نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

عضو هیئت علمی پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)، پژوهشکده جامعه و اطلاعات، گروه اخلاق و حقوق اطلاعات

10.30465/ps.2021.38861.1566

چکیده

فناوری اطلاعات با تاروپود زندگی اجتماعی درآمیخته است. در این میان تعداد کردارهای دینی‌ای که فناوری اطلاعات در آن‌ها وساطت می‌کند رو به افزایش است. «ذکرگفتن» یکی از کردارهایی است که از طریق برنامه‌های تلفن‌های هوشمند و تحت‌وب نیز ممکن شده است. با این حال وساطت فناوری اطلاعات در ذکرگفتن بدون تغییر جوانب تجربی-کرداری ذکرگفتن ممکن نیست. صلوات‌شمارهای هوشمند در کاربر، کردار و تجربه دینی ذکر، و نیز نوع نگاه به «ذکر»، وساطت می‌کنند و آن‌ها را تغییر می‌دهد. چگونه وساطت فناوری اطلاعات امر دینی، یعنی سویه‌های تجربی-کرداری کنشی چون ذکرگفتن، را تغییر می‌دهد؟ این مقاله می‌کوشد ازچشم‌انداز پساپدیدارشناسی و نظریه کنشگرشبکه، به این پرسش پاسخ دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Technology and the Religious The case study of intelligent Salawat-Counter from the perspective of post-phenomenology and actor-network theory

نویسنده [English]

  • Rahman Sharifzadeh

faculty member of Iranian institute for information science and technology (IranDoc)

چکیده [English]

Information technology has been intertwined with the social. That’s why the number of social actions, including religious practices, mediated by information technology is increasing. "Dhikr" is one of the last actions that has become possible through smart phone applications. However, IT mediation in dhikr is not possible without changing the practical-empirical aspects of it. Intelligent salawat-counters mediate and change the user, the practice and religious experience of dhikr, as well as the way of looking at ‘dhikr’. How IT mediation does change the religious? Exploring some instances of existing salawat-counters, this paper tries to answer the question from the perspectives of post-phenomenology and the actor-network theory.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • intelligent Salawat-counter
  • information technology
  • mediation
  • post-phenomenology
  • actor-network theory
Borgmann Albert. 1999. Holding onto Reality: The Nature of Information at the Turn of the Millennium. University of Chicago Press.
Brasher, B. (2001). Give me that online religion. Wiley.
Bunz, M. and Meikle G. 2017. The Internet of Things. Cambridge: Polity
Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The Technological Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Evans John H. 2002. ‘Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data’. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 41, No. 4: 747-758.
Floridi, L. 2019. ‘Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: Five risks of being unethical’. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2): 185–193.
Gell, Alfred.1992. ‘The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology’. In Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. J. Coote and A. Shelton, eds., Oxford: Clarendon.
Houtman Dick and Meyer Birgit. 2021. Things: Religion and the Question of Materiality. Oxford university press.
Ihde Don . 2009. Postphenomenology and Technoscience The Peking University Lectures. SUNY series in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences.
Ihde Don. 2010. ‘A phenomenology of technics’. In Craig Hanks. ed., Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Wiley-Blackwell.
Ihde, Don. 2012. Experimental phenomenology: Multistabilities (2nd ed.). Albany: SUNY Press.
Ihde, Don (2005). ‘Material hermeneutics’, In Symmetrical Archaeology. Stanford: Theoretical Archaeology Group.
Jensen, R. (2004). ‘Internet-shaped preaching How the Internet may impact the art and practice of preaching, retrieved from http://elca.org/lp/ishaped.html.
 
Hashmi Sohail H. and P. Lee Steven (2044). Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives (Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics), Cambridge University Press
Kaplan, F. 2004. ‘Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots’. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics. 1(3): 1–16.
Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno (Jim Johnson). 1988. ‘Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer’, Social Problems Vol. 35, No. 3, Special Issue: The Sociology of Science and Technology (Jun., 1988): 298-310.
Latour, Bruno. 1994. ‘On Technological Mediation: Philosophy, Psychology, Geneaology’, Common Knowledge, Vol. 94, No. 4.
Law, John. 2002. Aircraft stories: decentering the object in technoscience, Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
McLuhan, Marshall (2008) [1967]. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. London: Penguin.
Mitcham, Carl and Katinka Waelbers. 2009. ‘Technology and Ethics: Overview’, In A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology, Technological Condition, J. K. B. Olsen (ed.), S. A. Pedersen and V. F. Hendricks.

Noble David F. 1999. The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. Penguin Books

Noble, D. F. (1977). America by design: Science, technology and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pinch T. 2008. ‘Technology and Institutions: Living in a Material World’, Theory and Society, Vol. 37, No. 5, Special Issue on Theorizing Institutions: Current Approaches and Debates, 23: 461-483.
Pinch, T. and W. E. Bijker. 1984. ‘The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.’ Social Studies of Science 14.
practice of preaching’. Retrieved from http://www.elca.org/lp/ishaped.html
Rivers Theodore John. 2006. ‘Technology and religion: A metaphysical challenge’. Technology in Society. Volume 28, Issue 4: 517-531
Verbeek, P.P. 2011. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Verbeek, peter-paul. 2011. Moralizing Technology, Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Winner, Langdon. 1993. ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 18 (3): 362–378