《资本主义文化矛盾》书评

假如世俗的意义系统已被证明是虚幻，那么人依靠什么来把握现实呢?

很好的一本书，资本主义和社会主义，真的有特别明显的界限吗?自由与平等的关系。贝尔要求不是把自由和平等对立起来，而是通过对不同意义的平等的区分，来协调自由和平等。首先要区分“平等待人”与“使人平等”，一般来说，平等待人是合理的，而使人平等则是错误的。他又区别“条件的平等”、“手段的平等”和“后果的平等”。一般来说，注重条件的平等和手段的平等是合理的，而注重后果的平等则是错误的，因为“减少后果悬殊的努力就意味着，为了使另外一些人更与之平等，某些人的自由将会被限制或牺牲”当然，这也并不意味着完全不顾后果方面的严重不平等。贝尔主张用“相对差别原则”来处理一些问题，比如对不同收入的人征不同的税，对不同的学校规定不同的招生要求等等。作为能力和成就之报酬的财富不平等应该予以承认，但对于金钱与金钱之外的社会商品(如医疗保健)的交换，则要加以限制。同时，他建议对消费进行有选择的征税，并改进那些适用于一切人的必要社会公用事业。

这是中国最后的进步

资本主义世界的法律是为握有资本的统治阶级服务的，所以劳动法是不适用于中国大陆公务员和企业董事长、董事和总经理的。 　　 中国大陆宪法静悄悄地抹杀中国工人的罢工权。 　　 中国大陆正在崛起，尤其是经济上的高速发展，法制与各项社会机制的健全，但不可避免出现更大的贫富差距。当城市建设需要更多产业工人时，大量不富有的农民就会转向城市成为工人，中国又开始出现20世纪二三十年代的农工现象。 　　 城市建设需要大量体力劳动力，而中国人口结构中农民庞大，农民进入城市，出卖廉价劳动力，参与城市建设，使农民工成为新兴阶级。划分阶级的标准永远是经济标准。户口就是等级制度的标准。 　　 巩献田向中央上书，认为物权法违宪，在网上发帖子，引起广泛关注，导致物权法进一步修订。 　　 在当今大陆公有制实际成为官有制的情况下，实行完全私有制，保障人民最基本的私有财产权，也是一种社会进步。 　　 但是我们不希望这是中国最后的进步。

小记

买了几年的书，最开始读了几页就放下了，这回坚持把它给读完了。看的时候觉得分析得很有道理，但是时而会跑神，然后再把思维给拉回来，隔了两天，看过什么都不记得了！第一部分涉及现代主义艺术的还好读些；第二部分主要是关于美国政治状况的分析，不太感兴趣；然后是1996版的后记，也好读。最后80来页都是中英对照的索引，怪不得这书这么厚！言归正传，还是把作者的观点再回顾一下吧：1. 作者在整本书中非常强调传统和宗教的重要性：“对一种文化的生命力来说，传统变得至关重要，因为它提供了记忆的连续性，这些记忆告诉我们，前辈在面临相同的生存困境时时如何应对的。”“现代性的真正问题是信仰问题，它是精神危机。没有过去或未来，只有无尽虚空。”“面对难以驾驭的由物质刺激引起的欲望和将权利传给后代的欲望，道德只是抽象概念。”“宗教可以恢复的是世代之间的连续性，把我们带回到生存困境面前，这些生存困境时人性和关怀他人的基础。然此种连续性不能人为制造出来，也不是文化革命可以发动的。连续性来自于给人以生活悲剧感的那些体验，这生活正处于界限和自由的刀口。”2. 资本主义文化矛盾是什么？工业主义建立在经济和节俭的基础上：讲究效率、追求最低成本、最大限度利用、最优选择和功能理性。而现代主义强调反认知和反智性模式，渴望回到表达的本能源头。一个强调功能理性、专家决策和论功行赏；一个强调天启情绪和行为的反理性模式。这是这种断裂导致了所有西方资产阶级社会的历史文化危机。这种文化矛盾将作为社会的致命分裂长期存在。3. 现代主义文化是什么？现代主义文化是最卓越的关于自我的文化。它的中心就是“我”，它的边界由身份确定。现代性充满了对独特的崇拜。现代性文学曾以其私有方式关注灵魂拯救。但是其后继者似乎失去了对拯救本身的关切....我们的祖先拥有一份宗教的寄托，无论他们想求索、徜徉多远，这寄托永远给他们扎根之基。但如今根基被斩断的个人只能是无家可归的文化漂泊者。现代主义作为一种文化运动侵犯了宗教领域，将权威中心从神圣移向世俗。4. 关于后工业社会前工业社会的生活，主要是和自然斗争。工业社会生产产品，是一场和人造自然的争斗。世界变得技术化和理性化。后工业社会关注服务，是人和人的斗争。工业革命实际上就是用技术秩序替代自然秩序、用功能和理性的操纵观念替代资源和气候的随意生态分布的努力。后工业社会秩序否定了这两者。在显著的工作经验中，人越来越脱离自然，也越来越少跟机器和物打交道；人只跟人生活在一起，跟人打交道。

