The Discovery of Society Fifth Edition Randall Collins and Michael Makowsky McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York St. Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogota Caracas Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal New Delhi San Juan Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto
社会的发现》第五版 Randall Collins 和 Michael Makowsky McGraw-Hill, Inc. 纽约 圣路易斯 旧金山 奥克兰 波哥大 加拉加斯 里斯本 伦敦 马德里 墨西哥城 米兰 蒙特利尔 新德里 圣胡安 新加坡 悉尼 东京 多伦多
THE DISCOVERY OF SOCIETY Copyright © 1993,1989,1984,1978,1972 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed In the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. 34567890 DOC DOC 909876543 ISBN 0-07-011841-8 This book was set in Palatino by The Clarinda Company. The editors were Phillip A. Butcher, Katherine Blake, and Bernadette Boy Ian. The cover was designed by Carol Couch. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company was printer and binder. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Collins, Randall, (date). The discovery of society/Randall Collins, Michael Makowsky.— 5th ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-07-011841-8 1. Sociology—History. I. Makowski, Michael. II. Title. HM19.C64 1993 301'.09—dc20 92-9953
The DISCOVERY OF SOCIETY Copyright © 1993,1989,1984,1978,1972 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. 保留所有权利。在美国印刷。除美国 1976 年版权法允许的情况外,未经出版商事先书面许可,不得以任何形式或手段复制或分发本出版物的任何部分,或将其储存在数据库或检索系统。34567890 DOC DOC 909876543 ISBN 0-07-011841-8 本书由克莱林达公司用帕拉蒂诺字体设置。编辑是 Phillip A·Butcher、Katherine Blake 和 Bernadette Boy Ian。封面是由卡罗尔·库奇设计的。当纳利公司(R·R. Donnelley & Sons Company)负责印刷和装订。美国国会图书馆编目出版资料 柯林斯,兰德尔,(日期)。The discovery of society/Randall Collins, Michael Makowsky.- 5th ed. p. cm. 包括参考书目和索引。著作:《社会学·历史》。社会学·历史。I·Makowski, Michael.II·标题。HM19.C64 1993 301'.09-dc20 92-9953
About the Authors RANDALL COLLINS is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Riverside. He received his A.B. at Harvard (1963), M.A. at Stanford (1964), and Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley (1969). He is the author of a number of books and articles, including Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science (1975), The Credential Society (1979), Three Sociological Traditions (1985), Weberian Sociological Theory (1986), and Theoretical Sociology (1988). Some of his books and articles have been translated into Italian, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Rumanian, German, and Arabic. MICHAEL MAKOWSKY is organizational consultant to Musart Company. He attended New York University's Washington Square College, where he received his B.A. in 1962. He received his M.A. in Sociology from the University of California at Berkeley in 1967. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and Davis, Chabot College, College of San Mateo, Goddard College, the California Institute of Integral Studies, and the Cultural Integration Fellowship during the past thirty years. He is the author of Minstrel of Love: A Biography of Satguru Sant Keshavadas (1980), Breath of the Eternal: The Way of Self-knowledge: The Concept of Atman in Four Upanishads (1990), and numerous articles in contemporary journals. He is currently president of his own company, Deal Glamour Media and Educational Productions. His fields of specialization include comparative religion, social psychology, race relations, sports, and show business.
关于作者 RANDALL COLLINS 是加州大学河滨分校的社会学教授。他在哈佛大学获得学士学位(1963 年),在斯坦福大学获得硕士学位(1964 年),并在加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校获得博士学位(1969 年)。他是许多书籍和文章的作者,包括《冲突社会学》。Toward an Explanatory Science(1975), The Credential Society(1979), Three Sociological Traditions(1985), Weberian Sociological Theory(1986), and Theoretical Sociology(1988)。他的一些书籍和文章已被翻译成意大利语、荷兰语、西班牙语、日语、韩语、中文、罗马尼亚语、德语和阿拉伯语。MICHAEL MAKOWSKY 是 Musart 公司的组织顾问。他在纽约大学华盛顿广场学院学习,并于 1962 年获得学士学位。1967 年,他在加州大学伯克利分校获得社会学硕士学位。在过去的三十年里,他曾在加州大学伯克利分校和戴维斯分校、查博特学院、圣马特奥学院、戈达德学院、加州综合研究所和文化融合研究会任教。他是《爱的吟游诗人》的作者。萨特古鲁·桑特·凯沙瓦达斯传》(1980 年)、《永恒的呼吸》。自知之明》(The Way of Self-knowledge)。四部奥义书中的阿特曼概念》(1990 年),以及当代杂志上的许多文章。他目前是他自己的公司 Deal Glamour Media and Educational Productions 的总裁。他的专业领域包括比较宗教、社会心理学、种族关系、体育和演艺界。
Contents Preface ix INTRODUCTION Society and Illusion 1 PART ONE The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism 17 CHAPTER ONE The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte 19 CHAPTER TWO Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 30 CHAPTER THREE The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 53 CHAPTER FOUR Nietzsche's Madness 66 CHAPTER FIVE Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 81 PART TWO The Great Breakthrough 99 CHAPTER SIX Dreyfus' Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 101 vii
目录 前言 ix 引言 社会与幻觉 1 第一部分 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 17 第一章 巴黎的先知们。圣西门和孔德 19 第二章 地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 30 第三章 最后的君子。53 第四章 尼采的疯狂 66 第五章 好人、进化论者和种族主义者 81 第二部分 伟大的突破 99 第六章 德雷福斯的帝国。埃米尔·杜克海姆和乔治·索莱尔 101 vii
viii Contents CHAPTER SEVEN Max Weber: The Disenchantment of the World 117 CHAPTER EIGHT Sigmund Freud: Conquistador of the Irrational 140 CHAPTER NINE The Discovery of the Invisible World: Simmel, Cooley, and Mead 166 PART THREE The Vicissitudes of Twentieth-Century Sophistication 185 CHAPTER TEN The Discovery of the Ordinary World: Thomas, Park, and the Chicago School; W.E.B. Du Bois and African-American Sociology 187 CHAPTER ELEVEN The Construction of the Social System: Pareto and Parsons 205 CHAPTER TWELVE Hitler's Shadow: Michels, Mannheim, and Mills 220 CHAPTER THIRTEEN Erving Goffman and the Theater of Social Encounters 237 CHAPTER FOURTEEN Contemporary Sociological Theory in France, Germany, and the United States 251 CHAPTER FIFTEEN The Impact of Women in Sociology of the Late Twentieth Century 285 Bibliographical Suggestions 307 Index 321
viii 目录 第十七章 马克斯·韦伯。世界的迷失 117 第八章 西格蒙德·弗洛伊德。第九章 对不可见世界的发现。西梅尔、库利和米德 166 第三部分 二十世纪复杂性的变化 185 第十章 普通世界的发现。托马斯、帕克和芝加哥学派;W·E.B·杜波依斯和非裔美国人社会学 187 第十一章 社会体系的构建。第十二章 希特勒的阴影:米歇尔、曼海姆和米尔斯 220 第三十章 厄文·戈夫曼和社会相遇的剧场 237 第四十一章 法国、德国和美国的当代社会学理论 251 第五十一章 妇女在二十世纪末社会学中的影响 285 参考文献建议 307 索引 321
Preface As sociology moves into the 1990s, some things change while other things continue to keep their relevance. The downfall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-1991 is one of the major social revolutions of modern history, drawing a kind of close to the 20th century, much as the Russian Revolution of 1917 marked a key point near its beginning. Throughout its history, sociology has been attuned to the great social conflicts of the time. The sociology of economic struggle and conflict remains relevant to understanding both of these revolutions; though our analysis has changed in some ways, we will continue to need the accumulated insights of sociology to understand the world of the future. Another, longer and slower change that makes a difference in sociology is highlighted in this new edition. The women's revolution in our society has been going on for several decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, women became more than a small minority within sociology; today women are almost half the discipline. It is no surprise that women have had a major intellectual impact on today's sociology. We review some women sociologists whose works are now moving forward on the cutting edge of the discipline. The main thrust of The Discovery of Society continues to be the development of the great classical tradition. Its central channel has flowed for almost two centuries now, and we have tried to mark its course clearly amid the complexities of surrounding argument and research. For it is our conviction that the central sociological tradition makes up one interrelated revelation of the nature of social reality; and sociology has gradually increased its explanatory power, even as it uncovers new facts and issues. There has been a great intellectual adventure going on, and we continue to be part of it. If the reader captures from this book some sense of this drama, where this flow of ideas and discoveries is coming from, and where it may be going, the book will have accomplished its purpose. It will have accomplished it doubly so for every reader who realizes the reality of the intellectual world it points to. The discoverers of society were, and are, real human beings living in social and intellectual settings analogous to our own. We hope some, seeing this, will join in creating for themselves the next chapter of the discovery of society. ix
前言 随着社会学进入 90 年代,一些事情发生了变化,而另一些事情则继续保持其相关性。1989-1991 年东欧和苏联共产主义政权的垮台是现代历史上主要的社会革命之一,为 20 世纪画上了一个句号,就像 1917 年的俄国革命标志着接近其开始的一个关键点一样。纵观其历史,社会学一直与当时的巨大社会冲突相适应。经济斗争和冲突的社会学仍然与理解这两场革命有关;尽管我们的分析在某些方面已经改变,但我们将继续需要社会学积累的洞察力来理解未来的世界。另一个在社会学中产生变化的时间更长、速度更慢的变化在这个新版本中得到了强调。我们社会中的妇女革命已经持续了几十年。在 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代,妇女在社会学中已不仅仅是少数人;今天,妇女几乎占了该学科的一半。女性对今天的社会学产生了重大的智力影响,这并不奇怪。我们回顾了一些女性社会学家,她们的作品目前正在该学科的前沿领域向前发展。社会的发现》的主旨仍然是对伟大的古典传统的发展。它的中心通道已经流淌了近两个世纪,我们试图在周围复杂的争论和研究中清楚地标明它的路线。因为我们相信,社会学的中心传统构成了对社会现实性质的一个相互关联的启示;社会学已经逐渐增强了它的解释力,即使它发现了新的事实和问题。一直以来,我们都在进行着一场伟大的知识探险,而我们也将继续成为其中的一员。如果读者能从本书中感受到这一戏剧性事件,感受到这一思想和发现的流向,以及它可能的走向,本书就达到了它的目的。对于每一个意识到它所指向的知识世界的现实的读者来说,它将加倍地实现它的目的。社会的发现者过去是,现在也是,生活在与我们相似的社会和知识环境中的真实人类。我们希望有些人看到这一点,会加入到为自己创造发现社会的下一章的行列中来。
x Preface ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Bob Blauner, Harry Edwards, Troy Duster, and Rae Lesser Blumberg for helpful discussions in preparing the material for this new edition. McGraw-Hill and the authors would like to thank the following people for their many helpful comments and suggestions: Scott Fuller, Santa Rosa Community College; Mari Molseed, University of Michigan-Hint; Gert Mueller, American University; Charles Ragin, Northwestern University; Teresa Scheid-Cook, University of North Carolina-Charlotte; and S. Mont Whitson, Morehead State University. Randall Collins Michael Makowsky
前言 我们要感谢 Bob Blauner、Harry Edwards、Troy Duster 和 Rae Lesser Blumberg 在准备新版材料时进行的有益讨论。麦格劳·希尔公司和作者要感谢以下人士提供的许多有益的意见和建议。Scott Fuller,圣罗莎社区学院;Mari Molseed,密歇根大学辛特分校;Gert Mueller,美国大学;Charles Ragin,西北大学;Teresa Scheid-Cook,北卡罗来纳大学夏洛特分校;以及 S·Mont Whitson,莫海德州立大学。Randall Collins Michael Makowsky
The Discovery of Society
社会的发现
INTRODUCTION Society and Illusion We all conceive of ourselves as experts on society. In fact, however, the social world is a mystery—a mystery deepened by our lack of awareness of it. Society is our immediate, everyday reality, yet we understand no more of it merely by virtue of living it than we understand of physiology by virtue of our inescapable presence as living bodies. The history of sociology has been a long and arduous effort to become aware of things hidden or taken for granted: things we did not know existed—other societies in distant places and times, whose ways of life make us wonder about the naturalness of our own; things we know of only distortedly—the experiences of social classes and cultures other than our own; the realities of remote sectors of our own social structure, from inside the police patrol car to behind the closed doors of the politician and the priest; things right around us unreflectingly accepted—the network of invisible rules and institutions that govern our behavior and populate our thought, seemingly as immutable as the physical landscape but in reality as flimsy as a children's pantomime. Most obscure of all, our own feelings, actions, thoughts, and self-images—the tacit bargains that we make and remake with friends, lovers, acquaintances, and strangers and the paths we steer amid emotions, habits, and beliefs. All these things are beneath the usual threshold of our awareness. We think of ourselves as rational, choice-making masters of our actions if not of our destinies; in reality, we know little about the reasons for either. And if the social world is shrouded from us today, it becomes even more illusory the further back we go into our history. We need go only a few hundred years back in European history to an era when authority of kings and aristocracies was legitimized by divine right, when unexpected behavior from our fellows was attributed to witchcraft and seizures of the devil, and foreign lands were populated not merely by bloodthirsty Communists or the terrible Turk but by werewolves and Cyclopes. "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake!" James Joyce declared. Sociology has been part of that very slow awakening. The social world as we know it and have known it is mostly illusion. Yet, if we were all completely deluded, there would be no point in trying to investigate and explain, and this writing as well as any other would be worthless. The existence of illusions is not incompatible with the existence of facts and of the principles of logic. But facts and logic are inextricably 1
引言 社会与幻觉 我们都把自己想象成社会的专家。然而,事实上,社会世界是一个谜,一个因我们对它缺乏认识而加深的谜。社会是我们直接的、日常的现实,但我们对它的理解并不像我们对生理学的理解那样,只是因为我们作为活生生的身体不可避免地存在。社会学的历史是一个漫长而艰巨的努力,以意识到隐藏的或被视为理所当然的东西。我们不知道的东西 —— 遥远的地方和时代的其他社会,他们的生活方式让我们怀疑我们自己的生活方式是否自然;我们只知道扭曲的东西 —— 我们自己以外的社会阶层和文化的经验。我们自己的社会结构中偏远地区的现实,从警察的巡逻车内到政治家和牧师的闭门造车;就在我们身边的、未被反思接受的东西 —— 支配我们行为和填充我们思想的无形的规则和制度网络,似乎像物理景观一样不可改变,但实际上像儿童哑剧一样脆弱。最模糊的是我们自己的感觉、行动、思想和自我形象 —— 我们与朋友、恋人、熟人和陌生人达成和重新达成的默契,以及我们在情感、习惯和信仰中引导的道路。所有这些东西都在我们意识的通常门槛之下。我们认为自己是理性的,是我们的行为(如果不是我们的命运)的选择主宰;实际上,我们对两者的原因知之甚少。如果说今天的社会世界对我们来说是遮遮掩掩的,那么我们越往前追溯历史,它就越是虚幻。我们只需要在欧洲历史上回溯几百年,就能看到这样一个时代:国王和贵族的权威被神权合法化,我们的伙伴们的意外行为被归结为巫术和魔鬼的攫取,外国土地上不仅有嗜血的共产党人或可怕的土耳其人,还有狼人和独眼巨人。“历史是一场恶梦,我正努力从中醒来!” 詹姆斯·乔伊斯宣称。社会学一直是这种非常缓慢的觉醒的一部分。我们所知道的和曾经知道的社会世界大多是幻觉。然而,如果我们都是完全的错觉,那么就没有必要试图去调查和解释,这种写作以及其他任何写作都是毫无价值的。幻觉的存在与事实和逻辑原则的存在并非不相容。但事实和逻辑是密不可分的。
2 Introduction mixed with concepts and theories, and in the study of society the concepts and theories involved are ones that we daily act upon as well as use to explain how things are and why. Sociology is not an impossible science, but it is a very difficult one. It has progressed by disengaging the web of everyday belief, not all at once but little by little, as one taken-for-granted assumption after another has been questioned and replaced. As was once said of philosophy, sociology is like rebuilding a boat, plank by plank, while floating on it in the middle of the ocean. The history of sociology is a progression of worldviews, each an advance on some other in that it asks some previously unasked question, avoids some previous confusion, or incorporates some previously unobserved fact. Each worldview, including our own, has its illusions; waving the banner of science is no more absolute a guarantee of truth than any other. Nevertheless, there has been a series of major breakthroughs in understanding, including some quite recent ones, and we can be confident now that we are on the right path. THE SOURCES OF ILLUSION At the center of the web that clouds our vision is the realization that our knowledge is both subjective and objective. 'Tacts" are things that independent observers can agree upon; but we must look for facts in order to see them, and what we look for depends on our concepts and theories. What questions we can answer depends on what questions we ask. But the form of the question cannot be the only determinant of the answer, or else our knowledge would never go beyond the subjective point of view of the particular questioner. Any completely subjective viewpoint undermines its own validity, since there is no reason for anyone else to accept it. If there are no objective standards, then the person who claims that there are no such standards can never prove that claim to be true. There is a realm of objectivity, then, based on shared observations and the exigencies of logical communications. We do not know, however, whether any particular theory or even any particular belief about the facts is true. The problem of separating illusions from reality has been an especially difficult one for sociology, since it begins in the midst of the social world of everyday ideas and ideologies. Until we begin to notice phenomena and ask questions about them, we cannot start to check our theories against the facts or even to check our assumed facts against careful observations. It took many centuries of controversy about ideological and practical issues before some people realized that their ordinary ideas might not be accurate and hence were in need of logical ordering and empirical testing. Even after there arose a community of individuals dedicated to this purpose, much of the raw material of human illusion remained mixed in with the more solid part of sociological knowledge. Progress has come not because sociologists were convinced that a particular theory was right, but be-
2 导言与概念和理论混合在一起,在社会研究中,所涉及的概念和理论是我们每天都在行动的,也是用来解释事物如何和为什么的。社会学不是一门不可能的科学,但它是一门非常困难的科学。它通过脱离日常信仰的网络而取得进展,不是一下子,而是一点一点地,因为一个又一个想当然的假设被质疑和取代。正如人们对哲学曾经说过的那样,社会学就像在大海里漂浮着的一艘船,是一块一块的重建。社会学的历史是世界观的进步,每一个世界观都是其他世界观的进步,因为它提出了一些以前没有问过的问题,避免了一些以前的困惑,或者包含了一些以前没有观察到的事实。每一种世界观,包括我们自己的世界观,都有它的幻想;挥舞着科学的旗帜,并不比其他的世界观更能绝对地保证真理。然而,在理解方面已经有了一系列的重大突破,包括最近的一些突破,我们现在可以确信我们是在正确的道路上。混乱的来源 在蒙蔽我们视野的网络中心,我们意识到我们的知识既是主观的又是客观的。策略 "是独立的观察者可以同意的事情;但我们必须寻找事实,以便看到它们,而我们寻找的东西取决于我们的概念和理论。我们能回答什么问题,取决于我们提出什么问题。但问题的形式不能成为答案的唯一决定因素,否则我们的知识将永远无法超越特定提问者的主观观点。任何完全主观的观点都会破坏其自身的有效性,因为没有理由让其他人接受它。如果没有客观标准,那么声称没有这种标准的人就永远无法证明这种说法是真的。那么,在共同的观察和逻辑沟通的需要的基础上,存在着一个客观性的领域。然而,我们不知道任何特定的理论,甚至任何关于事实的特定信念是否真实。将幻想与现实分开的问题对社会学来说一直是一个特别困难的问题,因为它是在日常观念和意识形态的社会世界中开始的。在我们开始注意到各种现象并对其提出问题之前,我们无法开始用事实来检查我们的理论,甚至无法用仔细的观察来检查我们假设的事实。经过许多个世纪对意识形态和实际问题的争论,一些人才意识到他们的普通想法可能并不准确,因此需要进行逻辑排序和经验检验。即使在出现了一个致力于此目的的个人群体之后,许多人类幻想的原始材料仍然混杂在社会学知识中较为坚实的部分。进步并不是因为社会学家们确信某个特定的理论是正确的,而是因为……
Society and Illusion 3 cause the scholarly community generated a cutting edge of objectivity out of its own controversies and research efforts that has moved it onward in the right direction. We cannot usually notice something unless we have a name for it. This is true of the physical world—the botanist notices dozens of species of plants where the layman sees only a field—and it is especially important in understanding society. No one has ever seen a "society/' although we have all seen the people who belong to one; no one has ever seen an organization, only its members, the buildings and equipment that belong to it, and its name or emblem written on signs and pieces of paper. We live in a social world of symbols: of symbolic entities such as "property"—land that would "belong" to no one but for a social convention, a set of rules as to how various people must behave toward it and what words they must use in talking about it—and of symbolic acts such as "marriage"—a recorded ceremony that enables middle-class Americans to recognize the otherwise indiscernible difference between a couple "illicitly" living together and a "respectable" family. These symbols are by no means obvious if one has never thought about them. The fish apparently does not notice the water until he is out of it. The idea of a society, as distinct from the state, did not develop until the commercial and industrial changes of the eighteenth century and the French Revolution woke people up to the recognition that there were two different forms of social institutions, each going its own way. One hundred years later, thinkers such as George Herbert Mead came to recognize the symbolic nature of society and thus provided us with concepts with which to analyze the operations of this world that we have so long taken for granted. Much of sociology has developed by uncovering facts that had not previously been known, either because they were remote from ordinary experience or because they had been deliberately ignored. The earliest efforts at sociology were inspired by European explorations in the Orient, the Americas, Africa, and the South Seas. Familiar ways of life in Europe could no longer be accepted as the natural order of God but had to be explained in light of practices now found to exist in vastly different cultures. The first efforts in this direction were naive and consisted mainly of doctrines of progress, which accounted for the European culture simply as a social advance over other cultures. Such theorizing, nevertheless, began a tradition of thought concerned with explaining society. It was an early thinker on social evolution, Auguste Comte, who first gave sociology its name and thus helped to create that "invisible college" of thinkers who have ever since asked questions about society. Many facts, to be sure, could have been discovered without the voyages of Captain Cook. But the voyage to the other side of town is harder to make than a trip around the world, and a voyage of discovery in one's own home is the hardest of all. Conventional biases against looking for or recognizing facts that touch on one's life have been greater impediments to sociological understanding than the lack of facts themselves. These same biases that
社会与幻觉 3 的原因是,学术界从自己的争议和研究工作中产生了客观性的尖端,使其朝着正确的方向前进。我们通常不能注意到某些东西,除非我们有一个名称。物理世界是这样的 —— 植物学家注意到几十种植物,而普通人只看到一片田地 —— 在理解社会方面尤其重要。没有人见过一个 “社会”,尽管我们都见过属于一个社会的人;没有人见过一个组织,只有它的成员,属于它的建筑和设备,以及写在标志和纸片上的名称或标志。我们生活在一个由符号组成的社会世界中:象征性的实体,如 “财产” —— 除了社会惯例,一套关于不同的人必须如何对待它以及他们在谈论它时必须使用什么词的规则之外,土地将 “属于” 任何人;象征性的行为,如 “婚姻” —— 一种记录的仪式,使美国中产阶级能够认识到一对 “非法” 生活在一起的夫妇和一个 “体面” 家庭之间本来难以分辨的区别。如果一个人从来没有思考过这些符号,那么这些符号绝不是明显的。鱼在离开水之前显然不会注意到水的存在。直到十八世纪的商业和工业变革以及法国大革命唤醒了人们的认识,即存在两种不同形式的社会机构,各走各的路,才形成了有别于国家的社会概念。一百年后,乔治·赫伯特·米德(George Herbert Mead)等思想家开始认识到社会的象征性质,从而为我们提供了分析这个世界运作的概念,而我们长期以来一直认为这是理所当然的。许多社会学的发展是通过发现以前不为人知的事实,要么是因为它们远离普通经验,要么是因为它们被故意忽略。最早的社会学努力是受到欧洲在东方、美洲、非洲和南洋的探索的启发。欧洲熟悉的生活方式不能再被接受为上帝的自然秩序,而必须根据现在发现的存在于巨大的不同文化中的做法来解释。在这个方向上的最初努力是幼稚的,主要包括进步的学说,这些学说把欧洲文化简单地解释为比其他文化的社会进步。然而,这种理论化开始了一个有关解释社会的思想传统。早期的社会演变思想家奥古斯特·孔德(Auguste Comte)首次为社会学命名,从而帮助创建了一个 “无形的学院”,从那时起,这些思想家一直在问关于社会的问题。可以肯定的是,如果没有库克船长的航行,许多事实都可以被发现。但是,到城市另一端的航行比环游世界更难,而在自己家里的发现航行是最难的。反对寻找或认识触及自己生活的事实的传统偏见,比缺乏事实本身更阻碍了对社会学的理解。这些同样的偏见
4 Introduction have kept most of social reality obscure have prevented us from seeing that they are biases. Not the least important aspect of an illusion is the fact that one believes it to be the truth. The great sociologists have contributed to the sociology of knowledge as an intrinsic part of their work. They have broken through illusions by analyzing the ways in which the conditions of social life determine the contents of our consciousness. The history of sociology has been a progressive sophistication about our own thought, uncovering sources of bias that we did not know existed. The uncovering began with Karl Marx, the first great thinker to see life from the standpoint of the common worker. Marx did not discover social classes, of course; ancient and medieval law as well as social thought spoke openly of the various ranks of society, which indeed everyone knew about from daily experience. Ideological denial of stratification is an innovation of modern America. WhatJMarx disc^yer^d^was-JiiaLour_owr^thoug:htJ§ a product of our social circumstanc^a^idjhatjrrudij^^^ n5drtylsT%rt"''aTieT3e'cH^ interests. Marx may have^ehne^^nTer^ts^Moonarrowly in econc^icTeTmsrbut there is no doubt of the validity of this general principle. Marx was not the first to notice that governments tell lies or that newspapers, writers of books, and individuals in conversation put forward alleged facts and explanations that are actually selected and distorted according to the interests of their formu- lators. Much of the thought of the Enlightenment is epitomized by Voltaire's effort to unmask the absurdity of supernatural explanations for human events. Marx went beyond Voltaire when he pointed out how the socially conservative attitudes adopted by the Church were only to be expected from the leaders of a wealthy, landowning institution whose higher ranks were filled from the aristocracy and whose leaders, like Cardinals Mazarin and Richelieu, often served in the government of the kings. Marx's dictum "Religion is the opiate of the masses" is a puzzle in its own terms, however: If ideas reflect material interests, how could the lower classes hold ideas that did not reflect their own interests? It took Max Weber's analysis of the relation between ideas and power and Emile Durkheim's recognition of the effects of ritual on solidarity to provide the keys to this paradox. But the opening wedge first driven by Marx has never been retracted, even though there is a constant danger that our ideas will be molded in keeping with the prevailing political orthodoxy. We know now that ideas are upheld as conventions within particular social groups and that the ideas of the group tend to take the form that will most enhance its status and advance its interests. We know that people associate closely only with persons of similar outlook and that individuals modify their ideas to fit the groups they join. And we also know how it is possible for people to have some freedom from ideological bias by institutionalizing a competition of ideas, especially among those whose interests are based on their achievements within the collective enterprise of science or scholarship.
4 引言使大部分的社会现实变得模糊不清,使我们无法看到它们是偏见。幻觉最重要的方面是人们相信它是真理。伟大的社会学家对知识社会学的贡献是他们工作的一个内在组成部分。他们通过分析社会生活条件决定我们意识内容的方式来突破幻觉。社会学的历史是对我们自己思想的逐步完善,发现了我们不知道存在的偏见的来源。这种发现从卡尔·马克思开始,他是第一个从普通工人的角度看待生活的伟大思想家。当然,马克思并没有发现社会阶层;古代和中世纪的法律以及社会思想都公开谈到了社会的各种等级,事实上,每个人都从日常经验中知道这些等级。意识形态上对阶层的否定是现代美国的创新。WhatJMarx disc^yer^d^was-JiiaLour_owr^thoug:htJ§ a product of our social circumstanc^a^idjhatjrrudij^^n5drtylsT%rt“‘’aTieT3e'cH^ interests. 马克思可能^ehne^nTer^ts^Moonarrowly 在 econc^icTeTmsr 但这个一般原则的有效性是毫无疑问的。马克思并不是第一个注意到政府在说谎,或者报纸、书籍的作者和个人在谈话中提出所谓的事实和解释,而这些事实和解释实际上是根据其制定者的利益来选择和扭曲的。启蒙运动的大部分思想是由伏尔泰努力揭开对人类事件的超自然解释的荒谬性而体现出来的。马克思超越了伏尔泰,他指出,教会所采取的社会保守态度,只是对一个富裕的、拥有土地的机构的领导人的预期,而这个机构的高层是由贵族组成的,其领导人,如红衣主教马扎然和黎塞留,经常在国王的政府中任职。然而,马克思的箴言” 宗教是大众的鸦片 "本身就是一个难题:如果思想反映了物质利益,下层阶级怎么可能持有不反映其自身利益的思想?马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)对思想和权力之间关系的分析,以及埃米尔·杜克海姆(Emile Durkheim)对仪式对团结的影响的认识,为这个悖论提供了钥匙。但是,由马克思首先推动的开口楔子从未收回,尽管一直存在着一种危险,即我们的思想将被塑造成与流行的政治正统观念一致。我们现在知道,思想在特定的社会群体中被当作惯例来维护,群体的思想往往采取最能提高其地位和促进其利益的形式。我们知道,人们只与观点相似的人密切联系,个人会修改他们的想法以适应他们所加入的团体。我们也知道,通过制度化的思想竞争,特别是在那些利益基于其在科学或学术的集体事业中的成就的人之间,人们有可能获得一些不受意识形态偏见的自由。
Society and Illusion 5 Marx's recognition of ideological bias in social ideas is not a counsel of despair. The bias cannot be wished away, but it can be gradually pushed back by continuous effort to examine our own and others' ideas for their adequacy in explaining the full range of facts about society. This is not to say that biases cannot be found in modern social science. They are deeply embedded, especially in the areas of politics, deviance, and stratification. But we can have some faith that the search for the most powerful explanatory theory will lead us away from ideological distortion, whether from the right, the left, or the center. One result of Marx's unveiling of ideology has been a distinction (first emphasized by Max Weber) between depictions of reality and evaluations of it, between "facts" (here used broadly to refer both to empirical data and to theories summarizing and explaining the data) and "values." This seems obvious enough: It is one thing to find out what the state of affairs is in the world, another thing to decide whether we think it is good or bad, just or unjust, beautiful or ugly. This distinction is important because most of our thought about the social world is evaluative: We are more interested in finding wrongdoers to condemn and heroes to praise than in explaining what happens or even in ascertaining the facts. Just after World War II it was popular to point to the "big lie" techniques of propaganda as a sign of totalitarian regimes and to stereotypes and distortions as the warning signs of extremist political thought. A closer acquaintance with serious sociology would have shown that such distinctions are naive: that all governments try to manipulate their own legitimacy, that all politics deals in slogans and ideology, and that the popular worldview is made up of stereotypes. If we are to expose the authoritarian and the brutal, deeds are much better indicators than words. The distinction between facts and values thus has a twofold usefulness: It warns us to note which statements are saying something about reality and which are only assuming something about that reality in order to arouse our feelings about the good or evil of it, and it points us to the hard discipline of separating out and testing a body of knowledge whose validity does not depend merely on our moral point of view. In the history of sociology the struggle against value biases is far from won. Indeed, controversy currently rages over this very issue. There is a strong tendency, especially among younger sociologists whose personal sympathies are vehemently on the side of dominated racial minorities in America and oppressed peasants in the Third World, to declare that all sociology must be value-biased and hence that the only choice is the moral one: Which side are you on? In support of this position, it is pointed out that academic social scientists have claimed to be value-neutral and yet have created theories that extol the virtues of American democracy, minimize the plight of oppressed groups, and rationalize military support for brutal dictatorships in Chile, Central America, and elsewhere. But the lesson is not clearly drawn. Propaganda for the left is no more valuable intel-
社会与幻觉 5 马克思对社会观念中的意识形态偏见的认识并不是一种绝望的建议。这种偏见是无法消除的,但可以通过不断的努力来检查我们自己和他人的思想是否足以解释关于社会的全部事实,从而逐渐将其推回。这并不是说,在现代社会科学中找不到偏见。它们根深蒂固,尤其是在政治、偏差和分层等领域。但我们可以有一些信心,寻找最有力的解释理论将引导我们远离意识形态的扭曲,无论是来自右翼、左翼还是中心。马克思揭开意识形态的一个结果是对现实的描述和对现实的评价之间的区别(首先由马克斯·韦伯强调),“事实”(这里广义地指经验数据和总结和解释数据的理论)和 “价值” 之间的区别。这似乎很明显:找出世界上的事务状况是一回事,决定我们认为它是好还是坏,是公正还是不公正,是美丽还是丑陋是另一回事。这种区分很重要,因为我们对社会世界的思考大多是评价性的。我们更感兴趣的是找到可以谴责的不法分子和可以赞扬的英雄,而不是解释所发生的事情,甚至是确定事实。就在二战结束后,人们普遍指出宣传的 “大谎言” 技术是极权主义政权的标志,而刻板印象和歪曲是极端主义政治思想的警告标志。如果对严肃的社会学有更深入的了解,就会发现这种区分是天真的:所有的政府都试图操纵自己的合法性,所有的政治都是在口号和意识形态中交易,而大众的世界观是由陈规定型观念构成的。如果我们要揭露独裁者和残暴者,行动比语言要好得多。因此,事实和价值之间的区别有两方面的作用。它提醒我们注意哪些陈述是在说关于现实的东西,哪些只是在假设关于现实的东西,以便引起我们对它的善恶的感觉,它还指出我们要有一门艰苦的学科,即分离出并检验一套知识,其有效性并不仅仅取决于我们的道德观点。在社会学的历史上,反对价值偏见的斗争远未取得胜利。事实上,目前在这个问题上的争论很激烈。有一种强烈的倾向,特别是在那些个人同情心强烈地站在美国被支配的少数种族和第三世界被压迫的农民一边的年轻社会学家中,宣称所有的社会学都必须是有价值偏见的,因此唯一的选择就是道德的选择。你站在哪一边?为了支持这一立场,有人指出,学术界的社会科学家声称自己是价值中立的,但却创造了一些理论,赞美美国民主的美德,最小化被压迫群体的困境,并为智利、中美洲和其他地方的残暴独裁政权提供合理的军事支持。但是,这个教训并不明显。对左派来说,宣传并不是更有价值的情报。
6 Introduction lectually than propaganda for the right or the center, whatever one may think of its moral virtue. The distinction between facts and values remains crucial, even in this context. If we do not make an effort to uphold the ideal of intellectual objectivity in assessing theories and facts, no valid knowledge is possible—even the sort of knowledge that practical and activist people claim to have about the problems of the world. If objectivity is not maintained, both serious theory and intelligently guided action will be impossible. A successful explanatory theory is universally acceptable as knowledge; but in the realm of value judgments, everyone's basic values are as good as everyone else's, and no logical argument can force people to change their minds. This means that applied sociology will be much more diverse than pure sociology; and it is for applied sociology that the arguments of radical sociologists hold true: It comes down to the moral question of in whose interests you choose to apply the arguments. The attack on some of the older sociologists, then, is a legitimate attack only on their applied work; their pure sociology, on the other hand, must be judged by the standards of scholarly objectivity, comprehensiveness, and consistency, and if mistakes are made here, they will be corrected by normal advances in research. If some of these people have misleadingly claimed value-neutrality in an effort to make others accept the conclusions of their applied work, carried out in the interests of cold-war politics, the blame cannot fall on the doctrine that distinguishes between facts and values but on the misuse these individuals have made of that doctrine. In the end the fact-value distinction remains absolutely crucial, and not only for the development of objective sociological theory. Whatever our values may be, only by taking a position of detachment are we able to see society realistically enough to act on it with any insight into our chances of success. The fact-value distinction is important to keep in mind in the following chapters. We have attempted throughout to present the successive developments in sociological theory and to assess their objective validity. Since most of these developments are far from complete in terms of formalizing the logic of their arguments and testing their factual predictions, our judgments on them must reflect the balance of existing evidence and the most promising prospects for future elaboration. But all this is an attempt to move forward within the realm of objective sociological knowledge. We have also tried from time to time to discuss some applications of these theories to particular practical issues of today. It should be clear that these applications are made from a particular point of view and in that sense we cannot make a claim on others to agree with us unless they happen to share our particular sets of values. These values are heavily on the side of maximizing personal liberty and are slanted toward the point of view of those coerced by systems of power. There are, of course, many other points of view from which theory could be applied; we have given little attention to practical questions as seen from the viewpoints of military officers, politi-
6 简介:无论人们如何看待它的道德价值,它都比右派或中间派的宣传更有意义。即使在这种情况下,事实和价值之间的区别仍然是至关重要的。如果我们不努力在评估理论和事实时坚持智力客观性的理想,就不可能有有效的知识 —— 即使是实践者和活动家声称拥有的关于世界问题的那种知识。如果不保持客观性,严肃的理论和明智的行动都将是不可能的。一个成功的解释性理论作为知识是可以被普遍接受的;但是在价值判断领域,每个人的基本价值观都和其他人的一样,没有任何逻辑论证可以迫使人们改变他们的想法。这意味着应用社会学将比纯社会学更加多样化;而对于应用社会学来说,激进社会学家的论点才是正确的:它归结为一个道德问题,即你选择应用论点是为了谁的利益。那么,对一些老一辈社会学家的攻击只是对他们的应用性工作的合法攻击;另一方面,他们的纯社会学必须以学术客观性、全面性和一致性的标准来评判,如果在这里犯了错误,它们将被正常的研究进展所纠正。如果这些人中的一些人误导性地声称价值中立,以努力使其他人接受他们为冷战政治利益而进行的应用工作的结论,那么责任不能落在区分事实和价值的学说上,而是落在这些人对该学说的误用上。最后,事实与价值的区分仍然是绝对关键的,而且不仅仅是对客观社会学理论的发展而言。无论我们的价值观是什么,只有采取超脱的立场,我们才能足够现实地看待社会,并以对成功机会的任何洞察力来采取行动。在接下来的章节中,事实与价值的区别是很重要的,要牢记在心。我们一直试图介绍社会学理论的连续发展,并评估其客观有效性。由于这些发展中的大多数在正式确定其论证的逻辑和测试其事实预测方面还远未完成,我们对它们的判断必须反映现有证据的平衡和未来阐述的最有希望的前景。但所有这些都是在客观的社会学知识领域内向前推进的尝试。我们还不时地试图讨论这些理论在当今特定实际问题上的一些应用。应该清楚的是,这些应用是从一个特定的观点出发的,在这个意义上,我们不能要求别人同意我们的观点,除非他们碰巧与我们的特定价值观念一致。这些价值观在很大程度上偏向于最大化个人自由,并向那些被权力系统胁迫的人的观点倾斜。当然,还有许多其他的观点可以应用于理论;我们很少关注从军官、政治家、学者的角度所看到的实际问题。
Society and Illusion 7 cians, businessmen, administrators, or dominant classes and status groups. For the theoretical side of sociological knowledge presented here, we would like to claim as much objectivity as the considerable progress of the sociological enterprise allows. For our practical applications, we claim no more than that an effort has been made to see the world accurately as it bears on our particular values. The fate of Karl Marx's insights warns us of how arduous the path to sociological understanding is. The fact that one person, even a famous one, makes an advance is no guarantee that other social thinkers will maintain it. Marx's thought had little impact on the respectable thinkers of his day. It lived on mainly in the underground until a twentieth-century generation of German sociologists (Ferdinand Toennies, Max Weber, Robert Michels, Karl Mannheim) recaptured some of its key insights. Marx's contributions did not fare much better in the revolutionary underground. Instead of being treated as a theory to be developed and refined as new facts and new insights became available, Marxism became a dogma to be polemically defended against all revisions. Near the end of his life, Marx was moved to cry out against his own followers, "I am not a Marxist!" When the Russian Revolution enshrined Marxism as an official state ideology, Marx's thought virtually ceased to be a fruitful source of new insight except, ironically, for non-Marxists or for Marxist heretics. The lesson applies not only to Marx; the uncompromising political realism of Weber and Michels has also proved too much for most respectable thought to incorporate, and it remains semihidden in an academic underground. Marx found one source of illusion about society in the realm of ideology; Sigmund Freud made an analogous discovery at the turn of the twentieth century when he discovered repression. Freud struck even closer to home. If ideology prevents us from understanding the larger processes that link us to countless others through the economy, politics, and social stratification, repression prevents us from seeing what is right before our eyes, including the motivations for our own actions. Again, the discovery was more in the way of seeing than in the sight itself. Freud was not the first one to notice that men lust for women who are not their wives (and vice versa) or that people can bitterly hate each other even while carrying on polite, and even intimate, relationships. Freud's insight was to see how widespread such desires and feelings are and to see that they can exist even in people who would be ashamed and guilty to realize that they felt anything of the sort. Freud unmasked the respectable society of the nineteenth century at its most vulnerable point—the place that was kept most hidden. Repression, like layers of clothing upon bodies, points to what is concealed by the very act of covering it. Respectable social thought of the nineteenth century, epitomized by Herbert Spencer and the British utilitarians, saw people in modern society as rational and respectable, the upholders of contractual rules that regulated the individual for the common good. Freud looked into those conscious,
社会与幻觉 7 中国人、商人、行政人员或主导阶层和地位群体。对于这里介绍的社会学知识的理论方面,我们希望在社会学事业的巨大进步允许的范围内,尽可能地宣称其客观性。对于我们的实际应用,我们只要求努力准确地看待这个世界,因为它对我们的特定价值观有影响。卡尔·马克思的见解的命运警告我们,通向社会学理解的道路是多么的艰辛。一个人,即使是一个著名的人,取得了进步,也不能保证其他社会思想家会保持它。马克思的思想对他那个时代受人尊敬的思想家没有什么影响。它主要生活在地下,直到二十世纪的一代德国社会学家(费迪南德·托恩尼斯、马克斯·韦伯、罗伯特·米歇尔斯、卡尔·曼海姆)重新获得了它的一些关键见解。马克思的贡献在地下革命中并没有得到很好的发展。马克思主义没有被当作一种理论,随着新的事实和新的见解的出现而被发展和完善,而是成为一种教条,被论战性地捍卫,反对所有的修订。在他生命的最后时刻,马克思感动地对他自己的追随者喊道:“我不是一个马克思主义者!” 当俄国革命将马克思主义奉为官方国家意识形态时,马克思的思想几乎不再是新见解的富有成效的来源,具有讽刺意味的是,除了对非马克思主义者或马克思主义异端分子而言。这个教训不仅适用于马克思;韦伯和米歇尔的不妥协的政治现实主义也被证明是大多数受人尊敬的思想所无法纳入的,它仍然半隐藏在一个学术地下。马克思在意识形态领域发现了社会的一个幻觉来源;西格蒙德·弗洛伊德在二十世纪之交发现了压抑时也有类似的发现。弗洛伊德的打击甚至更接近家庭。如果意识形态使我们无法理解通过经济、政治和社会分层将我们与无数人联系在一起的更大的过程,那么压抑则使我们无法看到眼前的东西,包括我们自己行为的动机。同样,这个发现更多的是在看到的方式上,而不是在看到的本身。弗洛伊德不是第一个注意到男人对不是他们妻子的女人有欲望的人(反之亦然),也不是第一个注意到人们即使在进行礼貌的、甚至是亲密的关系时也会痛苦地憎恨对方的人。弗洛伊德的洞察力是看到这种欲望和感觉是多么普遍,并看到它们甚至可以存在于那些意识到自己有这种感觉而感到羞耻和内疚的人身上。弗洛伊德在十九世纪受人尊敬的社会最脆弱的地方揭开了它的面纱 —— 那是被隐藏得最深的地方。压抑,就像身体上的一层层衣服,通过掩盖它的行为指向被掩盖的东西。十九世纪受人尊敬的社会思想,以赫伯特·斯宾塞和英国功利主义者为代表,将现代社会中的人们视为理性和受人尊敬的,是契约规则的维护者,为了公共利益而规范个人。弗洛伊德考察了这些意识。
8 Introduction rationalistic beliefs and those proper, middle-class ideals and found that they could be explained in terms of something else: passions of love and hate turned in upon the self in response to the social restraints that kept them from being outwardly expressed. Where preceding thinkers saw a rational human making decisions to follow the rules, Freud discovered what had long been excluded from such a worldview: that the human is still a physical animal, a creature of instincts and emotions, and that the civilized, rational part shaped by socialization does not displace the physical creature, but only reshapes it, sometimes in a mutilated form. The fate of Freud's insights has been much like the fate of Marx's. In some cases, his ideas have gained considerable notoriety among people who have heard of him only secondhand and who think that they can dismiss him with the observation that "obviously there's more to life than sex." In this way, his insight into repression has been itself repressed, along with the recognition that anything in the world is the result of sex, hate, or any other emotions impelling our rational behavior. Freud has also suffered from dogmatic followers who have given the theory a bad name in scientific circles, especially through polemics against equally dogmatic behavior- ists in psychology. Between these two extremes, Freud has done much to orient us toward investigating how childhood socialization makes us members of society. The central insights—the view of humans as emotional animals who live in groups, the existence of repression and identification—are yet largely unexplored, but they are not lost. Freud's discoveries are more appropriately investigated in group interaction than individual behavior. It is in the socially oriented analyses, conducted by such thinkers as the psychiatrist Fritz Perls and the sociologist Erving Goffman, that Freud's insights are beginning to find their explanation and their place in an integrated body of social theory. We have touched on a number of sources of illusion in our views of social reality: taking our social arrangements for granted because we know of no others, ideological distortions based on the interests and perspectives of our social positions, inability to detach ourselves from an evaluative stance, repression of things that make us feel shameful or guilty. By the time these sources of bias came to light, sociology was on the eve of the twentieth century. We shall touch on only two kinds of illusions and thereby bring ourselves up to the present: the fallacy of psychological reductionism and the misconceptions that a too-literal identification with physical science can engender. The man who cut through the first of these most strikingly was Emile Durkheim. People will commonly attempt to explain social events by the actions of individuals: to look for great individuals in history, agitators in riots, traitors in defeats. By the end of the nineteenth century the dominant evolutionist thinkers—speaking especially in defense of a laissez-faire economic policy—described society as the interplay of individual decisions, in which deliberate social policy could have little effect. Nevertheless, their basic mode of explanation was individualistic. People struggle for a livelihood
8 引言 理性主义的信念和那些适当的中产阶级的理想,并发现它们可以用别的东西来解释:爱与恨的激情在自我身上得到了回应,而社会的束缚使它们无法向外表达。前面的思想家们看到的是一个理性的人做出决定来遵守规则,而弗洛伊德发现了长期以来被排除在这种世界观之外的东西:人仍然是一个有形的动物,是本能和情感的生物,由社会化塑造的文明、理性的部分并没有取代有形的生物,而只是重新塑造它,有时是以一种残缺的形式。弗洛伊德的见解的命运很像马克思的命运。在某些情况下,他的观点在那些只听说过他的人中获得了相当大的名声,他们认为可以用 “显然生命中还有比性更重要的东西” 的观点来否定他。这样一来,他对压抑的洞察力本身就被压抑了,同时也认识到世界上的任何事情都是性、仇恨或任何其他推动我们理性行为的情绪的结果。弗洛伊德还受到教条主义追随者的影响,他们在科学界给该理论带来了不好的名声,特别是通过对心理学中同样教条主义的行为学家进行论战。在这两个极端之间,弗洛伊德在引导我们研究童年社会化如何使我们成为社会成员方面做了很多工作。核心的见解 —— 人类是生活在群体中的情感动物的观点,压抑和认同的存在 —— 在很大程度上还没有被探索,但它们并没有丢失。弗洛伊德的发现在群体互动中比在个人行为中更适合调查。正是在精神病学家弗里茨·珀尔斯(Fritz Perls)和社会学家埃尔文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)等思想家进行的面向社会的分析中,弗洛伊德的洞察力开始找到它们的解释,并在社会理论的综合体中找到它们的位置。我们已经触及了我们对社会现实的看法中的一些幻觉来源:把我们的社会安排视为理所当然,因为我们不知道有其他的社会安排,基于我们社会地位的利益和观点的意识形态扭曲,无法从评价的立场中脱离出来,压制那些让我们感到羞耻或内疚的事情。当这些偏见的来源被发现时,社会学正处于二十世纪的前夜。我们将只触及两种幻觉,从而将我们自己带到现在:心理学还原论的谬误和与物理科学过于直白的认同可能产生的误解。最引人注目的是埃米尔·杜克海姆(Emile Durkheim),他突破了其中的第一个误区。人们通常会试图通过个人的行为来解释社会事件:在历史中寻找伟大的个人,在暴动中寻找煽动者,在失败中寻找叛徒。到 19 世纪末,占主导地位的进化论思想家 —— 特别是在为自由放任的经济政策辩护时发言 —— 将社会描述为个人决定的相互作用,其中刻意的社会政策可能影响不大。然而,他们的基本解释模式是个人主义的。人们为生计而奋斗
Society and Illusion 9 and rise and fall according to their individual qualities; modern society itself exists because of contracts between individuals. Durkheim struck through in a new direction: The distinctive thing about social institutions is that they persist while individuals come and go; they have a force of their own such that individuals who violate social norms not only do not change the norms but are punished as deviants. Furthermore, society can never be logically explained in terms of the motives of individuals. As Durkheim put it, society is a reality sui generis. "Social facts," such as the rules that people enforce upon each other, the forms of the institutions within which people act, and even the ideas that they hold, cannot be explained by examining the workings of an individual and multiplying the result a millionfold. These facts must be explained by social—that is, supraindividual—causes. Living organisms are made up of chemical molecules; yet physiology must be explained on its own level, in terms of the functioning of the parts in relation to each other. By the same token, society is made up of individuals but is not explicable simply in terms of individual psychology. With his emphasis on social structure as the subject matter of sociology, Durkheim gave the field a distinctive focus of its own. He also showed that such supposedly individual phenomena as suicide, crime, moral outrage, and even our concepts of time, space, God, and the individual personality are socially determined. With Durkheim nineteenth- century individualistic rationalism commits suicide. We know now that we are all social creatures and there is no turning back to the naive optimism of the nineteenth century that could see in the rational education of the individual the solution to all social ills. The final major development of sociology took place in the early twentieth century, for the most part in the United States. Instead of relying on historians, newspapers, and their own speculations, sociologists began to go and see for themselves: first with community studies, then with surveys, participant observation of organizations, and small group experiments. This research tradition has done much to counteract illusions based on ideology and on other biases. We have discovered, for example, that the conservative claims that crime is due to hereditary degeneration or racial traits (theories once popular among biologically oriented sociologists of the evolutionist school) are false, as are liberal outcries that social mobility has been declining in the United States. The great merit of an active research tradition is that it is largely self-correcting; as long as we insist that theories must explain facts, their biases are likely to reveal themselves sooner or later. But even this research tradition has its dangers and illusions. One of these is the problem of overspecialization and technicism. Sociology has become a large-scale cooperative enterprise; and, as in any large bureaucracy, the individual members tend to lose sight of the overall goals—producing and testing theories to explain all of social behavior and institutions—and become caught up in the immediate details of day-to-day research. One danger, then, has been the trivializing of research and a tendency to substi-
社会与幻觉 9,并根据他们的个人素质而兴衰;现代社会本身的存在是因为个人之间的契约。Durkheim 在一个新的方向上取得了突破。社会制度的独特之处在于,当个人来来去去时,它们却一直存在;它们有自己的力量,以至于违反社会规范的个人不仅不会改变规范,反而会作为异类受到惩罚。此外,社会永远无法用个人的动机来进行逻辑解释。正如杜克海姆所说,社会是一个自成一体的现实。“社会事实”,如人们相互执行的规则,人们行动的机构形式,甚至他们持有的想法,都不能通过检查个人的运作并将结果放大一百万倍来解释。这些事实必须用社会的,也就是超个人的原因来解释。生物体是由化学分子组成的;但生理学必须在它自己的层面上解释,在各部分相互关系的运作方面。同样的道理,社会是由个人组成的,但不能简单地用个人心理学来解释。由于强调社会结构是社会学的主题,杜克海姆给了这个领域一个独特的焦点。他还表明,诸如自杀、犯罪、道德愤怒等所谓的个人现象,甚至我们对时间、空间、上帝和个人人格的概念都是由社会决定的。随着杜克海姆的出现,十九世纪的个人主义理性主义自杀了。我们现在知道,我们都是社会性的生物,不能再回到十九世纪的天真乐观主义了,这种乐观主义认为个人的理性教育是解决所有社会弊病的办法。社会学的最后一次重大发展发生在 20 世纪初,大部分是在美国。社会学家不再依赖历史学家、报纸和他们自己的猜测,而是开始亲自去看:首先是社区研究,然后是调查、对组织的参与观察和小团体实验。这一研究传统在抵制基于意识形态和其他偏见的幻想方面做了很多工作。例如,我们发现,保守派声称犯罪是由于遗传性退化或种族特征(这些理论曾经在进化论派的生物导向的社会学家中流行)是错误的,自由派声称美国的社会流动性一直在下降也是错误的。一个积极的研究传统的最大优点是它在很大程度上可以自我纠正;只要我们坚持理论必须解释事实,它们的偏见就可能迟早会暴露出来。但即使是这种研究传统也有其危险和幻想。其中之一是过度专业化和技术主义的问题。社会学已经成为一个大规模的合作企业;就像任何大型官僚机构一样,个别成员往往会忽视总体目标 —— 产生和测试解释所有社会行为和机构的理论 —— 而陷入日常研究的直接细节中。因此,一种危险是研究的琐碎化,以及一种替代研究的倾向。
10 Introduction rute purely technical standards, such as statistical refinements, for substantial contributions to our knowledge about society. The physical sciences provided a model for the modern research enterprise; they have also provided a final, distinctively modern illusion about society. Many American social scientists, especially those who have not fully absorbed the great breakthroughs of Durkheim, Weber, Freud, and Mead, still find their ideas in a version of nineteenth-century tradition. Like the British utilitarians and their American followers, they continue to take the natural sciences as an uncriticized model for understanding society. Utilitarian rationalism has been modernized as behaviorism, the doctrine that asserts that human behavior is to be explained in terms of external stimuli—rewards and punishments—without any reference to scientifically inadmissible concepts such as "mind." In sociology, the old positivist doctrine shows up in the notion that the only valid material for a scientific theory is quantitative data, such as those collected in large-scale questionnaire surveys, carefully measured experimental behaviors, and census tabulations. Only "hard data," consisting of observed and preferably quantified behaviors or enumerations, are valid; "soft data," encompassing the experiences of participant observers, in-depth interviews, case studies, historical writings, and introspection, are excluded. The merit of this distinction turns out to be an illusion. Human social behavior and social institutions are basically symbolic. Society exists and affects the observable behavior of individuals only through systems of invisible names, rules, and positions that individuals can identify with and orient toward. As might be expected, strictly behavioristic theories have not borne much fruit in psychology; rather, it has been in the area of cognitive development and functioning that progress has been made. In sociology the extreme positivists have been found mostly among researchers who have been caught up in short-run technical concerns and hence have contributed little to advancing theories that explain society. It has been by insisting on the principle that we be able to explain all the facts that social science corrects itself, even against illusions created by an excessive zeal to emulate the methods of the natural sciences. Symbolic reality is the empirical reality for sociologists; it is life as all individuals experience it. Numbers derived by totaling the answers of many individuals to a few short questions about what they believe or have done are quite a long way from the firsthand experience of those individual lives that we are ultimately trying to explain. In this sense Erving Goffman and his students, with their firsthand accounts of how people manipulate the social reality they present for each other to experience, are the latest of the important innovators in sociology. We are coming to see that there is no necessary battle between "hard" and "soft" in the social sciences. Both quantitative but superficial data and direct phenomenological experience of a few situations have their values and weaknesses. When used to complement each other, they help us both to understand in depth and to check up on the generalizability of the understanding. Like a navigator plotting the position of a point from his or
10 导读:对于我们对社会的知识的实质性贡献,纯粹的技术标准,如统计学的完善,是不可取的。物理科学为现代研究事业提供了一个模式;它们也提供了一个最后的、独特的关于社会的现代幻觉。许多美国社会科学家,特别是那些没有完全吸收杜克海姆、韦伯、弗洛伊德和米德的伟大突破的人,仍然在 19 世纪传统的版本中找到他们的想法。像英国的功利主义者和他们的美国追随者一样,他们继续把自然科学作为理解社会的一个未经批判的模式。功利主义的理性主义已被现代化为行为主义,这种学说主张用外部刺激 —— 奖励和惩罚 —— 来解释人类行为,而不提及科学上不允许的概念,如 “心智”。在社会学中,旧的实证主义学说表现为这样一种观念,即科学理论的唯一有效材料是定量数据,例如那些在大规模问卷调查中收集的数据,仔细测量的实验行为,以及人口普查表。只有 “硬数据”,包括观察到的和最好是量化的行为或统计,才是有效的;“软数据”,包括参与观察者的经验、深入访谈、案例研究、历史著作和内省,都被排除在外。这种区分的优点被证明是一种错觉。人类的社会行为和社会机构基本上是象征性的。社会的存在和影响个人的可观察到的行为,只是通过个人可以识别和定向的无形的名称、规则和立场的系统。正如预期的那样,严格意义上的行为主义理论在心理学中没有取得多少成果;相反,在认知发展和功能领域取得了进展。在社会学中,极端的实证主义者大多是被短期的技术问题所困扰的研究者,因此对推进解释社会的理论没有什么贡献。正是通过坚持我们能够解释所有事实的原则,社会科学才得以纠正自己,甚至反对因过度热衷于模仿自然科学的方法而产生的幻想。符号现实是社会学家的经验现实;它是所有个人体验的生活。把许多人对几个关于他们相信什么或做过什么的简短问题的回答加起来得出的数字,与我们最终试图解释的那些个人生活的第一手经验有相当大的距离。在这个意义上,Erving Goffman 和他的学生,以他们对人们如何操纵他们呈现给对方体验的社会现实的第一手资料,是社会学中最新的重要创新者。我们逐渐看到,在社会科学中,“硬” 与 “软” 之间并没有必然的斗争。定量但肤浅的数据和少数情况下的直接现象学经验都有其价值和弱点。当用于补充时,它们既能帮助我们深入理解,又能检查出理解的普遍性。就像一个导航员从他的或她的角度绘制一个点的位置。
Society and Illusion 11 her own moving ship, we are learning to "triangulate" our accounts of social reality from several vantage points. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIOLOGY It is often said that the social sciences lag behind the natural sciences and that the latter have created the problems of atomic war, overpopulation, and industrial change that the former must now solve. This view betrays a naive analogy between the natural sciences and the social sciences, ignoring how unamenable to control by deliberate action the structures of a society are, except—and even here there are serious organizational limitations—by a form of political control that would be likely to create more evils than it solves. If we judge the social sciences not by the popularistic criterion of practicality, but by their advance toward a comprehensive and powerful explanatory theory of social behavior and institutions, their advance is much greater than has been recognized. Such a theory may not yet be found assembled in the textbooks, but the major pieces have been in existence for some time, and we are slowly learning to put them together. From a time when social thought was little more than myth, ideology, and speculation, we have broken through illusion after illusion, and with each destruction of old belief we have discovered something new and solid. The great breakthroughs that provide the basis for our modern knowledge took place around the turn of the twentieth century. Durkheim discovered the dynamics of social solidarity, providing us with a way to explain how society can operate as a moral order, instead of merely to justify or debunk it. Weber showed how ideas and ideals interact with material and power interests, how we can understand social order in the midst of conflict by seeing society not as a reified abstraction but as a stratified network of groups and organizations. In addition, Weber gave us the most penetrating vision of world history yet produced. Freud revealed the human as a social animal in whom civilized mind and physical body guide and torture each other. Mead showed both individual minds and social institutions to be the result of symbolic communication. Since then we have come to see how the unexplained or overlooked facets of one theory could be clarified by the insights of another. Weber synthesized leads from Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche; Goffman synthesized leads from Durkheim, Simmel, and Mead. Empirical research has fleshed out our general insights, especially on organizations and stratification, where we are beginning to see a core uniting much of sociological theory and research. This development is not yet widely recognized. Of the great figures in sociology, only Freud and Marx are names widely known to the general public. Durkheim, Weber, and Mead are little known or understood outside the bounds of academic sociology. Even within sociology progress has been obscured, most notably by the conflict between hard and soft approaches and by other controversies over the application of sociology to political is-
社会与幻觉 11 她自己的移动的船,我们正在学习从几个有利的角度来 “三角” 我们对社会现实的描述。社会学的贡献 人们常说,社会科学落后于自然科学,后者造成了原子战争、人口过剩和工业变革等问题,而前者现在必须解决这些问题。这种观点暴露了自然科学和社会科学之间的天真类比,忽视了通过有意的行动来控制社会结构是多么的不容易,除非 —— 即使在这里也有严重的组织限制 —— 通过一种政治控制的形式,这可能会造成比它解决更多的罪恶。如果我们不以实用性的流行标准来判断社会科学,而是以它们在社会行为和机构的全面和强大的解释理论方面的进展来判断,它们的进展要比人们所认识的大得多。这样的理论可能还不能在教科书中找到,但主要的碎片已经存在了一段时间,我们正在慢慢地学习把它们放在一起。从一个社会思想不过是神话、意识形态和猜测的时代开始,我们已经突破了一个又一个的幻觉,随着每一次对旧信仰的摧毁,我们都发现了一些新的、坚实的东西。为我们的现代知识提供基础的巨大突破发生在二十世纪之交。杜克海姆发现了社会团结的动力,为我们提供了一种解释社会如何作为一种道德秩序运作的方法,而不仅仅是为其辩护或驳斥。韦伯展示了思想和理想是如何与物质和权力利益相互作用的,我们如何在冲突中理解社会秩序,不把社会看成是一个统一的抽象概念,而是一个分层的团体和组织的网络。此外,韦伯还给我们提供了迄今为止对世界历史最深刻的看法。弗洛伊德揭示了人类是一种社会动物,文明的心灵和身体在其中相互引导和折磨。米德表明,个人的思想和社会机构都是象征性交流的结果。从那时起,我们开始看到一种理论中未被解释或被忽视的方面是如何被另一种理论的洞察力所澄清的。韦伯综合了马克思和弗里德里希·尼采的线索;戈夫曼综合了杜克海姆、西美尔和米德的线索。实证研究充实了我们的一般见解,特别是在组织和分层方面,我们开始看到一个核心将许多社会学理论和研究结合起来。这一发展还没有得到广泛认可。在社会学的伟大人物中,只有弗洛伊德和马克思的名字被公众广泛知晓。杜克海姆(Durkheim)、韦伯(Weber)和米德(Mead)在学术社会学的范围之外鲜为人知或被理解。即使在社会学内部,进展也被掩盖了,最明显的是硬方法和软方法之间的冲突,以及其他关于社会学应用于政治的争议。
12 Introduction sues. Sociologists caught up in these peripheral disputes have thereby blinded themselves, in a way that Marx's analysis of ideology would have predicted, to their opponents' contributions to sociological theory and have even themselves often forgotten that a comprehensive explanatory theory is the major goal of the discipline. But in science as elsewhere nothing succeeds like success. As the demonstrated power of the central sociological tradition is increasingly brought into the light, it advances steadily. The sociological tradition has shaped our views of the world throughout the last century without our knowing it. It has been the major source of political worldviews: Radicalism derives mostly from the views of Marx; liberalism in both its laissez-faire and its welfare-state versions from the British utilitarians and evolutionists; corporate statism in Europe from the tradition of Saint-Simon; fascism from, among other sources, the racist varieties of nineteenth-century evolutionism. What is striking about this list is that modern political ideologies all derive from nineteenth-century social thought. The far more profound thought of the great breakthrough—the Durkheim-Weber-Freud-Mead contributions—has as yet had little influence on our thinking about social and political issues. Popular thought lags fifty or seventy years behind the forefront of sociological knowledge. Even the university-oriented liberal proponents of the modern American welfare state have offered little more than a benevolent reformer's belief in the "bad environmental" causes of crime and social unrest and a faith in social work and public education as panaceas. Political ideologists have yet to appreciate the hard Weberian truths about the dynamics of status stratification and the scarcely controllable momentum of bureaucratic organizations and the Durkheimian and Freudian discoveries of the personal strains in a world of impersonal rules and emotionless organizations. Modern sociology does not recommend itself to those in search of easy solutions, whether these be of the left, right, or center. Indeed, one of sociology's great contributions is to show that the center is just as subject to illusion as are the extremes. Perhaps we can now see why sociology does not offer easy practical applications in the way that advances in the physics of electricity gave rise to color television sets. If we wish our knowledge to advance, we cannot spell out what that knowledge must consist of in advance of the facts. The facts are not what most people would wish them to be, and social science cannot be called in to tell them what they want to hear. The early social thinkers of the Enlightenment thought they had the key to the world: Humans are basically rational; the evils of despotism and war are due to ignorance and superstition. Let people only learn to see things in a rational way, and Utopia would be ushered in. This dream has died hard. The generation of Durkheim destroyed its last remnants as far as serious thinkers were concerned, although it has hung on in naive public ideologies—a further illustration of how little our social behavior fits the Enlightenment dream. Politicians and social movements pursue their own ideologies and try to impose their ceremonies on reality; the applied sociologist advising them is usually in the position of an anthropologist telling the aborigines what is wrong with their fertility rites.
12 导论起诉。陷入这些边缘性争论的社会学家们因此而蒙蔽了自己,就像马克思对意识形态的分析所预言的那样,蒙蔽了他们的对手对社会学理论的贡献,甚至他们自己也常常忘记,一个全面的解释理论是这个学科的主要目标。但在科学领域和其他领域一样,没有什么比成功更成功的了。随着中心社会学传统所表现出的力量越来越多地被人们看到,它也在稳步前进。在上个世纪,社会学传统在我们不知不觉中塑造了我们对世界的看法。它一直是政治世界观的主要来源。激进主义主要来自马克思的观点;自由主义的自由放任和福利国家版本来自英国的功利主义者和进化论者;欧洲的企业国家主义来自圣西门的传统;法西斯主义除其他来源外,还来自 19 世纪进化论的种族主义品种。这份清单的惊人之处在于,现代政治意识形态都来自 19 世纪的社会思想。大突破的更深刻的思想 —— 杜克海姆·韦伯·弗洛伊德·米德的贡献 —— 至今对我们关于社会和政治问题的思考没有什么影响。大众思想落后于社会学知识的最前沿 50 或 70 年。即使是以大学为导向的美国现代福利国家的自由主义支持者,也只是提供了一个仁慈的改革者对犯罪和社会动荡的 “坏环境” 原因的信念,以及对社会工作和公共教育作为灵丹妙药的信仰。政治思想家们还没有意识到韦伯式的真理,即地位分层的动力和官僚组织几乎无法控制的势头,以及杜克海姆和弗洛伊德在一个没有人情味的规则和无感情的组织的世界中对个人压力的发现。现代社会学并不向那些寻求简单解决方案的人推荐自己,无论他们是左派、右派还是中间派。事实上,社会学的伟大贡献之一就是表明,中心和极端一样,都会受到幻觉的影响。也许我们现在可以看到,为什么社会学不能像电学的进步催生彩色电视机那样,提供简单的实际应用。如果我们希望我们的知识得到进步,我们就不能在事实之前说明这种知识必须包括哪些内容。事实并不是大多数人希望的那样,社会科学不能被要求告诉他们他们想听的东西。启蒙运动的早期社会思想家认为他们掌握了世界的钥匙:人类基本上是理性的;专制和战争的罪恶是由于无知和迷信造成的。只要让人们学会以理性的方式看待问题,就会迎来乌托邦。这个梦想已经难逃一死。就严肃的思想家而言,杜克海姆那一代人摧毁了它最后的残余,尽管它在天真的公共意识形态中一直存在着 —— 这进一步说明了我们的社会行为与启蒙运动的梦想有多么不相符。政治家和社会运动追求他们自己的意识形态,并试图将他们的仪式强加于现实;为他们提供建议的应用社会学家通常处于人类学家的位置,告诉土著人他们的生育仪式有什么问题。
Society and Illusion 13 If sociology has a contribution to make, it is this: If we can be more realistic about our world, more wary of the dilemmas of social organizations, more aware both of the necessities of social coordination and of the dangers of social coercion, and more sophisticated about the illusions with which our institutions populate social reality, we can perhaps make our world more livable. It may be that if enough people realized the connections between political illusion and political coercion and the deadening effect of psychic chimeras on our everyday encounters, the quality of life would improve a great deal. A significant part of the new generation has already shown itself more realistic than those before it—more capable of cutting through social hypocrisies about sex and politics, through rituals of status deference and illusions about personal relationships. Whether a new culture of honesty and personal emancipation will enable us to control the coercive and alienating institutions of modern society is still in doubt, but greater illumination is one of our few weapons. THE BOUNDARIES OF SOCIOLOGY A final note should be made on the subject of disciplinary boundaries. We have attempted to present a brief history of sociology, but we have not insisted on any rigid classification of thinkers, and occasionally we move far beyond what a strictly Durkheimian view of the field would include. One of the reasons for the looseness of boundaries is that sociology did not become a distinct discipline until the twentieth century. Up to that time, it was often not distinguished from economics, and many of the important sociologists—Marx, Weber, Pareto, Parsons—spent some or all of their lives as economists. As economics came to concentrate more and more on the technical analysis of money, prices, wages, and employment, it gradually became a distinct intellectual enterprise as well as a separate university department, although even today institutional and developmental economists, such as James O'Connor, Arghiri Emmanuel, Samuel Bowles, and Herbert Gintis, discuss many of the same concepts and issues as sociologists. Robert Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers tells much of the side of the story we have omitted here. Another discipline whose history is entwined with that of sociology is anthropology. The main difference between the two fields is primarily a historical one: Anthropologists became identified as the investigators of the newly discovered tribal societies of the colonial era, whereas sociologists were concerned with modern societies. The distinction has since broken down. As primitive tribes have been colonized or destroyed, anthropologists have come to study modern Western and non-Western societies, and sociologists to study traditional ones. Today there is little difference between what most anthropologists and sociologists do, although anthropology includes some fields—physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics—that are rather remote from the work of most sociologists. It is mainly for reasons of space that this volume does not deal with the great anthro-
社会与幻觉 13 如果说社会学有什么贡献,那就是这个。如果我们能对我们的世界更加现实,对社会组织的困境更加警惕,对社会协调的必要性和社会胁迫的危险性更加了解,对我们的机构在社会现实中充斥的幻觉更加成熟,我们也许能使我们的世界更加宜居。也许,如果有足够多的人意识到政治幻觉和政治胁迫之间的联系,以及心理暗示对我们日常遭遇的致命影响,生活的质量就会有很大的改善。新一代人中的很大一部分已经显示出他们比之前的人更现实 —— 更有能力穿透关于性和政治的社会虚伪,穿透关于地位尊重的仪式和关于个人关系的幻觉。一种新的诚实和个人解放的文化是否能使我们控制现代社会的强制和异化机构,仍然是个疑问,但更多的照明是我们为数不多的武器之一。社会学的边界 关于学科边界的问题,应该做最后的说明。我们试图介绍社会学的简史,但我们并没有坚持对思想家进行任何严格的分类,而且我们有时会远远超出严格的杜克海姆式的领域观点所包含的内容。边界松散的原因之一是,社会学直到二十世纪才成为一门独立的学科。在那之前,社会学往往没有与经济学区分开来,许多重要的社会学家 —— 马克思、韦伯、帕累托、帕森斯都是以经济学家的身份度过他们的部分或全部生命。随着经济学越来越集中于对货币、价格、工资和就业的技术分析,它逐渐成为一项独特的智力事业以及一个独立的大学系,尽管即使在今天,机构和发展经济学家,如詹姆斯·奥康纳、阿吉里·艾曼纽、塞缪尔·鲍尔斯和赫伯特·金蒂斯,也在讨论许多与社会学家相同的概念和问题。罗伯特·海尔布罗纳(Robert Heilbroner)的《世俗哲学家》(The Worldly Philosophers)讲述了很多我们在这里省略的一面。另一门与社会学的历史纠缠在一起的学科是人类学。这两个领域之间的主要区别主要是历史性的。人类学家被认为是殖民时代新发现的部落社会的调查者,而社会学家关注的是现代社会。这种区别后来被打破了。随着原始部落被殖民化或摧毁,人类学家开始研究现代西方和非西方社会,而社会学家则研究传统社会。今天,大多数人类学家和社会学家所做的事情没有什么区别,尽管人类学包括一些与大多数社会学家的工作相当遥远的领域 —— 物理人类学、考古学和语言学。主要是由于篇幅的原因,本卷没有论述伟大的人类学
14 Introduction pologists, although Spencer, Durkheim, and Freud must be viewed as key figures in both histories. The interested reader is referred to Marvin Harris's book The Rise of Anthropological Theory for a sketch of the great discoverers in anthropology. Political science had origins rather distinct from those of sociology. It originated largely in the study of constitutional law, and its main function has been to train public administrators and high-school government teachers. This background has meant that its orientation has been too philosophical and too ideologically biased to make any very notable contributions to a scientific theory of society. Since World War II the behavioral movement has developed in American political science, and political scientists now do work in areas such as political sociology, organizations, and social change, which overlap sociology. Psychology has long been both distinct from and intertwined with sociology. Its distinct branch deals with nonsocial determinants of individual behavior in such areas as physiological psychology, perception, learning, and motivation. The overlapping branch is social psychology, the study of the individual in relation to others. It has been carried on in modern American universities both in sociology and in psychology departments and sometimes in a separate department of its own. We have set the boundaries of sociology rather far over in the field of social psychology out of the feeling that disciplinary boundaries often do more harm by compartmentalizing studies that should be carried on in a broad perspective: than they do good by allowing the concentration of attention. Freud, in particular, might be considered primarily a psychologist, but we give him rather full treatment here for two reasons. First, although Durkheim is surely right that social structures cannot be explained purely in terms of individuals, society is nevertheless created only by individuals, and our explanations of social order must be founded on knowledge of how individuals function, especially in relation to others. Second, Freud has exerted a great deal of influence on sociology and anthropology—indeed more than on psychology (although perhaps less than on the medical field of psychiatry). American academic psychology has been the bastion of behaviorist orthodoxy, and much of the best thought about cognitive functioning—by Mead and Schutz as well as by Freud—has had to find refuge in sociology. Psychology's loss has been sociology's gain, but one that may eventually be repaid, as the work of the symbolic interactionists, ethnomethodologists, and sociolinguists promises much progress in understanding the psychological functioning of individual human beings. Finally, history has considerable overlap with sociology. It would be difficult to place earlier thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville, Fustel de Coulanges, Weber, Henri Pirenhe, Marc Bloch, Otto Hintze, Michael Rostovtzeff, and many modern historians such as Lawrence Stone or Fernand Braudel decisively in one intellectual camp or the other. Like sociology, history is an all-encompassing discipline: Everything that has ever happened in the social world is potential material for its narratives, just as it
14 引言 人类学家,尽管斯宾塞、杜克海姆和弗洛伊德必须被视为这两段历史中的关键人物。有兴趣的读者可以参阅马文·哈里斯的《人类学理论的兴起》一书,以了解人类学的伟大发现者的概况。政治学的起源与社会学相当不同。它主要起源于对宪法的研究,其主要功能是培训公共行政人员和高中政府教师。这种背景意味着它的方向太过哲学化和太过意识形态化,无法对社会的科学理论做出任何非常明显的贡献。自二战以来,行为学运动在美国政治学中得到了发展,政治学家现在在政治社会学、组织和社会变革等领域开展工作,这些领域与社会学相重叠。长期以来,心理学既不同于社会学,又与社会学交织在一起。其独特的分支处理个人行为的非社会性决定因素,如生理心理学、感知、学习和动机等领域。重叠的分支是社会心理学,研究个人与他人的关系。在现代美国的大学里,社会学和心理学系都在进行这项研究,有时还自成一个独立的系。我们把社会学的界限定在了社会心理学领域的相当远的地方,因为我们觉得学科的界限往往会因为把应该从广泛的角度进行的研究分割开来而造成更大的伤害:而不是因为它们允许集中注意力而带来好处。尤其是弗洛伊德,他可能被认为主要是一位心理学家,但我们在这里对他进行了相当全面的处理,原因有二。首先,尽管杜克海姆肯定是对的,社会结构不能纯粹用个人来解释,但社会还是由个人创造的,我们对社会秩序的解释必须建立在个人如何运作的知识上,特别是与他人的关系上。第二,弗洛伊德对社会学和人类学产生了很大的影响 —— 确实比对心理学的影响更大(尽管可能比对精神病学这一医学领域的影响要小)。美国的学术心理学一直是行为主义正统的堡垒,许多关于认知功能的最佳思想 —— 米德和舒茨以及弗洛伊德 —— 不得不在社会学中找到庇护。心理学的损失是社会学的收获,但最终可能会得到回报,因为符号互动学家、民族方法学家和社会语言学家的工作有望在理解个体人类的心理功能方面取得很大进展。最后,历史学与社会学有相当多的重叠。很难将早期的思想家如托克维尔(Alexis de Tocqueville)、库朗(Fustel de Coulanges)、韦伯(Weber)、皮伦(Henri Pirenhe)、布洛赫(Marc Bloch)、辛策(Otto Hintze)、罗斯托夫(Michael Rostovtzeff)以及许多现代历史学家如劳伦斯·斯通(Lawrence Stone)或布劳德尔(Fernand Braudel)果断地置于一个或另一个知识阵营中。与社会学一样,历史是一门包罗万象的学科。社会世界中曾经发生过的一切,都是其叙事的潜在材料,就像它
Society and Illusion 15 is potential material for sociological theory. The main difference is in orientation: Sociology's is toward a generalizing theory, history's toward the description and explanation of particular sequences of events. The distinction between generalizing theory and particularistic histories is not an absolute one, however. Historians often apply general principles as a means of ordering the myriad facts available to them, and one of the great tasks of sociology has always been to describe what a particular society (usually our own) is like and to explain the social changes that have led up to our world. In thinkers such as Marx and Weber, the two aims—creating generalizing explanations and capturing a particular historical drama—were carried side by side, to their mutual enrichment. As historians grow increasingly interested in probing beyond political and diplomatic events to social structures, we can expect the two disciplines to draw together even more closely. Our history of sociology is thus mixed with those of most of the other social disciplines. We draw the boundaries here only to make our subject compact enough to handle. The various disciplines have learned much from each other in the past, and they have much to offer each other now and for the future if only we transcend narrow departmental labels. Having said this, perhaps our various colleagues will forgive us if we indulge in a little sociological pride: In the pages of this book, the reader will find the most illuminating tradition in modern social thought.
