In the communicative spaces of digital media with their expanded base of user participation, emotions or the social circulation of feelings play a crucial role in the manner in which political positions are articulated and everyday negotiations with politics are performed. The articles in this Special Issue stem from an international workshop held in July 2017 at the University of Amsterdam titled ‘Emotions, political work and participatory media’, where participants working on diverse regions spoke about social media and the role of affect and emotions in the facilitation of politically engaged publics. In this Special Issue, politics emerges in community networks as well as in networks based on an abiding interest in matters of national interests. Both kinds of networks are affective (bound by sentiments of solidarity and belonging) and do deeply political work, in that their performances and interactions concern matters of community building but also identity formation. The role of feelings, affect and emotions in politics has been acknowledged over the years in scholarship on the subject. Eric Shouse succinctly described the difference between the three as such: ‘Feelings are personal and biographical, emotions are social, and affects are prepersonal’ (Shouse 2005). Affect drives the intensity of participation in the communities and networks and is abstract, non-conscious, unrealized, while emotions are the conscious display of specific feelings shaped in equal measure by the social media setting. We participate in networks sustained by empathy, solidarity, moral outrage, aversion or a sense of euphoria and anticipation. Affect and emotions are vital to political life, as they can inspire and sustain political participation and serve as a prism for political subjectivity. The pervasiveness of media, the ‘everydayness’ that stems from their accessibility, has dramatically changed the scope, the scale, and the nature of such political participation. Much of the articulation of political subjectivity in everyday media, in the form of memes, micro-blogs, or tweets and social networking, is pervaded with affect that drives mobilization and network formations and underpins political agency. Digital media foster spaces that witness the emergence of affective publics, which are ‘networked publics that are mobilized and connected, identified, and potentially disconnected through expressions of sentiment’ (Papacharissi 2016, 311). The articles in this special issue ask, explicitly and implicitly: What forms of affective engagement, conversations, or interactions can be considered political, and what makes social networks and other online communities act like ‘publics’? How do emotions or affective engagement render the personal political in all such instances, and how do they CONTINUUM: JOURNAL OF MEDIA & CULTURAL STUDIES 2020, VOL. 34, NO. 3, 311–313 https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2020.1764775

中文翻译：

---

介绍

在数字媒体的传播空间中，随着用户参与基础的扩大，情感或情感的社会循环在表达政治立场和与政治进行日常谈判的方式中起着至关重要的作用。本特刊中的文章来自于 2017 年 7 月在阿姆斯特丹大学举办的题为“情感、政治工作和参与性媒体”的国际研讨会，在该研讨会上，在不同地区工作的参与者谈论了社交媒体以及情感和情感在促进参与政治的公众。在本期特刊中，政治出现在社区网络以及基于国家利益问题的持久利益的网络中。这两种网络都是情感的（受团结和归属感的约束）并且做深入的政治工作，因为它们的表现和互动既涉及社区建设问题，也涉及身份形成问题。情感、情感和情绪在政治中的作用多年来已在该学科的学术研究中得到承认。埃里克·舒斯 (Eric Shouse) 简洁地描述了这三者之间的区别：“感觉是个人的和传记的，情绪是社会的，而影响是前个人的”（Shouse 2005）。情感驱动着社区和网络的参与强度，并且是抽象的、无意识的、未实现的，而情感是由社交媒体设置以同等程度塑造的特定感受的有意识表现。我们参与由同理心、团结、道德愤怒、厌恶或欣快感和期待感。情感和情感对政治生活至关重要，因为它们可以激发和维持政治参与，并充当政治主体的棱镜。媒体的普遍性，即源于其可访问性的“日常性”，极大地改变了这种政治参与的范围、规模和性质。日常媒体中政治主体性的大部分表达，以模因、微博或推文和社交网络的形式，都充满了推动动员和网络形成并支撑政治机构的影响。数字媒体培育了见证情感公众出现的空间，这些公众是“通过情感表达被动员和连接、识别并可能断开连接的网络公众”（Papacharissi 2016，311)。本期特刊中的文章明确或含蓄地询问：哪些形式的情感参与、对话或互动可以被视为政治性的，是什么使社交网络和其他在线社区像“公众”一样行事？在所有这些情况下，情感或情感参与如何呈现个人政治，以及它们如何连续：2020 年媒体与文化研究杂志，卷。34，没有。3、311–313 https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2020.1764775 2020 年媒体与文化研究杂志，第一卷 34，没有。3、311–313 https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2020.1764775 2020 年媒体与文化研究杂志，第一卷 34，没有。3、311–313 https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2020.1764775