605的阳光和唾沫：说说丹尼尔教授的一本书

哈佛高龄教授丹尼尔•贝尔的《资本主义文化矛盾》出版汉译第三版，对于我这类喜爱历史、社会学阅读的人来讲，实在是福分。《资本主义文化矛盾》汉译第一版由三联书店推出，赵一凡先生与人合译，语句读来偶有芜杂交错之感，总觉得有些地方不大对劲。第二版貌似由商务印书馆推出，基本未作大的改动。第三版由江苏人民出版社推出，我猜想，在南京中央路上的小楼里，一位编辑拿到新译本时感觉大约也是非常愉悦的吧——赵一凡先生是国内研究西方马克思主义、欧美左派运动、现代主义方面的方家，第三版在参考前两版的基础上经由一人通译，在风格上自然应该更为平顺妥贴，我一直以为语言的问题其实是思想的问题，绝对不仅仅是形式问题。但尼尔教授退休后，社会学系为他在詹姆斯楼保留了一间办公室。此楼为哈佛最高建筑，白色，外型像写字楼，以哈佛当初的哲学家威廉•詹姆斯的名字命名，雄居于哈佛学院的围墙之外，俯瞰着周围一带高高低低的动辄有上百年历史的老式建筑。斜对面的设计系的大楼尽管也是新式楼房，但其外形之奇特，内部之蜿蜒曲折，倒有几分波希米亚的韵味，这里的艺术气很重的学生经常说对面社会学系的那栋白楼是哈佛最丑陋的建筑，尽管其中的一间办公室里有一个神灵般的人物。这是不是一种审美偏差？我怀疑了很久，因为60年代以来哈佛青年学生的叛逆倾向很明显，他们对带有贵族色彩的传统是强烈排斥的。我一直在想象，60年代的丹尼尔是如何在办公室度过的？窗外的阳光是否伴随着学生的指指戳戳，唾沫星子会不会在外肆意横飞。丹尼尔先生在讲坛上废掉的唾沫星子又到底有多少，这无法统计，而今天我们捧读着带着墨香的汉译本，我们应该首先为这样的坚持致敬。丹尼尔•贝尔反对传统的决定论、反映论之类的社会解释，他认为：“社会不是整一的，而是断裂的；不同领域回应着不同的规范，有着不同的变革节奏，也由不同甚至相反的轴心原则所支配。……我将社会分解成技术经济结构、政治和文化三个领域，这三个领域不互相重合，也有着不同的变革节奏；它们遵循不同的规范，这些规范将不同甚至是相反的行为类型合法化。是这些领域间的不相调和造成了社会的各种矛盾。”（第8—9页）“如今，在文化上（如果不是道德的话）证明资本主义正当的是享乐主义，即以快乐作为生活方式。在当今普遍流行的自由主义风气中，文化意象的模本就是现代主义者的冲动，其意识形态原理是将冲动探求作为行为方式。这就是资本主义的文化矛盾。这就是导致现代性双重羁绊产生的原因。”（第20页）功能理性与本能源头、自我与虚无等多形式的双重羁绊正是造成矛盾的内在原因。这在60年代的欧美左派学生运动中具有巅峰式的体现。60一代没有父辈在二战期间反法西斯的光荣与历史，缺又不甘于一成不变的生活，他们渴望冲决父辈的樊篱，标榜自我和个性的旗帜。反对父权的青春冲动构成了对资本主义文化的集体叛逆——这当然只是表面现象，事实上这是资本主义文化的解构重生——程巍博士在《中产阶级的孩子们》（三联书店，2006年版）中犀利地指出：资本主义文化领导权以表面非理性的方式真正确立下来。60年代的欧美学生运动，嬉皮士、巴黎街头抛掷的燃烧瓶和石块，金斯堡的朗诵，“越革命越做爱、越做爱越革命”的青春宣言……贵族式的文化审美方式终于土崩瓦解……在经历青春冲动之后，这些中产阶级的孩子们华丽转身，转而成为写字楼里的风度翩翩的绅士和淑女，在欧美政界、商界、学界纵横捭阖，如鱼得水……问题是不是就终结了呢？在笔者看来，矛盾依然存在。韦伯、丹尼尔揭示的科层或者功能理性与本能冲动或曰天启情绪之间的矛盾是始终存在的、自我与虚无之间内在紧张也不可能消失。在信息时代的当下，技术经济结构以一种更为有力的复制、批量的多种方式传播信息与艺术，自我与模式之间的对决有时体现得更为尖锐。现代人的感官似乎在餍足的丰富之后显得日益麻木。“如果世俗意义体系被证明是种幻象，那么人们依靠什么来把握现实呢？我冒险给出一个不那么时髦的答案——西方社会向宗教的某些观念回归。”有意思的是，丹尼尔对俄罗斯的预言后来被事实所证明：“在当代诗人发出最强烈声音、表达出人类最大痛苦的地方——我指苏维埃俄国——一旦政治桎梏被解除，宗教将在文化中绽放最繁盛的花朵。”看来，东正教在俄罗斯的复兴看来是有深层次的文化原因的。“我愿为自由而生，也为自由而死……”（引者略）卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源和基础》这篇伟大的论文中留下了这样一个警句，它揭开了人类文化发展很重要的盖子：自由是人类文化发展的重要动力。在《共产党宣言》里，马克思、恩格斯把这描绘成共产主义社会的一个理想侧面：人的自由全面发展。因此，以此宏阔的眼光观之，丹尼尔也好，60年代也罢，这都只是人类文化进程中的浪花，它们的意义是为中国文化提供了一种观看方式：他综合采用的社会学、历史学、政治学的方法成功地趟出了一条道，通向文化观看的花园，花园的交叉小径大致有两条：传统与反叛是如何发生的？又是如何行动的？——这与中国文化的现实地图中迫切需要呈显的底片似乎存在某种奇怪的映射关系，如果这样的观看方式被我们的知识大众所掌握，给我们的精英人士更多的批判性眼光，这是最希望看到的戏剧式的未来——希望这不是一句新的梦话……

