主体间性的媒介

IF 1.1 2区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Terra Edwards
{"title":"主体间性的媒介","authors":"Terra Edwards","doi":"10.1177/14634996231196437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to contribute to anthropological understandings of intersubjectivity by foregrounding the role of the environment. I begin by reviewing three key approaches that have emerged out of broader debates in the humanities and social sciences. The first mobilizes intersubjectivity as a way of explaining how a coherent social order is (re-)produced, given that the rational choice, for individuals, is to act in their own self-interest. Intersubjectivity in this view is the shared understanding that is achieved when actors adhere to normative constraints on interaction in order to fulfill an unconscious desire to be loved and accepted by others. The second approach to intersubjectivity challenges this idea, arguing that the motivations and expectations that individuals bring to interaction vary across ethnographic contexts, and for some, shared understanding is a false promise that masks the harmful intentions others are likely to have. Intersubjectivity, in this view, is organized by a desire to minimize exposure to others. The third approach treats intersubjectivity not as a possible outcome of interaction but as an existential condition that makes meaningful interaction possible. In this article, I put these debates in dialogue with “protactile theory,” which has grown out of a social movement in DeafBlind communities in the United States. Reading protactile theory through the lens of biosemiotics, ecological psychology, and existential phenomenology, I argue that the medium or “the thing we're in when we’re together” is the basis of intelligibility for all intersubjective behaviors and capacities; it can define a way of being, is ethnographically graspable, and is central to how humans interact.","PeriodicalId":51554,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Theory","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The medium of intersubjectivity\",\"authors\":\"Terra Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14634996231196437\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to contribute to anthropological understandings of intersubjectivity by foregrounding the role of the environment. I begin by reviewing three key approaches that have emerged out of broader debates in the humanities and social sciences. The first mobilizes intersubjectivity as a way of explaining how a coherent social order is (re-)produced, given that the rational choice, for individuals, is to act in their own self-interest. Intersubjectivity in this view is the shared understanding that is achieved when actors adhere to normative constraints on interaction in order to fulfill an unconscious desire to be loved and accepted by others. The second approach to intersubjectivity challenges this idea, arguing that the motivations and expectations that individuals bring to interaction vary across ethnographic contexts, and for some, shared understanding is a false promise that masks the harmful intentions others are likely to have. Intersubjectivity, in this view, is organized by a desire to minimize exposure to others. The third approach treats intersubjectivity not as a possible outcome of interaction but as an existential condition that makes meaningful interaction possible. In this article, I put these debates in dialogue with “protactile theory,” which has grown out of a social movement in DeafBlind communities in the United States. Reading protactile theory through the lens of biosemiotics, ecological psychology, and existential phenomenology, I argue that the medium or “the thing we're in when we’re together” is the basis of intelligibility for all intersubjective behaviors and capacities; it can define a way of being, is ethnographically graspable, and is central to how humans interact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropological Theory\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropological Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996231196437\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996231196437","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在通过强调环境的作用,促进人类学对主体间性的理解。首先,我回顾了在人文和社会科学领域更广泛的辩论中出现的三种关键方法。第一种方法将主体间性作为一种解释连贯的社会秩序是如何(重新)产生的方式,因为对个人而言,理性的选择是为自身利益而行动。在这种观点中,主体间性是指行动者为了满足被他人爱戴和接受的无意识愿望,在互动过程中遵守规范性约束时达成的共同理解。主体间性的第二种方法对这一观点提出了质疑,认为在不同的人种学背景下,个体在互动中的动机和期望各不相同,对某些人来说,共同理解是一种虚假的承诺,掩盖了他人可能具有的有害意图。这种观点认为,主体间性是由尽量减少与他人接触的愿望组织起来的。第三种观点认为,主体间性不是互动的可能结果,而是使有意义的互动成为可能的存在条件。在本文中,我将这些争论与 "原动理论 "进行对话。"原动理论 "是由美国聋盲社区的一场社会运动发展而来的。通过生物符号学、生态心理学和存在主义现象学的视角解读 "触觉理论",我认为媒介或 "我们在一起时所处的事物 "是所有主体间行为和能力的可理解性基础;它可以定义一种存在方式,在人种学上是可以把握的,并且是人类如何互动的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The medium of intersubjectivity
The aim of this article is to contribute to anthropological understandings of intersubjectivity by foregrounding the role of the environment. I begin by reviewing three key approaches that have emerged out of broader debates in the humanities and social sciences. The first mobilizes intersubjectivity as a way of explaining how a coherent social order is (re-)produced, given that the rational choice, for individuals, is to act in their own self-interest. Intersubjectivity in this view is the shared understanding that is achieved when actors adhere to normative constraints on interaction in order to fulfill an unconscious desire to be loved and accepted by others. The second approach to intersubjectivity challenges this idea, arguing that the motivations and expectations that individuals bring to interaction vary across ethnographic contexts, and for some, shared understanding is a false promise that masks the harmful intentions others are likely to have. Intersubjectivity, in this view, is organized by a desire to minimize exposure to others. The third approach treats intersubjectivity not as a possible outcome of interaction but as an existential condition that makes meaningful interaction possible. In this article, I put these debates in dialogue with “protactile theory,” which has grown out of a social movement in DeafBlind communities in the United States. Reading protactile theory through the lens of biosemiotics, ecological psychology, and existential phenomenology, I argue that the medium or “the thing we're in when we’re together” is the basis of intelligibility for all intersubjective behaviors and capacities; it can define a way of being, is ethnographically graspable, and is central to how humans interact.
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
Anthropological Theory
Anthropological Theory ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Anthropological Theory is an international peer reviewed journal seeking to strengthen anthropological theorizing in different areas of the world. This is an exciting forum for new insights into theoretical issues in anthropology and more broadly, social theory. Anthropological Theory publishes articles engaging with a variety of theoretical debates in areas including: * marxism * feminism * political philosophy * historical sociology * hermeneutics * critical theory * philosophy of science * biological anthropology * archaeology
×
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