抽象的幻觉

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Martha Lampland
{"title":"抽象的幻觉","authors":"Martha Lampland","doi":"10.1017/S0010417522000378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article constitutes a critique of abstraction as an analytic tool. The argument advances the idea that formalizing practices are indexical; that is, the way abstractions are realized necessarily incorporates features of the context in which they are produced. The expression formalizing practices refers to a series of actions or operations that make quantification, rationalization, and standardization possible. Entailed in all these procedures is an attempt to select and isolate features that exemplify a specific phenomenon or social process, or in the case of standardization, that stipulate its contours and dimensions. These features are presumed to be immanent from the start, but in fact, formal representations are carefully crafted, finely tuned instruments. In order to clarify these practices, I delineate three phases of their construction: the conceptual phrase, the choice of analytic strategy, and the specification of its formal representation. In other words, this approach suggests the value of examining formalizing projects as crucibles where cultural assumptions and practical reasoning are condensed into formulae. These ideas are explored in relation to the use of time and motion studies employed in early socialist Hungary to determine the new socialist wage system. While a decidedly local story, the implications of the analysis are much broader. The possibility of adopting this approach to the study of other formalizing practices, such as algorithmic systems and digital databases, is suggested. The analysis also raises questions about the commensurability of long-held concepts in social theory.","PeriodicalId":47791,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Studies in Society and History","volume":"65 1","pages":"4 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Illusion of Abstraction\",\"authors\":\"Martha Lampland\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0010417522000378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article constitutes a critique of abstraction as an analytic tool. The argument advances the idea that formalizing practices are indexical; that is, the way abstractions are realized necessarily incorporates features of the context in which they are produced. The expression formalizing practices refers to a series of actions or operations that make quantification, rationalization, and standardization possible. Entailed in all these procedures is an attempt to select and isolate features that exemplify a specific phenomenon or social process, or in the case of standardization, that stipulate its contours and dimensions. These features are presumed to be immanent from the start, but in fact, formal representations are carefully crafted, finely tuned instruments. In order to clarify these practices, I delineate three phases of their construction: the conceptual phrase, the choice of analytic strategy, and the specification of its formal representation. In other words, this approach suggests the value of examining formalizing projects as crucibles where cultural assumptions and practical reasoning are condensed into formulae. These ideas are explored in relation to the use of time and motion studies employed in early socialist Hungary to determine the new socialist wage system. While a decidedly local story, the implications of the analysis are much broader. The possibility of adopting this approach to the study of other formalizing practices, such as algorithmic systems and digital databases, is suggested. The analysis also raises questions about the commensurability of long-held concepts in social theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Studies in Society and History\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"4 - 26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Studies in Society and History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417522000378\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Studies in Society and History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417522000378","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章是对抽象作为分析工具的批判。该论点提出了形式化实践是指数化的这一观点;也就是说,抽象的实现方式必然包含产生它们的上下文的特征。形式化实践一词指的是使量化、合理化和标准化成为可能的一系列行动或操作。在所有这些程序中,都包含着一种尝试,即选择和分离能够说明特定现象或社会过程的特征,或者在标准化的情况下,规定其轮廓和尺寸。这些特征从一开始就被认为是内在的,但实际上,正式的表示是精心制作的、精心调整的工具。为了澄清这些实践,我描述了它们构建的三个阶段:概念短语,分析策略的选择,以及其形式表征的规范。换句话说,这种方法表明了将形式化项目作为坩埚进行检查的价值,在坩埚中,文化假设和实践推理被浓缩成公式。这些想法是探讨在早期社会主义匈牙利使用的时间和运动研究,以确定新的社会主义工资制度。虽然这显然是一个地方性的故事,但分析的含义要广泛得多。建议采用这种方法研究其他形式化做法,例如算法系统和数字数据库的可能性。该分析还提出了关于社会理论中长期持有的概念的可通约性的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Illusion of Abstraction
Abstract This article constitutes a critique of abstraction as an analytic tool. The argument advances the idea that formalizing practices are indexical; that is, the way abstractions are realized necessarily incorporates features of the context in which they are produced. The expression formalizing practices refers to a series of actions or operations that make quantification, rationalization, and standardization possible. Entailed in all these procedures is an attempt to select and isolate features that exemplify a specific phenomenon or social process, or in the case of standardization, that stipulate its contours and dimensions. These features are presumed to be immanent from the start, but in fact, formal representations are carefully crafted, finely tuned instruments. In order to clarify these practices, I delineate three phases of their construction: the conceptual phrase, the choice of analytic strategy, and the specification of its formal representation. In other words, this approach suggests the value of examining formalizing projects as crucibles where cultural assumptions and practical reasoning are condensed into formulae. These ideas are explored in relation to the use of time and motion studies employed in early socialist Hungary to determine the new socialist wage system. While a decidedly local story, the implications of the analysis are much broader. The possibility of adopting this approach to the study of other formalizing practices, such as algorithmic systems and digital databases, is suggested. The analysis also raises questions about the commensurability of long-held concepts in social theory.
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Comparative Studies in Society and History (CSSH) is an international forum for new research and interpretation concerning problems of recurrent patterning and change in human societies through time and in the contemporary world. CSSH sets up a working alliance among specialists in all branches of the social sciences and humanities as a way of bringing together multidisciplinary research, cultural studies, and theory, especially in anthropology, history, political science, and sociology. Review articles and discussion bring readers in touch with current findings and issues.
×
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