Contradictions Open Future for Art

In my opinion, the significance of Daniel Bell's 'Cultural Contradictions' is more of that in common of modernization, than of that in specific 'of Capitalism'. There is contradiction between the expectation for the art and effect of the art: At one hand, ‘modern art or culture would never permit itself to serve as a “reflection” of an underlying social structure, but rather would open the way to something radically new’; while at the other, ‘there is no longer a significant avant-garde’ as the society can no longer be really “shocked”. More critically, there is contradiction between the art itself and the social structure it born form: The art emphasizes “apocalyptic moods and antirational modes of behaviour”, while the social structure still stands on “functional rationality, technocratic decision-making, and meritocratic rewards”. It is both soundness and flaws within Daniel Bell’s book about these contradictions that introduce more thinking on present and future of art.I. Soundness: looking deep into the rootIt is really difficult to analysis art in modern times. As Daniel Bell mentions in the book, “we see in all the arts a breakup of rational cosmology: of foreground and background in painting; of sequence, beginning, middle, and end in narrative; of melody and harmonic tonalities in music.” “W(w)e find the breakup of genres and an emphasis on "total environments," … which erase the distinction between art and everyday experience.” There is such a huge diversity of social “everyday experience” that “even the majority of approving professional critics missed the mark and praised it for irrelevant reasons.” “And even madness”, “is now conceived to be a superior form of truth!” There seems a great of mass of “search for new aesthetic experience, the breakup of formal genres, and the detachment of life-styles from a fixed social base”, and how can expect anything stable to get aesthetic experiences in common? Daniel Bell’s wisdom is indicated just in figuring out “something” here: Art not only reflects the social beings, but also gives feedbacks under the overall culture. Daniel Bell looks deep into this fundamental process of art. No matter the complexity in the scope of art is born from the modern society as ever, the “shock” from art in return is even more desired to modern society than ever. The idealized announcement form the area of art is cited: “It is we, artists, who will serve you as avant-garde: the power of the arts is in fact most immediate and most rapid. When we wish to spread new ideas among men, we inscribe them on marble or on canvas;…, and in that way above all we exert an electric and victorious influence. We address ourselves to the imagination and to the sentiments of mankind; we should therefore always exercise the liveliest and the most decisive action ....” “What a most beautiful destiny for the arts, that of exercising over society a positive power, a true priestly function, and of marching forcefully in the van of all the intellectual faculties in the epoch of their greatest development! This is the duty of artists and their mission ....” Although it is expected to shock up the society, such ambition just goes into void. The “society given over entirely to innovation, in the joyful acceptance of change, has in fact institutionalized an avant-garde and charged it --- perhaps to its own eventual dismay—with constantly turning up something new. ” “B(b)ecause no one… is on the side of order or tradition”, there is no longer a radical tension between a new art which shocks and a society that is shocked--- merely signifies that the avant-garde has won its victory. ” Such “victory” actually means “t(T)here is only a desire for the new”, but “no longer anything intrinsically novel in what it produced”. The expectation from the area of art for “advancing consciousness” in effect just results in “today there is no longer a significant avant-garde”. Expectation is meaningful, but effect is meaningless. “Esthetic disaster itself becomes an esthetic”. Daniel Bell’s book has revealed this ridiculous contradiction so deep rooting in modern art, and it even traces deeper. Aesthetic is not only a philosophy of Beauty as such, but also of the under relationship with Truth and Goodness. Following the root of ridiculous contradiction he has found, Daniel Bell looks deep into this elementary of Aesthetic. If there is no consciousness of tradition, then there surely is no shock from modern. The same: no persistence, then no innovation. Whether the tradition should be protected, is not just a question of Beauty, but more of Truth and Goodness. If the idea of what is Truth and what is Goodness is ambiguous in modern times, how can we expect the consciously persisting in tradition in the Aesthetic scope? Daniel Bell’s book mentions the fact: “Society now accepts this role for the imagination, rather than --- as in the past --- seeing it as establishing a norm and affirming a moral-philosophic tradition against which the new could be measured and (more often than not) censured”. While