“媒介事件”概念的演变

“媒介事件”概念的演变
关键词：媒介事件传播与社会学刊丹尼尔·戴扬
“有趣的不仅是新媒体的主动和喧嚷，与旧媒体的大异其趣，而且两种表现更有分工之势。

旧媒体展现事件，新媒体作响应。

回应中央媒体（包括如媒体事件试图制造大规模共识的极端情况），新媒体往往寻求自己的接收空间、响应空间。

换言之，新媒体的角色似乎站在公众一边。

”
对谈人：丹尼尔·戴扬、邱林川、陈韬文
统稿：邱林川、陈韬文
翻译：邝芯妍、邱林川
丹尼尔•戴扬教授简介
丹尼尔•戴扬拥有人类学、比较文学、符号语言学和电影研究学位，曾在美国史丹福大学、法国索邦大学和高等社会科学研究院修读，并于罗兰•巴特指导下取得美学博士学位。

戴扬曾是多间大学的讲师、访问学人和教授，任教大学包括：巴黎第二大学、巴黎第三大学——新索邦、耶路撒冷、特拉维夫、史丹福、莫斯科——RGGU、米兰、列日、南加州大学（安娜堡传播学院）、巴黎政治研究学院、奥斯陆大学、宾夕法尼亚大学和日内瓦大学。

戴扬于1975年至1976 年获邀加入美国电影学会研究与出版委员会。

1988年起，他于巴黎国家科学研究中心工作，二十年来担任研究负责人和高等社会科学研究院马歇•牟斯学院的研究员。

1999年至2004年，他是欧洲科学基金会媒介研究计划会员。

2000年，他是洛克斐勒基金比勒基奥中心的驻院研究员。

2001年，他是“英国学术研究评估”媒介研究外聘专家。

2005 年，他是希伯来大学高级研究学院的驻校研究员及宾夕法尼亚大学安娜堡学人。

2006年，他是挪威卑尔根大学的自由言论访问教授。

2007 年和2009 年，他是纽约社会研究新学院的汉斯施派尔访问教授。

戴扬参与编辑多份学术期刊，包括Hermes、Quaderni 和Cahiers del’audiovisuel。

他撰写的书中章节与期刊文章有七十多篇。

近作包括《恐怖奇观：恐怖主义和电视》（La terreur spectacle：Terrorisme et télévision）（巴黎INA De Boeck 出版社2006年出版，2009年译为葡萄牙文）、《电视：由观众到公众》（Televisao：Das Audiencias aos Publicos）（与Jose Carlos Abrantes合着，里斯本Livros Horizonte出版社2006年出版）、《拥有奥运：新中国的多种叙述》（Owning the Olympics：Narratives of the New China）（与Monroe Price合编，密歇根大学出版社2008年出版）。

戴扬现在的研究，主要是在可见性社会学（sociology of visibility）的框架下探讨与媒介伦理相关的议题。

QC：邱林川、陈韬文
DD：丹尼尔·戴扬
“媒体事件”的学术渊源和演变
QC：您与卡茨（Elihu Katz）1992年合著的《媒体事件》，风靡华人传播学者，尤其是该书的中文版于2000年面世后，影响更巨。

此书因何缘起？埃及总统撒达特于1977年出访耶路撒冷后，你们如何构思此书？为什么会有“历史现场直播”的意念？
DD：这本书起初是探究一种新的外交手法，也就是撒达特访问耶路撒冷的媒体外交。

卡茨向我挑战，建议为撒达特每天的表现作分析，以展示符号语言学可以如何应用。

这一连串的记录变成一个大型计划，最后我们发展出各自的议程。

卡茨认为媒体事件建构出意想不到的新受众群体，这些群体的出现吊诡地“强化”事件的影响，而非“限制”它们。

在我而言，传统以来，电视在历史书写的角色一直备受议论，班哲明的《历史哲学论纲》、巴特的《历史的论述》和《事件的书写》对此均有论述，还有其它学者的论述，如德塞都（Michel de Certeau）、利科（Paul Ricoeur）及怀特（Hayden White）等。

