《媒介与社会》 Media&Society 是中国传媒大学出版社从美国著名学术出版机构世哲(SAGE)出版集团引进的一本前沿学术丛书。为确保该书中文翻译的高品质与高水准，现面向国内学术界公开征集优秀译者，欢迎感兴趣的专家、学者踊跃参与。
征集方式
1. 自愿报名
具有相关学科背景者或开展过相关主题研究者优先。请有意者填写报名表（附件）后发送邮件至angiewang21@sina.com。报名截止时间：2021年8月31日。
2. 遴选试译者
从所有报名者中选出1~3位试译者进行试译。入选者，我们将进行公示；未入选者，请恕不再一一回复邮件告知。试译者名单公示时间：2021年9月5日。
3. 试译
试译者每人试译约5000字，按照80元/千字支付试译稿酬。试译稿完成时间：2021年9月30日。
4. 确定译者
试译稿完成后，聘请专家匿名评审，根据试译稿质量确定译者，译者确定后将予以公示。译者名单公示时间：2021年10月10日。
5. 签约
译者与出版社签署翻译合同，约定出版要求等。
最终签约条件
1.2022年4月交付译稿，交付要求为稿件齐清定。
2.译者可以选择一次性支付稿酬或版税支付，两者任选其一，稿酬为按照80元/千字，版税支付为销售实洋X8%。
译者要求
1. 熟悉相关学科理论，有一定的研究成果。
2. 英语水平和专业知识过硬，能读懂原文并准确理解文意。
3. 有较好的中文表达能力，能在读懂原文的基础上用清晰流畅的文笔表达出来。
4. 积极与出版社编辑沟通进度，按时、保质、保量交稿。
5. 具有团队合作精神，乐于为构建跨学科性质的学术协作体贡献力量。
6. 为图书撰写介绍性的导读文字。
7. 图书出版后，配合出版社开展营销推广活动。
英文原书详细信息
书名：Media & Society: Power, Platforms, & Participation
作者：Nicholas Carah
出版时间：2021年
总页数：399页
本书内容介绍：
HOW IS MEANING MADE?
For a long time, accounts of media and cultural production have used the encoding and decoding of meaning as a basic conceptual schema. This schema places the many moments in the process of mediated communication in relation to one another. Meanings are created or encoded in an institutional and social context, transferred by technical means, and received or decoded in another context. Each moment in the process has a bearing on the other moments, but no moment dominates the others completely. Media are social processes of transferring and circulating meaning. This process matters because it shapes how we understand the world and our relationships with others. How we understand the world organizes how we act in it. The process of sharing meaning is intrinsic to the exercise of power. Those who have the material and cultural resources to control, organize and regulate the sharing of meaning can shape how flows of resources and relationships between people are organized.
In the field of media and communication some accounts, and even some periods, have paid more attention to one moment or another. Political economy and production approaches have been charged with devoting too much attention to the process of encoding and determining that it shapes all the other moments in the process. Audience and reception approaches have been said to too easily equate the audience’s active decoding of meaning with having power. However, for the most part the media and communication field is interested in both how meanings are created, encoded and disseminated and how they are received, decoded and recirculated. In this book we build on this encoding and decoding heritage by taking as a starting point the proposition that we can only understand moments in this process when we consider how they are related to each other. To understand meaning and power we have to understand how relationships between people are shaped within flows of meaning organized by institutions, practices and technologies. This book examines the relationships between powerful groups, the means of communication and the flow of meaning.
This is a book about meaning and power in an age of participatory culture and media platforms. We use meaning to recognize one another. By making and sharing meaning we acknowledge the existence of others, their lives, their desires and their claims for a place in the world. Meanings are created via the negotiation we undertake with each other to create social relationships, institutions and shared ways of life. The process of maintaining relationships with each other is embedded in relations of power. We seek to realize our will, our desires, our ways of life, in conjunction or competition with others. The sharing of meaning facilitates both consensus and conflict. Groups aim to generate consensus for the social relationships and institutions they have established, and they generate conflicts and contests that might change social relationships or distribution of resources in ways that might benefit them.
HOW IS POWER MADE AND MAINTAINED?
Media and culture are central to generating consent and organizing participation. For much of the twentieth century, accounts of meaning and power focused on the industrialization of meaning making. One of the key institutions of the industrialized mass society is a culture industry. The culture industry is comprised of the range of institutions that make and manage the circulation of meaning and use it to shape and manage mass populations. These institutions include schools, universities, government policy making and, importantly for this book, industries that produce media and popular culture. The culture industry played a key role in creating national identities and facilitating the management of industrial economies. The media and cultural industries that emerged in the twentieth century produced content for mass audiences. This was a result of a range of social, political, economic and technological factors. Mass media like radio, television and print could only produce one flow of content to a mass audience. Everyone in the audience watched the same television programme at the same time, or read the same newspaper. This system suited nation states and industries that demanded mass publics and markets. Nation states sought to fashion enormous populations into coherent collective identities; industrial factories could only produce a standardized set of products for a mass market.
The audience of the industrial-era culture industry was largely conceptualized as being on the receiving end of a standardized flow of meanings. There were a variety of accounts of the audience’s role in this process. Some critical and dystopian accounts saw the audience as passive recipients of meaning who were manipulated by the powerful groups that controlled cultural production. The importance of radio, cinema and other kinds of mass media propaganda in the rise of authoritarian fascist and communist societies seemed to demonstrate the power of industrial cultural production to direct enormous populations. More nuanced accounts developed too. These views pointed to the way that the industrial production of meaning shaped the cultural world within which people lived their lives. The media couldn’t tell people what to think, but could tell them what to think about. Media industries played a critical role in creating the frame through which people viewed the world and providing the symbolic resources that people used to fashion their identities. While the audience actively decided what to do with the meanings and symbolic resources they had access to, they had little input into the broad cultural schema in which they lived. The culture industry was a key mechanism in establishing and maintaining this schema. It limited audience participation to a representational frame constructed and managed by powerful interests. These arguments were powerful because they articulated how the media controlled populations even as they were actively involved in decoding and circulating meaning.
Over the course of the twentieth century, arguments developed that accounted for the active participation of audiences in the reception and circulation of meaning. Some of these accounts were functionalist and instrumental. They sought to explain to states or corporations how the management of populations depended on more than just creating and disseminating meanings. They also had to work to fashion the social contexts within which individuals interpreted and decoded meanings. Other accounts have been much more celebratory; they saw the audience’s capacity to interpret meanings as proof that the culture industry couldn’t exert as much power over populations as critics claimed. Audiences were always free to decode and create meanings offered by the culture industry. These accounts focused on the creative capacity of audience members to resist, rearrange and reappropriate mass-produced meanings to their own identities, wills and worlds. With the rise of digital media from the 1990s onwards, these celebratory accounts took on a life of their own. If the ‘problem’ with the industrial culture industry was the way it thwarted participation and relegated audiences to the reception and interpretation of pre-made meanings, then digital technologies offered a solution. The audience could actively participate in the creation of meaning. Over the past generation, the participatory cultures afforded by digital technology have matured into media platforms. This contemporary formation of the culture industry represents a much more ubiquitous penetration of information techniques into our lives. The culture industry no longer just makes and circulates meaning on an industrial scale, it also stimulates and harnesses our participation, and converts social life into flows of data. Media platforms are the emblematic institutional form of the contemporary culture industry. They are a key site for the creation and control of meaning and data in our societies.
