{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","title":"技术至死 数字化生存的阴暗面","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0120136503","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","id":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","uuid":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","title":"技术至死 数字化生存的阴暗面","normalized_title":"技术至死数字化生存的阴暗面","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0120136503","isbns":["0120136503","9787121227776"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":396,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E8%87%B3%E6%AD%BB%20%E6%95%B0%E5%AD%97%E5%8C%96%E7%94%9F%E5%AD%98%E7%9A%84%E9%98%B4%E6%9A%97%E9%9D%A2","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/search"},"page":{"printed_page":59,"pdf_page":73,"physical_index":73,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"223511e2b4b5b0a4654a445f6be569870e410b31a1fb6867587e0153394099f4"},"chapter":"技术至死数字化生存的阴暗面","content":"最近文学学者马克·沃纳(MarkWarner，原文有误，实际应该是MichaelWarner)和历史学家阿德里安·约翰斯(AdrianJohns)对爱森斯坦的解释提出了更猛烈的批评。沃纳在他的《共和国的信件》(The Letters ofthe Republic)(1992)一书中主张，不应当把印刷技术看成是处于文化或历史之外的东西。它显然并不具备独特的“逻辑”或“本性”，爱森斯坦所认定的“内在”特征几乎不具备普遍性，也不是一开始就有的。如果说确实出现了这些特征，那么，它们无一不是复杂的谈判和偶然历史进程的产物，并非印刷技术的自然属性。“没有什么技术客观事实规定了什么是印刷术，”沃纳写道。接着，他以某种奥克肖特式的风格补充说，“当我们谈到印刷术时，我们知道自己要表达什么意思，但我们之所以知道，是因为我们有一个传统。我们有一套事关宗旨和概念的历史词汇表，它为印刷术赋予了身份，有意义地为我们区分了用铅字印的书和用笔写的书。”\n\n因此，人们必须首先接受技术与社会/文化的截然对立，进而假设是前者塑造后者，而非后者塑造前者，爱森斯坦的解释才站得住脚。就印刷机对社会造成的历史影响，爱森斯坦所采用的调查方式，自动排除了社会和文化如何在政治上、物质上和象征意义上造就印刷机的问题。对爱森斯坦来说，“印刷文化”的确发生了，它一出现时就包装在铁盒子里，它的“内在”特性完好无损，随时能够立即部署。正如沃纳所见，通过给予印刷文化如此神秘的角色(要记住，毕竟她是一个麦克卢汉门徒)，爱森斯坦得不偿失。“政治活动和人类机构在这个故事里消失了……文化受到了来自于其自身以外的冲击。宗教、科学、资本主义、共和主义之类的一一出现，是因为它们受到印刷术的影响，而不是因为它们一开始就进入了印刷的构造和意义。”\n\n互联网什么也没告诉我们\n\n059","previous_page":58,"next_page":60}