电视成为历史图像论述新的演绎者，操控“表达性事件”（expressive events）的定义（何谓“表达性事件”请见下文）。

QC：您最近的文章《超出媒体事件：幻想破灭、脱轨、冲突》（Dayan，2008），D字头
韵（Disenchantment，Derailment，Disruption）似乎取代了1992年的C字头韵：挑战、征服、加冕（Contest，Conquest，Coronation）。

为何会有这个改变？此一概念化的发展，可否说是《媒体事件》出版后，您对各方反应的回复？还是跟全球传播系统的普遍转变更有关联？这是源于您在法国的观察，抑或有其它原因？
DD：多谢你们留意到“挑战、征服、加冕”和“幻想破灭、脱轨、冲突”之间的对称。

骤眼看来，有人会认为这是一个假对称，“挑战、征服、加冕”是叙事常规，属于共识性媒体事件类型以下的附属类型。

“幻想破灭、脱轨、冲突”则并非叙事，而是特定的组织和接受形式。

“幻想破灭”反映当代大众的犬儒，而当媒体将事件组织成暴力事故而非协商的机会时，“脱轨”和“冲突”的情况便会出现。

不过，倘若超出技术层面，如你所言，三C和三D对应两个独特的媒体事件模式。

首一模式是有关整合和共识，另一模式则不但鼓吹异见，甚至“创造分化”。

由一个模式走到另一个模式，固然是确认1992年一书忽略了媒体事件的某些范围。

但是，与涂尔干派社会学者相反，我认为共识性媒体事件的确存在，只不过其类型随着时间而演变而已。

2009年的媒体事件跟八十和九十年代自然有所分别。

其实，研究恐怖主义事件（可参看我2006年的《恐怖奇观》）令我发展出比媒体事件更阔的理念：“表达性事件”。

这意味着事件在其表达过程中既可有共识，亦可以分化，因此1992年模式的媒体事件并不至完全消失（如奥巴马的就职礼就仍属共识类事件），但是这类媒体事件不再独霸天下，而是要和其它事件共存于同一媒体空间中。

容我简单回顾一下1992年的三种叙事类型：挑战、征服、加冕。

要涵括今日社会的“表达性事件”，我会加上两个附属类型，第一个与“抹黑”有关，如凯里（James Carey）所言的排斥、羞辱和革除；第二个则是“确认”，如真相与和解。

抹黑主导了本世纪早年的事件，这可能是因为事件本身被视为抹黑（如Daniel Pearl被斩首），或因为“脱轨”和“冲突”后，事件变成“抹黑”。

QC：在您1992年著作中，有关媒体事件的主要实证参考是卫星电视。

近年，更多的卫星节目来自拉丁美洲（如telenovelas肥皂剧）、中东（如半岛电视台）、南亚（如Zee TV）和东亚（如CCTV 国际）。

瑟苏（Daya Thussu）认为这种新形式是建基于“地理语言区”。

从全球角度而言，卫星电视是否变成一种瓦解的力量？抑或您始终认为卫星电视是融合全球社会最包容和有效的工具？
DD：卡茨和我有一个经常被忽视的观点：媒体事件确有达致国际整合的野心，但它在实际中是否成功，则是另外一回事。

