RSS

# 10 Nov 18 - Translation and Globalization

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年9月17日 星期五
標籤：
#10 “Technologies of Post-human development and the Potential for Global Citizenship” in Globalization: Critical Concepts in Sociology, vol. III, pp. 226-246.

6 意見:

Unknown 提到...

According to the title of this week’s reading assignment, “Technologies of Post-human development and the Potential for Global Citizenship,” author Mike Featherstone is presumably going to offer the reader a glimpse into the great potentiality of the post-human technological era. The article, instead, reads more like a desperate plea for ‘conscience’ than a hopeful glimpse into the future. The fact that the article was written in the late 90s may, perhaps, allow us to forgive the naivety of Featherstone’s claim that technological changes may bring about increases in democratization and participation — Featherstone points to radio, television, and Internet, for example. As the 21st century progresses, it is becoming more and more obvious, however, that both radio and television are platforms for the centralization of power and the dissemination of propaganda than they are opportunities for the extension of democratization and participation. The driving claim of Featherstone’s argument — technologies of post-human development offer the potential for positive democratic, and human, development through global citizenship — is that ‘access to information and the capacity to interact and network with distant others can clearly increase choice and empowerment” (239). This, of course, may be true. It already seems, however, that it won’t be long before commercialization and corporatization move to infiltrate this virtual world of ‘free’ access. Money, greed, and centralization of power, still seem to be the driving forces behind development, and access, as it pertains to the virtual world. Have a look at the following two links:
http://mashable.com/2008/03/09/itunes-beatles-deal/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiolk4a1AWI

2010年11月17日 凌晨12:08
Eveline 提到...

我也想相信，在後人文主義 (postmodernis)的種種討論下，我們也可以藉著科技發展出一種全球的公民意識(global cultural citizenship)，也可以有如Ulrich Beck 所提出的有自覺能力的現代性(relfexive modernity)。這個理念，透過網路社群的種種聯結功能，的確讓人看到一些契機。要達到這種公民意識，如Mike Featherstone所提，知識流的掌控權是應該優先達到的。透過網路科技，或許真的可以達到一個跨越國界，讓全球都可以同步進入與討論的平台，但是語言以及意識形態的分歧卻仍然是最難解的阻礙。以Featherstone提到的圖書館模型(library model)為例，威基百科或許是最好的寫照，但是身為中文使用者，我們應該更了解，政治權力和意識型態的操弄仍舊以壓倒性的主導方式介入著這個平台。我們在這個全球資訊流的平台上是處於弱勢地位的。
此外，如果說網路是實現全球公民意識的最佳途徑，那麼不使用網路者會變成如何? 雖然對於公共議題可以透過網路串連到以往延伸不到的地方，發揮更多的影響力，但對於知識取得的弱勢者，仍容易被簡單的語言與簡化的理解所操弄。對於這點，作者雖有著墨，但他每每以北與南做對照的方式令我感到不舒服，好像南半球指的就是非洲與南美洲，北半球指的就是美歐。
接續閱讀器官移植的這篇文章之後，上述的期待又更顯困難了。如果想要藉由網路科技達到一種有自覺的後人文主義以及現代性，跨國界的秩序管理是更重要的關鍵。因此，距離理想又更遙遠了.....

2010年11月17日 上午8:38
Ron 提到...

我倒不覺得作者（Featherstone）對於後人類的科技發展是完全樂觀。他一開始不久就提到，在後人類世界，人類價值有可能被侵蝕，國家與企業有可能利用閉路電視與資料庫進行監控；但是也有可能往另一個方向走而變得更加民主。重點是我們不能任由企業、科學家或其他少數權力核心決定未來科技的發展方向。也許這是為什麼他對網際網路抱持比較樂觀的態度，因為他認為網絡有助於資訊交流與公民參與。作者很多論述都並非一面倒，例如他提到人工生命（artificial life）與奈米科技結合，認為有潛力解決疾病、病毒等對於人體健康的威脅，但是這種開放式系統的失控風險也極大。他也不認為南北觀點一定誰對誰錯，指出雙方觀點共同之處以及受人議論之處。他也提到南北是個大略的分法，每一個板塊中又有差異，「每一個第一世界中均有第三世界；反之亦然。」

2010年11月17日 上午9:49
Unknown 提到...

