作为文化研究对象的数字文化:方法论替代问题

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
E. Yarkova
{"title":"作为文化研究对象的数字文化:方法论替代问题","authors":"E. Yarkova","doi":"10.17223/22220836/41/9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern domestic research of digital culture, according to the author, is mainly based on scientific approaches developed by the Euro-American philosophical and scientific thought. This position seems counterproductive, as it condemns Russian scientists to eternal lag. The article offers a number of alternative approaches to the study of digital culture. The author presents some subject areas and methods of studying digital culture, which are on the periphery of scientific interests. It offers a number of steps away from established research traditions. First, the author shares phenomenal and noumenal aspects of digital culture. The emphasis on the nominal aspect opens up the possibility of analyzing the value-semantic content of digital culture, identifying the specifics of “digital creativity” as a semantic and syntactic process. Secondly, the author expands the ideas about the genealogy of digital culture. In particular, the role of philosophy in the formation of a new digital method of culture coding is explicated, the way some ideas of structuralism, axiology, phenomenology legitimized the formation of this method is demonstrated. Third, the author falsifies (in the sense of Popper) the tradition of identifying postmodern culture with digital culture. Based on comparative analysis it is proved that the value-semantic content of these cultures do not coincide, that digital culture is a synthesis of the ideals of modernism and postmodernism. Fourth, the author attempts to determine the ontological status of digital culture. He argues that the inherent ability of this culture to reproduce itself makes a person from the subject of cultural production to its object. This non-anthropocentric turn generates an unprecedented alienation of culture. Digital culture is turning into a force that dominates man, turns man into a being not just controlled, manipulated, but also devoid of authenticity. At the same time, non-anthropocentric turn creates unprecedented participation person to the culture. The growing dependence of man on artificial technologies puts culture at the epicenter of human existence. Changing the ontological status of culture entails the need for a radical revision of the conceptual apparatus of its research. The concept of “culture” is spontaneously replaced by the concept of “postculture”. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the vital importance of studying digital culture, the need for theoretical study of ideas about digital culture as a post-culture.","PeriodicalId":41702,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Kulturologiya i Iskusstvovedenie-Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DIGITAL CULTURE AS AN OBJECT OF CULTURAL STUDIES: THE PROBLEM OF METHODOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES\",\"authors\":\"E. Yarkova\",\"doi\":\"10.17223/22220836/41/9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern domestic research of digital culture, according to the author, is mainly based on scientific approaches developed by the Euro-American philosophical and scientific thought. This position seems counterproductive, as it condemns Russian scientists to eternal lag. The article offers a number of alternative approaches to the study of digital culture. The author presents some subject areas and methods of studying digital culture, which are on the periphery of scientific interests. It offers a number of steps away from established research traditions. First, the author shares phenomenal and noumenal aspects of digital culture. The emphasis on the nominal aspect opens up the possibility of analyzing the value-semantic content of digital culture, identifying the specifics of “digital creativity” as a semantic and syntactic process. Secondly, the author expands the ideas about the genealogy of digital culture. In particular, the role of philosophy in the formation of a new digital method of culture coding is explicated, the way some ideas of structuralism, axiology, phenomenology legitimized the formation of this method is demonstrated. Third, the author falsifies (in the sense of Popper) the tradition of identifying postmodern culture with digital culture. Based on comparative analysis it is proved that the value-semantic content of these cultures do not coincide, that digital culture is a synthesis of the ideals of modernism and postmodernism. Fourth, the author attempts to determine the ontological status of digital culture. He argues that the inherent ability of this culture to reproduce itself makes a person from the subject of cultural production to its object. This non-anthropocentric turn generates an unprecedented alienation of culture. Digital culture is turning into a force that dominates man, turns man into a being not just controlled, manipulated, but also devoid of authenticity. At the same time, non-anthropocentric turn creates unprecedented participation person to the culture. The growing dependence of man on artificial technologies puts culture at the epicenter of human existence. Changing the ontological status of culture entails the need for a radical revision of the conceptual apparatus of its research. The concept of “culture” is spontaneously replaced by the concept of “postculture”. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the vital importance of studying digital culture, the need for theoretical study of ideas about digital culture as a post-culture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Kulturologiya i Iskusstvovedenie-Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Kulturologiya i Iskusstvovedenie-Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17223/22220836/41/9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Kulturologiya i Iskusstvovedenie-Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22220836/41/9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

笔者认为,现代国内对数字文化的研究主要是基于欧美哲学和科学思想发展起来的科学方法。这种立场似乎适得其反,因为它谴责俄罗斯科学家永远落后。这篇文章提供了一些研究数字文化的替代方法。作者提出了一些研究数字文化的学科领域和方法,这些领域和方法处于科学兴趣的边缘。它提供了一些远离既定研究传统的步骤。首先,作者分享了数字文化的现象和本体方面。对名义方面的强调为分析数字文化的价值语义内容提供了可能性,将“数字创意”的具体特征识别为一个语义和句法过程。其次,对数字文化谱系的概念进行了拓展。本文特别阐述了哲学在形成一种新的数字文化编码方法中的作用,并论证了结构主义、价值论、现象学的一些思想如何使这种方法的形成合法化。第三,作者否定了(波普尔意义上的)将后现代文化等同于数字文化的传统。通过比较分析,证明了这两种文化的价值语义内容并不一致,数字文化是现代主义和后现代主义理想的综合。第四,试图确定数字文化的本体论地位。他认为,这种文化固有的自我再生产能力使人从文化生产的主体转变为文化生产的客体。这种非人类中心主义的转向产生了前所未有的文化异化。数字文化正在变成一种支配人的力量,把人变成一个不仅被控制、被操纵,而且缺乏真实性的存在。同时,非人类中心主义转向对文化创造前所未有的参与人。人类对人工技术的日益依赖使文化成为人类生存的中心。改变文化的本体论地位需要对其研究的概念工具进行彻底的修正。“文化”的概念自然而然地被“后文化”的概念所取代。最后,文章强调了研究数字文化的重要性,以及对数字文化作为一种后文化进行理论研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DIGITAL CULTURE AS AN OBJECT OF CULTURAL STUDIES: THE PROBLEM OF METHODOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES
Modern domestic research of digital culture, according to the author, is mainly based on scientific approaches developed by the Euro-American philosophical and scientific thought. This position seems counterproductive, as it condemns Russian scientists to eternal lag. The article offers a number of alternative approaches to the study of digital culture. The author presents some subject areas and methods of studying digital culture, which are on the periphery of scientific interests. It offers a number of steps away from established research traditions. First, the author shares phenomenal and noumenal aspects of digital culture. The emphasis on the nominal aspect opens up the possibility of analyzing the value-semantic content of digital culture, identifying the specifics of “digital creativity” as a semantic and syntactic process. Secondly, the author expands the ideas about the genealogy of digital culture. In particular, the role of philosophy in the formation of a new digital method of culture coding is explicated, the way some ideas of structuralism, axiology, phenomenology legitimized the formation of this method is demonstrated. Third, the author falsifies (in the sense of Popper) the tradition of identifying postmodern culture with digital culture. Based on comparative analysis it is proved that the value-semantic content of these cultures do not coincide, that digital culture is a synthesis of the ideals of modernism and postmodernism. Fourth, the author attempts to determine the ontological status of digital culture. He argues that the inherent ability of this culture to reproduce itself makes a person from the subject of cultural production to its object. This non-anthropocentric turn generates an unprecedented alienation of culture. Digital culture is turning into a force that dominates man, turns man into a being not just controlled, manipulated, but also devoid of authenticity. At the same time, non-anthropocentric turn creates unprecedented participation person to the culture. The growing dependence of man on artificial technologies puts culture at the epicenter of human existence. Changing the ontological status of culture entails the need for a radical revision of the conceptual apparatus of its research. The concept of “culture” is spontaneously replaced by the concept of “postculture”. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the vital importance of studying digital culture, the need for theoretical study of ideas about digital culture as a post-culture.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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