很多事件以全球作构想，但实际成功却仅限于某些“国族社群”（communities of nations）。

有些国家选择去共享某一庆典，但其它国家可能只将该庆典降格作简单新闻处理。

换言之，即使在从前，媒体事件也有内外之分。

我同意瑟苏所言“地理语言区”对新兴卫星电视的重要。

而且，由于我认为科技本身并没有内在的意识形态，所以卫星电视变成一种瓦解的力量并不稀奇。

这可能会发生在挑战或革除的情况，甚至乎不在这些情况下：现在，同一事件可以既是庆典式媒介事件，同时也可是哀悼性媒介事件。

科技、中国和新的公共模式
QC：互联网和流动电话在社会无孔不入，传播环境在过去十年转变良多。

这些新兴的传播模式如何影响你对媒体事件的看法？我们应该用哪些理论及方法学的工具，以分析虚拟世界里的历史时刻和集体记忆？
DD：我刚刚为此写了一篇题为“分享和展示”的论文，并将会刊登于2009年秋季的《美国政治与社会科学院学刊》（Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science）。

文章是关于一种公共模式，这种模式可以说和电视同体，牢牢系于中心。

但是这种模式渐渐
为另一新的公共模式取代，这是因为中央和边缘的界线已为新的媒体所模糊。

博客和一些网页便属于后者，它们反过来跟主流媒体、有“中央和边缘”之分的媒体、想象集体的媒体进行对话。

博客作者往往打乱中央电视对集体的想象，勇于挑战官方垄断的形象。

他们清楚表明大众也可以是表演者，大众也可以是自己形象的创始人。

比如撒达姆之死，有官方的处决洁本，同时也有流动电话兼网络的形象幻灭版本。

新公共空间的特征便是散布各式各样互相对抗的、不协调的影像。

不过，有趣的不仅是新媒体的主动和喧嚷，与旧媒体的大异其趣，而且两种表现更有分工之势。

旧媒体展现事件，新媒体作回应。

响应中央媒体（包括如媒体事件试图制造大规模共识的极端情况），新媒体往往寻求自己的接收空间、响应空间。

换言之，新媒体的角色似乎站在公众一边。

QC：您跟普赖斯（Monroe Price）编辑的新书《拥有奥运》在北京奥运前出版。

如今观察过今次奥运，不只在北京，甚至世界各地发生的事件，比如2008年4月的圣火在巴黎传递的情况，您认为2008年奥运是特别的媒体事件吗？如不，原因何在？
DD：我们特地选择奥运前出版此书，因为我们愿意冒险：到运动会来临，我们是对是错便会揭盅。

事实我们是对的（起码我如此认为）。

整个北京奥运不论前、中、后发生的事件，都属于“幻想破灭、脱轨和冲突”。

欧洲群众幻想破灭，认为奥运纯粹是政治事件；事件脱轨了，由庆祝中国变成抹黑其在西藏的行动；而有关方面千方百计要做到的正是预防冲突的发生。

虽然参赛选手仍在争胜和落败，但是他们的表现几乎反而变得次要了。

至于圣火传递，我亲眼目睹事件脱轨的情况，先是在伦敦博物馆附近，然后是欧洲之星火车内，站满示威者和官员，最后在巴黎。

跨学科取向和个人学术经验
QC：您的学术训练是属于跨学科性质，包括人类学、比较文学、符号语言学、美学和电影研究。

这是法国学者，起码是您这一代人的典型道路吗？呼吁跨学科研究几近成为陈腔滥调，您认为传播研究是否已经属于跨学科？
DD：不，这不是法国学者典型的道路，只不过是我事事好奇。

我在1968年是博士生，当年的法国大学很死板，你很早便要选择专科，除非是特别的精英班，你可以同时修读哲学、历史、文学、拉丁文和语文的学士课程。

我在亨利四世中学读过这类课程，但它只有古典学科，而我对电影、人类学，以及其后的符号语言学均有浓厚兴趣。

因此我除了在索邦大学读书，也在高等社会科学研究院取得学位。

该院聚集了一班特立独行的教授。

人类学是于巴黎人类博物馆的地库讲授，导师全部赫赫有名：利瓦伊史陀（Claude Levi-Strauss）、巴斯替德（Roger Bastide）、勒华古杭（Leroi-Gourhan）、梅弥（Albert Memmi）和让•鲁什（Jean Rouch）。