社会与幻觉 15 是社会学理论的潜在材料。主要的区别在于方向。社会学的方向是概括性的理论,历史的方向是描述和解释特定的事件序列。然而,概括性理论和特殊主义历史之间的区别并不是绝对的。历史学家经常运用一般原则作为整理他们所掌握的无数事实的手段,而社会学的伟大任务之一一直是描述一个特定的社会(通常是我们自己的社会)是什么样的,并解释导致我们这个世界的社会变化。在马克思和韦伯等思想家那里,这两个目标 —— 创造概括性的解释和捕捉特定的历史剧 —— 被并列进行,使其相互充实。随着历史学家对超越政治和外交事件的社会结构的探究越来越感兴趣,我们可以预期这两个学科会更加紧密地结合在一起。因此,我们的社会学史与大多数其他社会学科的历史混在一起。我们在这里划定界限只是为了使我们的学科足够紧凑,便于处理。各个学科在过去已经从对方那里学到了很多东西,只要我们超越狭隘的部门标签,它们现在和将来都可以为对方提供很多东西。说到这里,也许我们的同事们会原谅我们放纵一下社会学的骄傲。在本书中,读者将发现现代社会思想中最具启发性的传统。
PARTI The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism CHAPTER ONE ophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte CHAPTER TWO ology in the Underground: Karl Marx CHAPTER THREE Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville CHAPTER FOUR Nietzsche's Madness CHAPTER FIVE -Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists
第一部分 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 第一章 巴黎的学者们。圣西门和孔德 第二章 地下的逻辑学。卡尔·马克思 第三章 最后的君子。第四章 尼采的疯狂 第五章 好人、进化论者和种族主义者
CHAPTER ONE The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte One sign that an era is over is that it begins to be romanticized. Medieval society had become remote enough from the educated French of the early nineteenth century for many of them to grow nostalgic about it. It had been a time of faith and order, they thought, when everyone from peasant to king knew his or her place, and social strife was unknown; when people were poor but happy, and the lords and priests watched paternally over their human flocks. The thinkers of the eighteenth century could hold no such illusions. They were too close to the realities of the Middle Ages and glad to have just escaped. People certainly had been poor; but happy? The physical hardships of the Middle Ages were scarcely imaginable—peasants had nothing but bread to eat, and aristocrats were often little better off; dwellings were small, cold, crowded, unsanitary, and ridden with disease. Nor was there much order. Europe had been in continual warfare since the decline of the Roman Empire, and the threat of violence permeated everyday life. It was a world without police, in which individuals looked out for themselves. Towns locked their walls to keep out robbers, and masters could inflict harsh punishment on their servants, and fathers on their children. Torture was the common treatment for public suspects, and execution and mutilation were the punishments for trivial crimes. People knew their places only because they were kept in them; order existed only as violent oppression. Nor was that period precisely the age of faith that the romanticists imagined it to be. Religious conflict was almost as chronic as political violence. The Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation were but the biggest and bloodiest battles over the world of the spirit. Heresies and persecutions abounded both before and after the time of Luther, Calvin, and Torquemada's Inquisition. The Church owned a third of the land in Europe and provided the financial and spiritual support for kings (and sometimes their soldiers, too), thereby giving virtually all conflicts a religious tone. It was an age of faith only in the sense that the Church was omnipresent, and the belief in heaven and hell was virtually unquestioned. The universe was seen as highly ordered, as in Dante's description of the world starting with the heavenly spheres, where God dwelt with his an- 19
第一章 巴黎的先知们。圣西门和孔德 一个时代结束的标志是它开始被浪漫化。中世纪社会已经离 19 世纪初受过教育的法国人越来越远,以至于他们中的许多人开始怀念它。他们认为,那是一个充满信仰和秩序的时代,从农民到国王,每个人都知道自己的位置,社会纷争不为人知;人们贫穷但快乐,领主和牧师像父亲一样看管着自己的羊群。十八世纪的思想家们不可能抱有这样的幻想。他们太接近中世纪的现实了,并为刚刚逃脱而感到高兴。人们当然是贫穷的;但幸福吗?中世纪的物质条件之艰苦是难以想象的 —— 农民除了吃面包外一无所有,而贵族们的情况往往好不了多少;住房狭小、寒冷、拥挤、不卫生,而且疾病缠身。这里也没有什么秩序。自罗马帝国衰落以来,欧洲一直处于持续的战争之中,暴力的威胁弥漫在日常生活中。这是一个没有警察的世界,个人为自己着想。城镇锁上城墙以防止强盗进入,主人可以对他们的仆人施加严厉的惩罚,父亲可以对他们的孩子施加惩罚。酷刑是对公共犯罪嫌疑人的普遍待遇,而处决和残害是对轻微犯罪的惩罚。人们知道自己的位置,只是因为他们被关在那里;秩序只作为暴力压迫而存在。那一时期也不是浪漫主义者所想象的那种信仰时代。宗教冲突几乎和政治暴力一样长期存在。新教改革和天主教反改革只是精神世界的最大和最血腥的战斗。在路德、加尔文和 Torquemada 的宗教裁判所之前和之后,异端邪说和迫害比比皆是。教会拥有欧洲三分之一的土地,为国王(有时也为他们的士兵)提供财政和精神支持,从而使几乎所有的冲突都带有宗教色彩。这是一个信仰的时代,只是在教会无所不在的意义上,对天堂和地狱的信仰几乎是不容置疑的。宇宙被看作是高度有序的,就像但丁对世界的描述一样,从天球开始,上帝与他的助手居住在那里。
20 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism gels, proceeding down through the social hierarchies of the earth to the nine underground levels of hell, where the damned were punished according to their sins. Virtually everyone believed dogmatically in this world order, but they disagreed with each other about just where everyone fitted into it—about who was to be Pope, which kings were to be sanctified, which theology should dominate, and whose morals should be absolute. Everyone was sure of his or her version of the truth and was ready to kill whoever stood in its way. In short, it was an era of waking nightmare, and when peace came and religion waned in the advanced kingdoms of England and France in the 1700s, thinking people heaved a sigh of relief. For them, it was an awakening, an "enlightenment." Those who entertained the salons of Paris with their conversation were the first intellectuals since antiquity to find employment outside the Church. The philosophes, as such men as Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Condorcet, and Turgot came to be known, had found a substitute for theology in science. Isaac Newton was the hero of the age, for his work on the laws of motion, published in 1687, showed how the universe ran of its own accord like a clock. Reason was the spirit of the times, and religion was its enemy. Humankind would at last be happy when the last king was strangled in the entrails of the last priest, declared the freethinker Jean Meslier, to which Voltaire gave assent—although under his breath, since he made a living by frequenting the courts of "enlightened despots" such as Frederick the Great. The philosophes rejected the theology of sin and declared that nature was reasonable and good. It was necessary only to discover the natural laws that governed the world and to put society in accordance with them. History ceased to be seen merely as the record of humankind's deeds between Adam and the Second Coming of Christ or a story of continual decline from the golden ages of Greece and Rome. Rather, people began to view history as the progress of scientific enlightenment, in which the eighteenth century stood out as an age of reason, an age of optimism. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 brought the opportunity people had been waiting for. Now they could be rid of the old order entirely and build a new one bas£d on principles of reason and justice. The king was overthrown and beheaded, aristocrats dispossessed, and the feudal order abolished. But then the liberal supporters of the Revolution began to fall away. The republicans began to turn against themselves. The Assembly purged more and more of its members, and their heads rolled from the guillotine to the cheers of the Paris crowds. The Revolution became paranoid; enemies of freedom were everywhere at home, war was declared against it abroad. The Reign of Terror was instituted under Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety. Finally, Robespierre himself went to the guillotine, and France began turning to the right. In 1799 the republican government was overthrown by a general named Napoleon Bonaparte, and the great experiment was almost over. It took another decade and a half for the drama to play itself out. But behind the grand adventure of Napoleon's conquests and eventual defeat, it
20 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism gels),通过地球上的社会等级制度,一直到地下的九层地狱,在那里,被诅咒者会根据他们的罪孽受到惩罚。几乎每个人都教条式地相信这个世界秩序,但他们对每个人在其中的位置都有分歧 —— 关于谁是教皇,哪些国王是神圣的,哪种神学应该占主导地位,以及谁的道德应该是绝对的。每个人都确信他或她的真理版本,并准备杀死任何阻挡它的人。简而言之,这是一个噩梦般的时代,当 17 世纪的和平到来,宗教在英国和法国的先进王国中衰落时,有思想的人都松了一口气。对他们来说,这是一次觉醒,一次 “启蒙”。那些在巴黎的沙龙里侃侃而谈的人是自古以来第一个在教会之外找到工作的知识分子。哲学家们,如伏尔泰、狄德罗、卢梭、孔多塞和杜尔哥等人,在科学中找到了神学的替代品。艾萨克·牛顿是这个时代的英雄,因为他在 1687 年发表的关于运动定律的著作,表明了宇宙是如何像时钟一样自行运行的。理性是时代的精神,而宗教是其敌人。自由思想家让·梅斯利埃(Jean Meslier)宣称,当最后一个国王被最后一个牧师的内脏勒死时,人类将最终获得幸福,伏尔泰对此表示赞同 —— 尽管是在他的口中,因为他靠频繁出入腓特烈大帝等 “开明的暴君” 的法庭谋生。哲学家们摒弃了罪恶的神学,宣称自然界是合理的、善良的。只需要发现支配世界的自然规律,并使社会符合这些规律。历史不再仅仅被视为人类在亚当和基督再来之间的行为记录,也不再被视为从希腊和罗马的黄金时代持续衰落的故事。相反,人们开始将历史视为科学启蒙的进步,其中 18 世纪作为一个理性的时代,一个乐观的时代脱颖而出。1789 年法国大革命的爆发给人们带来了一直在等待的机会。现在他们可以完全摆脱旧秩序,建立一个基于理性和正义原则的新秩序。国王被推翻并被斩首,贵族被剥夺财产,封建秩序被废除。但随后,革命的自由派支持者开始倒戈。共和党人开始自相残杀。议会清洗了越来越多的成员,他们的头颅在巴黎人群的欢呼声中从断头台上滚落。革命变得疑神疑鬼;国内到处都是自由的敌人,国外则对其宣战。在罗伯斯庇尔和他的公共安全委员会的领导下,恐怖统治开始了。最后,罗伯斯庇尔本人被送上了断头台,法国开始向右转。1799 年,共和政府被一位名叫拿破仑·波拿巴的将军推翻,伟大的试验几乎结束。又过了十年半,这出戏才得以上演。但在拿破仑征服和最终失败的宏大冒险背后,它
The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte 21 was becoming clear that an idea had failed. Reason could be a religion, too, and many people could be just as fanatical in defending the Enlightenment as any Grand Inquisitor. Paris in 1815, with a constitutional monarchy back on the throne, was superficially at order again, but intellectually it was in turmoil. Reformers, Utopians, and cultists abounded with their explanations of what had gone wrong and what must be done to set it right. At this point entered Saint-Simon, and our story begins. HENRI DE SAINT-SIMON (1760-1825) Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, as his name tells us, was an aristocrat, born into one of the most eminent families in France. Like many of his contemporaries, he was brilliant, egotistical, and absolutely unprincipled. His opportunistic career sums up many of the contradictions of his age. He began with a wild and dissolute youth, during which he was even imprisoned by his family as the only means of controlling him (as was, incidentally, his sinister contemporary the Marquis de Sade). Saint- Simon then became an officer in the French army, went to America, and fought in the battle of Yorktown. But we must not think of him as a freedom-loving volunteer like Lafayette; Saint-Simon served purely under the orders of the absolute monarch, King Louis XVI, who for reasons of state supported the Americans in order to oppose the British. Saint-Simon's political motives did not prevent him from becoming an honorary member of the American patriotic Society of Cincinnatus. If Saint-Simon was cynical, it only reflected the general tone of his age. Back in Europe, Saint-Simon chafed for some excitement. He cooked up schemes for building canals—one across Central America, another connecting Madrid to the sea—but could not successfully promote them. The French Revolution came along at just the right time. Saint-Simon took on the role of the great republican, making revolutionary speeches, presiding at the local assembly near his estate, proposing reforms, and befriending the peasants—while the chateaux of other aristocrats went up in flames. At the height of the republican fervor, Saint-Simon even renounced his title and took the name Bonhomme, equivalent to a Rockefeller today naming himself Jones. Throughout the political turmoil, Saint-Simon was also busy with private affairs. The Revolution confiscated lands of the Church and of aristocrats who were beheaded or fled the country; Saint-Simon busily bought them up at a fraction of their cost. As the republic's paper currency steadily lost value, Saint-Simon speculated in money and paid for property in worthless assignats. To be sure, Robespierre had his eye on such speculators, and Saint-Simon was arrested under suspicion of being a foreign agent. But he had established his republican image well in the provinces, and he mustered enough impeccable supporters to have himself freed. The episode proved only a temporary setback, and while heads were rolling
巴黎的先知们。圣西门和孔德 21 日,一个理念的失败越来越明显。理性也可以是一种宗教,许多人在捍卫启蒙运动时可以像任何大审问者一样狂热。1815 年的巴黎,随着君主立宪制的恢复,表面上又恢复了秩序,但在思想上却陷入了动荡。改革者、乌托邦主义者和崇拜者们纷纷解释什么地方出了问题,必须做些什么来纠正它。这时,圣西门出现了,我们的故事开始了。HENRI DE SAINT-SIMON(1760-1825)Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon,正如他的名字告诉我们的那样,是一个贵族,出生在法国最著名的家庭之一。像他同时代的许多人一样,他才华横溢、自负,而且绝对没有原则。他的机会主义生涯概括了他那个时代的许多矛盾。他开始了狂放不羁的青年时代,在此期间,他甚至被家人关进了监狱,作为控制他的唯一手段(顺便说一下,与他同时代的阴险的萨德侯爵也一样)。圣·西蒙后来成为法国军队的一名军官,去了美国,并参加了约克城战役。但我们不能把他想成是像拉法耶特那样热爱自由的志愿者;圣西蒙纯粹是在绝对君主路易十六国王的命令下服役的,他出于国家的原因支持美国人,以反对英国人。圣西蒙的政治动机并不妨碍他成为美国爱国主义协会辛辛那提斯的荣誉会员。如果说圣西门是愤世嫉俗的,那也只是反映了他那个时代的普遍基调。回到欧洲后,圣西蒙为寻求一些刺激而苦恼。他制定了建造运河的计划 —— 一个横跨中美洲,另一个连接马德里和海洋 —— 但却无法成功地推动它们。法国大革命的到来恰逢其时。圣西蒙扮演了伟大的共和主义者的角色,发表革命演说,主持他的庄园附近的地方议会,提出改革建议,并与农民交好 —— 而其他贵族的城堡则在火焰中燃烧起来。在共和主义的热潮中,圣西蒙甚至放弃了自己的头衔,取名为 Bonhomme,相当于今天的洛克菲勒给自己取名 Jones。在整个政治动荡期间,圣西蒙也在忙于处理私人事务。大革命没收了教会和被砍头或逃离国家的贵族的土地;圣西蒙忙着以极低的价格买下它们。由于共和国的纸币不断贬值,圣西蒙进行了货币投机,并以毫无价值的转让金支付财产。可以肯定的是,罗伯斯庇尔盯上了这些投机者,圣西蒙因被怀疑是外国间谍而被捕。但他在各省很好地树立了自己的共和主义形象,他聚集了足够多无可挑剔的支持者,使自己获得了自由。事实证明,这只是一个暂时的挫折,当人们都在讨论这个问题的时候
22 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism from the guillotine, Saint-Simon amassed a fortune. He entertained lavishly, kept a salon, and conversed grandly with a drawing room full of admirers and wits about his plans for reconstituting society. But this was not to last. The French Republic was eclipsed in 1799 by Napoleon's coup d'etat, and not long after Saint-Simon found that he had spent the last of his fortune. He began to harass his former business partners, his family, and whoever could give him money. He became regarded as a nuisance. He turned again to ideas, wrote them up, and sent them in petitions to Napoleon, to members of the Academie des Sciences, and to anyone else who might put them into action. His favorite idea was that the world could be saved if the scientists would form an international council and take over the direction of society. Instead of war and strife, people could then turn their attention to building canals and generally improving conditions. Saint-Simon had taken a typical Enlightenment idea, the belief in science, and given it a slightly more practical foundation. Strangely, Napoleon and the other eminences were too busy for Saint- Simon's schemes. His petitions were usually returned to him unopened. Saint-Simon dropped further into destitution. He came to believe that the scientists were in a conspiracy against him. His paranoia grew acute, and for a while he was confined in the famous madhouse at Charenton (the setting for Peter Weiss's play Marat/Sade). He made an unsuccessful attempt at suicide. Eventually, his fortunes improved a bit. After the monarchy was restored in 1815, Saint-Simon began to make a living as a publicist. The confiscated properties of the aristocrats were now in the hands of a new class of financiers and entrepreneurs, and with the downfall of Napoleon the remaining emigres returned and tried to reclaim them. The government became the focus for a struggle between these two groups, and Saint- Simon, who had a sharp eye for the winning side, began to put out papers and pamphlets arguing the cause of the "industrialists," as he called them. The word was soon to take on general currency. Saint-Simon's publications were always collapsing, but he made a living by making the rounds of his supporters for contributions to each new venture. Out of this enterprise, Saint-Simon developed his theory of society and began to attract a following. Saint-Simon's main idea was that industrialism was a new era in history. Progress was not a matter of science alone, but affected all the conditions of life. This new society, growing out of a declining feudalism, would provide the basis for solving all the old problems. Saint-Simon was one of the first to discern the new order emerging, and he took on the role of prophet concerning how it should operate. One of Saint-Simon's famous statements sums up his philosophy: Suppose that France suddenly lost fifty of her best physicists, chemists, physiologists, mathematicians, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, writers; fifty of her best mechanical engineers, civil and military engineers, artillery experts, architects, doctors, surgeons, apothecaries, seamen, clockmakers; fifty of her best
22 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)从断头台下来后,圣西蒙积累了一笔财富。他奢侈地招待客人,开了一个沙龙,与满屋子的崇拜者和聪明人大谈特谈他重建社会的计划。但这并不持久。1799 年,法兰西共和国因拿破仑的政变而黯然失色,不久之后,圣西蒙发现他已经花光了最后的财富。他开始骚扰他以前的商业伙伴、他的家人和任何能给他钱的人。他被认为是一个讨厌的人。他又开始想办法,把它们写下来,并把它们以请愿书的形式寄给拿破仑,寄给科学院的成员,以及任何可能把它们付诸行动的人。他最喜欢的想法是,如果科学家们组成一个国际理事会,接管社会的方向,世界就可以得到拯救。这样一来,人们就可以把注意力转移到修建运河和普遍改善条件上,而不是战争和纷争。圣西蒙采用了一个典型的启蒙思想,即对科学的信仰,并赋予它一个稍微实用的基础。奇怪的是,拿破仑和其他贵族们都忙于应付圣西蒙的计划。他的请愿书通常被退回给他,没有被打开。圣西门进一步陷入了贫困。他开始相信,科学家们都在密谋反对他。他的妄想症越来越严重,有一段时间他被关在查宁顿著名的疯人院里(彼得·魏斯的剧本《马拉/萨德》的背景)。他曾试图自杀,但没有成功。最终,他的命运有了些许改善。1815 年君主制恢复后,圣西蒙开始以宣传员的身份谋生。被没收的贵族财产现在掌握在新的金融家和企业家阶层手中,随着拿破仑的倒台,剩余的移民返回并试图夺回这些财产。政府成了这两个群体之间斗争的焦点,圣·西蒙敏锐地发现了获胜的一方,他开始发行报纸和小册子,为他所称的 “工业家” 的事业辩护。这个词很快就被普遍接受了。圣西蒙的出版物一直在倒闭,但他通过向他的支持者募捐来维持生计,为每一个新的企业捐款。在这项事业中,圣西门发展了他的社会理论,并开始吸引了一批人。圣西蒙的主要观点是,工业主义是历史上的一个新时代。进步不仅仅是科学的问题,而是影响到生活的所有条件。这个从衰落的封建主义中成长起来的新社会,将为解决所有的旧问题提供基础。圣西蒙是最早发现新秩序出现的人之一,他扮演了先知的角色,说明它应该如何运作。圣西门的一个著名声明总结了他的哲学。假设法国突然失去了 50 位最好的物理学家、化学家、生理学家、数学家、诗人、画家、雕塑家、音乐家、作家;50 位最好的机械工程师、民用和军用工程师、炮兵专家、建筑师、医生、外科医生、药剂师、海员、钟表匠;50 位最好的
The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte 23 bankers, two hundred of her best businessmen, two hundred of her best farmers, fifty of her best ironmasters, arms manufacturers, tanners, dyers, miners, clothmakers, cotton manufacturers, silk-makers, linen-makers, manufacturers of hardware, of pottery and china, of crystal and glass, ship chandlers, carriers, printers, engravers, goldsmiths, and other metal-workers; her fifty best masons, carpenters, joiners, farriers, locksmiths, cutlers, smelters, and a hundred other persons of various unspecified occupations, eminent in the sciences, fine arts, and professions; making in all three thousand leading scientists, artists, and artisans of France. These men are the Frenchmen who are the most essential producers, those who make the most important products, those who direct the enterprises most useful to the nation, those who contribute to its achievements in the sciences, fine arts and professions. They are in the most real sense the flower of French society; they are, above all Frenchmen, the most useful to their country, contribute most to its glory, increasing its civilization and prosperity. The nation would become a lifeless corpse as soon as it lost them. It would immediately fall into a position of inferiority compared with the nations which it now rivals, and would continue to be inferior until this loss had been replaced, until it had grown another head. It would require at least a generation for France to repair this misfortune; for men who are distinguished in work of positive ability are exceptions, and nature is not prodigal of exceptions, particularly in this species. Let us pass on to another assumption. Suppose that France preserves all the men of genius that she possesses in the sciences, fine arts and professions, but has the misfortune to lose in the same day Monsieur the King's brother, Monseigneur le due d'Angouleme, Monseigneur le due de Berry, Monseigneur le due d'Orleans, Monseigneur le due de Bourbon, Madame la duchesse d'Anguoleme, Madame la duchesse de Berry, Madame la duchesse d'Orleans, Madame la duchesse de Bourbon, and Mademoiselle de Conde. Suppose that France loses at the same time all the great officers of the royal household, all the ministers (with or without portfolio), all the councillors of state, all the chief magistrates, marshals, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, and canons, all the prefects and sub-prefects, all the civil servants, and judges, and, in addition, ten thousand of the richest proprietors who live in the style of nobles. This mischance would certainly distress the French, because they are kind- hearted, and could not see with indifference the sudden disappearance of such a large number of their compatriots. But this loss of thirty-thousand individuals, considered to be the most important in the state, would only grieve them for purely sentimental reasons and would result in no political evil for the State.1 By chance, a few days after this was published in 1819, an assassin took the life of the Due de Berry. Saint-Simon was arrested as an instigator. But Saint-Simon had chosen his sides well, and he was acquitted. The old era had been devoted to war and religion; aristocrats and priests had lived as parasites on the rest of society. The new era was to be devoted to the production of useful goods and services. Saint-Simon did not distinguish among bankers, manufacturers, engineers, laborers, poets, and scien- 'Henri de Saint-Simon, Social Organization, The Science of Man, and Other Writings (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), pp. 72-73.
巴黎的预言家们。23 位银行家,200 位最好的商人,200 位最好的农民,50 位最好的铁匠,武器制造商,制革师,染色师,矿工,制布师,棉花制造商,制丝师,亚麻制造商,五金制造商,陶器和瓷器制造商,水晶和玻璃制造商,船商,运输商,印刷商,雕刻师,金匠,以及其他金属工人。五十名最好的泥瓦匠、木匠、细木工、鞋匠、锁匠、裁缝、冶炼师,以及其他一百名在科学、美术和职业方面有名望的非特定职业者;总共有三千名法国的主要科学家、艺术家和工匠。这些人是法国最重要的生产者,是制造最重要产品的人,是指导对国家最有益的企业的人,是为国家在科学、艺术和职业方面的成就作出贡献的人。在最真实的意义上,他们是法国社会的花朵;在所有法国人中,他们对国家最有用,对国家的荣耀贡献最大,增加了国家的文明和繁荣。一旦失去他们,这个国家就会变成一具没有生命的尸体。与它现在的对手国家相比,它将立即陷入低劣的境地,并将继续低劣下去,直到这一损失被取代,直到它长出另一个脑袋。法国至少需要一代人的时间来弥补这一不幸;因为在积极的工作中出类拔萃的人是例外,而自然界并不缺少例外,特别是在这个物种中。让我们继续看另一个假设。假设法国保留了她在科学、艺术和职业方面拥有的所有天才人物,但却不幸在同一天失去了国王的弟弟昂古莱姆先生(Monseigneur le due d'Angoulme)。贝里公爵夫人、奥尔良公爵夫人、波旁公爵夫人、安古莱姆公爵夫人、贝里公爵夫人、奥尔良公爵夫人、波旁公爵夫人和康德小姐。假设法国同时失去了王室的所有重要官员,所有的部长(无论有无职务),所有的国务委员,所有的首席行政官、元帅、红衣主教、大主教、主教、代牧人和教士,所有的省长和副省长,所有的公务员和法官,此外还有一万名以贵族身份生活的最富有的业主。这种不幸肯定会使法国人感到不安,因为他们心地善良,不可能对如此众多的同胞突然消失而无动于衷。但是,这种被认为是国家最重要的三万人的损失,只会让他们因为纯粹的感情原因而感到悲伤,不会给国家带来任何政治上的灾难。1 偶然的是,在 1819 年这篇文章发表后的几天,一名刺客夺走了贝里的生命。圣西蒙作为煽动者被逮捕。但圣西蒙很好地选择了自己的立场,他被无罪释放。旧时代一直致力于战争和宗教;贵族和牧师作为社会其他部分的寄生虫生活。新时代将致力于生产有用的商品和服务。圣西蒙没有对银行家、制造商、工程师、工人、诗人和科学家进行区分,他说:"社会组织、人的科学和其他著作(纽约:Harper Torchbooks, 1964),第 72-73 页。
24 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism tists—all were producers, in contrast to the parasitic aristocracy. "All men must work" became Saint-Simon's slogan, whatever work one might be suited for. His disciples later put forward the formulation: "Each according to his capacity"—eventually to become famous as part of the motto of communism. The Saint-Simonians were quite willing to call themselves "socialists," although they meant this in a rather vague sense. Modern ideologies had not yet crystallized, and the Saint-Simonians continued to believe in private property, although they did not assign it very much importance, and were more concerned with coordinating the activities of society through large and centrally directed enterprises. Great undertakings—like canals, railroads, and steamship lines—were the focus of their interest, and these things were "social" rather than individual in nature. The modern era was to be one of peace. Force would no longer be necessary, since people would turn their powers against nature instead of against other men. The state would virtually cease to exist, at least in its old, coercive form; it would be replaced by a world council of scientists, financiers, and industrialists, who would plan and coordinate for the good of all. Society would remain a hierarchy but would no longer be looked upon as stratified. People simply have different innate capacities: Some are more intellectually developed, and these would become scientists; others are more emotional and would become the poets and artists; those who are more motor-oriented would become the workers and organizers. The best of all three types would be given the top positions of leadership, and the others would array themselves below. All would be happy if they could fill their own true function, be it high or low. In sum, Saint-Simon believed in the rise of a perfect meritocracy. What Saint-Simon developed has turned out to be the characteristic ideology of industrialism. It is found all over the world today, among the technocrats of the modern French state, in the British civil service, and in the great American bureaucracies from the universities to the RAND Corporation. It is a belief that progress is based on science and that new societies are created out of the old (in the developing nations of the world as well as in the more advanced countries of the East and West), without revolution or conflict, simply by putting the scientists and industrialists in charge. There is no real conflict of classes if everyone works and is able to rise according to his or her individual merit. The system is elitist, but no one would (or should) mind, since the experts at the top are working only for the common good. This ideology includes what may be called the belief in "the stateless state": that the government exists purely as a technical, neutral instrument for coordinating society, not as a means of oppression or the provider of special interests. As we shall see, even the Communists adopted this view of their own state, although they deny that it is true of the state in capitalist countries. When Saint-Simon died in 1825, his young followers started off on an unexpected turn. Taking up one of Saint-Simon's last ideas, the creation of a
24 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 所有的人都是生产者,与寄生的贵族阶层形成对比。“所有人都必须工作” 成为圣西门的口号,无论一个人适合做什么工作。他的弟子们后来提出了这样的说法。“各尽所能” —— 最终成为共产主义格言的一部分而闻名。圣西门派很愿意称自己为 “社会主义者”,尽管他们的意思相当模糊。现代意识形态尚未具体化,圣西蒙人继续相信私有财产,尽管他们并不十分重视它,他们更关心的是通过大型中央指导企业来协调社会活动。伟大的事业 —— 如运河、铁路和蒸汽船公司 —— 是他们关注的焦点,这些东西在性质上是 “社会的” 而不是个人的。现代将是一个和平的时代。武力将不再是必要的,因为人们将把他们的力量用于对抗自然,而不是对抗其他人。国家实际上将不复存在,至少是以其旧有的强制形式存在;它将被一个由科学家、金融家和工业家组成的世界理事会所取代,他们将为所有人的利益进行规划和协调。社会仍然是一个等级制度,但将不再被视为分层。人们只是有不同的先天能力。有些人智力更发达,他们将成为科学家;其他人更感性,将成为诗人和艺术家;那些更注重运动的人将成为工人和组织者。这三种类型中最优秀的人将被赋予最高的领导职位,而其他人将在下面排列。如果他们能够履行自己的真正职能,无论是高级还是低级,所有人都会感到高兴。总而言之,圣西门相信完美的功利主义的崛起。圣西门所发展的东西已经成为工业主义的特色意识形态。今天,这种意识形态遍布世界各地,在现代法国国家的技术官僚中,在英国的公务员队伍中,在美国从大学到兰德公司的巨大官僚机构中,都可以看到这种意识形态。这是一种信念,认为进步是以科学为基础的,新的社会是从旧的社会中创造出来的(在世界发展中国家以及东方和西方更先进的国家),不需要革命或冲突,只要让科学家和工业家负责就可以。如果每个人都在工作,并且能够根据他或她的个人能力上升,就不会有真正的阶级冲突。这个系统是精英主义的,但没有人会(或应该)介意,因为顶端的专家只是在为公共利益工作。这种意识形态包括可称为 “无国界国家” 的信念:政府纯粹作为协调社会的技术性、中立性工具而存在,而不是作为压迫的手段或特殊利益的提供者。正如我们将看到的,甚至共产党人也对他们自己的国家采取了这种观点,尽管他们否认资本主义国家的国家也是如此。当圣西门于 1825 年去世时,他的年轻追随者开始了一个意想不到的转变。接受了圣西门最后的一个想法,即建立一个
The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte 25 "new Christianity" of social harmony, they began to preach love of humanity and formed a Utopian community outside of Paris, where all would work for the common good. In a prim and proper fashion, they were the hippies of their day. The experiment collapsed after a year, when their leader Enfantin was brought to trial and sentenced to a year in jail for outraging public morals. After this romantic escapade, the Saint-Simonians settled down to become industrialists and financiers. Among them were the Pereire brothers, the financiers of Louis Napoleon's Second Empire and the organizers of the famous Credit Mobilier speculations. Another of these, Ferdinand de Lesseps, even brought one of Saint-Simon's earliest schemes to fruition: In 1869 he completed the Suez Canal. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) In 1817 Saint-Simon engaged as his private secretary a serious young man named Auguste Comte. Comte was well educated, having just graduated from Napoleon's new Ecole Polytechnique, where the best of modern science was taught. Saint-Simon saw his new assistant, trained in mathematics and all the sciences, as the disciple who could formulate his lc ose ideas into a complete system. They worked together for seven years, developing their views on history and on industrial society. From this enteiprise was to emerge an entirely new social science. I They split up in 1824 after a series of quarrels. The final dispute came over the question of whose name was to appear on the title page of their most important work. Without a patron, Comte fell into dire straits. He demanded a position at the Ecole Polytechnique from which to 1 each his new science and was refused repeatedly. He eked out a living grac; ing entrance examinations in mathematics, gave public lectures to whoever would listen, and wrote volume after volume about his system. Like his former employer, he barraged kings and officials all over Europe with petitions to support his work. He drew no response, for the garrets of Paris were crowded with starving writers of every variety, and his petitions were part of a deluge of such mail. Comte fulminated against those who rejected his ideas, which he felt could save the world. In classic style, he went through fits of raving mania and was confined for a while at Charenton asylum. He twice attempted suicide. Eventually, he began to gather a cult around him, and his system of Positivism gradually became known. . Comte's system derives from a basic principle, the law bf the three stages of knowledge. Comte referred to this concept as "the great discovery of the year 1822" (when he had still been working for Saint-Simon); he had even written down the hour of the day at which he had begun each new page. It was over the publication of this work that the break with Saint- Simon had come. The law of the three stages states that knowledge of any subject always begins in theological form (explanation by animism, spirits, or gods), passes
巴黎的先知们。圣西门和孔德是社会和谐的 “新基督教”,他们开始宣扬对人类的爱,并在巴黎郊外组建了一个乌托邦社区,所有人都为共同利益而工作。以一种原始和适当的方式,他们是那个时代的嬉皮士。实验在一年后失败了,因为他们的领袖恩凡坦被送上法庭,并以违反公共道德的罪名被判处一年监禁。在这次浪漫的逃亡之后,圣西蒙人定居下来,成为工业家和金融家。其中有佩雷尔兄弟,他们是路易·拿破仑第二帝国的金融家,也是著名的 Credit Mobilier 投机活动的组织者。其中的另一位,费迪南·德·莱塞普,甚至将圣西蒙最早的计划之一付诸实现。1869 年,他完成了苏伊士运河。AUGUSTE COMTE(1798-1857)1817 年,圣西蒙聘请了一位名叫 Auguste Comte 的严肃的年轻人作为他的私人秘书。孔德受过良好的教育,他刚刚从拿破仑的新综合理工学院毕业,那里教授最好的现代科学。Saint-Simon 认为他的新助手受过数学和所有科学的训练,是能够将他的这些想法形成一个完整体系的弟子。他们一起工作了七年,发展他们对历史和工业社会的看法。从这个过程中,出现了一门全新的社会科学。1824 年,他们在经历了一系列争吵后分手了。最后的争执是关于谁的名字应该出现在他们最重要的作品的扉页上的问题。没有赞助人,孔德陷入了困境。他要求在巴黎综合理工学院获得一个职位,以便在那里开展他的新科学,但屡次遭到拒绝。他勉强维持生计,参加数学的入学考试,给任何愿意听的人做公开讲座,并写了一卷又一卷关于他的体系的文章。像他的前雇主一样,他向全欧洲的国王和官员发出请愿书,要求他们支持他的工作。他没有得到任何回应,因为巴黎的地下室里挤满了各种饥饿的作家,而他的请愿书是这种邮件的一部分。孔德对那些拒绝他的思想的人大发雷霆,他认为这些思想可以拯救世界。在经典的风格中,他经历了疯狂的狂躁症,并在查宁顿精神病院被关押了一段时间。他两次试图自杀。最终,他开始在自己身边聚集起一个崇拜者,他的实证主义体系逐渐为人所知。. 孔德的体系源于一个基本原则,即知识的三个阶段的规律。孔德将这一概念称为 “1822 年的伟大发现”(当时他还在为圣西蒙工作);他甚至写下了他开始每一页新书的时间。正是因为这部作品的出版,他才与圣西蒙决裂。三阶段法则指出,任何主题的知识总是以神学形式开始(用万物有灵论、精神或神来解释),通过
26 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism to the metaphysical form (explanation by abstract philosophical speculation), and finally becomes positive (scientific explanation based on observation, experiment, and comparison). Accordingly, there is a historical sequence of the sciences, as the various areas of knowledge pass through these stages in order of difficulty. The simplest and most remote topics become scientific first, followed by increasingly complex and concrete matters. Thus the sciences develop in this order: mathematics astronomy physics chemistry biology sociology Humans free themselves from theological and metaphysical notions first in those areas most remote from themselves—mathematics and astronomy; it is only after great advance that humans come to apply science to the realms of their own being—biology and sociology. This was, in fact, the first time that society was conceived of as an object for science, and Comte coined the term "sociology" for this new field. There appears to be a missing link in this list of sciences—psychology. But this was no oversight on Comte's part. As far as he was concerned, the individual psyche or soul was merely a religious and philosophical superstition; a truly scientific psychology would treat humans as the activity of body and brain, and hence psychology was part of physiology, a division of biology. Comte's views on psychology at the time consisted of a belief in phrenology, the system that explained human temperaments as due to the enlargement of various areas of the brain. This survives today only as a memory of analyzing a person's character by feeling the lumps on his or her head. Comte's radical rejection of any subjectivistic psychology has its modern counterpart in behaviorism. Comte's rejection of psychology has another important consequence. In his view, each science constitutes a separately organized level of existence. The social world, although composed of individuals, is not identical with those individuals, but is structured according to its own principles. Comte thus broke with the prevailing Enlightenment search for an answer to social problems in the elements of human nature. Society is not just the behavior of individuals, but something that accumulates across many generations. Just as language is created by individual people speaking, but nevertheless develops a vocabulary and a grammar that no one person ever does much to modify, society remains and unfolds by laws of its own, while individuals come and go. Comte thus hit on the concept of society as a cumulative culture, as we would now put it. The task of the new science of sociology was to set forth the laws that governed this entity. Accordingly, sociology is divided into two parts: "social statics" and "social dynamics." Comte defined statics as the study of social order, and dynamics as the study of social change or progress.
26 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》到形而上学的形式(通过抽象的哲学猜测进行解释),最后变成积极的形式(基于观察、实验和比较的科学解释)。相应地,科学有一个历史顺序,因为各种知识领域按难度顺序经过这些阶段。最简单和最遥远的主题首先成为科学,然后是越来越复杂和具体的事项。因此,科学的发展顺序是这样的:数学 天文学 物理学 化学 生物学 社会学 人类首先在那些离自己最遥远的领域 —— 数学和天文学 —— 将自己从神学和形而上学的观念中解放出来;只有在取得巨大进步之后,人类才会将科学应用于自己的存在领域 —— 生物学和社会学。事实上,这是社会第一次被设想为科学的对象,孔德为这个新领域创造了 “社会学” 一词。在这个科学清单中似乎缺少一个环节 —— 心理学。但这并不是孔德的疏忽。在他看来,个人的心理或灵魂只是一种宗教和哲学的迷信;真正科学的心理学会把人当作身体和大脑的活动,因此心理学是生理学的一部分,是生物学的一个分支。孔德当时对心理学的看法包括对膈肌学的信仰,该系统将人类的气质解释为是由于大脑各个区域的扩大。这在今天只是作为一种通过感受一个人头上的肿块来分析其性格的记忆而存在。孔德对任何主观主义心理学的彻底拒绝,在行为主义中得到了现代的对应。孔德对心理学的拒绝还有一个重要的后果。在他看来,每一门科学都构成了一个单独组织的存在层次。社会世界虽然由个人组成,但与这些个人并不完全相同,而是根据其自身的原则进行结构化。因此,孔德打破了普遍存在的启蒙运动在人性要素中寻找社会问题答案的做法。社会不仅仅是个人的行为,而是在许多代人之间积累起来的东西。就像语言是由个别的人创造的,但还是形成了一种词汇和语法,没有一个人对其进行过修改,社会仍然按照其自身的规律发展,而个人则来来往往。因此,孔德提出了社会是一种累积性文化的概念,正如我们现在所说的那样。社会学这门新科学的任务是阐明支配这一实体的规律。因此,社会学被划分为两个部分。“社会静力学” 和 “社会动力学”。孔德将静态定义为对社会秩序的研究,而动态则是对社会变化或进步的研究。
The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte 27 Comte himself was well trained in the sciences of his day, and he held that sociology would develop by the scientific methods of observation, experimentation, comparison, and historical research. Unfortunately, he himself never did much of this kind of research, although he was fairly well versed in history. He was in too much of a hurry to finish his system, for he believed it contained the answer to the main problem of the day: how to put a society ravaged by revolution and strife back into order. With this in view, Comte invoked some methodological principles that provided shortcuts to his goal. The first of these was the principle that isolated facts cannot be understood by themselves, but must be seen in their larger context: The whole must be grasped if one is to see the functions of the parts. This principle contains the fairly sophisticated idea, upheld by modern philosophy of science, that one must have an organizing paradigm or set of concepts before one can know what observations to make of the world. But Comte neglected the modern proviso that the concepts one begins with are only provisional, to be modified or rejected as the effort to fit in the facts goes on. Comte was confident that he had grasped the model of the whole at his first try. According to this model, society is analogous to a biological organism. Society has its various parts (the family, the church, the state) just as a body has its various organs (the liver, the brain, the kidneys, and so on), each serving some function for the whole. Comte did not mean that society is literally an organism; it exists only as consciousness, not as physical individuals, and the various social institutions are parts of this set of ideas that are passed on from generation to generation. The roots of modern functional- ism can be found in this analysis. The various parts of society thus fitted together, and none could exist without the others. The harmonious society, then, was based on Consensus, a feeling of belonging together as a moral unit. Here we can see how much more conservative Comte was than his mentor Saint-Simon. Saint-Simon was a thoroughgoing atheist and materialist, a believer in science and industry, whereas Comte felt that society could not be held together by reason alone, but demanded faith. Thus the family, the church, and the community are the core of society, for it is here that people's selfish tempers are controlled by the sentiments of love, duty, loyalty, and respect. Comte thus mixed Saint-Simon's revolutionary heritage with the ideas of the conservative opponents of the Revolution, who contrasted the chaos of the years of Robespierre with a romanticized view of feudal society. The most influential of these conservatives were the emigre aristocrats Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald, whom we shall meet again when we come to Tocqueville. Social thought owes many of its advances to such mixtures. This constituted Comte's social statics. Two other principles helped him formulate his system of social dynamics: the belief that social change everywhere goes through the same sequence and the belief that all the various elements of a society change together. According to the first of these, we do
巴黎的先知们。孔德本人在当时的科学领域受过良好的训练,他认为社会学将通过观察、实验、比较和历史研究等科学方法来发展。遗憾的是,他本人虽然对历史相当精通,但从未做过多少这样的研究。他太急于完成他的体系了,因为他相信它包含了对当时主要问题的答案:如何使一个被革命和冲突蹂躏的社会恢复秩序。考虑到这一点,孔德援引了一些方法论原则,为他的目标提供了捷径。其中第一个原则是,孤立的事实不能单独理解,而必须在其更大的背景下加以观察。如果要看清各部分的功能,就必须把握住整体。这一原则包含了现代科学哲学所坚持的相当复杂的思想,即在人们知道对世界进行何种观察之前,必须有一个组织性的范式或一套概念。但孔德忽略了现代的限制条件,即人们开始时的概念只是暂时的,在努力适应事实的过程中会被修改或拒绝。孔德确信他在第一次尝试时就掌握了整体的模式。根据这个模型,社会类似于一个生物有机体。社会有其不同的部分(家庭、教会、国家),就像一个身体有其不同的器官(肝脏、大脑、肾脏等等)一样,每个部分都为整体提供一些功能。孔德的意思并不是说,社会从字面上看是一个有机体;它只是作为意识而存在,而不是作为物理个体而存在,各种社会机构是这套思想的一部分,代代相传。现代功能主义的根基可以在这种分析中找到。社会的各个部分就这样结合在一起,没有一个部分可以离开其他部分而存在。那么,和谐的社会是建立在共识的基础上的,是一种作为道德单位的共同归属感。在这里,我们可以看到孔德比他的导师圣西门要保守得多。圣西门是一个彻底的无神论者和唯物主义者,是科学和工业的信徒,而孔德则认为,社会不能仅靠理性来维系,而是需要信仰。因此,家庭、教堂和社区是社会的核心,因为正是在这里,人们的自私脾气被爱、责任、忠诚和尊重等情感所控制。因此,孔德将圣西蒙的革命遗产与大革命的保守派反对者的思想混为一谈,后者将罗伯斯庇尔时代的混乱与封建社会的浪漫主义观点进行对比。这些保守派中最有影响力的是移民贵族约瑟夫·德·迈斯特和路易·德·博纳德,我们在讨论托克维尔时将再次见到他们。社会思想的许多进步都归功于这种混合。这就构成了孔德的社会状态学。另外两个原则帮助他制定了他的社会动力学体系:相信社会变化在任何地方都会经历相同的顺序,相信社会的所有不同元素都会一起变化。根据其中的第一个原则,我们做
28 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism not need to investigate the history of all societies; we need only locate the most advanced society, and the stages of its history will show us the stages through which all others must pass. The evolution of one society can show the rest of the world the face of its future. Comte was thus able to place all known societies on a continuum of development, from the primitive tribes described by the explorers of America and the Orient, on through the empires of history, and culminating, needless to say, with nineteenth-century France. The second of these principles tells us that progress occurs simultaneously in all spheres—intellectual, physical, moral, and political. This follows from the idea of society as an integrated whole or system. This provided another shortcut for Comte, for it meant that one kind of change could be taken as an index for all others. Comte chose to emphasize intellectual change, since this was the area he knew best. The result was this capsule summary of the stages of human history: Material Basic Social Basic Moral Intellectual Form Unit Sentiment Theological Military Family Attachment Metaphysical Legalistic State Veneration Positive Industrial Humanity Benevolence Comte's basic ideas have had enormous influence on the development of sociology, both for good and for ill. Society is somewhat like an organism, but it is also unlike an organism in crucial ways. It is inherently full of conflict as well as harmony; and it is held together, when it is in fact held together, by coercion and economic self-interest as well as by moral sentiments. Comte's ideas about social change have been especially pernicious. They have a considerable appeal for the mentally lazy, who do not want to have to understand the intricate paths of history, which are arranged so inconveniently that they do not even progress toward the same goal. The elements of society do not all change together, and the outcomes are neither so inevitable nor so benevolent as Comte believed. For all humankind's hopes, France did not hold out the vision of the future for the rest of the world, nor does the United States for the Third World today. As we are beginning to understand, the so-called developing nations show few signs of creating our kind of politics, stratification, or even economy in the foreseeable future, and it has even become questionable whether they are "developing" at all. Today's world planners are guilty of the same haste for favorable conclusions as was Comte. There is no shortcut substitute for the scientific method of collecting, comparing, and analyzing the facts. On the positive side, Spencer, Durkheim, and others were to make good use of many of Comte's leading insights: the recognition that society would have to be explained on its own level rather than by reduction to psychology, the division of labor among social institutions, and especially the role of
28 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》不需要调查所有社会的历史;我们只需要找到最先进的社会,它的历史阶段将向我们展示所有其他社会必须经过的阶段。一个社会的演变可以向世界其他地区展示其未来的面貌。因此,孔德能够将所有已知的社会置于一个连续的发展过程中,从美洲和东方的探险家所描述的原始部落,一直到历史上的各个帝国,最后,不用说,以 19 世纪的法国为顶点。这些原则中的第二条告诉我们,进步同时发生在所有领域 —— 智力、身体、道德和政治领域。这是从社会作为一个综合的整体或系统的想法中得出的。这为孔德提供了另一条捷径,因为它意味着一种变化可以被当作所有其他变化的指数。孔德选择强调智力变化,因为这是他最熟悉的领域。其结果是对人类历史阶段的总结。物质 基础 社会 基础 道德 智力 形式 单位 情感 神学 军事 家庭 依恋 形而上学 法制 国家 崇尚 积极 工业 人性 仁爱 孔德的基本思想对社会学的发展产生了巨大影响,有好有坏。社会在某种程度上像一个有机体,但它也在关键方面不同于一个有机体。它本质上充满了冲突与和谐;当它事实上被维系在一起时,它是由胁迫和经济上的自我利益以及道德情感所维系。孔德关于社会变革的想法特别有害。他们对精神上的懒惰者有相当大的吸引力,他们不想必须理解错综复杂的历史路径,这些路径的安排是如此不方便,以至于它们甚至没有朝着同一个目标前进。社会的各个要素并不都是一起变化的,结果既不像孔德认为的那样不可避免,也不像孔德认为的那样是仁慈的。就人类所有的希望而言,法国并没有为世界其他国家提出未来的愿景,美国今天也没有为第三世界提出未来的愿景。正如我们开始理解的那样,所谓的发展中国家几乎没有迹象显示在可预见的未来创造我们的政治、分层、甚至经济,甚至它们是否在 “发展” 都成了问题。今天的世界规划者犯了和孔德一样的急于求成的毛病。收集、比较和分析事实的科学方法是没有捷径可言的。在积极的一面,斯宾塞、杜克海姆等人很好地利用了孔德的许多主要见解:认识到社会必须在其自身的层面上进行解释,而不是通过还原为心理学,社会机构之间的分工,特别是社会的作用。
The Prophets of Paris: Saint-Simon and Comte 29 moral sentiments in holding society together. Free of Comte's overwhelming ideological concerns, later sociologists have gone beyond merely advocating moral order to analyze it, to search for the conditions that create it at certain times and places, and, thus, to break through to an understanding of the emotions and rituals that harness people to each other below the level of their rational consciousness. But this was to be in the future. Comte, indeed, ended by turning his new science into a cult. The cult took form after Comte, in 1844, had a melodramatic but strictly platonic love affair with a middle-aged woman. The object of his passion was a lady named Clothilde de Vaux, who had been deserted by her husband but still remained faithful to her marriage vow. The high point of the affair was an abortive liaison, complete with much handwringing and many protestations of duty and honor, which left Comte still physically denied but enraptured with worship of Clothilde's moral superiority. Not long after, she became deathly ill, and Comte forced his way into her bedroom and locked out her parents so that he might spend her dying moments with her alone. Comte then began a series of ritual devotions, starting with daily obeisance to a lock of Clothilde's hair. He formed his followers into a Religion of Humanity, with Comte as its high priest. He began to refer to society as the "Great Being" and preached universal love and harmony through his system of industrial order. He envisioned mankind advancing to progressively higher levels of spirituality and even imagined a time in the future when love would dispense with gross material forms entirely, and women would be able to give birth without sexual intercourse. He formulated a new calendar, with days of devotion commemorating scientists, saints, poets, and philosophers alike. He planned a council of all such leaders, organized under the High Priest of Humanity, who would rule the world benevolently through the application of Positivism. The cults of Comte and Saint-Simon, like the other utopian schemes of the nineteenth century, failed to save the world, of course, or even to have very much effect on it. Saint-Simonianism provided an ideology to justify the activity of some financiers and industrialists of the nineteenth century. Comte's Positivism attracted scattered adherents around the world, notably in the United States and Russia, and at the behest of some romantic Brazilian aristocrats it was made the official philosophy of Brazil. Indeed, Comte's motto Ordem e Progresso (Order and Progress) is still found on the Brazilian flag, an ironic commentary on the actual conditions of that beleaguered country. The utopian prophets failed to change the world because they insufficiently understood it. They were too optimistic, too sentimental, and too eager for easy change to understand that history grinds out its conclusions through long and hard struggles. In the next chapter we meet the founder of the most successful social movement of modern times, a man willing to see the conflict at the core of things: Karl Marx.
巴黎的先知们。圣西门和孔德 29 在维系社会方面的道德情操。摆脱了孔德压倒性的意识形态关注,后来的社会学家已经超越了仅仅倡导道德秩序的范畴,去分析它,去寻找在特定时间和地点创造它的条件,从而突破了对在理性意识水平以下使人们相互束缚的情感和礼仪的理解。但这将是未来的事。事实上,孔德最后把他的新科学变成了一种邪教。1844 年,孔德与一位中年妇女发生了一场戏剧性的但严格意义上的柏拉图式的爱情,此后便形成了这种崇拜。他的激情对象是一位名叫 Clothilde de Vaux 的女士,她被丈夫抛弃了,但仍然忠于她的婚姻誓言。这段恋情的高潮是一次流产的联络,伴随着许多手淫和许多对责任和荣誉的抗议,这让孔德在身体上仍然被否定,但却迷恋于对 Clothilde 的道德优越性的崇拜。不久之后,她病入膏肓,孔德强行进入她的卧室,把她的父母锁在门外,以便他可以单独和她一起度过她的死亡时刻。随后,孔德开始了一系列仪式性的奉献,首先是每天向 Clothilde 的一绺头发行礼。他把他的追随者组成了一个 “人类宗教”,由孔德担任其大祭司。他开始把社会称为 “伟大的存在”,并通过他的工业秩序体系宣扬博爱与和谐。他设想人类将逐步提升到更高的精神境界,甚至想象在未来的某一天,爱情将完全摒弃粗暴的物质形式,而妇女将能够在没有性交的情况下生育。他制定了一个新的日历,其中有纪念科学家、圣人、诗人和哲学家的奉献日。他计划成立一个由所有这些领导人组成的理事会,在人类大祭司的领导下,通过应用实证主义仁慈地统治世界。孔德和圣西门的崇拜,就像十九世纪的其他乌托邦计划一样,当然没能拯救世界,甚至没能对世界产生很大的影响。圣西门主义提供了一种意识形态,为十九世纪的一些金融家和工业家的活动进行辩护。孔德的实证主义在世界各地吸引了零星的追随者,特别是在美国和俄国,在一些浪漫的巴西贵族的要求下,它被定为巴西的官方哲学。事实上,孔德的座右铭 Ordem e Progresso(秩序与进步)仍然出现在巴西国旗上,这是对这个被围困的国家的实际情况的讽刺。乌托邦的预言家们没能改变世界,因为他们对世界的理解不够。他们太乐观,太多愁善感,太急于求成,不明白历史是通过长期艰苦的斗争而得出结论的。在下一章,我们将见到现代最成功的社会运动的创始人,一个愿意看到事物核心冲突的人。卡尔·马克思。
CHAPTER TWO Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx The social thinkers discussed so far have been respectable. They appeal to the established order. They talk of ideals and avoid looking too closely at unpleasant facts about the new industrial order. But the nineteenth century was not simply a glorious era of science, progress, justice, and brotherhood. Saint-Simon's harmonious hierarchy of industrial men or Comte's social organism made sense only if one closed one's eyes to what was going on in the mundane world. Black smoke was beginning to hang in the air over the industrial towns of England, France, and Germany, and on the streets behind the houses of the prospering businessmen were growing the tenements where workers crowded with their families in scenes of grime, poverty, and disease. The mines and factories were manned by a tubercular population of men, women, and children, working eleven-, thirteen-, or fourteen-hour days, six or seven days a week, without respite except through layoff or death. For Karl Marx the basis of reality was here, in the harsh facts of material and economic conditions, and the talk of philosophers, politicians, and priests was only a smoke screen designed to divert attention from it. Marx was the great angry man of the nineteenth century. Indignant at what was happening to people and at the hypocrisy and blindness of those who covered it up, he set out to reveal what was going on, to explain both the inexorable workings of the economic substructure and the deceptions of the political and ideological superstructure. Marx was the first to come to grips with the realities of social conflict instead of wishing them away, and for this he doomed himself to a life in the underground. But this was the fate he wished. Free from the illusions of respectability, he thought he saw the system bringing its own destruction and the outlines of a newer, better world arising in its midst. Karl Marx, the man of conflict, was both a realist and a revolutionist. It is not surprising that Marx is the most controversial of all modern thinkers, with the possible exception of Sigmund Freud. His writings have been the handbook of revolutionists and would-be revolutionists. With the success of his followers in Russia, China, and elsewhere, his ideas have been raised to the level of state dogma. In Moscow the Institute of Marxism- 30
第二章 地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 到目前为止讨论的社会思想家都是值得尊敬的。他们向既定的秩序发出呼吁。他们谈论理想,避免过于仔细地研究新的工业秩序中不愉快的事实。但十九世纪并不只是一个科学、进步、正义和兄弟情谊的光辉时代。圣西门的工业人的和谐等级制度或孔德的社会有机体,只有在人们对世俗世界正在发生的事情闭上眼睛时才有意义。黑烟开始在英国、法国和德国的工业城镇上空弥漫,在繁荣的商人的房子后面的街道上,工人和他们的家人在肮脏、贫穷和疾病的场景中拥挤在一起的住宅越来越多。矿场和工厂里有一群患结核病的男人、女人和孩子,他们每周工作 11 小时、13 小时或 14 小时,6 天或 7 天,除了下岗或死亡,没有休息时间。对卡尔·马克思来说,现实的基础就在这里,在物质和经济条件的严酷事实中,而哲学家、政治家和牧师的谈话只是一个烟幕,旨在转移对它的注意力。马克思是十九世纪伟大的愤怒者。他对发生在人们身上的事情以及那些掩盖它的人的虚伪和盲目感到愤慨,他开始揭示正在发生的事情,解释经济下层结构不可阻挡的运作以及政治和意识形态上层结构的欺骗。马克思是第一个直面社会冲突现实的人,而不是希望它们消失,为此他注定要在地下生活。但这是他所希望的命运。从受人尊敬的幻想中解脱出来,他认为自己看到了这个体系带来了自己的毁灭,一个更新、更美好的世界的轮廓在其中出现。卡尔·马克思,这个充满冲突的人,既是一个现实主义者又是一个革命者。毫不奇怪,马克思是所有现代思想家中最有争议的人,西格蒙德·弗洛伊德可能除外。他的著作一直是革命者和可能的革命者的手册。随着他的追随者在俄罗斯、中国和其他地方的成功,他的思想已被提升到国家教条的高度。在莫斯科的马克思主义研究所 —— 30
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 31 Leninism faithfully recorded the events that took place every day of Marx's life. Marxism became a political orthodoxy. On the other side, virtually all opponents of communism have felt they must refute the Marxist system, usually by pointing out that revolution has occurred only in backward countries, where Marx did not expect it, and has not occurred in mature capitalistic nations, where Marx did expect it. The anti-Communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Russia during 1989-1991 further discredited Marxism as a political and economic program. Can we say, then, that Marxism is just a bizarre episode which the future will increasingly forget? Marx predicted that factory workers would be the gravediggers of the capitalist system; instead, the worldwide capitalism of the late twentieth century appears to be burying socialism. But let us make some distinctions among the various parts of Marx's ideas. His program of socialism did not work out as he expected. But Marx did not say much about socialism, only regarding this as a phase in the future which should be created when the time came. His work concentrated on capitalism and its internal conflicts. Ironically, the collapse of socialism makes the topic of capitalism even more central. This is the system we see almost everywhere, including in the old Soviet-bloc countries where capitalism is being introduced today. Socialism is certainly not a Utopian end of history, but neither is capitalism. Capitalism is full of economic conflicts, and these inner workings of capitalism are even more on the center of the stage now that the conflict with socialism has virtually disappeared. Marx's great contribution to sociology was in opening up the analysis of economic classes and economic conflict, and in proposing that they have a central place in the theory of how societies operate. Though Marxism was wrong about many things, the central insight remains an important one. Knowledge advances by using and revising ideas to account for the facts we turn up, building on strengths, shoring up weaknesses. In the long run we are best served by discovering as much as we can of the truth, not by rushing to act on half-truths or outright illusions. Marx's ideas can best be used if we are aware of both their weaknesses and their strengths, and that is what this chapter will try to display. KARL MARX (1818-1883) Marx was born in Trier, one of the small, legalistic states of the Rhineland, on the border between a progressive France and the more traditional parts of Germany. His father was a liberal, a Jew from a long line of rabbis, who had nominally converted to Christianity in order to maintain his career as a lawyer—that is, as a member of the local government bureaucracy, since lawyers were not independent professionals in Germany. Young Marx attended the University of Berlin, where he drank in taverns, acquired debts, fought the usual duel and got the usual scar on his face, and studied philosophy. In short, he prepared himself for an academic career.
地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 31 列宁主义忠实地记录了马克思生活中每天发生的事件。马克思主义成为政治上的正统观念。另一方面,几乎所有反对共产主义的人都认为他们必须驳斥马克思主义体系,通常是指出革命只发生在马克思没有预料到的落后国家,而没有发生在马克思预料到的成熟资本主义国家。1989-1991 年期间东欧和俄罗斯的反共产主义革命进一步使马克思主义作为政治和经济纲领失去了信誉。那么,我们是否可以说,马克思主义只是一个怪异的插曲,未来将越来越多地被遗忘?马克思预言,工厂工人将成为资本主义制度的掘墓人;相反,20 世纪末的世界性资本主义似乎正在埋葬社会主义。但让我们对马克思思想的各个部分进行一些区分。他的社会主义方案并没有像他预期的那样成功。但马克思对社会主义并没有多说什么,只是把这看作是未来的一个阶段,在时机到来时应该创造出来。他的工作集中在资本主义及其内部冲突上。具有讽刺意味的是,社会主义的崩溃使资本主义的话题变得更加核心。这就是我们几乎在所有地方看到的制度,包括在今天正在引入资本主义的旧苏联集团国家。社会主义当然不是历史的乌托邦结局,但资本主义也不是。资本主义充满了经济冲突,在与社会主义的冲突几乎消失的今天,资本主义的这些内部运作更成为舞台的中心。马克思对社会学的巨大贡献在于开启了对经济阶层和经济冲突的分析,并提出它们在社会如何运作的理论中具有核心地位。尽管马克思主义在很多方面都是错误的,但其核心见解仍然是一个重要的见解。知识的进步是通过使用和修改思想来解释我们所发现的事实,建立在优势上,弥补弱点。从长远来看,我们最好是尽可能多地发现真相,而不是急于根据半真半假或彻头彻尾的幻想采取行动。如果我们同时意识到马克思思想的弱点和优点,就能最好地利用它们,而这正是本章要展示的。卡尔·马克思(1818-1883) 马克思出生在特里尔,莱茵兰的一个小的、法制化的州,位于进步的法国和德国更传统的地区之间。他的父亲是一个自由主义者,一个出身于拉比家族的犹太人,名义上皈依了基督教,以便维持他的律师生涯 —— 也就是说,作为地方政府官僚机构的成员,因为律师在德国不是独立的专业人士。年轻的马克思上了柏林大学,在那里他在酒馆里喝酒,负债累累,参加了常见的决斗,脸上留下了常见的疤痕,并学习了哲学。简而言之,他为自己的学术生涯做了准备。
32 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism But circumstances conspired to forbid him a respectable career as a brilliant professor. He became caught up in the intellectual movement known as the Young Hegelians. Georg Hegel (1770-1832) had been the dominant German philosopher of his day. He was a liberal, after the German fashion, which meant that he believed in the rule of laws rather than the arbitrary rule of humankind and hence supported the Prussian state. Hegel's philosophy was a culmination of the idealist tradition that began with Kant; it held that the essence of reality is Reason, but that the spirit of Reason manifests itself only gradually, revealing more and more facets of itself during the course of time. History, he held, is the growth of Reason to consciousness of itself, and the constitutional, legalistic state is the culmination of history. Hegel developed his philosophy while Napoleon seemed to be spreading the achievements of the French Revolution all over Europe. Later, in the reaction following Napoleon's final defeat in 1815, Hegel found it expedient to declare that history culminated in the bureaucratic Prussian state, and he became the official philosopher at Berlin. Of course, there was no reason history should come to a halt in Prussia, especially when that state still lacked a true constitution, and after Hegel's death the revolutionary implications of his doctrine came to the fore again. One faction of Hegel's students, the left Hegelians, unleashed his historical relativism as an attack on the autocratic state and its ideological bulwark, the state church. Marx's teacher, Bruno Bauer, investigated the Bible as a historical document and declared the Gospels to be forgeries and Jesus a historical myth. For this Bauer was dismissed from his university post in 1842 as dangerous to the state. This ended Marx's chances for an academic career, since sponsorship was even more important in the universities of the time than it is now. It had been predicted that Marx would be the most eminent professor of his generation, but this path was now closed. Marx took his first step toward the underground. He became the editor of a liberal newspaper in Cologne, a Westernized city on the Rhine River. Hard economic realities struck him immediately. He became embroiled in a controversy with the authorities over their decision to prohibit peasants from cutting firewood in the forest, although this was a traditional custom. The trees were protected by laws, Marx wrote acidly, while poor people froze. He began to view philosophy of all sorts as a distraction from the hard, material realities. Hegel's idealism stood history on its head, he later wrote; the task was to set it on its feet. The newspaper lasted five months before being suppressed by the government. The conservative papers accused him of being a Communist. Marx did not quite know what this meant, but he resolved to find out. Now twenty-four years old, he went to Paris, the intellectual home of all radicals. He read the French historians, imbued with the Saint-Simonian idea of progress and the image of industrial society breaking out of the bonds of feudalism, and he encountered the advocates of Utopian socialist communities. To his German Hegelianism and French radicalism he added the third leg of his system: the ideas of the British economists Adam Smith,
32 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 但是,环境的阴谋使他无法作为一名出色的教授获得受人尊敬的职业。他被卷入了被称为 “青年黑格尔派” 的知识运动。乔治·黑格尔(Georg Hegel,1770-1832)是当时德国的主流哲学家。他是一个自由主义者,按照德国的方式,这意味着他相信法律的统治,而不是人类的任意统治,因此支持普鲁士国家。黑格尔的哲学是始于康德的唯心主义传统的顶峰;它认为现实的本质是理性,但理性的精神只是逐渐表现出来,在时间的长河中揭示出自己越来越多的面。他认为,历史是理性对自身意识的成长,而宪政、法制国家是历史的顶点。当拿破仑似乎正在将法国大革命的成就传播到整个欧洲时,黑格尔发展了他的哲学。后来,在 1815 年拿破仑最后失败后的反应中,黑格尔发现宣布历史在官僚主义的普鲁士国家达到顶峰是合宜的,他成为柏林的官方哲学家。当然,历史没有理由在普鲁士停滞不前,特别是当这个国家仍然缺乏真正的宪法时,黑格尔死后,他的学说的革命意义再次凸显出来了。黑格尔的学生中的一个派别,即左派黑格尔派,将他的历史相对论作为对专制国家及其意识形态堡垒 —— 国家教会的攻击而释放出来。马克思的老师布鲁诺·鲍尔将《圣经》作为历史文件进行调查,并宣布《福音书》是伪造的,耶稣是历史神话。为此,鲍尔在 1842 年被解除了大学职务,因为他对国家有危险。这结束了马克思学术生涯的机会,因为赞助在当时的大学中甚至比现在更重要。人们曾预言,马克思将成为他那一代人中最杰出的教授,但这条道路现在被关闭了。马克思迈出了他走向地下的第一步。他成为科隆一家自由派报纸的编辑,这是莱茵河畔的一个西化城市。艰难的经济现实立即打击了他。他卷入了与当局的争论中,因为当局决定禁止农民在森林中砍柴,尽管这是一个传统的习俗。马克思酸溜溜地写道,树木受到了法律的保护,而穷人却被冻坏了。他开始把各种哲学看作是对坚硬的物质现实的一种转移。他后来写道,黑格尔的唯心主义让历史站在了它的头上;任务是让它站起来。这份报纸在被政府镇压之前持续了五个月。保守派报纸指责他是一个共产主义者。马克思并不十分清楚这意味着什么,但他决心要弄清楚。现在他已经 24 岁了,他去了巴黎,这个所有激进主义者的知识家园。他阅读了法国历史学家的文章,被圣西门的进步思想和工业社会摆脱封建主义束缚的形象所感染,他还遇到了乌托邦社会主义社区的倡导者。除了德国的黑格尔主义和法国的激进主义,他还加入了他的体系的第三条腿:英国经济学家亚当·斯密的思想。
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 33 Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. These thinkers explained how the movements of people and goods in this new era were controlled by the invisible hand of the market. Among Marx's radical acquaintances was Friedrich Engels, another idealistic young German, who had just returned from his father's textile factory in Manchester, bringing with him a harsh expose entitled The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. Their ideas meshed, and they launched an intellectual partnership that was to last the rest of their lives. They were soon expelled from France for their radical writings. They went to Belgium and then to England. In 1847 they attended secret meetings in London of a new revolutionary coalition of labor unions (at that time illegal) called the Communist League. As its platform they wrote a manifesto, which ended with the following words: The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING-MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! The Communist Manifesto was finished in January 1848. In February, during an economic crisis in Paris, a group of demonstrating unemployed workers were fired upon by soldiers, and the city erupted into riot. The French king abdicated, his government collapsed, and a wave of revolt was set off through the cities of Germany, Italy, Austria, and most of the rest of Europe. The nobility everywhere were frightened and on the defensive. In France the wealthy property owners took command of the Second Republic; a popular left-wing revolt in June was crushed by the army in six days of bloody fighting. Around Europe the right wing gradually regained confidence and began to reestablish its power. Marx, who edited the revolutionary newspaper in Cologne during the uprising there, was banished by the Prussian government. Reaction had set in again. Marx went to London, his final place of refuge, and, watched by police spies, began again to write. With him came his wife, his childhood sweetheart and the daughter of a German aristocrat who had been the Marxs' neighbor in Trier. Life became a struggle to survive. For a while Marx made a living as a foreign correspondent for the New York Tribune, then under a liberal editor. At times the family nearly starved. They lived in the poorest working-class section of London. They pawned their possessions and borrowed money from Engels, who was then working in his father's business in Manchester. Several of Marx's children died of malnutrition and disease. Through it all he managed to work, sitting in the reading room of the British Museum from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day for years. At last, in 1867, his researches were published as Das Kapital, a book that would help bring down half the world. Marx's life work forms a comprehensive system, but for purposes of analysis it may be divided into three parts: his sociology, built around the
社会学在地下。卡尔·马克思 33 托马斯·马尔萨斯和大卫·李嘉图。这些思想家解释了在这个新时代,人员和货物的流动是如何被市场这只无形的手所控制的。在马克思的激进的熟人中,弗里德里希·恩格斯是另一个理想主义的德国青年,他刚从他父亲在曼彻斯特的纺织厂回来,1844 年带来了一份题为《英国工人阶级的状况》的严厉揭露。他们的想法不谋而合,并建立了知识分子的伙伴关系,这种伙伴关系将持续他们的余生。由于他们的激进著作,他们很快被驱逐出法国。他们去了比利时,然后又去了英国。1847 年,他们参加了在伦敦举行的名为 “共产主义联盟” 的新的工会革命联盟(当时是非法的)的秘密会议。作为它的纲领,他们写了一份宣言,最后写了以下的话。共产主义者不屑于隐瞒他们的观点和目标。他们公开宣布,只有通过强行推翻所有现有的社会条件,才能实现他们的目的。让统治阶级对共产主义革命感到颤抖吧。无产者除了他们的锁链外,没有什么可失去的。他们有一个世界要赢得。所有国家的劳动者,团结起来!"。共产党宣言》于 1848 年 1 月完成。2 月,在巴黎的经济危机中,一群示威的失业工人遭到士兵的枪击,整个城市爆发了暴乱。法国国王退位,他的政府垮台,在德国、意大利、奥地利和欧洲其他大部分地区的城市掀起了造反浪潮。各地的贵族们都感到害怕,并采取了防御措施。在法国,富有的财产所有者掌握了第二共和国的指挥权;6 月,一场流行的左翼起义在 6 天的血腥战斗中被军队镇压。在欧洲各地,右翼逐渐恢复了信心,并开始重新建立其权力。在科隆起义期间在那里编辑革命报纸的马克思被普鲁士政府放逐了。反动又开始了。马克思去了伦敦,这是他最后的避难所,并在警察间谍的监视下,再次开始写作。他的妻子、他的青梅竹马和一个德国贵族的女儿与他同行,后者曾是马克思夫妇在特里尔的邻居。生活变成了一场为生存而战的斗争。有一段时间,马克思作为《纽约论坛报》的驻外记者谋生,当时是在一位自由派的编辑手下。有的时候,一家人几乎饿死。他们住在伦敦最贫穷的工人区。他们把自己的财产当掉,并向当时在曼彻斯特为其父亲的企业工作的恩格斯借钱。马克思的几个孩子死于营养不良和疾病。在这一切中,他设法工作,多年来每天从上午 10 点到下午 7 点坐在大英博物馆的阅览室里。最后,在 1867 年,他的研究以《资本论》的形式出版,这本书将帮助打倒半个世界。马克思一生的工作形成了一个全面的系统,但为了分析的目的,可以将其分为三个部分:他的社会学,围绕着《资本论》而建立。
34 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism analysis of class consciousness and class conflict; his economics, which develops the internal contradictions of capitalism; and his social and political philosophy, built around the notion of alienation and its solution in communism. These parts are not equally valid. Marx's sociology has turned out to be basically correct and has been very important for subsequent theories. His economics, on the other hand, is crucially flawed, although it points us to some important questions. His philosophy, in the final analysis, is based on value premises and ways of looking at the world that individuals can accept or reject as a source of inspiration as they see fit. In short, it is possible to get much from Marx without accepting his whole system. MARX'S SOCIOLOGY Classes and Class Consciousness 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," Marx declares at the beginning of the Communist Manifesto, and classes are the core of his analysis. Marx did not invent the concept of class, of course. In his day one could scarcely avoid noticing them, and the danger was rather to take them for granted. What Marx did was to provide a theory of how classes are produced. He began from materialist premises. Since one could not survive without making a living, he reasoned, the source of one's living must be the most basic determinant of one's behavior. The economy of an era, with its different economic positions, was thus the source of its fundamental class divisions. In the society of ancient Greece and Rome the economy was organized around slavery; hence the basic classes were those whose living came from owning slaves (the patricians or citizens), the slaves themselves, and those who were neither slaves nor slaveholders (the plebeians or freemen). In the feudal society of the Middle Ages the basis of the economy was the manor; the main class was the nobility, who owned the land and the services of the peasants attached to it, and the serfs or peasants, who provided the agricultural labor. In modern or bourgeois society the economy is organized around industrial production and commercial exchange; and the main classes comprise the capitalists, who own the factories, the banks, and the goods to trade, and the proletarians, who own nothing but their own labor power. Within these classes there could be further divisions. For example, in feudal society the nobility was divided into ranks from king down to knight and included the landowning clergy of the powerful medieval Church. There were also minor classes not based directly on the central economy, such as servants, guild masters, journeymen, apprentices, and free peasants. For Marx the property divisions were crucial because they marked the breaking lines in the social structure. When conflicts became intense, classes would have to group themselves along these divisions. Thus modern soci-
34 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》对阶级意识和阶级冲突的分析;他的经济学,发展了资本主义的内部矛盾;他的社会和政治哲学,围绕着异化的概念及其在共产主义中的解决方案。这些部分并非同样有效。马克思的社会学已被证明是基本正确的,对后来的理论非常重要。另一方面,他的经济学有严重的缺陷,尽管它为我们指出了一些重要问题。他的哲学,归根结底,是基于价值前提和看待世界的方式,个人可以根据自己的需要接受或拒绝作为灵感的来源。简而言之,在不接受马克思的整个体系的情况下,有可能从马克思那里得到很多东西。马克思的社会学 阶级和阶级意识 迄今为止所有现存社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史,"马克思在《共产党宣言》的开头宣称,阶级是他分析的核心。当然,马克思并没有发明阶级的概念。在他的时代,人们几乎不可能避免注意到它们,而危险的是把它们视为理所当然。马克思所做的是提供一个关于阶级是如何产生的理论。他从唯物主义的前提开始。他认为,既然一个人没有生计就无法生存,那么一个人的生活来源必须是一个人的行为的最基本决定因素。因此,一个时代的经济及其不同的经济地位,是其基本的阶级划分的来源。在古希腊和古罗马社会,经济是围绕着奴隶制组织的;因此,基本阶级是那些靠拥有奴隶为生的人(贵族或公民),奴隶本身,以及那些既不是奴隶也不是奴隶主的人(平民或自由人)。在中世纪的封建社会,经济的基础是庄园;主要阶层是贵族,他们拥有土地和附属于土地的农民的服务,以及农奴或农民,他们提供农业劳动。在现代社会或资产阶级社会中,经济是围绕工业生产和商业交换组织的;主要阶级包括资本家和无产者,前者拥有工厂、银行和交易的货物,后者除了自己的劳动能力外什么都不拥有。在这些阶级内部,还可以进一步划分。例如,在封建社会,贵族被划分为从国王到骑士的等级,并包括强大的中世纪教会的地主神职人员。还有一些不直接基于中央经济的小阶层,如仆人、行会会长、工匠、学徒和自由农民。对于马克思来说,财产划分是至关重要的,因为它们标志着社会结构中的断裂线。当冲突变得激烈时,各阶级就不得不按照这些划分来组合自己。因此,现代社会
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 35 ety includes financial capitalists (such as bankers and brokers) as well as industrialists and agricultural landowners; small capitalists as well as big ones; the petty bourgeoisie, consisting of handicraftspeople and shopkeepers who both own their own tools and shops and work in them; the working class or proletariat; and the poorest and most degraded class, full of criminals and people living from hand to mouth, the lumpenproletariat. Marx used all of these classes to analyze what happened in modern society, but he expected the conflicts to polarize more and more between the property owners as a whole and the propertyless workers, with the petty bourgeoisie and small capitalists being deprived of their property and dropping into the ranks of the proletariat. This material organization of society produces what Marx calls "class consciousness." People do not have an objective view of the world; they see it from the restricted point of view of their own positions. Thus, bourgeois writers like John Locke saw private property as an inherent part of the order of nature; feudal lords saw the rights of hereditary nobility as given by God; and the ancient philosophers could not even imagine a world without slavery. This is not to say that people have no capacities for being objective or that they spend all their time thinking about their economic interests. They may occasionally be genuinely interested in the ideas of philosophy, religion, science, literature, history, or art, but where their ideas impinge on the social world, class consciousness goes into action. Out of the array of available ideas, people select those to believe in that best fit their material interests. Thus, the medieval nobility supported the conservative Christian thinkers who preached the sanctity of worldly authority and diverted the peasants toward the spiritual world and away from the oppressions of the material one. This is the meaning of Marx's phrase, "religion is the opiate of the people." Occasionally, it could work the other way, as when the religious upheavals of the Lutheran Reformation provided some alternatives, and a peasant revolt broke out under the religious guise of the belief that the Second Coming of Christ was at hand. In modern society bourgeois interests found ideological support in beliefs about personal morality; extolling the virtues of hard work, individual success, self-control, frugality, and respect for law and property were ways of getting people to support the competitive system of free enterprise. In the same way, politicians make speeches about the eternal truths embodied in their laws, even though those laws frame a system of property that benefits the group those politicians belong to. But there seems to be a contradiction here. If everyone selects ideas to fit his or her personal interests, how can religion be the "opiate of the people"? How can people have "false consciousness" and be taken in by the ideologies of their opponents? This was a serious question for Marx, since the workers did not always see the capitalists as their enemies, and until they did so, a revolution could not occur. Marx's writings imply two main answers. The first is simply that people's ideas can be controlled by coercion. He himself was familiar with government censorship, treason trials, and the
地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 35 包括金融资本家(如银行家和经纪人)以及工业家和农业土地所有者;小资本家和大资本家;小资产阶级,由手工业者和店主组成,他们既拥有自己的工具和商店,又在其中工作;工人阶级或无产阶级;以及最贫穷和最堕落的阶级,充满了罪犯和靠手吃饭的人,无产阶级。马克思用所有这些阶级来分析现代社会发生的事情,但他预计冲突会在整个财产所有者和无财产工人之间越来越分化,小资产阶级和小资本家被剥夺了财产,掉进无产阶级的行列。这种社会的物质组织产生了马克思所说的 “阶级意识”。人们对世界没有客观的看法;他们从自己的立场的限制性观点来看世界。因此,像约翰·洛克这样的资产阶级作家把私有财产看作是自然秩序的固有部分;封建领主把世袭贵族的权利看作是上帝赋予的;古代哲学家甚至无法想象一个没有奴隶制的世界。这并不是说人们没有客观的能力,也不是说他们把所有的时间都花在思考他们的经济利益上。他们可能偶尔会对哲学、宗教、科学、文学、历史或艺术的思想真正感兴趣,但当他们的思想影响到社会世界时,阶级意识就会付诸行动。在一系列可用的思想中,人们选择那些最符合他们物质利益的思想来信仰。因此,中世纪的贵族支持保守的基督教思想家,他们宣扬世俗权威的神圣性,把农民引向精神世界,远离物质世界的压迫。这就是马克思 “宗教是人民的鸦片” 这句话的含义。偶尔,它也会起反作用,如路德教改革的宗教动荡提供了一些替代方案,在相信基督再来的宗教幌子下,农民起义爆发了。在现代社会,资产阶级的利益在有关个人道德的信念中找到了意识形态的支持;颂扬努力工作、个人成功、自我控制、节俭、尊重法律和财产的美德是让人们支持自由企业的竞争体系的方法。以同样的方式,政治家们就他们的法律所体现的永恒真理发表演讲,尽管这些法律架构了一个有利于这些政治家所属群体的财产体系。但这里似乎有一个矛盾。如果每个人都选择适合其个人利益的观念,那么宗教怎么可能成为 “人民的鸦片”?人们怎么会有 “错误的意识”,被对手的意识形态所迷惑?这对马克思来说是一个严肃的问题,因为工人并不总是把资本家视为他们的敌人,在他们这样做之前,革命不可能发生。马克思的著作暗示了两个主要答案。第一是简单的说,人们的思想可以通过强制力来控制。他自己熟悉政府的审查制度、叛国罪审判和
36 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism denial of rights of speech to "subversive" thinkers by those who did not want their viewpoint contested. The second, somewhat subtler, answer is that consciousness depends on the material resources people have for formulating and communicating ideas. The dominant social classes have most of these resources: They get the most education, are most likely to be literate, and have the time and money to keep up on news and ideas. Furthermore, they can influence what ideas are produced by paying the salaries of teachers or priests, owning newspapers or controlling them by buying their advertisements (or, in the present era, giving research grants). The impoverished Saint-Simon, writing publicity for the French industrialists, provides an example of how the process works. The lower classes can criticize the upper classes under their breath but not in the center of public attention, and they lack the means to formulate ideas about things happening at a distance from them. The result, in Marx's words, is that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." As history moves, consciousness changes with it. The thinkers of the Enlightenment appeared because material conditions had changed in England and France, and the incipient bourgeois class was beginning to gather the resources to support thinkers of its own. Marx discerned another movement, culminating in the future. As capitalism brought workers into the cities and crowded them together in factories, it created material conditions that allowed the workers to communicate among themselves. Literacy and the press began to give the workers a chance to develop a worldview of their own. Beneath the public beliefs of bourgeois ideology an underground consciousness was growing. Here Marx found a role for himself not unlike that of Hegel: to raise the level of consciousness of the working class until it became fully aware of itself. MARX'S THEORY OF POLITICS All this culminates in Marx's theory of politics. Politics is the effort to control the state. The state fundamentally consists of the instruments of organized violence in society, and hence it is an enormous power for whoever can control it. The state is a crucial prop for the economy in that it establishes the system of property. Property, after all, is not so much the things that are owned as it is the right of owners to do what they please with them, and the denial of those rights to others. Land, for example, does not "belong to" anyone, even if it is used, until someone claims the exclusive right to use it and backs up the claim with either his or her own power or the power of the state. In this way, the state creates the rights of property in a system of slavery or serfdom or in a modern money economy. Marx was particularly interested in the fact that since the state creates private property, it can abolish it and substitute socialism. But that was for the future. Ordinary politics is the struggle to control the state so that its pow?^
36 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)那些不希望自己的观点受到质疑的人剥夺了 “颠覆性” 思想家的言论权利。第二个有点微妙的答案是,意识取决于人们拥有的制定和交流思想的物质资源。占主导地位的社会阶层拥有这些资源的大部分。他们接受的教育最多,最有可能识字,并且有时间和金钱来了解新闻和思想。此外,他们可以通过支付教师或牧师的工资、拥有报纸或通过购买报纸的广告(或在当今时代,给予研究资助)来影响思想的产生。穷困潦倒的圣西门为法国工业家写宣传,为这个过程提供了一个例子。下层阶级可以在他们的口中批评上层阶级,但不能在公众关注的中心,他们缺乏对发生在他们身边的事情提出想法的手段。用马克思的话说,其结果是,“统治阶级的思想在每个时代都是统治思想”。随着历史的发展,意识也随之改变。启蒙运动的思想家之所以出现,是因为英国和法国的物质条件发生了变化,初具规模的资产阶级开始聚集资源,支持自己的思想家。马克思看到了另一场运动,在未来达到了顶峰。随着资本主义把工人带到城市,把他们挤在工厂里,它创造了物质条件,使工人们能够相互交流。识字和新闻开始让工人有机会发展他们自己的世界观。在资产阶级意识形态的公共信仰之下,一种地下意识正在成长。在这里,马克思为自己找到了一个与黑格尔不一样的角色:提高工人阶级的意识水平,直到它完全意识到自己。马克思的政治理论 所有这些在马克思的政治理论中达到了顶峰。政治是控制国家的努力。国家从根本上说是由社会上有组织的暴力工具组成的,因此,对于能够控制它的人来说,它是一种巨大的力量。国家是经济的一个重要支柱,因为它建立了财产制度。毕竟,财产与其说是拥有的东西,不如说是所有者对其为所欲为的权利,以及对他人这些权利的剥夺。例如,土地并不 “属于” 任何人,即使它被使用,直到有人声称拥有使用它的专属权利,并以他或她自己的力量或国家的力量来支持这一主张。通过这种方式,国家在奴隶制或农奴制或现代货币经济中创造了产权。马克思特别感兴趣的是,既然国家创造了私有财产,它就可以废除私有财产,用社会主义来代替。但那是为了未来。普通的政治是控制国家的斗争,以便它的权力。
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 37 can be used for one's personal advantage. The struggle may be between members of the same class (such as nobles fighting among themselves for power in the Middle Ages) or between different class sectors (in modern society, petty bourgeois interests versus industrialists, financiers versus landowners). Beneath the sonorous speeches of the politicians, the real business of politics concerns mundane economic issues—taxes, tariffs, monopolies, franchises, licenses—over which people struggle and bargain for nothing more noble than the opportunity for economic gain. Occasionally, there are more important clashes. These occur in historical periods when new economic classes attempt to change the existing structure of property. Marx lived in the shadow of the French Revolution, when the entire feudal system of aristocratic privileges and monopolies was swept aside to create the basis for a market economy, transforming the noble into a holder of salable land and the peasant into a free laborer, and freeing the entrepreneur from old monopolies and restrictions. These basic, revolutionary conflicts draw together the members of the various classes. Nobles cease to fight among themselves, and the bourgeoisie unite in their common interest. An entire system is at stake. Who wins in these struggles? There are two main determinants: the distribution of material resources that enable people to struggle successfully for power and the historical situation that favors a class whose time has come. While these are not entirely distinct, we can see that the first determinant is most important in ordinary politics, and the second is crucial in times of revolution. During the feudal era, for example, ordinary politics was monopolized by the aristocracy, because they alone had the resources to engage in it. The peasants were tied down to the land; the merchants were a minor group, without military power. Men who owned enough property to afford a horse and armor could be knights; the great landowners could outfit whole armies. Thus the nobility constituted the only "political class," the only group with the time and resources to keep informed of what was going on, to make alliances with other nobles, and to take part in wars and court intrigues. In the same way, in the industrial era the capitalists control communications, money, and time. They exert an influence over government far out of proportion to their numbers because they command the resources of business and finance. The network of business contacts gives them a class organization; their business and financial affairs keep them constantly aware of what the government is doing that may affect them; their wealth and organizational bases allow them to support politicians who will represent them in office. Not the least of this power is ideological. As we have seen, the class with the strongest resources can control the means of communication and hence hinder other classes' abilities to formulate their own interests. Within the capitalist class, as within the aristocratic class in its era of dominance, those who hold the largest resources will be able to advance their interests over those of their fellows. But when another class chal-
在地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 37 可以被用来为个人谋利。斗争可能发生在同一阶级的成员之间(如中世纪的贵族之间为争夺权力而斗争),也可能发生在不同的阶级部门之间(在现代社会,小资产阶级利益与工业家的斗争,金融家与土地所有者的斗争)。在政客们铿锵有力的演说之下,政治的真正业务涉及世俗的经济问题 —— 税收、关税、垄断、特许权、许可证 —— 在这些问题上,人们的斗争和讨价还价不外乎是为了经济利益的机会。偶尔,也会有更重要的冲突。这些冲突发生在新的经济阶层试图改变现有财产结构的历史时期。马克思生活在法国大革命的阴影下,当时整个贵族特权和垄断的封建制度被扫地出门,为市场经济创造了基础,将贵族转变为可出售土地的持有人,将农民转变为自由劳动者,并将企业家从旧的垄断和限制中解放出来。这些基本的、革命性的冲突把各个阶级的成员吸引到一起。贵族们不再相互争斗,资产阶级为了共同的利益而联合起来。整个系统处于危险之中。谁在这些斗争中获胜?有两个主要的决定因素:使人们能够成功地进行权力斗争的物质资源的分配,以及有利于一个阶级的时代到来的历史形势。虽然这些并不完全不同,但我们可以看到,第一个决定因素在普通政治中最为重要,而第二个决定因素在革命时期至关重要。例如,在封建时代,普通政治被贵族阶层所垄断,因为只有他们才有资源来参与政治。农民被束缚在土地上;商人是一个小群体,没有军事力量。拥有足够的财产买得起马和盔甲的人可以成为骑士;大地主可以装备整支军队。因此,贵族构成了唯一的 “政治阶层”,是唯一有时间和资源来了解情况、与其他贵族结盟并参与战争和宫廷阴谋的群体。同样地,在工业时代,资本家控制着通信、金钱和时间。他们对政府施加的影响与他们的人数远远不成比例,因为他们掌握着商业和金融的资源。商业联系网络给了他们一个阶级组织;他们的商业和金融事务使他们不断了解政府正在做的可能影响他们的事情;他们的财富和组织基础使他们能够支持那些将在办公室里代表他们的政治家。这种权力中最重要的是意识形态方面的。正如我们所看到的,拥有最强大资源的阶级可以控制传播手段,从而阻碍其他阶级制定自己利益的能力。在资本主义阶级内部,正如贵族阶级在其统治时代一样,那些拥有最大资源的人将能够推动他们的利益,而不是他们的同伴。但是,当另一个阶级
38 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism lenges, the class that holds the greatest resources as a whole will usually unite and thus prevail. This brings us to the second determinant of power, the long-term historical changes in the economy that favor a particular class simply because that class's interests happen to coincide with the interests of the system as a whole. Marx was sure that the bourgeoisie would eventually prevail over the aristocracy in Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world, just as it had in France. Once capitalism developed to the stage where a society depended more on industrial production and trade than on subsistence agriculture for its livelihood, the capitalist economic system had to be supported by favorable state policies. To fail to give it this support would hurt everyone, especially the existing rulers, who would not want to go back to a preindus- trial standard of living. But in Marx's time the old feudal laws and government hindered capitalism; kings could only ruin it with their old policies of sales of monopolies, indiscriminate taxation, and special rights for aristocrats. The means of production had outgrown the relations of production; the fetters had to be broken. "Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one," declared Marx. The revolution came in France in 1789. The king went to the guillotine, eventually to be replaced by another in 1815—but now the old property system was gone, and a new one, suitable for the bourgeoisie, had taken its place. Instead of the old absolute monarchy, there were a constitution and a representative assembly in which the bourgeoisie could begin to shape laws to its economic needs. The bourgeoisie won because its time had come. The economy had changed, giving them the resources to contend for power, the ideology to express their interests, and the favored position of being necessary for society's prosperity. A similar revolt in the Middle Ages could only have been a failure. Even if by some chance the capitalists had had the resources to win power, they would have been unable to change the laws upholding feudal society without creating a chaos of marauding warriors and defenseless peasants. They had to wait until history was prepared for them. Marx's sight focused on another class maturing in the womb of history: the working class. Just as capitalism grew up within feudalism until their conflict kept both systems from operating and the old world had to be smashed to make way for the new, capitalism itself would begin to break up because of its internal contradictions. The periodic financial crises, with attendant bankruptcies and unemployment, were only symptoms of what was to come. As the industrial economy grew, it would come more and more into conflict with the free market and the system of private property that formed its structure. Eventually, a crisis would occur in which the interests of the workers alone would coincide with the necessities of keeping the system going. Only abolition of private property and the institution of socialism would restore economic order. The interests of the workers, then, would have at last become the interests of the whole system, and the capitalists would be displaced.
