Translation

Before translate:
"Because we need to know, and because people need to know, more than ever we need a sociology rooted in its scientific endeavor. Of course, it must have the specificity of its object of study, and thus of its theories and methods, without mimicking the natural sciences in a futile search for respectability. And it must have a clear purpose of producing objective knowledge (yes! there is such a thing, always in relative terms), brought about by empirical observation, rigorous theorizing, and unequivocal communication. Then we can argue-and we will!-about the best way to proceed with observation, theory building, and formal expression of findings, depending on subject matter and methodological traditions. But without a consensus on sociology as science-indeed, as a specific social science-we sociologists will fail in our professional and intellectual duty at a time when we are needed most. We are needed because, individually and collectively, most people in the world are lost about the meaning of the whirlwind we are going through. So they need to know which kind of society we are in, which kind of social processes are emerging, what is structural, and what can be changed through purposive social action. And we are needed because without understanding, people, rightly, will block change, and we may lose the extraordinary potential of creativity embedded into the values and technologies of the Information Age. We are needed because as would-be scientists of society we are positioned better than anyone else to produce knowledge about the new society, and to be credible-or at least more credible than the futurologists and ideologues that litter the interpretation of current historical changes, let alone politicians always jumping on the latest trendy word. "

After Traslate:
"Because we need to know, because people need to know, we are more necessary than ever, it is rooted in the sociology of science. Of course, it must have its special nature of the object of study, so it's theory and methods, do not search in vain to imitate the distinguished natural science. It must have an objective to produce a clear understanding of the purpose (yes! There is such a thing, is always relative terms), arising from empirical observation, rigorous theory, and clear communication. Then we can say that we will be! The best way of observation, theory construction, and the findings of the official statements, according to the traditional themes and methods. However, if there is no consensus, science, sociology and, indeed, as a specific social science, we sociologist will use our expertise obligation to fail most of the time when we need. We are necessary, because, individually and collectively, in the world, most people are experiencing in our whirlwind meaningless. Therefore, they need to know in our society, which is a social process is the emergence of what is structural, as well as by a purposeful change in social action. In addition, we needed, because there is no understanding of, human, right, will block the changes, we may lose the potential to be extraordinary creativity, value and the technology embedded in the information age. We need to because you want to become scientists, social status, we are than anyone else give rise to a new society of knowledge, and credibility, or at least more than the future scientists and theorists refuse the current interpretation of the credibility of historical change, not to the politicians are always the latest and most fashionable word jump. "

Source:Castells, M. (2000). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contemporary Sociology. 29(5): 693-699.

What are the main arguments in the two readings for this week? What version of historical change do you believe in and why?

In Fraiberg’s article, several postmodern cultural theories which related to AIDS are discussed. Baudrillard argued the era of networks abolished the boundary between the private sector and the public. The Communication, in Baudrillard’s mind, eliminated the private secrets, spaces and scenes. By integrated with the network, the body will be influenced and lose its self-control status. Jameson’s implication on postmodern culture is theory of hyperspace which constructed a global networking based on multinational capital. To extend his theory into AIDS, the “general public can contract HIV as well.”(Fraiberg, Of Aids.) Haraway viewed the cyborg as a “cybernetic organism” that an organism combined both natural and artificial system. Based on her opinion, there is a balancing of cyborg between the hazard and “potent fusions”. Then, there are some AIDS criticism has been discussed in the article such as AIDS representation’s biological and historical context, and the conditioning of the disease’s contagion, quarantine, and contamination. In the end, Fraiberg argues the it is the cyborg integration is denied in the traditional realm of authority. However, the interconnectedness and the body resurfacing may shift the authorized sites to larger scale of recognition.

In Castells’s article, the main argument is to encourage sociology to root in scientific endeavor since people are losing their understanding about the development of society. The author firstly carried out four dimensions about social change, new technological such as genetic engineering, globalization issue such as institutional capacity, dominant cultural interaction such as multimedia hypertext, and the global economic issue between sovereign states. Then, the internet is set as a main component of new society; for example, the global financial markets are connected by the internet. The emerging of new society is considered as a new perspective, so it needs a new methodology to study it. Therefore, the study of sociology needs to be developed in order to answer the theoretical questions about network society in the future.

From late 20th century to the present, the entire world is moving towards globalization. The internet actually connected people more closely. However, people are losing their understanding about recent development and progress in society. Some people just adopted the new technologies such as internet, and digital devices; but they did not learn the meaning behind it. Thus, the study of the current social development is necessary.

Source：
Castells, M. (2000). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contemporary Sociology. 29(5): 693-699.
Allison Fraiberg, "Of Aids, Cyborgs, and Other Indiscretions: Resurfacing the Body in the Postmodern." Postmodern Culture 1.3 (1991)

What are the main arguments in the two readings for this week?

In Charles Ess’s article, the argument is made based on some assumptions of “The Electronic Global Village” including cosmopolitanism, universal democracy, peace and prosperity. The author individually examined each of these assumptions; and pointed out that the electronic global village may undermine the regional culture and result in ethnical problems. The electronic global village has Western origins and it is more legitimated in Western traditions. Thus, the author argues, it is a form of ethnocentrism which leads Western people to believe their culture is more superior and advance. The universal democracy is also idealistic since some information that circulating on line such as pornography and hedonism are contradicted to certain cultural values and even against law in certain states. Therefore, the cross-cultural issue is a barrier to the development of global electronic society.

In Ronald V. Bettig’s article, the author discussed the development of cyberspace through political economic view. Basically, there are three structural tendencies dominated the evolution of communications. The first tendency is the centralization in communication markets. In capitalist view, the mergers and acquisitions among media companies actually resulted in creating some monopolistic corporations. The state can control the media through managing these companies. Then, the intellectual property rights could constrain the multi-media industry since intellectual information and products owners are able to control the media interaction. Thirdly, the development of information and cultural products became more commercialized than before. The value of information and cultural goods could determine the development of the media market which directly influenced the cyberspace.

In my opinion, I’m familiar with the idea of media commercialization. Many corporations within the industry made huge profits based on their development. Also, there are still many new ventures try to enter the industry since they have seen the growth value in information and communication. Otherwise, in capitalist view, if the media industry is not profitable there will not be so many investors interest in.

What determines the structure of a folksonomy and why? The code, the content or the social process? What does your answer to this question suggest a

The term “folksonomy” can be divided into two words; folk means a group of people and taxonomy is a term usually used in biology to classify animals or plants into different species. Together, folksonomy means a group of internet users mutually classify or generalize the information into certain categories. Tagging is the major method of folksonomy. With the ability of Web2.0, and people can tag the information based on their own understanding or the keywords which it contents into different categories. Thus, the structure of a folksonomy is determined by people’s knowledge or wisdom, and the content of certain information. However, since the tags are made from different internet users, the same information may be tagged into different categories through people’s various opinions. On the other hand, the tags are widely shared on internet; meanwhile, the search engines such as Google usually navigate the information through tags. As the ongoing process of globalization, people often have the similar understanding about some popular information or knowledge. For example, when I typed term “digital divide” in Google search bar, the results such as definition, related articles, and photographs appeared that were mostly arranged by tags on different sites. Although there are various websites content the term “digital divide”, most of their understandings or explanations are same. Thus, in the globalized world, people are more socially connected than before through internet, and they will share the same opinions for certain issues.