在规范普遍性和共享具身知识之间——以德国公共媒体关于种族主义的辩论为例,探索合法知识和知识者的(重新)定义。

IF 2.2 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Frontiers in Sociology Pub Date : 2025-04-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2025.1536195
Ana-Nzinga Weiß
{"title":"在规范普遍性和共享具身知识之间——以德国公共媒体关于种族主义的辩论为例,探索合法知识和知识者的(重新)定义。","authors":"Ana-Nzinga Weiß","doi":"10.3389/fsoc.2025.1536195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article seeks to present a new approach to studying the dynamics of constructing legitimate knowledge and speaker positions in public media discourse that is characterized by a hybrid media system. The basic framework of this approach is built on the paradigm of social epistemology and the presumption that although knowledge can be shared, the conditions of sharing are subject to social power structures. By conceptualizing the media as part of social epistemological processes, I offer a conceptual innovation that allows for a nuanced and critical analysis of how inequalities can be (re)produced in media representation. Within the context of the German public debate about racism since the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, I analyzed talk shows on the topic of racism that aired on German public television, YouTube, and Instagram by means of a Critical Discourse Analysis as a means of illustrating analysis within this framework. My analysis revealed three patterns through which it was possible to construct legitimate knowledge and speaker positions about racism: (1) performances of a rational and equitable exchange of opposing epistemic positions, (2) performances of counter-hegemonic positionality in communal exchange, and (3) performances of a rational exchange of embodied knowledge. The results illustrate the delicate interplay of different power structures within the construction of knowledge regarding racism. I conclude with an emphasis on the need for a parrhesian praxis in social analysis in service of being constantly self-critical and, at the same time, critical of power.</p>","PeriodicalId":36297,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sociology","volume":"10 ","pages":"1536195"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12055764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between normative universality and sharing embodied knowledge-exploring the (re-) definition of legitimate knowledge and knowers using the example of the German public media debate about racism.\",\"authors\":\"Ana-Nzinga Weiß\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsoc.2025.1536195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article seeks to present a new approach to studying the dynamics of constructing legitimate knowledge and speaker positions in public media discourse that is characterized by a hybrid media system. The basic framework of this approach is built on the paradigm of social epistemology and the presumption that although knowledge can be shared, the conditions of sharing are subject to social power structures. By conceptualizing the media as part of social epistemological processes, I offer a conceptual innovation that allows for a nuanced and critical analysis of how inequalities can be (re)produced in media representation. Within the context of the German public debate about racism since the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, I analyzed talk shows on the topic of racism that aired on German public television, YouTube, and Instagram by means of a Critical Discourse Analysis as a means of illustrating analysis within this framework. My analysis revealed three patterns through which it was possible to construct legitimate knowledge and speaker positions about racism: (1) performances of a rational and equitable exchange of opposing epistemic positions, (2) performances of counter-hegemonic positionality in communal exchange, and (3) performances of a rational exchange of embodied knowledge. The results illustrate the delicate interplay of different power structures within the construction of knowledge regarding racism. I conclude with an emphasis on the need for a parrhesian praxis in social analysis in service of being constantly self-critical and, at the same time, critical of power.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36297,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"1536195\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12055764/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1536195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1536195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图提出一种新的方法来研究以混合媒体系统为特征的公共媒体话语中构建合法知识和说话者立场的动态。这种方法的基本框架是建立在社会认识论范式和假设的基础上的,即尽管知识可以共享,但共享的条件受制于社会权力结构。通过将媒体概念化为社会认识论过程的一部分,我提供了一种概念创新,允许对媒体表现中如何产生(重新)不平等进行细致入微和批判性的分析。自2020年夏天“黑人的命也是命”抗议活动以来,在德国关于种族主义的公开辩论的背景下,我通过批判性话语分析分析了在德国公共电视台、YouTube和Instagram上播出的关于种族主义主题的谈话节目,作为说明这一框架内分析的手段。我的分析揭示了三种模式,通过这种模式可以构建关于种族主义的合法知识和说话者的立场:(1)表现出理性和公平地交换对立的认识立场,(2)在公共交换中表现出反霸权的立场,(3)表现出理性地交换体现的知识。研究结果说明了种族主义知识建构中不同权力结构之间微妙的相互作用。最后,我强调了在社会分析中需要一种直言实践,以服务于不断的自我批判,同时对权力进行批判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between normative universality and sharing embodied knowledge-exploring the (re-) definition of legitimate knowledge and knowers using the example of the German public media debate about racism.

This article seeks to present a new approach to studying the dynamics of constructing legitimate knowledge and speaker positions in public media discourse that is characterized by a hybrid media system. The basic framework of this approach is built on the paradigm of social epistemology and the presumption that although knowledge can be shared, the conditions of sharing are subject to social power structures. By conceptualizing the media as part of social epistemological processes, I offer a conceptual innovation that allows for a nuanced and critical analysis of how inequalities can be (re)produced in media representation. Within the context of the German public debate about racism since the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, I analyzed talk shows on the topic of racism that aired on German public television, YouTube, and Instagram by means of a Critical Discourse Analysis as a means of illustrating analysis within this framework. My analysis revealed three patterns through which it was possible to construct legitimate knowledge and speaker positions about racism: (1) performances of a rational and equitable exchange of opposing epistemic positions, (2) performances of counter-hegemonic positionality in communal exchange, and (3) performances of a rational exchange of embodied knowledge. The results illustrate the delicate interplay of different power structures within the construction of knowledge regarding racism. I conclude with an emphasis on the need for a parrhesian praxis in social analysis in service of being constantly self-critical and, at the same time, critical of power.

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
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Sociology Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信