38 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)挑战,作为一个整体拥有最大资源的阶级通常会团结起来,从而取得胜利。这就把我们带到了权力的第二个决定因素,即经济中的长期历史变化有利于某个特定的阶级,仅仅是因为该阶级的利益恰好与整个系统的利益相吻合。马克思确信,在德国、俄国和世界其他地方,资产阶级最终会战胜贵族,就像它在法国那样。一旦资本主义发展到一个社会更多依靠工业生产和贸易而不是自给自足的农业为生的阶段,资本主义经济体系就必须得到有利的国家政策的支持。如果不给它这种支持,就会伤害到每个人,特别是现有的统治者,他们不愿意回到以前的生活标准。但在马克思的时代,旧的封建法律和政府阻碍了资本主义;国王只能用他们出售垄断权、滥征税款和为贵族提供特殊权利的旧政策毁掉它。生产资料已经超越了生产关系;束缚必须被打破。马克思宣称:“武力是每个旧社会孕育新社会的助产士”。1789 年,革命在法国发生。国王被送上了断头台,最终在 1815 年被另一个国王取代 —— 但现在旧的财产制度已经消失,一个适合资产阶级的新制度取而代之。取代旧的绝对君主制的是一部宪法和一个代表大会,资产阶级可以在其中开始根据其经济需要制定法律。资产阶级获胜是因为它的时代已经到来。经济发生了变化,使他们有了争夺权力的资源,有了表达自己利益的意识形态,有了社会繁荣所需的有利地位。在中世纪,类似的叛乱只能是失败的。即使资本家偶然拥有赢得权力的资源,他们也无法改变维护封建社会的法律,而不会造成掠夺性的战士和毫无防备的农民的混乱局面。他们不得不等待,直到历史为他们做好准备。马克思的视线集中在另一个在历史的子宫中成熟的阶级:工人阶级。正如资本主义在封建主义中成长起来,直到它们的冲突使两个系统都无法运作,旧世界不得不被打碎,为新世界让路,资本主义本身也会因为其内部矛盾而开始瓦解。周期性的金融危机,以及随之而来的破产和失业,只是即将发生的事情的症状。随着工业经济的发展,它将越来越多地与自由市场和构成其结构的私有财产制度发生冲突。最终,一场危机将会发生,在这场危机中,只有工人的利益会与维持这个系统的必要性相一致。只有废除私有财产和建立社会主义才能恢复经济秩序。那时,工人的利益将最终成为整个系统的利益,而资本家将被取代。
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 39 The process was really twofold. Not only would economic change make the workers the necessary dominant class, but it would also shift the balance of weapons with which to conquer power. The factories and industrial cities would bring the workers together in the strength of numbers, and technological change—the press, the telegraph, and so forth—would improve their capacities for communication and organization. Modern advances would thus bring them to full mobilization and full consciousness of their interests. When the moment struck, they would be prepared. When properly understood, Marx's sociology appears to be basically correct. That is not to say that his predictions about the downfall of capitalism are right, as they obviously are not. But these are specific applications of the theory and not the theory itself. A considerable amount of modern research indicates that one's economic position (that is, occupation) is a major determinant of one's life style, interests, and beliefs; that economic change produces the lineup of classes in a particular historical era; and that the material resources for organization and communication, along with the functional necessities of governing to keep up the economy, tend to determine who will win political power. All of this, however, Marx plugs into a particular theory of how the economy will develop. His account of capitalism growing within European feudalism and bringing about the great waves of bourgeois revolutions seems basically accurate. But his theory about the inevitable tendencies of modern capitalism is wrong. It is because Marx's economics fails that the rest of the system does not turn out the way he expected it to. Marx did not, as is sometimes suggested, fail to take account of racial or religious strife that would keep the workers from unifying, or of social mobility that would make workers think of their individual chances of rising instead of their class interests in overthrowing the whole system. He merely expected such conflicts to be dwarfed by an economic crisis so great that people would have to unite along class lines simply to survive. The decline of racial animosity in the United States during the Depression of the 1930s suggests that Marx was right on this point. Similarly, he recognized the possibility of social mobility, but he believed that in a time of economic crisis the only social mobility would be downward. No, the problem is with Marx's prediction of an economic crisis that could be resolved only by socialism. We turn, then, to a brief sketch of Marx's economics. MARX'S ECONOMICS Labor Theory of Value Marx began with a premise common to Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and the other classical economists: that the value of anything is the amount of labor it takes to produce it. For example, if it takes one day's labor to pro-
在地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 39 这一过程实际上是双重的。经济变革不仅会使工人成为必要的主导阶级,而且还会改变用来征服权力的武器的平衡。工厂和工业城市将使工人因人数众多而聚集在一起,而技术变革 —— 报刊、电报等等 —— 将提高他们的沟通和组织能力。现代的进步将使他们充分动员起来,充分意识到自己的利益。当时机到来时,他们将做好准备。如果正确理解,马克思的社会学似乎基本上是正确的。这并不是说他关于资本主义衰落的预测是正确的,因为它们显然不是。但这些是理论的具体应用,而不是理论本身。相当多的现代研究表明,一个人的经济地位(即职业)是一个人的生活方式、兴趣和信仰的主要决定因素;经济变化在一个特定的历史时代产生了阶级的阵容;用于组织和交流的物质资源,以及维持经济的治理的功能需要,往往决定谁将赢得政治权力。然而,所有这些,马克思都被塞进了一个关于经济将如何发展的特定理论。他关于资本主义在欧洲封建主义内部发展并带来资产阶级革命大潮的说法似乎基本准确。但他关于现代资本主义不可避免的趋势的理论是错误的。正是因为马克思的经济学失败了,这个系统的其他部分才没有变成他所期望的那样。马克思并没有像有时所说的那样,没有考虑到种族或宗教纷争会使工人无法团结起来,也没有考虑到社会流动会使工人想到他们个人崛起的机会,而不是他们推翻整个制度的阶级利益。他只是预期这种冲突会因为经济危机而相形见绌,以至于人们不得不沿着阶级路线团结起来,只是为了生存。1930 年代大萧条期间,美国种族仇恨的减少表明,马克思在这一点上是正确的。同样,他承认社会流动的可能性,但他认为,在经济危机时期,唯一的社会流动将是向下的。不,问题出在马克思对经济危机的预测上,这种危机只能通过社会主义来解决。然后,我们转向对马克思的经济学进行简要的概述。马克思的经济学 劳动价值论 马克思从亚当·斯密、大卫·李嘉图和其他古典经济学家的共同前提开始:任何东西的价值是生产它所需要的劳动量。例如,如果需要一天的劳动来生产
40 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism duce a shirt and two days' labor to produce a pair of shoes, then two shirts are worth one pair of shoes. Given the fluctuations of supply and demand on the market, the market price should eventually come into equilibrium with the real value, and two shirts will sell for the price of a pair of shoes. The labor theory of value, then, describes the basic mechanism of production and exchange in the economy. It also has a special appeal to a socialist like Marx; for if labor is what produces value, justice would seem to require that workers receive the proceeds of their labor. Profit as Exploitation If the labor theory of value is correct, we are left with a paradox: Where does profit come from? The market moves toward equilibrium; everything gets exchanged for its true value; one day's labor is exchanged for one day's labor. How can individuals get more than they put in? Marx finds the answer in one commodity that sells for its true value yet can produce more than what it sells for. This commodity is human labor itself—the workers' exertions as they sell them on the labor market. According to Marx's chain of deductive reasoning, labor should tend to sell for its true value, which is equivalent to the amount of labor it takes to produce it—that is, if it takes an average of six hours' work by farmers, weavers, carpenters, and others to feed, clothe, and shelter a man for a day, he will be paid the equivalent of six hours' work. But if the employer pays him for six hours' work, he can nevertheless work him eight hours (or twelve hours or fourteen hours, as was more common in Marx's day). This is possible because the employers own the means of production—the factory and its tools—and hence they can demand this longer working day as a condition of giving the man a job. Profit, then, comes out of the extra hours of work, over and above what the worker is paid for. This extra work is called "surplus value," and profit can be said to be based on the exploitation of labor. Law of the Falling Rate of Profit The system can now be set in motion. As capitalists expand production, they compete with each other for labor. Thus, they bid up wages to attract workers. But rising wages cut into the margin of profit. This, in turn, motivates capitalists to install labor-saving machinery to cut their labor costs. But here the capitalists start to cut their own throats. Machines do not produce profit, according to Marx's scheme; profit comes only from exploitation of labor. Any gains manufacturers may make with their new equipment will disappear just as soon as competitors catch up with them and install the same equipment. This drives the price of machinery up and the price of the produced goods down, so the upshot is merely that the capitalists have reduced the amount of labor they employ in comparison to machinery and other nonlabor costs. This means that profit has to fall, since exploitation of labor is the only source of profit, and less labor is being
40 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 一件衬衫和两天的劳动可以生产一双鞋,那么两件衬衫就值一双鞋。鉴于市场上供求关系的波动,市场价格最终应该与实际价值达到平衡,两件衬衫将以一双鞋的价格出售。那么,劳动价值理论描述了经济中生产和交换的基本机制。它对马克思这样的社会主义者也有特殊的吸引力;因为如果劳动是产生价值的因素,那么公正似乎要求工人获得他们的劳动所得。作为剥削的利润 如果劳动价值理论是正确的,我们就会面临一个悖论:利润从何而来?市场朝着平衡的方向发展;一切都按其真实价值进行交换;一天的劳动换取一天的劳动。个人怎么能得到比他们投入更多的东西呢?马克思在一种商品中找到了答案,这种商品以其真实价值出售,但却能生产出比其售价更多的东西。这种商品就是人类的劳动本身 —— 工人在劳动力市场上出售的劳动成果。根据马克思的演绎推理链,劳动应该倾向于以其真实价值出售,这相当于生产它所需要的劳动量 —— 也就是说,如果农民、织工、木匠和其他人平均需要六个小时的工作,才能让一个人吃饱穿暖一天,他将得到相当于六个小时的工作。但是,如果雇主支付他六个小时的工作,他仍然可以让他工作八个小时(或十二个小时或十四个小时,在马克思的时代更常见)。这是可能的,因为雇主拥有生产资料 —— 工厂和工具 —— 因此他们可以要求延长工作时间,作为给人工作的条件。那么,利润就来自于额外的工作时间,超过了工人得到的报酬。这种额外的工作被称为 “剩余价值”,利润可以说是建立在对劳动的剥削之上。利润率下降的规律 现在可以启动这个系统了。随着资本家扩大生产,他们互相竞争劳动力。因此,他们提高工资以吸引工人。但是,工资的上涨削减了利润率。这反过来又促使资本家安装节省劳动力的机器,以减少他们的劳动成本。但在这里,资本家们开始割断自己的喉咙。根据马克思的计划,机器不产生利润;利润只来自对劳动力的剥削。制造商利用他们的新设备可能取得的任何收益,只要竞争对手赶上他们并安装同样的设备,就会立即消失。这促使机器的价格上升,生产的商品的价格下降,所以结果只是资本家相对于机器和其他非劳动成本而言,减少了他们雇用的劳动量。这意味着利润必须下降,因为对劳动的剥削是利润的唯一来源,而更少的劳动正在被
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 41 exploited. And in fact, the economists of Marx's day agreed that profits did tend to decline. (Modern economics has modified this principle: Profits fall within the business cycle, but not across cycles, where there can be long-term growth.) Periodic Crises This brings us to the characteristic drama of the capitalist economy. About every ten years throughout the nineteenth century there was a depression. As new machinery is installed, Marx explained, people are thrown out of work. This means there are fewer people drawing wages and hence fewer people who can afford to buy things. But the machinery has increased the rate of production. There are too many goods, too few buyers. Prices fall; profits go down. Manufacturers try to catch up by installing even more labor-saving machinery, but this only makes matters worse. Soon there are great warehouses of goods lying unused, while unemployment grows and people are destitute. Manufacturers go bankrupt, throwing even more people out of work. Eventually, the crisis reaches a bottom. The stronger capitalists buy up the factories and machines of the bankrupts at a fraction of their value and begin to make a profit. The surplus is used up, workers can be hired for low wages, and employment begins to rise. Soon the cycle begins again: a boom of expansion and profit, then a bust of falling profit, mechanism, and unemployment. The system rises and falls with grim regularity, only each time there are fewer manufacturers, holding bigger and bigger shares of the market. The Final Collapse of Capitalism Capitalism, then, moves toward a gigantic industrial monopoly. The smaller capitalists are squeezed out; they lose their property and join the ranks of the proletariat. At the same time the system creates a great reserve army of the unemployed, which keeps the competition for jobs high and wages at a level just above starvation. The proletariat thus becomes larger and more disgruntled. Each successive crisis of the system is worse than the last, because the collapse of big firms throws more workers into destitution than the collapse of small ones. During this period, the economy becomes centralized through these gigantic monopolies, preparing the way for socialism. All that needs to be done is to overthrow the system of private property and let the workers run the system for the common good. A last crisis occurs, and the workers rise up as a vast majority. The army, the politicians, and the defenders of the state can do nothing to stop them, for all are forced to see the inevitable solution. 'The centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument," Marx prophesied. "This integument bursts asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated."
在地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 41 被剥削。而事实上,马克思时代的经济学家们一致认为,利润确实有下降的趋势。(现代经济学已经修改了这一原则。利润在商业周期内下降,但不是跨周期的,在跨周期的情况下可能会有长期增长)。周期性危机 这让我们看到了资本主义经济的特点。在整个 19 世纪,大约每十年就会有一次萧条。马克思解释说,随着新机器的安装,人们被抛出了工作。这意味着有更少的人领取工资,因此有能力购买东西的人更少。但是机器提高了生产的速度。有太多的商品,太少的买家。价格下降;利润减少。制造商试图通过安装更多节省劳动力的机器来追赶,但这只会使情况变得更糟。很快,就有大量的货物仓库被闲置,而失业率上升,人们陷入贫困。制造商破产,使更多的人失去了工作。最终,危机达到了一个底部。强大的资本家以其价值的一小部分买下破产者的工厂和机器,并开始获利。剩余的东西被用完了,工人可以用低工资被雇佣,就业率开始上升。很快,这个循环又开始了:扩张和利润的繁荣,然后是利润下降、机制和失业的萧条。这个系统以严峻的规律性上升和下降,只是每次都有较少的制造商,在市场上占有越来越大的份额。资本主义的最终崩溃 然后,资本主义走向一个巨大的工业垄断。小资本家被挤出,他们失去了财产,加入了无产阶级的行列。同时,这个系统创造了一支巨大的失业者后备军,这使得工作竞争激烈,工资水平刚刚超过饥饿线。无产阶级因此变得越来越大,越来越不满。这个系统的每一次危机都比上一次更糟糕,因为大公司的倒闭比小公司的倒闭使更多的工人陷入贫困。在这一时期,经济通过这些巨大的垄断企业变得集中,为社会主义准备了道路。需要做的就是推翻私有财产制度,让工人为了共同的利益管理这个系统。最后一次危机发生了,工人们作为绝大多数人起来了。军队、政客和国家的捍卫者都无法阻止他们,因为所有人都被迫看到不可避免的解决方案。马克思预言说:“生产资料的集中化和劳动的社会化最终会达到一个地步,与它们的资本主义外衣不相容。” 这个外衣破裂了。资本主义私有财产的丧钟响起。征用者被征用了"。
42 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism What went wrong? The capitalist system has not collapsed in the advanced industrial countries, whatever its strains; profits have not fallen in the long run; wages have not stayed near subsistence level. There have been cyclical crises, to be sure, and huge corporations with near monopolies dominate the business scene; but the crucial elements of Marx's picture are missing. There are two main answers. The Marxist reply has been: imperialism. V. I. Lenin, whose theory was based on the ideas of the British economist John Hobson, pointed out that modern capitalism has become international. Thus the more advanced countries, like Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, have been able to avoid domestic economic ills by exploiting the rest of the world. If capitalist countries overproduce, they can dump their excess goods in the markets of India or South America. Extra capital to invest can go to the same places; even labor can be exploited internationally, by using low-cost native labor to produce raw materials cheaply. In short, by exploiting the rest of the world, the wealthy nations can keep their profits up and can even pay enough wages to content their workers. But the crisis can only be put off, not evaded entirely. Once the entire world is brought into the capitalist orbit, the class conflict will become internationalized. War becomes an adjunct to revolution. Lenin saw World War I as a struggle of the great capitalist powers of Europe over colonial markets; the result could only be to speed up the inevitable chaos of the capitalist system. Thus, Russia underwent a socialist revolution in the economic devastation following its defeat by the Germans. World War II and the Japanese conquest were to have the same results in China. Cuba, Algeria, and Vietnam are only so many more steps along the road toward capitalism's final collapse. There is another answer to the question of why Marx's predictions have not been realized, one that goes more to the core of the problem. That is: Marx's labor theory of value and the related labor exploitation theory of profit are wrong. Labor, we may reflect, is not the only thing out of which profits may be gotten by obtaining more production from it than it costs. Machinery and improved organization can provide this too, because they can increase the productivity of labor. The United States produced so much more per capita in 1970 than it did in 1870 because our technology is so much more powerful today. This means that it has been possible to produce much more than before; profits can remain high, yet workers can get more, too, by unionization and through government welfare programs. With this extra production the government can even intervene in economic crises, using the techniques of Keynesian economics (such as government employment, spending, and taxation) to keep widespread unemployment and underconsumption from happening. None of this would be possible if Marx's inexorable economic machine really worked the way he said it did; but that machine is broken at the very center. Marx's thought forms a perfect system: The economy produces social classes, class consciousness, and class power to rule the state; the labor the-
42 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 出了什么问题?资本主义制度在先进的工业国家并没有崩溃,不管它有多大的压力;从长远来看,利润并没有下降;工资并没有保持在维持生计的水平附近。诚然,有周期性的危机,有近乎垄断的巨大公司主宰着商业舞台;但马克思所描述的关键因素却没有出现。有两个主要的答案。马克思主义的回答是:帝国主义。列宁的理论是基于英国经济学家约翰·霍布森的思想,他指出,现代资本主义已经成为国际性的。因此,较先进的国家,如英国、法国、德国和美国,已经能够通过剥削世界其他国家来避免国内的经济弊病。如果资本主义国家生产过剩,他们可以在印度或南美的市场上倾销他们多余的货物。额外的投资资本可以去同样的地方;甚至劳动力也可以在国际上被剥削,通过使用低成本的本地劳动力来廉价生产原材料。简而言之,通过剥削世界其他地区,富裕国家可以保持他们的利润,甚至可以支付足够的工资来满足他们的工人。但危机只能被推迟,不能完全回避。一旦整个世界被带入资本主义的轨道,阶级冲突就会变得国际化。战争成为革命的辅助手段。列宁认为第一次世界大战是欧洲大资本主义国家对殖民地市场的争夺;其结果只能是加速资本主义制度不可避免的混乱。因此,俄国在被德国人打败后的经济破坏中经历了一场社会主义革命。第二次世界大战和日本的征服将在中国产生同样的结果。古巴、阿尔及利亚和越南只是在通往资本主义最终崩溃的道路上又走了这么多步。对于马克思的预言为何没有实现的问题,还有另一个答案,这个答案更直接地指向问题的核心。那就是。马克思的劳动价值理论和相关的劳动剥削利润理论是错误的。我们可以反思一下,劳动并不是唯一可以通过从它那里获得比它的成本更多的生产来获得利润的东西。机械和改进的组织也可以提供这种好处,因为它们可以提高劳动的生产率。美国 1970 年的人均产量比 1870 年多得多,因为我们今天的技术比以前强大得多。这意味着已经可以比以前生产得更多;利润可以保持高位,然而工人也可以通过工会和政府的福利项目得到更多。有了这些额外的生产,政府甚至可以干预经济危机,使用凯恩斯主义经济学的技术(如政府就业、支出和税收)来防止广泛的失业和消费不足发生。如果马克思的不可阻挡的经济机器真的像他说的那样运作,那么这一切都不可能;但这台机器在中心部位就已经坏了。马克思的思想形成了一个完美的系统。经济产生社会阶级、阶级意识和统治国家的阶级权力;劳动……
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 43 ory of value, the law of the falling rate of profit, and the inevitable progression of economic cycles turn the wheels of the system. But the labor theory of value is wrong; the mainspring falls out. Marx's sociological determinants go on, but free of their inexorable underpinnings. History lapses into indeterminacy. Still, something may be salvaged from the wreck of Marx's economics. If economic crises are not necessarily inevitable, it is still true that they can occur or at least threaten to occur, and it is worth remembering Marx's prediction of their political effects. The capitalist societies of the West since the 1970s have become increasingly divided between the extremes of wealth and poverty. Marx's theory did not encompass the expansion of the middle classes between the two extremes; and we need to revise our theoretical understandings to take account of this. But the existence of the middle class does not eliminate economic conflict among classes; it only makes it more complicated. It appears what we have now is a conflict among four different classes: the wealthy property-owning capitalists at the top; the middle class; the working class; and a poverty class at the bottom subsisting on welfare and posing a specter of street crime. Class conflict now often takes place between the middle class and the poor, with the former in revolt against what they consider to be the burden of the welfare system and the threat of crime from below. But this too is class conflict, although more complex than Marx envisioned. We see tendencies, too, for the middle class to revolt against the upper class, reacting to the financial scandals and tax inequities that became so prominent in the 1980s. Class conflict obviously is not at an end. The Marxist theory bases its dynamics on an economic mechanism that does not quite work. It does not give us the answer, but points us to the crucial questions. MARX'S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Marx's philosophy is woven throughout the rest of his work. It centers around the ideas of alienation as the distinguishing feature of humankind's history and of communism as the end of history and the solution to alienation. Alienation has become a common idea in the twentieth century; modern individuals have, it would seem, been infected by a malaise that was scarcely discernible one hundred years ago. We feel there is something about the world we have created that goes against our basic nature—that we are ruled by the impersonal forces of the market and the inhuman decisions of bureaucracies. We live in a world diagrammed by Kafka. Marx was one of the first to discern this malaise, although it remained for Weber and Freud to make empirical sense out of it. For Marx alienation was less an observable fact than a basic axiom, derived from Hegel and ultimately going back to a theological notion of sin. To understand what Marx meant, we must take a brief excursion back into Western philosophy.
社会学在地下。卡尔·马克思 43 价值理论、利润率下降的规律和经济周期的不可避免的发展,使这个系统的轮子转动起来。但劳动价值论是错误的;主发条脱落了。马克思的社会学决定因素继续存在,但没有它们不可阻挡的支撑点。历史陷入了不确定的状态。不过,还是可以从马克思经济学的残骸中抢救出一些东西。如果经济危机不一定是不可避免的,那么它们仍然可以发生或至少有可能发生,而且值得记住马克思对其政治影响的预测。自 20 世纪 70 年代以来,西方的资本主义社会在财富和贫困的极端之间变得越来越分裂。马克思的理论没有包括两个极端之间的中产阶级的扩张;我们需要修改我们的理论理解以考虑到这一点。但是,中产阶级的存在并没有消除各阶级之间的经济冲突;它只是使其更加复杂。我们现在的情况似乎是四个不同阶级之间的冲突:顶端的富有的拥有财产的资本家;中产阶级;工人阶级;以及在底层靠福利生存并构成街头犯罪阴影的贫困阶级。阶级冲突现在经常发生在中产阶级和穷人之间,前者在反抗他们认为是福利制度的负担和来自底层的犯罪威胁。但这也是阶级冲突,尽管比马克思设想的更复杂。我们也看到了中产阶级反抗上层阶级的趋势,这是对 1980 年代变得如此突出的金融丑闻和税收不公的反应。阶级冲突显然还没有结束。马克思主义理论将其动力建立在一个不完全有效的经济机制上。它没有给我们答案,但给我们指出了关键问题。马克思的社会和政治哲学 马克思的哲学贯穿于其作品的其余部分。它的中心思想是:异化是人类历史的显著特征,共产主义是历史的终结和异化的解决方案。异化已经成为二十世纪的一个普遍想法;现代人似乎已经被一种一百年前几乎看不出来的弊病所感染。我们感到我们所创造的世界有一些东西与我们的基本天性相悖 —— 我们被市场的非个人力量和官僚机构的非人道决定所统治。我们生活在一个由卡夫卡描绘的世界里。马克思是最早发现这一弊病的人之一,尽管韦伯和弗洛伊德仍然要从经验上对其进行解释。对马克思来说,异化与其说是一个可观察的事实,不如说是一个基本的公理,它来自黑格尔,最终回到了神学上的罪的概念。为了理解马克思的意思,我们必须简短地回顾一下西方哲学。
44 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism The idealist tradition in philosophy can best be grasped if we begin with Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes's famous phrase "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) was the one principle that he found must be true, even if one doubted everything else about the world. David Hume (1711-1776) extended the scope of skepticism by pointing out that we can never really know that something causes something else. If one event always follows another (at least has always done so up until now), we can only suppose that it is caused by the first event. We judge the probability that the same sequence will happen again. Causality, then, is something we impute to things out of our own minds, not something that absolutely exists "out there." Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the founder of the German idealist tradition, took this idea one step further. We cannot really know anything about the world, he argued, because we never experience anything except through our own subjective filters of understanding. Not only causality, but time, space, shapes, numbers, colors, and substance are all part of the framework of our own minds. The "things in themselves" can never be known; all one can know is the contents of one's own mind, imposed on the raw materials of unknowable reality. This brings us to Hegel, Marx's mentor. Hegel drew the conclusion from Kant that humans create their world by the act of perceiving it. But this does not occur all at once; it takes all of history to fulfill. In effect, inert matter has no form until living creatures develop who can perceive it; the higher forms of beauty and truth do not appear until humans arrive to see the world through these spectacles. Moreover, an individual actively fashions the world, making tools, works of art, laws, states, and systems of ideas. Each of these progressively manifests more and more of the world of forms into the world of actuality. Eventually (we are nearing Hegel's own time), humans become aware that they are the agents of something greater than themselves—that the world is a spirit that unfolds more and more facets of itself until it is fully visible. This spirit is Reason, and it reaches its culmination in the constitutional state and in Hegel's philosophy, which is Reason at last conscious of itself. Alienation enters into Hegel's system because it describes the relationship of humans to their creations up until the time they finally recognize reality for what it is—the unfolding spirit of Reason. That is, people create things but then fail to understand that they have created them. They mistake the world for something objective (at least, they did so up until the revelation of Kant). They worship objects as idols and lose sight of their own creativeness and of the spirit flowing through them. Thus, people are cut off, or alienated, from their essential selves. Marx adopted this form of analysis from Hegel but took it off its spiritual foundation. For Marx people create the world through their labors but then become constrained by the very things they have created. They create religions out of the imaginings of their own brains and then fall down and worship their gods as if they really existed. They create the state and then cannot escape its rule. They create an economic system by the labors of
44 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 如果我们从笛卡尔(Rene Descartes,1596-1650)开始,就能最好地把握哲学中的理想主义传统。笛卡尔的名言 “cogito ergo sum”(我思故我在)是他认为必须是真实的原则,即使人们对世界的其他一切有所怀疑。大卫·休谟(1711-1776)指出,我们永远不可能真正知道某件事情会导致其他事情,从而扩大了怀疑论的范围。如果一个事件总是紧随另一个事件之后(至少到现在为止一直如此),我们只能假设它是由第一个事件引起的。我们判断同样的序列会再次发生的概率。那么,因果关系是我们从自己的头脑中赋予事物的东西,而不是 “在那里” 绝对存在的东西。德国唯心主义传统的创始人伊曼纽尔·康德(1724-1804)将这一想法向前推进了一步。他认为,我们不可能真正了解世界的任何东西,因为除了通过我们自己的主观理解过滤器,我们从未体验过任何东西。不仅是因果关系,还有时间、空间、形状、数字、颜色和物质,都是我们自己思想框架的一部分。事物本身 "永远无法被了解;人们所能了解的只是强加在不可知的现实的原材料上的自己的思想内容。这就把我们带到了黑格尔,马克思的导师。黑格尔从康德那里得出的结论是,人类通过感知世界的行为来创造他们的世界。但这并不是一下子发生的;它需要整个历史来完成。实际上,在能够感知它的生物发展起来之前,惰性物质是没有形式的;在人类来到这里通过这些眼镜看世界之前,美和真理的高级形式不会出现。此外,一个人积极地塑造世界,制造工具、艺术作品、法律、国家和思想体系。这些东西中的每一个都逐渐地将越来越多的形式世界表现为现实世界。最终(我们正在接近黑格尔自己的时代),人类意识到他们是比自己更伟大的东西的代理人 —— 世界是一种精神,它展开了自己越来越多的面,直到它完全可见。这种精神就是理性,它在宪政国家和黑格尔的哲学中达到了顶点,即理性最终意识到了自己。异化进入了黑格尔的体系,因为它描述了人类与他们的创造物的关系,直到他们最终认识到现实是什么 —— 理性的展开的精神。也就是说,人们创造了一些东西,但却不明白是他们创造了这些东西。他们把世界误认为是客观的东西(至少,在康德的启示之前,他们一直这样做)。他们把物体当作偶像来崇拜,而忽视了自己的创造力和流淌在他们身上的精神。因此,人们被切断了,或者说被异化了,脱离了他们的基本自我。马克思从黑格尔那里采用了这种分析形式,但把它从其精神基础上拿掉。在马克思看来,人们通过自己的劳动创造了世界,但随后却被他们所创造的东西所限制。他们从自己大脑的想象中创造了宗教,然后倒下,崇拜他们的神,好像他们真的存在。他们创造了国家,然后又无法逃脱国家的统治。他们用自己的劳动创造了一个经济体系。
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 45 their own hands and then find that they are compelled to sell themselves on the market they have created. In a famous chapter in Capital entitled 'The Fetishism of Commodities," Marx describes how money begins as a means of exchange to buy goods but soon becomes an end in itself. Goods become viewed in money value only, instead of in terms of their use to the consumer. A house is no longer a place to live but becomes a piece of real estate that one can afford to live in only if the market makes it feasible to keep it. The capitalist is a person who cannot enjoy owning goods but must turn them into as much profit as possible or else be wiped out by a competitor. In the capitalist system the workers are the most alienated of all, because they become cogs in a machine, selling their own labor as a commodity, and are stripped of any meaningful relation with the goods they produce for the capitalist to sell. Alienation grows progressively worse throughout history. The final revolution that brings down capitalism, then, destroys not only a system of economic exploitation, but also a system of dehumanization. History ends with communism, for monopoly capitalism stretches human alienation to the final verge, at which it can at last be abolished. Communism was to be a society without alienation, where people no longer were to be controlled by the system they had created, but instead would control it for their own benefit. The division of labor itself would be destroyed. Humankind would at last reach absolute fulfillment. Marx's notion of alienation is not really an empirical entity, but a whole way of looking at the world, of holding up a standard to evaluate it by. Modern sociologists have tried to measure just how alienated people are in various kinds of jobs, and the results are mixed. Certain kinds of labor, such as that on the assembly line, are considered by most workers to be rather dehumanizing. Most other kinds of work (and we must remember that most people, even in factories, do not work on assembly lines) elicit a fair amount of positive reaction; and some people, although a minority, even like working on the assembly line. Marx's response would no doubt be that people can be so oppressed by the system as to lose even their elementary human wants. In the final analysis Marx believed in untapped human potentialities and held up a high standard for society to emulate. The idea of communism is easier to evaluate. Marx himself actively promoted the revolution he wrote about. He helped found the revolutionary trade-union movement, the International Workingman's Association ("the First International"), and Engels carried on the leadership after his death. In some places, notably in Germany, the unionists' Marxism became more and more rhetorical and irrelevant as their organization gained political recognition. But the revolutionary potential of Marxism would not be lost. Marx's most militant followers, inspired by his penetrating analysis of capitalism and by his assurances of the inevitability of their victory, created a state in Russia and elsewhere in his name. The Communist states emerged from the wreckage of states in World Wars I and II. In the second half of the twentieth century, the cold war and the nuclear arms race
在地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 45 他们自己的手,然后发现他们被迫在他们创造的市场上出售自己。在《资本论》中题为 “商品的拜物教” 的著名章节中,马克思描述了货币如何开始作为购买商品的交换手段,但很快就成为目的本身。商品变得只看货币价值,而不是看它们对消费者的用途。房子不再是一个居住的地方,而是变成了一块房地产,只有在市场使之可行的情况下,人们才能住得起它。资本家是一个不能享受拥有商品的人,但必须把商品变成尽可能多的利润,否则就会被竞争对手消灭。在资本主义制度中,工人是最被异化的,因为他们成为机器上的齿轮,把自己的劳动作为商品出售,并被剥夺了与他们为资本家出售而生产的商品的任何有意义的关系。在整个历史上,异化现象逐渐恶化。那么,打倒资本主义的最终革命不仅摧毁了一个经济剥削体系,也摧毁了一个非人化的体系。历史以共产主义结束,因为垄断资本主义将人类的异化延伸到了最后的边缘,在那里它最终可以被废除。共产主义将是一个没有异化的社会,在那里人们不再被他们创造的系统所控制,而是为了他们自己的利益而控制它。劳动分工本身将被摧毁。人类将最终达到绝对的成就。马克思的异化概念并不是一个真正的经验实体,而是一种看待世界的整体方式,是一个评估世界的标准。现代社会学家试图衡量人们在各种工作中的异化程度,结果是好坏参半。某些类型的劳动,如装配线上的劳动,被大多数工人认为是相当没有人性的。大多数其他种类的工作(我们必须记住,大多数人,即使在工厂里,也不在装配线上工作)引起了相当多的积极反应;有些人,虽然是少数,甚至喜欢在装配线上工作。马克思的反应无疑是,人们可以被制度压迫到甚至失去基本的人类需求。归根结底,马克思相信人类尚未开发的潜力,并为社会树立了一个高标准,供其效仿。共产主义的思想更容易评估。马克思本人积极推动他所写的革命。他帮助创立了革命的工会运动 —— 国际工人协会(“第一国际”),恩格斯在他去世后继续进行领导。在一些地方,特别是在德国,工会成员的马克思主义随着他们的组织获得政治承认而变得越来越多的言辞和不相关。但是马克思主义的革命潜力不会丧失。马克思最激进的追随者,受到他对资本主义的透彻分析和他对他们胜利的保证的鼓舞,在俄国和其他地方以他的名义创建了一个国家。共产主义国家是从第一次和第二次世界大战中的国家残骸中出现的。二十世纪下半叶,冷战和核军备竞赛
46 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism against the capitalist West strengthened control by the military and by an authoritarian Communist party over Soviet societies. The system became overwhelmingly unpopular with its own people; ironically, the political and economic crises which Marx envisioned for the end of capitalism came about instead in the socialist states. To explain why this system collapsed would take further advances in sociology; we will meet some of this analysis later in Chapter 15. Marx would probably have rejected the Soviet system as a gross perversion of what he had in mind. He wanted a system to dignify the whole person, not to sacrifice everything to the military power of the state. But Marx never really devoted himself to the hard question of how his humanist Utopia was to be brought about. It is easy to speak abstractly of people taking control of the system instead of being controlled by it, but it is harder to see just how this may be brought about. Indeed, much of subsequent sociology has carried on a debate with Marx's ghost, as Weber, Sorel, Michels, Mannheim, and others have questioned the possibility of controlling power in the same way that the economy might be reduced to management for the common good. Events have forced us to go beyond Marx. We have had to look for ways to escape from the Leviathan of the state as well as the Mammon of the marketplace. THE MARXIAN LEGACY Since Marx's death there has been a continuous strain of dogmatism among his followers. The movement he engendered made such strong organizational and emotional claims on its members that most of them seem to have had little inclination to think any new thoughts on their own. The movement has not been entirely stagnant, however; there have been those willing to build on some of Marx's themes and drop others. In the period just after Marx's death in 1883, for example, Friedrich Engels and other leading Marxists stressed the scientific, materialistic nature of Marxist thought. In the early twentieth century, writers like Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Rudolf Hilferding brought about new developments on the economic side. These Marxists turned their attention to the role of imperialism, finance capitalism, and war in shaping society. Politically oriented Marxism, at the same time, began to claim that socialism could be achieved through parliamentary and political means. Its proponents included the German "revisionist" leader Eduard Bernstein, who preferred to speak of "evolution" instead of "revolution." The Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci, who spent many years in Mussolini's prisons, argued that the goal of Marxist politics was not merely to await the economic destruction of the capitalist class, but politically to overthrow the hegemonic (actually ruling) class by gaining control of the state. In the 1920s intellectual Marxism began to shift away from materialism toward an idealistic philosophy. The first move in this direction was made
46 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》反对资本主义的西方,加强了军队和独裁的共产党对苏联社会的控制。这个制度在其人民中变得压倒性的不受欢迎;具有讽刺意味的是,马克思为资本主义的终结所设想的政治和经济危机反而出现在社会主义国家。要解释这个系统崩溃的原因,需要社会学的进一步发展;我们将在第 15 章的后面遇到一些这种分析。马克思可能会拒绝苏联的制度,认为它是对他所想的东西的严重歪曲。他希望有一个系统能赋予整个人以尊严,而不是为国家的军事力量牺牲一切。但马克思从未真正致力于解决如何实现他的人文主义乌托邦的难题。抽象地谈论人们控制制度而不是被制度所控制是很容易的,但要看到这一点是如何实现的就比较困难了。事实上,后来的许多社会学都与马克思的幽灵进行了辩论,因为韦伯、索莱尔、米歇尔、曼海姆和其他人都质疑以同样的方式控制权力的可能性,即经济可能被简化为对公共利益的管理。事件已经迫使我们超越马克思。我们不得不寻找方法来摆脱国家的利维坦以及市场的玛门。马克思的遗产 自从马克思去世后,在他的追随者中一直存在着教条主义的倾向。他所倡导的运动对其成员提出了如此强烈的组织和情感要求,以至于他们中的大多数人似乎都不愿意自己去思考任何新的思想。然而,这一运动并没有完全停滞不前;有些人愿意在马克思的一些主题的基础上,放弃其他主题。例如,在马克思 1883 年刚刚去世的时期,弗里德里希·恩格斯和其他主要的马克思主义者强调了马克思主义思想的科学性、唯物主义性质。在二十世纪初,像列宁、罗莎·卢森堡和鲁道夫·希尔弗丁这样的作家在经济方面带来了新的发展。这些马克思主义者把注意力转向了帝国主义、金融资本主义和战争在塑造社会中的作用。同时,政治导向的马克思主义开始声称社会主义可以通过议会和政治手段实现。它的支持者包括德国 “修正主义” 领导人爱德华·伯恩斯坦,他更愿意谈论 “进化” 而不是 “革命”。意大利理论家安东尼奥·葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)在墨索里尼的监狱里待了很多年,他认为马克思主义政治的目标不仅仅是等待资本主义阶级的经济毁灭,而是在政治上通过获得对国家的控制来推翻霸权(实际上是统治)阶级。在 20 世纪 20 年代,思想上的马克思主义开始从唯物主义转向理想主义哲学。在这个方向上的第一个动作是
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 47 by a young Hungarian intellectual, Georg Lukacs, who had previously been a follower of Hegel. Lukacs declared that the basic problem was not so much the surface issues of economic exploitation and political domination but the reification of the false ideologies upheld by capitalist domination. Lukacs thus cast Marx's doctrine of alienation (which is, of course, originally derived from Hegel) into a form that is both more philosophical and more sociological. It is people's attachment to the false ideals they use to shroud their own social striving and privileges that alienates them from a true, productive reality and from a truly honest self, according to Lukacs. And it is the working class that is least subject to reifications, because it is least attached to the dominant ideologies; its mission therefore is to liberate the more alienated, dominant society from its own false consciousness. In the next few decades, the Frankfurt school in Germany brought Marxism into even closer harmony with Hegel. Herbert Marcuse argued that Hegel, with his dialectic of the development of Reason, was the great progressive philosopher, preparing the way for Marx. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno went even further, declaring that Marxism was the sole embodiment of Reason in this era of fascist antireason brought about by the fatal irrationalities of advanced capitalism. In the 1960s leadership of the Frankfurt tradition was taken over by Jurgen Habermas. Habermas wrote of the ideological interests behind the scientific establishment by which modern government and business try to rationalize their decisions and of the legitimation crisis that has become for modern capitalism the equivalent of the traditional Marxian economic crisis. In France, meanwhile, Marxism has been integrated with existentialism by its leading proponent, Jean-Paul Sartre, and with structuralism by his opponent, Louis Althusser. ENGELS' THEORY OF GENDER STRATIFICATION Another part of the Marxian tradition which has become increasingly important in recent years is its analysis of male domination of the female. The main source was a book by Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, which appeared in 1884, just after Marx's death. Engels used Marx's notes and regarded this work as expressing the Marxian position. Engels used the anthropology of his day, leading to criticisms of this work due to the fact that the older interpretations of anthropological data are not all accepted by scholars today. Engels drew, in particular, upon the American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan, who lived in upstate New York and was an expert on the Iroquois. This Indian tribe lived in its famous "long houses," which each contained several families living together. An especially striking feature of Iroquois society was the role of women: It was a fierce warrior society, but also a political democracy. Tribal leaders were elected, and were always men; but women had a full
地下的社会学。卡尔·马克思 47 岁,是一位年轻的匈牙利知识分子,乔治·卢卡奇,他以前是黑格尔的追随者。卢卡奇宣称,基本问题并不是经济剥削和政治统治的表面问题,而是资本主义统治所维护的虚假意识形态的再认识。因此,卢卡奇将马克思的异化学说(当然,它最初来自黑格尔)投射到一种既更哲学又更社会学的形式。卢卡奇认为,正是人们对他们用来掩盖自己的社会奋斗和特权的虚假理想的依恋,使他们与真正的、生产性的现实和真正诚实的自我相分离。而工人阶级才是最不受重化影响的,因为它对主导意识形态的依恋最少;因此,它的任务是把更多的异化的主导社会从它自己的虚假意识中解放出来。在接下来的几十年里,德国的法兰克福学派使马克思主义与黑格尔更加和谐。赫伯特·马尔库塞认为,黑格尔以其理性发展的辩证法,是伟大的进步哲学家,为马克思准备了道路。马克斯·霍克海默和西奥多·阿多诺走得更远,他们宣称,在这个由先进资本主义致命的非理性带来的法西斯反叛时代,马克思主义是理性的唯一体现。1960 年代,法兰克福传统的领导权被尤尔根·哈贝马斯接管。哈贝马斯写到了科学机构背后的意识形态利益,现代政府和企业试图通过科学机构使其决策合理化,并写到了合法性危机,对现代资本主义来说,这种危机已经等同于传统的马克思主义经济危机。同时,在法国,马克思主义已经被其主要倡导者让·保罗·萨特与存在主义相结合,并被其反对者路易·阿尔都塞与结构主义相结合。恩格斯的性别强化理论 近年来,马克思主义传统的另一部分变得越来越重要,那就是它对男性统治女性的分析。主要来源是弗里德里希·恩格斯的一本书《家庭、私有财产和国家的起源》,该书于 1884 年出版,就在马克思去世之后。恩格斯使用了马克思的笔记,并认为这部作品表达了马克思的立场。恩格斯使用了他那个时代的人类学,导致了对这部作品的批评,因为对人类学数据的老式解释并不都被今天的学者接受。恩格斯特别借鉴了美国人类学家刘易斯·亨利·摩根,他住在纽约州北部,是研究易洛魁人的专家。这个印第安部落生活在著名的 “长屋” 中,每个长屋都有几个家庭共同生活。易洛魁社会的一个特别突出的特点是妇女的作用。这是一个激烈的战士社会,但也是一个政治民主社会。部落领导人由选举产生,而且总是男性;但妇女有充分的权利来管理他们。
48 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism vote, and elder women were particularly powerful and were capable of deposing chiefs. Moreover, Iroquois clans were basically organized around women. They followed the principle that Engels (and Morgan) called "mother right," and is now called matrilineal descent. Family lines were traced only through mothers and their children, and property was inherited only through females. Clans were exogamous, prohibiting marriage within their own ranks. Hence, a man married into a clan different from his own, but remained an outsider there. His children did not belong to his clan, nor did they inherit from him. Engels, like Morgan and some other anthropologists of the time, regarded this system as evidence of matriarchy, a universal stage in the early development of the family. Another curious feature of Iroquois society was its kinship terminology. Iroquois children referred to their mother's sisters also as "Mother," and to their father's brothers as "Father." The children of these extra fathers and mothers, then, were not called cousins, but brothers and sisters. Engels, following Morgan, took this as evidence of a prior stage of group marriage which had once existed. At this time there was indiscriminate mating between all the wives of a set of brothers, or husbands of a set of sisters; hence, it was impossible to tell whose children were actually whose. On this basis, Engels proposed the following sequence of stages in the development of the family. First, there was complete sexual promiscuity, a society of absolute freedom and equality. Next, incest between parents and their children was prohibited, but otherwise, sexual relationships were left wide open. Then, the incest prohibition was extended to siblings. Finally, this gave way to what Engels called "pairing marriage." This was exemplified by the Iroquois system of exogamous clans: The incest taboo had spread to everyone in the clan, and hence sexual partners had to be found outside, in another clan. Engels regarded all of these, but particularly the earlier stages before pairing marriage, as a version of primitive communism. This had certain characteristics: 1. No private property existed. The clan as a group held all land, whether hunting grounds or farming plots. All clan members shared food, just as they cooperated in labor to produce it. 2. Similarly, communism reigned in the sexual realm. Although there were incest prohibitions of various sorts, women and men were not exclusive sexual partners of particular individuals, but were widely shared. (The degree of sexual freedom had become fairly limited by the time of the pairing marriage system of the Iroquois, but the terminology of the earlier stages survived.) 3. There was gender equality. Women had a respected position in society, and often shared political power. Engels regarded the economic basis of this equality as crucial: Women shared fully in the labor. They were the major producers of food in horticultural (primitive agricultural) societies, and even in hunting societies produced the most stable part of the diet by gathering wild plants. Women were not alienated from the products of their labor or from the central social process of production, and hence enjoyed a high status.
48 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》投票,年长的妇女特别有权力,有能力罢免酋长。此外,易洛魁人的部族基本上是围绕着妇女组织的。他们遵循恩格斯(和摩根)称之为 “母权” 的原则,现在称之为母系血统。家系只通过母亲和她们的孩子来追溯,财产只通过女性来继承。氏族是外向型的,禁止在自己的队伍中结婚。因此,一个人嫁到一个与自己不同的氏族,但在那里仍然是一个外人。他的孩子不属于他的部族,也不继承他的财产。恩格斯和摩尔根以及当时的其他一些人类学家一样,认为这种制度是母权制的证据,是家庭早期发展中的一个普遍阶段。易洛魁社会的另一个奇怪的特点是其亲属关系术语。易洛魁人的孩子把他们母亲的姐妹也称为 “母亲”,把他们父亲的兄弟称为 “父亲”。那么,这些额外的父亲和母亲的孩子就不被称为表兄弟,而是兄弟和姐妹。恩格斯追随摩尔根,认为这是曾经存在过的集体婚姻的前一阶段的证据。在这个时候,一组兄弟的所有妻子或一组姐妹的丈夫之间不分青红皂白地交配;因此,不可能分辨出谁的孩子实际上是谁的。在此基础上,恩格斯提出了家庭发展的以下几个阶段的顺序。首先,是完全的性乱交,一个绝对自由和平等的社会。接下来,父母与子女之间的乱伦被禁止,但除此之外,性关系是开放的。然后,乱伦禁令被扩展到兄弟姐妹之间。最后,这让位于恩格斯所说的 “配对婚姻”。这在易洛魁人的外族制度中得到了体现。乱伦的禁忌已经蔓延到氏族中的每个人,因此必须在外面,在另一个氏族中找到性伙伴。恩格斯认为所有这些,特别是配对婚姻之前的早期阶段,是原始共产主义的一个版本。这有一些特点。1. 没有私有财产存在。氏族作为一个群体拥有所有的土地,无论是狩猎场还是耕地。所有氏族成员共享食物,就像他们合作劳动生产食物一样。2.2. 同样地,共产主义在性领域也占统治地位。虽然有各种乱伦禁令,但妇女和男子不是特定个人的专属性伙伴,而是广泛分享。(在易洛魁人的配对婚姻制度时期,性自由的程度已经相当有限,但早期阶段的术语仍然存在)。3.3. 性别平等。妇女在社会上有受尊重的地位,并经常分享政治权力。恩格斯认为这种平等的经济基础是至关重要的。妇女充分参与劳动。在园艺(原始农业)社会中,她们是食物的主要生产者,甚至在狩猎社会中,她们通过采集野生植物生产最稳定的食物。妇女没有与她们的劳动产品或社会中心生产过程相分离,因此享有很高的地位。
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 49 The rise of sexual domination of men over women was brought about by an economic change; chiefly, the growth of wealth, resulting from more advanced agricultural methods such as plowing and irrigation. As a result, Engels theorized, men wanted to pass on their property to their own children. Hence, they overthrew "mother right" (matrilinealism) and instituted "father right" (patrilineal descent). They also tended to reverse the older system of clan exogamy—since property stayed with the man's offspring— and endogamous clan rule was instituted to keep property within the clan. (Previously, under matrilinealism, the exogamous rule had had the same effect of keeping property within the clan.) With patrilineal descent came the institution of monogamy. Since a man wanted to pass his property along to his children, he wanted to be sure which children were his. Hence, no more sexual promiscuity and no more group marriage were to be allowed. This new monogamy, however, was decidedly one-sided. As Engels noted, monogamy was primarily for the women. Men could allow themselves polygamy, when they could afford it, in the form of concubines, female slaves, or prostitutes. The result of this change in the family system was the subjugation of women. 'This revolution [was] one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity," Engels declared. ". . . the overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the feminine sex" (p. 120). With the shift from matriarchal to patriarchal society, women were excluded from the public economic sphere and consigned to household labor. Men had taken over heavy agriculture, leaving women only with menial domestic tasks. Males also gained complete control of politics, and excluded women largely from religion and public culture as well. The new monogamous marriage was now concerned only with property. Love was excluded. Women were regarded simply as instruments by which men could propagate their property and their lineage. Engels seems to be saying that men did not care about propagating themselves through their offspring, but rather, that private property called for privately controlled heirs to whom one could pass it on. The family system thus became a kind of cult of perpetual private property. Engels regarded the rise of patriarchy as a revolutionary development in human history, not only in the position of women. It marked the first big turning point in the Marxian perspective—the rise of private property per se, and hence the rise of class society. Engels summed up: "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male" (p. 129). From that point on, Engels argued, love affairs could only occur outside of marriage. Among the ancient Greeks, he pointed out, the sphere of eros was confined to men's interests in courtesans, or in homosexual favorites. In medieval Europe, love was celebrated by the poetry of the troubadours in the form of a cult of adultery, forbidden love between knights and married women. Engels went on to mock the monogamous marriages of the
社会学在地下。卡尔·马克思 49 男人对女人的性统治的兴起是由经济变化带来的;主要是财富的增长,这是由于更先进的农业方法,如耕作和灌溉。因此,恩格斯认为,男人希望将他们的财产传给自己的孩子。因此,他们推翻了 “母权”(母系制),建立了 “父权”(父系血统)。他们还倾向于推翻旧的氏族外婚制 —— 因为财产留在男人的后代身上 —— 并制定了内婚制的氏族规则,将财产留在氏族内。(此前,在母系制度下,外婚制的规则也有同样的效果,即把财产留在氏族内。)随着父系血统的出现,出现了一夫一妻制的制度。由于一个男人想把他的财产传给他的孩子,他想确定哪些孩子是他的。因此,不允许再有性乱,也不允许再有群婚。然而,这种新的一夫一妻制显然是片面的。正如恩格斯所指出的,一夫一妻制主要是针对妇女的。男人可以允许自己实行一夫多妻制,只要他们能够负担得起,以妾、女奴或妓女的形式。家庭制度的这种变化的结果是对妇女的奴役。恩格斯说:“这场革命是人类所经历的最有决定性的革命之一。”…… 母权的推翻是女权的世界历史性失败 “(第 120 页)。随着母权制社会向父权制社会的转变,妇女被排除在公共经济领域之外,沦为家庭劳动力。男性接管了繁重的农业,只给女性留下了琐碎的家务。男性还获得了对政治的完全控制权,并在很大程度上将妇女排除在宗教和公共文化之外。新的一夫一妻制婚姻现在只关心财产问题。爱情被排除在外。妇女仅仅被看作是男人用来传播其财产和血统的工具。恩格斯似乎在说,男人并不关心通过他们的后代来传播他们自己,而是说,私人财产要求有私人控制的继承人,人们可以把它传给他们。因此,家庭制度成为一种对永久的私有财产的崇拜。恩格斯认为,父权制的兴起是人类历史上一个革命性的发展,不仅是在妇女的地位方面。它标志着马克思主义观点中的第一个重大转折点 —— 私有财产本身的兴起,因而也标志着阶级社会的兴起。恩格斯总结道。” 历史上出现的第一个阶级对立与一夫一妻制婚姻中男女之间的对立的发展相吻合,而第一个阶级压迫与男性对女性的压迫相吻合"(第 129 页)。恩格斯认为,从这一点来看,情爱只可能发生在婚姻之外。他指出,在古希腊人中,情爱的范围仅限于男人对宫女的兴趣,或对同性恋的青睐。在中世纪的欧洲,爱情被游吟诗人的诗歌以通奸崇拜的形式赞美,骑士和已婚妇女之间的禁忌之爱。恩格斯接着嘲讽了中世纪的一夫一妻制婚姻。
50 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism bourgeoisie of his own day as inevitably producing their antithesis, prostitution and adultery. As long as the marriage was a property relationship first and foremost, love had to be found outside. Just as, historically, prostitution appeared at the same time as the beginnings of monogamous marriage, the combination, Engels declared, was indissoluble, and would exist as long as monogamy did. Even in the modern capitalist societies where parents no longer choose their children's husbands and wives as part of a system of legal inheritance of property, the economic aspect of marriage predominates. The choice of marriage partners seems to be free, but it is only formally so. It is analogous to the freedom of the modern labor market, in which wage laborers are free to sell their labor to an employer or not; but the latter is merely freedom to starve if one owns no property. Hence, women have the freedom to marry or not, but in reality economic necessity forces them into subjugation to husbands who have the income to support them. Is there any way out of this system? The Marxian analysis points the way to the solution. It is necessary to abolish private property, Marx said; this would make the motive for monogamy disappear, since there no longer would be private property to pass along to children. Women would enter the labor force on an equal basis with men, and would no longer be forced into marriage for reasons of financial support. Society would take over the support of children; concerns for legitimacy would disappear, and all restraints on "sex love," as Engels terms it, would disappear. Hence, at the end of capitalism, sexual freedom would reappear, along with the reinstitu- tion of group marriage, as in primitive communism. Actually, Engels was rather Victorian in his moral attitudes, and he went on to argue that when monogamy disappears, so will prostitution. There will no longer be any need for women to sell themselves, either long- term or short-term. Marriage, he argued, is selling oneself once and for all (long-term), instead of the economics of the prostitute who "lets out her body on piece work like a wage worker" (p. 134). But, without economic incentives, individuals could choose partners on the basis of sheer personal attraction. Engels rather romantically assumed such passions would be forever, and, hence, there would be lifelong love affairs in the Communist society of the future. Engels' argument has various flaws, but it should be noted that his work did have an important practical effect. The socialist movement in Germany, following Marxian principles, was the first large-scale political movement to come out in favor of female equality, and the socialist party leader, August Bebel, wrote a popular book expounding Engels' thesis. As German socialists gained prominence in parliamentary politics, they gave a big impetus to the German feminist movement, the strongest one on the Continent, culminating in political enfranchisement of women after World War I. Another aspect of this great upheaval in sexual attitudes which occurred during the early twentieth century in Germany was a movement for erotic freedom, which was part of the milieu in which Freud first became
50 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)在他自己的时代,不可避免地产生了他们的对立面 —— 卖淫和通奸。只要婚姻首先是一种财产关系,爱情就必须在外面寻找。正如在历史上,卖淫与一夫一妻制婚姻的开始同时出现,恩格斯宣称,这种结合是不可分割的,只要一夫一妻制存在,就会存在。即使在现代资本主义社会中,父母不再作为法定财产继承制度的一部分选择他们子女的丈夫和妻子,婚姻的经济方面也占主导地位。对婚姻伴侣的选择似乎是自由的,但它只是在形式上如此。它类似于现代劳动力市场的自由,在这个市场上,雇佣劳动者可以自由地将自己的劳动力卖给雇主或不卖;但后者如果没有财产,就只是饿肚子的自由。因此,妇女有结婚或不结婚的自由,但在现实中,经济上的需要迫使她们屈从于那些有收入支持她们的丈夫。有什么办法可以摆脱这种制度吗?马克思的分析指出了解决问题的途径。马克思说,有必要废除私有财产;这将使一夫一妻制的动机消失,因为不再有私有财产可以传给孩子。妇女将在与男子平等的基础上进入劳动力市场,不再因为经济支持的原因而被迫进入婚姻。社会将接管对儿童的支持;对合法性的关注将消失,对恩格斯所说的 “性爱” 的所有限制将消失。因此,在资本主义结束时,性自由将重新出现,同时恢复集体婚姻,就像在原始的共产主义中一样。实际上,恩格斯在他的道德态度上是相当维多利亚式的,他继续论证说,当一夫一妻制消失时,卖淫也会消失。将不再需要妇女出卖自己,无论是长期的还是短期的。他认为,婚姻是一劳永逸地出卖自己(长期),而不是像妓女那样在经济上 “像雇佣工人一样以计件方式出租自己的身体”(第 134 页)。但是,如果没有经济激励,个人可以根据纯粹的个人吸引力来选择伴侣。恩格斯相当浪漫地假设这种激情将是永远的,因此,在未来的共产主义社会中会有终生的爱情。恩格斯的论点有各种缺陷,但应该指出,他的工作确实产生了重要的实际效果。德国的社会主义运动遵循马克思主义原则,是第一个支持女性平等的大规模政治运动,社会主义党的领导人奥古斯特·贝贝尔写了一本阐释恩格斯论点的流行书。随着德国社会主义者在议会政治中获得突出地位,他们极大地推动了德国女权运动,这是欧洲大陆最强大的运动,并在第一次世界大战后将妇女的政治权利推向高潮。
Sociology in the Underground: Karl Marx 51 popular. Max Weber's wife, Marianne Weber, was an important feminist leader, and was the first woman to be elected to public office in Germany. On the theoretical side, there are numerous problems with Engels' theory. It was a pioneering formulation, and recent thought has gone considerably beyond it. There has been a great deal of criticism of its conception of the early anthropological stages of the family. It is doubtful that there ever was a stage of primitive promiscuity with no incest taboos. Also, there is no universal sequence from matrilineal to patrilineal societies. Many hunting- and-gathering societies (the oldest economic form) are patrilineal, and even more of them are bilineal (i.e., they trace descent on both sides, as we do today). Matrilineal societies seem never to have been a majority of societies at any time in history, although they are relatively frequent in horticultural societies, when women were most important in food production. But if the picture of evolutionary stages must be abandoned, nevertheless, the more abstract principles in Engels' theory have opened up important lines of inquiry. Engels' was the first sociological theory of gender stratification, attempting to show the conditions that bring about different degrees of inequality or equality between the sexes. His general conception that monogamy is connected with a property system has proven fruitful, and so has his strategy of tracing sexual domination and subordination through economic relations. Debates go on today among Marxists and feminists over the extent to which the position of women is part of the general struggle of workers under capitalism. The modern Marxian argument is that women in capitalism play a crucial but hidden role in the economic system by reproducing the labor force. This means, first of all, that women bear children who grow up to become workers; they also feed and clothe them, clean them, and bring them up. Women as mothers are thus an unpaid part of the capitalist system; without them, capitalism could not function. The same is true of women as wives; their household labor cares for their husbands' homes, feeds them, washes their clothes, and so forth. Women also put in the emotional labor of soothing the men's egos and, in general, absorbing the strains that men suffer working in the capitalist marketplace. The conclusion drawn, then, is that women are exploited by the capitalist system, even when they are not directly employed by it. Women contribute to capitalist profits, which would be a good deal lower without unpaid female labor by housewives. From this point of view, the solution to sexual inequality is to overthrow capitalism, and thereby change the economic basis that fosters female exploitation. It has been argued also, however, that women's struggle is separate from, if perhaps parallel to, the struggle of workers and other oppressed groups. Working-class men also benefit by dominating women in their homes. Sexist tradition keeps women who are employed outside the home in sex-segregated or other low-paying jobs, and thus keeps them from competing with men. Improving the position of workers per se, then, does not necessarily help women. The position of women in socialist societies, such
社会学在地下。卡尔·马克思 51 受欢迎。马克斯·韦伯的妻子玛丽安·韦伯是一位重要的女权主义领袖,也是德国第一位当选为公职人员的女性。在理论方面,恩格斯的理论存在着许多问题。这是一个开创性的提法,而最近的思想已经大大超越了它。它对家庭的早期人类学阶段的概念提出了大量的批评。令人怀疑的是,是否曾经有过一个没有乱伦禁忌的原始滥交阶段。另外,从母系社会到父系社会并没有普遍的顺序。许多狩猎和采集社会(最古老的经济形式)是父系社会,甚至更多的社会是双系社会(即像我们今天一样,从两边追溯血统)。在历史上的任何时候,母系社会似乎从未成为社会的大多数,尽管它们在园艺社会中相对频繁,当时妇女在粮食生产中最为重要。但是,如果必须放弃进化阶段的图景,尽管如此,恩格斯理论中更抽象的原则还是开辟了重要的探索路线。恩格斯的理论是第一个关于性别分层的社会学理论,它试图说明导致两性之间不同程度的不平等或平等的条件。他关于一夫一妻制与财产制度有关的一般概念被证明是富有成效的,他通过经济关系追踪性统治和从属关系的策略也是如此。今天,马克思主义者和女权主义者就妇女的地位在多大程度上是资本主义下工人的一般斗争的一部分进行了辩论。现代马克思主义的论点是,资本主义中的妇女通过再生产劳动力,在经济体系中发挥了关键但隐蔽的作用。这意味着,首先,妇女生下的孩子长大后会成为工人;她们还为他们提供食物和衣服,为他们打扫卫生,并抚养他们长大。因此,作为母亲的妇女是资本主义制度的一个无偿部分;没有她们,资本主义就无法运作。作为妻子的妇女也是如此;她们的家务劳动照顾丈夫的家,为他们提供食物,为他们洗衣服,等等。妇女还投入情感劳动,抚慰男人的自尊心,总的来说,吸收男人在资本主义市场上工作所承受的压力。因此,得出的结论是,妇女受到资本主义制度的剥削,即使她们没有直接受雇于该制度。妇女为资本主义利润做出了贡献,如果没有家庭主妇的无偿劳动,利润会低很多。从这个角度来看,解决性不平等的办法是推翻资本主义,从而改变助长女性剥削的经济基础。然而,也有人认为,妇女的斗争与工人和其他被压迫群体的斗争是分开的,甚至是平行的。工人阶级的男人也通过在家里支配妇女而受益。性别歧视传统使在家庭以外就业的妇女从事性别隔离或其他低薪工作,从而使她们无法与男性竞争。因此,提高工人本身的地位并不一定有助于妇女。妇女在社会主义社会中的地位,如
52 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism as those existing in Russia and Eastern Europe, is not notably different from that in Western ones. They still do most of the domestic work, while outside the household they still tend to hold inferior jobs and few important political positions. It is also pointed out that women have made some improvements in their position in capitalist societies by organizing as a separate interest group for their own rights. Where women have been able to secure high-paying jobs, their status and power have improved, even within their own households. Along with a general expansion in women's labor force participation, the traditional monogamous family that Engels described so scathingly has given way to a much more fluid situation of premarital sexuality, divorces, and remarriages based on individual preference. And this, in fact, is what Engels predicted, only it did not take the abolition of private property to bring about increased job market participation for women. The issue, though, continues to remain a vital one. While the feminist movement has had its greatest successes recently in the lives of upper-middle-class women, there remains a huge sector of women in manual and clerical jobs who constitute the most underpaid and exploited sector of the labor force. The Marxian theory may not be correct, but at least it points its finger at a crucial problem: The existence of a large category of female exploitation reminds us that there are still very large, potentially revolutionary forces that may explode some time in the future.
52 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)与俄罗斯和东欧现有的理性主义并无明显不同。她们仍然从事大部分家务劳动,而在家庭之外,她们仍然倾向于从事低级工作,很少担任重要的政治职务。报告还指出,在资本主义社会中,妇女通过作为一个单独的利益集团组织起来争取自己的权利,使她们的地位得到了一些改善。在妇女能够获得高薪工作的地方,她们的地位和权力得到了提高,甚至在自己的家庭中也是如此。随着妇女劳动力参与度的普遍提高,恩格斯所描述的传统的一夫一妻制家庭已经让位于一种更多的婚前性行为、离婚和基于个人偏好的再婚的情况。事实上,这正是恩格斯所预言的,只是它没有在废除私有财产后为妇女带来更多的就业市场参与。不过,这个问题仍然是一个至关重要的问题。虽然女权运动最近在中上层妇女的生活中取得了最大的成功,但仍有一大批从事体力和文职工作的妇女,她们构成了劳动力中报酬最低下和被剥削的部门。马克思的理论也许并不正确,但至少它把手指指向了一个关键问题:一大类女性剥削的存在提醒我们,仍然有非常大的、潜在的革命力量,可能在未来某个时候爆发。
CHAPTER THREE The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville Thought in the early nineteenth century was no more unitary than it is today. So far we have paid attention to the modernists: prophets of the industrial order like Saint-Simon and Comte and radicals like Marx who looked further ahead into the future. Not everyone believed in progress, however. The postrevolutionary situation had its conservatives, too, of whom the most famous were the Englishman Edmund Burke (1729-1797) and the French aristocrats Louis de Bonald (1754-1840) and Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). The last two attacked modern society as the anarchy of mob rule and counterposed an ideology of order, obedience, ritual, religion, and hierarchy—all of which qualities were supposed to be found in the Middle Ages. Restoration France thus created the germs of the major modern ideologies: liberalism, communism, and fascism. But the heritage of conservatism is more ambiguous than this, and new thought comes from strange mixtures. Comte combined the conservatism of Bonald and Maistre with the industrialism of Saint-Simon and produced sociology as the science of order in the new society. Conservatism also produced a man who represents the best of the old order—Alexis de Tocqueville. His conservative stance brought him not to vituperation against the new era, but to the detachment necessary for understanding it. Modernists are essentially optimists. Tocqueville was a pessimist. He shared the classical Roman and Greek outlook: Life is a tragedy, with its eternal forces always in balance. His classical prose style aims to impose the only order possible upon the dilemmas of existence—the harmony of literature. Thus, equality improves most people's lives; but mediocrity is the price we must pay for it. Freedom is gained in some respects only by the loss of freedom in other respects. Tocqueville holds the classical idea of balance: An excess in any direction leads to a corresponding reaction. In an era of optimism Tocqueville's conservatism enabled him to tear off the veil blinding the eyes of his contemporaries. The others shared a belief in the withering away of the coercive powers of the state, whether this was to occur immediately, as Saint-Simon and the liberals believed, or in the revolutionary future, as Marx predicted. The idea of progress made the wars and tyrannies of twentieth-century governments inconceivable for these 53
第三章 《最后的绅士》。Alexis de Tocqueville 十九世纪初的思想并不比今天更单一。到目前为止,我们已经注意到了现代主义者:像圣西门和孔德这样的工业秩序的预言家,以及像马克思这样展望未来的激进分子。然而,并非所有人都相信进步。革命后的形势也有保守派,其中最著名的是英国人埃德蒙·伯克(1729-1797)和法国贵族路易·德·博纳德(1754-1840)和约瑟夫·德·迈斯特(1753-1821)。后两者抨击现代社会是暴民统治的无政府状态,并反驳了秩序、服从、仪式、宗教和等级制度的意识形态 —— 所有这些品质都应该在中世纪找到。复兴时期的法国因此创造了主要的现代意识形态的萌芽:自由主义、共产主义和法西斯主义。但是,保守主义的遗产比这更模糊,新的思想来自于奇怪的混合体。孔德将博纳德和麦斯特的保守主义与圣西蒙的工业主义相结合,产生了作为新社会秩序科学的社会学。保守主义也产生了一个代表了旧秩序的精华的人 —— 亚历山大·德·托克维尔。他的保守立场并没有使他对新时代进行谩骂,而是使他对理解新时代有了必要的疏离感。现代主义者基本上都是乐观主义者。托克维尔是一个悲观主义者。他赞同罗马和希腊的古典观点。生活是一场悲剧,其永恒的力量总是处于平衡状态。他的古典散文风格旨在将唯一可能的秩序强加于生存的困境 —— 文学的和谐。因此,平等改善了大多数人的生活;但平庸是我们必须为之付出的代价。在某些方面的自由是通过丧失其他方面的自由才获得的。托克维尔持有古典的平衡思想。任何方向的过度都会导致相应的反应。在一个乐观主义的时代,托克维尔的保守主义使他能够撕下蒙蔽其同时代人眼睛的面纱。其他人都相信国家的强制力会逐渐消失,无论是像圣西蒙和自由主义者所相信的那样立即发生,还是像马克思所预言的那样在革命的未来发生。进步的理念使得二十世纪政府的战争和暴政对这些人来说是不可想象的。
54 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism men; Tocqueville's more timeless viewpoint on the dangers of power, however, has kept him contemporary and relevant. Tocqueville was virtually the last of the old school of gentleman-intellectuals. This sort of person was not a professor or a commercial writer, but a man of some wealth who owned a well-stocked library, wrote beautiful letters to his friends, and devoted his leisure to composing treatises and essays on philosophy, history, and everything else, to be circulated to his correspondents and sometimes published upon wider request. Some of these men dabbled in science—Darwin was to be perhaps the last of these—before the era of large university and government laboratories. It was a role existing only in aristocratic society and comprised only a very small section of the aristocracy. All in all, it was the best excuse that class had for its existence. Tocqueville himself was on the margin of the French aristocracy— the petite noblesse. His father was a government official, a prefect (governor) in various parts of France. His parents were almost executed in the Revolution; they were saved only by the Thermidorian reaction—the anti- revolutionary shift of 1793—that sent Robespierre himself to the guillotine. Other relatives of Tocqueville did not escape. Tocqueville studied law and took up a career as a lawyer—that is, as a salaried official of the royal court system. In 1830 riots in Paris led to the abdication of Charles X. When the dust had settled, the throne was still there but was occupied by Charles's cousin, Louis Philippe, of the rival house of Orleans. The Orleanists had been scheming for the throne for hundreds of years and at last achieved their aim by an alliance with the constitutionalists. (The alliance was to survive only eighteen years.) Tocqueville was forced to take an oath of loyalty to the new regime. But as a legitimist, he was opposed to this bastard monarchy, and his views caused much friction with his superiors. The recurrence of revolution convinced Tocqueville that there was an inevitable trend toward equality and the destruction of aristocratic society, but that France was going about achieving it in the wrong way. He hit on a plan: a leave of absence and a commission to go to America to study penal reform, currently a topic of interest in France. His real reasons for wanting to go were to escape from an impossible situation for himself personally and to see what lessons could be learned for the future of France. He left in 1831 for nine months iof travel in America. Out of the trip came his monumental work Democracy in America. Tocqueville liked America, even though its surface was unappealing to an aristocrat. It was the land of "mob rule," where politics consisted of demagogic bombast and the maneuvers of politicians to stay in office and dispense patronage to their followers; where business dealings were incessant and all pervasive; where high culture and refined manners hardly existed; where the laws were in the hands of the people, and individuals shot each other down in the streets of the western territories. In other words, it was an America like that of today, only cruder, tougher, and above all,
54 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism men);然而,托克维尔关于权力危险的更永恒的观点,使他保持了当代性和相关性。托克维尔实际上是旧派绅士知识分子中的最后一位。这种人不是教授或商业作家,而是有一定财富的人,他拥有一个藏书丰富的图书馆,给朋友写漂亮的信,把闲暇时间用于撰写关于哲学、历史和其他一切的论文和文章,分发给他的通讯员,有时应更广泛的要求出版。在大型大学和政府实验室的时代到来之前,这些人中的一些人涉足科学领域 —— 达尔文也许是其中最后一个。这是一个只存在于贵族社会的角色,而且只包括贵族中的一小部分人。总而言之,这是该阶层存在的最好借口。托克维尔本人就处于法国贵族阶层的边缘 —— 小贵族阶层。他的父亲是一名政府官员,是法国各地的省长(总督)。他的父母在大革命中几乎被处死;他们只是被 1793 年的反革命运动 —— 罗伯斯庇尔本人送上了断头台 —— 所拯救。托克维尔的其他亲属也没有逃脱。托克维尔学习了法律,并从事了律师职业 —— 也就是皇家法院系统的受薪官员。1830 年,巴黎的暴乱导致查理十世退位。当尘埃落定时,王位仍在,但被查理的表弟、奥尔良家族的路易·菲利普占据。几百年来,奥尔良人一直在谋求王位,最后通过与立宪派结盟实现了他们的目标。(这个联盟只维持了 18 年。)托克维尔被迫宣誓效忠新政权。但作为一个合法主义者,他反对这个私生子君主制,他的观点与他的上级产生了很多摩擦。革命的一再发生使托克维尔确信,平等和破坏贵族社会是一个不可避免的趋势,但法国实现这一目标的方式是错误的。他想到了一个计划:请假并受命前往美国研究刑法改革,这是法国目前感兴趣的一个话题。他想去的真正原因是为了摆脱对他个人来说不可能的处境,并看看可以为法国的未来吸取什么教训。他于 1831 年离开,在美国旅行了九个月。在这次旅行中,他写下了《美国的民主》这一巨著。托克维尔喜欢美国,尽管它的表面对一个贵族来说并不吸引人。这是一片 “暴民统治” 的土地,政治包括蛊惑人心的狂轰滥炸,以及政客们为保住官位和向其追随者发放赞助而进行的演习;商业交易无休无止,无孔不入;高级文化和高雅礼仪几乎不存在;法律掌握在人民手中,个人在西部地区的街道上互相射击。换句话说,这是一个像今天这样的美国,只是更粗鲁、更强硬,而且更重要。
The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 55 more puritanical. "I thought that the English constituted the most serious nation on the face of the earth, but I have since seen the Americans and changed my opinion," said Tocqueville. "An American, instead of going in a leisure hour to dance merrily at some place of public resort, as the fellows of his class continue to do throughout the greater part of Europe, shuts himself up at home to drink. He thus enjoys two pleasures: he can go on thinking of his business and can get drunk decently by his own fireside."1 Tocqueville liked this. He himself was rather serious, hardworking, devoutly religious, and prudish, and he admired the Americans for these same qualities. Beneath the surface he saw the Americans as like his beloved Romans—people who believed in laws and used them to rule themselves; who participated actively in public affairs; who showed patriotism, religiousness, and the discipline of moral self-control. Tocqueville romanticizes America a bit, especially in failing to see that the American democracy he describes was run by the middle class and not by the poor. Given these reservations, his analysis of America continues to be sound. EQUALITY IN AMERICA The basic premise of Tocqueville's system is the inevitable advance of equality, which Tocqueville took to be so characteristic of modernity as to be a sign of God's will. Equality (which Tocqueville uses interchangeably with the term "democracy") is contrasted with aristocracy, as the other great form of society. Equality means the free mobility of individuals; aristocracy means that positions are hereditary from birth. Equality means the extension of the political franchise from the few to the many. It means the end of legal differences in status, of noble ranks and titles with their attendant privileges, and of primogeniture within the family (by which the eldest son inherits all the wealth). In short, equality means an end of deference based on immutable differences between different ranks of society. Along with this, Tocqueville believed that people were becoming more equal in wealth, education, and culture. In an effort to be balanced, Tocqueville tried to present both the good and the bad effects of the advance of equality, based on his observations of daily life in America. He pointed out that with the end of dominance by inheritable property and of primogeniture, equality had spread to the relations between fathers and sons and among brothers. The result was a decline in the old authority of the family. But the family did not fall apart, as the conservatives had predicted; the artificial bonds of property were replaced by stronger bonds of personal sentiment. As family members were no longer controlled by each other, they were able to like each other more. The same sort of freedom applied to unmarried women. Since they were no 'Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), p. 232. Copyright Alfred A.Knopf, Inc.
最后的绅士》。托克维尔(Alexis de Tocqueville)55 岁,更加清教徒。“托克维尔说:” 我以为英国人是地球上最严肃的民族,但我看到美国人后,改变了我的看法。“一个美国人在闲暇的时候,并不像他那个阶层的人在欧洲大部分地区继续做的那样,去某个公共场所快乐地跳舞,而是把自己关在家里喝酒。这样他就享受到了两种乐趣:他可以继续思考自己的事情,也可以在自己的炉边体面地喝酒。”1 托克维尔喜欢这样。他本人相当严肃、勤奋、虔诚的宗教信仰和谨慎的态度,他欣赏美国人的这些品质。在表面之下,他认为美国人就像他心爱的罗马人一样 —— 他们相信法律并利用法律来统治自己;他们积极参与公共事务;他们表现出爱国主义、宗教性和道德自律。托克维尔有点浪漫化美国,特别是没有看到他描述的美国民主是由中产阶级而不是由穷人管理的。鉴于这些保留意见,他对美国的分析仍然是正确的。美国的平等 托克维尔体系的基本前提是平等的不可避免的进步,托克维尔认为这是现代性的特征,是上帝意志的标志。平等(托克维尔与 “民主” 一词交替使用)与贵族制形成对比,后者是社会的另一种伟大形式。平等意味着个人的自由流动;贵族制则意味着职位从出生起就是世袭的。平等意味着政治选举权从少数人扩展到多数人。它意味着结束法律上的地位差异,结束贵族等级和头衔及其附带的特权,以及家庭内部的长子继承制(长子继承所有财富)。简而言之,平等意味着基于社会不同等级之间不可改变的差异的尊重的结束。随之而来的是,托克维尔认为人们在财富、教育和文化方面正变得更加平等。为了保持平衡,托克维尔根据他对美国日常生活的观察,试图介绍平等进步的好的和坏的影响。他指出,随着可继承财产和长子继承制的结束,平等已经扩展到父子之间和兄弟之间的关系。其结果是家庭的旧有权威下降。但家庭并没有像保守派所预测的那样分崩离析;人为的财产纽带被更强大的个人情感纽带所取代。由于家庭成员不再受对方控制,他们能够更加喜欢对方。同样的自由也适用于未婚妇女。因为她们没有 "亚历克西斯·托克维尔,《美国的民主》,第二卷(纽约:Alfred A·Knopf,1945),第 232 页。Copyright Alfred A·Knopf, Inc.
56 The Vicissitudes of Niniteenth-Century Rationalism longer bartered by their parents for family connections, they were free to choose their own partners by falling in love. The result, Tocqueville shrewdly remarks, is that such marriages have much less infidelity than the aristocratic marriages of convenience, which make no claim on the feelings of the partners. In the same vein Tocqueville remarks on the effects of equality on manners. The Americans are not great conversationalists who use talk as a display of rank, but rather talk plainly and openly without signs of deference. The British, he says, are caught in between the clear rankings of the French aristocracy and the equality of America, and the famous British standoffish- ness is the result. They still retain the aristocratic belief that people of rank should be given the proper deference, but equality has progressed enough so that it is hard to tell just what deference people are entitled to. The solution is to avoid speaking to people unless they are properly introduced. Tocqueville found that equality also changed the relationship between employer and employee. Instead of a relationship between a proud master and submissive servants, it becomes a simple contract between individuals in which one bargains for a limited portion of the other's labor. One does not sell one's whole self, but only a part. The old loyalties to one's superior disappear, but they are replaced by new ideals, shared by all. In the field of politics, the prevailing sentiment is nationalism. In the field of personal virtues, the old military "honor" that had to be defended by fighting duels is replaced by the business virtues of hard work, reliability, and thrift. Modern society is thus not without honor; it is only that the honor appropriate to a time of armed self-defense is changed into the honor necessary in a time of commerce and industry. Most impressive of all, Tocqueville thought, was the extension of personal sympathy in egalitarian society. He quotes a letter written by an aristocratic Frenchwoman of the seventeenth century, in which she blithely mingles descriptions of the fine weather with news about the tortures that were imposed on the local peasants who were revolting against a new tax. This lady was not an unkind person, Tocqueville explains; her letters show that she was full of kindness to her relatives and friends. It is merely that the range of sympathy extended only to those who were equals, and she could not imagine herself in the place of the peasants. In America, on the contrary, Tocqueville found a surprising display of charities of all kinds, as well as of good samariianism among perfect strangers. For the same reason, tortures disappear as a means of punishment in modern society and there is a shift toward rehabilitation and general leniency toward criminals. This sympathetic attitude is not inherent in the culture of the Americans, Tocqueville argues, but is rather a product of egalitarianism. To prove it, he points to the inability of the white Americans to sympathize with the plight of the Negro slaves, whom they do not regard as equals: It is the limits of equality, and not the cultural outlook, that set the limits of sympathy. Tocqueville's principle is still illuminating today. It helps explain why Americans often aid each other in accidents on the street, whereas Asians or
56 第九世纪理性主义的变迁 不再由父母以家庭关系作为交换条件,他们可以通过恋爱自由选择自己的伴侣。托克维尔精明地指出,其结果是,这种婚姻比贵族式的便利婚姻更少出轨,因为后者不要求伴侣的感情。同样,托克维尔还谈到了平等对礼仪的影响。美国人并不是把谈话作为等级展示的伟大谈话家,而是平淡而公开地谈话,没有敬畏的迹象。他说,英国人被夹在法国贵族的明确等级和美国的平等之间,著名的英国式僵持就是这种结果。他们仍然保留着贵族式的信念,认为有地位的人应该得到适当的尊重,但平等已经取得了足够的进展,以至于很难说人们有权得到什么样的尊重。解决办法是避免与人说话,除非他们被适当介绍。托克维尔发现,平等也改变了雇主和雇员之间的关系。它不再是一个骄傲的主人和顺从的仆人之间的关系,而是变成了个人之间的简单合同,其中一个人为另一个人的有限劳动部分讨价还价。一个人并不出卖自己的全部,而只是出卖一部分。以前对上级的忠诚消失了,但它们被新的理想所取代,为所有人所共享。在政治领域,普遍的情绪是民族主义。在个人美德领域,必须通过决斗来捍卫的旧军事 “荣誉” 被勤劳、可靠和节俭的商业美德所取代。因此,现代社会并非没有荣誉;只是适合武装自卫时代的荣誉被改变为工商业时代所需的荣誉。托克维尔认为,最令人印象深刻的是平等主义社会中个人同情心的延伸。他引用了十七世纪一位法国贵族妇女写的一封信,在信中,她轻描淡写地将对美好天气的描述与当地农民因反抗新税而受到的折磨的消息混为一谈。托克维尔解释说,这位女士并不是一个不友善的人;她的信件显示,她对她的亲戚和朋友充满了善意。只是同情的范围只延伸到那些平等的人,而她无法想象自己能站在农民的位置上。相反,在美国,托克维尔发现各种慈善活动以及完全陌生的人之间的善意表现令人吃惊。出于同样的原因,在现代社会中,酷刑作为一种惩罚手段消失了,而且转向了改造和对罪犯的普遍宽大。托克维尔认为,这种同情的态度不是美国人文化中固有的,而是平等主义的产物。为了证明这一点,他指出美国白人无法同情黑奴的困境,他们不把黑奴视为平等的人。是平等的限度,而不是文化观,决定了同情的限度。托克维尔的原则今天仍然具有启发性。它有助于解释为什么美国人在街上发生事故时经常互相帮助,而亚洲人或
The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 57 Latin Americans are more likely to be indifferent to what happens to strangers in public. On the negative side, Tocqueville noted the pervasive commercialism of American life. Equality, he felt, leads to ceaseless striving for social position. Where all are basically the same, it is debilitating to fall behind. Accordingly, everyone seeks to get rich quick. Tocqueville observantly points out that even though most Americans at that time were farmers, they were not farmers in the European sense. They did not grow food merely to live on, but rather, they developed land for profit. Indeed, much of the land was scarcely cultivated, but was bought and sold for speculation in land prices. Thus, even in 1830 the American farmer was less the virtuous rural citizen he always makes himself out to be and more the speculative businessman. All this has a negative effect on culture. Business emphasizes practicality, not abstract truth or aesthetic style. As a result, Tocqueville argued, Americans become hazy and bombastic whenever they are forced to speak of any general ideas, for outside of the range of specific practical matters their minds have developed no refinements or distinctions. Culture in America thus is neither very high nor very low; everyone is well versed enough to get along, but there is no incentive or opportunity to stand out. Lacking the European aristocratic tradition in intellectual endeavor, America remains a land of comfortable mediocrity. Also on the negative side, Tocqueville finds that the continual business dealings of America add up to a general monotony. The novelty of events stays on the same plane, and nothing rises above it. He found in America the general traits of conformity over a century before David Riesman and others popularized the idea. "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America," Tocqueville declared. He saw Americans' individualism as confined to economic competition and as entirely lacking in the world of ideas. "We must understand what is wanted of society and its government," says Tocqueville. . . . If a clear understanding be more profitable to man than genius; if your object is not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but the habits of peace; if you had rather witness vices than crimes, and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided offenses be diminished in the same proportion; if, instead of living in the midst of a brilliant society, you are contented to have prosperity around you; if, in short, you are of the opinion that the principal object of a government is not to confer the greatest possible power and glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensure the greatest enjoyment and to avoid the most misery to each of the individuals who compose it—if such be your desire, then equalize the conditions of men and establish democratic institutions.2 But in fact, says Tocqueville, we have no choice. We will have equality whether we want it or not, and if its social consequences are neither very 2Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 262.
