2013年年初发表在《中国传播学刊》的这篇文章，有幸受到了翻译社群的关注，得到了赵嘉敏（译言创始人）的转发。两个很有趣的网站，政见和北大新媒体也做了这个研究的分享。这些回应都符合我们做学术与现实结合的action research的初衷，在此表示感谢。


一篇文章写完发表之后，作者就不再有支配权了，读者有充分的自由去选取、解读文章的某个部分和某种论断。再加上学术文章难免用词生僻、行文曲折，作者的本意与读者的认知有时候难免有不一致的地方。作为行动研究的一部分，我得闲也来翻译一下本文的摘要，其中包含了这个研究最基本的论断。


文章摘要：
Henry Jenkins在《融合文化》一书中论述，流行文化也许为更有意义的公民文化提供了准备。这篇文章利用中国的网上翻译社群来考察这个论断。这些网上翻译社群源于外国漫画、游戏、电影和电视节目的粉丝群体。本文使用了参与者观察法和23个深度访谈来收集证据。首先，本文回顾了网上翻译社群的历史发展和目前的结构形态。接着，本文着眼于社群成员参与翻译任务的动机。这些成员告诉我们，个人兴趣比起集体目标来说是更重要的动机。最后，本文分析合作结构、合作精神、技能以及主体性如何从翻译娱乐内容传递到翻译公民教育的内容（公开课）。本文发现，这些粉丝活动中产生的参与文化传递到了公民参与中，但尚未传递到政治参与中。

Some of my ideas

A network approach to examining social activism, I think, is appropriate, especially after knowing of the ideological connection between activism and capitalism that Hoofd argues. Instead of treating activism and capitalism as two separate processes, we should examine how social activism emerges, evolves, and diminishes in relation to the network of powers.

Instead of seeing social activism single-directionally determined by neo-liberal capitalism, I would like to borrow the concept of “seduction” (Baudrillard, 1990) to describe the relationship between the two. I hereby use one example to illustrate the seducing relationship: Google is a company that makes profits based on searching through free and open content provided by Internet users and this profit-driven practice coincides with many activist appeals for freedom of expression or freedom of information flow. When Google exploits these causes and activists behind them, activists also try to demand moral or material support from Google to fulfill their goals, such as fighting against the state. It is hard to say who is in control and who is winning over whom. It is indeed a complicity suggested by Hoofd but the complicity goes both ways. What makes our research on social activism exciting is to make visible the rules, charms, snares, and lures involved in such seduction.