论文部分内容阅读
There’s a well-known contradiction in the way many of us behave online， which is this： we know we’re being watched all the time， and pay lip service to the evils of surveillance by Google and the government.1 But the bounds of what’s considered too personal， revealing or banal to be uploaded to an app or shared with a circle of social media “followers” seems to shrink by the day.
I moan about the lack of privacy， for example， and yet I willingly and routinely trade it for convenience. I am no longer forced to take my chances on a restaurant and guess which one is best； Yelp will tell me and then escort me to its front door.2 I no longer run the risk of unforeseen delays on public transport； Google Maps will inform me of the fastest route to my destination， and， in a pinch3， an Uber can get me there via any number of hidden by-roads. I no longer need to remember my friend’s birthdays； Facebook will nudge4 me， and invariably lure me to post an update to remind people I exist. To avail myself of5 these applications， all I have to do is make my location， habits and beliefs transparent to their parent companies whenever they choose to check in on me.
So what’s going on？ “Visibility is a trap，” wrote the French philosopher Michel Foucault6 in Discipline and Punish： the Birth of the Prison （1975）. What he meant was that allowing oneself to be watched， and learning to watch others， is both seductive and dangerous. He drew upon Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century plans for a “Panopticon”， a prison in which inmates are observed from a central tower manned by an invisible occupant，7 his watchful eye seeing but unseen. The idea was that the prisoners would internalize the presence of the spectral watchman， whether or not anyone was actually inside， and behave of their own accord.8
According to Foucault， the dynamics of the Panopticon bore an uncanny resemblance to how people self-monitor in society at large.9 In the presence of ever-watchful witnesses， he said， physical coercion10 is no longer necessary. People police themselves. They do not know what the observers are registering at any given moment， what they are looking for， exactly， or what the punishments are for disobedience. But the imagination keeps them pliant11. In these circumstances， Foucault claimed， the architecture of surveillances become perniciously subtle and seamless，12 so “light” as to be scarcely noticeable.
Individuals not only accept this form of discipline， but it soon becomes invisible to them， and they willingly perpetuate13 it. Foucault’s central claim is that such monitoring is worrisome， not just because of what corporations and states might do with our data， but because the act of watching is itself a devastating exercise of power. It has the capacity to influence behaviour and compel conformity and complicity，14 without our fully realising it.
But something’s not right here. The internet has no centre； we don’t need hard evidence of a conspiracy15 between companies and governments to know that we are seen online. We seem to be surveilled from everywhere and nowhere， and yet the self-display continues. Have we been so thoroughly disciplined that the guards have taken away the watchtower， or is some other dynamic at work？
Social media provides a public space that often operates more like a private venue， where many people express themselves knowing that those watching will agree—or， particularly for internet trolls， in the belief that there they won’t suffer the consequences of what they say online， as if protected by the mediation of technology. Having a smartphone and access to the internet does not automatically equip us with the tools necessary for effective and respectful collaboration， negotiation and speech.
Plato would be alarmed by the lack of shame online. He thought that shame was a crucial emotion， indispensable16 for doing philosophy and acting morally. Shame presupposes that we ought to know better but flout the rules regardless.17 This is precisely Plato’s point about moral knowledge： we already know the right way to live a just and fulfilling life， but are constantly diverted from that noble aim. For Plato， then， shame is a force that helps us resist the urge to conform when we know it’s wrong to do so. Shame helps us be true to ourselves and to heed18 the moral knowledge within. A man without shame， Plato says， is a slave to desire—for material goods， power， fame， respect. Such desire is tyrannical19 because， by its nature， it cannot be satisfied.