最后的绅士》。Alexis de Tocqueville 57 拉丁美洲人更可能对陌生人在公共场合发生的事情漠不关心。在消极方面,托克维尔注意到美国生活中普遍存在的商业主义。他认为,平等导致了对社会地位的无休止的争夺。在所有人都基本相同的情况下,落后于人是令人沮丧的。因此,每个人都在寻求快速致富。托克维尔观察到,尽管当时大多数美国人是农民,但他们并不是欧洲意义上的农民。他们不是仅仅为了生活而种植粮食,而是为了盈利而开发土地。事实上,许多土地几乎没有被耕种,而是为了投机土地价格而被购买和出售。因此,即使在 1830 年,美国农民也不像他总是说的那样是一个有德行的农村公民,而更像是一个投机的商人。所有这些都对文化产生了负面影响。商业强调的是实用性,而不是抽象的真理或审美风格。因此,托克维尔认为,每当美国人被迫谈论任何一般的想法时,他们就会变得朦胧和夸夸其谈,因为在具体的实际事务范围之外,他们的头脑没有发展出任何细化或区别。因此,美国的文化既不是很高也不是很低;每个人都很精通,足以相处,但没有激励或机会让他们脱颖而出。由于缺乏欧洲贵族在智力方面的传统,美国仍然是一片舒适平庸的土地。在消极方面,托克维尔还发现,美国持续不断的商业交易造成了普遍的单调性。事件的新颖性停留在同一平面上,没有任何东西能超越它。在大卫·里斯曼和其他人普及这一观点之前的一个多世纪,他就在美国发现了普遍的一致性特征。“托克维尔宣称:” 我不知道有哪个国家像美国这样没有思想独立和真正的讨论自由。他认为美国人的个人主义只限于经济竞争,而在思想世界中完全缺乏。“托克维尔说:” 我们必须了解对社会及其政府的要求是什么。. . . 如果清晰的理解比天才更有益于人类;如果你的目标不是激发英雄主义的美德,而是和平的习惯;如果你宁愿目睹恶行而不是罪行,并且满足于较少的高尚行为,只要罪行以同样的比例减少;如果你不是生活在一个辉煌的社会中,而是满足于你周围的繁荣。简而言之,如果你认为政府的主要目标不是将最大的权力和荣耀赋予国家的主体,而是确保组成政府的每个人都能享受最大的乐趣,避免最大的痛苦 —— 如果这是你的愿望,那么就使人们的条件平等,建立民主制度。2 但事实上,托克维尔说,我们没有选择。无论我们是否愿意,我们都会拥有平等,如果它的社会后果不是很 2Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 262.
58 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism bad nor very good, the political possibilities it opens up are momentous. It is with these possibilities that Tocqueville is primarily concerned. Equality is not the same thing as freedom, he is quick to point out. It can result either in an excellent form of self-government or in anarchy and its concomitant danger, tyranny. As examples of the latter Tocqueville had in mind the bread-and-circus mobs of Rome preceding the Caesars' overthrow of the Roman Republic or the crowds at the guillotine in the Reign of Terror that prepared the ground for Napoleon's coup d'etat in France. The events of 1830 in France again followed that pattern. The question is, why does equality sometimes lead to one, sometimes to the other of the results? The United States (along with Britain) is Tocqueville's model of a good government based on equality; France is his example of its bad effects. He did not think of the United States as perfect, however. He objected to the electioneering, the office seeking, the patronage game, the personal attacks in the public press. Bui these are the inevitable side effects of egalitarian self-government. Despite them, the United States is favored by three kinds of conditions: the structure of its government, geographical and historical accidents, and the culture of its people. i Government Structure Tocqueville found the main virtue of American political institutions to be their decentralization. He was impressed with the degree of local autonomy given to towns and counties in administering local matters such as roads, charities, schools, and taxes. By contrast, all such things in France were handled by a central bureaucracy in Paris. For the same reason, he admired the federal system, which gave the national government the powers necessary to control the currency, wars and foreign affairs, and national commerce, but which left all other matters to the states. He thought the principle exact: The national government should have full powers to take care of things affecting the nation as a whole, but not the power to intervene in what affected only a part of the country. The effect of this system, Tocqueville believed, was to make Americans public-spirited. Tocqueville felt that the natural effect of equality was to make people individualistic and selfish, since they would be busy competing in business and thus uninterested in the affairs of the larger community. But decentralized institutions counteracted this, for they tied individual self-interest to public^spiritedness. If Americans wanted to get anything done, they could not rely on a government agency to do it for them; they would have to initiate the action themselves. Where cooperation was necessary, they would have to drum up support among their fellows, take part in local government, and contribute their own efforts to getting it done. The individual who wanted a road or a canal for his or her own use, then, would have to come up with a project that would appeal to others' interests as well. Thus, a decentralized government makes its citizens energetic, industrious, and prosperous; by contrast, the tone of a centralized autocracy is one of lifeless quiet, j
58 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》既不是很好,也不是很坏,它所带来的政治可能性是巨大的。托克维尔主要关注的就是这些可能性。他迅速指出,平等与自由不是一回事。它既可能导致优秀的自治形式,也可能导致无政府状态及其伴随的危险 —— 暴政。作为后者的例子,托克维尔想到的是凯撒推翻罗马共和国之前罗马的面包和马戏团暴徒,或是为拿破仑在法国发动政变做准备的恐怖统治时期的断头台前的人群。法国 1830 年的事件再次遵循了这种模式。问题是,为什么平等有时会导致其中一个结果,有时会导致另一个结果?美国(与英国一起)是托克维尔基于平等的良好政府的典范;法国是他关于其坏影响的例子。然而,他并不认为美国是完美的。他反对选举活动,反对谋求职位,反对赞助游戏,反对公共媒体中的人身攻击。裴这些都是平等主义自治的不可避免的副作用。尽管有这些,美国还是受到了三种条件的青睐:政府结构、地理和历史的偶然性以及人民的文化。i 政府结构 托克维尔发现美国政治机构的主要优点是分散。他对城镇和县在管理道路、慈善机构、学校和税收等地方事务方面给予地方自治的程度印象深刻。相比之下,法国的所有这些事情都由巴黎的中央官僚机构处理。出于同样的原因,他推崇联邦制,该制度赋予国家政府控制货币、战争和外交事务以及国家商业的必要权力,但将所有其他事务交给各州处理。他认为这个原则是准确的。国家政府应该有充分的权力来处理影响整个国家的事情,但没有权力干预只影响国家一部分的事情。托克维尔认为,这种制度的效果是使美国人具有公共精神。托克维尔认为,平等的自然效果是使人们变得个人主义和自私,因为他们会忙于商业竞争,从而对更大的社区事务不感兴趣。但分散的机构抵消了这一点,因为它们将个人的自我利益与公共利益联系在一起。如果美国人想完成任何事情,他们不能依靠政府机构为他们做这件事;他们必须自己发起行动。在需要合作的地方,他们必须在他们的同伴中争取支持,参加当地政府,并为完成任务贡献自己的力量。那么,想要为自己修建道路或运河的个人,就必须提出一个能够吸引他人利益的项目。因此,一个分权的政府使其公民充满活力、勤劳和繁荣;相比之下,一个中央集权的专制政府的基调是毫无生气的安静。
The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 59 Tocqueville also admired the way in which the authority that did exist was split up through its own internal balance of power. He liked the presidential and gubernatorial system that separated the executive from the direct influence of the legislature. Tocqueville, thinking of the radical shifts in mood in the French Assembly of the 1790s, considered direct control by the legislature (that is, the parliamentary form of government) unstable. It was liable to those moods in which the majority tries to impose its will by force on the rest of the country— "the tyranny of the majority." Tocqueville was particularly impressed with the powers of the American courts to pass on the legality of the acts of the legislature, as well as to provide remedies for aggrieved citizens, thus making democracy into a rule of laws rather than merely a rule of politicians. But given the power of the courts in America, Tocqueville thought it important that their power was itself split up and restrained. In France, he declared, such courts would be an instrument of tyranny, for there the government exercised complete control over the courts, just as over any government agency. In America the courts were made independent through the tenure of the judges once they were in office, and the judges' power was itself circumscribed by the separation of prosecution and defense attorneys from the court. (Recall that Tocqueville himself was a professional lawyer, employed by the bureaucratic French courts, and that his visit to America was prompted by his difficulty in working for a regime of which he disapproved.) He also thought the jury system useful in balancing the power of the judges, as well as in educating citizens to participation in the orderly rule of law. The effect of these balances was that the government could not be too strong or too precipitous in its actions, so that neither an emotional majority nor a would-be tyrant could easily enforce its will. Tocqueville was careful to point out that the United States was not a land of unlimited freedom where individuals could do whatever they pleased. Unlimited freedom, in Tocqueville's conservative view, was nothing but license for anarchy. On the contrary, he declared, "more social obligations were imposed on {the individual] there than anywhere else." America was full of agencies for group control over the individual, and Tocqueville cites with approval the New England ordinances that required citizens to go to church, prohibited drunkenness, and severely punished sexual improprieties. This great community power was restrained from creating a political tyranny, however, by being broken up through decentralization and balances of power, thereby making the government both less dangerous to the nation as a whole and more responsive to private interests. Tocqueville's observations on just what "freedom" means in America are pertinent today, as a struggle goes on between the rights of individuals and the public power to control individuals' morals. The "freedom" that is built into American political institutions is the freedom of local groups from unified central control, and there is very little built into the system to protect the individual from the tyranny of these groups. Tocqueville also devotes some attention to freedoms that he thinks are dangerous in themselves, but that serve to counterbalance other dangers of the system. Tocqueville regarded freedom of the press and freedom of as-
最后的绅士》。Alexis de Tocqueville 59 Tocqueville 也很欣赏通过自身内部的权力平衡来分割确实存在的权力的方式。他喜欢总统制和州长制,将行政机关与立法机关的直接影响分开。托克维尔想到了 1790 年代法国议会中情绪的急剧变化,认为立法机构的直接控制(即议会制政府)是不稳定的。它很容易受到那些多数人试图通过武力将其意志强加给国家其他成员的情绪的影响 —— “多数人的暴政”。托克维尔对美国法院对立法机构行为的合法性进行裁决的权力印象特别深刻,并为受害的公民提供补救措施,从而使民主成为法律的规则,而不仅仅是政治家的规则。但是,鉴于美国法院的权力,托克维尔认为重要的是,法院的权力本身应被分割并受到限制。他宣称,在法国,这种法院将成为暴政的工具,因为在那里,政府对法院实行完全的控制,就像对任何政府机构一样。在美国,一旦法官上任,法院就会变得独立,而法官的权力本身也因控方和辩方律师与法院的分离而受到限制。(记得托克维尔本人是一名职业律师,受雇于官僚主义的法国法院,他对美国的访问是由于他难以为一个他不赞成的政权工作而引起的)。他还认为陪审团制度有助于平衡法官的权力,也有助于教育公民参与有序的法治。这些平衡的效果是,政府的行动不能太强势,也不能太草率,这样一来,无论是情绪化的多数人还是可能的暴君都不能轻易执行其意志。托克维尔小心翼翼地指出,美国并不是一个个人可以为所欲为的无限自由之地。在托克维尔的保守观点中,无限的自由不过是对无政府主义的许可。相反,他宣称,“在那里,强加给{个人}的社会义务比其他任何地方都多”。美国充满了集体控制个人的机构,托克维尔赞许地引用了新英格兰的条例,这些条例要求公民去教堂,禁止酗酒,并严惩性方面的不当行为。然而,这种巨大的社区力量通过权力下放和权力平衡而被分解,从而使政府对整个国家的危险性降低,并对私人利益作出更多回应,从而避免了政治暴政的产生。托克维尔对 “自由” 在美国意味着什么的看法在今天是很贴切的,因为个人的权利和控制个人道德的公共权力之间的斗争正在进行。美国政治体制中的 “自由” 是地方团体不受统一的中央控制的自由,而体制中几乎没有保护个人不受这些团体暴政影响的内容。托克维尔还对他认为本身就很危险的自由给予了一定的关注,但这些自由的作用是抵消制度的其他危险性。托克维尔认为,新闻自由和作为的自由是最重要的。
60 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism sembly as invitations to (spread slander and extremist opinions and to form conspiracies to overthrow the government. This, at any rate, he believed to be the case in France. But in a country like the United States, where power was too decentralized to be easily swayed or overthrown by mass agitation, he believed these freedoms provided a necessary corrective to the other ills of the system. If elected politicians tended to be self-seeking and corrupt, the press could keep them in check by threat of exposure, and political parties created the competition that would publicize their failures in order to try to replace them in office. Finally, Tocqueville remarked on the beneficial effects of the separation of church and state in i America. Again his contrast is France, where the state-supported church made religion a bone of material contention. Religion was caught up in defending a particular political regime and hence added another source of political controversy. Political opponents of the regime became irreligious, and contending religions were driven into political opposition. The lack of a state church in America, then, strengthened rather than weakened both state and church. i Geographical and Historical Accidents These political structures were the main features of stable self-government in America, but there were other contributing factors. For example, the United States grew up in the virtually empty continent of North America, with plenty of land for expansion and wide oceans between it and the warring powers of Europe. The result was that America had little fear of wars and no need to maintain a large standing army. This was important, for wars are the great centralizer. In wartime the central government assumes great powers over the nation, not only over local governments, but over the citizens themselves. The entire apparatus of government is directed toward providing the materials of war: People are conscripted, taxes are high, the economy is regulated. America was spared all this because it was protected by its geography rather than its army. Tocqueville was correspondingly pessimistic about the prospects for American-style decentralization in Europe, where the threat of warfare from neighboring states necessitated constant preparation by central governments. Another accidental feature favoring stable democracy in America was the general equality of wealth. Accordingly, there were no overwhelmingly great differences among the people and no strong basis for revolutionary conflict. (The one exception, Tocqueville noted, was the existence of slaves, whose unequal condition provided the most explosive feature of American society.) Tocqueville thought it especially important that equality existed in America before the democratic government was established. By contrast, in France, where a war had to be fought against the aristocracy in order to create equality, the Revolution aided the process of centralization. The local institutions had been in the hands of the aristocrats, and hence the Revolution took away local autonomy in order to wrest control from the aristocracy; in doing so, it destroyed the decentralized bases of freedom.
60 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)被认为是对(传播诽谤和极端主义观点,并形成推翻政府的阴谋的邀请。不管怎么说,他认为法国的情况就是这样。但在美国这样的国家,权力过于分散,不容易被群众的煽动所动摇或推翻,他认为这些自由对制度的其他弊病提供了必要的纠正。如果当选的政治家倾向于自我追求和腐败,那么新闻界可以通过曝光的威胁来约束他们,而政党则创造了竞争,将他们的失败公之于众,以试图取代他们的地位。最后,托克维尔谈到了美国政教分离的有利影响。他的对比也是法国,在那里,国家支持的教会使宗教成为物质争夺的焦点。宗教被卷入了对某一特定政治制度的维护中,因此增加了政治争议的另一个来源。政权的政治反对者变得没有宗教信仰,而有争议的宗教则被赶到政治对立面。因此,美国没有国家教会,加强而不是削弱了国家和教会。i 地理和历史事故 这些政治结构是美国稳定的自治的主要特征,但还有其他的促成因素。例如,美国是在几乎空旷的北美大陆上成长起来的,有大量的土地可供扩张,在它和欧洲的交战国之间有宽阔的海洋。其结果是,美国对战争没有什么恐惧,也不需要维持一支庞大的常备军。这很重要,因为战争是伟大的中央集权者。在战时,中央政府对国家拥有巨大的权力,不仅是对地方政府,而且对公民本身。政府的整个机构都是为了提供战争的材料。人们被征召入伍,税收很高,经济受到管制。美国之所以能免于这一切,是因为它受到了地理环境而不是军队的保护。托克维尔对美国式的权力下放在欧洲的前景持相应的悲观态度,在欧洲,来自邻国的战争威胁使中央政府必须不断地进行准备。另一个有利于美国稳定民主的偶然特征是财富的普遍平等。因此,人民之间没有压倒性的巨大差异,也没有革命冲突的强大基础。(托克维尔指出,唯一的例外是奴隶的存在,他们的不平等状况是美国社会最具爆炸性的特征)。托克维尔认为,美国在建立民主政府之前就存在着平等,这一点特别重要。相比之下,在法国,为了创造平等,必须对贵族阶层进行战争,大革命帮助了中央集权的进程。地方机构一直掌握在贵族手中,因此,大革命剥夺了地方自治权,以便从贵族手中夺取控制权;这样做,它破坏了自由的分散基础。
The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 61 American Culture Democracy in America was also favored, in Tocqueville's view, by the unique social conditions of its people. They all spoke the same language, were mostly of the same Protestant religion, and had the same educational level of rough literacy. Again, here were few sharp distinctions, few bases for political conflict. Most important of all, he felt, was the strong hold of the Puritan religion. The church taught people discipline, moral order, and a belief in laws. Moreover, the Protestant churches in America were controlled by their congregations and hence provided a model of democratic self-government. All told, Tocqueville was inclined to view America as uniquely favored by its special characteristics to build equality into a stable form of democratic government, rather than to give in to its inherent dangers. In the abstract Tocqueville was more pessimistic. Egalitarian society was dangerous to freedom, he felt; his views on the subject have become known as the theory of mass society. The abolition of the aristocracy resulted in there being no one strong enough to resist the tyranny of the central government and its head, whether he be king or dictator. Moreover, the equality of conditions tended to eliminate all independent sources of power that might check unlimited control. Equality among citizens makes them emphasize uniformity; as noted above, no one is willing to stand out against the strength of public opinion. The natural tendency of the public is to demand that laws and rules apply to everyone, without exception; the public feels that it should be allowed to oversee everything, and hence the state takes on the potential for exercising total control over the individual. Since everyone is equal, no one individual has any power, and people must appeal to the only thing above the individual—the state—to do things. The state becomes the only ideal outside of the private person; the overwhelming demand for loyalty is to the nation. Thus, the individualism of a mass society of equals goes together with the total power of the state. As the private individual seeks his or her personal gain in business or other purely private affairs, political interests are reduced to a desire for tranquillity—a government that will maintain order so that one can pursue one's own affairs. The individual of mass society is willing to give great power to the centralized state and in the process loses the freedom to oppose it. The United States, in Tocqueville's view, had the uniquely favorable political structures, geographical circumstances, and customs to counteract these ill effects of equality. But France and most of the rest of Europe did not. On the Continent the governments were extremely centralized, controlling through their national bureaucracies not only armies, taxes, and public works, but charity and education, finance and workmen's savings, the regulation of manufacturing, and a large section of the public's employment. This centralization advanced irreversibly, through every revolution and restoration; there seemed to be no stopping it. Other conditions were unfavorable as well. France, Germany, and other European nations confronted each other across narrow boundaries and maintained their central govern-
最后的绅士》。托克维尔 61 美国文化 托克维尔认为,美国的民主还得益于其人民的独特社会条件。他们都说同样的语言,大多信奉同样的新教,并具有同样的教育水平,即粗略的识字能力。同样,这里没有什么明显的区别,没有什么政治冲突的基础。他认为,最重要的是清教徒宗教的牢固地位。教会教导人们纪律、道德秩序和对法律的信仰。此外,美国的新教教会由其会众控制,因此提供了一个民主自治的模式。总而言之,托克维尔倾向于认为美国因其特殊性而独具优势,可以将平等建设成一个稳定的民主政府形式,而不是向其固有的危险屈服。抽象地讲,托克维尔更加悲观。他认为,平等主义社会对自由是危险的;他对这个问题的看法已被称为大众社会理论。废除贵族制度的结果是,没有人有足够的力量来抵抗中央政府及其首脑的暴政,无论他是国王还是独裁者。此外,条件的平等倾向于消除所有可能制衡无限控制的独立权力来源。公民之间的平等使他们强调统一性;如上所述,没有人愿意站出来反对公众舆论的力量。公众的自然倾向是要求法律和规则毫无例外地适用于每个人;公众觉得应该让它监督一切,因此国家承担了对个人实行完全控制的潜力。由于每个人都是平等的,没有一个人有任何权力,人们必须求助于唯一高于个人的东西 —— 国家来做事。国家成为个人之外的唯一理想;对忠诚度的压倒性要求是对国家的忠诚。因此,一个平等的大众社会的个人主义与国家的总权力相伴而生。由于私人在商业或其他纯粹的私人事务中寻求个人利益,政治利益被简化为对安宁的渴望 —— 一个能够维持秩序的政府,以便人们能够追求自己的事务。大众社会的个人愿意把巨大的权力交给中央集权的国家,并在这个过程中失去了反对它的自由。在托克维尔看来,美国拥有独特的有利的政治结构、地理环境和习俗,可以抵消平等的这些不良影响。但法国和欧洲其他大部分国家却没有。在欧洲大陆,政府是极其集中的,通过其国家官僚机构不仅控制军队、税收和公共工程,而且控制慈善和教育、金融和工人储蓄、制造业的监管以及大部分公众的就业。这种中央集权在每一次革命和复辟中都不可逆转地推进;似乎没有什么可以阻止它。其他条件也是不利的。法国、德国和其他欧洲国家在狭窄的边界内相互对峙,并维持着它们的中央统治。
62 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism merits to support a great war machine. Nor were the cultures of the people favorable to peaceful democracy: Great inequalities in wealth still existed, as did sharp cultural distinctions, religious conflicts, and a widespread absence of any religious faith at all. The prognosis for America was that there would be no more revolutions; only the unequal condition of the blacks, Tocqueville felt, could have that potential. For France and for the rest of Europe he feared more of the cycle of revolution and reaction. Democracy in America proved very successful after its publication in 1835 (a second part came out in 1840). Of all the many visitors' accounts of America, Tocqueville's was by far the most famous. It's success was due partly to the fact that it said what people wanted to hear. Thus, it was most popular in England and America, whose institutions were praised, and least popular in France, which did not come off so well. The book contains a very powerful theory of political institutions. Its main weakness is that it makes the United States seem a more perfect democracy than it really was, or is. From his aristocratic viewpoint, Tocqueville mistook middle-class Americans for poor people and hence concluded that the poor people in America were really fairly well off and, in any case, ruled the country. He saw more equality than really existed; in fact, there were poor people in the 1830s, just as now, but they were characteristically invisible, living in the remote parts of town and countryside. This defect does not vitiate Tocqueville's insights, but it adds a new dimension to them. Indeed, it points us directly at the central dilemma of modern America: Democracy can operate and be very strongly entrenched and yet not serve all the people. As in Tocqueville's day, middle-class businessmen participate in local politics, but the poor are generally unable to do so. There is democratic bargaining for power, and in the process a middle-class majority is well enough served; in a country where the middle class is a majority, a democracy can easily ignore the poor. This is implicit in Tocqueville's analysis, for he saw that democracy could operate among the white majority even while excluding the black slaves. Tocqueville, the man of classical philosophy, would no doubt be willing to recognize his error and let his analysis stand even in that light. He would probably feel (as apparently do many people today) that a democracy of the middle class is better than no democracy at all and would consider the political exclusion of the poor as an unfortunate by-product, but a price one should be willing to pay for what freedom there is. As a conservative he would be unwilling to upset the balance of power in democracy as it stands in order to extend equality to the poor. That, in his terms, would be paying for equality at the price of freedom. There is another side of Tocqueville, one that is generally ignored by his admirers and intellectual descendants. He has somber words on the subject of war as creating centralized power and thereby reducing the bases of freedom. For twentieth-century America, modern transportation and communications have ended geographical isolation, and World War II and its aftermath have created just the military megalith that Tocqueville predicted. Moreover, Tocqueville had some wise words on the tendency of military of-
62 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism merits)支持一个伟大的战争机器。人民的文化也不利于和平民主。财富上的巨大不平等仍然存在,文化上的差异也很明显,宗教冲突,以及普遍缺乏任何宗教信仰。对美国的预言是,不会再有革命;托克维尔认为,只有黑人的不平等状况才有可能发生革命。对于法国和欧洲其他国家,他担心的是革命和反动的循环。美国的民主》在 1835 年出版后证明非常成功(第二部分在 1840 年出版)。在所有许多来访者对美国的描述中,托克维尔的描述是迄今为止最著名的。它的成功部分是由于它说的是人们想听的话。因此,它在英国和美国最受欢迎,因为它们的制度受到赞扬,而在法国最不受欢迎,因为法国的情况并不理想。这本书包含了一个非常强大的政治体制理论。它的主要弱点是,它使美国看起来是一个比过去或现在更完美的民主国家。从他的贵族观点来看,托克维尔把美国中产阶级误认为是穷人,因此得出结论,美国的穷人确实相当富裕,而且无论如何,他们统治着这个国家。他看到的平等比实际存在的要多;事实上,19 世纪 30 年代也有穷人,就像现在一样,但他们的特点是看不见,生活在城市和乡村的偏远地区。这一缺陷并不影响托克维尔的洞察力,但它为其增加了一个新的维度。事实上,它直接指出了现代美国的核心困境。民主可以运作,可以非常稳固,但却不能为所有人民服务。就像托克维尔时代一样,中产阶级商人参与地方政治,但穷人通常无法这样做。有民主的权力讨价还价,在这个过程中,中产阶级的大多数得到了足够的服务;在一个中产阶级占多数的国家,民主制度可以很容易地忽视穷人。这在托克维尔的分析中是隐含的,因为他看到民主可以在白人多数中运作,甚至可以排除黑人奴隶。托克维尔,这个拥有古典哲学的人,无疑会愿意承认他的错误,并让他的分析甚至在这种情况下成立。他可能会觉得(显然就像今天的许多人一样),中产阶级的民主比没有民主好,并认为对穷人的政治排斥是一个不幸的副产品,但这是人们应该愿意为现有的自由付出的代价。作为一个保守派,他不愿意为了将平等扩大到穷人而破坏民主中的权力平衡。在他看来,这将是以自由为代价来换取平等。托克维尔还有另一面,一个通常被他的崇拜者和知识分子后代所忽视的一面。他在战争问题上说得很严肃,认为战争会产生集中的权力,从而减少自由的基础。对于二十世纪的美国来说,现代交通和通讯已经结束了地理上的孤立,而第二次世界大战及其后果恰恰创造了托克维尔所预言的军事巨石。此外,托克维尔对军事化的趋势也有一些明智的说法。
The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 63 ficers, who have a relatively low status in a business-oriented society, to seek wars in order to justify their existence and to give them chances of promotion. Another centralizing factor has also been operating, which Tocqueville missed: the growth of the business system to national and even international scale, which brings about central government regulation, especially in combating large-scale economic crises such as depressions. Such economic crises can have the same effects as wars in concentrating government powers, just as the growth of big business corporations has eliminated much of the individualism that Tocqueville found so much a part of the American scene. By the mid-twentieth century many of the bases of decentralization that Tocqueville thought important in upholding democracy in America had disappeared. Tocqueville's own career showed how right he was about the structure of politics in Europe. In 1839 he was elected a deputy in the French legislature, representing the district of Vologne, where his ancestral chateau stood. He was continually reelected until his retirement from politics in 1851. In parliament he led the fight to abolish slavery in the French colonies and interested himself in the French colonization of Algeria. In 1848 he made a speech to the Chamber, which concluded with the words: "I believe we are sleeping on a volcano." The date was January 27, about the same time that Marx and Engels were finishing the Communist Manifesto. On February 16 riots broke out in Paris, and another revolution was under way. Tocqueville was elected to the Constituent Assembly, which was called to form the Second Republic; he led the monarchist faction. In 1849 he was named minister of foreign affairs in the government of the new president, Louis Napoleon. Tocqueville lasted in office only five months. He came into conflict with his president, who was already preparing the coup d'etat that in 1851 was to destroy the Second Republic and usher in the ill-fated Second Empire of Napoleon III. France's pattern was becoming set: Third, Fourth, and Fifth republics were in the offing, as well as a short-lived Communist commune in Paris in 1871, a Fascist regime collaborating with the German occupation during World War II, a Communist-based World War II underground, an attempted army coup in 1958, and a student-led near-revolution in 1968. Tocqueville's foresight was already becoming apparent. After Napoleon's coup Tocqueville retired from government and attempted to search out the origins of France's calamities. The result was The Old Regime and the French Revolution, one of the greatest historical books ever written. Tocqueville broke new ground in several ways. Instead of relying on what other historians had said, Tocqueville went back to the files of provincial town halls for the original documents showing the operations of local government. He compared the development of institutions in France with the development of those in England, Germany, and elsewhere, in order to test his ideas against alternative sequences. The book is a model of good scholarship, scientific thinking, and beautiful style. Its results are still definitive.
最后的绅士》。托克维尔(Alexis de Tocqueville) 63 官员,在一个以商业为导向的社会中地位相对较低,为了证明他们的存在并使他们有晋升的机会而寻求战争。另一个集权因素也在运作,托克维尔忽略了这一点:商业体系发展到国家甚至国际规模,带来了中央政府的监管,特别是在打击大规模经济危机,如萧条。这种经济危机在集中政府权力方面会产生与战争相同的效果,正如大商业公司的发展消除了很多托克维尔发现的美国场景中的个人主义一样。到 20 世纪中期,托克维尔认为对维护美国民主很重要的许多权力下放的基础已经消失了。托克维尔自己的职业生涯表明,他对欧洲的政治结构是多么正确。1839 年,他被选为法国立法机构的议员,代表沃隆区,他的祖先的城堡就在那里。他不断获得连任,直到 1851 年从政界退休。在议会中,他领导了在法国殖民地废除奴隶制的斗争,并对法国在阿尔及利亚的殖民化感兴趣。1848 年,他在议院发表演讲,最后说到 “我相信我们正睡在一座火山上”。这一天是 1 月 27 日,大约是马克思和恩格斯完成《共产党宣言》的同一时间。2 月 16 日,巴黎爆发了暴乱,另一场革命正在进行中。托克维尔被选入制宪会议,该会议被要求组建第二共和国;他领导君主主义派别。1849 年,他被任命为新总统路易·拿破仑政府的外交部长。托克维尔在任仅 5 个月。他与他的总统发生了冲突,后者已经在为 1851 年的政变做准备,这次政变摧毁了第二共和国,并迎来了拿破仑三世命运多舛的第二帝国。法国的模式正在形成。第三、第四和第五共和国即将诞生,还有 1871 年在巴黎出现的短暂的共产主义公社,二战期间与德国占领区合作的法西斯政权,以共产党为基础的二战地下组织,1958 年的未遂军队政变,以及 1968 年学生领导的近乎革命的革命。托克维尔的先见之明已经逐渐显现。拿破仑政变后,托克维尔从政府中退休,试图寻找法国灾难的根源。其成果是《旧制度与法国大革命》,这是有史以来最伟大的历史著作之一。托克维尔在几个方面有了新的突破。托克维尔没有依赖其他历史学家的说法,而是回到了省级市政厅的档案中,寻找显示地方政府运作的原始文件。他将法国的机构发展与英国、德国和其他地方的机构发展进行了比较,以便用其他的序列来检验他的观点。该书是良好的学术研究、科学思维和优美风格的典范。其结果仍然是确定的。
64 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism It was not the Revolution that destroyed the decentralized institutions of France, Tocqueville found, contrary to what most conservatives held. Rather, it had been the French kings themselves. Back in the Middle Ages Tocqueville's class, the j aristocracy, had jealously guarded their independence from the king. Parliaments and independent courts had been created by coalitions of nobles as a balance of power to resist the control of the king. Such institutions had existed all over Europe, even in Russia and Spain. The kings counterattacked and managed to destroy the power of the aristocrats by creating a royal bureaucracy, into which the courts were incorporated as subordinate agencies. The aristocrats were made royal officials, and their representative institutions were reduced to virtually nothing. This process went furthest in Russia and the East and least far in England. In England, in fact, the courts and lawyers remained almost totally independent, and parliament won the final struggle with the king in the seventeenth-century revolution led by Oliver Cromwell. In France the struggle went on the longest. There the king built a mighty bureaucracy, but the aristocracy still held many powers, and the showdown did not come until the end of the eighteenth century, when a new commercial era had accentuated the trend to equality and created the massed population of Paris that would prove so important in French politics. The inefficiency of the French regime, balanced between an autocratic king and a parasitic aristocracy, led to the government financial crisis of 1789. In the temporary government deadlock the floodgates broke, and the masses attacked. The spirit of equality had been unleashed by the leveling bureaucracy and the growth of commerce, and the aristocrats who lived on with their old privileges but without their old powers and functions were to feel the vent of its fury. In the end the main effect of the Revolution was to strengthen and streamline the central government, something that could not be done as long as the aristocrats stood in the way. The Revolution merely consolidated the structure the kings had labored to create. This account sharpens the irony of America in world perspective. The United States has the jmost protection against the instabilities of modern mass society because it derives its institutions—especially its decentralized courts and local governments—from the early period of British history. The colonists of the seventeenth century who founded American society were from the conservative, minor aristocracy of England, and they brought with them the institutions of decentralized feudal control. America thus escaped even from what centralization the English kings had managed to carry out. The United States, far from epitomizing the new era of politics, has come to have one of the oldest government forms in the world. The United States', then, is not a hopeful model for the Third World, where, as if to follow Tocqueville's forebodings, revolutions destroy local autonomies in order to modernize and thus set the basis for total government control. For Europe Tocqueville's predictions have been only too true, as shown by the alternations of dictatorships and anarchical democracies in France, Germany, Italy, Greece, and elsewhere.
64 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 托克维尔发现,与大多数保守派的观点相反,摧毁法国分权机构的不是大革命。相反,是法国的国王们自己。早在中世纪,托克维尔所在的阶级,即贵族阶级,就一直嫉妒地保护着自己不受国王的影响。议会和独立的法院是由贵族联盟创建的,作为一种权力平衡来抵制国王的控制。这种机构在欧洲各地都存在,甚至在俄罗斯和西班牙也有。国王们进行了反击,并设法通过建立皇家官僚机构来摧毁贵族的权力,法院被纳入其中作为附属机构。贵族被任命为皇家官员,而他们的代表机构则被削弱到几乎没有。这个过程在俄国和东方走得最远,在英国走得最远。事实上,在英国,法院和律师几乎完全独立,议会在奥利弗·克伦威尔领导的十七世纪革命中赢得了与国王的最后斗争。在法国,这场斗争持续的时间最长。在那里,国王建立了一个强大的官僚机构,但贵族阶层仍然掌握着许多权力,直到 18 世纪末才摊牌,当时一个新的商业时代突出了平等的趋势,并创造了巴黎的大量人口,这将证明在法国政治中是如此重要。在专制的国王和寄生的贵族之间取得平衡的法国政权的低效率,导致了 1789 年的政府财政危机。在政府暂时的僵局中,洪水决堤,群众发动了攻击。平等的精神被平坦的官僚机构和商业的发展所释放出来,而那些带着旧的特权但没有旧的权力和职能的贵族们将感受到它的愤怒。最后,革命的主要效果是加强和精简中央政府,只要贵族阻挡,就无法做到这一点。革命只是巩固了国王们辛苦创建的结构。这一叙述使美国在世界范围内的讽刺性更加鲜明。美国拥有对现代大众社会不稳定因素的最大保护,因为它的制度 —— 特别是其分散的法院和地方政府 —— 来自于英国历史的早期阶段。十七世纪建立美国社会的殖民者来自英国保守的小贵族,他们带来了分散的封建控制制度。因此,美国甚至逃脱了英国国王设法进行的中央集权。美国远不是政治新时代的缩影,而是拥有世界上最古老的政府形式之一。那么,对于第三世界来说,美国并不是一个有希望的模式,在那里,似乎是为了遵循托克维尔的预言,革命摧毁了地方自治,以便实现现代化,从而为政府的全面控制奠定了基础。对于欧洲来说,托克维尔的预言是非常正确的,正如法国、德国、意大利、希腊和其他地方的独裁和无政府民主制度的交替所显示的那样。
The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Tocqueville 65 By 1815 the main outlines of the modern era had already emerged. Napoleon, the little corporal who brought in the army to stop the squabbling of politicians and restore order in France and then set out to conquer Europe for his system, foreshadows another little man with global ambitions, this time on the other side of the Rhine—Adolf Hitler. Tocqueville's private secretary in the foreign ministry of Louis Napoleon was an aristocrat named Arthur de Gobineau. In the period after Tocqueville's death Gobineau was to become famous for his scientific theory of history as the conflict between superior and inferior races. History thus provides us with yet another ironic link between the old and the new.
最后的绅士》。Alexis de Tocqueville 65 到 1815 年,现代的主要轮廓已经出现了。拿破仑这个小下士带着军队来阻止政客们的争吵,恢复法国的秩序,然后开始为他的体系征服欧洲,这预示着另一个有全球野心的小人物,这次是在莱茵河的另一边 —— 阿道夫·希特勒。托克维尔在路易·拿破仑外交部的私人秘书是一位名叫阿瑟·德·戈比诺的贵族。在托克维尔去世后,戈比诺因其关于历史是优等和劣等种族之间冲突的科学理论而闻名。因此,历史为我们提供了新旧之间的又一讽刺性联系。
CHAPTER FOUR Nietzsche's Madness Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was surely among the strangest of the social theorists. His intellectual journey too was one of the wildest, for he was the harbinger of the intellectual explosions that occurred in the twentieth century, and the explosiveness of his insights not only cracked the shell of contemporary nineteenth-century beliefs, but ended up destroying Nietzsche himself. There is an enormous creative happiness in Nietzsche's work. His overflowing energy came through in the twenty books he wrote before collapsing at the age of forty-four; and every page, almost every line, has an intensity that must have gripped the author to his pen the way it holds the reader in his or her chair. "It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book," declared Nietzsche, "—what everyone else does not say in a book." From modern depth psychology to existentialist philosophy; from modern poetry and literature to anthropology, sociology, religion, music, art, and culture; and in the tradition of revolt itself, Nietzsche has had an enormous impact. Some of this impact, such as the popularity of his ideas in the early Fascist movement, has seemed frightening, even though the interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas these forerunners of the Nazis made was virtually the opposite of what Nietzsche himself meant. Other parts of Nietzsche's work, especially concerning sociology and human freedom, are not yet fully unfolded. Max Weber said that one could judge the depth of one's intellectual seriousness by one's attitude toward Marx and Nietzsche. As yet only Weber and a few of his contemporaries have measured up to the challenge. The challenge still lies before us. NIETZSCHE'S LIFE Superficially, it would seem that Nietzsche had an uneventful, pampered childhood. His father,1 a Lutheran minister in eastern Germany, died when Friedrich was five, and Friedrich was brought up surrounded by adoring, puritanical females: his mother, sister, grandmother, and two maiden aunts. In this atmosphere of German Victorianism, Nietzsche received stern encouragement to work hard. He also acquired a deep-seated sexual inhibi- 66
第四章 尼采的疯狂 弗里德里希·尼采(1844-1900)无疑是最奇怪的社会理论家之一。他的思想之旅也是最疯狂的之一,因为他是二十世纪发生的思想爆炸的预兆,他的见解的爆炸性不仅敲碎了当代十九世纪信仰的外壳,而且最终摧毁了尼采本人。在尼采的作品中,有一种巨大的创造性幸福。他洋溢的能量在他四十四岁倒下之前写的二十本书中体现出来;每一页,几乎每一行,都有一种强度,一定是把作者抓在笔下,就像把读者抓在椅子上一样。尼采说:“我的志向是用十句话说出别人在书中所说的东西”,“别人在书中没有说的东西”。从现代深度心理学到存在主义哲学;从现代诗歌和文学到人类学、社会学、宗教、音乐、艺术和文化;以及在造反传统本身,尼采都产生了巨大的影响。这种影响中的一部分,例如他的思想在早期法西斯运动中的流行,似乎很可怕,尽管这些纳粹的先驱者对尼采的思想所作的解释几乎与尼采本人的意思相反。尼采作品的其他部分,特别是关于社会学和人类自由的部分,还没有完全展开。马克斯·韦伯说,人们可以通过对马克思和尼采的态度来判断一个人的知识分子的严肃性深度。到目前为止,只有韦伯和他同时代的少数人能够应对这一挑战。这个挑战仍然摆在我们面前。尼采的生活 从表面上看,尼采似乎有一个平淡无奇、受人宠爱的童年。他的父亲 1 是德国东部的路德教会牧师,在弗里德里希 5 岁时去世,弗里德里希从小就被崇拜他的清教徒女性所包围:他的母亲、姐姐、祖母和两个少女的姑姑。在这种德国维多利亚时代的氛围中,尼采得到了严厉的鼓励,让他努力工作。他还获得了一种根深蒂固的性抑制。
Nietzsche's Madness 67 tion, which later grew into a hatred and terror of women and an insight into the way religious sentimentality upheld a repressive emotional domination. His family was well off, and the young Nietzsche was sent to an elite private school which had produced many famous German scholars, and then to the universities of Bonn and Leipzig. It was intended that he should enter the ministry, but he was drawn instead to the subject of philology (what might now be called historical linguistics), which at that time was just beginning to break new ground. Nietzsche impressed his professors enormously with his cleverness and energy. By 1869, when he was twenty- five, they had obtained a professorship in classical philology for him at the University of Basel, Switzerland. His promise was such that the formal requirements for the Ph.D. were waived. Here, then, was the young Nietzsche, well on his way to a brilliant career in scholarship. But his energies were already overflowing the bounds of normality. His public opinions fluctuated violently. In 1866 he was ardently pro-Prussian, as the Prussians made the military moves that finally began to cast Germany into a unified state after centuries of fragmentation. Then in 1869 he renounced his German citizenship to become a Swiss. In 1870, when the Franco-Prussian War broke out, Nietzsche again became the enthusiastic patriot, and he volunteered for service with the Prussian army as a medical orderly. A few months later, Nietzsche was back in Switzerland. He was, however, bitterly disillusioned with the Germans and their war. Moreover, in caring for the sick at the front, he himself had caught dysentery and diphtheria, and he returned to Switzerland in bad health. A pattern of illness during periods of stress was to stay with Nietzsche throughout his life. At age twelve, the time of puberty, he experienced severe difficulties with his eyesight; at age twenty his early fantasies of military greatness were ended by the realities of his first tour of duty, when he injured himself in a fall from a horse. Later, whenever personal or career strains blocked the easy path before him, he would always begin a withdrawal into another excruciating illness. But for the time being the path was bright and Nietzsche was enthusiastic. In 1868 he met Richard Wagner, the flamboyant composer whose revolutionary ideas of musical tonality and orchestral color were beginning to take the European public by storm. Living near the Wagners in Switzerland, Nietzsche visited them as often as he could. He fell in love with Wagner's beautiful wife, Cosima. He became an enthusiastic member of the Wagnerian movement, and of the inner circle of disciples who took personal inspiration from the Master himself and who led the drive to bring his redeeming influence into the surrounding society. At this time, the Wagnerian movement was not merely a musical experience—any more than the movement spearheaded by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the 1960s. Wagner's music was an attack on the decadence of formalistic, regimented nineteenth-century civilization. In his great
尼采的疯狂 67 观念,后来发展为对女性的憎恨和恐惧,以及对宗教感性维护压抑的情感统治方式的洞察力。他的家庭很富裕,年轻的尼采被送到一所培养了许多著名德国学者的精英私立学校,然后又被送到波恩和莱比锡的大学。原本打算让他进入部委工作,但他却被吸引到了语言学(也就是现在所说的历史语言学)这个在当时刚开始有新突破的学科。尼采的聪明才智和精力给他的教授们留下了深刻的印象。到了 1869 年,也就是他 25 岁的时候,他们为他在瑞士的巴塞尔大学争取到了一个古典语言学的教授职位。他的表现让人眼前一亮,因此免去了博士学位的正式要求。这就是年轻的尼采,他正走在走向辉煌的学术生涯的路上。但他的精力已经超出了正常的范围。他的公众意见起伏很大。1866 年,他热衷于支持普鲁士,因为普鲁士人的军事行动最终使德国在几个世纪的分裂之后开始成为一个统一的国家。然后在 1869 年,他放弃了德国公民身份,成为一名瑞士人。1870 年,普法战争爆发,尼采再次成为热情的爱国者,他自愿在普鲁士军队中担任医疗勤务员。几个月后,尼采回到了瑞士。然而,他对德国人和他们的战争产生了强烈的幻灭感。此外,在前线照顾病人的过程中,他自己也染上了痢疾和白喉,他回到瑞士后身体状况不佳。在压力时期生病的模式将伴随尼采的一生。12 岁时,也就是青春期,他的视力出现了严重的问题;20 岁时,他早年对军队的伟大幻想被他第一次服役的现实所终结,他从马背上摔了下来,受伤了。后来,每当个人或事业上的压力阻碍了他面前的轻松之路,他总会开始退缩,陷入另一种令人痛苦的疾病。但就目前而言,道路是光明的,尼采是热情的。1868 年,他遇到了理查德·瓦格纳,这位个性张扬的作曲家,其关于音乐调性和管弦乐色彩的革命思想开始在欧洲公众中掀起风暴。尼采住在瑞士瓦格纳家附近,一有时间就去拜访他们。他爱上了瓦格纳的美丽妻子科西玛。他成了瓦格纳运动的热心成员,也成了从大师本人那里获得个人灵感的门徒内部圈子的成员,他们领导着将大师的救赎性影响带入周围社会的活动。此时,瓦格纳运动不仅仅是一种音乐体验 —— 就像 20 世纪 60 年代甲壳虫乐队和滚石乐队带头发起的运动一样。瓦格纳的音乐是对形式主义的、规整的 19 世纪文明的颓废的攻击。在他伟大的
68 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism mythological operas, Wagner rejected the bourgeois spirit of the time and put in its place the heroic figures of the German Middle Ages. For Nietzsche the theme meshed with a revolutionary possibility just emerging in his own scholarly studies as a classical philologist specializing in the language and literature of the ancient Greeks. At this time philologists were beginning to discover that the previous image of the Greeks as rational philosophers, mathematicians, and artists was only the surface of the picture. Behind the sculptural perfection of their white marble statues and the restrained symmetry of their temples lurked a more emotional, primitive Greece: a society wrapped in orgiastic rituals, strange sacrifices and frenzies, and, above all, intoxicating music and dancing that took people out of themselves and into a realm of magic and power. In his first book, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music (1872), Nietzsche designated these two cultures under the names "Apollonian" and "Dionysian." In the former he discerned the controlled, rational spirit that dominated Christianity and modern European civilization; in the latter he discerned a deeper force, reemerging in his own time through the agency of Wagner and his music. Nietzsche's book was poorly received by his more conservative colleagues, committed as they were to a narrower, more technical version of the field and unwilling to come to grips with the new spirit flowing through Nietzsche. At first Nietzsche fought back, publishing more attacks on orthodox thinkers and further expounding his enthusiasm for Wagner and his other heroes, such as the pessimistic philosopher Schopenhauer. By 1876, though, his health had deteriorated to such a point that he had to go on leave from the university. By 1879 he had resigned his job altogether on a small pension. From then on he moved from place to place in Switzerland and northern Italy, living at modest hotels in the most beautiful parts of the Alps, and taking long hikes when his health permitted. And he was writing at an ever-increasing pace. Troubled by insomnia, migraine headaches, vomiting, and bad digestion, he would write for ten hours at a stretch, until his eyes burned. He lived on drugs: chloral hydrate, veronal, opium, and many others. Caught in a spiral of his own making, he pushed his mind as far as it would go, far beyond the limits of what anyone had hitherto dared to think. His frenzied writing, freed by his lack of official position and by his solitude, gripped him like a demon; his body paid the price. Yet his illness also had its personal pattern. In the late 1870s, he began to break with Wagner and that circle, who were hitherto his main allies and friends. Wagner had moved to Bayreuth in Bavaria, where an admiring aristocrat had built him a lavish theater for his gigantic orchestra. In that atmosphere, Wagner's own megalomania reached its apotheosis, and he became an idol of respectable society. The final success affected his ideas: From the earlier revolutionary themes, he shifted to a sentimental reconciliation with Christianity., and he became the center of a movement of strident German chauvinism and anti-Semitism. Nietzsche, for his part, was going in the opposite direction, toward what he considered a new, psychological
68 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism),瓦格纳拒绝了当时的资产阶级精神,并将德国中世纪的英雄人物置于其位置。对尼采来说,这个主题与他自己作为一个专门研究古希腊语言和文学的古典语言学家的学术研究中刚刚出现的一种革命性的可能性相吻合。此时,语言学家们开始发现,以前希腊人作为理性的哲学家、数学家和艺术家的形象仅仅是画面的表面。在他们白色大理石雕像的完美雕塑和神庙的克制对称性背后,潜藏着一个更加感性、原始的希腊:一个被狂欢仪式、奇怪的牺牲和狂热所包裹的社会,最重要的是,令人陶醉的音乐和舞蹈将人们带离自我,进入一个神奇和力量的境界。在他的第一本书《从音乐精神看悲剧的诞生》(1872)中,尼采将这两种文化命名为 “阿波罗式” 和 “戴奥尼亚式”。在前者中,他发现了主导基督教和现代欧洲文明的受控的理性精神;在后者中,他发现了一种更深层的力量,在他自己的时代通过瓦格纳和他的音乐重新出现。尼采的书受到了他那些比较保守的同事们的冷遇,因为他们致力于该领域更狭窄、更技术化的版本,不愿意接受流淌在尼采身上的新精神。起初,尼采进行了反击,发表了更多对正统思想家的攻击,并进一步阐述了他对瓦格纳和其他英雄,如悲观主义哲学家叔本华的热情。不过,到了 1876 年,他的健康状况已经恶化到如此地步,以至于他不得不从大学里休假。到了 1879 年,他完全辞去了工作,只领取了一点退休金。从那时起,他在瑞士和意大利北部的各个地方搬家,住在阿尔卑斯山最美丽的地方,住在简陋的旅馆里,在健康状况允许的情况下进行长途跋涉。而他的写作速度也越来越快。在失眠、偏头痛、呕吐和消化不良的困扰下,他一连写了十个小时,直到眼睛发烫。他靠药物为生:水合氯醛、维纶、鸦片和许多其他药物。他陷入了自己制造的漩涡中,将自己的思想推到了极致,远远超出了迄今为止任何人敢于思考的极限。他疯狂的写作,因为没有官职和孤独而得到释放,像魔鬼一样抓住了他;他的身体付出了代价。然而,他的疾病也有其个人模式。19 世纪 70 年代末,他开始与瓦格纳和他的圈子决裂,而这些人是他迄今为止的主要盟友和朋友。瓦格纳搬到了巴伐利亚的拜罗伊特,在那里,一位仰慕他的贵族为他的巨大管弦乐队建造了一个豪华的剧院。在这种氛围中,瓦格纳自己的自大狂达到了神化的程度,他成了受人尊敬的社会的偶像。最后的成功影响了他的思想。他从早期的革命主题转向了与基督教的感性和解,并成为德国沙文主义和反犹太主义运动的中心。尼采则朝着相反的方向发展,朝着他认为的新的、心理学的方向发展。
Nietzsche's Madness 69 science—a hard but joyous wisdom that would break free from all surface conventionalities. During this split, Nietzsche underwent some of the worst pangs of illness. But at its end (around 1883, when Wagner died) the true voice of the philosopher had emerged. Nietzsche's sexual life was also coming to a crisis during this time. Always exceedingly polite and repressed with women, he nevertheless proposed marriage several times during this period—and was refused. In 1882 he was introduced to a beautiful and idealistic young intellectual, Lou Salome, then twenty-one years old, the daughter of a Russian general. Their ideas flashed; from intellectual intimacy they progressed to a very rhetorical, idealistic nineteenth-century courtship. Disavowing belief in marriage (as did Salome), Nietzsche nevertheless proposed to her twice, each time unsuccessfully. Finally they hit on a plan to move to Paris in a platonic menage a trois with another close intellectual friend. But Nietzsche's mother and sister heard of the plan and descended on him vengefully. At the age of thirty-nine Nietzsche could still quake at the moral imperatives of his aging mother. The plan was given up. The next year Nietzsche's health picked up, and it remained good until his final collapse at the end of 1888. His productivity suddenly increased again, this time in a new poetic direction, with the composition of Thus Spake Zarathustra, followed by a series of outspoken works attacking Christianity and calling for a reevaluation of all values. No doubt the death of Wagner helped ease the strain; so did the resolution of his sexual hopes, enforced though it might have been. His sister Elisabeth, who was constantly meddling in his affairs, married an anti-Semitic politician named Forster and moved to Paraguay, where Forster was organizing a Utopian colony. With the grounds cleared, Nietzsche was free to concentrate on his own thoughts. The torrent, already boiling, now broke all bounds. THE BIRTH OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE IRRATIONAL Nietzsche's thought had its origin as part of a larger intellectual movement—modern anthropology. This might be described as the process of breaking away from a Europe-centered worldview, and away from belief in the universal validity of European standards of rationality and morality. Of course, since the voyages of discovery in the late fifteenth century, Europeans had been aware of the existence of other societies. Yet the tribes of the Americas and the South Seas seemed to most Europeans merely primitive, until an intellectual shift occurred that made them the subject of a new discipline. Intellectual impetus for this shift came from within the world of scholarship, and especially from specialists in the Greco-Roman classics and ancient history. A number of developments in this area occurred in the 1860s. In England, for example, Henry Sumner Maine, studying ancient law, found
尼采的《疯狂》69 科学 —— 一种坚硬但快乐的智慧,将从所有表面的传统中挣脱出来。在这一分裂过程中,尼采经历了一些最糟糕的病痛。但在其结束时(大约在 1883 年,瓦格纳去世时),这位哲学家的真正声音已经出现。在这一时期,尼采的性生活也出现了危机。他对女性总是非常有礼貌和压抑,但在这一时期,他还是多次提出结婚,并被拒绝。1882 年,他被介绍给一位美丽而理想主义的年轻知识分子卢·萨洛梅,当时她 21 岁,是一位俄国将军的女儿。他们的想法一拍即合;从知识分子的亲密关系,他们发展到非常修辞的、理想主义的十九世纪的求爱过程。尼采不相信婚姻(和莎乐美一样),但他还是向她求婚两次,每次都没有成功。最后,他们决定搬到巴黎,与另一位亲密的知识分子朋友组成柏拉图式的三人组。但是尼采的母亲和妹妹听说了这个计划,对他进行了报复。39 岁的尼采仍然对他年迈母亲的道德要求感到震惊。这个计划被放弃了。第二年,尼采的健康状况有所好转,一直到 1888 年底他最后的崩溃。他的生产力突然再次提高,这次是在一个新的诗歌方向上,创作了《查拉图斯特拉如是说》,随后又创作了一系列直言不讳的作品,攻击基督教,呼吁重新评估所有的价值观。毫无疑问,瓦格纳的死亡有助于缓解压力;他的性希望的解决也是如此,尽管它可能是强制的。他的妹妹伊丽莎白(Elisabeth)经常插手他的事务,她嫁给了一个名叫福斯特的反犹太主义政治家,并搬到了巴拉圭,福斯特正在那里组织一个乌托邦殖民地。场地清理完毕后,尼采可以自由地专注于自己的思想。已经沸腾的洪流,现在打破了所有的界限。人类学的诞生和对理性的发现 尼采的思想起源于一场更大的知识运动 —— 现代人类学。这可以说是摆脱以欧洲为中心的世界观,摆脱对欧洲理性和道德标准的普遍有效性的信念的过程。当然,自从 15 世纪末的发现之旅以来,欧洲人已经意识到了其他社会的存在。然而,对大多数欧洲人来说,美洲和南洋的部落似乎只是原始人,直到发生了知识转变,使他们成为一门新学科的主题。这一转变的知识动力来自学术界,特别是来自希腊罗马古典文学和古代史的专家。这一领域的一些发展发生在 19 世纪 60 年代。例如,在英国,亨利·萨姆纳·缅因在研究古代法律时,发现
70 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism I that behind the legal contracts of the Romans there was a still more ancient form of law, based on tha status of the persons involved in each case. One's membership in a corporate community came first; deliberate, rational decisions negotiated among individuals came later in history. At the same time in Germany, J. J. Bachofen thought he could discern behind the European patrilineal kinship system an older system of matrilineal descent and inheritance. This gave evidence of an era when societies were organized around women, with a female-centered religion and law that differed sharply from later, male-centered institutions. And in France, meanwhile, Fustel de Coulanges (who was Emile Durkheim's teacher) asserted that the Olympian religions of Greece and Rome were actually political cults. For example, the worship of Athena was the cult around which clans had united to form the city of Athens. And behind this stage of ancient religion was a still earlier form,! the cult of the family gods, specific to each household, and a corresponding social structure in which each family was a fortified enclave, united by jits own domestic religion, and owing loyalty to no one outside its own limits. Somewhat later the English classicist James Frazer would write in the same vein that behind the beautiful stories of love and jealousy among the Olympian gods was another religion of sacrifice to the underground gods, sacrifice designed to ensure fertility by magic means. i Nietzsche was part of the first wave of these discoveries. Trained in classical philology in the jl860s, just as these ideas were breaking upon the scholarly world, he devoted his first book to the subject of the two types of Greek religion, which, |as he saw it, involved two styles of music and culture. On the one hand there was the musical cult (it was Nietzsche who discovered that music was originally religious, not a pastime) represented by Apollo and his lyre. This style, the Apollonian style, was serene, harmonious, and poised. It represented rationality, beauty in the form of perfect balance, and it was the source of the Greek ideal, which has descended to us as the notion that civilization is embodied in science, mathematics, philosophy, and classical [art. The Apollonian style represented restraint—the golden mean between extremes. On the other side was the Dionysian style, brought into Greece by a violently ecstatic group of dancers. They traveled from place to place, picking up new members who were willing to abandon their normal lives so as to chant and go into frenzies to celebrate their god Dionysus (Bacchus). This god was represented hot in beautiful human form but as a satyr, a goat- man, and his province was the harvest, the wine, and the emotions connected with intoxication, hi contrast to the Apollonian cult of restraint this was a cult of extremes, of emotional release of the basic life energies. Nietzsche discerned that the Dionysian movement became the basis for the Greek dramatic tragedies. The )3acchic chanters became the chorus, and their tale eventually came to be represented by actors. The theme was always the overweening pride of the hero, broken by the retribution of fate, as a kind of sacrifice to the endlessly fluctuating nature of life and death.
70 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism I)指出,在罗马人的法律合同背后,还有一种更古老的法律形式,基于每个案件中涉及的人的地位。一个人在企业界的成员身份是第一位的;在历史上,个人之间协商的深思熟虑的、理性的决定是后来才有的。同时,在德国,J·J. Bachofen 认为他可以看出欧洲的父系亲属制度背后有一个更古老的母系血统和继承制度。这证明了一个时代的社会是围绕着妇女组织起来的,以女性为中心的宗教和法律与后来以男性为中心的制度截然不同。同时,在法国,Fustel de Coulanges(他是 Emile Durkheim 的老师)断言,希腊和罗马的奥林匹亚宗教实际上是政治崇拜。例如,对雅典娜的崇拜是各氏族联合起来形成雅典城的崇拜。在这一阶段的古代宗教背后,还有一种更早的形式:家庭神的崇拜,具体到每个家庭,以及相应的社会结构,其中每个家庭都是一个坚固的飞地,通过自己的家庭宗教团结起来,不对自己范围以外的任何人表示忠诚。稍后,英国古典主义作家詹姆斯·弗雷泽(James Frazer)以同样的方式写道,在奥林匹亚诸神之间爱与嫉妒的美丽故事背后,是另一种向地下诸神献祭的宗教,献祭的目的是通过魔法手段确保生育能力。他在 860 年代接受了古典语言学的培训,当时这些思想正在影响着学术界,他的第一本书专门讨论了希腊的两种宗教,在他看来,这涉及两种音乐和文化风格。一方面,是以阿波罗和他的琴为代表的音乐崇拜(是尼采发现音乐最初是宗教,而不是消遣)。这种风格,即阿波罗风格,是宁静的、和谐的、有姿态的。它代表着理性,代表着完美平衡的美,它是希腊理想的源泉,这种理想已经传到我们这里,即文明体现在科学、数学、哲学和古典艺术中的概念。阿波罗风格代表克制 —— 极端之间的黄金分割。另一边是戴奥尼亚风格,由一群狂热的舞者带入希腊。他们从一个地方到另一个地方,吸收新成员,他们愿意放弃他们的正常生活,以便为庆祝他们的神狄奥尼索斯(巴克斯)而吟唱和狂热起来。这个神是以美丽的人形来代表的,但却是一个萨提尔,一个山羊人,他的职责是收获、酒和与醉酒有关的情感,与阿波罗式的克制崇拜相比,这是一种极端的崇拜,是基本生命能量的情感释放。尼采发现,戴奥尼亚运动成为希腊戏剧悲剧的基础。吟唱者成为合唱团,他们的故事最终由演员来表现。主题始终是英雄的过度骄傲,被命运的报应所打破,作为对生与死的无尽波动的一种牺牲。
Nietzsche's Madness 71 Nietzsche thus saw tragedy, that great stirring art, as capturing the Dionysian spirit within the limits imposed by Apollonian balance. At the time, he found both Dionysian and Apollonian styles important for a full human culture. But the balance would not remain stable. For Nietzsche came to see that all of Western civilization, including Christianity, had become an extension of the Apollonian culture. The Dionysian side, however, had been steadily buried; the Greeks had held it in some measure of balance, but the Christians repressed it. This was apparent above all in the nineteenth century, during which the mythological side of Christianity had been stripped away, leaving the underlying faith in rational controls and a calm belief in progress. More and more, Nietzsche came to see the creative, underground forces of life on the Dionysian side, and he began to launch a violent attack on the dominant forces repressing them. THE ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY Nietzsche, like most intellectuals of the modern European era, was an atheist. In a sense the basic identity of the modern intellectual was formed in the movement for liberation from the dogmas of the church that had ruled Europe since the Middle Ages. Already in the seventeenth century the battle of the liberated minds against the authoritarians was symbolized by the new science of Galileo, which was condemned by the church that burned its opponents at the stake. By the time of the French Revolution, as we have seen in Chapter 1, the progressive intellectuals were solidly in revolt against dogma, and they were ready to set up a church of Reason on the ruins of Christianity. But Nietzsche went a step further. He saw that only the overt political and intellectual repressions of the established church had been overthrown. Its deeper spirit lingered on in the dominating forms of nineteenth-century secular rationalism and Victorianism. What good did it do, declared Nietzsche, to detach oneself from Christian dogmatism if liberated intellectuals continued the very same values of emotional self-control and moralistic dedication to the community? They were merely substituting a belief in progress on earth for rewards in heaven. Nietzsche vehemently attacked the secularizers who portrayed Jesus no longer as the son of God but as a good man, the great teacher of morality, humility, and altruism. God was dead; but no one dared to see what that meant, what possibilities it opened up: Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly, "I seek God! I seek God!" As many of those who do not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Why, did he get lost? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Had he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
尼采的疯狂 71 尼采因此认为,悲剧这种伟大的激荡艺术,是在阿波罗式的平衡所带来的限制中捕捉到了狄奥尼的精神。在当时,他发现狄奥尼亚和阿波罗风格对完整的人类文化都很重要。但这种平衡不会保持稳定。因为尼采看到,所有的西方文明,包括基督教,都已经成为阿波罗文化的延伸。然而,戴奥尼亚的一面却一直被埋没;希腊人在某种程度上保持了平衡,但基督徒却压制了它。这一点在 19 世纪是显而易见的,在这一时期,基督教的神话色彩被剥离,留下的是对理性控制的基本信念和对进步的冷静信念。尼采越来越多地看到了戴奥尼亚方面的创造性的、地下的生命力量,他开始对压制它们的主导力量发起猛烈的攻击。对基督教的攻击 尼采,像现代欧洲时代的大多数知识分子一样,是一个无神论者。从某种意义上说,现代知识分子的基本身份是在从中世纪以来统治欧洲的教会教条中解放出来的运动中形成的。早在 17 世纪,伽利略的新科学就象征着被解放的思想与专制主义者的斗争,它被教会谴责,并将其反对者烧死在火刑柱上。正如我们在第一章中所看到的,到了法国大革命的时候,进步的知识分子对教条进行了坚实的反抗,他们准备在基督教的废墟上建立一个理性的教堂。但尼采更进一步。他看到,只有既定教会公开的政治和思想压迫被推翻了。它更深层的精神在 19 世纪世俗理性主义和维多利亚主义的主导形式中挥之不去。尼采宣称,如果被解放的知识分子继续保持情感上的自我控制和对社会的道德奉献的价值观,那么脱离基督教教条主义有什么好处呢?他们只是用地上的进步来代替天上的奖赏的信念。尼采强烈抨击世俗主义者,他们不再把耶稣描绘成上帝的儿子,而是一个好人,道德、谦逊和利他主义的伟大导师。上帝已经死了;但没有人敢于看到这意味着什么,它打开了什么可能性。你没听说过那个疯子吗?他在明亮的早晨点起一盏灯,跑到市场上,不停地喊着:“我寻找上帝!我寻找上帝!我寻求上帝!” 由于当时许多不信神的人就站在周围,他引起了很多人的嘲笑。有人说:"为什么,他迷路了吗?另一个人说,他像孩子一样迷路了吗?还是他在躲藏?他害怕我们吗?他是出海了吗?还是移民了?他们就这样大呼小叫地笑了起来。疯子跳到他们中间,用他的目光刺向他们。
72 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism "Whither is God?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when ing now? Away from sideward, forward, in we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it mov- all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, ill directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of gravediggprs who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed hio."1 If God was now dead, Nietzsche asserted, we could no longer live in the hard shell left behind, stripped even of its magic. Humanity had only just begun on its hardest te sk: to live beyond this entire system of belief and control. "Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?" asked Nietzsche. "Must we not ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?" | Nietzsche's main attack was on the imperative of altruism, a principle brought from ChristiarLity into modern culture almost without alteration. The Christian doctrine [preached humility, imitating the suffering of Jesus on the cross, and giving charity to the poor. Salvation came through faith, suffering, and care of others. The ideal was epitomized by the monk who weighted himself with chains to exorcise the sexual appetites sent him by the devil; by the saint who washed the feet of lepers; and by the pious layman who gave food to [the poor at Christmas and put something in the collection plate each Sunday. What difference was there if now the ideal was to be an upright citizer., living a respectable life, dedicating oneself to duty and to the grind of work? What difference was there if the altruistic imperative now meant that the meaning of life was to dedicate oneself to the State or the Nation, to libera! reform or mass socialism? Nietzsche's argument was not just a negative one. Using his philological skills, he pointed to the history of language as a clue to an alternative morality. In modern language the contrast between "good" and "evil" was one between the moral, respectable, and altruistic on one side, and the selfish, hurtful, and egoistical on the other. But in the earliest Greek, the words meant something quite different. The "good" meant the good people, the aristocracy, those who had the energy, personal power, and grace to live well, win their battles} and dominate their situation. The "bad" meant not moral evil but people on a low level—those who failed, those with base and petty concerns, and those who lacked the vital energies and hence ended up on the bottom. If these conditions were the result of fate, then clearly there was nothing to be done about it but play one's part to the hilt. From this Nietzsche concluded two things. On the historical level it was apparent that a reversal of values had taken place, that the slave morality of 1From Walter Kaufmann, ed., Portable Nietzsche (New York: Viking Press, 1959), p. 95.
72 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 “上帝在哪里?” 他喊道。“我将告诉你。我们已经杀了他 —— 你和我,我们所有人都是他的凶手。但我们是如何做到这一点的?我们怎么能喝掉大海?谁给了我们海绵来擦去整个地平线的?现在摄取时,我们做了什么?从侧边,向前,在我们把这个地球从它的太阳上解开?它在向哪里移动?我们不是在不断地坠落吗?向后,方向不对?还有没有向上或向下的?我们不是在无限的虚无中游荡吗?我们难道没有感觉到虚空的气息吗?它不是变得更冷了吗?夜晚不是越来越多地出现了吗?清晨不是必须点燃灯笼吗?难道我们还没有听到埋葬上帝的坟墓的声音吗?我们难道还没有闻到上帝腐烂的气味吗?神也会腐烂。上帝已经死了。上帝仍然是死的。尼采断言,如果上帝现在已经死了,我们就不能再生活在留下的硬壳里,甚至被剥夺了它的魔力。人类才刚刚开始其最艰难的工作:超越这整个信仰和控制的系统而生活。” 尼采问道:“对我们来说,这一行动的伟大程度难道不是太大?” 难道我们自己不能成为神,只是为了看起来配得上它吗?“| 尼采的主要攻击对象是利他主义的必要性,这一原则从基督教带入现代文化,几乎没有改变。基督教的教义[宣扬谦卑,模仿耶稣在十字架上的苦难,并向穷人施舍。救赎是通过信仰、苦难和对他人的关怀来实现的。这个理想的缩影是:用铁链压住自己以驱除魔鬼送来的性欲的修士;为麻风病人洗脚的圣人;以及在圣诞节向穷人提供食物并在每个星期天在募捐盘中放些东西的虔诚的普通人。如果现在的理想是成为一个正直的公民,过着受人尊敬的生活,把自己奉献给责任和工作的磨练,那还有什么区别呢?如果利他主义的要求现在意味着生命的意义是为国家或民族、为解放改革或大众社会主义而奉献自己,那又有什么区别呢?尼采的论点不仅仅是一个消极的论点。他利用自己的语言学技能,指出语言的历史是通往另一种道德的线索。在现代语言中”,善 “与” 恶 “之间的对比是,一边是道德的、可敬的、利他的,另一边是自私的、伤害的、利己的。但在最早的希腊语中,这两个词的意思完全不同。好” 指的是好人、贵族,那些有精力、个人能力和风度的人,他们生活得很好,赢得了他们的战斗,并支配着他们的处境。坏 "指的不是道德上的邪恶,而是处于低水平的人 —— 那些失败的人,那些有卑微和小题大做的人,以及那些缺乏重要能量因而最终处于底层的人。如果这些情况是命运的结果,那么很显然,除了全力以赴地发挥自己的作用外,没有什么可以做的。尼采由此得出两点结论。在历史层面上,显然发生了价值观的颠覆,奴隶制的道德观 1From Walter Kaufmann, ed., Portable Nietzsche(New York: Viking Press, 1959), p. 95.