同时，罗兰•巴特（Roland Barthes）正为文学研究引入全新的研究取向。

这群迥然不同的学者有一共通点（除了民族精神学家巴斯替德），他们全都研究影像。

我因此为自己找出一条较系统的治学之路。

真正跨学科的时刻其实是和卡茨合作时间始的，面对如此优秀的实践者，我才发现以社会学研究电视的潜力无穷，但我对社会学的认识却如此有限。

我于是奋起直追。

我相信影响是互相的，卡茨初为叙事逻辑的取向所吸引（所以才有“挑战、征服、加冕”），然后则对符号语言学有兴趣。

这或许因此令他后来对其“媒介效果”研究进行修正，转而采取媒介接受理论（reception theory）的取向，所以后来才有《意义的输出》。

当我和卡茨互相学习对方的概念工具时，人类学其实提供了一种共同语言。

大概正是因此，《媒体事件》一书才会如此强调李维史陀和维克托•特纳（Victor Turner）。

QC：对华人知识界而言，罗兰•巴特是二十世纪最具影响力的欧洲理论家之一。

您和他曾经一起工作，当时情形是怎样？您在做什么？这些经验对您的学术发展有影响吗？
DD：大致上我和罗兰•巴特的交往有三个层次，其一是朋友，因为我们都曾在同一疗养
院治疗肺病。

