Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered
Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered
复制标题
类别有政治吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Suchman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Suchman
本文借鉴 CSCW 社区内的著作和最新的社会理论，提出采用言语行为理论作为系统设计的基础，从而对组织成员的行为进行纪律和控制。我首先简要回顾一下维诺格拉德、弗洛雷斯及其同事提出的语言/动作观点，特别关注说话者意图的分类。然后，我转向对分类政治的一些观察，并以该框架为背景，考虑通过协调员在组织内实施意图会计技术系统的尝试。最后，我提出了本文中提出的分析对 CSCW 系统设计政治的影响。
在有关技术和社会的争论中，没有什么比“技术事物具有政治品质”这一概念更具有挑衅性的了。争论的焦点是，现代物质文化的机器、结构和系统可以被准确地评判，不仅因为它们对效率和生产力的贡献……而且还因为它们体现特定形式的权力和权威的方式。 1986 年获胜者，第 14 页。 19.
通过向人们传授一种基于简单、普遍的区别（例如请求和承诺）的语言行为本体论，我们发现他们在日常工作和生活情境中变得更加意识到这些区别。他们可以简化与他人的交往，减少在不会产生行动的对话中花费的时间和精力，并且通常在不那么惊慌、困惑的气氛中管理行动。弗洛雷斯等人 1988 年，第 14 页。 158.
世界一直处于事物的中心，在不守规矩和实际的对话中，充满行动，并由一系列令人震惊的行动者、网络和不平等的集体构成……我的现代历史的形状将具有不同的几何形状，不是进步，而是永久和多模式的相互作用，通过这种相互作用，生命和世界得以建立，人类和非人类。哈拉维 1991 年，第 14 页。 11.
Drawing on writings within the CSCW community and on recent social theory, this paper proposes that the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members actions. I begin with a brief review of the language/action perspective introduced by Winograd, Flores and their colleagues, focusing in particular on the categorization of speakers intent. I then turn to some observations on the politics of categorization and, with that framework as background, consider the attempt, through THE COORDINATOR, to implement a technological system for intention-accounting within organizations. Finally, I suggest the implications of the analysis presented in the paper for the politics of CSCW systems design.
No idea is more provocative in controversies about technology and society than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity... but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority. Winner 1986, p. 19.
By teaching people an ontology of linguistic action, grounded in simple, universal distinctions such as those of requesting and promising, we find that they become more aware of these distinctions in their everyday work and life situations. They can simplify their dealings with others, reduce time and effort spent in conversations that do not result in action, and generally manage actions in a less panicked, confused atmosphere. Flores et al 1988, p. 158.
The world has always been in the middle of things, in unruly and practical conversation, full of action and structured by a startling array of actants and of networking and unequal collectives ... The shape of my amodern history will have a different geometry, not of progress, but of permanent and multi-patterned interaction through which lives and worlds get built, human and unhuman. Haraway 1991, p. 11.