Nietzsche's Madness 73 the bottom had replaced the aristocratic morality of the top. And on the practical level, Nietzsche himself must undertake to launch a crusade to restore the creative forces to their proper place. We shall take up each of these in turn. THE DYNAMICS OF THE WILL Nietzsche's own theoretical position was now coming into focus. Based on a philosophy, it ramified into a strikingly modern social psychology—and a historical sociology as well. The basis of it was a theory of the will. The human essence, Nietzsche asserted, is will. (Indeed, he saw will as the essence of all life, and of all existence as well—much the way modern physicists declare that ultimately all is energy.) The true human nature is not consciousness, then, or logic, or mental categories, as Plato, Kant, and most other Western philosophers asserted. These things could only be derivatives of the will—modes of the will restricting and turning against itself. Such self-limitation by the will was not necessarily bad: After all, great thinking, art, and human action came from the molding of will into these conscious forms. But the vital energy came through these only because it represented transformations of the will itself, expressions of the selfish, un- trammeled ego flowing out into the world, encountering obstacles—other wills—struggling and rebounding, and thereby establishing a self-reflection that issued in a creative civilization. The early struggle of human wills in society, then, was essentially external. Out of these rival egoisms, a stratified society emerged. Those with the greatest energy, those most in tune with the flux of time, came out on top. From them came the creative works, the brilliant ideas, and the heroic actions. In their own unrestrained egos, they were the "good," or the "aristocracy." Those whose energy was weaker lost the battles and became slaves of the others. In the definitions of the time, they were the base, or the "bad." In the course of time, one might fall from high to low (the subject of the Greek tragedies), or even rise from low to high (like the mythological Greek heroes who became gods). If these shifts happened it was because of individual wills that committed the mistake of too much pride (hubris) or tapped a level of superhuman energy. The morality, then, was simple but dynamic. As long as people were able to act on it, there was no obstacle to their living on the highest level they could, in every sense. Heroic morality survived only through the period of small, fighting, democratic city-states. At that point in history a fatal reversal set in. With the spreading Roman conquests almost everyone became a sort of slave. The slave class despaired of ever rising again, but its numbers were now so great that it could affect the ruling climate of thought and language. In the regimented society of the Roman Empire, the slaves' condition began to approximate that of the entire middle mass. The downtrodden will of the slave class reared its head in an insidious form. They resented being domi-
尼采的《疯狂 73》底层已经取代了上层的贵族道德。而在实践层面上,尼采本人必须承诺发起一场十字军东征,以恢复创造性力量的应有地位。我们将依次讨论其中的每一个问题。意志的动力 尼采自己的理论立场现在正逐渐成为焦点。在哲学的基础上,它发展成为引人注目的现代社会心理学 —— 也是一种历史社会学。它的基础是关于意志的理论。尼采断言,人类的本质就是意志。(事实上,他认为意志是所有生命的本质,也是所有存在的本质 —— 就像现代物理学家所宣称的那样,最终所有的东西都是能量)。那么,真正的人性不是意识,也不是逻辑,更不是柏拉图、康德和其他大多数西方哲学家所断言的精神类别。这些东西只能是意志的衍生物 —— 意志限制和反对自身的模式。意志的这种自我限制并不一定是坏事。毕竟,伟大的思想、艺术和人类行动来自于意志对这些有意识形式的塑造。但是,生命力来自于这些,只是因为它代表了意志本身的转变,代表了自私的、不受束缚的自我流向世界的表达,遇到了障碍 —— 其他意志的挣扎和反弹,从而建立了一种自我反思,在创造性的文明中发出。那么,人类意志在社会中的早期斗争,本质上是外部的。从这些敌对的自我主义中,出现了一个分层的社会。那些精力最旺盛的人,那些与时间的流动最合拍的人,出人头地。从他们那里产生了创造性的作品、杰出的想法和英雄的行动。在他们无拘无束的自我中,他们是 “好人”,或 “贵族”。那些能量较弱的人在战斗中败下阵来,成为其他人的奴隶。在当时的定义中,他们是底层人,或 “坏人”。在时间的流逝中,一个人可能从高处跌落到低处(希腊悲剧的主题),甚至从低处上升到高处(像希腊神话中的英雄成为神)。如果这些转变发生了,那是因为个人的意志犯了太多的骄傲(傲慢)的错误,或挖掘了超人的能量水平。那么,道德是简单而动态的。只要人们能够依此行事,他们在各种意义上都能生活在最高水平上,没有任何障碍。英雄的道德观只在小型、战斗、民主的城邦时期幸存下来。在那个历史时刻,一个致命的逆转出现了。随着罗马征服的扩大,几乎每个人都成了某种奴隶。奴隶阶级对再次崛起感到绝望,但他们的人数已经多到可以影响思想和语言的统治氛围。在罗马帝国的制度化社会中,奴隶的状况开始与整个中产阶级的状况相近。奴隶阶级的低落意志以一种阴险的形式抬头。他们憎恨被统治
74 The Vicissitudes ofNinl'teenth-Century Rationalism nated and wanted revenge. They did not want to become dominant or free but to bring the dominators down to their own level. They instituted a revolution in the very standard of morality. The successful donvLnators and their untrammeled wills now became defined as bad, or evil. ;Good was taken to mean the virtues of the slave— humility, self-abnegation, obedience, duty, and dependence on things above oneself. Ironically, these were what made good slaves, from the masters' point of view. Thel deviousness of this revolt of the slaves' will was in the slaves taking the lowest possible view of themselves, accepting even the worst demands placed upon them, and making these into a standard of virtue—with the aggressive twist, characteristic of the true will, expressed by applying these standards to everyone, masters included. In this consisted thfe slaves' revenge; this was the great revolution of Christianity. Arising hi. a society where dominant, creative individuality had become impossible, it gradually spread to become the ideal of the entire world. Although slaves were freed and even other classes adopted Christianity, the old snuggle for individual self-expression did not return. The entire society had adopted the slave morality. Altruism was its keynote, because this was the bond that linked the slaves to each other and subordinated the individual to the group. Ironically, the professed altruism and egalitarianism of the humble did not produce a society of equality and justice, even in its own terms. Christian society, beginning with the late Roman Empire and proceeding through the Middle Aj*es into the period of modern European exploration and colonization, turned out to be just as stratified as the pagan society that had preceded it. Conscience and altruism, devious products of the repressed will to power; became tools of domination as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The new society was now dominated by priests, moralists, and respectable people who made the greatest show of their own humility and personal! repression. Even the lot of the poor and the sick was not greatly improved Jsy organized charity, for Christian society needed to have them always with it so that they might be ministered to. Suffering people were among the most precious possessions of the medieval Christian community, because it was through them that others' salvation could be assured. They were to be given charity, but by no means was their plight to be permanently alleviated by changing their conditions or encouraging their own energies. Nietzsche charged the liberal and radical movements of his day with simply perpetuating tj.iis Christian interest in the sufferings of others. Now, however, it was disgiiised as a moral issue, through which the politicians could bring themselves to power. Nietzsche's historical dynamic was also paralleled on the individual psychological level. Conscience, Nietzsche noted, was the repression of the primal, egoistical wil by a devious will that struggled for a semblance of power by continuous y appealing to the group that subordinated it. In this process not only the creative emotional energy but also the will to truth it-
74 The Vicissitudes ofNinl'teenth-Century Rationalism nated and wanted revenge. 他们并不想成为统治者或自由人,而是想把统治者拉到自己的水平上。他们在道德的标准上进行了一场革命。成功的统治者和他们不受约束的意志现在被定义为坏的,或邪恶的。讽刺的是,从主人的角度来看,这些才是好奴隶。奴隶们意志的这种反叛的狡猾之处在于,奴隶们以最低的标准来看待自己,接受甚至是放在他们身上的最坏的要求,并把这些要求变成美德的标准 —— 带有侵略性的转折,这是真正的意志的特征,表现为把这些标准应用于每个人,包括主人。这就是奴隶们的复仇;这就是基督教的伟大革命。在一个主导性、创造性的个性已变得不可能的社会中产生,它逐渐蔓延,成为整个世界的理想。虽然奴隶被解放了,甚至其他阶级也采用了基督教,但过去那种个人自我表达的依偎并没有恢复。整个社会都采用了奴隶制的道德观。利他主义是它的基调,因为这是连接奴隶们彼此的纽带,使个人从属于群体。具有讽刺意味的是,卑微者所宣称的利他主义和平等主义并没有产生一个平等和公正的社会,即使是在它自己的条件下。基督教社会,从罗马帝国晚期开始,经过中世纪进入现代欧洲探索和殖民时期,结果是和之前的异教社会一样的分层。良心和利他主义是被压抑的权力意志的邪恶产物;一旦有机会出现,就会成为统治的工具。新社会现在由牧师、道德家和受人尊敬的人主导,他们最大限度地展示自己的谦逊和个人!压制。即使是穷人和病人的命运也没有得到很大的改善,因为基督教社会需要让他们总是和它在一起,以便他们可以得到照顾。受苦的人是中世纪基督教社会最宝贵的财产之一,因为正是通过他们才能保证其他人的救赎。他们应该得到施舍,但绝不是通过改变他们的条件或鼓励他们自己的能量就能永久地缓解他们的困境。尼采指责他那个时代的自由主义和激进主义运动只是延续了基督教对他人痛苦的兴趣。然而现在,它被分解为一个道德问题,政治家可以通过它使自己获得权力。尼采的历史动态在个人心理层面上也有类似的表现。尼采指出,良知是对原始的、自负的意志的压制,这种意志通过不断地吸引从属于它的群体,来争取一种权力的假象。在这个过程中,不仅有创造性的情感能量,而且还有追求真理的意志。
Nietzsche's Madness 75 self was repressed. I did this! declares memory. I did not! says will. At last, memory yields. Here again was more evidence of how will prevails over consciousness and allows the latter to form only on will's own terms. In this sense Nietzsche opened the way to modern depth psychology, just as his history of the will opened the way toward understanding Western Christian civilization. THE REEVALUATION OF ALL VALUES Nietzsche concluded from all this that life is only worthwhile as a clear, unobstructed expression of the will. All else is a turning away from life—a turning that, even on its own terms, cannot be successful, for only the will can do such a turning, and it expresses its will to power even as it negates itself. Thus altruistic, self-denying morality is doubly condemned: once, because it turns against creative life; and again, because it remains perverted even by its own standards—for it uses altruism and conscience only as slogans by which to dominate self and others. The alternative, Nietzsche recognized, would be hard. It meant embracing a world of conflict, even of violence and cruelty. Yet it was the only realistic choice—especially for those who wanted some optimism about the future—and an escape from the grim vistas of endless mediocrity and individuality-destroying mass organization. This was the only route to personal health and cultural creativity. Nietzsche pointed to the great periods of history: the Renaissance, ancient Greece—these were times of great strife, uncontrolled ambition, and Machiavellian individuality. It was out of this strife, and the emotional extremes accompanying it, that life reached its highest point. In a series of books, Nietzsche hammered out his position. Each title proclaimed his message more strikingly: The Gay Science; The Dawn; Beyond Good and Evil; The Twilight of the Idols; The Antichrist. In the midst of all this creativity, his own illness fell away, and he wrote his poetic masterpiece, Thus Spake Zarathustra. It is the portrait of his own prophecy, cast in the image of the ancient Persian sage Zarathustra (Zoroaster), and it is Nietzsche's own project for a new religion, if "religion" is indeed the word for something so individualistic. In it Nietzsche envisages a future after the death of God, one which holds a higher creature yet—the superman. The term is difficult to translate from the German; it is Ubermensch, literally "over-human," a next level beyond the human type, and not yet in existence. In part this is the Dionysian individual resurrected from ancient Greece. But it is also an image of what cannot yet be stated but only created—an individual freed from social and psychological repression, and the product of struggles that have honed creativity and energy to a level beyond anything ever seen before. How is the superman to be created? By freeing ourselves from the spirit of revenge, says Zarathustra: That is the bridge we must cross to get from
尼采的疯狂 75 自我被压抑。我做了这件事!记忆宣称。我没有!意志说。最后,记忆屈服了。这又一次证明了意志是如何战胜意识的,并允许后者只按照意志自己的条件来形成。在这个意义上,尼采为现代深度心理学开辟了道路,就像他的意志史为理解西方基督教文明开辟了道路。对所有价值的重新评价 尼采从这一切中得出结论:生命只有作为意志的明确、无障碍的表达才有价值。所有其他的东西都是对生命的背离 —— 这种背离即使就其本身而言也是不可能成功的,因为只有意志才能进行这样的背离,而且它在否定自己的同时也表达了它的权力意志。因此,利他主义、自我否定的道德被双重谴责:一次是因为它反对创造性的生命;另一次是因为它甚至按照自己的标准也是变态的 —— 它把利他主义和良知仅仅作为支配自我和他人的口号来使用。尼采认识到,替代方案将是艰难的。它意味着接受一个冲突的世界,甚至是暴力和残酷的世界。然而,这是唯一现实的选择 —— 特别是对于那些希望对未来抱有某种乐观态度的人来说,也是对无尽的平庸和破坏个性的大规模组织的严峻前景的逃避。这是通往个人健康和文化创造力的唯一途径。尼采指出了历史上的伟大时期:文艺复兴、古希腊 —— 这些都是充满了巨大的纷争、不受控制的野心和马基雅弗利式的个性的时代。正是在这种争斗中,以及伴随着这种争斗的情绪极端化,生命达到了最高点。在一系列的书中,尼采敲定了他的立场。每一个书名都更鲜明地宣示了他的信息。同性恋科学》;《黎明》;《超越善恶》;《偶像的黄昏》;《反基督者》。在所有这些创作中,他自己的病倒了,他写了他的诗歌杰作《查拉图斯特拉如是说》。这本书是他自己的预言的写照,以古代波斯圣人查拉图斯特拉(Zoroaster)的形象出现,也是尼采自己的新宗教计划,如果 “宗教” 这个词确实适用于如此个性化的东西的话。在这本书中,尼采设想了一个在上帝死后的未来,一个还拥有更高生物的未来 —— 超人。这个词很难从德语中翻译出来;它是 Ubermensch,字面意思是 “超人类”,是超越人类的下一个层次,而且还不存在。在某种程度上,这是从古希腊复活的戴奥尼亚式的个人。但它也是一个尚不能被说明而只能被创造的形象 —— 一个从社会和心理压抑中解放出来的个体,是将创造力和能量磨练到前所未有的水平的斗争的产物。超人是如何被创造出来的?查拉图斯特拉说,通过把我们从复仇的精神中解放出来。那是我们必须跨越的桥梁,以从
76 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism human to superhuman. ;Sfietzsche expressed not only an aim for historical liberation from the legacy of slave morality and psychological repression, but he also expressed a profound philosophy. For the spirit of revenge, he says, is an outcry againbt the flowingness of time; it is a harping back to what has happened, and a stubborn desire to make amends for what has passed and cannot be remedied. To wish to change the past is the height of pathology, but this is a motive that pervades Western society after the Greeks. In place of this revenge spirit Nietzsche offers a strange doctrine of his own—eternal recurrence. Everything is destined to happen over and over again, he declares. This i is in the spirit of the early Greek fertility cults like that of Dionysus, which celebrated the endless cycles of crops and animals, living and dying, and victory and defeat. The individual will to power that is oneself can only find 'fulfillment in this world of external conflict by willing the whole cycle. In other words, one makes the world one's own by willing it, repressing nothing, asking revenge for nothing, pressing continuously onward into a future that is fated to be like the past. It is a strange doctrine indeed, because at least superficially it seems to contradict our historical sense of what Nietzsche has told us of the ancient power morality, the slave revolt, the death of God, and even the prospective coming of the superman. Of all Nietz ;che's ideas, this has been found to be the most unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, on another level, it too may have its sense and a meaning yet to be probed. In the language of the late twentieth century, we might put it thus: Is eternal recurrence the frame within which we are to see Nietzsche's own history, doomed to repeat itself? Or is that history, and especially the final phases' of the superman, the frame within which eternal recurrence finally can emerge? NIETZSCHE'S MADNESS The year 1888 was on? of Nietzsche's best. He was healthy almost all the time. He wrote five books, the biggest output of his life: two thunderous expositions of his ideas, The Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist; two books attacking his old idol Wagner and holding himself up as Wagner's antithesis; and a bitterly sarcastic review of the importance of his own works, Ecce Homo (Behold the Mar*). The chapters of this last were entitled, "Why I Am So Wise," "Why I Am So Clever," "Why I Write Such Good Books," and "Why I Am a Destiny J* Nietzsche was beginning to become famous. For the first time he was attracting followers am6ng important European intellectuals. The Danish literary critic Georg Brandes began lecturing about him. Nietzsche began to correspond with the famous French critic and historian Hippolyte Taine and with the great Swedish playwright August Strindberg. With these new connections Nietzsche became more demanding toward his older friends, wanting them to come out publicly in his favor instead of merely support-
76 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism human to superhuman. ;Sfietzsche 不仅表达了从奴隶道德和心理压抑的遗产中获得历史解放的目标,而且他还表达了一种深刻的哲学。他说,复仇的精神是对时间流逝的呼喊;它是对已经发生的事情的纠缠,是对已经过去的、无法补救的事情的顽固的补偿愿望。希望改变过去是病态的表现,但这是希腊人之后西方社会普遍存在的动机。作为对这种复仇精神的替代,尼采提供了一个他自己的奇怪学说 —— 永恒的重复。他宣称,一切都注定要重复发生。这符合希腊早期生育崇拜的精神,比如狄奥尼索斯的精神,他们赞美作物和动物、生与死、胜利与失败的无尽循环。属于自己的个人权力意志只有在这个外部冲突的世界中通过对整个循环的意愿才能找到 “实现”。换句话说,一个人通过自己的意愿使世界成为自己的世界,不压抑任何东西,不要求任何报复,不断向一个注定要像过去一样的未来前进。这的确是一个奇怪的学说,因为至少从表面上看,它似乎与尼采告诉我们的关于古代权力道德、奴隶起义、上帝之死,甚至是超人的未来的历史感相矛盾。在尼采的所有观点中,人们发现这是最不令人满意的。然而,在另一个层面上,它也可能有其意义和有待探究的含义。用二十世纪末的语言,我们可以这样说。永恒的重复是否就是我们看待尼采自己的历史的框架,注定要重复自己?或者说,那段历史,尤其是超人的最后阶段,是永恒的重复出现的框架?尼采的疯癫 1888 年是尼采最好的一年。他几乎一直都很健康。他写了五本书,这是他一生中最大的成果:两本以雷霆万钧之势阐述他的思想的书《偶像的黄昏》和《反基督者》;两本攻击他的老偶像瓦格纳并将自己作为瓦格纳的对立面的书;以及一本对他自己作品的重要性进行了尖锐讽刺的评论《看哪,人》。最后一章的标题是:“为什么我如此明智”、“为什么我如此聪明”、“为什么我写了这么好的书” 和 “为什么我是一个命运的主人”。他第一次吸引了欧洲重要知识分子的追随者。丹麦文学评论家 Georg Brandes 开始为他做讲座。尼采开始与法国著名批评家和历史学家 Hippolyte Taine 以及瑞典伟大的剧作家 August Strindberg 通信。有了这些新的联系,尼采对他的老朋友们的要求越来越高,希望他们公开支持他,而不是仅仅支持他。
Nietzsche's Madness 77 ing him privately, and he cut off contact with them when they failed to do so. His letters, previously so polite, modest, and apologetic whenever he had a personal criticism to make, began to change in tone to megalomania- cal self-importance. A new political note began to creep in as well, especially a violent anti- Germanism. His intellectual following was appearing in Scandinavia, Russia, Italy, France, Switzerland, and the United States, but in Germany there was still nothing but obliviousness or harsh reviews. Nietzsche began to predict an alliance of the European states against backward, authoritarian Germany. By the winter, the subject obsessed him. In December 1888 and January 1889 he began to invoke the anti-German apocalypse as well as predict it. He foretold a new era, a new antimoralistic religion of the twentieth century, to be ushered in by several world wars. And he himself was now calling together a convocation of the European powers to depose the pope and begin the battle in earnest. Nietzsche began to appear in public smiling beatifically, in sharp contrast to the serious, even morose, expression that we see in earlier pictures of him. In January 1889 he was in Turin, Italy. He saw a coachman beating a horse on the street, ran to stop him, and collapsed with his arms around the horse. The next few days are unclear. A friend received a last postcard: "I am just having all anti-Semites shot. Dionysus." From then until his death in 1900, Nietzsche was in the care of others. He wrote no more, neither books nor letters. He never spoke again of his ideas. He alternated between two moods. In one he was quiet, polite, capable of pleasant conversation, like the anonymous man one might have met by chance a few years earlier in a Swiss hotel dining room. In the other mood he would become Dionysus, smiling happily, laughing wildly, singing, emotionally ecstatic. His sister Elisabeth returned from Paraguay to take over care of him from his mother. Her husband Forster had committed suicide in May 1889, when the anti-Semites' colony seemed to be failing. Taking up a greater cause, she moved her brother back to Germany and made a kind of shrine for him at Weimar, the famous old German cultural center. She arranged for the publication of his complete works, including the last and most violent, and she edited his notes under the title The Will to Power. Through her influence Nietzsche's work was popularized in Germany but with ironic results. The opponent of German nationalism and authoritarianism and outspoken critic of anti-Semitism was made into the hero of the nationalists. His anti-Christianity became a prologue for anti-Semitic propaganda; his insights into the nature of power and conflict were distorted into political tools, entirely alien to Nietzsche's own philosophy, but glorifying a militaristic German state. Nietzsche ignored it all, watched over by his sister and alternating between his moods of quiet and Dionysian outbursts. There have been a number of attempts made to explain Nietzsche's erratic behavior and the physical ailments that plagued him, especially during his later years. A popular theory is that Nietzsche contracted syphilis
尼采的疯狂》77 页,当他们没有这样做的时候,他就切断了与他们的联系。他的信,以前是那么有礼貌、谦虚,而且每当他有个人批评时都会表示歉意,现在开始转变为自大狂的语气。一种新的政治色彩也开始悄然出现,特别是一种激烈的反德主义。他在斯堪的纳维亚、俄罗斯、意大利、法国、瑞士和美国的知识分子中出现了追随者,但在德国,除了漠视和严厉的评论外,什么都没有。尼采开始预测欧洲各国将联合起来反对落后的专制德国。到了冬天,这个话题让他着迷。在 1888 年 12 月和 1889 年 1 月,他开始引用反德国的启示录,并预测它。他预言了一个新的时代,一个新的反道德主义的二十世纪的宗教,将由几场世界大战来迎接。而他本人现在正召集欧洲大国开会,以废止教皇,并认真地开始战斗。尼采开始出现在公众面前,面带微笑,这与我们在他早期的照片中看到的严肃甚至忧郁的表情形成鲜明对比。1889 年 1 月,他在意大利的都灵。他看到一个马车夫在街上打马,跑去阻止他,然后抱着马倒下了。接下来的几天就不清楚了。一位朋友收到了最后一张明信片。“我只是让所有的反犹太主义者被枪毙。狄俄尼索斯”。从那时起直到 1900 年去世,尼采一直由他人照顾。他不再写作,既不出书也不写信。他再也没有谈论过他的想法。他在两种情绪中交替出现。在一种情况下,他很安静,很有礼貌,能够愉快地交谈,就像几年前人们在瑞士酒店的餐厅里偶然遇到的那个无名氏。在另一种情绪下,他就会变成狄俄尼索斯,开心地笑,疯狂地笑,唱歌,情绪上的狂喜。他的妹妹伊丽莎白从巴拉圭回来,接替他母亲照顾他。她的丈夫福斯特在 1889 年 5 月自杀了,当时反犹太主义的殖民地似乎已经失败了。为了更伟大的事业,她把弟弟搬回了德国,并在德国著名的古老文化中心魏玛为他建立了一种圣地。她安排出版了他的全部作品,包括最后和最激烈的作品,她还在《权力的意志》的标题下编辑了他的笔记。通过她的影响,尼采的作品在德国得到了普及,但结果却是讽刺的。这位德国民族主义和专制主义的反对者以及反犹太主义的直言不讳的批评者被塑造成民族主义者的英雄。他的反基督教精神成为反犹太主义宣传的序幕;他对权力和冲突本质的洞察力被扭曲成政治工具,完全与尼采自己的哲学格格不入,但却美化了一个军国主义的德国国家。尼采对这一切视而不见,由他的姐姐看管,在他的安静和狄奥尼亚式的爆发之间交替进行。有很多人试图解释尼采不稳定的行为和困扰他的身体疾病,尤其是在他的晚年。一个流行的理论是,尼采感染了梅毒
78 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism during his student days or during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and that his deterioration was the onset of the syphilitic paralysis about twenty years later. Yet many crucial facts stand in the way of this theory. His health was good from 1889 until his death in 1900; there was none of the progressive physical and mental deterioration associated with syphilis. Nor is it very likely that he ever contracted syphilis in the first place given his extremely puritan character in sexual matters. There is, for example, an account of Nietzsche's being taken against his knowledge to a brothel during his youth. There he was so shocked at the sight of the prostitutes thai; he froze; finally he ran to a piano in the room, struck a chord, and breaking the spell, was able to flee. Clearly Nietzsche's madness, like the physical symptoms that afflicted him throughout his life, was psychological or psychosomatic in origin. The syphilis theory is little I more than an insult offered by those who wish to dismiss Nietzsche's ideas as the products of a diseased mind. But a psychological illness is not so easily dismissed. It reflects in the man the pressures of the real world and the self with which Nietzsche had to wrestle. Certainly, there is no one who used himself more as a laboratory and a wilderness for exploration than Nietzsche. Abnormally sensitive to strain, he nevertheless provoked himself by exploring his own wounds, uncovering the forces that produced his own terrors and inhibitions, his own self- punishments and driving ambitions. In the process, he uncovered the repressive, illness-producing forces behind Western civilization—religious morality and, beneath it, the dynamics of resentment by the powerless, as a subterfuge for their own will to power. The strains that finally brought Nietzsche's collapse in 1889 seem to have been connected with finishing the intellectual phase of his life's work. He had discovered society's repressive forces, and he saw the need for a new culture—an emotional breakthrough for Western civilization. But he too needed the breakthrough, and though he thought he saw it coming in himself, the crucial weakness was still there—the long-standing terror of the opinions of others, no doubt stemming from his stern Teutonic, religious upbringing. Nietzsche was finally becoming famous, and this meant new dangers for him. [After all, his writings were not merely an attack on respectable, bourgeois; civilization, but they were undoubtedly the most violent and far-reaching attacks ever made on Christianity and religion in general. A few centuries earlier, people had been burned at the stake for much less, and even in Nietzsche's day the political power of the church was just beginning to crack in central Europe. In the inner world of Friedrich Nietzsche's own mind and emotions, then, there may have been a personal danger that was even greater than this political one. He was becoming famous, and his mother would know at last what he had been writing and thinking all these years—that pious widow of a Lutheran minister, whose moral authority over her only son was still so great that she could interrupt his love affairs when he was thir-
78 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)是在他的学生时代或 1870 年普法战争期间出版的,而他的病情恶化是大约二十年后梅毒性瘫痪的发作。然而,许多关键的事实阻碍了这一理论的发展。从 1889 年到 1900 年去世,他的健康状况一直很好;没有出现与梅毒有关的身体和精神的逐渐恶化。鉴于他在性问题上极其清高的性格,他也不可能一开始就感染梅毒。例如,有一段关于尼采在年轻时被强行带到一家妓院的记载。在那里,他看到那些妓女时非常震惊,他愣住了;最后他跑到房间里的一架钢琴前,弹了一个和弦,并打破了魔咒,得以逃离。显然,尼采的疯狂,就像困扰他一生的身体症状一样,是心理或心身疾病的根源。梅毒理论不过是那些想把尼采的思想当作有病的思想的产物而加以否定的人所提供的一种侮辱。但是,心理疾病并不是那么容易被否定的。它在人身上反映了现实世界的压力和尼采不得不与之搏斗的自我。当然,没有人比尼采更把自己当作实验室和探索的荒野。他对压力异常敏感,但他还是通过探索自己的伤口来刺激自己,发现产生自己的恐惧和抑制的力量,自己的自我惩罚和驱动的野心。在这个过程中,他发现了西方文明背后压抑的、产生疾病的力量 —— 宗教道德,以及在它之下,无权无势者的怨恨的动力,作为他们自己权力意志的潜规则。最终导致尼采在 1889 年崩溃的压力似乎与完成他一生工作的知识阶段有关。他发现了社会的压抑力量,他看到了对新文化的需求 —— 西方文明的情感突破。但他也需要这种突破,尽管他认为自己看到了这种突破的到来,但关键的弱点仍然存在 —— 长期以来对他人意见的恐惧,这无疑是源于他严厉的日耳曼式宗教教育。尼采终于成名了,这对他来说意味着新的危险。[毕竟,他的著作不仅仅是对可敬的资产阶级文明的攻击,而且无疑是对基督教和一般宗教的最猛烈和深远的攻击。几个世纪前,人们被烧死在火刑柱上的原因要少得多,甚至在尼采的时代,教会的政治力量在中欧刚刚开始崩溃。在弗里德里希·尼采自己的内心世界和情感中,可能存在着比这种政治危险更严重的个人危险。他开始出名了,他的母亲终于知道他这些年一直在写什么,想什么 —— 那个虔诚的路德教牧师的寡妇,她对她唯一的儿子的道德权威仍然是如此之大,以至于她可以在他 30 岁的时候打断他的爱情。
Nietzsche's Madness 79 ty-nine. Perhaps it was this terror, mounting above the political and intellectual excitement, that pushed Nietzsche over the edge. In a strange way, the whirlpool into which Nietzsche now fell was completely appropriate. His philosophy held the critical intellect to be a phenomenon of the tortured, self-reflective will; the duty and compulsion to write for others was part of this struggling world of moral repression. Cutting himself loose from all that, Nietzsche turned his back on the years of migraine headaches, burning eyes, and nagging illness. He turned instead toward the most immediate sources of happiness within. In his own world of supreme individualism he was a success; he had become Dionysus. AN ASSESSMENT To total the balance sheet of Nietzsche's work is still impossible. The currents from it have flowed far and wide in the twentieth century—the century that Nietzsche predicted would be his own—and they are flowing still. In sociology, Nietzsche had an immediate impact on Max Weber, alerting him to the role of the emotion-disciplining Christian work ethic in powering modern capitalist society and to the iron cage of bureaucracy that makes a slave morality appropriate for all. Nietzsche's depth psychology was taken up and explored by Freud, his colleagues, and his followers. Indeed, Nietzsche's ideas had become so famous in the early twentieth century that Freud declared he did not want to read Nietzsche, because he felt the ideas would contaminate his own researches; yet Freud himself was thereby acknowledging the pervasiveness of this atmosphere, in which the unconscious drives could now be explored. Other depth psychologists, such as Alfred Adler, explicitly developed the Nietzschean theme of the will to power. In philosophy, Nietzsche helped set off the existentialist movement, with its rejection of all specialized academic metaphysics and epistemology that does not derive from an immediate sense of one's own fully engaged life. In this philosophy, meaning is not given from outside, but must be constantly created from within. On the other side, one cannot ignore the political uses that have been made of Nietzsche, at first by the German nationalists and the anti-Semites encouraged by Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche, and later by the Nazis themselves. In the wake of fascism, Nietzsche was for a time in very bad repute in the West; Anglo-American intellectuals in particular have tended to repudiate him wholesale as a primary cause of Hitler's atrocities. Yet it can be said that almost every aspect of German culture has been attacked at one point or another as leading up to nazism. Thus do ideas become one of the casualties of warfare, even among the most well-meaning of intellectuals. In recent times Nietzsche's true themes have engaged our attention again. Post-Freudian analysts like Fritz Perls have struck a Nietzschean
尼采的疯狂 79 ty-9. 也许正是这种凌驾于政治和知识的兴奋之上的恐怖,将尼采推向了边缘。以一种奇怪的方式,尼采现在所陷入的漩涡是完全合适的。他的哲学认为批判性智力是一种受折磨的、自我反省的意志的现象;为他人写作的责任和强迫性是这个道德压抑的斗争世界的一部分。尼采把自己从这一切中解脱出来,把他的注意力转移到多年来的偏头痛、眼睛灼热和唠叨的疾病上。他转而追求内心最直接的幸福来源。在他自己的最高个人主义的世界里,他是一个成功者;他已经成为狄俄尼索斯。评估 总结尼采作品的平衡表仍然是不可能的。尼采的作品在 20 世纪流传甚广 —— 尼采曾预言这将是他自己的世纪 —— 而且它们还在流传。在社会学方面,尼采对马克斯·韦伯产生了直接的影响,使他注意到了情绪化的基督教工作伦理在推动现代资本主义社会方面的作用,以及使奴隶道德适用于所有人的官僚机构的铁笼。尼采的深度心理学被弗洛伊德、他的同事和他的追随者所采纳和探索。事实上,尼采的思想在二十世纪初已经非常有名,以至于弗洛伊德宣称他不想读尼采,因为他觉得这些思想会污染他自己的研究;然而,弗洛伊德本人却因此承认这种氛围的普遍性,在这种氛围中,无意识的驱动力现在可以被探索。其他深度心理学家,如阿尔弗雷德·阿德勒,明确地发展了尼采的权力意志主题。在哲学方面,尼采帮助掀起了存在主义运动,它拒绝所有专门的学术形而上学和认识论,这些都不是来自于一个人对自己完全参与的生活的直接感觉。在这种哲学中,意义不是从外部给予的,而是必须不断地从内部创造。另一方面,我们不能忽视尼采的政治用途,起初是由德国民族主义者和由伊丽莎白·福斯特·尼采鼓励的反犹主义者,后来是由纳粹分子自己使用。在法西斯主义之后,尼采在西方的声誉一度很差;尤其是英美知识分子倾向于全盘否定他,认为他是希特勒暴行的主要原因。然而可以说,德国文化的几乎每一个方面都在某个时候被攻击为导致了纳粹主义。因此,思想成为战争的牺牲品之一,即使是在最善意的知识分子中间。近来,尼采的真正主题再次引起了我们的注意。像弗里茨·珀尔斯这样的后弗洛伊德式的分析家对尼采的思想进行了冲击。
80 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism note, breaking through their patients' intellectualism and moralism to force a stance of total self-assertion and total public honesty. Psychiatrist R. D. Laing asks if there is not a crucial element of repressed creativity that comes out, in the circumstances of most lives, only in madness. In this, Laing could have had Nietzsche's own life in mind as an example. And the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s reverberated the Nietzschean theme in yet another way—representing a struggle out of the bonds of nationalist militarism and bureaucratic career regimentation that characterized America at midcentury, into a life style of here-and-now high experience. The social criticism and controversy of today seem to confront Nietzsche's issues more deliberately than ever before. The halo of altruism is beginning to be torn from the elite professions, in a manner that fits well with Nietzsche's own analysis. We are beginning to see the power interests (and financial interests) of medical doctors behind the elaborate public facade of service. We realize the investment medicine has in maintaining a continual supply of sick people to make scientific tests upon and peddle drugs to, and its resulting lack of concern with permanent cures and with preventing sickness in the first place. We are beginning to see the self-interests of teachers, administrators, and employers (and students, too) behind the liberal, service-oriented rhetoric of the educational system. And most recently perhaps, we are beginning to break free of the sexist domination that has been upheld by our romantic and familial conventions for centuries and has dictated the course of relationships between men and women. Ironically, Nietzsche's own attitudes were violently antagonistic to traditional women; but in cracking the facade of sentimental idealization and morality, he began to reveal the underlying system of domination. On all these fronts, the ideas of Nietzsche still point us to the crucial paths toward liberation. Nietzsche's life itself shows the dangers of a mere halfway breakthrough. To uncover unconscious drives and attack dominant hypocrisy, one cannot afford to be cowardly in any respect. For there is the danger of being captured by just those repressing forces one is trying to become liberated from, just as Nietzsche in his madness was captured by the anti-Semites he had railed against. Yet we should remember Nietzsche as the first to tread this path, exploring the nastiest, most hidden parts of society and self. If he finally fell victim to what he uncovered, at least he had the courage to proceed in the first place, and what he revealed stands for others as guideposts to follow. In his explorations, as well as in his hardships and his ultimate tragedy, Nietzsche ranks among the most heroic of the discoverers of society.
80 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)指出,他们突破了病人的知识主义和道德主义,迫使他们采取完全自我主张和完全公开诚实的姿态。精神病学家莱恩(R·D. Laing)问道,在大多数人的生活环境中,是否有一种被压抑的创造力的关键因素,只有在疯狂的时候才会出现。在这一点上,Laing 可以把尼采自己的生活作为一个例子来考虑。20 世纪 60 年代的迷幻革命以另一种方式反响了尼采的主题 —— 代表了从民族主义军国主义和官僚主义职业制度的束缚中挣脱出来的斗争,这是美国在本世纪中叶的特点,进入一种现世的高度体验的生活方式。今天的社会批评和争论似乎比以往任何时候都更刻意地面对尼采的问题。利他主义的光环开始从精英职业中被撕掉,这种方式与尼采自己的分析十分吻合。我们开始看到医生们在精心设计的公共服务外表下的权力利益(和经济利益)。我们意识到医学在维持不断供应的病人以进行科学试验和向他们兜售药物方面的投资,以及由此导致的对永久治疗和首先预防疾病的关注的缺乏。我们开始看到教师、行政人员和雇主(还有学生)在教育系统的自由主义、服务导向的言论背后的自我利益。也许最近,我们开始摆脱性别歧视的支配,这种支配几个世纪以来一直被我们的浪漫和家庭习俗所维护,并支配着男女之间的关系进程。具有讽刺意味的是,尼采本人的态度与传统女性激烈对立;但在破解多愁善感的理想化和道德的表象时,他开始揭示出背后的统治体系。在所有这些方面,尼采的思想仍然为我们指出了走向解放的关键道路。尼采的生活本身显示了仅仅是半途而废的突破的危险。要揭开无意识的驱动力,攻击统治者的虚伪,在任何方面都不能怯懦。因为存在着被那些试图解放的压抑力量所俘获的危险,就像尼采在疯狂中被他所抨击的反犹主义者俘获一样。然而,我们应该记住尼采是第一个踏上这条道路的人,他探索了社会和自我中最肮脏、最隐蔽的部分。如果他最终成为他所发现的东西的受害者,至少他首先有勇气继续前进,而他所揭示的东西也为其他人提供了可以遵循的指导原则。在他的探索中,以及在他的艰难困苦和最终的悲剧中,尼采是社会发现者中最英勇的一个。
CHAPTER FIVE DoGooders, Evolutionists, and Racists So far our history has dealt mainly with the thought of France and Germany. We take up now the third of the great intellectual cultures of modern times, that of the English-speaking world. It is not a world of towering individual thinkers like Marx or Tocqueville, with the exception of Charles Darwin, who is not really a social thinker at all. But it does produce some major ideas: the notion of society as organized around a market and the idea of man's continuity with biological evolution. It produces as well the characteristic political philosophy of Britain and America—liberalism, in both its right-wing (laissez-faire) and left-wing (welfare-state) versions. It develops the modern ideology of the application of science to the solution of social problems. For us today, concerned about the potentially dangerous consequences of science, there is a lesson in this. For it was out of the vogue of science, and especially of biology and statistics, that the ideologies of racism emerged. How this happens is still of some interest, for the mode of thought that produced racism has not disappeared along with that particular doctrine. To begin, we must retrace our steps and return briefly to the eighteenth century. Medieval Christianity had held a monopoly on thought all over Europe, and Latin had been everywhere the language of the educated thinker. It was only in the eighteenth century, when thought broke out of its religious mold, that truly national differences in culture began to appear (although the Reformation paved the way for this by breaking up the Catholic Church into national churches). In France, as we have seen, the movement that we call the Enlightenment was a sharp revolt against religion, in the name of science. The philosophes of the Paris salons entertained their listeners with revolutionary principles cloaked over by witticisms. In Britain the break with religion came much more gradually, and the tone was mildly progressive, never revolutionary. Unlike the independent, secular French intellectuals, the British thinkers emerged first of all as university professors in Scotland, where they taught a branch of theology called moral philosophy. Originally this discipline consisted of practical advice on what the good Christian should do in specific situations to avoid sin, but it gradually became secularized into a consideration of how the good society is organized. From moral casuistry, it gradually turned into economics. 81
第五章 道德家、进化论者和种族主义者 到目前为止,我们的历史主要涉及到法国和德国的思想。现在我们要讨论的是现代伟大的知识文化中的第三种,即英语世界的文化。这个世界没有像马克思或托克维尔那样高大的个人思想家,查尔斯·达尔文除外,他根本就不是一个真正的社会思想家。但它确实产生了一些重要的思想:围绕市场组织的社会概念和人类与生物进化的连续性的思想。它还产生了英国和美国特有的政治哲学 —— 自由主义,包括其右翼(自由放任)和左翼(福利国家)版本。它发展了将科学应用于解决社会问题的现代意识形态。对于今天关注科学潜在危险后果的我们来说,这里面有一个教训。因为正是由于科学的流行,特别是生物学和统计学的流行,才出现了种族主义的意识形态。这种情况是如何发生的,仍然具有一定的意义,因为产生种族主义的思维模式并没有随着这种特定的学说而消失。首先,我们必须回溯我们的脚步,简要地回到十八世纪。中世纪的基督教曾垄断了整个欧洲的思想,拉丁文到处都是受过教育的思想家的语言。只有到了十八世纪,当思想冲破其宗教模式时,文化中真正的民族差异才开始出现(尽管宗教改革通过将天主教会分解成民族教会而为之铺平了道路)。在法国,正如我们所看到的,我们称之为启蒙运动的运动是以科学的名义对宗教进行的激烈反抗。巴黎沙龙的哲学家们用革命的原则来取悦他们的听众,并以俏皮话来掩饰。在英国,与宗教的决裂来得更为缓慢,其基调是温和的进步,而不是革命。与独立的、世俗的法国知识分子不同,英国的思想家首先是作为苏格兰的大学教授出现的,他们在那里教授神学的一个分支,称为道德哲学。最初,这门学科包括关于好的基督徒在特定情况下应该如何避免犯罪的实用建议,但它逐渐变得世俗化,变成了对良好社会如何组织的考虑。从道德案例学,它逐渐变成了经济学。81
82 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF FERGUSON AND SMITH The agents of this transformation were two Edinburgh professors, Adam Ferguson (1723-1816) and Adam Smith (1732-1790). Ferguson began with the medieval idea that society is formed like a living body. The king is the head, his soldiers the arms, the church the heart, the artisans the stomach, the royal ministers the eyes and ears, and of course the peasants the feet. (This is a notion from which Shakespeare, a characteristically medieval thinker, drew many of his most elaborate metaphors.) Ferguson applied the model more seriously. If society does in fact consist of specialized parts forming a body, we must conceive of a division of labor among them and a system of exchange by which the services of one part are paid for by the services of the others. And given this natural exchange, one may draw a striking conclusion: that the social division of labor can carry on its exchanges very well on its own, without the interference of the government. The social body does not need the constant supervision of its head. Adam Smith drew out the consequences of this in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations. The market, Smith showed, has laws of its own, the most basic of which is the principle of supply and demand, which regulates exchange for the benefit of the whole. No one could very long persist in producing what was not wanted, for one would get no return; the high returns for those who produce what is so wanted as to be scarce will attract other producers and thus reduce the scarcity. It is neither necessary nor desirable to interfere with this process, for there is an invisible hand that guides the results of people's labors, and in following their own self-interests, all may contribute to the general good. Smith thus at once founded the new science of economics and a new political philosophy, Liberalism. LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM: BENTHAM, MALTHUS, AND MILL The philosophy of Liberalism has two sides, which were united for a while, but later split into rival viewpoints. These two sides were organized respectively around the idea of rational beings and the idea of the natural laws of the market. On the one side, there is the way of regarding humans as homo economi- cus, rational individuals who calculate profits and losses and act accordingly. This enlightened self-interest was all to the good of the system, as we have seen, and it became thought of as the principle around which all of society could be organized. The leader of this wing of thought was the lawyer Jeremy Bentham, who founded the school of utilitarianism, originally as a program of legal reform. The laws of England were a jumble of local and national statues, full of inequities and grotesque feudal punishments like hanging for stealing bread. Bentham argued that revenge and other sentiments were foolish bases for laws and proposed a set of reforms based on
82 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 弗格森和斯密的道德哲学 这一转变的推动者是两位爱丁堡的教授,亚当·弗格森(1723-1816)和亚当·斯密(1732-1790)。弗格森从中世纪的想法开始,认为社会的形成就像一个活体。国王是头,他的士兵是武器,教会是心脏,工匠是胃,王室大臣是眼睛和耳朵,当然还有农民是脚。这是一个概念,莎士比亚,一个具有中世纪特色的思想家,从他的许多最精致的比喻中提取。弗格森更认真地应用了这个模式。如果社会确实是由专门的部分组成一个机构,我们必须设想它们之间的分工和一个交换系统,通过这个系统,一个部分的服务是由其他部分的服务来支付的。鉴于这种自然的交换,人们可以得出一个惊人的结论:社会分工可以自己很好地进行交换,而不需要政府的干预。社会机构不需要其首脑的不断监督。亚当·斯密于 1776 年在《国富论》中阐述了这一结论的后果。斯密表明,市场有其自身的规律,其中最基本的是供求原则,它为整体利益调节交换。没有人能够长期坚持生产不需要的东西,因为他不会得到任何回报;那些生产稀缺的东西的人的高回报会吸引其他生产者,从而减少稀缺性。干预这一过程既无必要,也不可取,因为有一只看不见的手在引导人们的劳动成果,在遵循他们自己的利益时,所有人都可以为总体利益做出贡献。因此,斯密一下子就创立了新的经济学科学和新的政治哲学,即自由主义。自由主义与社会改革:本特哈姆、马瑟斯和米尔 自由主义哲学有两个方面,它们曾一度联合起来,但后来又分裂成相互对立的观点。这两方分别围绕着理性人的思想和市场的自然法则的思想组织起来。一方认为人类是经济人,是计算利润和损失并采取相应行动的理性个体。正如我们所看到的,这种开明的自我利益对系统是有利的,它被认为是所有社会都可以围绕的原则。这一派思想的领袖是律师杰里米·边沁,他创立了功利主义学派,最初是作为一项法律改革计划。英国的法律是由地方和国家法规组成的,充满了不公平和怪异的封建惩罚,如偷面包被绞死。边沁认为,复仇和其他情感是法律的愚蠢基础,并提出了一套基于以下方面的改革方案
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 83 principles of reward and punishment that would induce people to be good. In the utilitarian philosophy the best action could be computed by a "hedonistic calculus," by which one arrived at "the greatest good for the greatest number." It provided a way of combining maximum individual freedom with the good of the whole society. The other side of Liberalism was organized around the idea of the division of labor and the exchanges of the market, which follow their own natural laws. In the tradition of moral philosophy from which this model emerged, natural laws were regarded as the way in which God (or nature) had intended things to operate; they were laws about both how things work and how they ought to work. Thus, competition, through the principles of supply and demand, results in the production of just the amounts and kinds of goods that are needed and assigns them a fair price. All restraints on trade, whether business monopolies, government restrictions, or labor unions, are unnatural and hence must be opposed. Sometimes the results of these laws seemed to be unfortunate. For example, in 1798 a country parson named Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population in which he stated that poverty was the result of a law of nature. As production increases, the population grows, he argued; but whereas the population increases by a geometric ratio (for example, 2:4:8:16:32, or some such accelerating curve), the production of food can only increase by an arithmetic ratio (1:2:3:4:5 or other constant increments), as new land is brought into cultivation only with effort, and even that approaches a limit of exhaustion. Accordingly, population will always tend to outstrip food supplies, and the less fit individuals will starve. This is not only inevitable, said Malthus, but even good for the system as a whole. Malthus and Smith used a labor theory of value and hence were confronted with the same paradox Marx grappled with: How is profit made, if the market ensures that one quantity of labor-value will be exchanged for an equal value? You will recall that Marx invoked labor exploitation as the answer; Malthus proposes population increase of the poor people as the saving element, for it ensures that there will be too many poor people for the available jobs and hence keeps wages low. Thus, the natural laws of the system are all to the good in the end, and in any case it is fruitless to interfere with them. Trying to save the paupers only enables them to reproduce, which makes the population problem that much worse. Parson Malthus even regarded this principle as evidence of God's moral retribution: Poverty is the punishment that humans bring down on themselves for their lack of sexual restraint. Eventually, a split was to develop between the two wings of Liberalism, but they would retain much in common. They both 'believed in representative government, the capacity of rational individuals to rule themselves; in the civil liberties of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, which ensured that truth would arise from the free market of ideas; in religious tolerance and the separation of church and state; and in a minimum of government interference with the freedoms of individuals, as long as they do not use their freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others. (Just where this in-
功利主义者、进化论者和种族主义者 83 奖励和惩罚的原则会促使人们向善。在功利主义哲学中,最好的行动可以通过 “享乐主义的计算” 来计算,通过这种计算,人们可以得到 “最大多数人的最大利益”。它提供了一种将最大的个人自由与整个社会的利益相结合的方法。自由主义的另一面是围绕着劳动分工和市场交换的思想而组织的,它们遵循着各自的自然规律。在这种模式产生的道德哲学传统中,自然法则被认为是上帝(或自然界)希望事物运作的方式;它们是关于事物如何运作以及应该如何运作的法律。因此,通过供应和需求的原则,竞争的结果是生产所需数量和种类的商品,并为它们分配一个公平的价格。所有对贸易的限制,无论是商业垄断、政府限制,还是工会,都是不自然的,因此必须反对。有时,这些法律的结果似乎是不幸的。例如,1798 年,一位名叫托马斯·马尔萨斯的乡村牧师发表了《人口原理论》,他在其中指出,贫穷是自然规律的结果。他认为,随着生产的增加,人口也在增长;但是,人口的增长是按几何比例进行的(例如,2:4:8:16:32,或类似的加速曲线),而食物的生产只能按算术比例增加(1:2:3:4:5 或其他恒定的增量),因为新的土地只有经过努力才能进入耕种,甚至接近枯竭的界限。因此,人口将总是倾向于超过食物供应,而不太合适的人将会挨饿。马尔萨斯说,这不仅是不可避免的,甚至对整个系统都有好处。马尔萨斯和斯密使用的是劳动价值理论,因此面临着与马克思努力解决的相同悖论。如果市场能确保一定数量的劳动价值能被交换成同等价值,那么利润是如何产生的?你会记得,马克思援引劳动剥削作为答案;马尔萨斯提出穷人的人口增长作为拯救因素,因为它确保有太多的穷人来从事现有的工作,从而保持低工资。因此,这个系统的自然规律最终都是好的,无论如何,干预它们是没有结果的。试图拯救贫民只能使他们繁殖,这使人口问题更加严重。帕森·马尔萨斯甚至把这一原则看作是上帝的道德报应的证据。贫穷是人类因缺乏性约束而给自己带来的惩罚。最终,自由主义的两派之间出现了分裂,但他们仍有许多共同点。他们都 "相信代议制政府,相信理性的个人有能力统治自己;相信言论自由、新闻自由和集会自由等公民自由,这确保了真理会从思想的自由市场中产生;相信宗教宽容和政教分离;相信政府对个人自由的最低限度的干预,只要他们不利用自己的自由来侵犯他人的自由。(只是在这个……
84 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism fringement begins was to be a subject of bitter debate.) This implied a belief in private property as an individual right. The only way in which all Liberals agreed that one might interfere with others was through education (although not necessarily state-supported or compulsory education), which would enlighten people to see how their rational and moral behavior was best for themselves and for society. Liberals were uniformly opposed to revolution and believed only in gradual change and improvement. The Liberal position was of course not the only one in England in the early nineteenth century; there were also conservatives supporting the rights of the aristocracy and other vested interests, as well as more radical movements among the workers. But for the educated middle class, Liberalism became a powerful force. At the same time, its two wings were coming more and more into conflict. Not only the harshness of Malthusianism but the evils of the industrial revolution were becoming apparent. Child labor, factory conditions, hordes of beggars and paupers, squalid poorhouses and debtors' prisons, periodic crises of unemployment—the same things that drove Marx to radicalism—moved one section of Liberalism into action. The utilitarian wing, with its belief in rational action and its principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, proposed doing something to correct these ills. Soon they were joining in the commissions that investigated conditions in the factories, proposing legislation on child labor, free schools (as a way to take the children off the market), workman's insurance, prison reform, public health, and a myriad of other worthy causes. The intellectual rationale for reform was provided by the utilitarian leader John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The "laws" of the market, Mill pointed out in 1848 in his Principles of Political Economy, are simply statements of how things will operate if we let the market operate unchecked; but there is no necessity for us to let it operate that way. Mill, in effect, destroyed the remaining assumption of moral philosophy, which saw "natural laws" as statements both of what is and of what ought to be. The market is only one system among many, Mill said. It is not God's single law, and if its results do not bring happiness, then we are free to modify it or to try another system. This created liberalism with a small "I," the modern philosophy of reform that has led to the modern welfare state. The old laissez-faire Liberalism (with a capital "L") was put on the defensive. In Britain the bolder wing of the liberals went on to support not only legislative reforms but even trade unionism and eventually the Labour party. A mild reformist version of socialism was advocated by those liberals organized in the Fabian Society, whose membership was to include George Bernard Shaw. The consequences of liberalism were not merely political; they also began the tradition of empirical research in sociology. The investigating commissions in the factories were followed by tours of philanthropic individuals into the slums and poorhouses, resulting in such publications as Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People in London.
84 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism)开始是一个激烈辩论的主题。这意味着对作为个人权利的私有财产的信念。所有自由主义者都同意,一个人可以干涉他人的唯一方式是通过教育(尽管不一定是国家支持的或义务教育),这将启迪人们看到他们的理性和道德行为如何对自己和社会是最好的。自由主义者一致反对革命,只相信渐进式的变化和改进。当然,在 19 世纪初的英国,自由派的立场并不是唯一的;还有支持贵族和其他既得利益者权利的保守派,以及工人中更激进的运动。但对于受过教育的中产阶级来说,自由主义成为一股强大的力量。与此同时,它的两翼也越来越多地发生冲突。不仅马尔萨斯主义的严酷性,而且工业革命的弊端也逐渐显现。童工、工厂条件、成群的乞丐和贫民、肮脏的济贫院和债务人监狱、周期性的失业危机 —— 这些都是促使马克思走向激进主义的东西 —— 促使自由主义的一部分采取行动。功利主义的一派,以其对理性行动的信念和对最大多数人的最大利益的原则,建议做些什么来纠正这些弊病。很快,他们加入了调查工厂条件的委员会,提出了关于童工、免费学校(作为使儿童离开市场的一种方式)、工人保险、监狱改革、公共卫生和无数其他有价值的事业的立法。功利主义领袖约翰·斯图亚特·米尔(1806-1873)为改革提供了思想依据。密尔于 1848 年在他的《政治经济学原理》中指出,市场的 “法则” 只是说明了如果我们让市场不受控制地运作,事情将如何运作;但我们没有必要让它以这种方式运作。密尔实际上摧毁了道德哲学的剩余假设,即把 “自然法则” 视为既是什么又是什么的陈述。密尔说,市场只是众多系统中的一个。它不是上帝的唯一法则,如果它的结果不能带来幸福,那么我们可以自由地修改它或尝试另一个系统。这就创造了带有一个小 “I” 的自由主义,即导致现代福利国家的现代改革哲学。旧的自由放任的自由主义(大写的 “L”)被置于防御地位。在英国,自由主义者中更大胆的一派不仅支持立法改革,甚至支持工会主义,最终支持工党。那些在费边社(Fabian Society)中组织起来的自由主义者倡导温和的社会主义改革,其成员包括乔治·伯纳德·肖。自由主义的后果不仅仅是政治上的,他们还开始了社会学的实证研究传统。在工厂的调查委员会之后,慈善家们又到贫民区和济贫院考察,结果出版了查尔斯·布斯的《伦敦人民的生活和劳动》等著作。
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 85 SOCIAL EVOLUTIONISM: DARWIN AND SPENCER Mill had given the reform wing some heavy intellectual ammunition. But just when the battle seemed won, the fading conservatives acquired unexpected help. In 1859 Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. At a stroke, Darwin set the natural world in order, just as Newton had done two centuries earlier in physics. All the species of plants and animals could now be seen as evolving from common ancestors through the great principle of natural selection. Continual small variations in each generation resulted in gradual change, as those most fit to survive and reproduce in the available environments did so, and those less fit died out. The result was a series of branchings, as creatures evolved until they became adapted to stable habitats. This was the great intellectual event of the nineteenth century, as its result was to put the capital "L" Liberals back in the saddle. Darwin's model of evolutionary advance through competition and survival of the fittest was strong justification for leaving social processes alone to take their course. Actually, Darwin's system had more than an affinity with laissez-faire, for Darwin had hit upon his great organizing principle in biology—natural selection—while reading Malthus on the dynamics of population. Darwin provided Liberals not only with support, but also with the right kind of enemies. The church conservatives naturally regarded evolutionism as contrary to the biblical account of Creation, anl their outcry grew even louder in 1871 when Darwin published The Descent of Man, which carried out the evolutionary corollary that man must have a common ancestor with animals, most probably with the great apes. Liberalism, joining hands with evolutionism, once again drew the most progressive thinkers to its cause. The most prominent of the social evolutionists was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Like Mill and Darwin, he was an eccentric, unsociable Englishman, although unlike Darwin he was poor enough to have to work for a living. Trained in science, Spencer began working as a railway engineer. He was always producing mechanical inventions, including a not- very-successful flying machine. The only invention that he actually made money on was a sort of early paper clip. By the time he was thirty Spencer realized that more money could be made by inventions in the world of ideas, but he continued to set up weird labor-saving devices around his own home. Spencer's career was launched as a writer on scientific and political subjects for popular magazines, which were just springing up around mid- century to cater to the growing middle-class audience. To this public Spencer began to sell his combination of evolutionism and laissez-faire.1 Evolutionism, Spencer argued, shows that we are subject to forces beyond 'Spencer was not a literal follower of Darwin, but it must be recalled that evolutionism was generally in the air at the time. From 1830 to 1833 Charles Lyell published his theory of geological evolution, which had already brought down the wrath of the church and popularized the subject. Darwin himself had formulated his ideas in the late 1830s, and they were privately known among leading scientists.
社会进化论:达尔文和斯宾塞 米尔为改革派提供了一些重要的思想弹药。但就在这场战役似乎已经胜利的时候,正在消退的保守派获得了意外的帮助。1859 年,查尔斯·达尔文发表了《物种起源》。达尔文一气呵成,将自然界整理得井井有条,就像两个世纪前牛顿在物理学方面所做的那样。所有的植物和动物物种现在都可以被看作是通过自然选择的伟大原则从共同的祖先演变而来的。每一代中持续的小变化导致了逐渐的变化,因为那些最适合在现有环境中生存和繁殖的物种就会这样做,而那些不太适合的物种就会被淘汰。其结果是一系列的分支,因为生物不断进化,直到它们适应了稳定的栖息地。这是 19 世纪伟大的知识事件,因为它的结果是把大写的 “L” 自由主义者放回了马厩。达尔文关于通过竞争和适者生存来实现进化的模式是让社会进程自行其是的有力理由。实际上,达尔文的体系不仅仅是与自由放任的关系,因为达尔文在阅读马尔萨斯关于人口动态的文章时,发现了他在生物学上的伟大组织原则 —— 自然选择。达尔文不仅为自由主义者提供了支持,而且还提供了正确的敌人。1871 年,达尔文出版了《人的后裔》,其中提出了进化论的推论,即人类必须与动物,很可能是与大猩猩有共同的祖先,教会的保守派自然认为进化论与《圣经》中的创造论相悖,他们的呼声更加高涨。自由主义与进化论联手,再次将最进步的思想家吸引到它的事业中。社会进化论者中最突出的是赫伯特·斯宾塞(1820-1903)。像米尔和达尔文一样,他是一个古怪的、不善交际的英国人,尽管与达尔文不同的是,他很穷,不得不为生计而工作。斯宾塞受过科学训练,开始担任铁路工程师。他一直在进行机械发明,包括一个不太成功的飞行器。他唯一真正赚钱的发明是一种早期的回形针。当他 30 岁时,斯宾塞意识到,在思想的世界里,通过发明可以赚更多的钱,但他继续在自己家周围设置奇怪的省力装置。斯宾塞的职业生涯是作为流行杂志的科学和政治主题的作家开始的,这些杂志在本世纪中期左右刚刚兴起,以迎合日益增长的中产阶级读者。斯宾塞开始向这些公众推销他的进化论和自由放任的结合。1 斯宾塞认为,进化论表明,我们受制于超越'斯宾塞不是达尔文的字面追随者,但必须记住,进化论在当时普遍流行。从 1830 年到 1833 年,查尔斯·莱尔发表了他的地质进化理论,这已经引起了教会的愤怒,并使这一主题得到普及。达尔文本人在 19 世纪 30 年代末就提出了他的观点,而且这些观点在主要的科学家中是私下里知道的。
86 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism what we can see. Our actions, however well intentioned, will fail to achieve their aims if they attempt something contrary to the laws of nature. Spencer thus backed up the economic principles of laissez-faire with an evolutiorrist view of social stratification as produced by natural causes. Rich men have risen to the top by their talents, and the poor are at the bottom because: of their inherent deficiencies. Accordingly, we should not expect reforms to work just because they seem to be reasonable and good. For example, Spencer said, we need to determine the psychological differences between the sexes before deciding whether to give women the vote. Since all creatures adapt biologically to their environments, it is both useless and cruel to try to civilize the natives in the colonies or to allow criminals and mentally defective persons to produce their inevitably defective children. Spencer even questioned the value of universal education: To educate the intellect, he pointed out, does not change people's emotioni. or behavior. Spencer thus claimed that we must know social science before making any changes. And where is that science? Spencer set out to produce it himself. Indeed, he produced not just a sociology but an entire encyclopedia. Between 1860 and 1896 Spencer turned out a massive series entitled System of Synthetic Philosophy. Volume 1 is First Principles, followed by Volumes 2 and 3, Principles of Biology; Volumes 4 and 5, Principles of Psychology; Volumes 6 through 8, Principles of Sociology; and culminating in Volumes 9 and 10, Principles of Ethics. There were volumes planned on Principles of Astronomy and Principles of Geology, but these were not finished before Spencer's death; these should logically have come first, but they were postponed because Spencer feared he would die before the main part was complete. We should recall that this was the era before radio and television, and the main leisure pastime of the middle class was reading. Spencer lived off this audience for most of his life, selling advance subscriptions to his works and also publishing them in magazine installments. Principles of Sociology began coming out in 1872 in The Contemporary Review in England and in Popular Science Monthly in the United States. These volumes are full of interesting examples of different customs found around the world—child marriage, savage puberty rites, the forms of tribal kingship, and so on at great length. It is just the thing for a writer who gets paid by the page and whose readers have long hours at home in the evening to fill. Spencer hired three professors to gather together all the available data for his sociology, which he grouped under the headings of "Uncivilized Societies," "Civilized Societies (Extinct or Decayed)," and "Civilized Societies (Recent or Still Flourishing)." Thus we get our information especially from explorers like Captain Cook in the South Seas and Dr. Livingstone in Africa. Spencer supplied the unifying theory. Basically, his model was like that of Comte, whom Spencer had read and appreciated. Society is like an organism, passing through various stages of development. Spencer updates this theory by showing that change is due not merely to progress in knowledge, but also to principles of evolu-
86 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》我们可以看到什么。我们的行动,无论意图多么美好,如果试图违背自然法则,都将无法实现其目标。因此,斯宾塞用进化论者关于社会分层是由自然原因产生的观点来支持自由放任的经济原则。富人凭借他们的才能上升到顶层,而穷人则因为他们固有的缺陷而处于底层。因此,我们不应该仅仅因为改革看起来是合理的、好的,就期望它们能够发挥作用。例如,斯宾塞说,在决定是否给予妇女投票权之前,我们需要确定男女之间的心理差异。由于所有生物都在生物学上适应它们的环境,因此,试图使殖民地的土著人文明化或允许罪犯和精神有缺陷的人生产他们不可避免的有缺陷的孩子既无用又残酷。斯宾塞甚至对普及教育的价值提出质疑。他指出,对智力的教育并不能改变人们的情感或行为。因此,斯宾塞声称,在进行任何改变之前,我们必须了解社会科学。而这种科学在哪里呢?斯宾塞开始自己制作。事实上,他不仅制作了社会学,还制作了整个百科全书。从 1860 年到 1896 年,斯宾塞出版了一套名为《综合哲学体系》的大型丛书。第一卷是《第一原理》,接着是第二卷和第三卷《生物学原理》;第四卷和第五卷《心理学原理》;第六卷到第八卷《社会学原理》;最后是第九卷和第十卷《伦理学原理》。还计划出版《天文学原理》和《地质学原理》,但这些书在斯宾塞去世前没有完成;从逻辑上讲,这些书应该放在第一位,但它们被推迟了,因为斯宾塞担心他在主要部分完成之前就会去世。我们应该记得,这是在广播和电视之前的时代,中产阶级的主要休闲消遣是阅读。斯宾塞一生中的大部分时间都靠这些读者生活,他出售他的作品的预付订阅,还以杂志的形式分期出版。1872 年,《社会学原理》开始在英国的《当代评论》和美国的《大众科学月刊》上发表。这些书中充满了世界各地不同习俗的有趣例子 —— 儿童婚姻、野蛮人的青春期仪式、部落的王权形式等等,篇幅很大。这正是一个按页计费的作家所需要的,而他的读者晚上在家里有很长的时间需要填补。斯宾塞聘请了三位教授为他的社会学收集所有可用的数据,他将这些数据归入 “未开化社会”、“文明社会(已灭绝或衰败)” 和 “文明社会(最近或仍在蓬勃发展)” 等标题下。因此,我们的信息特别是从南洋的库克船长和非洲的利文斯通博士等探险家那里得到的。斯宾塞提供了统一的理论。基本上,他的模式就像斯宾塞读过并欣赏的孔德的模式。社会就像一个有机体,经历着不同的发展阶段。斯宾塞更新了这一理论,表明变化不仅仅是由于知识的进步,也是由于进化的原则。
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 87 tionary selection. He also emphasizes that society is different from an organism; it is made up of the actions of individuals and lacks a consciousness concentrated in one place. He also rejects Comte's conservative notion that society is a moral unit and, of course, Comte's political scheme for reorganizing the world under a "High Priest of Humanity." Instead, Spencer wanted to show how society develops structures that culminate in the invisible hand of the market, whereby individuals are given a maximum of freedom and yet contribute to the best functioning of the whole. Spencer gave his system intellectual elegance by explaining all evolution—cosmic and biological as well as social—with a single basic principle: Matter begins as a homogeneous mass of simple particles and gradually becomes organized as the particles come together to form heterogeneous parts of a complex whole. In short, things move from the simple and unorganized to the complex and organized. Spencer took this idea from embryology: An embryo begins as a mass of undifferentiated cells, which gradually become specialized organs interacting with each other. Spencer stated the principle more abstractly and then applied it to the evolution of the solar system, the earth, biological species, and finally society. Evolution is the process of adaptation to the environment, and its long-term trend, from the lower and earlier adaptations to higher and later ones, is from simplicity to complexity. Spencer thus arranges primitive, ancient, and modern societies in an order reflecting the stages of evolution. Societies build up as small tribes grow, are conquered, or otherwise combine with others. Size brings about a differentiation of structure. From the comparatively structureless tribes, we get first (a) a regulative system for dealing with the outside environment, analogous to the nervous system in organisms—that is, the state, which provides offense and defense against other societies; then (b) a sustaining system of economic production that provides life support for the regulative system; and finally (c) an exchange and distribution system, consisting of communications and transportation networks, commerce and finance, and so on. As society grows, each of these sectors subdivides in turn. The state becomes more complex; the king must share his power with the royal bureaucracy and eventually finds himself relying entirely on his ministers. The economy becomes increasingly autonomous, as the market system alone is capable of coordinating the diverse productions. Spencer regarded religion as an archaic stage of development. Fear of the gods was based on fear of the spirits of the dead, he argued; society outgrows this sort of control over the individual, just as it outgrows the state. Thus one's mental capacities improve along with society. Humans become less emotional and more rational; ideas become more definite; lore is replaced by scientific knowledge; customs are replaced by laws. Viewing the world around him, Spencer saw two main types of societies. One, the militant society, consists of societies in which the regulative system dominates the sustaining system. Cooperation is compulsory and enforced by the state; the society is autocratic, warlike, and religious. Such
做好事的人、进化论者和种族主义者 87 观念选择。他还强调,社会与有机体不同;它是由个人的行动组成的,缺乏集中在一个地方的意识。他还反对孔德关于社会是一个道德单位的保守观念,当然也反对孔德在 “人类的大祭司” 下重组世界的政治计划。相反,斯宾塞想说明社会如何发展结构,最终形成市场这只看不见的手,个人被赋予最大限度的自由,但又为整体的最佳运作作出贡献。斯宾塞用一条基本原则来解释所有的进化 —— 宇宙和生物以及社会 —— 从而使他的系统在智力上更加优雅。物质开始时是由简单颗粒组成的同质体,当这些颗粒聚集在一起形成复杂整体的异质部分时,逐渐变得有组织。简而言之,事物从简单的、无组织的发展到复杂的、有组织的发展。斯宾塞从胚胎学中得到了这个想法。胚胎开始时是一团未分化的细胞,它们逐渐成为相互作用的专门器官。斯宾塞更抽象地阐述了这一原则,然后将其应用于太阳系、地球、生物物种和最终社会的进化。进化是适应环境的过程,它的长期趋势,从低级和早期的适应到高级和后期的适应,是由简单到复杂。因此,斯宾塞将原始社会、古代社会和现代社会按照反映进化阶段的顺序排列。社会随着小部落的成长、被征服或与其他部落结合而建立起来。规模带来了结构的分化。从相对无结构的部落中,我们首先得到(a)一个与外部环境打交道的调节系统,类似于生物体的神经系统,即国家,它提供对其他社会的进攻和防御;然后(b)一个维持经济生产的系统,为调节系统提供生命支持;最后(c)一个交换和分配系统,包括通信和运输网络、商业和金融等等。随着社会的发展,这些部门中的每一个都会依次细分。国家变得更加复杂;国王必须与皇家官僚机构分享他的权力,并最终发现自己完全依赖他的部长们。经济变得越来越自主,因为只有市场系统能够协调各种生产。斯宾塞认为宗教是一个古老的发展阶段。他认为,对神灵的恐惧是建立在对亡灵的恐惧之上的;社会超越了对个人的这种控制,正如它超越了国家一样。因此,一个人的精神能力随着社会的发展而提高。人类变得不那么感性,更加理性;思想变得更加明确;传说被科学知识所取代;习俗被法律所取代。观察他周围的世界,斯宾塞看到了两种主要类型的社会。一种是好战的社会,包括调节系统支配维持系统的社会。合作是强制性的,由国家强制执行;社会是专制的、好战的和宗教的。这种
88 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism societies could be found in Germany and France. The other type, the industrial society, is peaceful and republican; cooperation is voluntary, through the means of the market. Here, the state exists for the benefit of its members and not vice versa. England was Spencer's prime example of such a society. He stuck by his principles, however, and denounced Britain's imperial conquests as a dangerous shift away from the industrial to the militant form of society. LIBERALISM IN AMERICA Both of these wings of L(l)iberal thought—the social reform and the evolutionist—spread to America not long after they arose in England. Spencer had a triumphant American tour. Lavish banquets were given in his honor by wealthy businessmen, grateful for the intellectual support he gave them in what was indeed an era of robber barons. The main home-grown exponent of laissez-faire evolutionism was the Yale professor William Graham Sumner (1840-1910). His tone can be gathered from an exchange with his students: "Professor, don't you believe in any government aid to industries?" "No! If s root, hog, or die." "Yes, but hasn't the hog got a right to root?" "There are no rights. The world owes nobody a living." "You believe, then, Professor, in only one system, the contract-competitive system?" "Thaf s the only sound economic system. All others are fallacies." "Well, suppose some professor of political economy came along and took your job away from you. Wouldn't you be sore?" "Any other professor is welcome to try. If he gets my job, it is my fault. My business is to teach the subject so well that no one can take the job away from me."2 Sumner's system had some advantages over Spencer's in that it concentrated less on the overall form of social evolution and paid more attention to the particular "folkways" or customs that evolved to fit a particular historical situation. Sumner was especially astute in seeing that moral norms, which he called "mores," are simply customs that take on considerable emotional force. Sumner took a rather radical stance, considering that he was an ordained minister, as he detailed the varieties of moral beliefs and practices through slavery, torture, infanticide, cannibalism, monogamy, polygamy, public nudity, and sacred prostitution, in order to show that all standards are relative to the customs of the time. "The mores can make anything right," he asserted, thus claiming that there are no timeless verities, except of course the law of natural selection itself. Sumner, who retired from preaching in the pulpit in order to devote himself to preaching in the classroom, elevated natural selection to the status of the fundamental moral 2William Lyon Phelps, "When Yale Was Given to Sumnerology," Literary Digest International Book Review, III (1925), 661.
88 十九世纪理性主义的变迁在德国和法国可以找到。另一种类型,即工业社会,是和平和共和的;合作是自愿的,通过市场的手段。在这里,国家的存在是为了其成员的利益,而不是反过来。英国是斯宾塞的这种社会的主要例子。然而,他坚持自己的原则,并谴责英国的帝国征服是一种危险的转变,即从工业社会到军事社会的形式。自由主义在美国 自由主义思想的这两翼 —— 社会改革和进化论 —— 在英国兴起后不久就传播到了美国。斯宾塞进行了一次成功的美国之旅。富裕的商人们为他举办了豪华的宴会,感谢他在当时确实是一个强盗横行的时代给予他们的智力支持。自由放任的进化论的主要本土传播者是耶鲁大学教授威廉·格雷厄姆·萨姆纳(1840-1910)。他的语气可以从他与学生的交流中得知。“教授,你不相信政府对工业的任何援助吗?”“不!如果是根,猪,或死亡。”“是的,但是猪没有权利生根吗?”“没有什么权利。这个世界不欠任何人的生活。”“那么,教授,你只相信一种制度,即合同·竞争制度?”“那是唯一健全的经济体系。所有其他的都是谬论。”“好吧,假设某个政治经济学教授出现并夺走了你的工作。你会不会很生气?”“欢迎任何其他教授来尝试。如果他抢了我的工作,那就是我的错。2 萨姆纳的体系比斯宾塞的体系有一些优势,因为它不太关注社会演变的整体形式,而是更关注为适应特定历史情况而演变的特定” 民风 “或习俗。萨姆纳特别敏锐地看到,道德规范,他称之为” 风俗 “,只是具有相当大的情感力量的习俗。考虑到他是一位受戒的牧师,萨姆纳采取了相当激进的立场,他通过奴隶制、酷刑、杀婴、食人、一夫一妻制、一夫多妻制、公开裸体和神圣的卖淫来详述道德信仰和实践的多样性,以表明所有标准都是相对于当时的习俗而言的。他断言:” 风俗可以使任何事情变得正确,“从而声称不存在永恒的真理,当然除了自然选择的法则本身。萨姆纳从讲坛上退休后,为了致力于在课堂上讲课,他把自然选择提升到了基本道德的地位 2William Lyon Phelps,”When Yale Was Given to Sumnerology, " Literary Digest International Book Review, III(1925), 661.
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 89 law. In fact, Sumner got into some trouble over this. He had a famous academic freedom controversy with the president of Yale, an extremely religious man, who objected to Sumner's assigning evolutionist readings to his students. But the tides were running for evolutionism, and Sumner emerged victorious in the end. But if evolutionism was strong in America, reformism was even stronger. The reformers simply took what they wanted from evolutionism and ignored the rest. The reform mentality already had roots in America. The 1830s and 1840s witnessed a sprinkling of Utopian communities, like the famous Brook Farm in Massachusetts, inspired by Henry David Thoreau and the transcendentalists. Some of them were modeled on the ideas of the Parisian prophets Charles Fourier and Auguste Comte. So when the British liberal reformers gathered in 1856 to form the British Social Science Association, the Americans were prepared to follow suit. In 1865 the American Association for the Promotion of Social Science was founded, with guiding advice from John Stuart Mill himself. The American association was a melange of reformers of all kinds, held together by a common quest for respectability under the guise of social science. Its diverse ingredients are shown by the groups that successively split off to form their own societies: the American Prison Association in 1870; the National Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1874; the American Public Health Association, the Association for the Protection of the Insane, and the American Historical Association in 1884; and the American Economic Association in 1885. From the latter were formed the American Political Science Association and the American Sociological Society in 1905. Intellectually, these people were interested primarily in justifying their projects by whatever ideas supported them. But toward the 1880s academic factions began to form, and this stimulated a concern for intellectual coherence. What was happening was the great reform of the American universities, beginning with the foundation of Johns Hopkins University in 1876. The American colleges were adding graduate departments, expanding their student bodies, and offering electives and hence a variety of new courses. The universities were breaking out of the old classical curriculum and offering a place for new specialties in everything from modern literature to basketry. "Social problems" courses began to find their way into the curriculum, and gradually economics, political science, anthropology, psychology, and sociology got footholds in academia. The first sociology department in the world was founded at the new University of Chicago in 1892. Many of the Chicago sociologists had close connections with Hull House, a pioneering institute of social work ministering to the immigrants in the Chicago slums. Jane Addams, the founder of Hull House, began to do descriptive sociology by producing maps of social patterns on the South Side of Chicago. These maps became an inspiration for the urban sociology that later developed at the university. There were no great intellectual figures among the early American sociologists, whose leaders were Lester Ward, Albion W. Small, Franklin H.
做好事的人、进化论者和种族主义者 89 法律。事实上,萨姆纳为此陷入了一些麻烦。他与耶鲁大学的校长发生了一场著名的学术自由争论,校长是一个极其虔诚的人,他反对萨姆纳给他的学生分配进化论的读物。但当时的潮流是支持进化论的,而萨姆纳最终取得了胜利。但是,如果进化论在美国很强大,那么改革主义就更加强大。改革者们只是从进化论中获取他们想要的东西,而忽略了其他的东西。改革的心态已经在美国扎下了根。19 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代,在亨利·戴维·梭罗和超验主义者的启发下,出现了一些乌托邦社区,如马萨诸塞州著名的布鲁克农场。其中一些是以巴黎先知查尔斯·傅立叶和奥古斯特·孔德的思想为蓝本。因此,当英国自由主义改革者在 1856 年聚集在一起成立英国社会科学协会时,美国人也准备效仿。1865 年,在约翰·斯图尔特·米尔本人的指导下,美国社会科学促进会成立了。美国协会是一个由各种改革者组成的混合体,在社会科学的幌子下,他们共同追求体面的生活。它的各种成分从相继分裂出来形成自己的协会的团体中可以看出:1870 年的美国监狱协会;1874 年的全国慈善和惩戒会议;1884 年的美国公共卫生协会、保护精神病患者协会和美国历史协会;以及 1885 年的美国经济协会。在后者的基础上,1905 年成立了美国政治科学协会和美国社会学会。在智力上,这些人的兴趣主要是通过任何支持他们的想法来证明他们的项目。但到了 19 世纪 80 年代,学术派别开始形成,这刺激了人们对智力一致性的关注。正在发生的是美国大学的伟大改革,从 1876 年约翰·霍普金斯大学的成立开始。美国的大学正在增加研究生院,扩大学生队伍,提供选修课,从而提供各种新课程。大学正在打破旧的古典课程,并为从现代文学到篮子的各种新专业提供一个位置。“社会问题” 课程开始在课程中出现,经济学、政治学、人类学、心理学和社会学逐渐在学术界站稳了脚跟。1892 年,世界上第一个社会学系在新的芝加哥大学成立。许多芝加哥社会学家与赫尔之家(Hull House)有着密切的联系,赫尔之家是一个为芝加哥贫民窟的移民提供服务的先驱性社会工作机构。赫尔之家的创始人简·亚当斯(Jane Addams)通过绘制芝加哥南区的社会模式地图开始了描述性社会学的研究。这些地图成为后来在大学发展的城市社会学的灵感。早期的美国社会学家中没有伟大的知识分子,他们的领导者是莱斯特·沃德、阿尔比恩-W-斯莫尔、富兰克林-H-斯莫尔。
90 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism Giddings, Edward A. Ross, and William Graham Sumner. But they were all morally dedicated people. Many of them were sons of ministers, and quite a few had careers in the ministry themselves before becoming teachers. (This, however, was not unusual in the religiously oriented American college.) Only Ward, who was a paleobotanist with the United States Geological Survey, was not a college professor. Their one overriding interest was social problems and their main theoretical question (except for Sumner, who preached laissez-faire) was how to justify intervention in social problems, given Spencer's evolutionary case for laissez-faire. Their arguments went generally as follows: First of all, they accep>ted the basic idea of gradual progress through evolution. The problem was to show that it was natural for men to lend a hand in the evolutionary process. The answer, in one form or another, was that evolution in its higher stages acts through human consciousness and volition. Lester Ward called this the "principle of social telesis." The state, then, was not an outdated impediment to evolution, but in fact acted as the conscious agent of the community as it planned its own advances. Sociology played its role in this adveince by discovering the laws determining human behavior, so that society might intervene intelligently for human betterment. What are these laws? A few sociologists advocated research to discover them, but most of them believed the laws were available through theoretical analysis. Comte and Spencer's notion of society as an organism would not do, for the Americans wanted to operate on the individual level, not to reform the entire society all at once. There was much discussion of the ways in which society was or was not like an organism, with the general conclusion being that since society consists only of individuals, sociology must provide an explanation of how the individual acts. Sociological theorists thus began with an effort to describe the basic elements of human behavior, whether these were to be called mental faculties, social forces, interests, instincts, or motives. Their theories consisted of long lists of them, such a.1, desire for food, pleasure, sex, love, social belonging, and so forth. All social institutions, like the family or the state, were then explained as the results of combinations of these elements. Actually, these were not explanatory theories at all. By the 1920s a researcher counted 15,789 different "instincts" listed in the sociological literature and concluded that this whole mode of explanation was useless. Merely giving something another name did not explain it; to try to explain social groups by the "instinct of social belongingness" told us nothing at all about why groups occur at certain times or in certain forms under different conditions. All the theorizing had merely served to give sociology a reputation for intellectual vacuousness. But the sociologists were not greatly perturbed, for they were not seriously trying to build a real theory in the first place. They were not really interested in what determines social structures; they simply wanted a rationale for their efforts to reform the individual and solve social problems. They already knew the source of social ills before they started, and they wanted to get right at the solution.
90 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 Giddings, Edward A·Ross, and William Graham Sumner. 但他们都是在道德上有奉献精神的人。他们中的许多人都是牧师的儿子,有不少人在成为教师之前,自己也曾从事过牧师工作。(然而,这在以宗教为导向的美国大学中并不罕见)。只有沃德是美国地质调查局的古植物学家,他不是大学教授。他们最大的兴趣是社会问题,他们的主要理论问题(除了萨姆纳,他宣扬自由放任)是如何证明对社会问题的干预是合理的,因为斯宾塞的自由放任的进化案例。他们的论点大致如下。首先,他们接受了通过进化逐渐进步的基本思想。问题是要表明,男人在进化过程中伸出援手是很自然的。答案是,以这样或那样的形式,进化在其较高阶段通过人类的意识和意志发挥作用。莱斯特·沃德将此称为 “社会终结原理”。那么,国家并不是进化的一个过时的障碍,而是事实上作为社区的有意识的代理人,在它计划自己的进步时发挥作用。社会学通过发现决定人类行为的规律,在这一进程中发挥了作用,从而使社会可以明智地干预人类的进步。这些规律是什么?少数社会学家主张通过研究来发现这些规律,但他们中的大多数人认为这些规律可以通过理论分析获得。孔德和斯宾塞的社会作为一个有机体的概念是不行的,因为美国人想在个人层面上进行操作,而不是一下子改革整个社会。人们对社会是否像一个有机体的方式进行了大量的讨论,一般的结论是,由于社会只由个人组成,社会学必须对个人的行为提供解释。因此,社会学理论家开始努力描述人类行为的基本要素,无论这些要素被称为心理能力、社会力量、兴趣、本能或动机。他们的理论由一长串的清单组成,如:1、对食物、快乐、性、爱、社会归属等的渴望。所有的社会机构,如家庭或国家,然后被解释为这些元素组合的结果。实际上,这些根本不是解释性的理论。到 20 世纪 20 年代,一位研究人员统计了社会学文献中列出的 15789 种不同的 “本能”,并得出结论,这整个解释模式是无用的。仅仅给某样东西起了另一个名字并不能解释它;试图用 “社会归属感的本能” 来解释社会群体,根本没有告诉我们为什么群体会在特定时间或以特定形式在不同条件下出现。所有的理论化都只是为了给社会学带来知识空洞的声誉。但是,社会学家们并没有大惊小怪,因为他们首先并没有认真尝试建立一个真正的理论。他们对决定社会结构的因素并不真正感兴趣;他们只是想为他们改革个人和解决社会问题的努力提供一个理由。他们在开始之前就已经知道了社会弊病的根源,他们想直接解决这个问题。
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 91 What were these social problems? Recall that the sociologists were largely moralistic Anglo-Saxon Protestants from small-town or rural backgrounds. What they saw as a social problem was the growing industrial city and its immigrant population. Instead of containing clean, law-abiding, churchgoing, middle-class citizens, the city was dirty and crowded and full of crime, drunkenness, mental illness, illegitimacy, divorce, delinquency, unemployment, pauperism, radicalism, and political corruption. Sociology, then, consisted of describing these urban conditions and proposing what to do about them. Its answers fitted in precisely with the Progressive movement of the turn of the century (and incidentally, with the Prohibitionist movement too, as that rural movement built up for its last assault on the city just around World War I). The answers consisted of social work and education on the one hand and legislation on the other. Social workers and schoolteachers could train immigrant workers to become good, clean, hard-working American citizens and thus raise themselves out of poverty and its attendant ills. Legislation could eliminate the conditions that bred these effects: reforming the structure of city government to take power from the corrupt immigrant politicians and put it back in the hands of the respectable middle class; encouraging healthy economic competition by breaking up monopolies and checking fraudulent business practices; reforming the penal system to rehabilitate criminals instead of merely punishing them. The most radical of the sociologists, Edward A. Ross, even went so far as to support the right of workers to form trade unions. As a result he got into a famous academic freedom fight at Stanford University with its wealthy benefactress, Mrs. Leland Stanford, widow of one of the great robber-baron railroad builders. Neither the theorizing nor the research of the early sociologists produced any real advance in knowledge. They were convinced in advance that the "bad environment" of the city produced these ill effects; and they collected facts only to illustrate the conditions and to goad people into doing something about them, not to test their explanations or the efficacy of their cures. Sumner, like Spencer in England, inveighed against all this. It would not do any good, he said. If you did not understand the historical forces that produced certain customary behaviors, your actions would not bring about the consequences you expected. Sumner himself was not immune to criticism. His own theory of natural selection was extremely general, and he tended to give a great many examples of different institutional forms, without developing a theory that explained just what conditions would produce what kinds of forms. But in a large sense, Sumner was right. The reformers did not really understand how society worked, and hence their reforms were unsuccessful and full of unintended consequences. Their solutions were to rehabilitate individuals through education and social work and to legislate so that everyone would have an equal chance to compete in the world. In fact, their politics were naive, and their rehabilitation sentimental. They were too individually oriented to understand how politics works, how power is bar-
慈善家、进化论者和种族主义者 91 这些社会问题是什么?回顾一下,社会学家们主要是来自小镇或农村背景的道德主义的盎格鲁·撒克逊新教徒。他们所看到的社会问题是不断增长的工业城市及其移民人口。城市里没有干净、守法、去教堂的中产阶级公民,而是肮脏、拥挤,充满了犯罪、酗酒、精神病、非法移民、离婚、犯罪、失业、贫穷、激进主义和政治腐败。于是,社会学包括描述这些城市状况,并提出如何处理这些问题。它的答案正好与世纪之交的进步运动相吻合(顺便说一下,也与禁酒运动相吻合,因为这一农村运动在第一次世界大战前后为其对城市的最后一次攻击做了准备)。答案包括一方面是社会工作和教育,另一方面是立法。社会工作者和学校教师可以培训移民工人,使他们成为优秀、干净、勤劳的美国公民,从而使他们摆脱贫困和随之而来的弊病。立法可以消除滋生这些影响的条件:改革城市政府的结构,从腐败的移民政客手中夺取权力,并将其交还给受人尊敬的中产阶级;通过打破垄断和检查欺诈性的商业行为,鼓励健康的经济竞争;改革刑法制度,改造罪犯而不仅仅是惩罚他们。社会学家中最激进的爱德华-A-罗斯甚至支持工人组建工会的权利。结果,他在斯坦福大学与该校富有的女资助人利兰·斯坦福夫人陷入了一场著名的学术自由之争,利兰·斯坦福夫人是一位伟大的强盗沙龙铁路建设者的遗孀。早期社会学家的理论和研究都没有产生任何真正的知识进步。他们事先确信,城市的 “不良环境” 产生了这些不良影响;他们收集事实只是为了说明这些情况,并促使人们对这些情况采取行动,而不是为了检验他们的解释或治疗的效果。萨姆纳和英国的斯宾塞一样,对这一切进行了抨击。他说,这不会有任何好处。如果你不了解产生某些习惯性行为的历史力量,你的行动就不会带来你所期望的后果。萨姆纳本人也不免受到批评。他自己的自然选择理论是非常笼统的,他倾向于举出大量不同制度形式的例子,而没有发展一种理论来解释什么条件下会产生什么样的形式。但在很大意义上,萨姆纳是对的。改革者并没有真正理解社会是如何运作的,因此他们的改革并不成功,而且充满了意想不到的后果。他们的解决方案是通过教育和社会工作来改造个人,并通过立法使每个人都有平等的机会在这个世界上竞争。事实上,他们的政治是幼稚的,他们的康复是感性的。他们过于注重个人,不了解政治是如何运作的,权力是如何杠上的。
92 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism gained for, and how government bureaucracies really function despite the noble ideas that might guide them. They never did eliminate political corruption (except where the population of cities changed enough so that the middle class could be in control), or curb monopolies, or rehabilitate criminals. The modern therapy-oriented prison is no better than the old punitive one in end results. It serves primarily to introduce new inmates into a criminal culture, and it seems likely to do so as long as people with crirrinal records are kept out of all but the least respectable careers. Social work has become little more than bookkeeping for handing out welfare payments. The school system, the cornerstone of reformist hope, has expanded to include the vast majority of the youth population, but with paradoxical results: Instead of providing everyone with an opportunity for upward mobility, the mass school system has served mainly to push up educational requirements for employment, so that high-school graduates now search for the same low-level jobs that were once the lot of grade-school dropouts. Ard as the giant bureaucracies expand to include ever-larger segments of our lives, the rebellion and alienation found at the bottom of a competitive stratification system merely move into the school system. Instead of a solution to social problems in the outside world, the schools have become the containers and creators of their own problems. Observing all this, Sumner would have shaken his head and barked out something about "You can't change the folkways." In retrospect the social-problems perspective is most revealing where its problems have disappeared. Divorce, for example, has dropped out of the catalog of concerns—not so much because there are no more divorces (there are even more than ever)—but because we no longer regard divorce as much of a problem. Without the old moralistic views of marriage, we have come to see divorce as a better thing for the individuals involved than an unhappy marriage. In the same way we are coming to see mental illness less as a purely individual condition and more as a term by which people label others who do not live up to their demands for social discipline: and propriety; thus the "solution" can just as well be to change the social demands on the individual as to try to change the individual to fit those demands. In the long run the profound relativism of Sumner's "the mores can make anything right" is a far more sophisticated perspective than the moral absolutes of the reformers. The chapter could end here with the admonition that rushing to eliminate social conditions that offend certain people's values, without really understanding the processes involved, leads to both intellectual and practical failure. But there is an even more sobering conclusion. THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE The great idea of the late nineteenth century belongs to the evolutionists: the insight into humankind's continuity with the animal world. This insight gave enormous impetus to scientific efforts to solve social problems, espe-
92 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》(The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism gained for),以及政府官僚机构如何真正运作,尽管有可能指导它们的崇高理念。他们从未消除过政治腐败(除非城市人口的变化足以使中产阶级得以控制),或遏制垄断,或改造罪犯。现代的治疗型监狱在最终结果上并不比旧的惩罚型监狱好。它的主要作用是将新的囚犯引入犯罪文化,而且只要有犯罪记录的人除了最不值得尊敬的职业外,似乎都会这样做。社会工作已经变成了发放福利金的簿记而已。作为改革主义希望的基石,学校系统已经扩大到包括绝大多数的青年人口,但结果却很矛盾。大规模的学校系统并没有为每个人提供向上流动的机会,而是主要用于提高就业的教育要求,因此,高中毕业生现在寻找的是曾经是小学辍学学生的低级工作。随着巨大的官僚机构扩展到我们生活中越来越大的部分,在竞争性分层系统的底层发现的反叛和疏远只是转移到学校系统中。学校不是解决外部世界的社会问题,而是成为他们自己问题的容器和创造者。观察到这一切,萨姆纳会摇摇头,叫道:“你不能改变民风”。回过头来看,社会问题的观点在其问题消失的地方最能体现。例如,离婚已经从关注的目录中消失了 —— 并不是因为没有更多的离婚(甚至比以前更多),而是因为我们不再认为离婚是一个大问题。没有了过去对婚姻的道德主义观点,我们已经开始把离婚看作是对有关个人来说比不幸福的婚姻更好的事情。同样地,我们也开始把精神疾病看成是一种纯粹的个人状况,而更多地看成是一个术语,人们用它来给那些没有达到他们对社会纪律和礼节要求的人贴上标签;因此,“解决方案” 也可以是改变社会对个人的要求,而不是试图改变个人来适应这些要求。从长远来看,萨姆纳的 “风俗习惯可以使任何事情变得正确” 的深刻的相对主义是一个比改革者的道德绝对性更复杂的观点。本章可以在此结束,告诫大家在没有真正理解其中的过程的情况下,急于消除冒犯某些人的价值观的社会状况,会导致知识和实践的失败。但还有一个更令人清醒的结论。科学的局限性 十九世纪末的伟大思想属于进化论者:对人类与动物世界的连续性的洞察力。这种洞察力极大地推动了解决社会问题的科学努力,尤其是
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 93 daily in Europe. If humans were a kind of animal, the reasoning went, then they could be measured, trained, or selected. A school of scientific criminology sprang up, following the Italian Cesare Lombroso's theory of the criminal type. Criminologists measured the cranial capacities of convicts and of "normal" people in an attempt to show that a hereditary degeneration was the cause of crime. The solution, they claimed, was compulsory sterilization. In England Francis Galton (whose own superior heredity was shown by the fact that his cousin was another gentleman-scientist, Charles Darwin) helped found modern statistics, which he used to demonstrate the family heredity of persons of genius and, conversely, of paupers, the mentally ill, and other defectives. On the Continent a large number of statistical studies attempted to show that the superior members of society rose to the top and the inferior ones sank to the bottom—and that superiority or inferiority was shown by differences in the sizes of heads and in their health, height, weight, vigor, and intellect. Gobineau had already written his scientific history as the conquest of weaker races by the strong; German historians and anthropologists developed military theories of social evolution, in which they argued for the beneficial effects of war in improving society. This sort of biologism became the dominant (or at least the most popular) mode of social thought in Europe around the turn of the century. In the United States it was reflected in the writings of such figures as Sumner and Thorstein Veblen. Its main American impact, however, came during and after World War I, when the progressives finally became discouraged about reform and began to conclude that the only way to save American institutions was to cut off immigration from Europe. This was finally done in 1922. Ross, the most radical of the sociologists, typifies the shift. From supporting labor unions, he shifted to writing about the "yellow peril" of cheap labor from the Orient and about the degenerate paupers crowding in from southern and eastern Europe. On the other side of the Atlantic, racism focused into a growing wave of anti-Semitism, not only in Germany but in France, Russia, and elsewhere. The British, always a little aloof from Continental fads, were less concerned about inferior races than about inferior individuals. They turned their attention to such efforts as those of Francis Galton's Eugenics Society, dedicated to the breeding of only the best human stock. What was the fallacy in all this? Partly, it was a matter of scientific interpretation. Some individuals are in fact constitutionally superior to others in intellect and other faculties, and certain societies have in fact conquered others. But society cannot be explained purely on the level of individual traits. Social institutions work according to principles of their own, regardless of the individuals involved, and the military strength of a society is due primarily to its accumulated culture and its form of organization. More careful studies show few discernible differences in intelligence or other abilities among races. On the individual level such differences undoubtedly exist. But the studies of Galton and his colleagues on individual heredity fail to control for social biases in measuring heredity's supposed effects.
