多元媒体伦理?印度的伊斯兰改革派和全球媒体伦理的局限性。

IF 1 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-06-19 DOI:10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5
Max Kramer
{"title":"多元媒体伦理?印度的伊斯兰改革派和全球媒体伦理的局限性。","authors":"Max Kramer","doi":"10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The transatlantic field of global media ethics is premised on a search for the conceptual foundations of plurality. This article is a critique of this very endeavor. I offer this critique through works authored by moral anthropologists of Islam and through a close reading of the Urdu text <i>Cyberistan: Muslim Naujavan Aur Social Media</i> (Cyberistan: Muslim Youth and Social Media) authored by Sadatullah Husaini, the current president of the Indian reformist Islamic organization Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. My article is a post-foundational critique of the implicit foundationalism through which \"Islam\" and \"plurality\" are related to each other within inquiries into the ethics of digital communication. I take on digital communication because of its increasingly global and synchronic nature that rendered questions concerning plurality in media ethics particularly urgent. I argue that even though it is important to ask what difference means conceptually for a global media ethics today, it can only make space for radical plurality via the negative, by way of its contradictions and structural constraints. If a global media ethics is supposed to be based on openness and plurality, it can be so only by limiting and weakening its own ontological claims - beyond positive metaphysical groundings, cultures, civilizations, Islam, etc. In other words, it requires a reflexivity to its own position as an academic discipline that produces knowledge under certain historical conditions and an understanding of its own political practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":45970,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plural media ethics? Reformist Islam in India and the limits of global media ethics.\",\"authors\":\"Max Kramer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The transatlantic field of global media ethics is premised on a search for the conceptual foundations of plurality. This article is a critique of this very endeavor. I offer this critique through works authored by moral anthropologists of Islam and through a close reading of the Urdu text <i>Cyberistan: Muslim Naujavan Aur Social Media</i> (Cyberistan: Muslim Youth and Social Media) authored by Sadatullah Husaini, the current president of the Indian reformist Islamic organization Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. My article is a post-foundational critique of the implicit foundationalism through which \\\"Islam\\\" and \\\"plurality\\\" are related to each other within inquiries into the ethics of digital communication. I take on digital communication because of its increasingly global and synchronic nature that rendered questions concerning plurality in media ethics particularly urgent. I argue that even though it is important to ask what difference means conceptually for a global media ethics today, it can only make space for radical plurality via the negative, by way of its contradictions and structural constraints. If a global media ethics is supposed to be based on openness and plurality, it can be so only by limiting and weakening its own ontological claims - beyond positive metaphysical groundings, cultures, civilizations, Islam, etc. In other words, it requires a reflexivity to its own position as an academic discipline that produces knowledge under certain historical conditions and an understanding of its own political practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/6/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-021-09626-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

跨大西洋的全球媒体伦理领域是以寻求多元化的概念基础为前提的。这篇文章就是对这种努力的批判。我通过伊斯兰教道德人类学家的著作,以及仔细阅读印度改革派伊斯兰组织印度伊斯兰大会党(Jamaat-e-Islami Hind)现任主席萨达图拉·胡赛尼(Sadatullah Husaini)所著的乌尔都语文本《赛博斯坦:穆斯林Naujavan Aur社交媒体》(Cyberistan: Muslim Naujavan Aur Social Media),提出了这一批评。我的文章是对隐性基础主义的后基础主义批判,通过这种基础主义,“伊斯兰教”和“多元化”在对数字传播伦理的探究中相互关联。我之所以研究数字通信,是因为其日益全球化和共时性使得有关媒体伦理多元性的问题显得尤为紧迫。我认为,尽管重要的是要问,今天的全球媒体伦理在概念上意味着什么,但它只能通过其矛盾和结构性约束,通过消极的方式为激进的多元化创造空间。如果全球媒体伦理应该建立在开放性和多元性的基础上,那么它只能通过限制和削弱自身的本体论主张来实现——超越积极的形而上学基础、文化、文明、伊斯兰教等。换句话说,它需要对自己作为一门在一定历史条件下产生知识的学术学科的地位进行反思,并对自己的政治实践进行理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Plural media ethics? Reformist Islam in India and the limits of global media ethics.

The transatlantic field of global media ethics is premised on a search for the conceptual foundations of plurality. This article is a critique of this very endeavor. I offer this critique through works authored by moral anthropologists of Islam and through a close reading of the Urdu text Cyberistan: Muslim Naujavan Aur Social Media (Cyberistan: Muslim Youth and Social Media) authored by Sadatullah Husaini, the current president of the Indian reformist Islamic organization Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. My article is a post-foundational critique of the implicit foundationalism through which "Islam" and "plurality" are related to each other within inquiries into the ethics of digital communication. I take on digital communication because of its increasingly global and synchronic nature that rendered questions concerning plurality in media ethics particularly urgent. I argue that even though it is important to ask what difference means conceptually for a global media ethics today, it can only make space for radical plurality via the negative, by way of its contradictions and structural constraints. If a global media ethics is supposed to be based on openness and plurality, it can be so only by limiting and weakening its own ontological claims - beyond positive metaphysical groundings, cultures, civilizations, Islam, etc. In other words, it requires a reflexivity to its own position as an academic discipline that produces knowledge under certain historical conditions and an understanding of its own political practice.

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
DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Dialectical Anthropology is an international journal that seeks to invigorate discussion among left intellectuals by publishing peer-reviewed articles, editorials, letters, reports from the field, political exchanges, and book reviews. The journal aims to foster open debate through criticism, research and commentary from across the social sciences and humanities. It provides a forum for work with a pronounced dialectical approach to social theory and political practice for scholars, public intellectuals, and activists who are interested in Marxism and political-economy. The journal also welcomes submissions from those who wish to be in dialogue or debate with these traditions. Since 1975, Dialectical Anthropology has been dedicated to working towards the transformation of class society through internationalizing conversations that focus on crises of capitalism and the means for social change. The format of Dialectical Anthropology is shaped by these goals. Submissions accepted for peer review are sent to scholars, public intellectuals and activists whose comments are often published along with replies by the manuscript author to engender a dialogic exchange. The " Forum" is also dedicated to reciprocal engagement as scholars, public intellectuals and activists are invited to respond to forum statements meant to provoke debate and discussion. These exchanges provide space for dialectical engagement from a broad range of perspectives about significant issues of our time, Finally, while the book review section follows the traditional 1000 word format, Dialectical Anthropology encourages the submission of substantial essays that comparatively analyze multiple books, films, novels and other texts to contextualize them within contemporary politics, economics, society and culture. Dialectical Anthropology invites contributions from authors committed to international political engagement across disciplinary divides, communities of practice, and oppositional political traditions by encouraging contributions from authors who seek to combine theories and practices of social change. The journal is committed to reaching beyond an Anglophone readership and encourages submissions, dialogue and active participation in languages other than English. The journal will publish these submissions to the extent that its resources and capabilities allow. Manuscripts should be submitted electronically via the Springer Website at http://dial.edmgr.com and should include abstract, five keywords, and three suggested reviewers.
×
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