Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Spheres of action. The technological shift of control

2020, Remediating Distances

https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2724-2463/12246

Abstract

Social interaction and experience are defined by their action possibilities; that is, they can be analyzed from the perspective of performative control (or lack thereof), namely their dynamics of activity and passivity.What I am able to influence in my environment and what lies beyond my reach determines my disposition and identity in relation to others. In this regard, media and communication devices are not only technical forms capable of modulating physical distance, but they can also transform the structure of action possibilities, rearranging the relationship between who controls whom, between what is possible and not possible. From this standpoint, the present paper will suggest a different take on the well-known dichotomy presence/distance, reframing it through the opposition activity/passivity, or controllability/non-controllability, seen as a relevant perspective in investigating the nature of mediated experience.

References (22)

  1. Aldouby, H. (Ed.). (2020). Shifting Interfaces: An Anthology of Presence, Empathy, and Agency in 21st Century Media Arts. Leuven, BE: Leuven University Press.
  2. Alloa, E. (2020). Coronavirus: A Contingency that Eliminates Contingency, Critical Enquiry. Retrieved September, 9th, 2020 from https:// critinq. wordpress.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-a-contingency-that- eliminates-contingency/
  3. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
  4. Carbone, M. (2016). Philosophie-écrans. Du cinéma à la révolution numérique. Paris, FR: Vrin.
  5. Dolezal, L. (2017). The phenomenology of self-presentation: describing the structures of intercorporeality with Erving Goffman. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16, 237-254.
  6. Fichte, J.G. (1794/1997). Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre. Hamburg: Meiner.
  7. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris, FR: Gallimard.
  8. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London, UK: Penguin.
  9. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
  10. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. London, UK: Allen Lane.
  11. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis, An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. Jay, M. (1988). Scopic regimes of modernity. In H. Foster (Ed.), Vision and Visuality. Seattle, D.C.: Bay Press.
  13. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  14. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The Primacy of Perception. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  15. Noë, A. (2012). Varieties of Presence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Pinotti, A. (2020). Avatars: Shifting Identities in a Genealogical Perspective. In H. Aldouby (Ed.). Shifting Interfaces: An Anthology of Presence, Empathy, and Agency in 21st Century Media Arts. Leuven, BE: Leuven University Press.
  17. Romania, V. (2020). Interactional Anomie? Imaging Social Distance after COVID-19: A Goffmanian Perspective, Sociologica, 14(1), 51-66.
  18. Simondon, G. (1958). Du mode d'existence des objets techniques. Paris, FR: Aubier.
  19. Stephens, J. (1998). Anti-Disciplinary Protest: Sixties Radicalism and Postmodernism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Stiegler, B. (2018). La technique et le temps. Paris, FR: Fayard.
  21. Thompson, J. B. (2020). Mediated Interaction in the Digital Age. Theory, Culture and Society, 37(1), 3-28.
  22. Wiesing, L. (2005). Artifizielle Präsenz: Studien zur Philosophie des Bildes. Frankfurt am Main, DE: Suhrkamp.