眾所周知，很多人在网络上的表现都是矛盾的。一方面，我们知道自己时刻被监视，口头上认同谷歌和政府的监视行为有着种种弊端。另一方面，当我们不断把过于私人、暴露或平庸乏味的信息上传到应用软件或分享给社交媒体上的“粉丝”时，我们对于隐私的界定似乎越来越开放。
比如说，我担心失去隐私，却自愿并习惯性地借此来换取便利。选择餐厅的时候，我可以不用碰运气；Yelp会告诉我哪家最好，并把我带到餐厅门口。我再不用担心公共交通突发的延误；谷歌地图会告诉我最快的路线，必要时可以优步叫车送我到目的地，再偏僻的小路它都认识。我无需再记住朋友们的生日；Facebook会给我发推送，一如既往地诱使我发一条状态，告诉大家我还活着。为了利用这些应用软件，我需要做的只是把自己的位置、习惯乃至信仰对这些软件的母公司透明公开，以便其随时调出我的信息。
这是一种怎样的情形？“可见度是一个陷阱，”法国哲学家米歇尔·福柯在《规训与惩罚：监狱的诞生》（1975）中写道。他的意思是，让自己处于监视之中，并尝试监视他人，是极具诱惑力而又非常危险的。他引用杰里米·边沁在18世纪提出的“圆形监狱”概念：在这种监狱里，犯人被藏身于中央塔楼上的看守者监视着，看守可以看见犯人，犯人却看不见他。其用意就在于使犯人心存看守者无时不在的想法，这样不管塔楼上有人没人，犯人都会老老实实的。 福柯认为，圆形监狱的动态与整个社会内人们的自我监督有着惊人的相似。在他看来，因为时刻处于监督之下，对身体的强制约束就没必要了。人们会自己管好自己。即使不知道监视者会在哪一刻记录些什么，不知道他们究竟在寻找什么，也不知道违规的惩罚是什么，但是被监视的想象就构成了约束。福柯认为，这种监视机制相当无迹可寻，些微到令人难以察觉。
人们不仅接受了这种规训的形式，而且逐渐忽视了它的存在，自愿将其延续下去。
福柯的中心论点在于，这样的监视是让人担忧的。不只是因为公司和政府会利用我们的个人数据干点什么，而是因为监视举动本身就是一种权力的滥用。它会在不知不觉中影响人们的行为，强制人们遵守并与之共谋。
但这里有点儿不对劲。互联网并没有一个明确的中心；即使没有确凿的证据，我们也很清楚公司和政府合谋在网络上对我们进行了监视。我们似乎無时无刻不被监视，但自我展示依然持续进行着。是因为我们被规训得太过彻底，看守塔里已经不再需要监视者，还是有其他因素在作祟？
社交媒体提供的公共空间更像是一个私人场所，因为人们在发表自己意见的时候，认为监控者会同意自己的观点——尤其是那些网络喷子，他们认为自己无需承担网络发言的后果，因为技术调节会保护他们。持有一部手机并且能够上网，并不意味着我们就具备了高效互敬的合作、谈判和演说所需要的能力。
网络上羞耻心的匮乏，大概会让柏拉图感到震惊。柏拉图认为，不管是研究哲学还是依道德行事，都离不开羞耻心这一关键情感。羞耻心之所以会产生，是因为我们明白事理，却要明知故犯。这正是柏拉图的道德哲学观点：我们并非不知道该如何过上正直和充实的人生，只是常常跑偏了而已。对柏拉图来说，羞耻心可以帮助我们遏制明知会犯错还要坚持下去的冲动，帮助我们诚实地面对自己，听从内心的道德召唤。柏拉图说，没有羞耻心的人是欲望的奴隶，被物质、权力、名声和虚荣所驱使。而这种欲望是专横的，因为从本质上说，它是永远无法得到满足的。
1. pay lip service to： 口头上赞同，口惠而实不至；surveillance： 监视。
2. Yelp： 美国著名商户点评网站，囊括餐馆、购物中心、酒店等领域，供用户打分、点评、交流体验；escort：护送。
3. in a pinch： 必要时，在紧要关头。
4. nudge： 轻推。
5. avail oneself of sth.： 利用。
6. Michel Foucault： 米歇尔·福柯（1926—1984），法国哲学家、语言学家、文学评论家。
7. Jeremy Bentham： 杰里米·边沁（1748—1832），英国哲学家、法学家和社会改革家；Panopticon： 圆形监狱；inmate： 囚犯；man： v. 给……配备人员；occupant： 占据者。
8. internalize： 内化；spectral： 幽灵的，幽灵似的；of one’s own accord： 出于自愿，主动地。
9. uncanny： 不可思议的，怪异的；at large： 普遍的。
10. coercion： 强制，胁迫。
11. pliant： 顺从的。
12. perniciously： 有害地；seamless： 无缝的，浑然一体的。
13. perpetuate： 使持续，使长存。
14. compel： 强迫，迫使；conformity： 遵从；complicity： 同谋，串通。
15. conspiracy： 阴谋，密谋。
16. indispensable： 必不可少的，必需的。
17. presuppose： 以……为前提；flout：藐视，无视。
18. heed： 注意，听从。
19. tyrannical： 残暴的，专横的。
I moan about the lack of privacy， for example， and yet I willingly and routinely trade it for convenience. I am no longer forced to take my chances on a restaurant and guess which one is best； Yelp will tell me and then escort me to its front door.2 I no longer run the risk of unforeseen delays on public transport； Google Maps will inform me of the fastest route to my destination， and， in a pinch3， an Uber can get me there via any number of hidden by-roads. I no longer need to remember my friend’s birthdays； Facebook will nudge4 me， and invariably lure me to post an update to remind people I exist. To avail myself of5 these applications， all I have to do is make my location， habits and beliefs transparent to their parent companies whenever they choose to check in on me.