道德家、进化论者和种族主义者在欧洲每天有 93 人。如果人类是一种动物,那么他们就可以被测量、训练或选择。在意大利人切萨雷·隆布罗索(Cesare Lombroso)的犯罪类型理论之后,一个科学犯罪学学派兴起了。犯罪学家们测量了罪犯和 “正常” 人的颅骨能力,试图证明遗传性退化是犯罪的原因。他们声称,解决办法是强制绝育。在英国,弗朗西斯·高尔顿(他的表弟是另一位绅士科学家查尔斯·达尔文,这表明他自己的遗传能力很强)帮助创立了现代统计学,他用它来证明天才人物的家族遗传性,反之,证明贫民、精神病患者和其他缺陷者的遗传性。在欧洲大陆,大量的统计学研究试图表明,社会中优秀的成员会上升到顶端,而劣等的成员则会沉入底层 —— 优越性或劣等性是通过头的大小以及他们的健康、身高、体重、活力和智力的差异来显示的。戈比诺已经把他的科学史写成了强者对弱者的征服;德国历史学家和人类学家发展了社会进化的军事理论,他们在其中论证了战争对改善社会的有利影响。这种生物主义在世纪之交成为欧洲社会思想的主导(或至少是最流行)模式。在美国,它反映在萨姆纳和索尔斯坦·维布伦等人的著作中。然而,它对美国的主要影响是在第一次世界大战期间和之后,当时进步人士终于对改革感到灰心,并开始得出结论,拯救美国机构的唯一途径是切断来自欧洲的移民。这一点最终在 1922 年完成。罗斯是最激进的社会学家,他是这种转变的典型。他从支持工会转而撰写关于来自东方的廉价劳动力的 “黄色危险” 以及从南欧和东欧挤进来的堕落的贫民。在大西洋的另一边,种族主义集中表现为日益增长的反犹太主义浪潮,不仅在德国,而且在法国、俄罗斯和其他地方。英国人对大陆的潮流总是有些冷淡,他们对劣等种族的关注少于对劣等个人的关注。他们把注意力转向弗朗西斯·高尔顿(Francis Galton)的优生学协会等努力,致力于只培育最好的人种。这一切的谬误是什么呢?部分原因是科学解释的问题。事实上,有些人在智力和其他能力上比其他人更有优势,某些社会事实上已经征服了其他社会。但社会不能纯粹在个人特质的层面上进行解释。社会机构根据其自身的原则运作,而不考虑所涉及的个人,一个社会的军事力量主要是由于其积累的文化和其组织形式。更仔细的研究表明,种族之间在智力或其他能力方面几乎没有明显的差异。在个人层面上,这种差异无疑是存在的。但是,高尔顿和他的同事们对个人遗传的研究未能在衡量遗传的所谓影响时控制社会偏见。
94 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism The fact that poor people have poor parents, and rich people rich parents, is at least partly due to cumulative advantages and disadvantages in upbringing, education, and career opportunities, not to mention the inheritance of wealth. And, of course, differences in health, height, weight, and so on have something to do with the diets of children of different social classes. But these are purely scientific mistakes, and if the object were merely to develop a correct explanation of the varieties of human behavior, they would eventually be corrected with the further testing of the theory. The damage is done, rather, because the theory is constructed only in order to solve a problem—and a "problem" is not an objective category at all, but a matter of values. If paupers are something to be eliminated as a burden on society, then a theory about hereditary degeneration will do very well as a justification. If one defined the problem from a different value standpoint— for example, a humanitarian concern for all people—then even if the hereditary degeneration theory were true, one would not want to eliminate people. Instead of judging poor people by their fitness to compete in society, one might try to fit society to them. In the same sense, arguments pro or con about racial inferiority are beside the point: It is an important question only if one is committed to a form of society that reserves all privileges for those on top, not if one cares about universal human rights. Thus the scientific approach to social problems is often just a way of cloaking one's moral failings. An objective, scientific viewpoint treats people with detachment, as things to be analyzed to see how they run. This is a necessary stance for the advancement of theoretical understanding, and indeed modern social thought has advanced by transcending a naive rationalistic model of humankind and coming to see the nonrational part of its nature. But scientific objectivity does not free us from moral choices. Lombroso, Arthur Gobineau, and the rest have been swept into the ashbin of history, mostly in revulsion against the Nazi regime that gave their ideas a bad name, as well as in scientific rejection of their theories. But the underlying attitude has not disappeared. Galton's eugenics survives more modestly in the IQ tests that govern people's passage through our educational bureaucracies. There is a new Machiavellianism that treats people merely as means to ulterior ends; because it understands some of people's weaknesses and susceptibilities, it is willing to treat their lives as humanly worthless. The technical planners of the CIA and their siblings in government bureaucracies around the world, with their kill ratios, public relations campaigns, and strategic population movements, are the spiritual heirs to Lombroso and Gobineau. Recognizing this, we enter the bitter world of twentieth-century sophistication. THE SOCIOBIOLOGY REVIVAL For all the bad reputation acquired by the nineteenth-century thinkers, biological sociology has made a comeback in recent years. Its leading practitioners have been biologists, not sociologists, but they have acquired a cer-
94 十九世纪理性主义的变迁 穷人的父母是穷人,富人的父母是富人,这至少有一部分是由于在教养、教育和职业机会方面累积的优势和劣势,更不用说财富的继承了。当然,健康、身高、体重等方面的差异也与不同社会阶层的孩子的饮食有关系。但这些都是纯粹的科学错误,如果目的只是为了对人类行为的多样性做出正确的解释,那么随着理论的进一步检验,这些错误最终会得到纠正。相反,造成损害的原因是,理论的构建只是为了解决一个问题,而 “问题” 根本就不是一个客观的类别,而是一个价值观问题。如果贫民是要作为社会的负担来消除的,那么关于遗传性退化的理论就可以很好地作为一种理由。如果人们从不同的价值立场来定义这个问题 —— 例如,对所有人的人道主义关注 —— 那么,即使遗传性退化理论是真的,人们也不会想要消灭人。与其根据穷人是否适合在社会中竞争来判断他们,不如尝试让社会适合他们。在同样的意义上,关于种族劣根性的赞成或反对的争论都是无关紧要的:只有当一个人致力于建立一种将所有特权保留给上层人士的社会形式时,这才是一个重要的问题,而不是当一个人关心普遍人权时。因此,处理社会问题的科学方法往往只是一种掩盖自己道德缺陷的方式。一个客观的、科学的观点以超然的态度对待人,把人当作可以分析的东西,看他们如何运行。这是推进理论理解的必要立场,事实上,现代社会思想已经通过超越人类的天真理性主义模式,看到其本质的非理性部分而取得了进步。但科学的客观性并不能使我们摆脱道德的选择。龙勃罗梭、阿瑟·戈比诺和其他人已经被扫进了历史的垃圾堆,主要是对给他们的思想抹黑的纳粹政权的反感,以及对他们理论的科学否定。但其基本态度并没有消失。高尔顿的优生学在指导人们通过我们的教育官僚机构的智商测试中更温和地存在着。有一种新的马基雅维利主义,把人仅仅当作达到不可告人目的的手段;因为它了解人们的一些弱点和易感性,所以它愿意把他们的生命当作毫无价值的人。中情局的技术规划人员和他们在世界各地政府官僚机构中的兄弟姐妹,以及他们的杀戮比例、公共关系运动和战略性人口流动,是隆布罗索和戈比诺的精神继承者。认识到这一点,我们就进入了二十世纪复杂的痛苦世界。社会学的复兴 尽管十九世纪的思想家们获得了所有的坏名声,但近年来生物社会学已经卷土重来。它的主要实践者是生物学家,而不是社会学家,但他们已经获得了一种证明。
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 95 tain following within sociology itself. Edward O. Wilson, the curator of entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, is the founder of the new field of sociobiology, which he defines as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." The old nature/nurture issue in sociology, which traditionally favors the nurture, or learning, end of the continuum, is reversed by Wilson. His chapter on 'The Morality of the Gene" stresses the comprehension of the evolution of social behavior through demographic factors and genetic structure. Wilson is a genetic determinist. According to his sociobiological hypothesis, nature is more critical in determining human society than nurture. A physicist once made a logical pun. Physicists are made up of atoms. Physicists study atoms. Therefore, physicists are the atoms' way of studying atoms. Thus, Wilson's view is that the organism is the genes' way for making more genes, and Homo sapiens' organic social structure is more influenced by biology than by socialization. According to Wilsonian sociobiology, communication is genetically programmed to some extent by natural selection and consists of the relation of the pair of signal-and-response. Communication is a two-way street; it is neither the signal by itself nor the response. He notes that the great division between humanity and the ten million species of animals is our unique verbal system, which he uses as a measure to define the limits of animal communication. Wilson, unlike his contemporary, John Lilly, is no advocate of interspecies communication, because he sees human language as the most advanced system. Even the sophisticated waggle-dance of the honeybee cannot manipulate messages to provide new classes of communication, as is the case with science and its interdisciplinary spinoffs. Wilson's new science of sociobiology is an attempt to bridge the gap between the natural and social sciences through a creative synthesis. Two modes of metacommunication, which Wilson defines as "communication about the meaning of other acts of communication," are status signaling and play invitation. He uses the model of dominance and submission as a heuristic device, and takes the case of the brisk gait, erect-tail posture, and calm manner of the dominant male rhesus monkey and the opposite set of signals displayed by the subordinate male as an example of status signaling. He analyzes the "lef s have fun together" attitude of humans and other mammals as examples of play invitation. Taking the social insects as a select sample, Wilson observes that their jnost highly organized communication systems are incommunicable from individual to individual but only arise between groups. A sociological example within the context of our species' interacting macrosocial units is that of nations and multinational corporations. Wilson is a human chauvinist, who ranks humankind as the fourth and peak pinnacle of social evolution above the nonhuman mammals, the higher social insects, and the colonial invertebrates. The latter category includes such zooids as corals and jellyfish, whose individual members are, in most cases, fully subordinated in function and physical interdependence to the
做好事的人、进化论者和种族主义者 95 在社会学本身中仍有追随者。哈佛大学比较动物学博物馆的昆虫学馆长爱德华·威尔逊(Edward O·Wilson)是社会生物学这一新领域的创始人,他将其定义为 “对所有社会行为的生物学基础的系统研究”。在社会学中,传统上倾向于养育,或学习的一端的自然/养育问题,被威尔逊扭转了。他的 “基因的道德性” 一章强调通过人口因素和遗传结构来理解社会行为的演变。威尔逊是一个基因决定论者。根据他的社会生物学假说,在决定人类社会方面,自然比培养更关键。一位物理学家曾经说过一个逻辑上的双关语。物理学家是由原子组成的。物理学家研究原子。因此,物理学家是原子研究原子的方式。因此,威尔逊的观点是,有机体是基因制造更多基因的方式,智人的有机社会结构更多地受到生物学的影响,而不是社会化的影响。根据威尔逊的社会生物学,沟通在某种程度上是由自然选择的基因编程的,由信号和反应这一对关系组成。沟通是双向的;它既不是信号本身,也不是回应。他指出,人类和一千万种动物之间的巨大分野是我们独特的语言系统,他用这个系统作为衡量标准来定义动物交流的限度。威尔逊与他同时代的约翰·利利不同,他并不提倡物种间的交流,因为他认为人类语言是最先进的系统。即使是蜜蜂复杂的摇摆舞也不能操纵信息来提供新的交流类别,科学及其跨学科的衍生品就是如此。威尔逊的社会生物学新科学是试图通过创造性的综合来弥补自然科学和社会科学之间的差距。威尔逊将元交流的两种模式定义为 “关于其他交流行为的意义的交流”,即地位信号和游戏邀请。他使用支配和服从的模式作为启发式装置,并以占支配地位的雄性恒河猴的轻快步态、直立的尾巴姿势和平静的举止以及从属的雄性恒河猴所显示的相反信号作为地位信号的例子。他分析了人类和其他哺乳动物的 “让我们一起快乐” 的态度,作为游戏邀请的例子。以社会性昆虫作为一个选定的样本,威尔逊观察到它们最高度组织化的交流系统在个体与个体之间是不可交流的,而只在群体之间产生。在我们物种相互作用的宏观社会单位的背景下,一个社会学的例子是国家和跨国公司的例子。威尔逊是一个人类沙文主义者,他把人类列为社会进化的第四个和巅峰,高于非人类的哺乳动物、高级社会昆虫和殖民无脊椎动物。后一类动物包括珊瑚和水母等动物群,在大多数情况下,其个体成员在功能和身体上的相互依存关系完全从属于
96 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism group. This society or colony he defines as an organism. Such higher social insects as ants, termites, and certain wasps and bees recognize castes rather than individual nest mates, and their societies succeed because of their ability to dispatch food gatherers that return on a regular basis to home base. Conflict arises in bumblebee society through the constant struggle between queens and workers to produce sons, and the queens exercise social control by attacking their daughters who attempt to lay eggs. Wilson notes that such cold-blooded vertebrates as fishes, reptiles, and amphibians are the equal of mammals and birds in the social organization of parental care, territoriality, and courtship patterns of behavior. However, the main evolutionary trend within the higher mammalian order is its females' ability to provide milk. The universal nuclear unit of mammalian societies is the mother-offspring association and the biosocial fact of prolonged child dependency on the mother. Mammals have diverse social systems with male-female pair bonding as the universal unit in monogamous and polygamous modes. The most complex social systems in each of the nonhuman mammalian orders (e.g., the marsupials, carnivores, rodents, primates, and ungulates) occur in the physically largest member. The highest status humans have given to the carnivores among the nonhuman mammals in our folklore is "king of the beasts"—the lion. A group of lions is defined as a pride, the core of which consists of a closed sisterhood of several adult females who are at least cousins and have inherited fixed territories of association over several generations. Wilson is akin theoretically to H. Spencer and W. G. Sumner in his Social Darwinism and his assertion of the superior complexity of human social organization as the fourth pinnacle. Human societies vary more than the nonhuman ones in group size, gene exchange rates, and hierarchy properties because of the inequality of their members in behavior and achievement. He explains the great variation in human social structures, from the savage customs of the old slave society of Jamaica to the civilized legal codes, folkways, and mores of modern societies as a lack of competition from other species. He observes that due to this "ecological release," humans have been so successful during the past ten thousand years in dominating the environment that any culture can succeed for a time which has internal consistency and maintains reproduction. Human altruism notwithstanding, Wilson fails to account for the major political consequences of the scientific revolution, the increasing likelihood of mass destruction or species decimation with our overkill arsenals of nuclear weapons and biochemical warfare agents. Wilson's sociobiology has been regarded by many as reactionary in its political implications. A number of other sociobiologists have drawn conservative conclusions regarding sex roles, which have been strongly attacked by feminists. Wilson and his colleague, Lumsden, have come very close to old-fashioned racism in their theory of biological bases of cultural differences among groups. Interestingly enough, Wilson's approach to evolution has been challenged by another type of biological/social research.
96 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》小组。这个社会或群落被他定义为一个有机体。像蚂蚁、白蚁和某些黄蜂和蜜蜂这样的高级社会性昆虫承认种群而不是个别的巢穴伴侣,它们的社会之所以成功,是因为它们有能力派遣定期返回大本营的食物采集者。大黄蜂社会中的冲突是通过蜂后和工蜂之间不断争夺儿子而产生的,蜂后通过攻击试图产卵的女儿来进行社会控制。威尔逊指出,鱼类、爬行动物和两栖动物等冷血脊椎动物在父母照顾、领地和求偶行为模式的社会组织方面与哺乳动物和鸟类相当。然而,高等哺乳动物中的主要进化趋势是其雌性提供乳汁的能力。哺乳动物社会的普遍核心单位是母子关系和孩子长期依赖母亲的生物社会事实。哺乳动物有不同的社会系统,在一夫一妻制和一夫多妻制的模式下,以雌雄配对为普遍单位。在每个非人类哺乳动物类群中(如有袋动物、食肉动物、啮齿动物、灵长类和有蹄类),最复杂的社会系统发生在身体最大的成员身上。在我们的民间传说中,人类赋予非人类哺乳动物中食肉动物的最高地位是 “兽中之王” —— 狮子。一群狮子被定义为一个狮群,其核心是由几个成年雌性组成的封闭的姐妹群,她们至少是表亲,并在几代人的时间里继承了固定的联合领土。威尔逊在理论上与斯宾塞(H·Spencer)和萨姆纳(W·G. Sumner)的社会达尔文主义相似,他主张人类社会组织的优越复杂性是第四个巅峰。由于人类社会成员在行为和成就上的不平等,人类社会在群体规模、基因交换率和等级属性方面比非人类社会的差异更大。他解释了人类社会结构的巨大差异,从牙买加古老奴隶社会的野蛮习俗到现代社会的文明法则、民风和风俗,都是因为缺乏来自其他物种的竞争。他观察到,由于这种 “生态释放”,在过去的一万年里,人类在支配环境方面是如此成功,以至于任何文化都能在一段时间内取得成功,而这种文化具有内在的一致性并能保持繁衍。尽管有人类的利他主义,但威尔逊没有说明科学革命的主要政治后果,即我们的核武器和生化战剂的超额杀伤力使大规模毁灭或物种灭绝的可能性越来越大。威尔逊的社会生物学在其政治含义上被许多人认为是反动的。其他一些社会生物学家在性别角色方面得出了保守的结论,这些结论受到了女权主义者的强烈抨击。威尔逊和他的同事卢姆登在他们关于群体间文化差异的生物基础的理论中,已经非常接近于老式的种族主义。有趣的是,威尔逊的进化方法受到了另一种类型的生物/社会研究的挑战。
Do-Gooders, Evolutionists, and Racists 97 According to the dolphin researcher John C. Lilly, our society and science have been human-chauvinist in their orientation and tendency to consider other species inferior in mind and primitive in group relations. Lilly defines our generalized other of human chauvinism as "interspecies deprivation," and we suffer the consequent loneliness of a species with a superiority complex. The symbolically interactive mode of Lilly's research agenda puts him squarely in the Meadian camp, and the biosodal fact that dolphins have large brains and minds gives human beings the opportunity to discover the society and culture of a twenty-five-million-year-old terrestrial life form. The dolphin's major mode of perception of the world is acoustic compared to the visual orientation of the human being. The dolphin has a sophisticated sonar detection system and is able to communicate with other dolphins through a series of clicks, whistles, and buzzes, which Lilly calls "dolphi- nese." The research resulting from the emergent, mutually consenting human-dolphin community indicates that the dolphins show the beginnings of understanding a computer-generated vocabulary by responding correctly to sonic cues or tones. Full communication with humans has not yet been achieved, but the establishment of an ongoing symbolic interaction would amplify the dimension of the collective consciousness of humanity into a more expanded we feeling and create a context for intraplanetary communication with another intelligent species. Whatever its outcome, research of this sort shows an alternative to the reductionistic genetic approach of sociobiology. There is a biological dimension to human society, but it may well be that the ecological rather than the genetic side will turn out to be its crucial aspect. DARWIN'S CONSEQUENCES The great idea of the late nineteenth century belongs to Darwin. And if its consequences were sometimes frightening, they could also be extremely illuminating. Darwin's vision of humankind in the perspective of animal evolution sets the starting place for a sociology that could finally begin to become a science. It gives us a vantage point, detached from our immediate concerns, from which to see just what it is we should be explaining: the behavior of a smart, hairless monkey, who walks upright and is able to communicate and cooperate in extraordinarily intricate ways. The implications of this vision are carried out by those thinkers referred to in the next section as the makers of the great breakthrough. The symbolic nature of the social world this creature inhabits and the way in which it affects the consciousness of the human animal were to be exposed by Cooley and Mead. Freud was to explore the human animal's instincts and the ways in which they interact and conflict with the pressures of society. Weber was to unravel the complexities of struggle for domination in this human, symbolic world. And Durkheim would grasp the nature of the invisible social structure
道德家、进化论者和种族主义者 97 根据海豚研究者约翰-C-利利的说法,我们的社会和科学在取向上一直是人类沙文主义的,并倾向于认为其他物种在思想上低下,在群体关系上原始。利利将我们普遍存在的人类沙文主义的其他物种定义为 “物种间的剥夺”,而我们也因此承受着一个具有优越感的物种的孤独。利利的研究议程的象征性互动模式使他完全处于米迪亚阵营,而海豚拥有大脑和头脑的生物体事实使人类有机会发现一个 2500 万年前的陆地生命形式的社会和文化。与人类的视觉取向相比,海豚对世界的主要感知方式是声学的。海豚有一个复杂的声纳探测系统,能够通过一系列的咔嚓声、口哨声和嗡嗡声与其他海豚交流,莉莉称之为 “海豚语”。从这个新兴的、相互同意的人类·海豚社区所产生的研究表明,海豚通过对声波提示或音调的正确反应,显示出理解计算机生成的词汇的雏形。与人类的完全交流还没有实现,但建立一个持续的符号互动将把人类集体意识的维度放大到一个更加扩大的我们的感觉,并为与另一个智能物种的星际内交流创造一个背景。无论其结果如何,这类研究显示了社会生物学的还原主义遗传方法的另一种选择。人类社会有一个生物层面,但很可能生态而不是基因方面将成为它的关键方面。达尔文的后果 十九世纪末的伟大思想属于达尔文。如果它的后果有时是令人恐惧的,那么它们也可能是极其有启发性的。达尔文从动物进化的角度对人类进行了展望,为社会学最终成为一门科学奠定了起点。它为我们提供了一个有利的视角,让我们从这个视角看到我们应该解释的东西:一只聪明的、没有毛发的猴子的行为,它直立行走,能够以异常复杂的方式进行交流和合作。这一设想的含义由下一节中提到的那些思想家来执行,他们是伟大突破的创造者。这种生物所居住的社会世界的象征性以及它影响人类动物意识的方式,将由库利和米德来揭示。弗洛伊德将探索人类动物的本能以及它们与社会压力的互动和冲突方式。韦伯将揭开在这个人类的、象征性的世界中争夺统治权的复杂性。而杜克海姆将掌握无形的社会结构的性质。
98 The Vicissitudes of Nineteenth-Century Rationalism through the rituals that sustain it. As American social thinkers were complacently refining their technical apparatus for measuring social problems and as Europeans gathered ideological ammunition for a military bloodbath, an intellectual revolution was shaking the world of social thought at its core.
98 《十九世纪理性主义的变迁》,通过维持它的仪式。当美国的社会思想家们在沾沾自喜地完善他们衡量社会问题的技术设备时,当欧洲人在为一场军事血战收集意识形态弹药时,一场知识革命正在撼动社会思想世界的核心。
PART II r~ The Great Breakthrough CHAPTER SIX Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel CHAPTER SEVEN Max Weber: The Disenchantment of the World CHAPTER EIGHT Sigmund Freud: Conquistador of the Irrational CHAPTER NINE The Discovery of the Invisible World: Simmel, Cooley, and Mead
第二部分 r~伟大的突破 第六章 德雷福斯的帝国。埃米尔·杜克海姆和乔治·索莱尔 第七章 马克斯·韦伯。第八章 西格蒙德·弗洛伊德。第九章 对无形世界的发现。Simmel, Cooley, and Mead
CHAPTER SIX Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 1898: Paris in turmoil again. The issue: the Dreyfus affair, a scandal in the French army blown up into a political cause celebre between the contending factions of France. Dreyfus, a Jewish captain in the French army, had been the victim of an effort to cover up a spy scandal. Secret military documents were recovered from the German embassy. The real culprit seemed to have been an aristocratic debauchee named Esterhazy, but the investigation arbitrarily seized on Dreyfus, an outsider to the army tradition, as scapegoat. He was degraded with full ceremonial regalia. Troops lined up on the parade ground, resplendent in gold braid and red-striped trousers; Dreyfus stood at attention while his commander tore the epaulets from his sleeves and his medals from his chest, and broke his sword across the knee. The dishonored Dreyfus was sent off to the inhuman labor colony at Devil's Island, and the army, its honor restored, returned to its arms race with the enemy across the Rhine. But the case would not stay covered up. Emile Zola, the most famous novelist of France, penned a famous open letter to the president of the republic. "J'accuse!" it began, and it charged the government with deliberate complicity in a miscarriage of justice. Zola was himself arrested and tried for crime against the state. The trial aroused the nation, both left and right; crowds fought outside the courtroom. Zola's ringing speeches had no effect on the court, a sort of Warren Commission of its day; he was found guilty and sentenced to prison. He escaped to England, where he continued to rally the cause. The scandal could not be contained by the ritual of the courtroom. Ministers were forced to resign, fights broke out in the Assembly, students battled in the streets. There were more trials as the army took its revenge on an officer who had dared question the nonexistent evidence against Dreyfus. Unfortunately for the army, the evidence in the new trial was exposed as a forgery. The conservatives had gone too far, and their enemies closed in ruthlessly. The army, the Catholic Church, the wealthy bourgeoisie, and the peasants all fell back under the pressures of a revengeful left—the anticlerical civil servants, teachers, students, and workers. 101
第六章 德雷福斯的帝国。埃米尔·杜克海姆和乔治·索莱尔 1898 年。巴黎再次陷入动荡。问题是:德雷福斯事件,这是法国军队中的一桩丑闻,被炸成了法国各派之间的一个政治话题。德雷福斯是法国军队中的一名犹太上尉,是掩盖间谍丑闻的受害者。从德国大使馆找到了秘密军事文件。真正的罪魁祸首似乎是一个名叫埃斯特哈兹(Esterhazy)的贵族放荡者,但调查却武断地抓住了德雷福斯这个军队传统中的局外人作为替罪羊。他被打入冷宫,穿上了全套仪式的服装。部队在阅兵场上一字排开,身着金黄色的辫子和红色条纹的裤子;德雷福斯立正站好,而他的指挥官则撕掉了他袖子上的肩章和胸前的奖章,并把他的剑横在膝盖上。不光彩的德雷福斯被送去了魔鬼岛的非人道劳役区,军队恢复了荣誉,回到了莱茵河对岸与敌人的军备竞赛。但这一案件不会一直被掩盖下去。法国最著名的小说家埃米尔·左拉给共和国总统写了一封著名的公开信。信的开头写道:“我指控!” 信中指控政府故意串通一气,造成司法不公。左拉本人被逮捕,并以反国家罪受审。这场审判唤起了全国人民,无论是左派还是右派;人群在法庭外打了起来。左拉振聋发聩的演讲对法庭没有任何影响,法庭是当时的一种沃伦委员会;他被认定有罪并被判处监禁。他逃到了英国,在那里他继续鼓动人们的事业。丑闻不可能被法庭的仪式所控制。部长们被迫辞职,议会中爆发了争吵,学生们在街上争吵。军队对一名敢于质疑针对德雷福斯的不存在的证据的军官进行了报复,因此出现了更多的审判。对军队来说,不幸的是,新的审判中的证据被揭露是伪造的。保守派走得太远了,他们的敌人无情地逼近。军队、天主教会、富有的资产阶级和农民都在复仇的左派 —— 反教会的公务员、教师、学生和工人 —— 的压力下倒戈。101
102 The Great Breakthrough The victory proved short-lived. The conservatives eventually benefited from a mood of reaction to the changes proposed by the victorious liberals, a series of confrontations with Germany brought chauvinism back to the fore, and France settled down again from the acute to the chronic phase of social conflict. The battles would all be fought again, many times, throughout the decades to come. The students of the University of Paris were in the center of the battle as it dragged on through the first decade of the twentieth century, and some of their professors were rallying points of the Dreyfusard cause. Battles between radicals and conservatives often raged in the streets of the Latin Quarter, and the students were organized in an elaborate system of shock troops, spies, and messengers on bicycles to alert their fellows when a conservative gang tried to break up the lectures of popular republican professors. Among the most eminent of these professors, the holder of the first chair of sociology ever established at the French university, wasEmile Durkheim (1858-1917), one of the intellectual giants of modern times. Durkheim's sociology, more than any other, began to make sense of the events that swirled around him: the heavy silence of the parade ground as Dreyfus's epaulets were stripped off, the impact of Zola on the stand at his rigged trial, the waves of public hysteria breaking across France, now in one direction, now in another. Durkheim penetrated these events with a vision of the nature of society that revealed what the rationalist thinkers of the nineteenth century could not see: Society is a ritual order, a collective conscience founded on the emotional rhythms of human interaction. At the peak of scientific and industrial progress, Durkheim broke through into the intellectual world of the twentieth century and its deepest problem: the nonrational foundations of rationality. DURKHEIM: THE DIVISION OF LABOR IN SOCIETY Durkheim's basic concern was the instability, violence, and decadence of modern society, at least as it displayed itself in France. The optimistic predictions by Comte and Spencer of continual progress in industrial society had not come true. But Durkheim could not accept the Marxist idea that the modern industrial division of labor is inherently self-contradictory and self- destructive or the conservative idea that we must return to the old order of religion and authority. Durkheim was a bourgeois liberal, a self-conscious member of the rationalistic educational bureaucracy, neither a radical nor a conservative. He identified with the French Third Republic, which had succeeded Napoleon Ill's Second Empire after the disastrous war with Prussia in 1870. He was a modernist and nationalist, an ardent believer in science and in republican France. He took as his task to defend the modern division of labor without being a naive optimist. The purpose of sociology was to explain how to make modern society work.
102 伟大的突破 胜利是短暂的。保守派最终受益于对胜利的自由派所提出的变革的反动情绪,与德国的一系列对抗使沙文主义重新抬头,法国再次从社会冲突的急性阶段进入慢性阶段。在接下来的几十年里,这些战斗都将再次进行,而且是多次进行。巴黎大学的学生是这场战斗的中心,因为它一直拖到 20 世纪的第一个十年,他们的一些教授是德雷福萨事业的集结点。激进派和保守派之间的战斗经常在拉丁区的街道上进行,学生们被组织成一个精心设计的系统,包括突击队、间谍和骑着自行车的信使,当保守派团伙试图破坏受欢迎的共和派教授的讲座时,他们会提醒自己的同伴。在这些教授中,最杰出的是埃米尔·杜克海姆(Emile Durkheim)(1858-1917),他是法国大学有史以来第一个社会学教席的持有者,他是现代知识界的巨头之一。杜克海姆的社会学比其他任何社会学都更多地开始对他周围发生的事件作出解释:当德雷福斯的肩章被剥下时,阅兵场上一片沉重的沉默,左拉在被操纵的审判中站在证人席上的影响,公众歇斯底里的浪潮在整个法国爆发,现在是一个方向,现在是另一个方向。杜克海姆以一种对社会本质的洞察力穿透了这些事件,揭示了 19 世纪理性主义思想家所看不到的东西。社会是一种仪式性的秩序,是建立在人类互动的情感节奏上的集体良知。在科学和工业进步的高峰期,杜克海姆闯入了二十世纪的知识界及其最深刻的问题:理性的非理性基础。杜尔凯姆:社会中的劳动分工 杜尔凯姆的基本关注点是现代社会的不稳定、暴力和颓废,至少在法国是这样。孔德和斯宾塞对工业社会持续进步的乐观预测并没有成真。但杜克海姆不能接受马克思主义关于现代工业分工本质上是自相矛盾和自我毁灭的观点,也不能接受保守派关于我们必须回到宗教和权威的旧秩序的观点。杜克海姆是一个资产阶级自由主义者,是理性主义教育官僚机构的自觉成员,既不是一个激进派,也不是一个保守派。他认同法国第三共和国,该共和国在 1870 年与普鲁士的灾难性战争后接替了拿破仑·伊尔的第二帝国。他是一个现代主义者和民族主义者,热衷于科学和共和制的法国。他把捍卫现代劳动分工作为自己的任务,而不是成为一个天真的乐观主义者。社会学的目的是解释如何使现代社会运作。
Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 103 Durkheim was also an ambitious man. He was born the son of a Jewish rabbi in a province of eastern France and made his way to the elite Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris by his high intelligence and hard work in the competitive exams. The Ecole was the training ground for teachers and scientists. Most graduates went to the schools of the provinces; the best captured the few prominent positions in Paris. Durkheim's chances lay in the realm of social science, and he played his cards well. In 1885 he paid a visit to the laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt in Germany, who had just created the science of experimental psychology out of an old philosophical field of speculation. But psychology in France was overshadowed by conservative crowd psychologists like Gabriel Tarde and Gustave Le Bon. Durkheim, instead, adopted the sociology of Comte and Spencer, which emphasized a realm of phenomena above the psychological level. Here one could create a science of social order and could defend the republic and industrial society. The only problem was that sociology remained largely speculative, as well as intellectually naive. Durkheim set out to do for it what Wundt had done for psychology: to take it out of philosophy and establish it on the research methods of empirical science. The strategy was sound, and Durkheim's brilliance made it work. By 1902 Durkheim was back from the provinces and teaching his new science at the Ecole Normale. The modern era in sociology had begun. Bald, bespectacled, wispy-bearded, intensely serious, Durkheim applied himself to sociology with rabbinical devotion. His fellow students at the Ecole had called him "the metaphysician." His logical mind turned itself to the task of finding a scientific basis for social order. His fundamental hypothesis came from Comte—the basis of society is a moral order. His first great work, The Division of Labor in Society (1893), attacks the problem rigorously from several angles. First, Durkheim gives a deductive argument. Society cannot exist simply by rational agreement, he states, because agreements are not possible unless each partner trusts the other to live up to them. Think of economic contracts, which Spencer and the utilitarians and economists before him thought of as the basis for modern social cooperation: I'll agree to work for you for a week, if you'll agree to pay me out of the proceeds of this work at the end of the week. But notice: We are agreeing not only to exchange labor for pay; we are also agreeing to uphold the agreement. The second agreement is implicit rather than conscious, but it is absolutely crucial. Without this implicit mutual trust, no specific contracts would be possible; for if this trust does not exist, the truly rational individual will not live up to his or her contracts. If I trust you but you break the contract, then you have a week of work from me for nothing. On the other hand, if you trust me and I break the contract, I can perhaps collect a week's pay for little or no work. In the absence of mutual trust, then, the rational individual will never live up to his or her contracts and will never trust others to live up to theirs. Modern game theory would put it as shown in the accompanying table. The rational choice for both game players is always to cheat, since each then
德雷福斯的帝国。埃米尔·杜尔克海姆和乔治·索莱尔 103 杜尔克海姆也是一个雄心勃勃的人。他出生在法国东部的一个省份,是一个犹太拉比的儿子,凭借自己的高智商和在竞争性考试中的努力,进入了巴黎的精英高等师范学院。该学院是教师和科学家的培训基地。大多数毕业生都去了各省的学校;最优秀的人在巴黎获得了为数不多的重要职位。杜克海姆的机会在于社会科学领域,而且他的牌打得很好。1885 年,他访问了德国的威廉·冯特(Wilhelm Wundt)的实验室,后者刚刚从一个古老的哲学推测领域中创建了实验心理学科学。但法国的心理学被加布里埃尔·塔尔德和古斯塔夫·勒庞等保守的人群心理学家所掩盖。相反,杜克海姆采用了孔德和斯宾塞的社会学,后者强调在心理学层面之上的现象领域。在这里,人们可以创建一门社会秩序的科学,可以为共和国和工业社会辩护。唯一的问题是,社会学在很大程度上仍然是推测性的,在智力上也是幼稚的。杜克海姆着手为社会学做了翁特为心理学所做的事情:将社会学从哲学中剥离出来,并将其建立在经验科学的研究方法上。这一战略是合理的,而杜克海姆的聪明才智使之成功。到 1902 年,杜克海姆从外省回来,在巴黎高等师范学院教授他的新科学。社会学的现代时代已经开始。秃头、长脸、胡须浓密、严肃,杜克海姆以拉比式的虔诚投入到社会学中。他在学院的同学们称他为 “形而上学者”。他的逻辑思维转向了为社会秩序寻找一个科学基础的任务。他的基本假设来自孔德 —— 社会的基础是一种道德秩序。他的第一部巨著《社会分工》(1893 年)从几个角度对这个问题进行了严格的探讨。首先,杜克海姆给出了一个演绎性的论证。他说,社会不可能仅仅通过理性的协议而存在,因为除非每个伙伴都相信对方会履行协议,否则协议是不可能的。想想经济合同,斯宾塞和他之前的功利主义者和经济学家认为这是现代社会合作的基础。我同意为你工作一个星期,如果你同意在这个星期结束时从这项工作的收益中支付我。但是请注意。我们不仅同意以劳动换取报酬;我们还同意维护协议。第二个协议是隐含的,而不是有意识的,但它是绝对关键的。如果没有这种隐含的相互信任,任何具体的合同都是不可能的;因为如果这种信任不存在,真正理性的个人将不会履行他或她的合同。如果我信任你,但你却违背了合同,那么你从我这里白白得到了一个星期的工作。另一方面,如果你信任我,而我违反了合同,那么我也许可以在很少或没有工作的情况下收取一个星期的工资。那么,在缺乏相互信任的情况下,理性的个人将永远不会履行他或她的合同,也不会相信其他人会履行他们的合同。现代博弈论将其归结为附表中的内容。两个游戏者的理性选择永远是欺骗,因为每个人都会
104 The Great Breakthrough stands a chance of winning everything (if the other follows the contract), and at least they will not lose anything (if both cheat). To follow the contract without being sure that the other player will follow it too is to risk losing everything for a moderate gain. What this proves, says Durkheim, is that a "precontractual solidarity" must exist before contracts can be depended upon. The facts seem to bear out his analysis. In a factory in which boss and employees do not trust each other, the boss must spend all his time making sure that his employees are working, and his employees do their best to get as much pay as possible for the least amount of work. Sheer economic rationality reduces cooperation to the amount that can be produced by immediate control of one party over the other. On the other hand, tremendously productive cooperation is possible if everyone identifies with a common goal. This is Durkheim's logical argument that society is based on a common moral order rather than on rational self-interest. The "social contract" of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others is thus revealed to be an impossible fiction; contracts are only possible after society has been established, not before. An objection that might be advanced is that people live up to their contracts because they are forced to. If a man does not pay me for my work, I can sue him, and the state will force him to pay. This argument is open to the reply that governments have only recently in history come to enforce contracts for private citizens and that exchange before that had to be built up on some other basis. Moreover, Durkheim argues, the state itself exists only because people have banded together and agreed upon certain ways of exercising force; the king did not rule because he personally was stronger than everyone else put together, but because he led a group of followers. The collective use of force, then, depends just as much on a prior solidarity as anything else does. What creates this fundamental solidarity, then? It is not an intellectual agreement, says Durkheim, but a shared emotional feeling. People in society have a "collective conscience" (or "collective consciousness," since the work in French means both these things): a sense of belonging to a commu- B Follows contract Cheats Follows contract Both share gain. A wins everything. B loses everything. Cheats B wins everything. A loses everything. No one wins or loses anything.
104 大突破者有机会赢得一切(如果对方遵守合同),至少他们不会失去任何东西(如果双方都作弊)。在不确定另一方也会遵守合同的情况下遵守合同,就是冒着失去一切的风险来换取适度的收益。Durkheim 说,这证明了在合同可以被依赖之前必须存在一种 “合同前的团结”。事实似乎证明了他的分析。在一个老板和员工互不信任的工厂里,老板必须花所有的时间来确保他的员工在工作,而他的员工则尽力以最少的工作来获得尽可能多的报酬。纯粹的经济理性将合作减少到一方对另一方的直接控制所能产生的数量。另一方面,如果每个人都认同一个共同的目标,巨大的生产性合作是可能的。这是杜克海姆的逻辑论点,即社会是基于共同的道德秩序,而不是基于理性的自我利益。托马斯·霍布斯、让·雅克·卢梭等人的 “社会契约” 因此被揭示为一种不可能的虚构;契约只有在社会建立之后才有可能,而不是之前。一个可能被提出的反对意见是,人们履行他们的契约是因为他们被迫这样做。如果一个人不支付我的工作,我可以起诉他,国家会强迫他支付。这个论点可以得到这样的回答:政府在历史上只是在最近才开始为公民个人执行合同,在此之前的交换必须建立在其他基础上。此外,Durkheim 认为,国家本身的存在只是因为人们联合起来,商定了某些行使武力的方式;国王的统治并不是因为他个人比其他所有人加起来都强,而是因为他领导着一群追随者。那么,集体使用武力就像其他事情一样,取决于事先的团结。那么,是什么创造了这种基本的团结?Durkheim 说,它不是一种智力上的同意,而是一种共同的情感。社会中的人有一种 “集体意识”(或 “集体意识”,因为该作品在法语中同时有这两种意思):一种对社区的归属感 —— B 遵守合同 欺骗者遵守合同 双方分享收益。A 赢得一切。B 失去了一切。欺骗 B 赢得一切。A 失去了一切。没有人赢得或失去任何东西。
Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 105 nity with others and hence feeling a moral obligation to live up to its demands. We share feelings of right and wrong, and these are inseparable from our feelings of belonging to a group, whether it be the human race, one's country, or one's family. The collective conscience does not mean that there is a group mind hanging over our heads, but rather that people have feelings of belonging to a group. Where do these moral feelings come from? Durkheim proposes that they come from forms of social interaction between individuals, especially in ways that we would now call "rituals." Roughly, he proposes the principle (taken from the crowd psychology of his day) that as people come together and focus their attention on a common object, thoughts and feelings passing back and forth among them become strengthened until they take on a supraindividual force and seem to be detached from the individuals themselves. Thus, the members of a crowd watching a flag being raised and singing a national anthem together focus their attention on these objects and, knowing that others are focusing their attentions too, they come to feel that they are in the presence of a principle or force greater than any of them individually—the nation. Ideas held in common thus become transformed into a world of their own, the world of moral norms. If moral feelings are the result of social interactions, Durkheim can apply and test his theory in another way. He can go to the historical evidence and see if moral norms change as the result of changes in social conditions. This second argument, an empirical one, makes up the bulk of The Division of Labor. As an indicator of moral norms, Durkheim uses laws. Laws are not a precise indicator of the moral feelings of a society, he says, since they may lag behind or run ahead of public sentiments; but they give at least a general indication of how people conceive of right and wrong. There are two kinds of laws: criminal laws and civil-administrative laws. Criminal laws express a strong state of the collective conscience, for they provide that an individual who disobeys society's law incurs society's anger and must be punished. Looking back through history, Durkheim points out that this collective conscience must have been very strong indeed, for it often prescribes violent punishments for violations of taboos, even when the violations do not involve harm to persons or property. On the other hand, civil and administrative laws express a much milder sense of community conscience, since they carry very different penalties. Whereas criminal laws call for punishment regardless of what damage has been done, civil laws call only for offenders to make amends for what they have done: If they have failed to pay, they must pay up; if they hold someone else's property, they must give it over. On the one hand, the law demands retribution; on the other merely restitution. Durkheim then shows that the proportion of these kinds of laws has changed with the type of society. In smaller, earlier societies, most law was retributive, punishing almost all offenses with torture, mutilation, or execution. In the larger, modern societies law becomes mostly restitutive. Not only do the pages of the law books come to be made up largely of civil-
德雷福斯的帝国。Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 105 与他人的关系,因此感到有道德义务来满足其要求。我们有共同的是非观念,这些观念与我们对一个群体的归属感密不可分,无论是人类、一个人的国家还是一个人的家庭。集体良知并不意味着有一个群体思想悬在我们头上,而是指人们有属于一个群体的感觉。这些道德情感从何而来?杜克海姆提出,它们来自个人之间的社会互动形式,特别是以我们现在称之为 “仪式” 的方式。粗略地说,他提出了这样一个原则(取自他那个时代的人群心理学):当人们聚集在一起,把注意力集中在一个共同的对象上时,他们之间来回传递的思想和情感就会得到加强,直到它们具有一种超个人的力量,似乎已经脱离了个人本身。因此,观看升旗和唱国歌的人群中的成员将他们的注意力集中在这些物体上,并且知道其他人也在关注他们的注意力,他们会感觉到他们是在一个比他们任何个人都更大的原则或力量面前 —— 国家。因此,共同持有的想法变成了一个自己的世界,即道德规范的世界。如果道德情感是社会互动的结果,那么杜克海姆可以用另一种方式来应用和检验他的理论。他可以去找历史证据,看看道德规范是否因社会条件的变化而改变。这第二个论点,即实证论点,构成了《劳动分工》的大部分内容。作为道德规范的指标,Durkheim 使用了法律。他说,法律并不是一个社会道德情感的精确指标,因为它们可能落后于或领先于公众的情感;但它们至少提供了一个关于人们如何看待正确和错误的一般指示。有两种法律:刑法和民事·行政法。刑法表达了集体良知的强烈状态,因为它们规定,不遵守社会法律的个人会引起社会的愤怒,必须受到惩罚。回顾历史,杜克海姆指出,这种集体良知一定是非常强大的,因为它经常规定对违反禁忌的行为进行暴力惩罚,即使这种违反行为并不涉及对人或财产的伤害。另一方面,民法和行政法所表达的社区良知要温和得多,因为它们的惩罚措施非常不同。刑法要求惩罚,而不考虑所造成的损害,而民法只要求犯罪者为他们所做的事情做出补偿。如果他们没有付钱,他们必须付钱;如果他们持有别人的财产,他们必须把它交出来。一方面,法律要求报应;另一方面,只是要求归还。然后,杜克海姆表明,这些种类的法律的比例随着社会的类型而改变。在规模较小的早期社会中,大多数法律都是报应性的,几乎所有的违法行为都要受到酷刑、残害或处决的惩罚。在较大的现代社会中,法律大多是恢复性的。不仅法律书的篇幅主要是由民法和刑法组成的,而且还包括了一些其他法律。
106 The Great Breakthrough administrative laws, but also there is an absolute decline in the number of things that penal laws control and a diminution in the severity of the punishments. The connection between these societies and their laws, Durkheim finds, is the changing division of labor. Retributive law is found mostly in societies with little division of labor, restitutive law mostly in those with a high division of labor. The former societies are based on what Durkheim calls "mechanical solidarity." By this he means that in a tribal or peasant society like the Hebrew tribes of the Old Testament (which he had studied thoroughly), most people are like each other. Almost everyone is a farmer or a warrior. Accordingly, there is a very strong collective conscience, since people have many ideas in common from their common experiences. Any violations of this collective conscience find crushing punishment from the laws; the individual, being like others, is given no leeway to depart from their collective practices. The individual is integrated mechanically and by force. Societies with a high division of labor, on the other hand, Durkheim refers to as bound together by "organic solidarity." People have a great variety of different occupations; they come into contact only because the worker, the farmer, the shopkeeper, the carpenter, the engineer, and so on exchange services with each other through a complex economic market. People experience very different life circumstances and thus have much less in common with each other. But they do acquire some knowledge of each other's viewpoints by repeatedly coming in contact with others while making exchanges; hence a newer, milder form of collective conscience appears. This is expressed in the restitutive laws that regulate civic commerce, which provide only enough social control to keep the complex society operating and do not impose the collective outrage of the whole community on violators of a private contract touching only a few individuals. Durkheim calls this organic solidarity because it is the exchanges themselves, like those between the different organs of a body, which provide the basis of collective belonging. The historical argument bolsters Durkheim's deductive argument about the necessity of precontractual solidarity. Not only must nonrational solidarity come first logically, but it does in fact come first in history. As Durkheim had learned from his teacher Fustel de Coulanges, ancient civilizations like those of Greece and Rome grew up on the basis of religious rituals that regulated virtually every aspect of everyday life; the rational economic contracts came later, after the society already existed. Nor does the collective conscience disappear after the modern division of labor is set up; it merely changes its form. Thus, societies begin in small groups that maintain order through a strong and repressive collective conscience. As societies grow, a larger population presses down on the available resources for living, and individuals begin to specialize. The division of labor begins to grow more and more complex. Thus, some individuals become different from others they come into contact with and are bound together through economic and political ties across longer distances. The collective con-
106 《伟大的突破》行政法,但刑法所控制的事物的数量也绝对减少,而且惩罚的严厉程度也在降低。杜克海姆发现,这些社会与其法律之间的联系是不断变化的劳动分工。报应性法律多见于劳动分工较少的社会,恢复性法律多见于劳动分工较多的社会。前者是基于杜克海姆所说的 “机械团结” 的社会。他的意思是,在像《旧约》中的希伯来部落那样的部落或农民社会中(他曾深入研究过这些部落),大多数人都是相互喜欢的。几乎每个人都是农民或战士。因此,有一个非常强大的集体意识,因为人们从他们的共同经历中获得了许多共同的想法。任何违反这种集体良知的行为都会受到法律的严厉惩罚;个人与他人一样,没有任何回旋余地来偏离他们的集体做法。个人被机械地和强制地整合。另一方面,高度分工的社会被杜克海姆称为被 “有机团结” 捆绑在一起。人们有各种各样的不同职业;他们之所以会接触到,只是因为工人、农民、店主、木匠、工程师等等通过复杂的经济市场相互交换服务。人们经历了非常不同的生活环境,因此彼此之间的共同点少得多。但他们通过在交换时反复与他人接触,确实获得了一些关于对方观点的知识;因此出现了一种更新、更温和的集体意识。这表现在规范民间商业的恢复性法律中,这些法律只提供了足够的社会控制来维持复杂社会的运作,而没有将整个社会的集体愤怒强加给只涉及少数人的私人契约的违反者。杜克海姆称之为有机团结,因为正是这些交流本身,就像身体不同器官之间的交流,提供了集体归属的基础。历史论证支持了杜克海姆关于契约前团结的必要性的推理论证。非理性的团结不仅在逻辑上必须先行,而且事实上在历史上也是先行的。正如杜克海姆从他的老师 Fustel de Coulanges 那里了解到的那样,像希腊和罗马这样的古代文明是在宗教仪式的基础上成长起来的,这些宗教仪式几乎规范了日常生活的每一个方面;理性的经济契约是在社会已经存在之后,才出现的。现代劳动分工建立后,集体意识也不会消失;它只是改变了形式。因此,社会开始时是小团体,通过强大而压抑的集体意识维持秩序。随着社会的发展,庞大的人口压迫着可用的生活资源,个人开始专业化。劳动分工开始变得越来越复杂。因此,一些人变得与他们接触到的其他人不同,并通过经济和政治联系跨越更远的距离联系在一起。集体的 con-
Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 107 science has fewer things to build upon, for there are fewer things that all members of a society have in common. Its contents gradually become more abstract. Rather than sanctioning specific local customs and taboos, it begins to uphold only the more general and abstract principles of fairness, justice, honesty, and so on. The collective conscience becomes simultaneously less powerful and more principled; its tone is less violent and more humanitarian. Durkheim thus manages to give a theoretical explanation of the phenomenon that both Comte and Tocqueville had noticed without being able to explain: that the scope of human sympathy expands with the progress of civilization. All in all, Durkheim hoped with this demonstration to prove that modern society is good. A complex division of labor is inherently orderly, for it contains within it its own moral principles. The decline of traditional religion is nothing to worry about; on the contrary, the modern morality that replaces it is more humanitarian and tolerant. The complex division of labor creates individualism, since people must follow specialized life patterns of their own, but there is nothing to fear from individualism, for it does not mean that individuals no longer have any social ties. On the contrary, individualism is socially produced and expresses only the way individuals relate to each other through exchanges, rather than via the repressive similarity of mechanical solidarity. As we shall see, Durkheim was not entirely successful in arguing that all is basically well with the modern division of labor, and he kept returning to the subject again and again as his researches kept turning up evidence that could just as well be interpreted to mean that modern society is self-destructive. But Durkheim was not yet through with his main theoretical task: to show how moral feelings of solidarity underlie social order. To his logical and historical arguments, he added an empirical proof based on observations of the society around him. The collective conscience is a social "fact, says Durkheim. And indeed, you can experience it yourself when you are in a group. It is a feeling of contact with something outside yourself that does not depend precisely on any one person there, but which everyone participates in together. "An atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a knife." What can produce such a feeling? For Durkheim, examples were all around in the still-smouldering political tradition of France: the tense stillness surrounding Dreyfus on the parade ground, the vengeful excitement of the crowd at the guillotine. What provided the power of these collective situations was that people were gathered, focusing their attention on the same thing, and generating a contagious emotion. From these extreme and powerful instances of a collective conscience existing where people play the role of the Public at its most awesome, we may see a continuum that shades down through the shared moods of football crowds and theater audiences to parties, committee meetings, and finally to the most casual conversations. The stronger states of collective feeling are the easiest to notice; the subtler ones we take for granted. But for every case Durkheim provides a method by which a state of collective conscience can be made clearly ob-
德雷福斯的帝国。埃米尔·杜克海姆和乔治·索莱尔 107 科学可以借鉴的东西比较少,因为社会所有成员共同拥有的东西比较少。它的内容逐渐变得更加抽象。它不再认可具体的地方习俗和禁忌,而是开始只维护公平、正义、诚实等更普遍和抽象的原则。集体良知同时变得不那么强大,也更有原则性;它的语气不那么暴力,也更有人道主义。因此,杜克海姆成功地从理论上解释了孔德和托克维尔都注意到但却无法解释的现象:人类同情心的范围随着文明的进步而扩大。总而言之,杜克海姆希望通过这个证明来证明现代社会是好的。复杂的分工本质上是有序的,因为它内部包含了自己的道德原则。传统宗教的衰落并不值得担心;相反,取代它的现代道德更具有人道主义和宽容性。复杂的分工造成了个人主义,因为人们必须遵循自己的专门生活模式,但个人主义没有什么可担心的,因为它并不意味着个人不再有任何社会联系。相反,个人主义是社会产生的,它所表达的只是个人通过交换而相互联系的方式,而不是通过机械团结的压制性相似性。正如我们将看到的,杜克海姆并没有完全成功地论证现代劳动分工基本上都是好的,他不断地回到这个话题上,因为他的研究不断地发现一些证据,这些证据同样可以被解释为现代社会是自我毁灭的。但杜克海姆还没有完成他的主要理论任务:说明团结的道德感是如何支撑社会秩序的。在他的逻辑和历史论证中,他根据对周围社会的观察,增加了一个经验性的证明。杜尔凯姆说,集体意识是一个社会 “事实”。而事实上,当你在一个群体中时,你可以自己体验到它。它是一种与自己以外的东西接触的感觉,这种感觉并不完全取决于在场的任何一个人,而是每个人都共同参与其中。“一种浓厚的气氛,你可以用刀来切割它。” 什么能产生这样的感觉?对杜克海姆来说,在法国仍在发酵的政治传统中,例子无处不在:阅兵场上围绕德雷福斯的紧张寂静,断头台前人群的复仇兴奋。这些集体情况的力量在于,人们聚集在一起,将注意力集中在同一件事上,并产生了一种具有传染性的情绪。从这些存在着集体意识的极端和强大的例子中,人们在最令人敬畏的情况下扮演着公众的角色,我们可以看到一个连续的过程,通过足球观众和剧院观众的共同情绪,到聚会、委员会会议,最后到最随意的谈话,都是如此。更强烈的集体情感状态最容易被注意到;更微妙的状态我们认为是理所当然的。但对于每一种情况,杜克海姆都提供了一种方法,通过这种方法,集体意识的状态可以被清楚地观察到。
108 The Great Breakthrough servable: You know a social norm is there because you encounter resistance to violating it. The sentiments behind minor rules of politeness and deference show themselves most clearly in the uneasiness that occurs when someone breaks them; the invisible barrier of social conventions is never so apparent as when someone utters an obscenity at a polite gathering. The standards of just what the polite rules are can change between different times and between different groups, of course. But where the norms are strong, whatever they happen to be, the invisible order of a collective conscience can be clearly seen. This was all the more noticeable in the heavy formalities of nineteenth-century bourgeois France. Deviance and Social Solidarity Durkheim was especially interested, then, in acts of deviance, because it was here that society's norms could be seen most clearly in operation. Crimes and their punishments, he felt, were among the central features of a society. When one man commits a crime—a murder or a rape, for example—there is a widespread sense of public outrage, shared by people far beyond those who are personally damaged or threatened by the criminal. People show their nonrational, non-self-interested attachment to society in general by their reactions to events that have nothing to do with themselves personally. The fact that this is not a feeling of personal interests is shown when the same sort of public outrage occurs over purely symbolic issues, in which no one is damaged at all—for example, cases of public obscenity (the showing of a nude play or movie would be a modern example) or symbolic political acts, like Zola's letter to the French president. What is violated, in all these cases, is not someone's personal interests but the collective conscience itself. A ritual order has been defamed, and ritual punishment is necessary to restore its purity. This is why there is so much public concern with ceremonies of punishment such as court trials and executions. It also helps explain why there is so much sentiment favoring capital punishment, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it has no deterrent effect on crimes of violence: The punishment serves a ritual function, not a practical one, and hence it is supported by people who attach themselves to a certain kind of ritual order. Durkheim even went so far as to argue that crime is functional for holding society together. Without crimes there would be no ceremonies of punishment; and without such periodic ceremonies to bring people together in a ritual reaffirmation of their solidarity, society would gradually fall apart. The argument is overstated to make the point, of course. Durkheim himself later pointed out that there are positive rituals as well as negative ones, which also serve to create a sense of solidarity. The rituals of church services, patriotic holidays, and even family festivities like birthday parties all serve this function. The entire functionalist school in anthropology follows up on Durkheim's basic insight. Thus, Marcel Mauss (Durkheim's nephew), Arthur Radcliffe-Brown, Bronislaw Malinowski, Claude Levi-Strauss, and
108 《伟大的突破》是可以服务的。你知道一个社会规范的存在,因为你在违反它时遇到了阻力。礼貌和尊重的小规则背后的情感在有人违反这些规则时发生的不安中表现得淋漓尽致;社会习俗的无形屏障从未像有人在礼貌的聚会上说脏话那样明显。当然,什么是礼貌规则的标准可以在不同的时代和不同的群体之间改变。但是,在规范强大的地方,无论它们是什么,都可以清楚地看到集体良知的无形秩序。这一点在十九世纪法国资产阶级的繁文缛节中更为明显。偏差和社会团结 杜克海姆对偏差行为特别感兴趣,因为在这里可以最清楚地看到社会规范的运作。他认为,犯罪及其惩罚是一个社会的核心特征之一。当一个人犯了罪 —— 例如谋杀或强奸 —— 就会有一种广泛的公众愤怒感,这种愤怒感远远超出了那些受到犯罪者个人伤害或威胁的人。人们通过对与他们个人无关的事件的反应来显示他们对整个社会的非理性、非自利的依恋。当同样的公愤发生在纯粹的象征性问题上时,这就表明了这不是一种个人利益的感觉,在这些问题上根本没有人受到损害 —— 例如,公开的淫秽案件(放映裸体剧或电影将是一个现代的例子)或象征性的政治行为,如左拉给法国总统的信。在所有这些案例中,被侵犯的不是某人的个人利益,而是集体良知本身。一个仪式性的秩序被玷污了,为了恢复它的纯洁性,仪式性的惩罚是必要的。这就是为什么公众对法庭审判和处决等惩罚仪式如此关注的原因。这也有助于解释为什么在有大量证据表明死刑对暴力犯罪没有威慑力的情况下,仍有那么多支持死刑的情绪。这种惩罚具有仪式性的功能,而不是实用性的功能,因此,它得到了那些依附于某种仪式秩序的人们的支持。Durkheim 甚至认为,犯罪对于维系社会是有功能的。没有犯罪,就不会有惩罚的仪式;而没有这种定期的仪式,让人们在仪式上重申他们的团结,社会就会逐渐分崩离析。当然,为了说明问题,这个论点是夸张的。杜克海姆本人后来指出,有积极的仪式,也有消极的仪式,这些仪式也是为了创造一种团结的感觉。教堂礼拜的仪式、爱国的节日、甚至像生日聚会这样的家庭庆典都有这种功能。人类学中的整个功能主义学派都在跟进杜克海姆的基本洞察力。因此,马塞尔·莫斯(Durkheim 的侄子)、阿瑟·拉德克利夫·布朗、布罗尼斯瓦夫·马林诺夫斯基、克劳德·列维·斯特劳斯,和
Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 109 others have shown how marriage ceremonies, funerals, rites of passage, and gift exchanges all function to reaffirm social bonds, especially when the bonds are disturbed by the loss or gain of a member in a group. In sociology W. Lloyd Warner and Erving Goffman have made the most important applications of Durkheim's perspective to the rituals of modern American society. Durkheim went still further in his study of deviance and solidarity. In addition to his general observations, he produced a study of statistical data which remains a model for scientific research in sociology. This was his great work Suicide, published in 1897. Durkheim was not entirely original here. He drew on a tradition that went back to the 1830s, when the Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet pointed out that the rates of births, deaths, marriages, murders, suicides, and so on remained fairly constant from year to year, even though each of these rates was the result of many independent individual actions. Quetelet thus argued for the existence of a realm of social facts independent of the individual and proposed a science, which he labeled "social physics," to explain these facts. But Quetelet was only a statistician, and he came up with no explanation beyond a notion of an "average person" who is likely to act in given ways. This line of research was ready-made for Durkheim, for it dealt with acts of deviance—especially suicide—for which he did have a sociological theory. He now had an opportunity to test his theory in a rigorously scientific way. Suicide was the first really good piece of large-scale data analysis in sociology. Throughout, Durkheim applied the basic methodological principle of all good research: If you want to know the cause of something, look for the conditions under which it occurs and compare them with the conditions under which it does not occur. This is akin to Durkheim's principle of how to observe social norms by looking for the cases where they are violated. Behind both principles is the strategy of understanding through opposition: Explanations are revealed by contrast and comparison. It is this principle that was behind the insights of Tocqueville as he compared France arid America, and it continues to provide the basis for virtually all important advances in modern sociology. Durkheim, for example, began with the popular theory that suicides are due to individual psychopathology. This was the sort of explanation he wanted to dispose of, since he was engaged in an academic battle for recognition in which psychologists were his major competitors, and he wanted to show that social factors are on a separate and more important level of explanation. In short, Durkheim was opposed to psychological reductionism, which saw events only through the actions of individuals instead of penetrating to the social conditions that moved the individuals. He attacked the psychopathology theory of suicide by comparing the regions of Europe having the highest suicide rates with those having medium and low suicide rates and then showing that there was no correlation between rates of suicide and rates of psychopathology. In a similar fashion he tested other popular theories that attributed suicide to ethnicity, climate, or geography. In
德雷福斯的帝国。埃米尔·杜克海姆和乔治·索莱尔 109 人表明,婚姻仪式、葬礼、成年仪式和礼物交换都具有重申社会纽带的功能,特别是当纽带因群体中的成员的丧失或获得而受到干扰时。在社会学中,沃纳(W·Lloyd Warner)和戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)将杜克海姆的观点最重要地应用于现代美国社会的仪式中。杜克海姆在对偏差和团结的研究中还走得更远。除了他的一般观察,他还制作了一份统计数据研究报告,至今仍是社会学科学研究的典范。这就是他于 1897 年出版的伟大作品《自杀》。杜克海姆在这方面并不完全是原创。他借鉴了一个可以追溯到 19 世纪 30 年代的传统,当时比利时统计学家 Adolphe Quetelet 指出,出生、死亡、婚姻、谋杀、自杀等的比率每年都相当稳定,尽管这些比率中的每一个都是许多独立的个人行为的结果。因此,Quetelet 主张存在一个独立于个人的社会事实领域,并提出一门科学,他称之为 “社会物理学”,以解释这些事实。但是,Quetelet 只是一个统计学家,他除了提出一个可能以特定方式行动的 “普通人” 的概念外,没有提出任何解释。这条研究路线对杜克海姆来说是现成的,因为它涉及到了偏差行为 —— 特别是自杀 —— 对于这些行为,他确实有一套社会学理论。他现在有机会以严格的科学方式来检验他的理论。自杀是社会学中第一个真正好的大规模数据分析。在整个过程中,杜克海姆运用了所有优秀研究的基本方法论原则。如果你想知道某件事情的原因,就要寻找它发生的条件,并与它不发生的条件进行比较。这类似于杜克海姆的原则:如何通过寻找违反社会规范的情况来观察社会规范。这两个原则的背后是通过对立来理解的策略。解释是通过对比和比较来揭示的。托克维尔在比较法国和美国时提出的见解背后正是这一原则,而且它继续为现代社会学的几乎所有重要进展提供基础。例如,杜克海姆从流行的理论开始,认为自杀是由于个人的心理病理学造成的。这是他想要处置的那种解释,因为他正在参与一场争取认可的学术斗争,在这场斗争中,心理学家是他的主要竞争对手,他想表明社会因素是在一个单独的、更重要的解释层面。简而言之,杜克海姆反对心理学上的还原论,即只通过个人的行为来看待事件,而不是深入到影响个人的社会条件。他通过比较欧洲自杀率最高的地区和自杀率中等或较低的地区来抨击自杀的心理病理学理论,然后表明自杀率和心理病理学率之间没有关联。他以类似的方式检验了其他将自杀归因于种族、气候或地理的流行理论。在
110 The Great Breakthrough each case Durkheim showed that on close examination the variations in ethnic composition, average temperature, and so on did not correspond to variations in the suicide rate. Having disposed of these competing explanations, Durkheim proceeded to advance his own. The suicide rate did vary by social condition, he found. For example, Protestants had higher suicide rates than Catholics, who in turn had higher rates than Jews. This could not be explained just by differences in theology, Durkheim argued. If Catholicism made suicide a more serious sin than did Protestantism, Judaism nevertheless made no special prohibition of suicide and yet had the lowest suicide rate. The difference among these religious groups, rather, was in the social environments they provided for their members. Judaism was the most close-knit religious community, Protestantism the least, with Catholicism intermediate in surrounding the individual with a round of ritual activities. In general, Durkheim argued, the more tightly integrated into society the individual is, the more he is prevented from committing suicide. Durkheim backed up this interpretation by looking at further variations within these categories. In every religious group most suicides are among men, since women have the greatest day-to-day religious participation and are more tightly integrated into the close community of the family. Among the Protestant churches, the Anglicans had the lowest suicide rate, and they were the most ritualistic and Catholic-like of the Protestant denominations. Durkheim went on to point out, rather ingeniously, that the regions of Europe with the highest levels of education have the highest suicide rates, except among Jews. This corroborated the general argument that the lack of social integration caused suicide, since education was an indication of a secularized, individualistic, nonreligious society except among Jews, for whom education of laypeople had been a key part of the religious tradition. From different angles Durkheim corroborated his general theory: Society is what gives meaning to individual lives; it is when individuals are cut off from society that they kill themselves. Not only did the evidence on religion point to these conclusions, but also the fact that suicide rates declined in times of war, revolution, or other periods of great social crisis that drew everyone together into a common sentiment. The evidence also showed that married persons were less likely to kill themselves than unmarried persons; that widowhood and divorce increased the chances of suicide, but that this was mitigated the more children there were remaining. The more social bonds surrounding an individual, the less the chance of suicide; the fewer the bonds, the more danger of self-destruction. From all of this emerged one of Durkheim's key concepts: the idea of a state of "anomie" or lack of norms that give a clear direction and purpose to the individual's actions. In this concept Durkheim sums up a major cause of the ills of modern society. Durkheim's Suicide is a classic work, and it survives as a model of how to use empirical analysis to corroborate a general theory. It does have vari-
110 《伟大的突破》中的每一个案例都表明,经过仔细研究,种族构成、平均温度等方面的变化与自杀率的变化并不相符。在解决了这些相互竞争的解释之后,杜克海姆继续推进他自己的解释。他发现,自杀率确实因社会条件而异。例如,新教徒的自杀率比天主教徒高,而天主教徒的自杀率又比犹太人高。Durkheim 认为,这不能仅仅用神学上的差异来解释。如果天主教比新教将自杀视为更严重的罪行,那么犹太教却没有特别禁止自杀,但其自杀率却最低。相反,这些宗教团体之间的差异在于它们为其成员提供的社会环境。犹太教是最紧密的宗教团体,新教是最不紧密的,而天主教在用一轮仪式活动包围个人方面处于中间位置。一般来说,杜克海姆认为,个人与社会结合得越紧密,他就越能避免自杀。杜克海姆通过观察这些类别中的进一步变化来支持这一解释。在每个宗教团体中,大多数自杀者都是男性,因为女性的日常宗教参与度最高,而且更紧密地融入家庭这个亲密的社区。在新教教会中,英国圣公会的自杀率最低,他们是新教教派中最有仪式感和最像天主教的教派。Durkheim 接着相当巧妙地指出,欧洲教育水平最高的地区的自杀率也最高,但犹太人除外。这证实了缺乏社会融合导致自杀的一般论点,因为教育是世俗化、个人主义、非宗教社会的标志,但犹太人除外,对他们来说,非专业人员的教育一直是宗教传统的关键部分。杜克海姆从不同角度证实了他的一般理论。社会是赋予个人生活意义的东西;当个人与社会隔绝时,他们才会自杀。关于宗教的证据不仅指出了这些结论,而且还指出,在战争、革命或其他巨大的社会危机时期,自杀率下降,这些危机将所有人都吸引到一个共同的情绪中。证据还显示,已婚者比未婚者更不可能自杀;守寡和离婚会增加自杀的机会,但孩子越多,这种情况就会得到缓解。一个人周围的社会关系越多,自杀的机会就越小;关系越少,自我毁灭的危险就越大。从这一切中,出现了杜克海姆的一个关键概念:“不正常” 状态的想法,或缺乏给个人行动提供明确方向和目的的规范。在这个概念中,杜克海姆总结了现代社会弊病的一个主要原因。杜克海姆的《自杀》是一部经典作品,它作为如何使用经验分析来证实一般理论的典范而流传至今。它确实有不同的
Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 111 ous shortcomings. The data are not entirely reliable, and there were mistakes in the analysis. Moreover, Durkheim did not fully explain suicides. After all, not everyone who is Protestant commits suicide, even if he or she is unmarried, highly educated, and so on. The full explanation of any individual case of suicide must involve just the kind of psychological factors that Durkheim wanted to exclude. But Durkheim was less interested in providing an exhaustive explanation of suicides than in showing that social integration and social anomie have important effects on the individual's behavior. He was less interested in suicide itself than in what it can tell us about the structure of society. Suicide remains an important book in the history of social thought, whether it is precisely valid or not. It not only helps to support Durkheim's general analysis of the importance of ritual interaction for social solidarity, but it also lays down the model for sociology as a science: to treat general theoretical principles in terms of variables and thus to test them by systematic comparison with the supposed causal conditions. Durkheim thus moved from the methods of nineteenth-century speculation to the sophisticated analysis of the twentieth century. Religion and Reality These might seem enough major contributions for one man, but Durkheim was not through yet. He organized the first French sociological journal, the Annie sociologique, and around it a school of researchers to carry on the new tradition. Out of this group came a major school in modern anthropology, which constituted Durkheim's main following in France. Durkheim himself became increasingly interested in ethnographic reports on primitive tribes, some of which material he analyzed in collaboration with his nephew Marcel Mauss, who had done much of the statistical compilations for Suicide. In 1912, a few years before his death, Durkheim published his final work, perhaps the greatest single book of the twentieth century. It was entitled The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. In this work Durkheim carried through to another level the revolution in our view of reality begun by Karl Marx. Every class has its own view of reality, its own consciousness, Marx had argued. Durkheim went even further, to demonstrate the social relativity of even our most general and taken-for-granted ideas. Time, space, causality, God, the self—all these could now be seen as creations of society. In place of the old absolutist view of reality "out there," Durkheim shows us that the natural world is only a backdrop for the symbolic creations of humans and their social rituals. As we have come to see through the applications of this perspective by Erving Goffman and other recent sociologists, there is not one reality by many, and they exist only by virtue of being enacted by human beings. Durkheim carried out this revolution in our perspectives by analyzing data on the aboriginal tribes of Australia, plus some other tribal societies, in
德雷福斯的帝国。Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 111 众多的缺点。数据并不完全可靠,分析中也有错误。此外,杜克海姆并没有完全解释自杀事件。毕竟,并不是每个信奉新教的人都会自杀,即使他或她是未婚的、受过高等教育的,等等。对任何自杀个案的全面解释都必须涉及杜克海姆想要排除的那种心理因素。但杜克海姆对提供自杀的详尽解释并不感兴趣,而是想说明社会融合和社会不正常对个人行为的重要影响。他对自杀本身不感兴趣,而是对它能告诉我们社会结构的情况感兴趣。自杀》仍然是社会思想史上的一本重要书籍,无论它是否准确有效。它不仅有助于支持杜克海姆关于仪式互动对社会团结的重要性的一般分析,而且还奠定了社会学作为一门科学的模式:用变量来处理一般的理论原则,从而通过与假定的因果条件的系统比较来检验它们。因此,杜克海姆从十九世纪的推测方法转向了二十世纪的复杂分析。宗教与现实 对于一个人来说,这些重大贡献似乎已经足够了,但杜克海姆还没有结束。他组织了法国第一份社会学杂志《社会学杂志》(Annie sociologique),并围绕它组织了一个研究人员流派,以继承新的传统。在这个团体中,出现了一个现代人类学的主要流派,它构成了杜克海姆在法国的主要追随者。杜克海姆本人对原始部落的人种学报告越来越感兴趣,他与他的侄子马塞尔·莫斯(Marcel Mauss)合作分析了其中的一些材料,后者曾为《自杀》杂志做了大量的统计编撰工作。1912 年,在他去世前几年,杜克海姆出版了他的最后一部作品,也许是二十世纪最伟大的单行本。该书名为《宗教生活的基本形式》。在这部作品中,杜克海姆将卡尔·马克思开始的对现实的看法的革命推进到了另一个层次。马克思认为,每个阶级都有自己对现实的看法,有自己的意识。杜克海姆甚至走得更远,以证明即使是我们最普遍的、理所当然的想法的社会相对性。时间、空间、因果关系、上帝、自我,所有这些现在都可以被看作是社会的创造物。作为对 “外面” 现实的老式绝对主义观点的替代,杜克海姆向我们表明,自然界只是人类及其社会仪式的象征性创造的一个背景。正如我们通过埃尔文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)和其他最近的社会学家对这一观点的应用所看到的那样,现实并非只有一个,而是很多,它们的存在只是因为被人类制定了。杜克海姆通过分析澳大利亚原住民部落以及其他一些部落社会的数据,在我们的视角中进行了这场革命。
112 The Great Breakthrough an effort to understand the basis of religion. But since religion was all-pervasive in the worldviews of these peoples, Durkheim had an opportunity to explain the basic modes of thought in a society. He began by trying to define religion. What is it that all religions have in common? Not the idea of gods or spirits, since religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism lack these. Not the idea of a supernatural realm set apart from the world of nature, since primitive societies have not developed the idea of a realm of nature and hence make no such distinction. In fact, says Durkheim, we cannot find the key to religion in the realm of ideas at all. The only thing that all religions contain is a set of "sacred objects" that are set off from all other objects and toward which humans must act with ritual care. Ritual objects in Christianity, for example, include Bibles, altars, rosaries, holy water, and consecrated bread and wine; in the aboriginal tribes that Durkheim analyzed the main sacred object was the tribal totem. A totem is an animal, such as a fox, snake, grub-worm, or kangaroo, which tribe members are forbidden to kill or eat; and periodic ceremonies are held in which the tribe comes together to pay respect to this sacred object. It is impossible to understand this treatment of a totem from a practical point of view, says Durkheim, but if one views it socially, its significance becomes obvious. The totem functions to hold the tribe together. Without it, there would be no tribal unit at all, for it is by sharing a common totem that its members identify with each other. The totem is thus the basis of kinship and of social membership. The whole tribe is assembled only at the periodic totem ceremonies, and it is at these rituals that its members create and recreate the sense of emotional solidarity that Durkheim had argued was so important for social order. The totem thus creates a social and moral order. Since it is forbidden to kill the totem animal, it is also forbidden to kill those who name themselves after the totem, one's fellow tribesmen. The totem, in effect, symbolizes the society and its moral demands on the individual. In the same way, one can see more modern religions as functioning primarily to maintain a moral community. The church service of a nineteenth- century American village, for example, brought the community together once a week—perhaps the only time the community regularly assembled. The rituals of the service, from the reading of the sacred book to collective hymns and prayers, functioned to create a feeling of moral order. In general, Durkheim argues, the moral commandments of a religion—its Golden Rule, Ten Commandments, restrictions on self-indulgence in the pleasures of the flesh—are fundamentally social rules. They regulate humans' behavior toward each other and serve to keep up the sense of social unity and restraint on self-interest that make society possible. Why do people live up to such moral rules, at least to some degree? Not really because of fear of supernatural sanctions like heaven and hell or of the sacred power of the totem; these rationalizations for religious customs come and go, but the power of social controls remains. Rather, suggests Durkheim, it is because the supernatural sanctions symbolize society and its acceptance or rejection of the individual. The people who live up to the
112 《伟大的突破》是为了理解宗教的基础。但由于宗教在这些民族的世界观中无处不在,杜克海姆有机会解释一个社会的基本思维模式。他首先试图对宗教进行定义。所有宗教的共同点是什么?不是神灵的想法,因为佛教和儒家等宗教缺乏这些。不是超自然领域与自然界分开的概念,因为原始社会没有发展出自然界的概念,因此没有这种区分。事实上,杜克海姆说,我们根本无法在思想领域找到宗教的关键。所有宗教都包含的唯一东西是一套 “神圣的物体”,它们与所有其他物体分开,人类必须以仪式的方式对待它们。例如,基督教的仪式物品包括《圣经》、祭坛、念珠、圣水和圣饼圣酒;在杜克海姆分析的原住民部落中,主要的神圣物品是部落的图腾。图腾是一种动物,如狐狸、蛇、蛴螬或袋鼠,部落成员被禁止杀害或食用;并定期举行仪式,部落成员聚集在一起,向这一神圣的物体表示敬意。Durkheim 说,从实际的角度来看,不可能理解对图腾的这种处理,但如果从社会角度来看,其意义就很明显了。图腾的功能是将部落凝聚在一起。没有它,就根本不会有部落单位,因为正是通过共享一个共同的图腾,其成员才彼此认同。因此,图腾是亲属关系和社会成员关系的基础。整个部落只有在定期举行的图腾仪式上才会聚集在一起,正是在这些仪式上,其成员创造和重新创造了杜克海姆认为对社会秩序非常重要的情感团结的感觉。因此,图腾创造了一种社会和道德秩序。由于禁止杀害图腾动物,所以也禁止杀害那些以图腾命名的人,即自己的部落同胞。图腾实际上象征着社会和它对个人的道德要求。以同样的方式,人们可以看到更多的现代宗教的功能主要是为了维持一个道德的社区。例如,十九世纪美国村庄的教堂礼拜,每周将社区聚集一次 —— 也许是社区定期集会的唯一时间。礼拜的仪式,从宣读圣书到集体唱诗和祈祷,都是为了创造一种道德秩序的感觉。Durkheim 认为,一般来说,宗教的道德戒律 —— 它的黄金法则、十诫、对自我沉溺于肉体快乐的限制 —— 从根本上说是社会规则。它们规范了人类相互之间的行为,并有助于保持社会团结的意识和对自我利益的约束,使社会成为可能。为什么人们会遵守这些道德规则,至少在某种程度上?其实并不是因为对天堂和地狱等超自然制裁的恐惧,也不是因为图腾的神圣力量;这些对宗教习俗的合理解释来来去去,但社会控制的力量依然存在。相反,Durkheim 认为,这是因为超自然的制裁象征着社会及其对个人的接受或拒绝。遵循宗教习俗的人
Dreyfus's Empire: Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 113 moral commandments and participate wholeheartedly in the religious rituals get a great feeling of solidarity with the countless generations who make up their society, and they represent this feeling to themselves as being "saved." Those who break the rules and avoid the rituals cut themselves off from this feeling of belonging and suffer the consequences of their own self- centeredness. As theologians put it, to be cut off from God is the sinner's self-inflicted punishment. Durkheim would agree, but with the added sociological proviso: God is only a symbol for society. Durkheim thus brings to a close a chapter that began in the Enlightenment with the attack of science on religion. But religion must be more than superstition and error, Durkheim had pointed out, for how could it have survived so long if it were only this? Durkheim at last enables us to understand beliefs about the supernatural, by showing them for what they really are: symbols generated by social behavior that is at the core of every society. God is revealed to be not exactly what believers think, but something real nevertheless: the collective conscience of a community. And if this collective conscience changes its symbolizations from the sacred totem animals to more universal gods, until finally even the remote Christian God with his transcendental heaven and hell disappears into the memories of the past, this is only what we would expect from Durkheim's earlier demonstration, in The Division of Labor, that a society's moral order changes with its social structure. Sacred objects like totems, altars, and books are only displaced by new sacred objects like flags, which represent the worship of the state. By implication, much that seems bizarre in the behavior of avowedly atheistic and materialistic Russian and Chinese Communists becomes clearer when we see that communism has been organized as a political religion, now split between competing orthodoxies. In general, Durkheim's theory proposes that the historical trend is toward a more and more abstract and general collective conscience; concrete symbols of God disappear into a generalized moral belief about the brotherhood of humanity. Durkheim's sociology of knowledge thus manages to explain humans', fundamental religious ideas in terms of their social interactions. In addition, Durkheim shows that society determines even the basic categories of our thought. We live in a world of time and space, but how we conceive that time and space is socially determined. It is Friday; it is eleven o'clock in the morning; it is the year 1992: Implicitly this puts me in a world held in common by most other people in our clock-watching, post-Christian civilization. But there is nothing absolute about these units. There is no reason that time must necessarily be broken up into seven-day weeks or twenty-four- hour days; we could just as well have ten-day weeks or no weeks or hours at all (as is the case with many primitive tribes). We divide time into units only because we need to coordinate our activities with others in our complex modern civilization, not because hours and weeks really constitute the framework of nature. But as we continually act upon them, these units become part of the framework of our minds, and we make them subjectively into an absolute reality. In just this way, society implicitly furnishes the
德雷福斯的帝国。Emile Durkheim and Georges Sorel 113 道德戒律和全心全意参加宗教仪式的人,得到了与构成他们社会的无数代人团结一致的巨大感觉,他们把这种感觉表现为自己被 “拯救”。那些违反规则和回避仪式的人则将自己与这种归属感隔绝开来,并承受他们自己以自我为中心的后果。正如神学家所说,与上帝隔绝是罪人自找的惩罚。Durkheim 会同意的,但要加上一个社会学的限制条件。上帝只是社会的一个象征。因此,杜克海姆为始于启蒙运动的科学对宗教的攻击这一章画上了句号。但是,杜克海姆指出,宗教必须不仅仅是迷信和错误,因为如果它仅仅是这样,它怎么可能生存这么久?杜克海姆最终使我们能够理解关于超自然的信仰,通过展示它们的真实面目:由社会行为产生的符号,这是每个社会的核心。上帝被揭示为不完全是信徒们所想的那样,而是真实的东西:一个社区的集体良知。如果这个集体意识改变了它的象征,从神圣的图腾动物到更普遍的神,直到最后甚至遥远的基督教上帝和他的超验的天堂和地狱消失在过去的记忆中,这只是我们从杜克海姆早先在《劳动分工》中的证明中所期待的,即一个社会的道德秩序随着它的社会结构而改变。像图腾、祭坛和书籍这样的神圣物品只会被新的神圣物品所取代,比如代表国家崇拜的旗帜。言下之意,当我们看到共产主义已经被组织成一种政治宗教,现在分裂成相互竞争的正统派时,在公开的无神论和唯物主义的俄罗斯和中国共产党人的行为中,很多看起来很奇怪的事情就变得更清楚了。总的来说,杜克海姆的理论提出,历史的趋势是朝着越来越抽象和普遍的集体意识发展;上帝的具体象征消失在关于人类兄弟关系的普遍道德信仰中。因此,杜克海姆的知识社会学设法从社会互动的角度解释人类的、基本的宗教观念。此外,杜克海姆还表明,社会甚至决定了我们思想的基本类别。我们生活在一个有时间和空间的世界里,但我们如何构思这个时间和空间是由社会决定的。今天是星期五;现在是上午 11 点;现在是 1992 年:这隐含地将我置于我们这个看钟的、后基督教文明中的大多数其他人共同拥有的世界。但这些单位并没有什么绝对性。我们没有理由一定要把时间分成七天的周或二十四小时的日;我们也可以有十天的周或根本没有周或小时(就像许多原始部落的情况一样)。我们把时间分成若干单位,只是因为我们需要在复杂的现代文明中与他人协调我们的活动,而不是因为小时和星期真正构成了自然的框架。但是,当我们不断地对它们采取行动时,这些单位就成了我们思想框架的一部分,我们主观地把它们变成了一个绝对的现实。就以这种方式,社会隐含地提供了
114 The Great Breakthrough bases of our worldviews. The year a.d. 1992 puts us directly in the context of a Christian view of history, since the anno Domini orients us in relation to the year 1 of the mythical birth of Christ. The Chinese, whose calendar would stand at the year 4690, inhabit a fundamentally different historical universe. Time concepts, Durkheim shows, derive first of all from the scheduling of religious ceremonies. Space, causality, number—all these abstract ideas can also be traced to social origins and continuing social uses. Space is the area the tribe inhabits; this has grown immensely from the wanderings of aborigines in the Australian desert, through the voyages of Columbus and Magellan, but it still has a basic social meaning for us, as the effects of space travel on our thought about the universe continue to illustrate. Our fundamental concepts all grow from a social matrix in a similar way, and our very idea of objective knowledge ultimately refers to things that we can reliably communicate to others. Durkheim tears away another illusion that keeps us from seeing the world as it is: We mistake our socially given images of reality for the reality itself. Only by seeing the social relativity of our ideas are we on the path to understanding ourselves. It is a powerful intellectual performance that Durkheim puts on, indeed one of the most impressive of modern times. But what about the social issues with which he began, the effort to cure the social strife of modern France? Here Durkheim was less successful. He tried to use sociological functionalism as a basis for a scientific diagnosis of society's ills: not to impose any particular values on how society should operate, but to ascertain the "healthy" state of the social organism and thereby to understand its "diseases." He tried to show that a modern division of labor is basically healthy and well integrated and that when it is not, it must be because of special conditions. Thus Durkheim believed that strikes, political conflict, and labor violence were forms of the "abnormal" division of labor. But he was never able to propose a clear solution. His theory told him that the problem must lie in a lack of sufficient integration of the individual into the moral order of a social community, and in his famous Preface to the second edition of The Division of Labor, Durkheim proposed that the lack of solidarity could be cured by organizing individuals into occupational guilds. The solution was not convincing, for there is no reason to believe that such occupational communities would not continue to conflict with each other. Durkheim's main shortcoming was that he never came to grips with the existence of stratification and the realities of political conflict; he concentrated on the bases of social solidarity to the extent that his image of society excluded all nonsolidarity features. Durkheim would have been more successful in his search for political solutions if he had followed Tocqueville's lead on how political organizations can intensify conflict or limit it. In general, Durkheim's optimistic argument that modern industrial society is normally well integrated is not convincing. His own theories tend to refute it. If humans are emotional animals who derive their sense of purpose from the rituals they perform with others, then the gradual suppres-
114 我们世界观的大突破基础。公元 1992 年使我们直接处于基督教历史观的背景下,因为公元年使我们与神话中基督诞生的第一年有关。中国人的日历是 4690 年,他们居住在一个根本不同的历史世界。Durkheim 指出,时间概念首先来自于宗教仪式的安排。空间、因果关系、数字 —— 所有这些抽象的概念也可以追溯到社会起源和持续的社会使用。空间是部落所居住的区域;从澳大利亚沙漠中原住民的漫游,到哥伦布和麦哲伦的航行,这已经有了巨大的发展,但它对我们仍有基本的社会意义,正如太空旅行对我们关于宇宙的思考的影响继续说明。我们的基本概念都是以类似的方式从社会矩阵中生长出来的,而我们关于客观知识的想法最终是指我们能够可靠地与他人交流的东西。杜克海姆撕掉了另一个让我们无法看到世界本来面目的幻觉。我们把社会赋予我们的现实形象误认为是现实本身。只有看到我们观念的社会相对性,我们才能走上理解自己的道路。这是杜克海姆的一个强有力的智力表演,的确是现代最令人印象深刻的表演之一。但是,他一开始所研究的社会问题,即治疗现代法国的社会冲突的努力,又是怎么回事呢?在这里,杜克海姆并不那么成功。他试图用社会学功能论作为科学诊断社会弊病的基础:不是要把任何特定的价值观强加给社会应该如何运作,而是要确定社会有机体的 “健康” 状态,从而了解它的 “疾病”。他试图表明,现代劳动分工基本上是健康的,而且整合得很好,当它不健康时,一定是由于特殊条件造成的。因此,杜克海姆认为,罢工、政治冲突和劳工暴力是 “不正常” 的劳动分工的形式。但他从未能提出一个明确的解决方案。他的理论告诉他,问题一定在于个人没有充分融入社会共同体的道德秩序,在他著名的《劳动分工》第二版序言中,杜克海姆提出,可以通过把个人组织到职业行会中来治愈缺乏团结的问题。这个解决方案并不令人信服,因为没有理由相信这样的职业共同体不会继续相互冲突。杜克海姆的主要缺点是,他从来没有正视过分层的存在和政治冲突的现实;他专注于社会团结的基础,以至于他的社会形象排除了所有非团结的特征。如果杜克海姆在政治组织如何激化冲突或限制冲突的问题上跟随托克维尔的步伐,他在寻找政治解决方案方面会更加成功。总的来说,杜克海姆关于现代工业社会通常具有良好的整合性的乐观论点并不令人信服。他自己的理论倾向于反驳它。如果人类是情绪化的动物,他们的目的感来自于他们与他人共同完成的仪式,那么,逐渐的支持
His own theories tend to refute it. If humans are emotional animals who derive their sense of purpose from the rituals they perform with others, then the gradual suppression of emotions and the elimination of ritual in our highly bureaucratic society should produce considerable malaise. Such, in fact, were the more pessimistic conclusions of Weber and Freud. Although Durkheim did not want to draw this conclusion, his evidence on anomic suicide resulting from the loosening of ritual social bonds supports a pessimistic interpretation. THE REVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY OF GEORGES SOREL One of Durkheim's compatriots drew the implications better than he did. This was Georges Sorel (1847-1922), a retired engineer, whose values and politics were as far removed from Durkheim's as possible, although both men held each other in considerable respect. Sorel was an acquaintance, among others, of V. I. Lenin, Benito Mussolini, and Fritz Ebert (the Socialist who became the first president of Germany after World War I). His politics seemed an equally bizarre flux, from monarchism on the far right to anarcho-syndicalism on the far left. But there was a basic principle underlying Sorel's shifting political sympathies. He regarded modern society as completely decadent, lacking in any real virtue, dedication, or brilliance. He despised the petty squabbling of the academics, and saw the business world as entirely self-seeking and corrupt and politicians as equally contemptible. The failure of the Socialists to take a stand on the burning moral issue of the Dreyfus affair at the time when Zola was putting his life on the docket convinced Sorel that the organized left was equally decadent. By 1907, when he wrote Reflections on Violence, Sorel had come to identify with ultrarevolu- tionary anarcho-syndicalism. Reflections on Violence takes up the anarcho-syndicalist idea that a general strike of all workers will someday bring down bourgeois society and usher in the new era of the revolution. This revolution, says Sorel, is a myth. It will never be, for society after the revolution would not be greatly changed, and in any case the chances of victory are nil. But—and here is where Sorel parts company with most other "practical" thinkers—the myth of the general strike nevertheless serves a purpose. It unifies the group of workers and gives them a feeling of participating in a moral cause. In the same way, violence has an important value, for it unifies individuals in a struggle for their common ideals and against their common enemies. In modern society, says Sorel, only social movements in battle have this high moral tone, a sense of joyous spontaneity as individuals feel themselves dedicated to something greater and higher than themselves. For this reason, such revolutionary movements are the only source of value today, even if they are doomed to fail. It is not the actual goal that counts, but the feelings that go along with struggling to attain it in the company of others. Sorel throws light on the appeal of violence in modern society, although his analysis applies just as well to nonviolent movements. The civil-rights
他自己的理论倾向于反驳它。如果人类是情感动物,从他们与他人的仪式中获得目的感,那么在我们高度官僚化的社会中,情感的逐渐压制和仪式的消除应该产生相当大的萎靡。事实上,这就是韦伯和弗洛伊德更为悲观的结论。尽管杜克海姆并不想得出这样的结论,但他关于因社会仪式感的松动而导致的原子弹自杀的证据支持了悲观的解释。乔治·索雷尔(GEORGES SOREL)的革命哲学 杜克海姆的一个同胞比他更好地理解了这一含义。他就是乔治·索莱尔(Georges Sorel,1847-1922),一位退休的工程师,他的价值观和政治观与杜克海姆的相去甚远,尽管两人都对对方相当尊重。索雷尔认识 V·I·列宁、贝尼托·墨索里尼和弗里茨·埃伯特(社会主义者,第一次世界大战后成为德国第一任总统)等人。他的政治似乎也在发生着同样诡异的变化,从极右的君主主义到极左的无政府主义·辛迪加主义。但是,在索莱尔不断变化的政治同情心背后有一个基本原则。他认为现代社会是完全颓废的,缺乏任何真正的美德、奉献或辉煌。他鄙视学术界的小争吵,认为商业界完全是自寻烦恼和腐败的,政治家也同样可鄙。在左拉把自己的生命放在日程表上的时候,社会党人没有对德雷福斯事件这一紧迫的道德问题采取立场,这使索莱尔确信,有组织的左派也同样颓废了。到 1907 年,当他写下《暴力的反思》时,索莱尔已经认同了极端的无政府主义 —— 圣战主义。暴力反思》采纳了无政府主义 —— 无神论者的观点,即所有工人的总罢工总有一天会打倒资产阶级社会,迎来革命的新时代。索雷尔说,这种革命是一个神话。它永远不会发生,因为革命后的社会不会有大的改变,而且在任何情况下,胜利的机会是零。但是 —— 这也是索雷尔与其他大多数 “实用” 思想家不同的地方 —— 总罢工的神话还是有其作用的。它使工人群体团结起来,给他们一种参与道德事业的感觉。同样,暴力也有重要的价值,因为它使个人在为共同的理想和反对共同的敌人的斗争中团结起来。索莱尔说,在现代社会中,只有战斗中的社会运动才有这种高尚的道德基调,有一种快乐的自发性,因为个人感到自己致力于比自己更伟大和更高的东西。由于这个原因,这种革命运动是今天唯一的价值来源,即使它们注定要失败。重要的不是实际的目标,而是在他人的陪伴下为实现目标而奋斗的感受。索雷尔揭示了现代社会中暴力的吸引力,尽管他的分析同样适用于非暴力运动。公民权利运动
movement and its succeeding peace and student movements of the mid- 1960s often had much of the sense of euphoria among their participants that Sorel describes as the main value of such movements. And if these movements have generally failed to bring about their goals, that does not make them any the less worthwhile. Sorel's lesson foreshadows later existentialist insights: that in a world of dilemmas and well-entrenched injustices, the value of an action is to be judged less by consequences than by its intrinsic Tightness. Sorel has always been a puzzling figure, since his point of view lends itself to many interpretations. Sorel himself defended the Communist revolution in Russia, while Mussolini praised him as a source of Italian fascism. But Sorel was not really a Fascist. He did not want a society that tries to impose an imitation of old-fashioned order by brutal suppression; his values, rather, were for the spirit of perpetual movement. More than anything else, Sorel was a true anarchist. And whatever the political implications that could be drawn from his work, Sorel clearly pointed out two characteristic phenomena of modern society: its emotional starvation and the irrelevance of its ideals to workaday reality. This was more than Durkheim allowed himself to see, although he spent most of his life probing the conditions of the same feelings of solidarity. Durkheim wanted very strongly to believe in something, and in the end it cost him his life. World War I turned his ardent French nationalism into a paroxysm of anti-German sentiment. When his son Andre was killed at the front, defending the flag that Durkheim considered the modern version of the most sacred object, Durkheim went into a depression that culminated in 1917 in his death. It was not the first time that an individual's insights, so valuable to others, had gone unused by himself.
