern societies depends on concealing their self-referential foundations, the conclusion argues that Anonymous, by embracing its own constitutive paradox, pushes the process of autopoiesis to a new, radically recursive logic, departing in this even from recent theorizations on reflexivity.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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