So what’s going on？ “Visibility is a trap，” wrote the French philosopher Michel Foucault6 in Discipline and Punish： the Birth of the Prison （1975）. What he meant was that allowing oneself to be watched， and learning to watch others， is both seductive and dangerous. He drew upon Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century plans for a “Panopticon”， a prison in which inmates are observed from a central tower manned by an invisible occupant，7 his watchful eye seeing but unseen. The idea was that the prisoners would internalize the presence of the spectral watchman， whether or not anyone was actually inside， and behave of their own accord.8
According to Foucault， the dynamics of the Panopticon bore an uncanny resemblance to how people self-monitor in society at large.9 In the presence of ever-watchful witnesses， he said， physical coercion10 is no longer necessary. People police themselves. They do not know what the observers are registering at any given moment， what they are looking for， exactly， or what the punishments are for disobedience. But the imagination keeps them pliant11. In these circumstances， Foucault claimed， the architecture of surveillances become perniciously subtle and seamless，12 so “light” as to be scarcely noticeable.
Individuals not only accept this form of discipline， but it soon becomes invisible to them， and they willingly perpetuate13 it. Foucault’s central claim is that such monitoring is worrisome， not just because of what corporations and states might do with our data， but because the act of watching is itself a devastating exercise of power. It has the capacity to influence behaviour and compel conformity and complicity，14 without our fully realising it.
But something’s not right here. The internet has no centre； we don’t need hard evidence of a conspiracy15 between companies and governments to know that we are seen online. We seem to be surveilled from everywhere and nowhere， and yet the self-display continues. Have we been so thoroughly disciplined that the guards have taken away the watchtower， or is some other dynamic at work？
Social media provides a public space that often operates more like a private venue， where many people express themselves knowing that those watching will agree—or， particularly for internet trolls， in the belief that there they won’t suffer the consequences of what they say online， as if protected by the mediation of technology. Having a smartphone and access to the internet does not automatically equip us with the tools necessary for effective and respectful collaboration， negotiation and speech.
Plato would be alarmed by the lack of shame online. He thought that shame was a crucial emotion， indispensable16 for doing philosophy and acting morally. Shame presupposes that we ought to know better but flout the rules regardless.17 This is precisely Plato’s point about moral knowledge： we already know the right way to live a just and fulfilling life， but are constantly diverted from that noble aim. For Plato， then， shame is a force that helps us resist the urge to conform when we know it’s wrong to do so. Shame helps us be true to ourselves and to heed18 the moral knowledge within. A man without shame， Plato says， is a slave to desire—for material goods， power， fame， respect. Such desire is tyrannical19 because， by its nature， it cannot be satisfied.
