云端墓碑与比特尘埃:数字遗产的永恒独白

Cloud tombstones and bit dust: an eternal monologue of digital heritage

ES评分 0

DOI 10.12208/j.ssr.20250262
刊名
Modern Social Science Research
年,卷(期) 2025, 5(7)
作者
作者单位

上海大学新闻传播学院 上海

摘要
肉身离世,数据“永生”,逝者存在于技术之中。廉价的数字存储和无界的云端服务造就了新生命的不朽,“永久”的记忆被数据接管。作为一种新媒介形式,数字遗产延伸了个体在时空上的沟通能力,影响着个人的数字展演。但是,数字技术并不是顽固不变的,其中不时包含着遗忘与删除主义。本文通过深度访谈与参与式考察,指涉数字遗产如何影响互动机制与悼念文化;基于人类身体的视角,重新考察数字遗产的属性及归宿,重新理解数字时代的死亡与哀悼。研究揭示,数字遗产重构了“离身存在”的死亡认知范式,其技术具身性使人类面临记忆异化的双重困境:数据永生消解死亡的终结意义,技术性遗忘又制造二次死亡焦虑。我们要警惕技术的陷阱,正确辨识数字永生的技术幻觉,让死亡回归爱与可朽。
Abstract
The physical body departs, but data remains "immortal", and the deceased exists within technology. Cheap digital storage and boundless cloud services have created the immortality of new life, and "permanent" memories are taken over by data. As a new form of media, digital heritage extends an individuals communication ability in time and space and influences their digital performance. However, digital technology is not stubborn and unchanging. From time to time, it contains forgetting and deletionism. This article, through in-depth interviews and participatory investigations, refers to how digital heritage affects interaction mechanisms and mourning cultures. From the perspective of the human body, re-examine the attributes and destination of digital heritage, and re-understand death and mourning in the digital age. Research reveals that digital heritage has restructured the death cognitive paradigm of "existence away from the body", and its technological embodiment has placed humanity in a dual predicament of memory alienation: data immortality dissolves the ultimate meaning of death, while technological forgetting creates secondary anxiety about death. We should be vigilant against the traps of technology, correctly identify the technological illusion of digital immortality, and allow death to return to love and perishable.
关键词
数字遗产;死亡;遗忘;媒介记忆;具身性
KeyWord
Digital heritage; Death; Forgetting; Media memory; Embodied
基金项目
页码 37-40
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文献
  • 引用本文

钟悠扬*. 云端墓碑与比特尘埃:数字遗产的永恒独白 [J]. 现代社会科学研究. 2025; 5; (7). 37 - 40.

  • 文献评论

相关学者

相关机构