advancing more with “functional rationality, technocratic decision-making, and meritocratic rewards”, the social structure actually shows decline of middle class in their influence. “If the esthetic experience alone is to justify life, then morality is suspended and desire has no limit.” Drugs, orgies, wife-swapping, and so on, all kinds of such anti-tradition and even anti-morality behaviours extend in the so-called middle class. “In consequence, the modern hubris is the refusal to accept limits, the insistence on continually reaching out; and the modern word proposes a destiny that is always beyond--- beyond morality, beyond tragedy, beyond culture”. There is an entering to nothingness and self, and “more subtly, the awareness of change prompted a deeper crisis in the human spirit, the fear of nothingness”. It is overwhelming tension between the evaluation system of the society and private person, which covers the tension between social groups about the tradition and modern in the area of art. “The decline of religion, and especially of belief in an immortal soul, provoked a momentous break with the centuries-old conception of an unbridgeable chasm between human dan the divine.” In one aspect, such a break calls for more “apocalyptic moods and antirational modes of behaviour”. “The enhancement of the single life becomes a value for its own sake”; but in another aspect, the modern society is even more commercialized, and the above-all evaluation is even more based on “functional rationality, technocratic decision-making, and meritocratic rewards”. In Daniel Bell’s words, that is the “Death of bourgeois”, and the “crisis of middle-class values” forecasts “t(T)his cultural contradiction, in the long run, is the deepest challenge to the society.Although Daniel Bell’s book just bases on the backgrounds of western world, mainly that of U.S., the contradictions are fundamental. The problems between the art and its social effect, the tradition and modern, the society and private, all can be found in any other country. In nowadays in China, the content and form of art, its responsibility to the society, and the respect to the “master stream”, all these quarrels are repeated without significant. Daniel Bell’s finding at least suggests us an approach in further thinking.II. Flaws: worrying too much It is excellent to find out the contradictions, but it is not so perfect in worrying the problems so much. Plato divided the soul into the rational, the spirited and the appetitive. Our philosophy also can be developed in there aspects: Truth Beauty and Goodness. Although different parts related with each other, they still enjoy their independence. “The cultural realm is one of self-expression and self-gratification. It is anti-institutional and antinomian in that the individual is taken to be the measure of satisfaction, and his feelings, sentiments, and judgments, not some objective standard of quality and value, determine the worth of cultural objects.” Any way, the first nature of aesthetic is the Beauty as such, not the social effect and value it related. The positive aspects of the contradictions should never be forgotten.As to the contradiction between the expectation and effect, the existence of desire to novelty is the significant driving force for the further development. “The emphasis of modernism is on the present, or on the future, but never on the past.” The unconsciousness of society is the enemy of modern art, surely more artists is going on fighting against it. The art will not be fogged for ever. No-novelty in these days can be the preliminary step for novelty in the coming days.As to the contradiction between the evaluation approach of art and that of social structure, the problem of social value is mainly the issue of the rational or the Truth and Goodness. Daniel Bell is so worry: “when one is cut off from the past, one cannot escape the final sense of nothingness that the future then holds.” But is that scenario really possible? I suppose at the time of Daniel Bell’s writing, the modernization in western world has not extended into the globalization as we are meeting now. The traditional value may be doubted within its mother society, but under the globalization, it surely can found supports by comparing with other value from different culture background. The only problem may be just on that from so-called “weak culture”. Taking reference from the political and economic area, like Daniel Bell has tried, one can easily finds western culture is so powerful that it’s traditional value is even more persuasive all over the world.The art and the aesthetic would reveal to society the glorious future, exciting men with the prospect of a new civilization. Even if the development of society, in economy, politics really declares the end of bourgeoisies or capitalism, that just can be the dawn of a new day for the art, culture and aesthetic. I agree with Daniel Bell that the progress involves contradictions deep into its root. I also believe that contradictions open future for the art. Future is always brighter that past.