眾所周知，很多人在网络上的表现都是矛盾的。一方面，我们知道自己时刻被监视，口头上认同谷歌和政府的监视行为有着种种弊端。另一方面，当我们不断把过于私人、暴露或平庸乏味的信息上传到应用软件或分享给社交媒体上的“粉丝”时，我们对于隐私的界定似乎越来越开放。
比如说，我担心失去隐私，却自愿并习惯性地借此来换取便利。选择餐厅的时候，我可以不用碰运气；Yelp会告诉我哪家最好，并把我带到餐厅门口。我再不用担心公共交通突发的延误；谷歌地图会告诉我最快的路线，必要时可以优步叫车送我到目的地，再偏僻的小路它都认识。我无需再记住朋友们的生日；Facebook会给我发推送，一如既往地诱使我发一条状态，告诉大家我还活着。为了利用这些应用软件，我需要做的只是把自己的位置、习惯乃至信仰对这些软件的母公司透明公开，以便其随时调出我的信息。
这是一种怎样的情形？“可见度是一个陷阱，”法国哲学家米歇尔·福柯在《规训与惩罚：监狱的诞生》（1975）中写道。他的意思是，让自己处于监视之中，并尝试监视他人，是极具诱惑力而又非常危险的。他引用杰里米·边沁在18世纪提出的“圆形监狱”概念：在这种监狱里，犯人被藏身于中央塔楼上的看守者监视着，看守可以看见犯人，犯人却看不见他。其用意就在于使犯人心存看守者无时不在的想法，这样不管塔楼上有人没人，犯人都会老老实实的。 福柯认为，圆形监狱的动态与整个社会内人们的自我监督有着惊人的相似。在他看来，因为时刻处于监督之下，对身体的强制约束就没必要了。人们会自己管好自己。即使不知道监视者会在哪一刻记录些什么，不知道他们究竟在寻找什么，也不知道违规的惩罚是什么，但是被监视的想象就构成了约束。福柯认为，这种监视机制相当无迹可寻，些微到令人难以察觉。
人们不仅接受了这种规训的形式，而且逐渐忽视了它的存在，自愿将其延续下去。
福柯的中心论点在于，这样的监视是让人担忧的。不只是因为公司和政府会利用我们的个人数据干点什么，而是因为监视举动本身就是一种权力的滥用。它会在不知不觉中影响人们的行为，强制人们遵守并与之共谋。
但这里有点儿不对劲。互联网并没有一个明确的中心；即使没有确凿的证据，我们也很清楚公司和政府合谋在网络上对我们进行了监视。我们似乎無时无刻不被监视，但自我展示依然持续进行着。是因为我们被规训得太过彻底，看守塔里已经不再需要监视者，还是有其他因素在作祟？
社交媒体提供的公共空间更像是一个私人场所，因为人们在发表自己意见的时候，认为监控者会同意自己的观点——尤其是那些网络喷子，他们认为自己无需承担网络发言的后果，因为技术调节会保护他们。持有一部手机并且能够上网，并不意味着我们就具备了高效互敬的合作、谈判和演说所需要的能力。
网络上羞耻心的匮乏，大概会让柏拉图感到震惊。柏拉图认为，不管是研究哲学还是依道德行事，都离不开羞耻心这一关键情感。羞耻心之所以会产生，是因为我们明白事理，却要明知故犯。这正是柏拉图的道德哲学观点：我们并非不知道该如何过上正直和充实的人生，只是常常跑偏了而已。对柏拉图来说，羞耻心可以帮助我们遏制明知会犯错还要坚持下去的冲动，帮助我们诚实地面对自己，听从内心的道德召唤。柏拉图说，没有羞耻心的人是欲望的奴隶，被物质、权力、名声和虚荣所驱使。而这种欲望是专横的，因为从本质上说，它是永远无法得到满足的。
1. pay lip service to： 口头上赞同，口惠而实不至；surveillance： 监视。
2. Yelp： 美国著名商户点评网站，囊括餐馆、购物中心、酒店等领域，供用户打分、点评、交流体验；escort：护送。
3. in a pinch： 必要时，在紧要关头。
4. nudge： 轻推。
5. avail oneself of sth.： 利用。
6. Michel Foucault： 米歇尔·福柯（1926—1984），法国哲学家、语言学家、文学评论家。
7. Jeremy Bentham： 杰里米·边沁（1748—1832），英国哲学家、法学家和社会改革家；Panopticon： 圆形监狱；inmate： 囚犯；man： v. 给……配备人员；occupant： 占据者。
8. internalize： 内化；spectral： 幽灵的，幽灵似的；of one’s own accord： 出于自愿，主动地。
9. uncanny： 不可思议的，怪异的；at large： 普遍的。
10. coercion： 强制，胁迫。
11. pliant： 顺从的。
12. perniciously： 有害地；seamless： 无缝的，浑然一体的。
13. perpetuate： 使持续，使长存。
14. compel： 强迫，迫使；conformity： 遵从；complicity： 同谋，串通。
15. conspiracy： 阴谋，密谋。
16. indispensable： 必不可少的，必需的。
17. presuppose： 以……为前提；flout：藐视，无视。
18. heed： 注意，听从。
19. tyrannical： 残暴的，专横的。