【作者】 刘程；

【导师】 文军；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 社会学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 风险在现代社会所展现出的广泛性、复杂性特征以及人化、制度化的趋势,引起了学术界的广泛关注。在关于风险的社会学讨论中,正如皮特·斯特赖顿(Piet Strydom)所言,真正称得上主流的理论只有两派:即乌尔里希·贝克(UlrichBeck)的风险社会批判分析和尼古拉斯·卢曼(Niklas Luhmann)的偶然性社会的不可知论。其中,前者深刻地洞察了风险在现代社会的本质特征,并将风险归结为现代性的膨胀及其副作用的结果,从而真正开辟了社会学对风险的研究范式。后者则完全是从现代社会的结构和内在机制来阐释风险的来龙去脉。卢曼认为,现代社会的风险乃是功能分化所导致的系统复杂性和可能性剧增引起的。所以,要从系统的角度来把握风险问题。本文通过对两者风险理论的比较分析发现:在认识论基础方面,贝克倾向于建构主义的现实主义,而卢曼倾向于强建构主义;在方法论上,贝克的是制度主义的方法论,而卢曼则是系统主义的方法论;在理论旨趣方面,贝克的分析是将风险作为分析对象的,而卢曼则将风险作为社会学分析的一种理论视角;在分析纬度方面,贝克倾向于社会批判的价值纬度,而卢曼则是从非道德化的纬度展开的;在风险应对策略上,贝克强调的是反思性科学化和全球“亚政治”的策略,卢曼更为悲观一些,但也强调了二阶观察的重要性。与此同时,作为从社会学角度出发的风险理论,贝克和卢曼的所处的社会背景和思想背景基本相同,在本体论上都将世界视为不确定的存在,其分析都采用的是非个体主义的方法论,其逻辑起点都在于现代性的危机,并在反思性和抵制激进的社会批判上取得契合:必须保持开放性的心态,保持对自身理性能力的有限性的高度警觉,保持对整个社会的反思性。最后,本文对两者的思想进行总结和评论:一方面强调了贝克和卢曼的风险理论是对现代社会发展中的悖论问题的深刻反思,有利于我们从多角度、多层面把握现代社会本质及其发展并建构新的现代性,具有极其重要的理论意义和现实意义;另一方面,也指出两者的风险思想中还存在一些有待商榷和尚需进一步讨论的理论观点。更多还原

【Abstract】 In modern society, for showing the characteristics of universality and complexity and the trends of man-made and institutionalized, risk has aroused widespread concern in academic community. In the discussions on the sociology of risk, as Piet Strydom said, that can truly be called the mainstreaming is only two camps: one is Beck’s critical sociology of risk, the other is Luhmann’s agnosticism on contingent society. Beck apperceived the essential characteristic of the risk in modern society, and attributed the risk to the expansion of modernity and its side effects, which opened up a paradigm of sociological study on risk. But Luhmann explained the origin and development of risk from the structure and internal mechanism of the modern society entirely. He insisted that the risk of modern society was caused by the dramatic increase of complexity and possibility in the system, which was the result of functional differentiation. So he considered that we should grasp the problem from the systems perspective.Based on a contrastive study between Beck and Luhmann’s sociological theory of risk, This paper finds that: (1) On the basis of epistemology, Beck would prefer the realism based on constructivism, while Luhmann would prefer strong constructivism. (2) On the methodology, Beck would prefer the institutionalism methodology, while Luhmann would prefer the methodology of system. (3) On the interests of theory, Beck’s analysis treated the risk as a research object, while Luhmann treated the risk as a perspective of sociological theory. (4)On the analysis dimensions, Beck inclined to hold the value dimension to criticize the society, while Luhmann was from a non-moral dimension. (5) On the response strategy to risk society, Beck emphasized the importance of reflective scientific and global "sub-politics". Luhmann was more pessimistic, but he also stressed the importance of second-order observation.At the same time, as two theories departed from sociology, Beck and Luhmann had the same social background and ideological background, regarded the world as an uncertainty existence on the ontology, used the non-individual methodology, started from the crisis of modernity, and fitted on the reflective and resisting radical social criticism.They considered that we must maintain an open attitude and a high degree of alertness to our limited rational capacity, so we can maintain the reflection of society as a whole.Finally, this paper summaries and comments their thoughts on risk. On the one hand, this paper stresses that Beck and Luhmann’s sociological theory of risk is the deep reflection to the paradox on the development of modern society. It can help us grasping the essence and its development of modern society from multi-angle and multidimensional level, which can also help us building a new modern. So, it has remarkable theoretical and practical significance. On the other hand, the paper also points out that there are still some questions which needs further discussion.更多还原