当时的病友还包括加缪（Camus），因而有同病相怜之感。

其二，1966年他是我的论文导师。

其三，1967至1968年，他则是我的上司。

他聘请我于国家科学研究中心当助理。

当时他和社会学家埃德加•莫兰（Edgar Morin）一起工作。

巴特是值得尊敬的朋友，他明白我对索邦教学的不满，因此给我文章对我的影响并非来自论文的评语，而是他的文章。

而且对我影响最大的倒不是他的名著《神话学》或其它关于语言环境的文本（此类文章大大运用了“猜疑的诠释学”〔hermaneutics of suspicion〕）。

真正对我至今仍有影响的主要著作其实是：一、《S/Z》；二、《历史的论述》（这引发我对J. L. Austin 的兴趣）；三、《事件的书写》。

后者以1968年学生运动为题材，对《媒体事件》影响深远，而“表达性事件”的概念亦因此而起。

最后一点，我曾修读电影研究，巴特曾有一阵子是戏剧总监。

如果要攀附上来，巴特曾和布莱希特（Brecht）一同学习，而布莱希特曾与班哲明共事。

如此说来，巴特影响我的东西，恐怕大部分来自班哲明。

戴扬著作选
Dayan，D.，& Katz， E. （1992）. Media events：The live broadcasting of history.
Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press.
Dayan，D. （2006）. La terreur spectacle：Terrorisme et télévision. Paris：INA De Boeck.
Dayan，D. （2008）. Beyond media events：Disenchantment，derailment，disruption.
In M. Price & D. Dayan （Eds）. Owning the Olympics：Narratives of the New China （pp. 391–402）. Ann Arbor，MI：The University of Michigan Press.
Media Event as a Concept and its Evolution
QC：Jack Linchuan Qiu & Joseph Man Chan
DD：Prof. Daniel Dayan
The intellectual origins and evolution of “media events”
QC：Your 1992 book Media Events co-authored with Elihu Katz is very influential among Chinese communication scholars，especially after the publication of the book’s Chinese version in 2000. Could you tell us about the context of that book？How did the two of you conceive it initially after Anwar Sadat’s journey to Jerusalem in 1977？What led to the idea of “the live broadcasting of history”？
DD：The book started as an exploration of a new form of diplomacy，the type of media-diplomacy illustrated by Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem. Elihu Katz challenged me at the time to show what semiotics could do，by proposing a day-by-day analysis of Sadat’s performance. This chronicle led to a much larger project to which each of us brought a specific agenda. In the case of Elihu Katz，Media Events were constructing new and unexpected types of reception communities，whose existence paradoxically led not to “limited，”but to “intensified，”effects.
In my own case，television was questioned within a long tradition of reflection on the writing of History，involving Benjamin’s Theses on the Philosophy of History，Barthes’s The Discourse of History and The Writing of the Event，de Certeau，Ricoeur，Hayden White，etc. Television appeared as the new performer of historiographic discourse and the new institution in charge of defining “expressive events”（see below for what I mean by “expressive events”）.
QC：We noticed in your recent work，“Beyond media events：Disenchantment，derailment，disruption”（2008），the D-words have seemed to replace the C-words of 1992，i.e.，“Contest，Conquest，Coronation.”Why does this happen？Is this development in your conceptualization a response to feedback you have received on Media Events or is it related to
more general transformations in the global communication system？Is it rooted in your observations in France or maybe due to some other reasons？
DD：Thank you for noticing the symmetry between “Contest，Conquest，Coronation”on the one hand and “Disenchantment，Derailment，Disruption”on the other.
At first glance，one could be saying that it’s a false symmetry. “Contest，conquest，coronation”are narrative formulae，subgenres within the general genre of （consensual）media events. “Disenchantment，derailment and disruption”do not concern narratives，but specific forms of organization and reception. “Disenchantment”concerns the cynical nature of contemporary publics. “Derailment”and “disruption”take place when the organization of an event becomes a matter of violence rather than an opportunity for negotiation.
Yet，you are right in your perception that beyond this technical aspect，the three C’s and the three D’s correspond to two distinct models of media events. In the first case the model speaks of integration and consensus. In the second case，the model actively promotes not only dissent but “schismogenesis.”
Switching from one model to the other model was not merely a matter of acknowledging dimensions of media events that had been overlooked in the 1992 book. Rather than agreeing that consensual media events never existed （except in the mind of Durkheimian sociologists），I believe that they did exist. Yet there has been a historical evolution of the genre. Media events in 2009 are no longer what they used to be in the eighties or nineties.
In fact，studying terrorist events （see my 2006 book，La Terreur Spectacle）led me to develop a notion much wider than that of media events：the notion of “expressive events.”Expressive events may be either consensual or dissensual depending on the case. This means that media events corresponding to the 1992 model have not altogether disappeared （as evidenced by Obama’s inauguration）but that they share the media event space with other sorts of events.
Let me briefly return to the three narrative forms we introduced in 1992：Contest，conquest，coronation. To account for the full range of today’s “expressive events，”I would add two subgenres to that list. The first concerns events that perform “stigmatization”（like the rituals of exclusion，humiliation or excommunication discussed by James Carey）. The second consists of events that achieve “recognition”（such as many “truth and reconciliation”rituals）. Events of stigmatization have tended to dominate the early years of this century，either because they were directly conceived as such （e.g.，the beheading of Daniel Pearl）or because they became stigmatizations following “derailment”or “disruption.”