在 20 世纪 60 年代中期的和平运动和学生运动中,参与者往往有很多欣喜若狂的感觉,而这正是索雷尔所说的这类运动的主要价值。如果这些运动普遍未能实现其目标,这并不意味着它们的价值降低。索莱尔的教训预示了后来存在主义的见解:在一个充满困境和根深蒂固的不公正的世界里,判断一个行动的价值,与其说是根据其内在的严密性,不如说是根据后果。索莱尔一直是一个令人困惑的人物,因为他的观点可以有很多解释。索莱尔本人为俄国的共产主义革命辩护,而墨索里尼则称赞他是意大利法西斯主义的来源。但索莱尔并不是一个真正的法西斯主义者。他不希望有一个试图通过残酷镇压来强行模仿旧式秩序的社会;相反,他的价值观是为了永恒的运动精神。更重要的是,索莱尔是一个真正的无政府主义者。无论从他的作品中可以得出什么样的政治含义,索莱尔都清楚地指出了现代社会的两个特征现象:它的情感饥渴和它的理想与工作现实的无关性。这比杜克海姆允许自己看到的还要多,尽管他花了大半辈子的时间来探究同样的团结情感的条件。杜克海姆非常强烈地想要相信一些东西,而最终这让他付出了生命的代价。第一次世界大战使他热衷的法国民族主义变成了反德情绪的暴发。当他的儿子安德烈在前线保卫被杜克海姆视为最神圣物品的现代版本的旗帜时,杜克海姆陷入了抑郁,并在 1917 年达到了死亡的顶点。这并不是第一次,一个人的洞察力,对他人如此有价值,却被他自己忽略了。
CHAPTER SEVEN Max Weber: The Disenchantment of the World Max Weber (1864-1920) has exerted more influence than any other social scientist except Marx and Freud. His ideas had wide currency, first in Germany and then throughout the scholarly world. His term "charismatic leadership" has passed into general usage, and all of social science knows something of the concepts of legitimacy, bureaucracy, rationalization, ver- stehen, ideal types, value-free science, the three-dimensional approach to stratification, and the Protestant ethic with its links to the origins of capitalism. Yet Weber's general sociology and his vision of world history are as yet barely known; they remain hidden behind isolated selections and popularizations, and we are continually surprised as more and more powerful portions of Weber's worldview are brought into the light. Weber himself is partly to blame. His works are voluminous but unfinished and scarcely succinct, and even a superficial acquaintance with them turns up notions of such utility that one is tempted to inquire no further. In recent years, as the fuller discovery and development of his sociology go on, Weber increases his hold on our attention. The most commanding figure of the great period of German social scholarship, Weber still towers over the world scene more than seventy years after his death. Like many other great sociologists, Weber (pronounced "Vay-ber") was a man at the center of things, pulled loose from illusion by constant exposure to contradictory points of view. Born in 1864 into a prosperous family of German industrialists, he grew up in Berlin where his father was a judge and a successful politician. Backstage acquaintance with the realpolitik of Bismarck's empire made Weber a political realist from his childhood. His father sat in the Reichstag with the National Liberals, representing the interests of the big manufacturers and standing between the Junker aristocracy on the right and the Social Democrats (socialist labor unionists) on the left. It was not a propitious time for liberals in Germany (indeed, it rarely ever was, except during the short-lived revolution of 1848). The landowning aristocracy and the army took a rigid stand against democracy, and the Socialists preached revolution according to Karl Marx. The liberals had no 117
第七章 马克斯·韦伯。马克斯·韦伯(1864-1920)的影响力超过了除马克思和弗洛伊德之外的任何其他社会科学家。他的思想首先在德国,然后在整个学术界得到广泛传播。他的术语 “魅力领导” 已被普遍使用,所有的社会科学都对合法性、官僚主义、合理化、理想类型、无价值科学、分层的三维方法、新教伦理及其与资本主义起源的联系等概念有所了解。然而,韦伯的一般社会学和他的世界历史观还几乎不为人所知;它们仍然隐藏在孤立的选择和普及的背后,而当韦伯的世界观中越来越多的有力部分被带入光明时,我们不断地感到惊讶。韦伯自己也要承担部分责任。他的作品数量众多,但尚未完成,而且几乎没有什么简洁之处,即使是对其进行肤浅的了解,也会发现一些有用的概念,以至于让人不愿意进一步探究。近年来,随着他的社会学的更充分的发现和发展,韦伯增加了他对我们的关注。韦伯是德国社会学研究的伟大时期中最有影响力的人物,在他去世 70 多年后仍然耸立在世界舞台上。像其他许多伟大的社会学家一样,韦伯(发音为 “Vay-ber”)是一个处于事物中心的人,由于不断接触到矛盾的观点,他从幻觉中被拉出来。1864 年,他出生在一个繁荣的德国工业家家庭,在柏林长大,他的父亲是一名法官和一名成功的政治家。对俾斯麦帝国的现实政治的后台了解,使韦伯从小就成为一个政治现实主义者。他的父亲在帝国议会中与国民自由党一起,代表大制造商的利益,站在右翼的容克贵族和左翼的社会民主党(社会主义工会成员)之间。对于德国的自由主义者来说,这并不是一个有利的时机(事实上,除了 1848 年的短暂革命之外,很少有这样的时机)。地主贵族和军队采取了反对民主的强硬立场,而社会主义者则按照卡尔·马克思的说法宣扬革命。自由主义者们没有 117
one to turn to except the state bureaucracy, and their ideals went down the drain as their nationalism increasingly became their only political resource. From an early age Weber scorned the unrealistic claims of left and right, but found himself increasingly uncomfortable with the center. Throughout his life an ardent nationalist, he nevertheless saw Germany blundering steadily into a war that would destroy it. His sociology confirmed his fears of imminent disaster, and Weber came to see himself as a twentieth-century Jeremiah, prophesying doom. He began a career like his father's, studying law at Heidelberg and Berlin. But his pessimism about politics and his own overpowering urge to exercise his independent intellect steered him into an academic career. Germany in the nineteenth century led the world in the eminence of its universities. It was especially prominent in the historical fields. It had been here that Leopold von Ranke and Friedrich von Savigny transformed history from the status of antiquarian chronicles into a science, with its canon to tell things "as they really were." With German thoroughness, the Herr Professor Doktors had produced detailed accounts not only in conventional military and political history but also in economic, legal, and cultural history and in archaeology, ethnography, and linguistics. German philosophy, too, since the days of Hegel had a strong historical flavor. Weber trained himself in virtually all these fields, with the result that his knowledge of world history probably exceeded that of any other person who had ever lived. In an age of growing specialization Weber's feat was the mark of an extraordinary individualist. But Weber was nothing if not extraordinary. Tall, stout, black-bearded, and moody, he impressed all who met him. His colleagues viewed him as a towering intellect. At the end of Weber's doctoral exam Theodor Mommsen, the most eminent historian of his day, rose and said that he knew of no man better qualified to succeed him "than the highly esteemed Max Weber." But Weber stood in an intellectual circle even wider than the world of German historians and philosophers. At his father's house he had met the eminent politicians and academicians of Berlin. In his own house at Heidelberg the leading intellects in all fields, as well as artists and musicians, met. Among his circle would be found such men as Karl Jaspers (the future existentialist psychiatrist), Ferdinand Toennies, Georg Simmel, and a young radical who could not get a university position despite Weber's intercessions on his behalf, Robert Michels. Weber was fully acquainted with Marxist underground thought. He read many languages, traveled broadly, and knew the English evolutionists and the French positivists as well as the German historians. He was a one-man crucible for the intellectual currents of the nineteenth century, and from his central position he forged a viewpoint for sociology as both a science and a study of meaningful human creations. His twin methods of verstehen and ideal types emerged from his position at the center of intellectual crosscurrents: Social reality is not merely to be explained by mechanical analogies to the natural world, but must be understood (in German, verstehen) by imagining oneself into the experiences of men and women as they act out their
除了国家官僚机构之外,他们的理想随着民族主义日益成为他们唯一的政治资源而付诸东流。韦伯从小就蔑视左派和右派的不切实际的主张,但他发现自己对中间派越来越不适应。在他的一生中,作为一个热心的民族主义者,他还是看到了德国在不断地陷入一场会摧毁它的战争。他的社会学研究证实了他对即将发生的灾难的担忧,韦伯开始把自己看作是二十世纪的耶利米,预言着末日。他开始了像他父亲一样的职业生涯,在海德堡和柏林学习法律。但他对政治的悲观情绪和他自己对锻炼独立智力的强烈冲动引导他进入学术生涯。十九世纪的德国在其大学的杰出性方面领先于世界。它在历史领域尤为突出。正是在这里,莱奥波德·冯·兰克和弗里德里希·冯·萨维尼将历史从古籍编年史的地位转变为一门科学,其教规是 “按真实情况” 讲述事情。由于德国人的彻底性,Doktors 教授不仅在传统的军事和政治历史方面,而且在经济、法律和文化历史以及考古学、人种学和语言学方面都有详细的叙述。自黑格尔时代以来,德国哲学也具有强烈的历史色彩。韦伯几乎在所有这些领域都接受了培训,其结果是他对世界历史的了解可能超过了任何其他在世的人。在一个日益专业化的时代,韦伯的成就是一个非凡的个人主义者的标志。但韦伯如果不出类拔萃的话,那就什么都不是。他高大、粗壮、留着黑胡子、喜怒无常,给所有见到他的人留下了深刻印象。他的同事认为他是一个高大的智者。在韦伯的博士考试结束时,当时最杰出的历史学家西奥多·莫姆森站起来说,他知道没有人比 “备受尊敬的马克斯·韦伯” 更有资格接替他。但韦伯所处的知识界甚至比德国历史学家和哲学家的世界还要广泛。在他父亲的家里,他遇到了柏林的知名政治家和学者。在他自己位于海德堡的房子里,所有领域的主要知识分子以及艺术家和音乐家都会聚在一起。在他的圈子里,有卡尔·雅斯贝尔斯(未来的存在主义精神病学家)、费迪南德·托恩尼斯(Ferdinand Toennies)、乔治·西梅尔(Georg Simmel)等人,还有一个年轻的激进分子,尽管韦伯为他说情,他还是没能得到一个大学职位,他就是罗伯特·米歇尔斯。韦伯完全了解马克思主义的地下思想。他阅读许多语言,广泛旅行,了解英国进化论者和法国实证主义者以及德国历史学家。他是十九世纪知识潮流的一个熔炉,从他的中心位置,他为社会学建立了一个观点,既是一门科学,也是对有意义的人类创造的研究。他的 verstehen 和理想类型这两种方法是在他处于思想潮流的中心位置时产生的。社会现实不仅仅是通过与自然界的机械类比来解释的,而是必须通过想象自己进入男人和女人的经历来理解(在德语中是 verstehen),因为他们表现出了自己的经历。
own worlds. Ideal types, as we shall see below, are the tools for making scientific generalizations out of our understanding of this infinitely complex and shifting world. Sociologists must sympathetically understand the people around them—indeed, also those who have been dead for centuries—and they are bound to feel acutely what is closest to home. Here, too, Weber was at the center of powerful antagonisms. Beneath the surface of a proper German bourgeois family, Weber's father and mother carried on psychic war. His father—harsh, self-righteous, and authoritarian—clashed incessantly with his altruistic, self-denying, and religious mother. Between the two poles Weber may have discerned the remnants of a rigid Protestant ethic whose discovery is his most famous contribution. Certainly Max Weber himself was a prime example of the ethic. Immensely hard working, impeccably honest, dedicated, serious, methodical, he drove himself with an inner vehemence that left him an insomniac for years and dead at the age of fifty-six. The family conflict finally took its toll. In 1897 when Weber was thirty- three and just beginning his career as a professor of economics at Heidelberg, he became involved in a quarrel while visiting his parents. Years of suppressed bitterness broke through the respectable patrician formalities, and Weber angrily threatened to break off all contact with his father if he did not change his treatment of his mother. Not long after, he heard the news: His father had fallen dead of a stroke. Depression set in. A powerful, even charismatic, lecturer, Weber found he could no longer teach. When he tried, his arms and back became temporarily paralyzed. He found it difficult to speak; serious thinking was impossible. He took a leave of absence from his job, finally resigning it entirely. He traveled incessantly, yet spent hours in hotel rooms staring at his fingernails. He spent several weeks in a mental institution. The experience opened a new side in him. "Such a disease has its compensations. It has reopened to me the human side of life," he wrote his wife. "An icy hand has let me loose. In years past my diseased disposition expressed itself in a frantic grip upon scientific work, which appeared to me as a talisman. . . ." Slowly he began to recover, and in 1904 he was back at work. He took a trip to America on an invitation to speak at the St. Louis World's Fair. The loftiness of American ideals and the corruption of American capitalism fired his imagination, and he returned to Germany to finish his first famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. From then on his production never flagged, although he was unable to bring himself to teach until the end of his life, after the close of World War I. He had lost seven years. The work of the next sixteen has never been surpassed. Weber's sociology is often obscured behind the maze of crosscutting definitions that make up the opening chapters of Economy and Society, his major work. Clear and distinct concepts are essential to make sense out of a subject as complex as the workings of society. But concepts are easiest to grasp if we can see them as they are actually put to use. Weber set himself the task of explaining the greatest development of world history: the rise of
自己的世界。正如我们将在下面看到的,理想类型是我们对这个无限复杂和变化的世界进行科学概括的工具。社会学家必须同情地理解他们周围的人 —— 事实上,也包括那些已经死了几个世纪的人 —— 他们必然会敏锐地感受到最接近家庭的东西。在这里,韦伯也是处于强大的对立面的中心。在一个适当的德国资产阶级家庭的表面之下,韦伯的父亲和母亲进行着精神上的战争。他的父亲 —— 严厉的、自以为是的、专制的 —— 与他的利他主义的、自我牺牲的、宗教的母亲不断地发生冲突。在这两极之间,韦伯可能发现了僵化的新教伦理的残余,而这一发现是他最著名的贡献。当然,马克斯·韦伯本人也是这种伦理的典型代表。他非常勤奋,无可挑剔地诚实,专心致志,严肃认真,有条不紊,他用内心的激昂驱使自己,使他多年来一直失眠,在 56 岁时去世。家庭冲突最终造成了损失。1897 年,韦伯 33 岁,刚刚开始他在海德堡的经济学教授生涯,他在探望父母时卷入了一场争吵。多年来被压抑的痛苦冲破了可敬的贵族礼节,韦伯愤怒地威胁说,如果他不改变对母亲的待遇,他将与父亲断绝一切联系。不久之后,他听到了一个消息:他的父亲因中风而死亡。抑郁症开始发作。一个强大的,甚至是有魅力的讲师,韦伯发现他不能再教书了。当他尝试时,他的手臂和背部变得暂时瘫痪。他发现很难说话;认真思考是不可能的。他请了假,最后完全辞去了工作。他不停地旅行,但在酒店房间里花了几个小时盯着自己的指甲。他在一家精神病院呆了几个星期。这一经历在他身上打开了新的一面。“这样的疾病有其补偿作用。他在给妻子的信中说:” 它为我重新打开了生命中人性的一面。“一只冰冷的手让我放松了。在过去的几年里,我的病态性格表现为疯狂地抓着科学工作,这对我来说就像一个护身符。. .” 慢慢地,他开始康复了,1904 年他又开始工作了。他应邀去美国旅行,在圣路易斯世界博览会上发言。美国理想的崇高和美国资本主义的腐败激发了他的想象力,他回到德国,完成了他的第一部著名作品《新教伦理与资本主义精神》。从那时起,他的创作就没有停顿过,尽管直到第一次世界大战结束后,他无法让自己去教书,他已经失去了七年。接下来的 16 年的工作从未被超越过。韦伯的社会学常常被掩盖在交叉定义的迷宫后面,这些定义构成了《经济与社会》(他的主要作品)的开头几章。清晰明确的概念对于理解像社会运作这样复杂的主题至关重要。但是,如果我们能够看到这些概念被实际使用,那么它们就最容易被掌握。韦伯给自己定下的任务是解释世界历史上最伟大的发展:中国的崛起。
modern industrial civilization. In order to do this he had to push his sights progressively back from economics to law, politics, and religion; to chart the interconnections between kinship and stratification, bureaucracy and warfare, until every institution was connected with every other, and the web of explanation stretched from the present to the beginnings of human life on earth. In exploring the question of economic development, Weber created nothing less than a sociology of world history. His contributions to general sociological theory consist of the models he developed in an effort to grasp the key processes of society without doing violence to the complexities of history as it actually occurred. Weber had nothing but contempt for evolutionist or cyclical theories that blindly simplified the facts to fit a few preconceived principles of growth. In his tightrope walk between vague or inaccurate generalizations and the myriad particular forms of world civilization, Weber moved toward a comprehensive theory of humankind's social behavior and of the institutions humankind creates. We shall take up first Weber's general sociology, then his vision of world history. WEBER'S SOCIOLOGY: STRATIFICATION, ORGANIZATIONS, AND POLITICS Stratification: Class, Power, and Status Weber's sociology centers around three interrelated subjects: stratification, organizations, and politics. Of these, stratification provides the core theory of society, to which all else is related and within which may be found the forces that move society. Weber was a thoroughgoing nominalist; for him, real people in real physical places are the subjects and movers of all that exists and happens in society. To be sure, cultural ethos (such as the Protestant ethic), legal systems, and large-scale organizations all have their own logical structures and laws of development. But they never develop by themselves; they develop through the thought and action of real people. Weber might well have adopted Marx's slogan as his methodology: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please." Weber could not accept a reified abstraction like "Society" as it appeared in organic analogies, nor the Weltgeist (world spirit) of Germanic cultural theorists. We never see society, but only groups of men and women. Furthermore, these groups are very different, even within one society. It is an error to suppose that the ethical philosophies of the upper classes express the beliefs of middle-class shopkeepers or peasant laborers. India cannot be summed up in Brahmin philosophy, nor Germany in Hegel. If we are to understand society and culture we must begin with the actual diversity of separate groups, not with some easy generalization based on a single perspective. Stratification, for Weber, provided the link between the diverse groups we can actually observe and the invisible order through which
现代工业文明。为了做到这一点,他不得不把视线从经济学逐步向后推到法律、政治和宗教;描绘亲属关系和分层、官僚机构和战争之间的相互联系,直到每个机构都与其他机构相联系,解释的网络从现在延伸到地球上人类生活的开始。在探索经济发展问题的过程中,韦伯创造了不亚于世界历史的社会学。他对一般社会学理论的贡献在于,他开发了一些模型,以努力把握社会的关键进程,同时又不对实际发生的复杂历史采取暴力。韦伯对那些盲目简化事实以适应一些先入为主的增长原则的进化论或周期论只有蔑视。在模糊或不准确的概括与世界文明的无数特殊形式之间走钢丝时,韦伯走向了关于人类社会行为和人类所创造的机构的全面理论。我们将首先讨论韦伯的一般社会学,然后讨论他对世界历史的看法。韦伯的社会学:分层、组织和政治 分层。阶级、权力和地位 韦伯的社会学以三个相互关联的主题为中心:分层、组织和政治。其中,分层提供了社会的核心理论,所有其他的东西都与之相关,在其中可以找到推动社会的力量。韦伯是一个彻底的唯名论者;对他来说,真实的人在真实的物理场所是社会中所有存在和发生的主体和推动者。当然,文化精神(如新教伦理)、法律制度和大型组织都有自己的逻辑结构和发展规律。但它们从来都不是自己发展的;它们是通过真实的人的思想和行动发展的。韦伯很可能采用马克思的口号作为他的方法论。“人创造自己的历史,但他们不会随心所欲地创造历史”。韦伯不能接受像 “社会” 这样一个在有机类比中出现的被重化的抽象概念,也不能接受日耳曼文化理论家的 Weltgeist(世界精神)。我们从来没有看到社会,而只是看到男人和女人的群体。此外,这些群体是非常不同的,即使在一个社会中也是如此。假设上层社会的伦理哲学表达了中产阶级店主或农民工的信仰,这是一个错误。印度不能用婆罗门哲学来概括,德国也不能用黑格尔来概括。如果我们要理解社会和文化,我们必须从不同群体的实际多样性开始,而不是从基于单一视角的一些简单概括开始。对韦伯来说,分层提供了我们可以实际观察到的不同群体与无形的秩序之间的联系,通过这种秩序
thousands and millions of individual actions add up to results that individuals neither intend nor control. What kind of order is it that ties people to others whom they may never see? Weber found three such orders: economics, politics, and culture. A man sells his labor in a factory that exists only because of a nationwide division of labor, and he affects the price of goods by the ways he spends his wages; he pays taxes and is killed on a distant battlefield because far-off government ministers struggle for power; his family walks in a funeral ceremony elaborated long ago by a hierarchy of priests and changed slowly from one repetition to another. Each order affects humans' behavior, lays down the conditions within which they must make their lives, determines both their views of the world and which people they will associate with. But not all people are affected alike. The life chances of the financier's son are not those of the farm laborer's; the ordinary citizen's worldview is not that of the party leader; the pious housewife does not inhabit the social milieu of the intellectual. We can see the social order comprehensively if we think of it as a stratification of individuals into groups based on similar economic, political, or cultural positions. Groups of people who associate together are the basic units of society. Much research since Weber's day has shown that it is in such face-to-face groups that people acquire their identities, their values, and their worldviews. Thus the diversity of society is produced by its major institutions—businesses, states, armies, churches, schools. At the same time the members of the various groups are tied together through their positions in these institutional networks. Weber did not find it necessary to ask the general question of what holds society together. He saw that societies over the sweep of history were always coming together and falling apart, shifting and changing from one set of institutions to another. History shows nothing permanent but continual war, conflict, and change: states conquering and disintegrating, trade and finance spreading and shrinking, religions and arts slowly shifting from one theme to its opposite. What does remain beneath the change, the concrete basis of human society, are groups of people bound by ties of common feeling and belief: families, households, kinspeople, church and cult members, friends, communities. The core of Weber's view of stratification is thus a theory of group formation, a set of hypotheses about the conditions that bring people together into solidaristic groups. These conditions are found in the way people relate to the institutional orders that link groups together into a society. Weber accepted certain motives as a basis for an explanation of human behavior: need for food and material comfort; fear of death and avoidance of physical pain; desire for sexual gratification, for membership and status in a social and moral community, and for a meaningful view of the world. Weber did not attempt to explore the psychological dynamics of these motives or to account for individual differences in motivation; in these respects his theories may be complemented by the insights of Freud and Mead and by the social theories concerning group solidarity of Durkheim and his fol-
成千上万的个人行动加起来的结果是个人既不打算也无法控制的。是什么样的秩序将人们与他们可能永远看不到的其他人联系在一起?韦伯发现了三种这样的秩序:经济、政治和文化。一个人在工厂里出售他的劳动力,而工厂的存在只是因为全国范围内的分工,他通过花钱的方式来影响商品的价格;他纳税,在遥远的战场上被杀,因为遥远的政府部长们在争夺权力;他的家人走在一个葬礼仪式上,这个仪式是很久以前由牧师的等级制度精心设计的,并从一个重复慢慢改变到另一个重复。每一种秩序都影响着人类的行为,规定了他们必须在其中生活的条件,决定了他们对世界的看法以及他们将与哪些人交往。但并非所有的人都受到同样的影响。金融家儿子的生活机会与农场工人的生活机会不同;普通公民的世界观与政党领袖的世界观不同;虔诚的家庭主妇并不居住在知识分子的社会环境中。如果我们把社会秩序看作是基于类似的经济、政治或文化地位的个人分层,我们就可以全面地看到社会秩序。在一起交往的群体是社会的基本单位。自韦伯时代以来的许多研究表明,正是在这种面对面的群体中,人们获得了他们的身份、他们的价值观和他们的世界观。因此,社会的多样性是由其主要机构 —— 企业、国家、军队、教堂、学校 —— 产生的。同时,不同群体的成员通过他们在这些机构网络中的地位被联系在一起。韦伯认为没有必要问是什么把社会联系在一起的一般问题。他看到,在历史的长河中,社会总是在不断地融合和分崩离析,从一套制度转变为另一套制度。历史显示,除了持续的战争、冲突和变化,没有什么是永久的:国家的征服和瓦解,贸易和金融的扩张和萎缩,宗教和艺术从一个主题慢慢转向其反面。在变化之下,人类社会的具体基础仍然是由共同感情和信仰的纽带联系起来的群体:家庭、家族、亲属、教会和邪教成员、朋友、社区。因此,韦伯的分层观点的核心是一种群体形成的理论,一套关于使人们聚集成团结的群体的条件的假设。这些条件存在于人们与将群体连接成社会的制度秩序的关系中。韦伯接受了某些动机作为解释人类行为的基础:对食物和物质舒适的需要;对死亡的恐惧和对身体痛苦的回避;对性满足的渴望,对社会和道德社区的成员资格和地位的渴望,以及对世界的有意义的看法。韦伯并没有试图探讨这些动机的心理动态,也没有解释动机的个体差异;在这些方面,他的理论可以由弗洛伊德和米德的见解以及杜克海姆和他的后代关于群体团结的社会理论来补充。
lowers. Weber took these motives as given because he found them manifested throughout human history. They enter his theories as the three main sanctions by which people influence each other's behavior: offers of economic gain, threats of physical coercion, and appeals to emotion and belief. Economics, politics, and culture are corresponding institutional realms; class, party ("power group" might be a preferable term), and status groups are the groups formed on their bases. Weber's central hypothesis is that people who share common positions and interests in the economic arena, in the political struggle, or in the realm of culture are likely to act and associate together and to exclude all others from their company of equals. In the economic market classes are formed as people come together with others who experience similar work conditions. Here Weber follows Marx's discovery: The peasant laborer, the factory worker, the skilled craftsperson, the rural landlord, the industrialist, the merchant, the stock-market speculator all inhabit distinct social worlds. Material conditions have a powerful effect on people's lives, throwing factory laborers together in urban tenements and drawing country gentry together in their round of visits between estates. Economics shapes not only how people live and in whose company, but also how they see the world and how they will act. Economic position gives people distinctive interests: The worker sees an advantage in demanding higher pay, forming a union, or supporting a Socialist party; the peasant tries to keep down his duties to his lord and his taxes to the king; the industrialist opposes unionization and socialism; the financier is concerned about the price of gold and the prevailing rate of interest on loans. People are thus moved to act on their economic interests, and the resulting conflict draws individuals of similar economic position closer together and isolates them from those of opposing positions. How many such opposing groups there will be and how extensive the conflict among them depend on the nature of the economic system in that particular society and on the relationships between economic stratification and political and cultural stratification. Weber incorporates Marx's basic model into his theory of stratification, but he sees economic determinism as only one of three factors. Weber viewed politics, like economics, as a realm in which struggle is widespread. History, after all, reads most obviously as a record of military conquests and feudal rivalries, palace intrigues and coups d'etat, peasant revolts and urban insurrections; the activities of peaceful eras consist of the ups and downs of politicians' careers, the shifting authorities of officials, and the power play of interest groups in voting and lobbying. Thus, individuals may be stratified by their political interests as well as by their economic interests. Minor government officials are drawn together in a distinct group, as are military officers, independent feudal knights, modern party politicians, or municipal judges. Coercive power is a scarce good; many people are concerned with getting as much of it for themselves as possible, and virtually all people wish to make it bear on themselves as little as possible. As we shall see below, politics may be analyzed as a continual struggle
低者。韦伯认为这些动机是既定的,因为他发现这些动机在整个人类历史上都有表现。在他的理论中,这些动机是人们影响彼此行为的三种主要制裁手段:经济利益的提供、身体胁迫的威胁以及对情感和信仰的诉求。经济、政治和文化是相应的制度领域;阶级、政党(“权力集团” 可能是一个更好的术语)和地位集团是在其基础上形成的群体。韦伯的核心假设是,在经济领域、政治斗争中或文化领域有共同立场和利益的人,有可能一起行动和交往,并将所有其他人排除在他们的平等公司之外。在经济市场上,当人们与经历类似工作条件的其他人走到一起时,阶级就形成了。在这里,韦伯遵循马克思的发现。农民工、工厂工人、熟练工匠、农村地主、工业家、商人、股票市场投机者都居住在不同的社会世界。物质条件对人们的生活有着强大的影响,把工厂工人扔在城市的租房里,把乡下的贵族们拉到一起,在庄园之间轮番拜访。经济学不仅决定了人们的生活方式以及与谁为伍,而且还决定了他们如何看待这个世界以及他们将如何行动。经济地位赋予人们独特的利益。工人认为要求更高的工资、成立工会或支持社会主义政党有好处;农民试图减少对领主的义务和对国王的税收;工业家反对工会和社会主义;金融家关注黄金价格和现行的贷款利率。人们就这样被打动了,为自己的经济利益而行动,由此产生的冲突把经济地位相似的人拉到一起,把他们与立场相反的人隔离开来。有多少这样的对立群体以及他们之间的冲突有多大,取决于该特定社会的经济体系的性质以及经济分层与政治和文化分层之间的关系。韦伯将马克思的基本模式纳入了他的分层理论,但他认为经济决定论只是三个因素之一。韦伯把政治,像经济一样,看作是一个斗争普遍存在的领域。毕竟,历史最明显地被解读为军事征服和封建竞争、宫廷阴谋和政变、农民起义和城市叛乱的记录;和平年代的活动包括政治家职业生涯的起伏、官员权力的转移以及利益集团在投票和游说中的权力游戏。因此,个人可能因其政治利益和经济利益而被分层。小政府官员被吸引到一个独特的群体中,就像军官、独立的封建骑士、现代政党政治家或市政法官一样。胁迫性权力是一种稀缺物品;许多人关心的是尽可能多地为自己获得这种权力,而几乎所有的人都希望尽可能少地让这种权力影响到自己。正如我们将在下面看到的,政治可以被分析为一场持续的斗争
to gain authority for oneself and to evade subjection to the authority of others. Political interest groups may overlap with economic interest groups— feudal knights may represent the landowning class; politicians, the classes of industrialists or workers. But power is a separate pie to be carved up, capable of inducing alignments of its own. The kinds of political stratification and political group formation in a particular society depend on the nature of its political institutions. It should be apparent by now that Weber saw society as a complex and ever-shifting interplay of forces. Political stratification is influenced by economic alignments and vice versa; both of these interact with cultural stratification. Weber was forced to devise a strategy for talking coherently about this world in which nothing ever stays put long enough for us to pin a label on it and in which our labels always oversimplify what is going on. For this purpose he conceived the notion of the ideal type, by means of which he could abstract from reality a form of social action that is rarely or never found by itself. We can discover the dynamics of stratification, for example, if we mentally decompose it into its constituent elements—the ideal types of class, power group, and status group. We can thereby discover the dynamics of economic class formation without having to bear in mind the processes of power politics. Having done this, we can successively take up political struggles and the status-producing effects of culture. Finally, we can apply these insights to the overall stratification of any society resulting from the interaction of these three processes. The technique is similar to that of the chemist, who explains the properties of a compound first by identifying its constituent elements and then by noting their interactions. The modern sociological research method called the "multivariate analysis" of survey data reflects the same general strategy. The interaction of culture with economics and politics is especially subtle. As already noted, economic and political positions have considerable influence on the values and beliefs of their occupants. Marx was the first to notice this for economics, and Weber carried out a parallel analysis of politics. We can speak, then, of economic and political determinants of culture. But there is a third way in which culture enters stratification, a discovery of Weber's own. If culture were merely the result of economic and political position, one could not say that culture was important for stratification. People would be stratified by their income or their power; and whatever deference they received or had to give, whatever boundaries were drawn between them and people who would not deign to associate with them (those ranking above them) and people whom they did not care to associate with (those ranking below) would be based on money or power, not on anything to do with their culture. Weber saw that this was not so: that in addition to the stratification produced by class and power, there were numerous possible hierarchies in the realm of culture. Historically, the most important of these cultural hierarchies have been based on religion. There is a definite stratification within every religion: At minimum there is a difference in status between believers and nonbelievers. The former consider
为自己争取权力,逃避对他人权力的服从。政治利益集团可能与经济利益集团重叠 —— 封建骑士可能代表地主阶级;政治家则代表工业家或工人阶层。但是,权力是一个独立的蛋糕,能够诱发其自身的排列组合。在一个特定的社会中,政治分层和政治团体形成的种类取决于其政治机构的性质。现在应该很明显,韦伯把社会看成是一种复杂的、不断变化的力量的相互作用。政治分层受到经济结盟的影响,反之亦然;这两者都与文化分层相互作用。韦伯被迫设计出一种策略来连贯地谈论这个世界,在这个世界上,没有什么东西能保持足够长的时间让我们给它贴上标签,而且我们的标签总是过度简化了正在发生的事情。为此,他构思了理想类型的概念,通过这个概念,他可以从现实中抽象出一种本身很少或从来没有的社会行动形式。例如,我们可以发现分层的动态,如果我们在精神上将其分解为其构成要素 —— 阶级、权力集团和地位集团的理想类型。这样,我们就可以发现经济阶层形成的动态,而不必记住权力政治的过程。做到这一点后,我们就可以相继讨论政治斗争和文化的地位产生效应。最后,我们可以将这些见解应用于任何社会的整体分层,这些分层是由这三个过程的互动造成的。这种技术与化学家的技术相似,化学家首先通过确定其组成元素来解释一种化合物的特性,然后通过注意它们的相互作用。现代社会学研究方法被称为调查数据的 “多变量分析”,反映了同样的一般策略。文化与经济和政治的互动尤其微妙。如前所述,经济和政治地位对其居住者的价值观和信仰有相当大的影响。马克思是第一个注意到这一点的经济学家,韦伯则对政治进行了平行的分析。因此,我们可以说,文化的经济和政治决定因素。但是,文化进入分层还有第三种方式,这是韦伯自己的发现。如果文化只是经济和政治地位的结果,我们就不能说文化对分层很重要。人们将根据他们的收入或权力进行分层;无论他们得到或必须给予什么样的尊重,无论他们与那些不愿意与他们交往的人(排名在他们之上的人)和他们不愿意与之交往的人(排名在他们之下的人)之间划出什么样的界限,都是基于金钱或权力,而不是基于与他们文化有关的东西。韦伯看到事实并非如此:除了阶级和权力产生的分层之外,在文化领域还有许多可能的等级制度。从历史上看,这些文化等级制度中最重要的是以宗教为基础。每个宗教内部都有明确的分层。至少在信徒和非信徒之间存在着地位上的差异。前者认为
themselves more virtuous and enlightened than the latter, regardless of their respective wealth and power, and such cultural strata are just as likely to associate together and exclude outsiders as are economic classes and power groups. Most religions have much more than this minimum stratification. There are hierarchies from popes, gurus, and high priests on down through minor ceremonial assistants, devoted worshipers, merely formal members, and intermittent sinners. Admittedly, this is not necessarily an exclusive basis of stratification; churches often have property interests and political connections, and clergy may associate socially with correspondingly wealthy or powerful laypeople. Cultural stratification is important especially because it is closest to the way most people actually view their worlds. We feel that we associate with certain people and not with others, not usually because we see ourselves as economic or political allies, but because we like and respect certain people and not others. If we analyze that liking we find that it usually involves cultural stratification. Respectable churchgoing people in general prefer others like themselves, not hard-drinking denizens of bars and pool halls; hostesses who practice gracious etiquette and converse about the arts do not invite the backyard barbecue set. It is here that Weber's philosophical background plays a key role in his sociology. In his introductory methodological writings, Weber emphasized that the proper subject of sociology is meaningful human actions. It is not a meaningful social action when all people put up their umbrellas at the same time, if they are simply reacting to an external stimulus—rain. Rather, what sociologists are concerned with are actions that people understand as having social significance. Work is significant because people understand it as a path to social success, or as too degrading for the gentry, or as an assurance of salvation in the afterlife. Leisure, too, is a field of meanings: One lives in a noble style of display and consumption, or one eschews the external world for the sake of one's ascetical enlightenment, or one competes with one's neighbors to show one's respectability. There are many such possibilities, and these make up the field of cultural stratification. They were so important in Weber's overall model of society that he continually emphasized the subjective side of life. For Weber, sociological analysis had to always involve verstehen—an empathic understanding of what people's subjective meanings are. Whether we deal with our contemporaries or with people in the past, we must always make the effort to put ourselves emotionally and intellectually in their places. Only thus do we understand the struggles involved in stratification and the rest of human social life. Cultural stratification is thus the most complex and subtlest of all the forms of stratification. There are relatively few distinct political and economic groups in any society, but the varieties and ramifications of cultural hierarchies can be enormously refined, especially in a modern industrial society. Indeed, cultural stratification can subdivide the lines of status distinction to such a degree that virtually every group or individual may have a status of its own. In addition to religion, cultural hierarchies can be based
不管他们各自的财富和权力如何,他们自己比后者更有德行,更开明,这样的文化阶层就像经济阶层和权力集团一样,有可能在一起交往,排斥外来者。大多数宗教的分层远远超过这种最低限度的分层。从教皇、大师、大祭司一直到小的仪式助手、虔诚的崇拜者、仅仅是正式的成员和间歇性的罪人,都有等级之分。诚然,这不一定是分层的唯一基础;教会往往有财产利益和政治关系,神职人员可能与相应的富有或有权势的平信徒有社会联系。文化分层很重要,特别是因为它最接近大多数人实际看待自己世界的方式。我们觉得我们与某些人交往而不与其他人交往,通常不是因为我们把自己看作是经济或政治盟友,而是因为我们喜欢和尊重某些人而不是其他人。如果我们分析一下这种喜欢,我们会发现它通常涉及文化分层。尊敬的教会人士一般喜欢像他们一样的人,而不是酒吧和台球厅的酗酒者;讲究礼仪和谈论艺术的女主人不会邀请后院烧烤的人。正是在这里,韦伯的哲学背景在他的社会学中发挥了关键作用。在他的介绍性方法论著作中,韦伯强调,社会学的适当主题是有意义的人类行动。当所有的人同时撑起雨伞时,如果他们只是对外部刺激 —— 雨的反应,那就不是一个有意义的社会行动。相反,社会学家所关注的是人们理解为具有社会意义的行动。工作之所以重要,是因为人们把它理解为通向社会成功的道路,或者理解为对贵族来说太有辱人格,或者理解为对来世救赎的保证。休闲,也是一个意义的领域。一个人生活在展示和消费的高尚风格中,或者为了自己的禁欲主义启蒙而回避外部世界,或者与邻居竞争以显示自己的可敬。有许多这样的可能性,而这些构成了文化分层的领域。它们在韦伯的整个社会模型中是如此重要,以至于他不断强调生活的主观方面。对韦伯来说,社会学分析必须始终涉及 verstehen —— 对人们的主观意义是什么的移情理解。无论我们是与当代人还是与过去的人打交道,我们都必须努力在情感和理智上把自己放在他们的位置上。只有这样,我们才能理解分层和人类社会生活的其他方面所涉及的斗争。因此,文化分层是所有分层形式中最复杂和最微妙的。在任何社会中,不同的政治和经济群体相对较少,但文化分层的种类和影响可以非常细化,特别是在现代工业社会。事实上,文化分层可以将地位区分的界限细分到如此程度,以至于几乎每个团体或个人都可以有自己的地位。除了宗教之外,文化等级制度还可以基于
on secularized religious ideals like honesty, hard work, ambition, and self- control (Weber's Protestant ethic); on achievement or understanding in science, literature, music, and art; on good manners, tastes in decoration and clothes; or even prominence in sports. Cultural stratification may be formally recognized in a society, as in the Hindu caste system based on ritual acts that keep members of the "higher" religions from coming into close contact with those who once belonged to "lower" religions. The ranks of European aristocracy, with their elaborate etiquette and code of honor, illustrate a similar development on a nonreligious basis. Cultural hierarchies are the substance of the world as most people experience it, but their significance comes from the ways in which they are connected with the rest of the social order—with economics and politics and their corresponding forms of stratification. This connection can operate in two ways. First, cultural stratification can be the basis for economic and political stratification. The New England colonies are one of the best examples of this. The church leaders were also the political authorities, and only members in good standing of the church congregation—a minority of the people—could participate in governing the community. Moreover, the religious upper class took the lead in organizing commerce, farming, and fishing and thus became an economic upper class. The religious, political, and economic hierarchies began to separate in the eighteenth century, but even today Americans (especially middle-class, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) tend to judge people's status according to their "respectability" in religious terms—essentially, according to how well they live up to the vestigial norms of the Protestant ethic. Second, economic and political stratification tend to turn into cultural stratification. The cold realities of wealth and power are too blatant for most people, no matter what their status. There is a widespread need to feel that those on the top merit their good fortune; thus people who rise in wealth or power attempt to cloak themselves in cultural respectability. The conquering tribesmen of antiquity called on priests to sanction their conquests, just as Charlemagne had himself crowned by the pope after building a kingdom by war. Later, the way to the top is forgotten; the aristocracy claims that it rales not by force but by hereditary right and by the merits expressed in its code of honor and its patronage of the arts. Just such a mutation has occurred between the robber barons of nineteenth-century finance and the high society of today. Economic, political, and cultural goods can be traded off for each other, and Weber postulates a tendency for the three hierarchies to come together in times of social tranquillity. The wealthy try to become powerful and cultured; the powerful use their influence to become rich and surrounded with high culture; cultural elites try to use their prestige to acquire wealth and power. But changes and competition within the realms of economics, politics, and culture periodically upset the composition of classes, power groups, and status groups, and we find the three hierarchies consolidating, breaking down, and rearranging again and again. History is a continuous
诚实、勤奋、雄心和自我控制等世俗化的宗教理想(韦伯的新教伦理);科学、文学、音乐和艺术方面的成就或理解;良好的礼仪、装饰和服装的品味;甚至在体育方面的突出表现。文化分层可以在一个社会中得到正式承认,如印度教的种姓制度,它以仪式行为为基础,使 “高等” 宗教的成员不能与曾经属于 “低等” 宗教的人亲密接触。欧洲贵族的等级,以及他们精心设计的礼仪和荣誉准则,说明了在非宗教基础上的类似发展。文化等级制度是大多数人所经历的世界的实质,但其重要性来自于它们与社会秩序的其他部分 —— 经济和政治及其相应的分层形式 —— 的联系方式。这种联系可以以两种方式运作。首先,文化分层可以成为经济和政治分层的基础。新英格兰殖民地是这方面的最好例子之一。教会领袖也是政治当局,只有在教会中地位良好的成员 —— 少数人 —— 才能参与管理社区。此外,宗教上层阶级带头组织商业、农业和渔业,从而成为一个经济上层阶级。宗教、政治和经济等级制度在 18 世纪开始分离,但即使在今天,美国人(尤其是中产阶级、白人、盎格鲁·撒克逊新教徒)也倾向于根据他们在宗教方面的 “可敬性” 来判断人们的地位 —— 基本上,根据他们在新教伦理中残存的规范方面的表现。第二,经济和政治上的分层往往会变成文化上的分层。对大多数人来说,财富和权力的冷酷现实太明显了,不管他们的地位如何。人们普遍需要感觉到,那些处于顶端的人值得他们的好运;因此,财富或权力上升的人试图为自己披上文化的外衣。古代征服部落的人呼吁祭司认可他们的征服,就像查理曼大帝在通过战争建立王国后让教皇为他加冕一样。后来,上位的方式被遗忘了;贵族们声称,他们的统治不是靠武力,而是靠世袭的权利,靠其荣誉准则和对艺术的赞助所表达的功绩。在 19 世纪金融业的强盗男爵和今天的上流社会之间,就发生了这样的变异。经济、政治和文化产品可以相互交换,韦伯推测,在社会安宁的时候,这三种等级制度有走到一起的趋势。富人试图成为有权势和有文化的人;有权势的人利用他们的影响力成为富人并被高级文化所包围;文化精英试图利用他们的声望来获得财富和权力。但是,经济、政治和文化领域内的变化和竞争周期性地打乱了阶级、权力集团和地位集团的构成,我们发现这三种等级制度一次又一次地巩固、瓦解和重新排列。历史是一个连续的
battle, not only of knights against officials, bureaucrats against politicians, landowners against financiers, industrialists against unionists, and priests against scientists and intellectuals, but of each of these orders against the others. The processes of stratification not only make up the fabric of our everyday lives, but as we shall see shortly, they turn the engines of history as Weber saw it. Organizations: Patrimonialism and Bureaucracy Surveying world social forms, Weber noted that there are two general ways in which people can stabilize their relationships: either by establishing strong personal ties or by setting up general rules. These were ideal types, of course. Reality is always a mixture of them, although the organizations of traditional societies have usually fallen near the personalistic pole, and modern organizations near the abstract rules pole. Weber often speaks of the former type of organization as patriarchal or patrimonial and of the latter as bureaucratic. The distinction follows broadly from that which Weber's older colleague Ferdinand Toennies made between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). Personalistic organizations usually begin with the family household. We find the lord in ancient China or Assyria, or the citizen in Athens or Rome, or the baron in medieval Europe running his estate and his politics like a great family enterprise. Sons and brothers are his most trusted assistants, whether in supervising farming or trading expeditions, fighting a war, or collecting taxes for a higher authority. Servants and slaves are like part of the family, subject to the same loyalties and jealousies and to the same patriarchal whims. No distinction is made between public and private, between the official finances and the domestic purse. The king collects taxes equally for his troops and for his wine cellar, and his subaltern lord pays his own expenses and profits out of what he can collect before passing it on up. This form of organization can be extended across large numbers of people by linking together chains of masters and followers. In a patrimonial regime the king has trusted lieutenants who administer distant sections of his realm; they in turn assign their trusted followers to various areas and tasks; and so on down to the lowest official, whose job it is to coerce the peasants to give up their produce. Premodern trading companies and factories were organized in the same way, but on a much smaller scale. The main disadvantages of the personalistic form of organization are that it is neither very efficient nor very easy to control. Lines of communication from top to bottom are virtually nonexistent, and orders from above are likely to emerge as rumors below, if indeed they are passed on at all. How tasks are carried out depends almost entirely on the energy and initiative of the individuals involved. Under the circumstances such organizations tend to fall back on tradition—to do a job as it was done last time and as far back as anyone can remember, since there are no other guidelines and it may not be safe to do anything that a vengeful superior could criticize. At
战斗,不仅是骑士对官员、官僚对政治家、地主对金融家、工业家对工会会员、牧师对科学家和知识分子的战斗,而且是这些阶级中的每一个对其他阶级的战斗。分层的过程不仅构成了我们日常生活的结构,而且正如我们不久将看到的那样,它们转动了韦伯所看到的历史的引擎。组织。世袭制和官僚制 在对世界社会形式进行调查时,韦伯指出,人们可以通过两种普遍的方式来稳定他们的关系:或者通过建立强大的个人联系,或者通过建立一般的规则。当然,这些都是理想的类型。现实总是它们的混合体,尽管传统社会的组织通常属于个人主义的一极,而现代组织则接近抽象规则的一极。韦伯经常把前一种类型的组织说成是父权制或世袭制,把后者说成是官僚制。这种区分大致遵循韦伯的老同事 Ferdinand Toennies 在 Gemeinschaft(社区)和 Gesellschaft(社会)之间所作的区分。个人主义组织通常以家庭为起点。我们发现古代中国或亚述的领主,或雅典或罗马的公民,或中世纪欧洲的男爵,像一个伟大的家族企业一样管理他的产业和政治。儿子和兄弟是他最信任的助手,无论是在监督耕作或贸易远征、打仗,还是为更高当局收税方面。仆人和奴隶就像家庭的一部分,受制于同样的忠诚和嫉妒,也受制于同样的宗法制的奇思妙想。公共和私人之间、官方财政和家庭财政之间没有任何区别。国王为他的军队和他的酒窖平等地收税,而他的下属领主则从他能收集到的东西中支付自己的开支和利润,然后再向上传递。这种组织形式可以通过把主人和追随者的链条连接起来,在大量的人中推广。在世袭制政权中,国王有值得信赖的副手管理他的王国的遥远地区;他们反过来又把他们信任的追随者分配到不同的地区和任务;如此类推,直到最低的官员,其工作是强迫农民交出他们的产品。前现代的贸易公司和工厂也是以同样的方式组织的,但规模要小得多。个人主义组织形式的主要缺点是,它既不太有效也不太容易控制。从上到下的沟通渠道几乎不存在,上面的命令很可能在下面以谣言的形式出现,如果它们真的被传递的话。如何执行任务几乎完全取决于有关个人的精力和主动性。在这种情况下,这种组织倾向于依靠传统 —— 按照上一次的做法,在任何人都能记得的情况下,做一项工作,因为没有其他准则,而且做任何可能被复仇的上司批评的事情都不安全。在
the same time, such organizations continually slip from the control of their founders. Again and again in history a lord conquers a large territory and appoints his most trusted followers to collect the spoils, and they in turn appoint their assistants. By the time the conqueror dies, and sometimes before, the central authority begins to dissipate. Only a small portion of the taxes or booty collected comes through to the king. Eventually the more powerful lords may make themselves totally independent. Sometimes the process continues until the jurisdictions are fragmented down to the lowest level (as happened in medieval Germany); sometimes it is arrested halfway in a feudal compromise splitting authority among the levels; sometimes it is reversed by another conquest. These political disadvantages provided the impetus for developing the other main type of organization: bureaucracy. Kings and lords long ago found that they could arrest the dissipation of authority not merely by setting servants to spy on each other (which tended to make an organization secretive and clique-ridden) but by laying down general rules. Instead of leaving procedures to the discretion of subordinates, the ruler himself could control matters from afar by selecting, training, and checking up on persons whose only job was to follow the rules. Instead of having general authority over a territory, an official could be confined to one specialized kind of job; power was thus split up and controlled from above. If abuses came from the lack of distinction between personal property and the king's property, a rigid line between public and private could be drawn. Instead of tasks being performed intermittently by local barons, they could be handled by officials recruited for full-time careers and paid specified salaries. Weber found elements of this type of organization in cultures as far back as ancient Egypt and China, but its main development occurred only in Europe as the absolutist monarchies emerged on a bureaucratic basis, ending the period of medieval feudalism. Trie first great bureaucracies (after the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) were developed in France, Prussia, and Russia in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the nineteenth century the form was widely imitated, not only by governments but by industrial enterprises that needed an efficient form of control over a large and complex division of labor. Since then bureaucratization has spread to all forms of social life—so much so that Weber regarded it as one of the main currents in modern history. Considering its advantages, why did full-blown bureaucracy develop so late? Weber pointed out certain social and material prerequisites. The development of writing and then of a large group of literate officials was necessary for an organization carrying out specialized rules and keeping records of its activities. A money economy was needed if officials were to be paid in salaries instead of in land or booty. Improved transportation and communication (roads, navigable rivers and canals, a courier system) were necessary if a king was to keep track of what his officials were doing in distant realms. Changing material conditions aided the development of centralized administration. Firearms made the self-equipped knight obsolete
同时,这种组织不断地从其创始人的控制中滑落。在历史上,一个领主一次又一次地征服了大片领土,并任命他最信任的追随者收集战利品,而他们又反过来任命他们的助手。当征服者去世时,有时甚至在去世之前,中央权力就开始消散了。只有一小部分征收的税收或战利品会交给国王。最终,更强大的领主可能使自己完全独立。有时,这个过程一直持续到管辖权被分割到最底层(如发生在中世纪德国的情况);有时,它在封建妥协中被中途制止,在各层之间分割权力;有时,它被另一次征服所逆转。这些政治劣势为发展另一种主要的组织类型提供了动力:官僚机构。国王和领主很久以前就发现,他们不仅可以通过让仆人们互相监视(这往往会使一个组织变得神秘和小集团林立),而且可以通过制定一般规则来阻止权力的消散。统治者自己可以通过挑选、培训和检查那些唯一的工作就是遵守规则的人,而不是把程序留给下属来决定,从远处控制事务。官员不再对一个地区拥有普遍的权力,而是被限制在一种专门的工作上;因此,权力被分割开来,并由上面控制。如果说滥用权力是由于个人财产和国王的财产之间缺乏区别,那么可以在公共和私人之间划出一条严格的界限。与其由地方男爵断断续续地执行任务,不如由为全职工作招募的官员来处理,并支付特定的薪水。韦伯在远在古埃及和中国的文化中发现了这种类型的组织元素,但它的主要发展只发生在欧洲,因为绝对主义君主在官僚基础上出现,结束了中世纪的封建主义时期。第一批伟大的官僚机构(继中世纪的天主教会之后)是在 17 和 18 世纪在法国、普鲁士和俄罗斯发展起来的。到了十九世纪,这种形式被广泛模仿,不仅是政府,还有那些需要对庞大而复杂的劳动分工进行有效控制的工业企业。从那时起,官僚化已经扩散到社会生活的所有形式 —— 以至于韦伯将其视为现代历史的主要潮流之一。考虑到它的优势,为什么全面的官僚制发展得这么晚?韦伯指出了某些社会和物质的先决条件。对于一个执行专门规则并保存其活动记录的组织来说,文字的发展以及随后一大批有文化的官员是必要的。如果要向官员支付工资而不是土地或战利品,就需要一个货币经济。如果一个国王要跟踪他的官员在遥远的国度所做的事情,就必须改善交通和通讯(道路、可航行的河流和运河、信使系统)。不断变化的物质条件有助于集中管理的发展。火器使自带装备的骑士过时了
and aided the rise of the large, bureaucratic army of foot soldiers. Similarly, the invention of industrial machinery helped replace scattered handicraft production with the bureaucratic factory. But the bureaucratic form itself is historically primary; without its development through the struggles of politics, modern industrial innovations could never have been used and hence would never have been invented. Moreover, bureaucracy is hardly Utopian. The kings who created it in order to control their errant knights soon found that their new machinery was slipping from their hands. Once established, the bureaucracy could do its work of administering regulations without a ruler and could even make up new rules as the occasion provided. Indeed, rulers soon began to get in the way of its smooth functioning, and hereditary monarchs grew progressively weaker until they fell in revolutions or degenerated into figureheads. Nor is bureaucracy the epitome of efficiency. Cabinet ministers and industrialists often have little more control over it than do kings. Weber saw in the world around him all the phenomena that have become famous under the labels "red tape" and "Parkinson's Law": the tendency for officials to see rules as ends in themselves rather than as means to ends; the difficulty of finding responsible decision makers amid a maze of rules and regulations, the tendency for organizations to drift, to expand mindlessly, to make their own survival the highest value. Many of these themes have been explored in subsequent research by such sociologists as Philip Selznick, Peter Blau, and Michel Crozier. Always a political man, Weber discovered organizational politics even in the supposedly neutral instrument of bureaucracy. As was noted with regard to his theory of stratification, Weber saw how individuals' views and interests develop from the positions they hold, and he saw how rules and regulations could be used in the continual jockeying for authority and autonomy that human beings carry on. What American sociologists have since come to think of as "informal organization" within "formal organization," Weber saw as part of the implicit dialectic of the struggle for control. Personalistic and bureaucratic forms of organization, after all, are ideal types, and reality is always a mixture. As the Weberian scholar Guenther Roth has pointed out, the clever administrator uses both strategies of control—a mixture of personal loyalties and bureaucratic impartiality and the use of special emissaries with diffuse authority to carry out tasks that the rules and regulations impede. Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were masters of the technique of mixed strategies. Both methods have their drawbacks, but only by tireless juggling between them can an organizational leader actually lead. Politics: Traditional, Charismatic, and Rational-Legal Legitimacy Politics is conflict over who shall control the state, the apparatus of coercion in a society. To call the state an apparatus of coercion means only that its ultimate appeal to force is the one thing that all states have in common; it
并帮助大型官僚步兵军队的崛起。同样,工业机械的发明有助于用官僚工厂取代分散的手工业生产。但是,官僚形式本身在历史上是首要的;如果没有它在政治斗争中的发展,现代工业创新就不可能被使用,因此也就不会被发明。此外,官僚制也很难是乌托邦式的。为了控制他们犯错的骑士而创建它的国王们很快就发现,他们的新机器正从他们手中滑落。一旦建立起来,官僚机构可以在没有统治者的情况下完成其管理法规的工作,甚至可以根据场合的需要编造新的规则。事实上,统治者很快就开始妨碍它的顺利运作,世袭君主的力量逐渐减弱,直到他们在革命中倒下或堕落为傀儡。官僚机构也不是效率的缩影。内阁部长和工业家对它的控制往往比国王多不了多少。韦伯在他周围的世界中看到了所有以 “繁文缛节” 和 “帕金森法则” 为名的现象:官员将规则本身视为目的而不是达到目的的手段的倾向;在规则和条例的迷宫中找到负责任的决策者的困难,组织漂移的倾向,无意识地扩张,将自己的生存作为最高价值。菲利普·塞尔兹尼克(Philip Selznick)、彼得·布劳(Peter Blau)和米歇尔·克罗泽(Michel Crozier)等社会学家在随后的研究中探讨了许多这些主题。韦伯始终是一个政治家,他甚至在官僚机构这一所谓的中立工具中发现了组织政治。正如他的分层理论所指出的那样,韦伯看到了个人的观点和利益是如何从他们所处的位置中发展出来的,他看到了规则和条例是如何被用于人类对权力和自主权的不断争夺中的。美国社会学家后来认为是 “正式组织” 中的 “非正式组织”,韦伯认为这是争夺控制权的隐性辩证法的一部分。个人主义和官僚主义的组织形式,毕竟是理想的类型,而现实总是一种混合物。正如韦伯学者 Guenther Roth 所指出的,聪明的管理者同时使用两种控制策略 —— 个人忠诚和官僚公正的混合,以及使用具有分散权力的特使来执行规则和条例所阻碍的任务。富兰克林-D-罗斯福和约翰-F-肯尼迪是混合战略技术的大师。这两种方法都有其缺点,但只有在这两种方法之间不知疲倦地游刃有余,一个组织的领导者才能真正发挥领导作用。政治学。传统的、有魅力的和理性的、合法的政治 政治是关于谁应该控制国家的冲突,国家是一个社会的胁迫工具。将国家称为胁迫工具,只是意味着它对武力的最终诉求是所有国家的共同点;它是所有国家的共同点。
does not mean that all states necessarily coerce most of their members most of the time. A democracy is a type of state in which power is split up among contending parties and separate jurisdictions, so that in fact the state does relatively little coercing. That perhaps is an ideal, and Weber would agree with Hegel's verdict that "history is the chopping-block at which the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of states, and the virtue of individuals have been victimized." Politics is made up of three components: the groups contending for power, the organizations through which power is sought and exercised, and the ideas and ideals that legitimate authority. We have already considered the first two: The contending groups are found in the stratification of a society and may consist of economic classes, existing power groups, or status groups—each interested in manipulating the state to further its ends. We can have various kinds of political movements: those interested in economic policies and the state protection or control of property; those interested in power for its own sake or in extending the power of an organization (whether it be a party, welfare bureaucracy, army, police force, or court system); and those interested in having the state sanction some particular culture with official status (those interested in or opposed to school prayers, abortion, the prohibition of alcohol, explicit sex in movies, psychedelics, and so forth). We have also seen the various kinds of political organizations that have existed and noted some of their preconditions and dynamics. There remains the dynamics of legitimacy. Weber saw that people have material and power interests, but that they also see the world in terms of ideas and ideals. Individuals will fight and die for worldviews as well as for money and power. The difference between Weber's view and the naive conservative view that sees the state as a spiritual unity is that Weber realized that people's ideals differ within the same society. As Weber put it, people have both material and ideal interests, and their interests often conflict. As Weber noted, a society cannot be held together by force alone. Obviously, an army can control an unarmed populace. But within the army the general is not necessarily the strongest man, and he may not even carry a gun. Why then are other men afraid to disobey him? Because if one man disobeys and the others obey, the single dissenter will be shot. Why don't all the men disobey together? Because if they want to act together, they must have some sort of organization, and that again raises the question of who shall lead and how his authority will be enforced. To the old philosophical question "Who shall guard the guardians?" Weber replied that organizations can be based on force provided widespread beliefs about legitimacy exist. The general's orders are obeyed because each man expects others to obey him, and this expectation is based on the widespread belief that the general has legitimate authority. Weber was well enough acquainted with history and with the daily newspapers to know that orders are not always obeyed, that the legitimacy of a leader or regime can rise and fall. Accordingly, he was interested in the dynamics of legitimacy. Out of his historical perspective, Weber produced
但这并不意味着所有的国家在大多数时候都必须胁迫其大部分成员。民主制度是一种国家类型,在这种国家中,权力被分割成不同的党派和不同的司法管辖区,因此事实上,国家相对来说很少进行胁迫活动。这也许是一种理想,韦伯会同意黑格尔的判断:“历史是人民的幸福、国家的智慧和个人的美德受到伤害的砧板。” 政治由三个部分组成:争夺权力的团体,寻求和行使权力的组织,以及使权威合法化的思想和理想。我们已经考虑了前两个部分。争夺权力的团体存在于一个社会的分层中,可能由经济阶层、现有的权力团体或地位团体组成 —— 每个团体都对操纵国家以实现其目的感兴趣。我们可以有各种各样的政治运动:那些对经济政策和国家保护或控制财产感兴趣的人;那些对权力本身或扩大某个组织(无论是政党、福利官僚机构、军队、警察部队或法院系统)的权力感兴趣的人;以及那些对国家以官方地位认可某种特定文化感兴趣的人(对学校祈祷、堕胎、禁酒、电影中的露骨性行为、迷幻药等感兴趣或反对的人)。我们还看到了已经存在的各种政治组织,并注意到它们的一些前提条件和动态。仍然存在着合法性的动力。韦伯看到,人们有物质和权力利益,但他们也从思想和理想的角度看待世界。个人会为了世界观以及金钱和权力而战斗和牺牲。韦伯的观点与将国家视为精神统一体的天真保守观点的区别在于,韦伯意识到,在同一个社会中,人们的理想是不同的。正如韦伯所说,人们既有物质利益,也有理想利益,而且他们的利益经常发生冲突。正如韦伯所指出的,一个社会不能仅靠武力来维持。显然,一支军队可以控制手无寸铁的民众。但在军队中,将军不一定是最强壮的人,他甚至可能不带枪。那么为什么其他的人害怕不服从他的命令呢?因为如果一个人不服从,而其他人服从,那么这个持不同意见的人就会被枪毙。为什么所有的人不一起违抗呢?因为如果他们想一起行动,就必须有某种组织,而这又提出了谁来领导以及他的权力如何实施的问题。对于这个古老的哲学问题,“谁应守护守护者?” 韦伯回答说,只要存在关于合法性的广泛信念,组织就可以以武力为基础。将军的命令之所以被服从,是因为每个人都期望其他人服从他,而这种期望是基于对将军具有合法权威的广泛信念。韦伯对历史和日报非常熟悉,知道命令并不总是被服从,一个领导人或政权的合法性可以上升和下降。因此,他对合法性的动态感兴趣。从他的历史视角出发,韦伯提出了
three ideal types of legitimacy. First, authority could be based on tradition: A king rules because his family has always ruled (so he says), because he is chosen by the gods, or because the tribal council selected him through traditional ceremonial methods. Second, authority could be based on personal charisma: "It is written .... but I say unto you . . . ," proclaims the prophet, the hero, the dominant personality, discarding tradition in favor of his own revelations. Third, authority could be rational-legal: The laws provide the procedure for selecting legitimate presidents and chancellors; bureaucratic regulations delegate authority to the police and the passport clerks. Each of these forms of legitimacy has a corresponding form of organization. Traditional rulers are found primarily in patrimonial and patriarchal organizations; charismatic leaders usually have a personal retinue of disciples and a large unorganized following; rational-legal officials are found in bureaucracies. Each form of legitimacy has its advantages and drawbacks. Traditional leaders seem to have little to worry about. Tradition says they are kings or chiefs, and there is nothing anyone can do about it (except of course their enemies in other kingdoms and tribes). Still, Weber points out that political struggle is never entirely absent, although it may be underground. Traditional rulers are often limited by the very tradition. Their advisers, noblemen, and priests are seldom idle about interpreting tradition to their advantage and against the powers of the ruler. If they want to do things their way, they must continually struggle to interpret traditions to their advantage. But there are dangers in success, too; if they extend their power too far beyond tradition, they may lose their traditional legitimacy. Ancient history (and modern, too) is full of kings turned tyrants who were overthrown and replaced by one of the noblemen waiting in the wings. One possibility for the ambitious traditional monarch is to mix traditional authority with personal charisma. But this has its difficulties and dangers too. First, in order to be charismatic, one must have some extraordinary personal qualities. To be sure, these can often be evoked by stagecraft and public relations, but the charismatic leader has entered an arena in which the pressure is on, and he or she must live up to the billing or disappear into that special obscurity reserved for has-been charismatics. Every emergency—famine, riot, invasion, or special omen—calls for a corresponding miracle. If the charismatic leader does not live up to his or her own reputation, he or she soon loses legitimacy to a rival charismatic or to an "I-told- you-so" traditionalist. The tides of legitimacy can ebb and flow with startling rapidity, as the history of modern coups d'etat demonstrates. Finally, authority can be rational-legal. But rationalization is another dangerous beast to ride. Once this force is unleashed, there is no individual who cannot be found dispensable. The European monarchs who tried to consolidate their traditional authority by building a purely legal state found in the end that there is no justification for kings in a rational-legal code. The descendants of Louis XIV and Frederick the Great paid for the power they built. Rationalization attempts to remove the arbitrary, to provide a clear
三种理想的合法性类型。首先,权威可以建立在传统之上。一个国王的统治是因为他的家族一直在统治(他是这么说的),因为他是由神灵选择的,或者是因为部落委员会通过传统的仪式方法选择了他。第二,权威可以基于个人魅力:“经上说,…… ,但我告诉你们…… . . 预言家、英雄、主导者宣布,摒弃传统,支持自己的启示。第三,权威可以是理性·法律的。法律提供了选择合法总统和校长的程序;官僚条例将权力下放给警察和护照办事员。这些合法性的每一种形式都有相应的组织形式。传统的统治者主要存在于世袭制和宗法制组织中;有魅力的领导人通常有个人的门徒队伍和大量无组织的追随者;理性·法律的官员存在于官僚机构中。每种形式的合法性都有其优点和缺点。传统领导人似乎没有什么可担心的。传统上说,他们是国王或酋长,任何人都无能为力(当然,除了他们在其他王国和部落的敌人)。不过,韦伯还是指出,政治斗争从未完全缺席,尽管它可能是地下的。传统的统治者往往受到传统本身的限制。他们的顾问、贵族和祭司很少闲着,对传统的解释对他们有利,对统治者的权力不利。如果他们想按自己的方式做事,就必须不断地努力将传统解释为对自己有利。但成功也有危险;如果他们把权力扩大到超出传统的范围,他们可能会失去传统的合法性。古代历史(也包括现代历史)充满了国王变成暴君的例子,他们被推翻了,并被等待的某个贵族所取代。对于雄心勃勃的传统君主来说,一种可能性是将传统权威与个人魅力相结合。但这也有其困难和危险。首先,要成为有魅力的人,必须有一些非凡的个人素质。可以肯定的是,这些品质往往可以通过舞台技巧和公共关系来唤起,但魅力型领导人已经进入了一个压力很大的舞台,他或她必须不负众望,否则就会消失在为已故的魅力型领导人保留的特殊默示中。每一个紧急情况 —— 饥荒、暴乱、入侵或特殊预兆 —— 都需要一个相应的奇迹。如果魅力型领导人没有达到他或她自己的声誉,他或她很快就会失去合法性,被竞争对手的魅力型领导人或” 我告诉你 "的传统主义者所取代。正如现代政变的历史所证明的那样,合法性的潮汐可以以惊人的速度退潮和流动。最后,权威可以是理性的 —— 合法的。但合理化是另一头危险的野兽。一旦这种力量被释放出来,就没有什么人不能被发现是可有可无的。那些试图通过建立一个纯粹的法律国家来巩固其传统权威的欧洲君主们最终发现,在一个理性·法律的法典中,国王是没有理由的。路易十四和腓特烈大帝的后人为他们建立的权力付出了代价。理性化试图消除任意性,提供一个明确的
and sufficient reason for every social act. Not only kings, but party leaders, prime ministers, dictators, and individual bureaucrats themselves can be found wanting by the standards of the rational-legal regimes they control. Every regime that proclaims its principles—whether in the ideals of socialism, the United States Constitution, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man—is subject to the judgment of its people. Of course, regimes can get away with considerable deviations from their avowed ideals, since they control powerful organizational and material resources, including the communication facilities, which can define much of the reality its people observe. Still, ideals create a rallying point for potential opponents (like the dissident writers in the Soviet Union or the antiracist and antimilitarist movements in the United States) and constitute the weak link in the authority structure of a regime weakened by defeat, economic crisis, or internal conflict among its power holders. The traditional ruler, at any rate, did not have to spend much effort in justifying his or her actions. Thus, even where they are not lived up to (that is, almost everywhere), rational-legal principles of legitimacy set the basic context in which political dispute goes on. WEBER'S THEORY OF HISTORY: THE RATIONALIZATION OF THE WORLD The great transformation in history was that unmistakable phenomenon called "modernization," which turned a world of peasants, lords, and priests into a buzzing hive of organization, machinery, and movement. Weber found the core of that change in the new industrial economy. An explanation of the emergence of modern capitalism would thus be an explanation of modernity, and Weber's search for its roots led him to describe the social outlines of world history. Weber began by analyzing the modern economic system. The key attribute is predictability. There is no point in manufacturing large amounts of goods unless you can be sure of a regular market for them, and you cannot get the benefits of modern machinery and specialized division of labor unless you can continuously produce large amounts. Moreover, you cannot run a factory unless you can depend on having a regular supply of workers to hire and unless you can borrow money for capital expenses when you need it, and under fair and reasonable conditions. In short, modern industry depends on large and stable markets, a dependable and economically motivated labor force, and a trustworthy financial system. Weber saw that these preconditions were missing throughout most of history and that a long chain of prerequisites had somehow to emerge before the modern economy could take off. Markets, for example, had been mostly local—peasants producing their own necessities and bartering or selling the rest in nearby towns. Of the many factors that limited larger markets, three important ones were: (1) the riskiness of transporting valuable goods in a world of continuous warfare
每个社会行为都有充分的理由。不仅是国王,党的领导人、总理、独裁者和个别官僚自己都会被他们所控制的理性法律制度的标准发现不足。每一个宣称其原则的政权 —— 无论是社会主义的理想、美国宪法,还是《人权宣言》—— 都要接受其人民的评判。当然,由于政权控制着强大的组织和物质资源,包括通信设施,可以确定其人民所观察到的大部分现实,因此,政权可以在相当程度上偏离其公开的理想。尽管如此,理想还是为潜在的反对者(如苏联的持不同政见的作家或美国的反种族主义和反军国主义运动)创造了一个集合点,并构成了一个因战败、经济危机或权力持有者之间的内部冲突而被削弱的政权的权力结构中的薄弱环节。传统的统治者,无论如何,都不需要花大力气来为自己的行为辩护。因此,即使在它们没有被实践的地方(也就是几乎所有的地方),理性·法律的合法性原则为政治争端的进行提供了基本的背景。韦伯的历史理论:世界的合理化 历史上的巨大转变是被称为 “现代化” 的明确现象,它将一个由农民、领主和牧师组成的世界变成了一个由组织、机器和运动组成的热闹的蜂巢。韦伯在新的工业经济中找到了这种变化的核心。因此,对现代资本主义的出现的解释将是对现代性的解释,韦伯对其根源的寻找使他描述了世界历史的社会轮廓。韦伯首先分析了现代经济体系。关键属性是可预测性。除非你能确定它们有一个固定的市场,否则制造大量的商品是没有意义的,除非你能连续生产大量的商品,否则你无法获得现代机械和专门分工的好处。此外,除非你能依赖有固定的工人供应,除非你能在需要时在公平合理的条件下借到钱用于资本支出,否则你无法经营一家工厂。简而言之,现代工业取决于庞大而稳定的市场,可靠而有经济动力的劳动力,以及一个值得信赖的金融体系。韦伯看到,这些先决条件在历史上大部分时间都是缺失的,在现代经济起飞之前,必须以某种方式出现一长串先决条件。例如,市场大多是地方性的 —— 农民生产自己的必需品,并在附近的城镇以物易物或出售其余物品。在限制大型市场的众多因素中,有三个重要因素。(1)在一个战事不断的世界里,运输贵重物品的风险很大
and conquest, where robbers and barons were equally dangerous and civil order existed only within the walls of one's town or sometimes only in one's house; (2) the general lack of a widespread system of money and credit to facilitate large-scale trading; and (3) distrust of strangers—from other lands, other religions, other villages—which made trading a matter of crafty haggling and merchants often indistinguishable from pirates. Labor, in the modern sense, was also a historical rarity. Industries cannot run efficiently and competitively if workers are not available who will move from job to job as demand for products changes and who can be attracted to the areas of greatest profit by offers of commensurate wages. (As we see, Weber's economics is in the classical English tradition.) But workers in traditional societies are for the most part not free economic agents. Peasants are often bound to the land as serfs; industrial laborers are usually family members, household servants, or slaves, bound to the enterprise, and a continuing expense whether they are overworked or underworked. Guild monopolies control most of the remaining labor supply. All these various obstacles had to be broken down before the industrial labor force could be brought together in the factory system. Finally, modern finance is also a recent development. Only in the large kingdoms and empires did a widespread system of money exist at all. Even then, there were many obstacles to a dependable system of loans. Widespread literacy was necessary before the more complex forms of credit—such as the stock market—could arise. Money was lent only at exorbitant rates of interest as long as the risks of nonpayment and failure were great—as they were in an era when courts and police did not exist to back up contracts and when every business enterprise was risky. Not the least of the danger came from the state itself. Taxes were capricious and often little more than robbery; if a banker lent money to a king, there was no guarantee that he would ever get it back. Thus several great German banking houses—including the famous Fuggers of Augsburg—were wiped out in bankruptcies of the kings of Spain during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In such a world the life of a businessman was a precarious one. If by chance he was successful and amassed a fortune, he did not reinvest it in expanding his business, but made every effort to buy himself some land and a title of nobility and thus get out of the business world entirely. Weber's task was to trace back through history to find out where and how each of these obstacles fell—to determine the one time and place where all the circumstances were right and where the industrial takeoff could begin. The story begins in remote antiquity in a world of tribal societies—some agricultural, some made up of nomadic herdsmen and hunters. Religion played a key role in their social structure and in their worldviews. People lived and worked almost entirely with their kinspeople, and the kinship network and the community were united by a common set of ceremonies surrounding all aspects of life. Gods and spirits were everywhere— in the sky and the trees, guarding the hearth and the door of the house, and legitimating the authority of the patriarch-priest-chief. Like Durkheim, Weber recognized the integrating force of religion in primitive society.
