“社会资本”究竟怎么了？

【作者】 刘翠霞；

【导师】 林聚任；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 社会学， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 社会资本在当前学术界是一个炙手可热的概念。诸多学者乐此不疲地执此利器穿梭于各领域之间,盛赞社会资本的解释力;但讨伐唾弃的声音也不绝于耳,扬言社会资本乃老生常谈的陈词滥调。徜徉在褒贬不一、波涛汹涌的社会资本海洋里,究竟该如何启航?社会资本是“美味佳肴”还是“烫手的山芋”?一方面,在理论上,由于含义混乱,抛弃社会资本的呐喊时而有之;另一方面,在经验上,由于消极作用的存在,痛斥社会资本的呼声也不断闪现。社会资本无形中陷入了“盛名之下,其实难副”的困境。那么,社会资本究竟怎么了?文章正是在理论-经验现实和全球化-本土化双重维度下对这一发问的尝试性解答。 文章首先通过概念考古和理论回顾,对社会资本进行了全面的梳理,分析了社会资本概念和术语的分离,厘清了社会资本思想的发展谱系。接着在理论—全球化维度下,运用后现代之解构策略,从学科范式、二元思维、语言修辞上对社会资本进行了一番理论逻辑的解构。关于社会资本研究,在学科范式上已基本形成了经济学、政治学、社会学三足鼎立的局面,在语言修辞上动用了生物医学、市场、乌托邦、网络、建筑等诸多隐喻,在分析中则处处表现出微观—宏观、个人—社会、行动-结构、传统—现代等种种二元对立思维,这就导致社会资本概念理解上的混乱,于是也便成为“社会资本究竟怎么了?”的认知症结之所在。 然后,在理论—本土化维度下,以上述理论逻辑的解构为基础,切入本土化视角,运用内容分析法,对中国学术界社会资本研究的总体状况进行了描述和分析,指出中国学者对于社会资本的理解除了因循社会资本理论逻辑的总体脉络外,已经结合中国经验与传统,形成了两个鲜明的“派别”:关系网络派和公民精神派。前者以市场隐喻为根基,着眼于个体之利,声称中国社会资本发达丰厚;后者以乌托邦隐喻为根基,着眼于社会之益,断言中国社会资本衰弱匮乏。由此,中国社会资本便可能陷入这样一种悖论局势:没有公民精神的发达社会资本或者说是没有社会资本的发达关系网络。那么经验事实到底如何呢? 于是,笔者便在经验现实—本土化维度下,以对这种悖论的思考为出发点,将社会资本具体化为社会风气观、公民参与、处世之道、信任安全感和关系网络五个易于测量的方面,运用问卷调查法、访谈法,以山东省农村为例,对中国社更多还原

【Abstract】 Social capital is a popular concept in current academic circles. Some schorlars praise this umbrella concept highly for its efficacy in intepretation; others denounce its confusion in logic. How do we sail in the sea with great waves where social capital is maken contradictory judgements on? Is social capital a delicious meal or a hot potato? On the one hand, the slogan of "give up social capital" appears frequently because of its puzzling implications of theory; on the other hand, the voice of deprecatory remarks rises one after another because of its negative influence on reality. What’s on earth wrong with social capital? It is just this question that the article would try to answer according to dual dimensionalities of theory-reality and universalization-localisation.Firstly, the article explores the origin of the concept of social capital, reviews the development of its theory and shows the pedigree of its idea. So many misunderstandings about it may be clarified. Then under the theory-universalization dimensionality, the author makes use of deconstruction tactics of post-modernism and deconstructs the theoretical logic of social capital from three perspectives of paradigm, dual-thinking and rhetoric. It is clear that a growing number of sociologists,political scientists and economists have draw upon many kinds of metaphor to understand the soul of social capital in diffenrent levels such as macroscope-microscope, stracture-agent,society-individual and traditon-modern, which the epistemic crux of "what’s on earth wrong with social capital?" lies in.Secondly, under the theory-localisation dimensionality, the author outlines the scene of research on social capital during recent ten years in China. The Chinese scholars follow the inherent theoretical logic of social capital, but their understandings are characterised by two distinct factions: relation networks and civil virtues. The former emphasize individual interests and are considered rich in China; the latter stress social benefits and are rather scarce in China. Thus, when talking about Chinese social capital, we are likely to get into a paradoxical dilemma: wealthy social capital without civil virtues or open relation networks without social capital. How is the reality going?Thirdly, under the reality-localisation dementionality, the author presents one representative part of the picture of Chinese social capital. By means of questionaire survey and interview, the author describes the situation of social capital in rural areas of ShanDong province which includes views about social ethos, social involvement, sophisticated arts, sense of trust and relation networks. The main findings are as follows: first, the rural residents of ShanDong province hold a pessimistic and anxious attitudetowards social atmosphere after reformation and opening. Second, the ratio of social involvements is low, but consciousness of involvement is high, which result from the scarcity of appropriate conditions and legitimate ways. Thus so-called nonparticipation should actually be called compulsory nonparticipation and so-called formal participation called compulsory claptrap participation. Third, the rural residents are still inclined to act on triditional ethic, but there has been much modern evidence in which dissimilation and aberrance of traditional morals are inevitable. Fourth, the pattern of trust is still gradual and the degree of social trust is rather high. The phenomenon of good-will aquaintance-swindling and ill-disposed aquaintance-swindling coexist in society. Fifth, the relation networks look close. Last, the studies show that social capital has great influence on individual earnings and satisfaction of life. Generally speaking, social capital offers more information to individuals for increasing income and strengthens confidence in work and life. From this research, the author finds many new problems and revised the above paradox in some extent.Finally, the author makes a simple conceptual construction for native social capital in terms of sociological imagination and indicates that "risk rationality" may work on the operation of Chinese social capital.It is to be regretted that the study of social capital falls through under reality-universalisation dimensionality because of limitations of the author’s knowledge and ability.This article draws a circle which begins with deconstruction and ends with construction. The author wishes that it can contribute to a better understanding of social capital for many scholars. Certainly, there are many drawbacks in this article. And the author will work hard to advance the academic accomplishment. Here, the author only wants to throw out a minnow to catch a whale.更多还原