商务传媒学院知识库

斯人已逝， 哀思长存， 数字媒介重新定义了生与死的边界， 通过网络媒介寄
托哀思已经成为数字时代的新型文化景观。 心理学认为， 哀悼是一种极端情绪的
表达， 即情动。 情动和人的认知系统之间的关系如一个整体的两个部分， 相互独
立又相互依存， 情动体验会留下记忆痕迹。 因此， 从传播学角度展开哀悼研究可
以将其视为一种记忆实践， 相应地具有公共与集体属性的哀悼则对应着集体记忆
的生成。
传播学视角下的集体记忆研究经历了漫长的路径演变， 其中早期“媒介” 与
“记忆” 被视为相互独立的范畴。 建构主义功能范式以及功能主义研究范式下的
的集体记忆研究突破了这一局限， 将媒介作为记忆研究的重要机制。 “媒介作为
记忆载体” 以及“媒介在记忆运行中的功能” 作为两大范式的核心命题， 以“叙
事-话语” 、 “媒介-技术” 为主的两大研究进路逐步形成。 但两种研究路径缺乏
“主客观分析的弥合” 。 因此， 本研究从记忆研究的“实践转向” 出发， 不仅侧
重于“媒介如何形塑集体记忆” ， 同时更加关注“如何依托媒介展开记忆实践” 。
基于此， 本研究将网络哀悼视为一种数字媒介实践， 遵循实践路径展开分析。 围
绕记忆实践所包含的三个结构要素， 提出“主体层级-客体层级-中间层级” 的分
析框架， 填补主客观分析弥合的空缺， 进一步解释数字空间中对于哀悼对象的集
体记忆生成的问题。
根据对记忆结构要素的分层式论述， 研究发现： 记忆建构的主体首先以一种
“脱域” 的状态嵌入哀悼场域， 经由数字媒介完成身份的联结形成记忆共同体；
哀悼公众通常使用文字与图像进行网络哀悼， 这是哀悼话语的社会实践， 更是关
于哀悼对象集体记忆的数字化储存； 最后， 主客体经由数字媒介弥合， 记忆实践
外在表征于作为哀悼实践“终端化体验” 重要介质的屏幕， 内在则遵循于“数据
流” 和“标签” 两种技术逻辑。 其中， 数据流在物质层面界定了网络哀悼的物质
基础， 标签技术则在实践层面为人们提供了网络哀悼的活动场域。 综上， 数字空
间中关于哀悼对象集体记忆的建构离不开主观、 客观以及中间要素的共同作用，
研究虽采用分层式的论述， 但都以集体记忆系统为前提， 任何一个要素都始终被
置于集体记忆运行的整体结构之中。

The individual has passed away, but the grief endures, as digital media redefine the boundaries between life and death. Expressing mourning through online platforms has become a new cultural landscape in the digital era. Psychology posits mourning as an expression of intense emotion, or affect. The relationship between affect and the human cognitive system is akin to two interdependent yet separate components, wherein affective experiences leave traces of memory. Thus, from a communication perspective, mourning can be seen as a form of memory practice, with correspondingly public and collective attributes aligning with the generation of collective memory.

The study of collective memory from a communication perspective has undergone a lengthy evolutionary process. Initially, "media" and "memory" were regarded as distinct categories. The constructionist functional paradigm, as well as functionalist research paradigms, broke this limitation, recognizing media as a crucial mechanism in memory studies. The core propositions of the two paradigms, "media as memory carriers" and "the role of media in memory operation," gradually formed two major research approaches, predominantly focusing on narrative-discourse and media-technology. However, these paths lacked a bridge between subjective and objective analysis. Therefore, this study, departing from the "practice turn" in memory research, not only emphasizes "how media shape collective memory" but also pays closer attention to "how memory practices are conducted through media." In light of this, online mourning is regarded as a form of digital media practice, analyzed following a practice-oriented approach. Centering around the three structural elements contained within memory practice, a framework of analysis, termed the "subject level-object level-intermediate-level," is proposed to bridge the gap between subjective and objective analysis, further elucidating the issue of collective memory generation for mourned objects within digital spaces.

According to the hierarchical discourse on memory structural elements, the study finds that: the subject of memory construction first embeds into the mourning domain in a state of "displacement," forming a memory community through digital media; mourning publics typically employ text and images for online mourning, a social practice of mourning discourse, and a digitized storage of collective memory regarding the mourned object; finally, the subject and object are bridged through digital media, with the external representation of memory practice manifested in the screen as an essential medium for mourning practice, while internally following the technological logics of "data flow" and "tags." Among these, data flow delineates the material foundation of online mourning on the material level, while tag technology provides an activity domain for online mourning on the practical level. In conclusion, the construction of collective memory regarding mourned objects in digital spaces relies on the combined action of subjective, objective, and intermediate elements. Although the study adopts a hierarchical discourse, it is premised on the collective memory system, with each element consistently positioned within the overall structure of collective memory operation.