From present to presentation: A philosophical critique of Hartmut Rosa’s “situational identity”
Paul J. D’Ambrosio
East China Normal University
内容与影响
Hartmut Rosa classifies modernity and late modernity in terms of the “speeding up” or “acceleration” of society. External institutions require constant development in order to maintain themselves, including material growth, technological acceleration, and cultural innovation. As has been widely noted, this is reflected internally by subjects whose thoughts and attitudes revolve around obsessive calculation, teleological thinking, and desires for Promethean-like control over nature, themselves, and their social environments. Coupled with an increase in functional differentiation, which has fragmented and shrunk once stabilizing and meaning-conferring social roles, Rosa argues that the logic of growth results in subjects whose identity is “situationally” determined. These subjects continually jockey between disparate role-based identities according to whatever situation they happen to be in at a given moment. Drawing on Erving Goffman’s research on self-presentation and the philosophy of genuine pretending as developed by Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D’Ambrosio, I will argue that situational identity is even more complex than Rosa has demonstrated. People living in late modern societies construct identities that are multifarious and incongruent in terms of not only roles, but also the very “paradigms of identity”—e.g. sincerity, individualism, authenticity, irony—through which roles are adopted. Problematically, outdated models of identity, based largely on the sincerity and its associated conceptions of the “self” and ethics, continue to dominate, leading to insoluble tensions between various socially-established identities. I will present “profilicity,” the understanding of identity based on profile construction with an acute awareness of the second-order observation, as a paradigm that is increasingly important in today’s world.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
回答优先基于摘要、文献信息与可获取全文;依据不足时会明确说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Critical Theory and Philosophy
German Social Sciences and History · German legal, social, and political studies
参考文献 21
此处列出前 3 条
施引文献 43
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条