從 Waldby & Mitchell (2006) 的選讀章節中可以看見，隨著長久以來的「科技進步」，人類愈來愈善於分析，將整體分成不同的片段，再加以各個擊破或處理，甚至連「人」也可以開始分析拆解，成為各個分別的器具。但在人不再只是人，而可分門別類進入市場機制之後，經濟體制便引發關於去人性化 (dehumanizing) 的爭議。(166)
而在 Featherstone 年代更早的文章中 (2000)，雖然還未深入討論將人拆解的醫療與道德問題，但從文化層面，也已經討論到類似的議題，畢竟「無論是文本、圖像或聲音，數位語言都一視同仁」(229)。有趣之處在於，數位化其實有不可忽略的好處，例如促進各種文化形式的交流 (230)，甚至也更能透過自我複製和演化、達到永久存續的效果 (232)。但就在這些好處之間，就更需要再次思考「人」的本質。就翻譯而言，機器翻譯/翻譯記憶的相關問題正在於此。隨著翻譯工具逐漸進步，在單純代換的功能上完全足以取代譯者，譯者應如何自持？而譯界 (尤其是翻譯產業) 愈來愈強調使用翻譯工具，是不是在某種程度上也已經將人與機器的結合視為必須、必然？如果所謂的全球化只代表統一、一致，或許前景確實不太看好，但幸好正如 Featherstone 所提，虛擬人生系統要達到自給自足、運作正常，至今似乎仍未可得 (234)，而比較《侏儸紀公園》的「生命自會找到出路」，或許我們也能比較樂觀看待這整件事情的發展。而在真正結局出現 (或永遠不會出現) 之前，如同 Star Trek 之中博格人 (the Borg) 與人類的爭議大概還是會持續下去。

2010年11月17日 下午1:33
Craig 1 of 2 提到...

Vacillating between sci-fi fantasy and established fact, Featherstone launches a discussion about the implications of technology, its threats to our notions of humanity, as well as its political uses. As he mentions, sci-fi/futuristic dystopia is a well explored theme in movies and literature (Metropolis, Gattaca, Neuromancer, Blade Runner, Total Recall, the list is truly endless) and warns of a future where machines control us, or at least divorce us from some essential aspect of what it means to be flesh and blood human beings. Nevertheless, the specter of technological control does not merely loom in fantasy, fictive or virtual worlds, but can be readily seen in modern warfare, economics and surveillance, and even more so in our obsessions with speed, power, novelty, luxury and information. Technologies of control have extended far beyond the simple application of force, as our desires are mobilized on mass scales with technological tools to drive profits, or capitalist spectacle cows us into passive consumers. And while I guess this is nothing new, it is critical that we realize how technological tools have boosted the scale and speed at which power and desire can be mobilized. In today's world where power is wielded so easily and on such frightening scales, it is vitally important that we are vigilant with respect to freedoms, rights, education and access. Widening gaps in wealth have far graver implications under current conditions of instantaneity than they might have had in a pre-modern world. As for body modification: nature, the human body and tools, as well as the relationship among the three have continually evolved, and from where we stand now, it seems there is no turning back—save the real possibility of apocalypse. And so as Featherstone suggests, certain moral parameters of citizenship need to be inculcated into all of the individuals that share this world. It is easy to see that the stakes have become so very high, but how do we make rules that allow us to live together in a relative harmony?

2010年11月17日 晚上10:00
Craig 2 of 2 提到...

The second article discusses the morality and regulation of human tissue economies. While the use and exploitation of nature takes on a grisly dimension when it moves into our own bodies, to me it seems about the same as poisoning the air and oceans, driving species to extinction, or burying forests in the name of profit, since the human body is certainly an extension of that organism we call “nature.” The fear of course arises from the very real possibility of tissue crime, since anything that is ascribed value is likely to be taken by force. Related to the previous article; we are all probably familiar with the sci-fi plot where someone is drugged by a stranger only to be flown to some unregulated frontier to have their organs harvested and then their body dumped roadside. Perhaps this has already happened; perhaps we all should be living in fear of becoming non-voluntary donors: as the article states, a kidney is worth over 5 million dollars on ebay. Hopefully, we won't need to worry about this for much longer. It seems that moral, regulatory and criminal issues related to the commodification of flesh will soon be solved by advancing technology. As cloning becomes more developed and widespread, we will be able to act as our own tissue donors in a not so distant future.

2010年11月18日 下午1:16

張貼留言