QC：In the 1992 book，your main empirical reference for media events was satellite TV. In recent years，more satellite TV programs are originating from Latin America （e.g. telenovelas），the Middle East （e.g. Al Jazeera），South Asia （e.g. Zee TV），and the Asian Pacific （e.g. CCTV International）. Daya Thussu contends that these new patterns are based on “geo-linguistic regions.”Does this mean，globally speaking，satellite TV is also becoming a disintegrating force？Or，do you think it is still the most inclusive and most powerful tool for worldwide social integration？
DD：There is a point made by Elihu Katz and me，which was not really picked up by commentators. It contrasted the international integrative ambitions of media events to their actual success. The ambitions of many events were global，but in fact they often succeeded in enlisting no more than mere “communities of nations.”Some nations do elect to share a given celebration，whereas other nations have demoted the very same celebration to a brief treatment in
the news. In other terms，media events，already then，involved an inside and an outside.
I would agree with Daya Thussu on the importance of “geolinguistic”regions for the new players of satellite TV. And，since I believe that technology does not come equipped with a built-in ideology，I do not see why satellite TV would not become a disintegrating force. It could be so in the case of rituals of challenge or excommunication，but even in their absence：today，the very same events can lend themselves to celebratory media events and to rituals of mourning.
Technology，China，and a new model of publicness
QC：Marked by the proliferation of the Internet and mobile phone，the communication environment has been transformed in the last decade. How do these new means of communication contribute to your recent thinking on media events？What are the theoretical and methodological tools that we should consider in analyzing historical moments and collective memory that are taking shape in cyberspace？
DD：I just wrote an essay on this subject entitled “Sharing and Showing，”which will appear in the fall 2009 issue of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. The essay is about a certain model of publicness，which is consubstantial with a type of television firmly anchored in the center. This model is losing ground to another model of publicness，made possible by media that blur distinctions between centers and peripheries.
Enacting the latter model，certain blogs or websites adopt a role that consists in talking back to the major media，to the media of “center and periphery，”to the media of the imagination of the collective. Bloggers tend to disrupt the role of central television in the imagination of the collective by daring to challenge the monopoly of official images. They make clear that members of the public can be performers as well；that members of the public can be the initiators of their own images. Think of the double death of Saddam Hussein，of the official sanitized version of his execution，and of its infamous cellphone-cum-web-site，version. What characterizes the new public sphere is this proliferation of antagonistic demonstrations of discordant images.
Yet，what is interesting about the role adopted by the new media goes beyond the conflictual relationship between their active，vociferous performance and the prior performance it talks back to. It is the simple fact that a division of labor has been established between performances that come first and performances that respond to them. In regard to the media of the center （and to their extreme form：media events）the role which the new media have invented for themselves most often consists in settling for the space of reception，the space of response. In other words，the new media seem to have adopted a role which is that of Publics.
QC：The new book you co-edited with Monroe Price，Owning the Olympics，was published before Beijing Olympics. After observing the actual unfolding of events，not only in Beijing but also elsewhere and before the games —such as the international Torch Relay that included the confrontation in Paris in April 2008 —do you think the 2008 Olympics is an exceptional “media event”？If so，how？If not，why？
DD：We did choose to publish the book before the Olympics because we liked the idea of taking risks：we ran the risk of being proved right or wrong by the turn of events. In fact we were –I believe –proved right. The whole story of the Beijing Games，before，during，and after the actual competitions，was one of disenchantment，derailment and disruption. Disenchantment of the European crowds，who saw the Olympics as a purely political event. Derailments of the events，involved turning what was meant as a celebration of China into the stigmatization of its role in Tibet. Extraordinary measures were taken against the possibility of Disruption. In the
middle of all this，athletes were still winning and losing，but their performances had become almost secondary.
Concerning the torch relay，I was able to watch the unfolding of derailment attempts first hand，first in London near the British Museum，then in the Eurostar train，which was full of both officials and protesters，and finally in Paris.
