鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想研究

【作者】 陶日贵；

【导师】 刘卓红；

【作者基本信息】 华南师范大学 ， 马克思主义理论与思想政治教育， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本论文旨在对鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想进行系统的研究，并给予马克思主义的审视与评析。论文对鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想提出的现实条件、理论背景和由来进行探讨，并从描述、解释和分析这三个层次梳理、概括、提炼“流动的现代性”思想的内涵和特征。在此基础上，把它与马克思现代性思想进行比较，通过马克思主义的视角对其进行审视和评析，厘清其理论贡献和不足。最后，从现实的角度探讨“流动的现代性”思想对当代中国现代化建设的启示。首先，鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想的生成、提出既有深刻的经济社会根源，也有深厚的思想文化根源，同时也是鲍曼思想发展的内在出路。20世纪80年代以来的经济全球化浪潮，不仅推动了西方发达社会的结构转型，给人类生活带来前所未有的困境和挑战，同时也引发了当代西方思想理论界的两次论战，即现代性之争与全球化之争。基于对经济全球化及其后果的反思和回应，基于与参与论战的当代思想家和理论家进行思想对话和反诘，基于对“后现代性”机遇丧失的原因考察和“后现代性”分析框架的局限性，鲍曼提出了“流动的现代性”思想。其次，从现象描述、因果解释和本质分析这三个层面由表及里、层层深入地梳理、剖析鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想的主要内涵及特征。在描述层面，“流动的现代性”之“流动”，指的是社会“在流动”，即“社会的解体”。其具体表现为：人的存在方式由“稳定性”向“流动性”转变；人的思维方式由“整体性”向“碎片性”转变；人的行为方式由“规范性”向“非规范性”转变。在解释层面，“流动的现代性”时期，资本具有逃逸性、政治具有消退性、文化具有多元性，三者相互促进、相辅相成。其中，逃逸性的资本是“流动的现代性”形成的决定性因素，消退性的政治和多元性的文化共同服务于资本的全球统治。在分析层面，“流动的现代性”思想的深层结构是“辩证的现代性”思想，它包括以矛盾性为核心、以个体性为基点、以批判性为动力三个相互联结、相互依存的方面。再次，马克思现代性思想与鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想分别是对资本主义历史上两次资本分离这一历史性难题的解释和回应。前一次是经济与家庭的分离，后一次是资本与民族国家的分离。在现代性问题的起因、解决方案和研究方法上，鲍曼与马克思两人既有共同点，也存在着差异。通过这三个方面的比较，认为鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想的贡献主要有：在穷人问题上有新认识；对资本主义现代性做出了新批判；丰富和发展了马克思辩证法思想。其不足之处主要表现为：科学性与人文性的矛盾，经济批判与政治批判的紧张，以及自由的悖论。最后，鲍曼“流动的现代性”思想对当代中国社会主义现代化建设具有一定的启示和借鉴意义。这主要表现在三个方面：在国家层面，把维护国统一放在首位，努力建设强政府，增强抵御全球性风险和自主创新能力；在社会层面，积极保护社会自治组织，在力所能及的条件下实行基本收入制度，使个体在市场竞争的环境下能够保持自治，推动社会主义和谐社会建设；在个体层面，在强调社会发展要以个体发展为目标的同时，要求公民增强公共责任意识，积极履行个体的公共责任。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper aims at systematically studying the theory of "liquid modernity",scrutinizing and analyzing in the perspective of Marxism. It also explores theconditions of presentation, theoretic context and the original thought of "liquidmodernity", clarifying, summarizing and purifying the primary content and basicfeatures of "liquid modernity" in the view of description, interpretation and analysis,on which it compares with the idea of modernity of Marx, by scrutinizing andanalyzing in the perspective of Marxism to identify its contributions and faults. In theend, the instructive revelation of "liquid modernity" to our country’s modernization ispresented in a realistic vision.Firstly, the generation and presentation of Bauman’s "liquid modernity" has itseconomic, social, cultural and profound ideological roots, which is also the inherentoutlet of its development. The tide of globalization since 1980s not only propels thestructural transformation of western developed societies, but brings with theunprecedented predicament and challenges, along triggering two debates onmodernity and globalization in western ideological and theoretical field, put forwardto is that, based on the reflection on and response to the globalization and itsconsequences, the dialogue and cross-examination with the contemporary ideologistsand theorists who participated in the debate, the exploration of the reason for the missof the opportunity of "postmodernity" and the limit of the analytic frame of"postmodernity", the "liquid modernity" of Bauman’s thought.Secondly, by describing the phenomenon, interpreting the cause-effect andanalyzing the essence, the author penetratingly clarifies and examines deeply theprimary connotation and the features of "liquid modernity". In description, the"liquid" of the "liquid modernity" means that the society is mobile, namely, "societyis disintegrating", which embodies: the mode of being of the individual changes from"firmness" to "liquidity", the way of thinking from "totality" to "fragment"; the wayof behavior from "regularizatity" to "non-regularizatity". In interpretation, during the"liquid modernity", capital is characterized by the "escaping", politics by the "fadingaway", while culture develops in diversity, which help each other go forward andcomplement each other. The "escaping" of capital is the decisive factor of "liquidmodernity", politics of the "fading away" and culture of the "diversity" bothcontribute to the rule of the capital globalization. In analysis, the profound structure ofthe idea of"liquid modernity" is that of"dialectic modernity", including three aspects —contradiction as the core, individuality as the basis, criticism as the motive, whichare mutually dependent and interlinked.Thirdly, the idea of modernity of Marx and the "liquid modernity" respectivelyinterpreted and responded to the historical issue of twice capital separation in thehistory of capitalism. The former stood for the separation between economy andfamily, and the latter meant the separation between capital and nations. In the cause,solution of the modernity and the research approach, Marx and Bauman shared manysimilarities, but there were also some differences between them. By Comparison fromthe three aspects, the contributions of the Bauman’s idea "liquid modernity" aremainly as follows: the new recognition to the poor; the new critics to the modernity ofcapitalism; the enrichment and development of dialectic theory of Marx. The faultswere mainly involved in: the conflict between the science and humanity, tensebetween economic critic and political critic and the paradox of liberty.Lastly, the idea of "liquid modernity" has significant revelation and reference tocontemporary socialist modernization in China, which plays a very important role inthree aspects: in the field of state to build up powerful government, attaching primaryimportance to safeguarding state sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, unificationand security come first, making effort to build up powerful government, improvingthe capability against the global risks and the self-renovation capability are required;in the aspect of society, we’d establish and improve the social security system. Atpresent, actively protecting the social autonomy organization, carrying out the basicincome system if conditions permitted are urgent, making the individual keepautonomy under the market competition to promote building a harmonious society; inthe respect of individual, we’d also highlight the core idea of man-oriented, whileemphasizing the society development with the same pace of individual developmentgoal, advocating the individual public responsibility of citizens and strengthening theawareness of public responsibility of citizens.更多还原