求推荐比这更晦涩的书

吐槽几句。先申明一下我的大脑是256kb的，跑跑《回到明朝当王爷》之类的还行，《新宋》就很卡，科普书籍就有过热当机的危险。像拿起本书毫无压力，读完之后顺便出几篇paper还是全英文写作的人，我深表佩服。你能想象一个文科生拿起《模拟电路》啃，或者一个工科生开始看《俄语语法详解》么？像《资本主义文化矛盾》这种名字的书，只能说是意外进入了我的书单——我爱人的导师要求写这本书的读书报告，这种光荣而艰巨的任务就交给了我——最近因为写读书报告而看到这句话的同学们，替我爱人给黎叔问好。最初我怀疑是译者的翻译水平有问题，本书充满了大量复杂从句，以及个别病句，其语法涵盖之全面完全可以出一套题叫做汉语专业八级考试阅读理解。往往是读着读着大脑就空白了，感觉跟诸葛亮写《出师表》时差不多，于是回翻重读。后来读入味一点之后，感觉这种晦涩的滋味不光出自于翻译，而主要来自于作者的思想。此外文中有大量的名词让我感觉陌生，并且文中未下定义；第二是作者反反复复的从多个视角论证观点，而这不同视角之间并未存在显而易见的并列、递进关系。贝尔在本书中做出多个对未来的预言，但让我感到的遗憾的是贝尔写成此书的时候互联网尚未成熟，在我看来他虽然预言出后现代文化中的一些特点，但他们那时候没有脸书也没有微博，他没有料到由于生产工具的改变传播手段由量变达成了质变。如果能够给作者提问我真心想问问，当他脑中的后工业时代演变成具体的信息时代之后，他的理论有何否定与肯定。顺便问一下，各位有没有读过比这更晦涩的社会学书籍。我限定了专业，否则的话，跨专业基本都跟读天书差不多吧。有个耶鲁大学的牛人曾经去听演讲，发现完全听不懂，于是上台秀文凭并且质疑演讲者的水平。演讲者问他是什么专业的，牛人回答说：音乐专业。演讲者说，我这是讲数学。你要想听懂，先得看如下书单。结果后来这搞音乐的成了数学家。我的意思当然不是我也要改行搞文化研究，我只是想看看文化研究书籍晦涩的极限在哪里，而已。