Interdisciplinary approaches and personal intellectual experience
QC：We noticed that your academic training is very interdisciplinary，including anthropology，comparative literature，semiotics，aesthetics，and film studies. Is this a typical path for French scholars，at least those of your generation？We hear the call for interdisciplinary research so often that it has almost become cliché. Is communication research already interdisciplinary enough？
DD：No，it is not a typical path for French scholars. It probably speaks of my own curiosity.
I was a Ph.D. candidate in 1968. Before 1968，French universities were extraordinarily rigid. You had to choose your specialty very early，except in specific elite programs where you could be simultaneously trained at B.A. level in many disciplines （philosophy，history，literature，Latin，languages）. I attended such a program at Lycée Henri IV，but it concerned only classical disciplines. Yet I was immensely interested in cinema，in anthropology，and later in semiotics.
This is why，besides studying at Sorbonne I also took degrees at Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales，which regrouped a number of maverick professors. Anthropology was taught in the basement of Musée de l’Homme in Paris by an extraordinary group of teachers：Claude Levi-Strauss，Roger Bastide，Leroi-Gourhan，Albert Memmi，Jean Rouch. At the same time，Roland Barthes was introducing totally new approaches to literary studies. This very diverse group of teachers had one thing in common：except perhaps for Bastide （an ethnopsychiatrist），all of them studied images. In a way I had invented for myself a coherent curriculum.
The truly interdisciplinary moment came when I started working with Elihu Katz. In front of such a brilliant practitioner，I realized the enormous potential of a sociological approach to television，and how little sociology I knew. I have tried to make up for my ignorance since. I believe that the game of influence was reciprocal. Elihu Katz was first seduced by narratologic approaches （hence “contest，conquest，coronation”），and then，by semiotics in general. This is perhaps what led him to reformulate his “effects”approach in terms of reception theory （see，for example，his The Export of Meaning）.
Interestingly，while Elihu Katz and I were learning to use each other’s conceptual tools，anthropology offered a common language. This is perhaps why Claude Levi-Strauss and Victor Turner are so prominently present in Media Events.
QC：Among Chinese intellectuals，Roland Barthes is among the most influential European theorists of the twentieth century. Could you also tell us a little about your work experience with him？What did you do at the time？Does it help shape your scholarship？
DD：I had roughly three different experiences with Roland Barthes. First，and for a few years，he was a friend. （We had been treated for a lung disease in the same sanatorium，and there was a feeling of solidarity between former inmates，who included also Camus）. Then，in 1966 he became my dissertation adviser and for one year （1967–68）he was my boss （He hired me as an assistant at CNRS where he worked at the time with sociologist Edgar Morin）.
As a friend，Barthes was wonderfully respectful. He understood why I was dissatisfied with
the teachings offered in Sorbonne，and he helped me by giving me texts to read and by commenting on my early papers.
As a boss，he was also quite generous. But we did not always agree. My job as his research assistant consisted in doing field work on the structure of street conversations. In order to record conversations that were often polyphonic，I relied on Erwin Goffman. Barthes turned out not to be interested in Goffman （while Goffman，whom I met much later，expressed a vivid interest in Barthes）.
As a dissertation adviser，Barthes was quite difficult，because he challenged the very notion of a dissertation （an “unwriterly”genre）. He himself had refused to submit his own dissertation （which became the Discourse of Fashion）.
In a way，Barthes’role was to subvert，and he could not bring himself to a position of invested authority. This is why Barthes’s major influence on my work did not come from his advice，but from his writings. Rather than Mythologies or the texts on connotation，heavily indebted to a “hermeneutics of suspicion，”the major texts by Media Event as a Concept and its Evolution which I am influenced to this day are：（1）S/Z；（2）The Discourse of History （that started my interest in J. L. Austin），and （3）The Writing of the Event，a seminal text about the student revolts of 1968，which has direct implications for Media Events，and on the notion of “expressive events.”
A last point：I studied film and cinema. Barthes was a theater director for a while. If I play the game of filiations，I find it interesting that Barthes studied with Brecht，who once worked with Benjamin himself. Thus，what influenced me most in Barthes，had probably a lot to do with Walter Benjamin.
Selected Works by Daniel Dayan
Please refer to the end of the Chinese version of the dialogue for Daniel Dayan’s selected works.
（出处：丹尼尔.戴扬、邱林川、陈韬文（2009）?媒介事件概念的演变?《传播与社会学刊》9：1-18）
[注释]
邱林川和陈韬文分别是香港中文大学新闻与传播学院助理教授及教授，后者并为本刊主编。

Jack Linchuan Qiu is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Communication，the Chinese University of Hong Kong，where Joseph Man Chan is a professor. The latter is also the Chief Editor of the Journal.。