科技促进的暴力:结构和交叉思考

IF 1.7 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Jane Bailey, Jacquie Burkell
{"title":"科技促进的暴力:结构和交叉思考","authors":"Jane Bailey, Jacquie Burkell","doi":"10.1332/239868021x16286662118554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Technologically-facilitated violence (TFV) can take many shapes and forms, In this thought piece, we reflect on TFV from structural and intersectional perspectives, examining how these might change our understanding of TFV, with particular attention to gender-based TFV. We are motivated to engage in this reflection for two main reasons. First, traditional understandings of violence, including gender-based violence, tend to prioritise physical acts (whether in word or in application), contributing to a trivialisation of the kinds of harms effected through digitised communications networks (Dunn, 2021). Second, if TFV is understood primarily in terms of individual interpersonal acts, our ability to understand how intersecting oppressions such as sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism affect the likelihood of being targeted and the experience of violence will be compromised. As Black feminist and critical race scholars such as Crenshaw (1991), Hill Collins (2017), and Jiwani, Berman and Cameron (2010) have ably demonstrated, individualistic single axis accounts of violence outside of technologised contexts have resulted in exclusionary and dangerous outcomes that selectively harm members of equality-seeking communities. The result of these individualised understandings of violence is that structural oppressions are ‘erased, trivialised, or contained within categories that evacuate the violation of [structural] violence’ (Jiwani, 2006, xi–xii). Among other effects, such erasure risks rendering invisible opportunities to intervene with respect to violence not carried out by individuals, often resulting in ‘remedies’ that emphasise interventions by the state against individual actors (for example, through criminal law), powers that already disproportionately target members of equality-seeking communities, and misses the potential need to intervene on capitalistic corporate systems and behaviours. In both cases, the prospect of achieving justice recedes.Key messageEssential to understand TFV through structural and intersectional lenses to better ensure just policy approaches and support mechanisms for all.","PeriodicalId":42166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gender-Based Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tech-facilitated violence: thinking structurally and intersectionally\",\"authors\":\"Jane Bailey, Jacquie Burkell\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/239868021x16286662118554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Technologically-facilitated violence (TFV) can take many shapes and forms, In this thought piece, we reflect on TFV from structural and intersectional perspectives, examining how these might change our understanding of TFV, with particular attention to gender-based TFV. We are motivated to engage in this reflection for two main reasons. First, traditional understandings of violence, including gender-based violence, tend to prioritise physical acts (whether in word or in application), contributing to a trivialisation of the kinds of harms effected through digitised communications networks (Dunn, 2021). Second, if TFV is understood primarily in terms of individual interpersonal acts, our ability to understand how intersecting oppressions such as sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism affect the likelihood of being targeted and the experience of violence will be compromised. As Black feminist and critical race scholars such as Crenshaw (1991), Hill Collins (2017), and Jiwani, Berman and Cameron (2010) have ably demonstrated, individualistic single axis accounts of violence outside of technologised contexts have resulted in exclusionary and dangerous outcomes that selectively harm members of equality-seeking communities. The result of these individualised understandings of violence is that structural oppressions are ‘erased, trivialised, or contained within categories that evacuate the violation of [structural] violence’ (Jiwani, 2006, xi–xii). Among other effects, such erasure risks rendering invisible opportunities to intervene with respect to violence not carried out by individuals, often resulting in ‘remedies’ that emphasise interventions by the state against individual actors (for example, through criminal law), powers that already disproportionately target members of equality-seeking communities, and misses the potential need to intervene on capitalistic corporate systems and behaviours. In both cases, the prospect of achieving justice recedes.Key messageEssential to understand TFV through structural and intersectional lenses to better ensure just policy approaches and support mechanisms for all.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gender-Based Violence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gender-Based Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021x16286662118554\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gender-Based Violence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021x16286662118554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在这篇思想文章中,我们从结构和交叉的角度反思了技术促进的暴力(TFV),探讨了这些可能如何改变我们对技术促进的暴力的理解,特别关注基于性别的TFV。我们有动机进行这种反思,主要有两个原因。首先,对暴力的传统理解,包括基于性别的暴力,倾向于优先考虑身体行为(无论是在口头上还是在实践中),这导致了通过数字化通信网络造成的各种伤害的琐琐化(Dunn, 2021)。其次,如果主要从个人人际行为的角度来理解TFV,我们理解性别歧视、种族主义、同性恋恐惧症、跨性别恐惧症、殖民主义等交叉压迫如何影响成为目标的可能性和暴力经历的能力将受到损害。正如黑人女权主义者和批判种族的学者,如克伦肖(1991)、希尔·柯林斯(2017)和吉瓦尼、伯曼和卡梅伦(2010)出色地证明的那样,对技术背景之外的暴力的个人主义单轴描述导致了排斥性和危险的结果,选择性地伤害了寻求平等的社区的成员。这些对暴力的个体化理解的结果是,结构性压迫被“抹去、轻视或包含在撤离[结构性]暴力侵犯的类别中”(Jiwani, 2006, xi-xii)。除其他影响外,这种消除可能会使干预非个人实施的暴力行为的机会变得无形,往往导致“补救措施”强调国家对个人行为者的干预(例如通过刑法),这些权力已经不成比例地针对寻求平等的社区成员,并且错过了干预资本主义公司制度和行为的潜在需求。在这两种情况下,实现正义的前景都越来越渺茫。通过结构性和交叉性视角理解TFV,以更好地确保所有人都能获得公正的政策方法和支持机制,至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tech-facilitated violence: thinking structurally and intersectionally
Technologically-facilitated violence (TFV) can take many shapes and forms, In this thought piece, we reflect on TFV from structural and intersectional perspectives, examining how these might change our understanding of TFV, with particular attention to gender-based TFV. We are motivated to engage in this reflection for two main reasons. First, traditional understandings of violence, including gender-based violence, tend to prioritise physical acts (whether in word or in application), contributing to a trivialisation of the kinds of harms effected through digitised communications networks (Dunn, 2021). Second, if TFV is understood primarily in terms of individual interpersonal acts, our ability to understand how intersecting oppressions such as sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism affect the likelihood of being targeted and the experience of violence will be compromised. As Black feminist and critical race scholars such as Crenshaw (1991), Hill Collins (2017), and Jiwani, Berman and Cameron (2010) have ably demonstrated, individualistic single axis accounts of violence outside of technologised contexts have resulted in exclusionary and dangerous outcomes that selectively harm members of equality-seeking communities. The result of these individualised understandings of violence is that structural oppressions are ‘erased, trivialised, or contained within categories that evacuate the violation of [structural] violence’ (Jiwani, 2006, xi–xii). Among other effects, such erasure risks rendering invisible opportunities to intervene with respect to violence not carried out by individuals, often resulting in ‘remedies’ that emphasise interventions by the state against individual actors (for example, through criminal law), powers that already disproportionately target members of equality-seeking communities, and misses the potential need to intervene on capitalistic corporate systems and behaviours. In both cases, the prospect of achieving justice recedes.Key messageEssential to understand TFV through structural and intersectional lenses to better ensure just policy approaches and support mechanisms for all.
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
2.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
49
×
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