和征服,强盗和男爵同样危险,公民秩序只存在于一个人的城墙内,有时只存在于一个人的家里;(2)普遍缺乏一个广泛的货币和信贷系统,以促进大规模的贸易;(3)对陌生人的不信任 —— 来自其他土地、其他宗教、其他村庄的陌生人,这使得贸易成为一个狡猾的讨价还价的问题,商人往往与海盗没有区别。现代意义上的劳动,也是历史上的稀罕物。如果没有工人会随着产品需求的变化而在不同的工作岗位上流动,并且可以通过提供相应的工资来吸引他们到最大的利润区,那么工业就无法有效地运行和竞争。(正如我们所看到的,韦伯的经济学是英国古典传统的经济学。农民通常作为农奴被束缚在土地上;产业工人通常是家庭成员、家庭佣人或奴隶,被束缚在企业中,无论他们是过劳还是欠劳,都是持续的支出。行会垄断控制着大部分剩余的劳动力供应。所有这些不同的障碍都必须被打破,然后才能将工业劳动力聚集到工厂系统中。最后,现代金融也是最近的发展。只有在大的王国和帝国中,才根本不存在广泛的货币体系。即使在那时,对于一个可靠的贷款系统也有许多障碍。在更复杂的信贷形式(如股票市场)出现之前,广泛的识字是必要的。只要不付款和失败的风险很大,钱就只能以高昂的利率贷出 —— 在一个没有法院和警察来支持合同的时代,每个商业企业都是有风险的。至少危险来自于国家本身。税收是反复无常的,而且往往只是抢劫;如果一个银行家把钱借给了国王,就不能保证他能把钱拿回来。因此,在 15 和 16 世纪,几家伟大的德国银行 —— 包括著名的奥格斯堡的富格尔银行 —— 在西班牙国王的破产中被消灭了。在这样一个世界上,商人的生活是不稳定的。如果他侥幸成功并积累了一笔财富,他也不会将其再投资于扩大他的业务,而是尽一切努力为自己购买一些土地和贵族头衔,从而完全脱离商业世界。韦伯的任务是回溯历史,找出这些障碍的位置和方式 —— 确定一个时间和地点,在那里所有的情况都是正确的,工业的起飞可以开始。故事开始于遥远的古代,在一个部落社会的世界里 —— 有些是农业社会,有些是由游牧民和猎人组成的。宗教在他们的社会结构和世界观中起着关键作用。人们几乎完全与他们的亲属一起生活和工作,亲属网络和社区被一套共同的围绕生活各方面的仪式联合起来。神灵无处不在 —— 在天空和树木中,守护着炉灶和房屋的门,并使族长 —— 牧师 —— 的权威合法化。与杜克海姆一样,韦伯承认宗教在原始社会的整合力量。
Change came about especially by political struggle. Hunting tribes conquered agricultural tribes, creating two-class societies of peasants and warrior-aristocrats. Conquests went wider and wider; empires rose and fell; kings emerged; complex stratification grew within the ranks of the aristocracy; and ro)ral administration (primitive bureaucracies) came into being. The familiar pendulum swings of world political history began: Overextended patrimonial regimes disintegrated into feudalism and then reconsol- idated under a new conqueror. In these larger, more complex societies, wealth became concentrated. A division of labor developed around the royal courts, as artisans, servants, scribes, and merchants specialized to satisfy royal tastes. Priests developed separate hierarchies of their own, amalgamating war gods and nature gods into new syncretisms and pantheons. In a number of these large societies—notably China and India—and in independent cities and small states on their peripheries—notably in Greece and Israel—a great change took place in the realm of religion between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C. Talcott Parsons, a leading interpreter of this phase of Weber's work, calls this change the "philosophical breakthrough": the rise of the great world religions. In each of these—Confucianism, Brahminism, Buddhism, Greek ethical philosophy, monotheistic Judaism and its later offshoots, Christianity and Islam—the nature of humankind's relationship to the physical and social worlds changes. The change consists of separating the idea of the natural world from the idea of the spiritual world. Instead of gods and spirits routinely intervening in the world around us (as in Greek mythology), there exists another, very different realm: heaven and hell, another sphere of reality, a world of ideal principles. The consequences of this change were far-reaching. As long as the world is in the play of gods and spirits, it cannot be taken as a very predictable place. One can only try to placate its invisible rulers by ceremonies and sacrifices or to control them by magic. But once the spiritual realm becomes separate, both nature and society can be treated in a stabler way. First, by removing animistic entities the world becomes open to rational explanation. The door is opened to scientific investigation and explanation. This new-found rationalism can spill over into the social realm as well. People can think of laws based on consistent general principles, instead of bowing before the eccentricities of sanctified tradition. Political and social arrangements, too, become subject to a rational critique—although this latter implication was not really seized upon until the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Second, religion itself can develop in new directions. Primitive religions merely describe an accepted if invisible side of the ordinary world. One placates the gods in order to kill one's enemies and make one's crops grow; one does not worry about being good or going to heaven. (Think of the heroes of the Odyssey or the early part of the Old Testament.) The philosophical breakthrough opens up two new possibilities: (1) The spiritual realm can now be a place to which one escapes from the trials and tribulations of the world. If the righteous individual—the one who follows all the rituals and does all his or her duties—nevertheless has bad fortune in the
变化尤其是通过政治斗争产生的。狩猎部落征服了农业部落,创造了农民和武士贵族的两级社会。征服的范围越来越大;帝国的兴衰;国王的出现;贵族队伍中复杂的分层;以及 ro)ral 行政(原始的官僚机构)的出现。世界政治史上熟悉的钟摆式摇摆开始了。过度扩张的世袭政权解体为封建主义,然后在一个新的征服者的领导下重新整合起来。在这些更大、更复杂的社会中,财富变得集中起来。围绕着王室法庭,工匠、仆人、文士和商人的劳动分工得到发展,以满足皇室的口味。祭司们形成了自己独立的等级制度,将战神和自然神合并成新的混合体和万神殿。在这些大型社会中,特别是在中国和印度,以及在其周边的独立城市和小国,特别是在希腊和以色列,公元前六世纪到四世纪之间,宗教领域发生了巨大的变化。塔尔科特·帕森斯是韦伯这一阶段工作的主要解释者,他把这种变化称为 “哲学突破”:伟大的世界宗教的崛起。在每一个宗教中 —— 儒家、婆罗门教、佛教、希腊伦理哲学、一神论的犹太教及其后来的分支基督教和伊斯兰教 —— 人类与物质和社会世界的关系的性质发生了变化。这种变化包括将自然世界的概念与精神世界的概念分开。与其说神灵经常干预我们周围的世界(如希腊神话),不如说存在着另一个非常不同的领域:天堂和地狱,另一个现实领域,一个理想原则的世界。这一变化的后果是深远的。只要世界处于神灵的游戏中,就不能把它当作一个非常可预测的地方。人们只能试图通过仪式和祭品来安抚其无形的统治者,或通过魔法来控制他们。但是,一旦精神领域变得独立,自然和社会都可以以一种更稳定的方式对待。首先,通过消除万物有灵的实体,世界就会向理性解释开放。科学调查和解释的大门被打开了。这种新发现的理性主义也可以溢出到社会领域。人们可以根据一致的一般原则来思考法律,而不是向神圣的传统的怪癖低头。政治和社会安排也会受到理性的批判 —— 尽管这后一种含义直到 18 世纪的法国启蒙运动才真正被抓住了。第二,宗教本身可以向新的方向发展。原始宗教只是描述了普通世界的一个被接受的即使是不可见的一面。人们安抚神灵,以杀死自己的敌人,使自己的庄稼生长;人们并不担心成为好人或上天堂。(想想《奥德赛》中的英雄或《旧约》的早期部分)哲学上的突破开启了两种新的可能性。(1)精神领域现在可以成为一个人逃离世界的考验和磨难的地方。如果一个正直的人 —— 遵守所有的仪式,履行所有的义务 —— 在世界范围内仍然有不好的运气
world, it does not fundamentally concern that person. In fact, the material world can now be seen as a dangerous temptation, for the truly holy person concentrates only on salvation. (2) The ideas of good and evil can develop separately from the ideas of worldly success and failure. For the primitive person sin simply means misfortune; as long as one is prosperous, healthy, and powerful, one has a clear conscience. The philosophical breakthrough puts a new ethical obligation on human beings. They are now to be concerned with justice and injustice toward their fellow human beings; conscience becomes its own reward and punishment. These new possibilities, especially the second, are potential forces for great changes in society. The new ideas of good and evil and the concept of a world of perfection can provide tremendous leverage for changing the world to make it live up to these ideals. Here in antiquity we find the basis of Weber's Protestant ethic, which was to play a powerful role in the takeoff of industrialization 2,000 years later. There is one more crucial attribute of the religions of the philosophical breakthrough: They are all universalistic. Earlier religions are limited to the members of one family, one tribe, or one ethnic group. The world religions, emerging in or near empires with unlimited ambitions of conquest, exclude no one. Indeed, earlier religions are tolerant; they conceive of a pluralistic world of many peoples, each with their patron gods. But for Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and so on there is only one god or spiritual reality; all else is false, illusory, or subordinate. This shift is crucial because religions mark the limits of solidarity in society. In primitive and traditional societies, people are bound together with those who share a religious community. One can and must trust people who worship the same household or tribal gods. But strangers—people with different gods—are alien beings who cannot be trusted. One result of this setup was a widespread prohibition on usury—lending money at interest to other members of one's own religious group. Outside the group one could bargain in as cutthroat a fashion as possible, since there were no ethical obligations toward outsiders. Thus, to universalize a religion was abruptly to broaden the community within which peaceful social transactions could regularly be carried out. The philosophical breakthrough opened many of the doors to industrialization: laying the basis for a moral community of trust underlying peaceful commerce; rationalizing the legal system; motivating people to remake political, social, and economic institutions in keeping with an imperative to transform the world more closely to the ideal. But these implications took a long time to work themselves out, and not all the world religions opened up just the right path to the transformation of society. Weber's first major writing, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, is on this subject. It selects for careful study only one thread in the complex tapestry that was rising capitalism—the role that religious beliefs played in motivating the businessmen who developed capitalism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Weber points out that the attitude of the modern capitalist is not simply the drive for economic gain; this ac-
在这个世界上,它与这个人没有根本的关系。事实上,物质世界现在可以被看作是一种危险的诱惑,因为真正圣洁的人只专注于救赎。(2)善与恶的观念可以与世俗的成功和失败的观念分开发展。对原始人来说,罪只意味着不幸;只要一个人繁荣、健康、强大,他就问心无愧。哲学上的突破给人类带来了新的伦理义务。他们现在要关注对人类同胞的公正和不公正;良知成为其自身的奖惩。这些新的可能性,尤其是第二种可能性,是促进社会巨大变化的潜在力量。新的善恶观念和完美世界的概念可以为改变世界提供巨大的杠杆作用,使其符合这些理想。在这里,我们在古代找到了韦伯的新教伦理的基础,它在两千年后工业化的起飞中发挥了强大的作用。哲学突破的宗教还有一个关键属性。它们都是普世性的。早期的宗教只限于一个家庭、一个部落或一个族群的成员。世界宗教,在具有无限征服野心的帝国中或附近出现,不排斥任何人。事实上,早期的宗教是宽容的;它们设想了一个由许多民族组成的多元世界,每个民族都有自己的守护神。但对儒家、佛教、基督教等来说,只有一个神或精神现实;其他都是假的、虚幻的或从属的。这种转变是至关重要的,因为宗教标志着社会中团结的极限。在原始社会和传统社会中,人们与那些共享一个宗教团体的人联系在一起。人们可以而且必须信任那些崇拜同一个家庭或部落的神的人。但陌生人 —— 信奉不同神的人 —— 是不能信任的异类。这种设置的一个结果是广泛禁止高利贷 —— 向自己宗教团体的其他成员借钱收取利息。在团体之外,人们可以尽可能地以残酷的方式讨价还价,因为对外人没有道德义务。因此,普及一种宗教就突然扩大了可以定期进行和平社会交易的社区。哲学上的突破为工业化打开了许多大门:为和平商业所依据的道德信任共同体奠定了基础;使法律制度合理化;激励人们重塑政治、社会和经济机构,使之符合将世界更接近理想的要求。但这些影响需要很长时间来解决,并不是所有的世界宗教都为社会转型开辟了正确的道路。韦伯的第一部重要著作《新教伦理与资本主义精神》就是关于这一主题的。它只选择了资本主义崛起这一复杂织锦中的一条线进行仔细研究 —— 宗教信仰在激励十七和十八世纪发展资本主义的商人方面所发挥的作用。韦伯指出,现代资本家的态度不仅仅是对经济利益的驱使;这种态度 —— —— —— —— 。
quisitiveness is found everywhere in world history without resulting in a mass-production economy. What is significant for a large-scale, profit-making system, rather, is the methodical attitude: the making of a continual series of small savings and small profits that gradually add up to a long-term, mass-production economy and, ultimately, to far greater profits than the greedy, one-shot businessperson could ever attain. Weber saw this methodical, "rationalized" attitude emerging first in another sphere—the religious ideas of the most radical Protestants soon after the Reformation. These were especially the followers of Calvin, who were prominent in the most commercialized areas of the Netherlands, France, Germany, and, above all, England and America. They no longer believed in salvation by prayers, charity, or religious rituals; they believed that God was an omnipotent, inexorable power, who had already picked out those who were to be saved and those who were damned. The psychological effect of this doctrine of predestination, Weber declared, must have been to put a tremendous strain on the believers. Was one saved or not? One could do nothing specifically religious to help oneself; priests and monks were no better than anyone else (and quite possibly worse, since they could do no honest work); hence these radical Protestants eliminated monasteries and tried to make priests as much like lay persons as possible. What one could do, though, was to work—hard, methodologically, without coveting gains but continually pressing on, until by one's own success one felt that one did fit into God's scheme of predestination, and that one was one of the elect. In this way, the religious beliefs of radical Protestants helped produce just the attitudes that made successful capitalists and thus fostered the industrial revolution. This theory, known as "the Weber thesis," has been argued pro and con ever since it first came out in 1904. Unfortunately, it has become so famous that many scholars have attempted to refute it (or support it) without knowledge of Weber's later work on the other world religions, or of his general sociology, in which he ties religious ideas to organizational forms, status groups, and political struggles. Weber's theory of capitalism has been interpreted narrowly as an argument that ideas determine social change. Probably the reason it has been so popular is that it apparently refutes Marx, showing that religion is the cause of material conditions instead of vice versa. This position has been especially fostered in the United States by Talcott Parsons, who translated The Protestant Ethic in 1930, which was years ahead of translations of any of Weber's other major works. Now, however, we have a wider picture of what Weber actually discovered. The study of radical Protestant beliefs was just a preliminary analysis of recent Western religious history; later he would develop a massive world comparison of all the great religions and their social effects. Weber completed The Religion of China, The Religion of India, and Ancient Judaism; he died before he could begin his studies of Islam and early Christianity. His broad conclusion was that only a certain kind of breakthrough—the mixture of the ethical and scientific rationalism of Greek philosophy with the Judaic- derived legalism and world-changing activism that went to make up
竞争力在世界历史上随处可见,但却没有形成大规模生产经济。对于一个大规模的盈利系统来说,重要的是有条不紊的态度:不断地进行一系列的小储蓄和小利润,逐渐累积成一个长期的大规模生产经济,并最终获得比贪婪的、一蹴而就的商人所能获得的更大的利润。韦伯看到这种有条不紊的、“合理化” 的态度首先出现在另一个领域 —— 宗教改革后不久最激进的新教徒的宗教思想。这些人尤其是加尔文的追随者,他们在荷兰、法国、德国,尤其是英国和美国最商业化的地区表现突出。他们不再相信通过祈祷、慈善或宗教仪式来获得救赎;他们相信,上帝是一种无所不能、不可阻挡的力量,他已经选出了那些将被拯救的人和那些被诅咒的人。韦伯宣称,这种宿命论的心理影响一定会给信徒带来巨大的压力。一个人到底有没有得救?一个人不能做任何具体的宗教工作来帮助自己;牧师和僧侣并不比其他人好(而且很可能更糟,因为他们不能做任何诚实的工作);因此这些激进的新教徒取消了修道院,并试图使牧师尽可能地像普通人一样。不过,一个人可以做的是努力工作,有条不紊,不贪图利益,而是不断努力,直到通过自己的成功感到自己确实符合上帝的宿命计划,并且是被选中的人之一。这样一来,激进新教徒的宗教信仰恰恰帮助产生了造就成功资本家的态度,从而促进了工业革命的发展。这一理论被称为 “韦伯论”,自 1904 年首次提出以来,就一直有正反两方面的争论。不幸的是,它已经变得如此有名,以至于许多学者试图反驳它(或支持它),而不了解韦伯后来关于其他世界宗教的工作,也不了解他的一般社会学,在这些工作中,他将宗教思想与组织形式、地位团体和政治斗争联系起来。韦伯的资本主义理论被狭义地解释为一种思想决定社会变革的论点。它之所以如此受欢迎,可能是因为它显然反驳了马克思,表明宗教是物质条件的原因,而不是反过来。这一立场在美国尤其得到了塔尔科特·帕森斯(Talcott Parsons)的支持,他在 1930 年翻译了《新教伦理》,这比韦伯的其他主要作品的翻译都要早好几年。然而现在,我们对韦伯的实际发现有了更广泛的了解。对激进的新教信仰的研究只是对近代西方宗教史的初步分析;后来他将对所有伟大的宗教及其社会影响进行大规模的世界比较。韦伯完成了《中国的宗教》、《印度的宗教》和《古代犹太教》;他在开始研究伊斯兰教和早期基督教之前就去世了。他的广泛结论是,只有某种突破 —— 希腊哲学的伦理和科学理性主义与犹太教衍生的法律主义和改变世界的行动主义的混合,才能构成
Christianity—gave the impetus for rationalizing social institutions and changing the world in the economic and political upheavals of modernity. Confucianism, Brahminism, Buddhism, and Islam he found entwined with the patrimonial order of stratification in such ways that they strengthened the unpredictable, irrational aspects of their societies rather than weakened them. In Europe the key story concerns the growth of the Christian Church— the first large-scale truly rationalized bureaucratic organization in history— and its growing consolidation with the remnants of the Roman Empire, itself legally rationalized under the influence of Greek culture. The age-old pendulum of political consolidation and disintegration swung on, but was nearing the end of its monotonous cycle through time. By the sixteenth century kings began to build the bureaucracies—using priests as their first bureaucrats—that would eventually destroy the fragmented and conflict- ridden feudal system, establish a predictable set of laws and a trustworthy monetary system, bring peace and order to large expanses of territory, and carry out regular tax policies. Commerce spread; mechanical inventions were sought and made; and handicraft industries developed. Western Europe perched on the brink of industrialization, held back only by government mercantilist policies of establishing monopolies and by the feudal bondage of labor to the soil. The final obstacles fell in England—ironically, the Western European country in which the feudal gentry had fought the most successful battle against the king and in which royal absolutism was least far advanced. After the civil war of the seventeenth century the small gentry class gained control of the state bureaucracy and used it to further their economic interests—moving the peasants off the land, thereby creating a labor force for the textile mills, and establishing an economic policy that would remove restraints on competition. The battle was fought and won by radical Protestants: men who felt that work, honesty, and rule following were the commandments of God and who were further impelled by a powerful vision of the ideal world of heaven and hell. Their emergence at this propitious time in history is not yet understood, but the tradition from which they emerged is clear: They revived the early spirit of Christianity and brought to fruition the world-transforming potential of the religious breakthroughs of antiquity. Once the industrial revolution was in full swing, its progress was unim- pedible. New social classes appeared, transforming politics from the exclusive province of military aristocrats and court cabals to an object of mass movements and bureaucratic manipulations. Science, education, and mass communications were unleashed, to transform again and again the nature of stratification and of industry. England rose to wealth and world power. The rulers of other nations, however fearful of modernization's destructive effect on the old order that supported them, were forced to emulate England in order to keep pace militarily; otherwise, they faced the risk of becoming colonies of the modernized states.
基督教 —— 在现代性的经济和政治动荡中为社会制度的合理化和改变世界提供了动力。他发现,儒家思想、婆罗门教、佛教和伊斯兰教与世袭的分层秩序纠缠在一起,它们加强了其社会中不可预测的、非理性的方面,而不是削弱了它们。在欧洲,关键的故事涉及基督教会的发展 —— 历史上第一个大规模的真正合理化的官僚组织 —— 以及它与罗马帝国残余的日益巩固,罗马帝国本身在希腊文化的影响下也是合法的。政治巩固和瓦解的古老钟摆不断摆动,但其单调的时间循环已接近尾声。到 16 世纪,国王们开始建立官僚机构 —— 利用牧师作为他们的第一批官僚 —— 最终将摧毁支离破碎、冲突不断的封建制度,建立一套可预测的法律和可靠的货币体系,为大片领土带来和平与秩序,并执行定期的税收政策。商业的发展;机械发明的寻求和制造;以及手工业的发展。西欧徘徊在工业化的边缘,只是被政府建立垄断的重商主义政策和劳动力对土地的封建束缚所阻碍。最后的障碍落在了英国 —— 具有讽刺意味的是,在这个西欧国家里,封建士绅与国王的斗争最为成功,而王室专制主义在这个国家里进展最慢。十七世纪的内战之后,小贵族阶层获得了对国家官僚机构的控制权,并利用它来促进他们的经济利益 —— 将农民从土地上赶走,从而为纺织厂创造劳动力,并制定经济政策,消除对竞争的限制。这场战斗是由激进的新教徒进行的,并取得了胜利:这些人认为工作、诚实和遵守规则是上帝的诫命,而且他们还受到对天堂和地狱的理想世界的强大愿景的推动。他们在这个历史上的有利时机出现,尚不为人所知,但他们产生的传统是明确的:他们恢复了基督教的早期精神,并将古代宗教突破的改变世界的潜力付诸实现。一旦工业革命全面展开,其进展是不可阻挡的。新的社会阶层出现了,将政治从军事贵族和宫廷小集团的专属领域转变为群众运动和官僚操纵的对象。科学、教育和大众传播被释放出来,一次又一次地改变了分层和工业的性质。英国的财富和世界权力上升了。其他国家的统治者,尽管害怕现代化对支持他们的旧秩序的破坏性影响,却不得不模仿英国,以便在军事上跟上步伐;否则,他们就会面临成为现代化国家的殖民地的风险。
From his towering intellectual vantage point, Weber watched the panorama of events flow through the centuries. Die Entzauberung der Welt, he called it—the disenchantment of the world, the master trend of history. Rationalization steadily pushes back the uncertain, the mythical, the poetic. Once all the world was seen through a veil of ritual and ceremony, goddesses and fire-breathing dragons, and the thousand fearful chances of everyday life; now daily railroad trains bring tourists to the castles of Transylvania. Even the God-fearing Protestant entrepreneur has disappeared, replaced by the bureaucratic employee. Since the modern system is established, it runs of its own accord. But the Protestant ethic is not dead, it is merely secularized. Its spirit hangs on in the very institutions of modern society and in the tightly controlled personalities of people who work in a world of rules and regulations, merit ratings, and bureaucratic security. In an America split in cultural war between a white middle-class generation still deep in the Protestant ethic and that generation's own sons and daughters, who have rejected the "uptight" world in alliance with the members of a black culture that escaped such a world only by being kept at the bottom, Weber's sociology strikes the central theme. No one saw more clearly than Weber the ways in which our lives are "haunted by the ghosts of dead religious beliefs." For all his voluminous writings Weber was first and foremost a political man. From his early career he was active in the law courts and government agencies of Berlin. His interest in economics was first stimulated when reform groups commissioned him to study the problems of labor immigration in East Prussia and stock-market manipulations. He began with his father's upper-class imperialist loyalties, but increasing exposure to the hardships of the lower classes shifted his sympathies gradually to the left. Nevertheless, he had no illusions about the costs of reform. He regarded the Socialist utopia as an ideology with which the leaders of the Social Democratic party kept their followers in line, and he was in accord with his young friend Robert Michels' analysis of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" in party politics. The Marxists' flaw was that they failed to see the bureaucratic nature of the modern economy, whether it be capitalist or Socialist. Weber became interested in Russia during the abortive revolution of 1905 and learned Russian in order to follow the events firsthand. His analysis was a remarkable foresight into the Soviet period. Should Russia lose a major European war and the revolutionary left come to power, he predicted, Russia would experience a bureaucratization of the entire social structure such as the world had never seen. Considering Weber's views on the quality of life in a bureaucracy, his expectations were anything but optimistic. "The dictatorship of the official and not of the proletariat is on the march," he wrote. The situation in Germany was scarcely more hopeful. Weber's growing disillusionment with conservative nationalism came as he watched Germany's inept foreign policy, losing allies and progressively isolating it-
韦伯从他高高在上的知识优势中,看着事件的全景在几个世纪中流动。他称之为 Die Entzauberung der Welt —— 世界的迷失,历史的主要趋势。理性化不断地把不确定的、神话的、诗意的东西往后推。曾经,所有的世界都是通过仪式和典礼、女神和喷火龙以及日常生活中无数可怕的机会的面纱来看的;现在,每天的铁路列车把游客带到特兰西瓦尼亚的城堡。甚至连敬畏上帝的新教企业家也消失了,取而代之的是官僚主义的雇员。既然现代制度已经建立,它就会自动运行。但新教伦理并没有死,它只是被世俗化了。它的精神存在于现代社会的机构中,存在于那些在规则和条例、功绩评级和官僚安全的世界中工作的人的严格控制的个性中。在一个在文化战争中分裂的美国,白人中产阶级的一代仍然深陷于新教伦理,而这一代人自己的儿子和女儿已经拒绝了 “紧张” 的世界,与黑人文化的成员结盟,他们只是通过被置于底层来逃避这样一个世界,韦伯的社会学击中了中心主题。没有人比韦伯更清楚地看到我们的生活是如何 “被死亡的宗教信仰的幽灵所困扰”。尽管韦伯的著作浩如烟海,但他首先是一个政治人物。从他的早期职业生涯开始,他就活跃在柏林的法院和政府机构。当改革团体委托他研究东普鲁士的劳工移民和股票市场操纵问题时,他对经济学的兴趣首次被激发出来。他一开始对父亲的上层帝国主义的忠诚度很高,但越来越多地接触到下层社会的苦难,使他的同情心逐渐转向了左派。尽管如此,他对改革的代价不抱幻想。他认为社会主义乌托邦是一种意识形态,社会民主党的领导人用这种意识形态使他们的追随者保持一致,他同意他的年轻朋友罗伯特·米歇尔对政党政治中 “寡头政治铁律” 的分析。马克思主义者的缺陷在于,他们没有看到现代经济的官僚性质,无论是资本主义还是社会主义。在 1905 年革命流产期间,韦伯对俄国产生了兴趣,并学习了俄语,以便第一时间了解事件。他的分析是对苏维埃时期的一种非凡的预见性。他预言,如果俄国在一场重大的欧洲战争中失败,革命左派上台,俄国将经历整个社会结构的官僚化,这是世界上从未见过的。考虑到韦伯对官僚机构中的生活质量的看法,他的期望并不乐观。“他写道:” 官员而不是无产阶级的专政正在进行中。德国的情况几乎没有什么希望。韦伯对保守的民族主义越来越失望,因为他看到了德国无能的外交政策,失去了盟友,并逐渐将其孤立。
self while at the same time carrying on an arms race and an increasingly strident campaign of nationalist self-glorification. He placed the blame on Germany's political structure: an impotent parliament incapable of controlling an irresponsible state bureaucracy; an army staffed by the defensively arrogant aristocrats of a bygone era; and a foolish hereditary monarch initiating policies that trapped the rest of the nation in their wake. In the 1890s Weber took part in efforts to create a responsible democratic party, but he dropped out when its hopelessness became apparent. When World War I finally broke out, the release from years of tension came as a relief. Weber was at first enthusiastic. "In spite of all," he declared it "a great and wonderful war." As a fifty-year-old reserve officer in the German army, he was called to duty as the director of military hospitals in the Heidelberg area. A year later he retired and went to Berlin to wield what political influence he could to end the war. After his first enthusiasm had worn off, Weber quickly realized that Germany's military and political leadership was incapable of carrying out a victorious policy and that a prolongation of the war could only result in the destruction of German—indeed, of European—power and the turning over of world domination to America. By 1918 his last loyalties to the Kaiser were gone, and he published a series of newspaper articles calling for a democratic constitution for postwar Germany. The fall of the old regime seemed to take a personal weight from Weber's shoulders. From the Versailles peace conference, where he served on the German delegation, he wrote that he slept soundly at night for the first time in many years. Even his inability to teach was overcome. He accepted a professorship at Munich, where he lectured to enormous crowds of students, intellectuals, and public dignitaries. Politics suddenly showed opportunities. Weber became the leader of a new, liberal, democratic party. An archrealist, he nevertheless saw a ray of hope. Political parties might be corrupt oligarchies, but only within free parliamentary competition might leaders arise capable of controlling the recalcitrant state bureaucracy and giving the nation intelligent policies. But time had run out. In 1919 Weber fell ill of pneumonia, and he died the next year at the age of fifty-six. His party collapsed; the first of the German republic's many economic and political crises was upon it. Responsible leadership would not be forthcoming; the irresponsible leaders were already gathering in the beer gardens of Munich. Politics is a dangerous and morally taxing vocation, Weber had told his students in one of his famous last lectures. The idealist as well as the cynic is caught in webs of consequences far beyond those intended in his or her acts. Ideals alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by hard realism, sympathetic imagination, and an unyielding sense of responsibility. The following might have been his own epitaph for his accomplishments in the realm of knowledge as well as his failures in the realm of politics: Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth—that man
在进行军备竞赛和日益激烈的民族主义自我颂扬运动的同时,德国人也在进行着自我毁灭。他把责任归咎于德国的政治结构:一个无能的议会无力控制不负责任的国家官僚机构;一支由过去时代的防御性傲慢的贵族组成的军队;以及一个愚蠢的世袭君主发起的政策,使国家的其他部分陷入困境。19 世纪 90 年代,韦伯参与了创建一个负责任的民主党的努力,但当它的无望变得明显时,他退出了。当第一次世界大战终于爆发时,多年来的紧张局势得到了缓解。韦伯起初很热心。“尽管如此”,他宣布这是一场 “伟大而美妙的战争”。作为德国军队的一名 50 岁的后备军官,他被征召担任海德堡地区的军事医院院长。一年后,他退休并前往柏林,发挥他所能发挥的政治影响力,结束战争。在他最初的热情消退后,韦伯很快意识到,德国的军事和政治领导层没有能力执行胜利的政策,战争的延长只能导致德国 —— 实际上是欧洲 —— 力量的毁灭和世界统治权的移交给美国。到 1918 年,他对德皇的最后忠诚已经消失,他在报纸上发表了一系列文章,呼吁为战后德国制定一部民主宪法。旧政权的垮台似乎让韦伯的个人负担减轻了不少。在他担任德国代表团成员的凡尔赛和平会议上,他写道,多年来他第一次在晚上睡得很香。甚至连他的教学能力也被克服了。他接受了慕尼黑的一个教授职位,在那里他为大量的学生、知识分子和公众人物讲课。政治上突然出现了机会。韦伯成为一个新的、自由的、民主的政党的领导人。作为一个古老的现实主义者,他还是看到了一线希望。政党可能是腐败的寡头,但只有在自由的议会竞争中,才可能出现能够控制顽固的国家官僚机构并为国家提供明智政策的领导人。但时间已经不多了。1919 年,韦伯得了肺炎,第二年去世,年仅 56 岁。他的政党垮台了;德意志共和国众多经济和政治危机中的第一个危机已经来临。负责任的领导不会出现;不负责任的领导已经聚集在慕尼黑的啤酒花园里。韦伯在他著名的最后一次演讲中告诉他的学生,政治是一种危险的、在道德上需要付出代价的职业。理想主义者和愤世嫉俗者都会被卷入远远超出其行为意图的后果之网中。仅有理想是不够的;它们必须伴随着艰难的现实主义、同情的想象力和不屈不挠的责任感。下面这段话可以作为他自己的墓志铭,以表彰他在知识领域的成就以及他在政治领域的失败。政治是一个强大而缓慢枯燥的硬板。它既需要激情也需要视角。当然,所有的历史经验都证实了这个事实 —— 人
would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today. Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say "In spite of all!" has the calling for politics.1 'Max Weber, "Politics as a Vocation," in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 128.
除非他一次又一次地向不可能的事情伸出援手,否则就不会达到可能的程度。但要做到这一点,一个人必须是一个领导者,而且不仅是一个领导者,也是一个英雄,在一个非常清醒的意义上。即使是那些既不是领袖也不是英雄的人,也必须用那颗坚定的心来武装自己,这颗心甚至可以勇敢地应对所有希望的破灭。这一点现在就很有必要,否则人们甚至无法实现今天可能实现的目标。只有那些确信当世界从他的观点来看对他想提供的东西过于愚蠢或过于卑劣时,他不会崩溃的人,才有政治的召唤。只有在面对这一切时能够说 “尽管如此!” 的人,才有政治的使命感。社会学论文》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,1946 年),第 128 页。
CHAPTER EIGHT Sigmund Freud: Conquistador of the Irrational The cataclysmic twentieth-century wars had yet to burst upon the face of humankind; Darwin's Origin of Species was three years away from publication, and Einstein's birth lay twenty-three years in the future, when Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was born in Freiburg, Moravia. Western civilization was intact. Europe enjoyed an uneasy peace, while America was on the verge of civil war. In modern times Freud has become a legendary figure in the history of science. He is remembered as the founder of psychoanalysis, a method for understanding human motivation and a technique for healing the psyche. He presented himself in his autobiography as a scientist; yet he opened a crack in the scientific edifice of Reason, which had dominated the intellectual scene since the Enlightenment. The social philosophers of that period, including Montesquieu, Diderot, d'Alembert, Rousseau, Condorcet, and Turgot, subscribed wholeheartedly to the Aristotelian dictum that humankind is composed of rational animals. The philosophers' vision, which the founding fathers of sociology attempted to put into practice, was of free rational humans emerging from centuries of ignorance, fear, and superstition into a bright new dawn of Reason, science, and unlimited progress. Humankind, the moving force of society, was to be guided by rational knowledge in a conscious attempt to remake the world in its own image and thereby shape its planetary destiny. Freud's greatest discovery was the systematic unearthing of the vast and hidden continent of the human unconscious. Via the method of psychoanalysis he probed the depths of the psyche and uncovered the irrational side of human nature. It is one of the paradoxes of Freud's life that the work of this eminent scientist and man of reason should have heralded the end of the Age of Reason. The Enlightenment dream of the eighteenth-century philosophes died in Freud, a child of that Enlightenment. No longer could the Western individual trust solely and naively in Reason to solve the problems of collective living. Freud showed that the individual is basically 140
第八章 西格蒙德·弗洛伊德。非理性的征服者 二十世纪的灾难性战争尚未在人类面前爆发;达尔文的《物种起源》还有三年才出版,而爱因斯坦的诞生则是在未来 23 年,此时西格蒙德·弗洛伊德(1856-1939)出生在摩拉维亚的弗莱堡。西方文明是完整的。欧洲享有不安的和平,而美国则处于内战的边缘。在现代,弗洛伊德已经成为科学史上的一个传奇人物。他作为精神分析的创始人而被铭记,精神分析是一种理解人类动机的方法和治疗心理的技术。他在自传中以科学家自居;然而,他在理性的科学大厦中打开了一条裂缝,自启蒙运动以来,理性一直主导着知识领域。那一时期的社会哲学家,包括孟德斯鸠、狄德罗、达朗贝尔、卢梭、孔多塞和涂尔干,全心全意地赞同亚里士多德的箴言,即人类是由理性动物组成的。哲学家们的愿景 —— 社会学的奠基人试图将其付诸实践 —— 是自由理性的人类从几个世纪的无知、恐惧和迷信中走出来,进入理性、科学和无限进步的光明新曙光。人类作为社会的动力,将在理性知识的指导下,有意识地试图按照自己的形象重塑世界,从而塑造地球的命运。弗洛伊德最伟大的发现是系统地发掘了人类无意识这个巨大而隐秘的大陆。通过精神分析的方法,他探究了心理的深处,发现了人性中非理性的一面。这位杰出的科学家和理性的人的工作竟然预示着理性时代的结束,这是弗洛伊德生命中的一个悖论。十八世纪哲学家们的启蒙运动梦想在弗洛伊德身上夭折了,他是启蒙运动的一个孩子。西方的个人再也不能仅仅天真地相信理性来解决集体生活的问题了。弗洛伊德表明,个人基本上是 140 岁的人。
a nonrational being, driven by such emotional forces as "sexual instincts" and "repressed wishes." Although Freud did not discover the unconscious, he was the first to give content to what had previously been an unfilled form. The idea of the unconscious had been brewing in the German intellectual climate since the publication of Eduard von Hartmann's The Philosophy of the Unconscious in 1859. But the metaphysician von Hartmann did not claim to have explored the region of the unconscious; rather, he arrived there by a process of abstract reasoning and found "will" and "intellect" (parallel to Freud's formulations of "id" and "ego") in a state of conflict. Nor was the nineteenth century the first age in the history of Western thought to have conceived this idea; it may be traced back to antiquity. The idea of an unconscious in humankind lurked in Plato's parable of the cave more than two millennia prior to Freud. EARLY LIFE AND WORK As a child, Freud was the center of attention in his Viennese family's household. He was so much his mother's favorite that she discontinued his younger sister's piano lessons because the ten-year-old Sigmund complained that the noise disturbed his studies. Freud was a child prodigy who began reading Shakespeare at age eight and was later fascinated by Thiers' Consulate and Empire. A hero-worshiper during adolescence, he dreamed of becoming a great general. He was so taken with the romance of Napoleon that he pasted onto the backs of his toy wooden soldiers little labels bearing the names of the French emperor's marshals. Freud graduated summa cum laude from high school. During the last six of his eight years at Sperl Gymnasium he ranked number one in his class and occupied such a privileged position that he was hardly ever questioned in class. His choice of profession was determined to a great extent by his social position as a Viennese Jew. The alternatives open to him were those of industry, business, law, and medicine. His intellectual bent eliminated the first two, and he considered taking up the study of jurisprudence. However, although he felt no direct attraction to medicine, he was motivated by the sort of curiosity that is directed more toward human concerns than toward natural objects. It was a period of indecision. On the one hand, he was influenced to study law by a school friend who was later to become a famous politician; on the other hand, he was attracted by the then topical evolutionary theories of Darwin, which offered hopes for an extraordinary advance in understanding the world. Freud reached his decision to enter the field of medicine upon hearing a dramatic reading of Goethe's essay on Nature. His youthful idealism was given direction by the old master's romantic picture of Nature as a bountiful mother, who allowed her favorites the privilege of exploring her secrets.
一个非理性的存在,由 “性本能” 和 “被压抑的愿望” 等情感力量驱动。尽管弗洛伊德并没有发现无意识,但他是第一个为以前未被填充的形式赋予内容的人。自 1859 年爱德华·冯·哈特曼的《无意识的哲学》出版以来,无意识的概念一直在德国的知识氛围中酝酿。但这位形而上学家冯·哈特曼并没有声称自己已经探索了无意识的区域;相反,他通过抽象推理的过程到达那里,发现 “意志” 和 “智力”(与弗洛伊德的 “本我” 和 “自我” 的表述相似)处于一种冲突状态。十九世纪也不是西方思想史上第一个设想这种想法的时代;它可以追溯到古代。在弗洛伊德之前两千多年,人类无意识的想法就潜伏在柏拉图的洞穴寓言中。早年的生活和工作 作为一个孩子,弗洛伊德是维也纳家庭中的焦点。他是他母亲的最爱,以至于她中断了他妹妹的钢琴课,因为 10 岁的西格蒙德抱怨噪音干扰了他的学习。弗洛伊德是个神童,八岁开始阅读莎士比亚,后来又被梯也尔的《领事馆与帝国》迷住。在青少年时期,他是一个英雄崇拜者,梦想着成为一名伟大的将军。他对拿破仑的浪漫情怀如此着迷,以至于在他的玩具木制士兵背上粘贴了印有法国皇帝元帅名字的小标签。弗洛伊德以最优异的成绩从高中毕业。在斯佩尔体校的八年中,最后六年他在班上排名第一,占据了如此优越的地位,以至于在课堂上几乎没有人质疑他。他对职业的选择在很大程度上是由他作为维也纳犹太人的社会地位决定的。他可以选择的职业有:工业、商业、法律和医学。他的智力倾向排除了前两者,他考虑学习法学。然而,尽管他没有感觉到医学的直接吸引力,但他的动机是那种更多针对人类问题而非自然对象的好奇心。那是一个犹豫不决的时期。一方面,他受到一位后来成为著名政治家的同学的影响而学习法律;另一方面,他被当时热门的达尔文的进化论所吸引,这些理论为理解世界提供了非凡的希望。弗洛伊德在听到对歌德《自然》一文的戏剧性解读后,决定进入医学领域。他年轻时的理想主义被这位老大师的浪漫画卷所指引,大自然是一位丰饶的母亲,她允许她的宠儿有探索她的秘密的特权。
Freud had come to believe that the secret of power lay in understanding rather than in force. Swayed by the late-nineteenth-century Zeitgeist, he questioned humankind's relation to itself as well as its place in Nature. With his father's blessings and financial support, Freud embarked on his career as a medical student at the University of Vienna in the autumn of 1873. His work load averaged over twenty-five hours per week, including lectures and laboratories, in such broadly diversified fields as anatomy, chemistry, botany, microscopy, mineralogy, physics, spectrum analysis, biology, histology, Aristotelian logic, physiology, and zoology. The budding genius thereby acquired a solid scientific background in addition to the habits of hard work and self-discipline. During this academically successful period Freud began to recognize the limitations as well as the capabilities of his intellectual gifts. He learned also the truth of the Mephistophelean dictum: "It is in vain that you range round from science to science; each man learns only what he can." After receiving his first grant in 1876 to study the gonadic structure of eels, Freud found a temporary home in Ernst Briicke's physiology laboratory. Briicke was for Freud a role model as well as an intellectual mentor. He was an exemplar of the person of science—uncompromising, ascetic, disciplined. An austere German Protestant professor with a Prussian accent, Briicke represented the antithesis of the Viennese schlamperai (or "sloppy thinkers") with whom Freud was already familiar. Briicke's Institute of Physiology was part of a far-reaching scientific movement known as the Helmholtz school of medicine, whose teachings made a lasting impression on Freud. Its founders, all to become famous scientists, had sworn a youthful oath to uphold the principles: No other forces than the common physical-chemical ones are active within the organism. In those cases which cannot at the time be explained by these forces one has either to find the specific way or form of their action by means of the physical-mathematical method or to assume new forces equal in dignity to the chemical-physical forces inherent in matter, reducible to the forces of attraction and repulsion.1 By 1870 this current of thought had achieved complete dominion over the minds of the German psychologists and medical teachers; it stimulated research everywhere. Helmholtz's mid-nineteenth-century mechanical view of the universe, which reduced all natural phenomena to the forces of attraction and repulsion, was incorporated by Briicke into his Lectures on Physiology (1874). The student Freud was captivated by his teacher's account of physical physiology. Briicke defined physiology as the science of organisms. He distinguished between organisms and machines; the latter were mere dead material entities in action, while the former possessed the faculty of assimilation. 'Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, edited and abridged by Lionel Trilling and Steven Marcus (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1963), p. 29. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. New York, 1961.
弗洛伊德开始相信,权力的秘密在于理解,而不是武力。受十九世纪末时代潮流的影响,他对人类与自身的关系以及人类在大自然中的地位提出了质疑。在父亲的祝福和经济支持下,弗洛伊德于 1873 年秋天开始了他在维也纳大学的医学学生生涯。他的工作负担平均每周超过 25 个小时,包括讲座和实验室,涉及的领域广泛多样,如解剖学、化学、植物学、显微镜、矿物学、物理学、光谱分析、生物学、组织学、亚里士多德逻辑、生理学和动物学。崭露头角的天才由此获得了坚实的科学背景,此外还有勤奋工作和自律的习惯。在这个学术上成功的时期,弗洛伊德开始认识到他智力天赋的局限性和能力。他还学会了梅菲斯特的箴言:“你在科学与科学之间转来转去是徒劳的;每个人只学到他能学到的东西”。1876 年,弗洛伊德收到了他的第一笔研究鳗鱼性腺结构的资助,他在恩斯特·布里克的生理学实验室找到了一个临时住所。布莱克是弗洛伊德的榜样,也是他的智力导师。他是科学人士的典范 —— 不妥协、禁欲主义、有纪律。布莱克是一位带有普鲁士口音的严谨的德国新教教授,他代表了弗洛伊德已经熟悉的维也纳 schlamperai(或 “马虎的思想家”)的反面。布赖克的生理学研究所是被称为亥姆霍兹医学流派的影响深远的科学运动的一部分,其学说给弗洛伊德留下了深刻的印象。它的创始人都成为了著名的科学家,他们在年轻时曾发誓要坚持这些原则。除了普通的物理·化学力量外,没有其他力量在有机体内活动。在那些当时无法用这些力量解释的情况下,人们要么通过物理数学方法找到它们的具体作用方式或形式,要么假设新的力量与物质中固有的化学·物理力量具有同等的尊严,可以还原为吸引和排斥的力量。亥姆霍兹 19 世纪中期的机械宇宙观,将所有自然现象归结为吸引力和排斥力,被布里奇克纳入了他的《生理学讲座》(1874)。学生弗洛伊德被他的老师对物理生理学的描述所吸引。布赖克将生理学定义为生物体的科学。他把生物体和机器区分开来;后者只是行动中的死物质实体,而前者拥有同化的能力。欧内斯特·琼斯,《西格蒙德·弗洛伊德的生活和工作》,由莱昂内尔·特里林和史蒂文·马库斯编辑和节选(纽约:Doubleday Anchor Books,1963),第 29 页。经 Basic Books, Inc., Publishers 许可转载。纽约,1961 年。
However, both were considered to be phenomena of the physical world. According to the principle of the conservation of energy, organisms and machines were similarly composed of systems of atoms and driven by forces. In science the real causes were symbolized by the word "forces." The less scientists knew about these causes, claimed Briicke, the more kinds of forces they had to distinguish: mechanical, electrical, magnetic, light, heat, and so forth. Progress in knowledge had reduced these forces to two—attraction and repulsion. Briicke extended this line of reasoning to the human organism. He incorporated this nineteenth-century image of humankind into two volumes of what was then known about the interplay of physical forces inside the living organism. That Freud was influenced strongly by the content and spirit of these ideas is revealed in his 1926 characterization of the dynamic aspect of psychoanalysis as forces that assist or inhibit one another and combine with and enter into compromises with one another. His image of the human being, as we shall see, was tinged heavily with the mechanistic view, which he absorbed as a student at Briicke's institute. With the aid of a photographic memory Freud passed his final medical examination in 1881 with flying colors. During that year he found Theodor Meynerfs lectures on psychiatry of particular interest because of their non- laboratory approach to medical science. Although he wanted to pursue a theoretical career, his financial situation upon receipt of his M.D. was so shaky that he accepted Briicke's advice to abandon this ambition. He served as doctor in residence at the Vienna General Hospital, where he gained three years of experience in surgery, internal medicine, dermatology, and psychiatry. One year before his marriage to Martha Bernays in 1886, the twenty- nine-year-old Freud was seeking the professional recognition that would enable him to establish a private practice and to start a family. He hoped that his discovery of the clinical use of cocaine as a local anesthetic would earn him early fame. Using himself as a guinea pig Freud observed that cocaine produced exhilaration and lasting euphoria; it increased his capacities for self- control and intensive mental work. Although it aided him in controlling the contents and flow of his consciousness, preoccupation with the magical rather than the medicinal properties of the drug cost him credit for the find. A younger colleague, Carl Koller, won the distinction of inaugurating the use of cocaine on the sensitive eye surface. Freud had yet to prove his worth. The Interpretation of Dreams Prior to Freud the field of psychiatry was relatively virgin territory. The great French scientists Jean Charcot and his student Pierre Janet had established a lone outpost with their work on hypnosis and hysteria.2 The relationship between Charcot, with whom Freud studied during the years 1885-1886, and Janet was akin to that between Saint-Simon and Comte. 2Hysteria may be briefly defined as the experiencing of mental anxiety and/or bodily pain without an apparent physical cause.
然而,两者都被认为是物理世界的现象。根据能量守恒的原则,生物体和机器同样是由原子系统组成,并由力量驱动。在科学中,真正的原因是由 “力” 这个词来象征的。布赖克称,科学家对这些原因了解得越少,他们必须区分的力的种类就越多:机械、电、磁、光、热,等等。知识的进步将这些力简化为两种 —— 吸引力和排斥力。布里克将这一推理思路延伸到了人类有机体上。他将这种十九世纪的人类形象纳入了两卷关于当时已知的生物体内物理力量相互作用的内容。弗洛伊德受到这些思想的内容和精神的强烈影响,这在他 1926 年对精神分析的动态方面的描述中显示出来,即各种力量相互协助或相互抑制,相互结合和相互妥协。正如我们将看到的,他的人类形象带有浓厚的机械论色彩,他在布里克的研究所当学生时就吸收了这种观点。在照相式记忆的帮助下,弗洛伊德在 1881 年以优异的成绩通过了他的最终医学考试。在那一年,他发现西奥多·梅纳夫(Theodor Meynerfs)关于精神病学的讲座特别令人感兴趣,因为他们对医学科学采取了非实验室方法。虽然他想从事理论研究,但在获得医学博士学位后,他的经济状况非常不稳定,以至于他接受了布莱克的建议,放弃了这一抱负。他在维也纳总医院担任驻院医生,在那里他获得了三年的外科、内科、皮肤科和精神病学的经验。在 1886 年与玛莎·伯纳斯结婚的前一年,29 岁的弗洛伊德正在寻求专业上的认可,这将使他能够建立一个私人诊所并建立一个家庭。他希望他发现的可卡因作为局部麻醉剂的临床用途能够为他赢得早期的名声。弗洛伊德以自己为小白鼠,观察到可卡因产生了兴奋和持久的欣快感;它提高了他的自我控制能力和密集的脑力劳动。尽管它帮助他控制了他的意识内容和流动,但对药物的神奇而非药用特性的专注使他失去了这一发现的功劳。一位年轻的同事卡尔·科勒(Carl Koller)赢得了在敏感的眼睛表面使用可卡因的殊荣。弗洛伊德还没有证明自己的价值。梦的解析 在弗洛伊德之前,精神病学领域是相对的处女地。伟大的法国科学家让·沙尔科(Jean Charcot)和他的学生皮埃尔·雅内(Pierre Janet)通过他们在催眠和歇斯底里方面的工作建立了一个孤独的前哨。2 歇斯底里可以简单地定义为没有明显生理原因的精神焦虑和/或身体疼痛的体验。
Saint-Simon and Charcot were the inspirational thinkers, while Comte and Janet, their disciples, were the systematizers. It was Janet who delved deeply into the psychic process of hysteria and found, according to the theories of heredity that dominated fin de siecle French psychology, that the disease was a form of degeneration of the nervous system that manifested itself in congenital "weakness." Since Freud's pioneering psychiatric work, forms of mental illness (including hysteria) have come to be viewed largely as socially conditioned, although organic causes can combine with social ones. The background role of heredity in mental illness remains obscure, even after almost a century of research. Upon publication of The Interpretation of Dreams in 1900 Freud began to emerge from obscurity. He had been practicing neurology and psychiatry for a decade in Vienna. In 1897 he began an arduous self-analysis, which gave him greater insight into the resistance of his patients and laid the foundations for his system of psychoanalysis. His revolutionary scientific work examined for the first time in a comprehensive and systematic manner the previously unsuspected notion that the fulfillment of a wish was the essential motive of a dream. The conquistador of the irrational had struck ore in an unexplored land. His first great discovery on this hidden continent was the "dirty little secret" that people lust and hate. Although this came as no surprise to the lower classes, the established middle and upper classes, including their learned scientists and scholars, were shocked by such a picture of themselves. The mere mention of Freud's name was considered impolite and risque in the genteel drawing rooms of Viennese society. Respectable society followed the leaders of nineteenth-century European intellectual life in considering their civilization the summit of human progress. The social evolutionary trend of nineteenth-century sociological and anthropological thought, including the work of Comte, Frazer, Morgan, Tylor, and Spencer, had convinced modern Europeans of their cultural superiority to the so- called barbaric or primitive peoples. These modern Europeans, secure in their conversation parlor, stereotyped native tribespeople as packs of painted savage, drum-beating cannibals, and promiscuous sexual libertarians. Since the nineteenth century had a way of turning Victorian moral absolutes into hereditary categories, Europeans came to believe the myth that they were racially superior to black Africans. The latter were considered to be subhuman, abnormal, and sexually unrestrained. Freud disturbed Europe's sleep by showing in his case studies and dream analyses of respectable society matrons that the moral barrier between "normal" and "pathological" scarcely existed and that the sexual underground was much bigger than anyone was willing to admit. Repression Freud's greatest discovery on this new continent was the phenomenon of repression. The entire structure of psychoanalysis is based upon the foun-
圣西门和沙尔科是鼓舞人心的思想家,而他们的弟子孔德和雅内则是系统化的思想家。正是珍妮特深入研究了歇斯底里的心理过程,并根据主导世纪末法国心理学的遗传理论发现,这种疾病是神经系统退化的一种形式,表现为先天 “虚弱”。自从弗洛伊德的开创性精神病学工作以来,各种形式的精神疾病(包括歇斯底里)在很大程度上被看作是社会条件造成的,尽管有机原因可能与社会原因相结合。即使经过近一个世纪的研究,遗传在精神疾病中的背景作用仍然不明显。1900 年《梦的解析》出版后,弗洛伊德开始从默默无闻中走出来。他在维也纳从事了十年的神经学和精神病学工作。1897 年,他开始了艰苦的自我分析,这使他对病人的反抗有了更深入的了解,并为他的精神分析系统奠定了基础。他的革命性的科学工作第一次全面系统地研究了以前未曾怀疑过的概念,即愿望的实现是梦的基本动机。这位非理性的征服者在一片未开发的土地上挖到了矿。他在这片隐秘的大陆上的第一个重大发现是人们渴望和憎恨的 “肮脏的小秘密”。虽然这对下层阶级来说并不奇怪,但既定的中上层阶级,包括他们博学的科学家和学者,对他们自己的这种形象感到震惊。仅仅提到弗洛伊德的名字,在维也纳社会的优雅客厅里就被认为是不礼貌的和冒失的。受人尊敬的社会追随十九世纪欧洲知识界的领袖,认为他们的文明是人类进步的顶峰。十九世纪社会学和人类学思想的社会进化趋势,包括孔德、弗雷泽、摩根、泰罗和斯宾塞的工作,使现代欧洲人相信他们的文化比所谓的野蛮或原始民族优越。这些现代欧洲人在他们的会客室里很安全,把本地部落的人定型为一群画画的野人、敲鼓的食人者和滥交的性解放者。由于 19 世纪有办法将维多利亚时代的道德绝对化为遗传类别,欧洲人开始相信他们在种族上优于非洲黑人的神话。后者被认为是亚人,是不正常的,是在性方面不受约束的。弗洛伊德扰乱了欧洲人的睡眠,在他的案例研究和对体面的社会女主人的梦境分析中显示,“正常” 和 “病态” 之间的道德障碍几乎不存在,性的地下世界比任何人都愿意承认的大得多。压抑 弗洛伊德在这片新大陆上的最大发现是压抑现象。精神分析的整个结构是建立在 “压抑” 之上的。
dation of repression as it operates in the human being. According to Freud, random thoughts, dreams, slips of the tongue, neurotic symptoms, and daily mistakes all have meanings (that is, express intentions or purposes) that are unknown to the person. They are what he calls "unconscious ideas." The individual who is undergoing psychoanalysis resists becoming aware of unconscious ideas that may threaten his or her established sense of self. The individual's rejection of an idea or a desire that he or she nevertheless possesses is repression. It functions to keep things out of consciousness; its consequence is that the individual refuses to recognize the realities of his or her human nature. In his first major work Freud divides the mental apparatus into three components. He compares the unconscious system to an anteroom, which houses the various excitations, desires, ideas, drives, and instincts. These elements push forward to gain admission into a second and much smaller room that houses consciousness. A doorkeeper or "censor" stands between these two rooms in the parlor of the preconscious, so to speak. The doorkeeper scrutinizes ideas and excitations that seek admittance, and those that are turned back at the threshold are repressed. Freud found in numerous clinical cases that repression occurred where there was a conflict between opposing wishes and desires. In addition, he found f"iat experiences that were the occasions for such conflict almost invariably had sexual content. Freud relates the case of a girl who felt great relief upon her older sister's death. Since she could not recognize consciously the envy of her deceased sister, whose husband was now available to marry her, the girl became hysterical. She had repressed the thought, "Now he is free and can marry me." During the course of psychoanalysis she was able to remember the thought and to reproduce the intense excitement that she had experienced upon the occasion of her sister's death. In a burst of emotion, her conscious mind had suddenly recognized the unconsciously repressed material. By reliving that trauma from her past, she effected her own cure. Next came one of Freud's keenest insights: that people with the highest ideals tend to have the greatest repression of strong aggressive and sexual desires. This empirical generalization, based on his observations of patients, suggested that ideals were founded on repression and that they took their vitality from the suppressed feelings themselves. In short, uptight, honest, hard-working, righteous, authoritarian believers in the Protestant ethic derive their energetic tension from love and hate turned in upon themselves. Freud later cited Woodrow Wilson's intense moral idealism as an example of this character type. A third discovery, one that stemmed directly from the theory of repression, was that children have sex lives. The seemingly obvious notion that children are sexual creatures so roused the ire of his contemporaries that they ostracized him. However, Freud stuck to his empirical guns. In analyzing dreams and neurotic symptoms, he found that they contained a core that represented a return or regression to early childhood experiences.
弗洛伊德认为,压抑在人类中的运作,是对人类的压抑的证明。根据弗洛伊德的观点,随机的想法、梦境、口误、神经质症状和日常错误都具有人所不知的意义(即表达意图或目的)。它们就是他所说的 “无意识的想法”。正在接受精神分析的个人抵制意识到可能威胁到他或她的既定自我意识的无意识想法。个人拒绝他或她仍然拥有的想法或欲望就是压抑。它的功能是把事情挡在意识之外;其后果是个人拒绝承认他或她的人性的现实。在他的第一部主要作品中,弗洛伊德将精神装置分为三个部分。他把无意识系统比作一个前厅,它容纳了各种兴奋、欲望、想法、动力和本能。这些元素向前推进,以获得进入第二个小得多的房间的机会,这个房间容纳了意识。一个守门人或 “审查员” 站在这两个房间之间,可以说是在前意识的客厅里。守门人仔细检查那些寻求进入的想法和兴奋点,那些在门槛前被拒之门外的想法和兴奋点则被压抑。弗洛伊德在许多临床案例中发现,压抑发生在相反的愿望和欲望之间的冲突。此外,他发现作为这种冲突的场合的经历几乎无一例外地具有性内容。弗洛伊德讲述了一个女孩的案例,她在大姐去世后感到非常欣慰。由于她不能有意识地认识到对已故姐姐的嫉妒,她的丈夫现在可以和她结婚,这个女孩变得歇斯底里。她一直压抑着这样的想法:“现在他自由了,可以和我结婚了”。在精神分析的过程中,她能够回忆起这个想法,并重现她在姐姐去世时经历的强烈兴奋。在情感的爆发中,她的意识突然认识到无意识的压抑材料。通过重温她过去的创伤,她实现了自己的治愈。接下来是弗洛伊德最敏锐的见解之一:具有最高理想的人往往对强烈的攻击性和性欲有最大的压抑。根据他对病人的观察,这一经验性的概括表明,理想是建立在压抑之上的,它们的活力来自被压抑的感情本身。简而言之,拘谨、诚实、勤奋、正直、专制的新教伦理信仰者从爱与恨的反噬中获得了他们的活力张力。弗洛伊德后来引用了伍德罗·威尔逊强烈的道德理想主义作为这种性格类型的一个例子。第三个发现,一个直接源于压抑理论的发现,就是儿童有性生活。儿童是性动物这一看似明显的概念引起了他同时代人的愤怒,以至于他们排斥了他。然而,弗洛伊德坚持他的经验主义观点。在分析梦境和神经症症状时,他发现它们包含一个核心,代表着对早期童年经历的回归或倒退。
Assuming the validity of the hypothesis of the unconscious, it follows that children learn to repress their emotions. At one point they are innocent and unrepressed. The unconscious and conscious are not yet separated. Wishes to play with their orifices, genitals, and feces are freely indulged. It is only through the process of socialization, when the child begins to internalize the parents' values of cleanliness, propriety, and order, that the child learns to behave in a "proper" manner and to tailor himself or herself to society's norms. FREUD'S EXPLANATORY SYSTEMS Freud evolved several major explanatory systems during the course of his career: (1) the theory of primary and secondary process; (2) the theory of stages of sexual development; (3) the libido theory; (4) the trinitarian theory of the psychic apparatus; and (5) the theory of Eros versus the death instinct. Although none of these systems is self-contained and discrete from the others, we may isolate each for the purposes of analysis. The fabric of Freud's thought is sewn with many threads, and in order to unravel the whole, it helps to proceed from earlier to later systems. Primary and Secondary Process Freud's earliest system began with the act of repression itself, which he explained in terms of the "primary process," as expressed in wishes, symbols, and fantasies; and the "secondary process" of our socialized awareness, which censors and controls the former. Each concept may be used to refer to either ways of thinking or ways of managing energy. Freud contends that humankind transcends its animality by undergoing a basic change from primary process, ruled by the unconscious system and the vicissitudes of the id instincts, to secondary process, dominated by the conscious system and the demands of the ego. Although primary process persists into adulthood, the mature ego is able to control the childlike id by denying gratification, restraining pleasure, working to achieve rational goals, and remaining secure from irrational passions. Freud describes this dynamic shift within the human psyche as the transformation of the pleasure principle into the reality principle. Beyond seeking mere instinctual satisfaction, human beings develop the faculty of reason and learn to test reality; they discover that making distinctions, such as good from bad, true from false, and useful from useless, is the beginning of wisdom. Human beings thereby metamorphose from pleasure-loving babies into conscious, thinking subjects located within a social system that demands that they function properly in their economic roles. Of course, they are free to have a fantasy life; however, they must ultimately subordinate their mentality to the reality principle (that is, they must obey society's norms and live according to its values). They may have strange dreams, weird thoughts, irrational wishes, powerful desires, or immoral fantasies, but they
假设无意识的假说是有效的,那么儿童就会学会压抑自己的情绪。在某一点上,他们是无辜的,没有压抑的。无意识和有意识还没有分开。玩弄他们的口器、生殖器和粪便的愿望被自由地放纵。只有在社会化的过程中,当孩子开始内化父母的清洁、礼节和秩序的价值观时,孩子才学会以 “适当” 的方式行事,使自己适应社会的规范。弗洛伊德的解释系统 弗洛伊德在其职业生涯中发展了几个主要的解释系统。(1)初级和次级过程的理论;(2)性发展阶段的理论;(3)性欲理论;(4)精神装置的三位一体理论;以及(5)爱神与死亡本能的理论。尽管这些系统中没有一个是自成一体的,与其他系统不相干的,但我们可以为了分析的目的将每个系统分离出来。弗洛伊德思想的结构是由许多线缝制而成的,为了解开这个整体,有助于从早期的系统到后来的系统进行。主要和次要过程 弗洛伊德最早的系统是从压抑行为本身开始的,他用 “主要过程” 来解释,表现为愿望、符号和幻想;以及我们社会化意识的 “次要过程”,它审查和控制前者。每个概念都可以用来指代思维方式或管理能量的方式。弗洛伊德认为,人类通过经历从初级过程(由无意识系统和本能的沧桑所支配)到次级过程(由意识系统和自我的要求所支配)的基本变化而超越了其灵性。尽管初级过程一直持续到成年,但成熟的自我能够通过拒绝满足、克制快乐、努力实现理性的目标,并保持对非理性激情的安全感来控制孩子般的本能。弗洛伊德将人类心理的这种动态转变描述为快乐原则向现实原则的转变。除了寻求单纯的本能满足之外,人类发展了理性的能力,学会了检验现实;他们发现,区分好与坏、真与假、有用与无用,是智慧的开始。因此,人类从喜欢享乐的婴儿蜕变为有意识的、有思想的主体,位于一个要求他们在其经济角色中正常运作的社会系统中。当然,他们可以自由地拥有幻想的生活;但是,他们最终必须使自己的心态服从于现实原则(也就是说,他们必须服从社会的规范,按照社会的价值观生活)。他们可能会有奇怪的梦,奇怪的想法,不理性的愿望,强大的欲望,或不道德的幻想,但他们
must not let the imagination run away with itself to the point of excluding external reality. For example, James Thurber's beloved character Walter Mitty imagines himself to be a famous brain surgeon in the act of performing a crucial operation on a millionaire banker who is a close personal friend of Roosevelt, only to have a parking lot attendant shout at him to stop his car before he slams into a Buick. The Stages of Sexual Development One of Freud's major hypotheses is that the first five years are crucial in the further psychological development of the person. It is during this phase of life that the link between the individual and society is forged. Talcott Parsons later interpreted this to mean that the child acquires a superego (or conscience) during this period by identifying with parental values. Since the parents are society's cultural agents, the child will learn the dominant values from them. If cultural values are success oriented, as they are in America, the child will be encouraged to gear its organism toward the achievement of such desirable goals as position, power, and prestige. The will toward acquisition of goods, from soap to status, is thereby built into the individual by society from an early age. From his observations of patients and their neuroses Freud developed a model of five overlapping stages of psychosexual development: oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital. During the earliest stage infants derive gratification from sucking the mother's breast. The erogenous zones of the mouth and lips are the first to come into play in deriving sexual pleasure. During this oral, or cannibalistic, phase the amoral baby makes no distinction between taking food and sexual activity. The suckling aims to incorporate the object (mother's breast) into its own body; it still lives according to the primary process of striving for instant gratification and has not yet developed the secondary process by which it distinguishes itself from the world and separates subject from object. The baby is the universe; it is at one with the environment. During the latter part of this stage the child begins biting; it becomes oral-sadistic. It begins to objectify and to differentiate itself from its surroundings. Although it does not yet know their names, it begins to locate such objects as the breast, the nipple, the blanket, the rattle. It encounters its first significant "other"—mother. It is cutting its first teeth and it explores the world by grasping things, shoving them into its mouth, and chewing on them. It is not sure whether to bite or suck. It is ambivalent. This primeval uncertainty, Freud argues, is the prototype for the polar emotions of love and hate. During the anal phase of the organization of the libido the child concentrates its energy on the anus as a source of gratification. The child becomes fascinated with its feces and enjoys playing with them. Excrement is viewed as an extension of itself without any connotations of good or bad; it is neutral waste. Through the mother the child learns, via the diaper change, that excrement is bad. This routine is a rather unpleasant task, however loving the mother. The helpless nursling, who is emotionally sensitive to even the
绝不能让想象力随心所欲,以至于排斥外部现实。例如,詹姆斯·瑟伯(James Thurber)心目中的角色沃尔特·米蒂(Walter Mitty)想象自己是一位著名的脑外科医生,正在为一位百万富翁银行家做关键手术,而这位银行家是罗斯福的私人密友,结果停车场的服务员在他撞上一辆别克车之前喊住了他的车。性发展阶段 弗洛伊德的主要假设之一是,头五年对人的进一步心理发展至关重要。正是在这一阶段,个人与社会之间的联系得以形成。塔尔科特·帕森斯(Talcott Parsons)后来将此解释为,孩子在这一时期通过认同父母的价值观获得了超我(或良心)。由于父母是社会的文化代理人,孩子将从他们那里学到主导的价值观。如果文化价值观是以成功为导向的,就像在美国一样,孩子将被鼓励把自己的机体转向实现诸如地位、权力和声望等理想目标。因此,从肥皂到地位,社会从小就在个人身上建立了获取商品的意愿。根据他对病人及其神经官能症的观察,弗洛伊德建立了一个性心理发展的五个重叠阶段的模型:口腔、肛门、阳具、潜伏和生殖器。在最早的阶段,婴儿从吮吸母亲的乳房中获得满足。口腔和嘴唇的性感区在获得性快感方面首先发挥作用。在这个口交或吃人的阶段,无道德的婴儿对获取食物和性活动不加区分。吸食的目的是把客体(母亲的乳房)纳入自己的身体;它仍然按照争取即时满足的初级过程生活,尚未发展出二级过程,通过二级过程把自己与世界区分开来,把主体与客体分开。婴儿就是宇宙;它与环境融为一体。在这一阶段的后半段,孩子开始咬人;它变得有口难言。他开始将自己与周围环境区分开来。尽管它还不知道它们的名字,但它开始找到诸如乳房、乳头、毯子和拨浪鼓等物体。它遇到了它的第一个重要的 “他人” —— 母亲。它正在长出第一颗牙齿,它通过抓取东西、把它们塞进嘴里和咀嚼来探索世界。它不确定是要咬还是要吸。它是矛盾的。弗洛伊德认为,这种原始的不确定性是爱与恨的两极情绪的原型。在性欲组织的肛门阶段,儿童将其能量集中在肛门上,作为满足的来源。孩子对自己的粪便着迷,喜欢和它们玩耍。排泄物被看作是自身的延伸,没有任何好坏的含义;它是中性的废物。通过母亲,孩子通过换尿布了解到,排泄物是不好的。这种例行公事是一项相当不愉快的任务,不管母亲多么慈爱。无助的婴儿,在情感上甚至对 “粪便” 也很敏感。
subtlest nuance of facial expression and tactile sensation, sees and feels the parent's distaste at this daily ritual. The role of this early memory trace or psychic imprinting upon the baby can hardly be overestimated in the course of individual development. Excrement becomes negative, associated in the child's mind with the smelly, dirty "bad-me." The clean "good-me" of the child is rewarded with parental smiles and verbal acclaim for not soiling its clothes. Toilet training is the beginning of civilization in the individual. The seeds of society and repression are sown by teaching the child self- (that is, bowel) control. During the phallic stage of psychosexual development the individual discovers the genital erogenous zone as a source of pleasure. The penis for the male and the clitoris for the female become the primary organs of sexual excitement. Freud understood the initial sexual instincts of childhood to be largely objectless, or "autoerotic." The key stage of development is the phallic, at which the Oedipus complex emerges, for this is the point at which sexual drives become firmly attached to an external object. Harking back to the Greek myth of Oedipus Rex to find an archetype for his clinical diagnoses, Freud theorized that the young male desires his mother and hates and fears his father. (For the female child, he expected the process to be the reverse.) The male child resolves this conflict by repressing the wish to kill his father; he identifies with him instead and makes him his personal ego- ideal. Thereafter, the internalized father (or superego) punishes the child by making him feel guilty whenever he wishes for something forbidden. The external punisher has taken up residence inside the child's own mind. According to Freud, sexual interests are submerged during the latency period between the ages of five and twelve, to reappear again at puberty in the genital or adult stage of sexual organization. During these years between the phallic stage and puberty, the child learns from its initial social environment, its family and school, how to channel its sexual feelings into socially acceptable behavior. Although Freud postulated the Oedipus complex as sociologically universal, ethnographic work by Malinowski and other cultural observers has disconfirmed this hypothesis. The concept does, however, provide the student of humankind with a heuristic device for understanding the individual's advance from bondage to freedom. As long as the individual remains attached in an emotionally dependent way to the parents, personal independence has yet to become a reality. Freud based his encompassing theory of neurosis upon fixation at the oedipal or one of the preoedipal stages, due to some conflict over gratification. In addition, some personal trauma in adult life may bring about temporary neurotic regression to an earlier mode of gratification. The Theory of Libido Freud's image of humankind reflected the mechanistic bias of his contemporaries. For Freud, as for other middle-class thinkers of his time, humans
从面部表情和触觉的最微妙的细微差别中,可以看到并感受到父母对这种日常仪式的厌恶。在个人发展过程中,这种早期记忆痕迹或精神印记对婴儿的作用很难被高估。排泄物变成了负面的,在孩子的脑海中与发臭、肮脏的 “坏我” 联系在一起。干净的 “好我” 的孩子会因为没有弄脏衣服而得到父母的微笑和口头上的称赞。厕所训练是个人文明的开始。社会和压抑的种子是通过教孩子自我(也就是肠道)控制而播下的。在性心理发展的阳具阶段,个人发现生殖器发情区是快乐的来源。男性的阴茎和女性的阴蒂成为性兴奋的主要器官。弗洛伊德认为,童年时期的最初性本能在很大程度上是无对象的,或者说是 “自体性” 的。发展的关键阶段是阴茎,在这一阶段出现了俄狄浦斯情结,因为这是性驱动力牢牢依附于一个外部物体的时刻。弗洛伊德回到希腊神话中的俄狄浦斯雷克斯,为他的临床诊断找到一个原型,他的理论是年轻男性渴望他的母亲,憎恨和害怕他的父亲。(对于女性儿童,他期望这个过程是相反的。)男性儿童通过压抑杀死父亲的愿望来解决这一冲突;他反而认同父亲,并将他作为个人的自我理想。此后,内化的父亲(或超我)对孩子进行惩罚,每当他希望得到被禁止的东西时,就会让他感到内疚。外部的惩罚者已经在孩子自己的头脑中占据了位置。根据弗洛伊德的说法,性兴趣在 5 至 12 岁的潜伏期被淹没,到了青春期在性组织的生殖器或成人阶段再次出现。在阳具阶段和青春期之间的这些年里,儿童从其最初的社会环境、家庭和学校中学习如何将其性感受转化为社会可接受的行为。尽管弗洛伊德认为俄狄浦斯情结是社会学上的普遍现象,但马林诺夫斯基和其他文化观察家的民族学工作已经证实了这个假设。然而,这个概念确实为人类的学生提供了一个启发式的工具,以理解个人从束缚到自由的过程。只要个人在情感上仍然依附于父母,个人的独立就还没有成为现实。弗洛伊德将他的神经症包罗万象的理论建立在恋母或恋母前阶段之一的固着上,由于对满足的一些冲突。此外,成人生活中的一些个人创伤可能会带来暂时性的神经症倒退到早期的满足模式。性欲理论 弗洛伊德的人类形象反映了他同时代人的机械主义偏见。对弗洛伊德来说,和他那个时代的其他中产阶级思想家一样,人类
were perceived as primarily isolated and self-sufficient. They were alone in a universe not of their making and found themselves, somewhat akin to Hobbes' imaginary atomic individual, surrounded by others in the same predicament. Uprooted from the medieval context of soil, hearth, and community, nineteenth-century urban individuals' needs for commodities drove them to the marketplace, where they encountered other individuals who needed what they had to sell and who had to sell what they needed. Society's cement consisted in this mutually profitable exchange. The wheeling and dealing for the material advantages took place on the vast stock-exchange floor of life under the guidance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the self-adjusting market. Freud's libido theory, as we shall see, expressed the same idea in psychological rather than economic terms. The French aristocrat and homme de belles-lettres La Mettrie argued cogently in 1748 that humankind is a complicated machine. Although Freud probably never read La Mettrie, he did pick up this theme. Freud's mechanical human was driven by libido (basic sexual energy) and regulated by the need to reduce tension to a certain minimal threshold. Pleasure consisted in an unwinding or reducing of tissue tensions and in the avoidance of pain. The barometer of well-being was a kind of tepid mean between ecstasy and depression. Males and their mechanical brides sought each other out in order to arrive at mutual satisfaction of their libidinous needs. Nevertheless, they remained as fundamentally alienated from one another as seller and customer on the market. Despite their mutual attraction, they remained at opposite magnetic poles and could never transcend their sepa- rateness. According to Freud, humankind's nature is fundamentally aggressive and asocial, and humans are social animals only by virtue of the necessity to satisfy the ravenous libido. The concept of libido is essentially a nineteenth-century economic idea in psychological dress, in the sense that it is conceived of as a fixed quantity subject to the laws of matter. One may spend it as one pleases, but once it is spent it cannot be recovered. In the same way, Freud treats love as property or capital. Love was considered as a valuable commodity to be invested wisely and not merely to be frittered away on every passing stranger. Hence, Freud despaired of the possibility of altruistic love, except among the psychoanalytic elite; he ridiculed the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" as an absurdity. Ego, Id, and Superego Freud's mature system emerged as a three-element conception of the psychic topography. The ego (cognition of the external world), the id (the emotional or instinctual being), and the superego (identifications and social ideals) were portrayed as dynamically interrelated regions or "psychic localities" within the mind of humankind. These concepts are ideal types in the Weberian sense. They function as diagnostic categories, which are neither separately observable entities nor physical portions of the brain;
他们被视为主要是孤立的和自给自足的。他们在一个并非由他们创造的宇宙中孤立无援,并且发现自己,有点类似于霍布斯想象中的原子个体,被处于同样困境的其他人所包围。从中世纪的土壤、炉灶和社区的环境中拔地而起,19 世纪城市个人对商品的需求驱使他们来到市场,在那里他们遇到了其他需要他们出售的东西的人,而这些人也必须出售他们需要的东西。社会的凝聚力就在于这种互利的交换。在亚当·斯密的 “看不见的手” 自我调整市场的指导下,为物质利益而进行的交易发生在生活中巨大的股票交易大厅。弗洛伊德的性欲理论,正如我们将看到的,用心理学而非经济学的术语表达了同样的想法。法国贵族和文学家拉梅特里在 1748 年有力地论证了人类是一台复杂的机器。尽管弗洛伊德可能从未读过拉梅特里,但他确实接受了这个主题。弗洛伊德的机械人类是由性欲(基本的性能量)驱动的,并由将张力降低到某个最小阈值的需要来调节。快感包括松开或减少组织的张力和避免疼痛。幸福的晴雨表是一种介于狂喜和忧郁之间的不温不火的平均值。男性和他们的机械新娘互相寻找,以达到他们的性欲需求的相互满足。然而,他们仍然像市场上的卖家和顾客一样从根本上彼此疏远。尽管他们相互吸引,但他们仍然处于相反的磁极,永远无法超越他们的分离。弗洛伊德认为,人类的本性从根本上说是好斗的、非社会的,人类之所以成为社会动物,只是因为有必要满足贪婪的性欲。性欲的概念本质上是一个披着心理学外衣的十九世纪经济思想,在这个意义上,它被设想为一个受物质规律支配的固定数量。人们可以随心所欲地花掉它,但一旦花掉,就无法恢复了。以同样的方式,弗洛伊德把爱当作财产或资本。爱被认为是一种有价值的商品,需要明智地投资,而不仅仅是在每个路过的陌生人身上挥霍掉。因此,弗洛伊德对利他主义的爱的可能性感到绝望,除了在精神分析的精英中;他嘲笑 “爱邻如己” 的戒律是一种荒谬。自我、本我和超我 弗洛伊德的成熟系统是作为心理地形图的三要素概念出现的。自我(对外部世界的认知)、本我(情感或本能的存在)和超我(认同和社会理想)被描绘成人类头脑中动态地相互关联的区域或 “心理区域”。这些概念是韦伯意义上的理想类型。它们作为诊断类别发挥作用,既不是单独可观察的实体,也不是大脑的物理部分。
rather they are interactive mental principles that are always found in mixed form. For example, the primitive id drives become fixed on (or "cathected to") certain objects, such as mother, father, or self. These object cathexes are incorporated by the unconscious system of the mental apparatus and act as the building blocks of the emerging character structure of the individual. The ego is a structure or organization of the mental process by which the human being stays in contact with social reality. It represents the viewpoint of Reason, which constrains the limitless passions and impulsive desires of the irrational id. The ego simultaneously draws energy from and acts as the agent of the id. The outpouring of "how to" books for single men and women—how to find a mate or how to seduce a member of the opposite sex most effectively and deliriously—illustrates this point. The superego emerges as a function of the ego. It arbitrates the relationship between the ego and the external world and even punishes the ego. The superego is the interior judge, which represents the moral demands of society and reinforces the authority principle as it operates in the affairs of human beings. One of the major fruits of this tripartite system was Freud's essay "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," in which he set forth an explanation of the foundation of social unity and its dissolution. Taking Gustave Le Bon's treatise on The Crowd as a springboard for analysis, Freud sought to fathom the willingness with which the ordinarily civilized individual subordinates his or her ego to the mindlessness and destructive tendencies of the group (that is, individuals en masse). Since Freud's basic premise was that social cohesion is based on sexual organization, it followed that the libidinal bond, rather than a community of interest, was the power that cemented the group. Beyond sex, what held society together was the dynamic psychic mechanism of identification, whereby a number of separate individuals join together by substituting a common object for their ego ideal. Freud interpreted the ruler as a father image, an answer to people's wish to be led. Thus, the persecuting primal father becomes the "cultural superego," or what Comte called the "Great Being of Humanity," who is incarnated as the totalitarian dictator and invested by the people with supreme temporal power. Charismatic leaders, as Weber reminds us, derive their domination from neither legal nor traditional sources; rather, their authority and power to command are founded in the collectivity's perception of their possession of extraordinary, unique, and magical qualities. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler are examples of such politically charismatic personality types. Louis XIV, the divine-right monarch of seventeenth-century France, epitomized the secular sanctity of this administrative function in the famous historical aside, "L'etat, c'est mot" (I am the state). The absolutist political leader thereby places himself or herself in the stead of the subjects' parents, and the subjects tend to obey readily and even to worship that leader.
相反,它们是互动的心理原则,总是以混合形式出现。例如,原始的本体驱动力会固定在(或 “cathected to”)某些对象上,如母亲、父亲或自我。这些客体被精神装置的无意识系统纳入,并作为个人新兴性格结构的组成部分。自我是心理过程的一个结构或组织,人类通过它与社会现实保持联系。它代表着理性的观点,它制约着非理性的本体的无限激情和冲动的欲望。自我同时从本体中汲取能量,并作为本体的代理人。单身男女 “怎么做” 的书籍层出不穷 —— 如何找到伴侣或如何最有效、最疯狂地勾引一个异性 —— 说明了这一点。超我是作为自我的一个功能而出现的。它对自我和外部世界之间的关系进行仲裁,甚至对自我进行惩罚。超我是内部的法官,它代表了社会的道德要求,并加强了权威原则,因为它在人类的事务中运作。这个三方系统的主要成果之一是弗洛伊德的文章《群体心理学和自我的分析》,他在其中提出了对社会团结的基础及其解体的解释。以古斯塔夫·勒庞(Gustave Le Bon)关于 “人群” 的论文作为分析的跳板,弗洛伊德试图探究通常文明的个人愿意让他或她的自我服从于群体(即个人集体)的无意识和破坏性倾向的原因。由于弗洛伊德的基本前提是社会凝聚力建立在性组织的基础上,因此,性爱的纽带,而不是利益共同体,是巩固群体的力量。在性之外,维系社会的是认同的动态心理机制,即一些独立的个体通过用一个共同的对象代替他们的自我理想而联合起来。弗洛伊德把统治者解释为父亲的形象,是对人们希望被领导的愿望的回应。因此,迫害人的原始父亲变成了 “文化超我”,或者孔德所说的 “人类的伟大存在”,他化身为极权主义的独裁者,被人民赋予最高的时间权力。正如韦伯提醒我们的那样,魅力型领导人的统治力既不是来自法律也不是来自传统;相反,他们的权威和指挥权是建立在集体对他们拥有非凡、独特和神奇品质的看法上。亚历山大大帝、凯撒、查理曼大帝、成吉思汗、伊凡雷帝、拿破仑、列宁和希特勒就是这种具有政治魅力的人格类型的例子。路易十四,十七世纪法国的神权君主,在著名的历史旁白 “L‘etat, c’est mot”(我就是国家)中体现了这种行政职能的世俗神圣性。专制主义的政治领袖因此将自己置于臣民父母的位置上,而臣民往往会欣然服从,甚至崇拜这位领袖。
Eros Versus the Death Instinct Freud's culminating explanatory system seeks speculatively to understand the individual and history in life-and-death terms. In the history of culture Eros may be distinguished from Agape; the former recalls the Greek ideal of passionate love between human beings by means of which each overcomes the sense of separateness, and the latter refers to the concept of altruistic love, according to which we are all one. Freud treats the two of these together in contrast to Thanatos, which represents the personification or mask of death in Greek mythology; it is the harbinger of suicide, war, pestilence, and famine. Like elliptic cycles, each of these heavenly powers, as Freud called them, recurs periodically in the rise and fall of civilizations and individuals. Transsexuality is a recent gender category in the sociology of sex; and despite Freud's scientific metholology and tolerant attitude toward homo sexualis, he had no transsexual clients in Victorian-era Vienna. Hence, his theory was consequently void of their mention. In the life of individuals Eros stands for the sexual instincts. More specifically, it points toward those modes of human sexuality that have been categorized as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual. Whereas the dominant social value of heterosexuality may be understood as the attainment of genitality, and homosexuality as oedipal identification with the wrong sex, bisexuality gained little or no stature in Freud's psy- chomorphology, except for the indication that polymorphous perversity might be a characteristic of early childhood. However, one of the most revolutionary implications of Freud's psychology of sex is the postulate of the universal bisexuality of human beings. In seeking to explain neuroses and perversions, Freud borrowed his colleague Wilhelm Fleiss's concept of constitutional bisexuality. Fleiss contended that this condition is biologically based in male and female characteristics, which are present in both men and women. Although Freud rejected the organismic in favor of the psychological viewpoint, he accepted the validity of the theory of bisexuality as explaining many traits of human behavior. Freud's brilliant and wayward disciple Carl Jung picked up this theme of male-in-female and female-in- male, translating it in terms of archetypes of human consciousness rather than biological fixtures or psychological entities. Whatever the individual's mode of conduct, the theory of bisexuality sheds light on Agape as well as Eros, for it shows the human being as capable of expressing tender as well as aggressive emotions. Looming in the Freudian unconscious are death and sexual instincts. Drawing upon August Weismann's heuristic division of the living substance into mortal (or "somatic") and immortal (or "germ plasmic") parts in multicellular organisms, Freud deals with two forces operating in the substance. While the sexual instincts perpetually strive to renew life, the death instincts seek to lead the living toward death. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud postulates the "nirvana principle," according to which "the
爱神与死亡本能 弗洛伊德的最终解释系统试图以推测的方式从生与死的角度理解个人和历史。在文化史上,“爱神” 可以与 “爱欲” 区分开来;前者让人想起希腊人之间的激情之爱,通过这种爱,每个人都克服了分离感,而后者指的是利他主义之爱的概念,根据这种概念,我们都是一体。弗洛伊德将这两者与塔纳托斯相对比,塔纳托斯代表希腊神话中死亡的化身或面具;它是自杀、战争、瘟疫和饥荒的预兆。就像椭圆周期一样,弗洛伊德所说的这些天上的力量,在文明和个人的兴衰中定期出现。变性是性社会学中一个最新的性别类别;尽管弗洛伊德的科学方法论和对同性性行为的宽容态度,他在维多利亚时代的维也纳没有变性的客户。因此,他的理论也因此没有提到他们。在个人的生活中,爱神代表着性本能。更具体地说,它指向那些被归类为异性恋、同性恋、双性恋和变性的人类性行为模式。异性恋的主导社会价值可以被理解为获得生殖能力,而同性恋则是对错误性别的恋母认同,双性恋在弗洛伊德的心理形态学中几乎没有获得任何地位,除了表明多态性变态可能是儿童早期的一个特征。然而,弗洛伊德的性心理学最具有革命性的意义之一是人类普遍具有双性恋的假设。在寻求解释神经官能症和变态的过程中,弗洛伊德借用了他的同事威廉·弗莱斯(Wilhelm Fleiss)的宪法双性恋概念。弗莱斯认为,这种情况在生物学上是基于男性和女性的特征,这些特征在男性和女性身上都存在。尽管弗洛伊德摒弃了器官学的观点,而选择了心理学的观点,但他接受了双性恋理论的有效性,认为它可以解释人类行为的许多特征。弗洛伊德杰出而又任性的弟子卡尔·荣格拾起了这个男中女和女中男的主题,将其转化为人类意识的原型,而不是生物固定物或心理实体。无论个人的行为模式如何,双性恋的理论揭示了爱神以及爱欲,因为它表明人类能够表达温柔和攻击性的情感。在弗洛伊德的无意识中,死亡和性本能隐约可见。弗洛伊德借鉴奥古斯特·魏斯曼(August Weismann)的启发式分法,在多细胞生物体中把生命物质分为必死的(或 “体质”)和不死的(或 “种质”)部分,涉及到在物质中运作的两种力量。当性本能不断努力更新生命时,死亡本能则试图将生命引向死亡。在《超越快乐原则》中,弗洛伊德提出了 “涅槃原则”。
dominating tendency of mental life, and perhaps of nervous life in general, is the effort to reduce, to keep constant, or to remove internal tension due to stimuli." This proclivity in the life of human beings finds partial expression in the pleasure principle, which strives to reduce the tension of desires by satisfying them. In addition, Freud uses the nirvana principle as a basis for believing in the existence of death instincts. He assumes that life is striving to return to an initial state of things from which it originally departed. Thus, "the aim of all life is death." On the supraindividual or historical level the death instinct manifests itself in periods of cultural degeneration, civil war, and international antagonisms. Indeed, the present age has been characterized by Raymond Aron as "the century of total war." Of course, history is replete with wars, plagues, famines, revolutions, crumbling civilizations, and the like. It was Hegel who once remarked that "what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." The radical difference between today and yesterday is that with the technological development of nuclear weapons and sophisticated methods of chemical-biological warfare, our species now has within its power the means to extinguish itself entirely. Freud was a pessimist with regard to human affairs. He recognized a death wish in the collectivity as well as in the individual. But he had not completely given up hope. In the concluding paragraphs of Civilization and Its Discontents Freud invokes the life force, Eros, as the other heavenly power to rise up and defeat its equally immortal adversary, Thanatos. LATER CAREER In his later years, Freud turned to the elder-philosopher role and began to comment on the issues of war and peace, the drift of modern secular history, and the place of humankind in the biological cosmos. To the end of his days in 1939 Freud wore the mantle of scientist-explorer. In a lengthy letter to Einstein in 1932 Freud expressed the hope that a combination of the "cultural attitude" against war and the fear of the consequences of a future war might result in its elimination as an outmoded institution. In Civilization and Its Discontents he posed the key question of the modern era: Is not civilization founded upon repression, and, if so, is not the universal neurosis of humankind its price? Unlike Marx, who sees the historical deck as stacked against the collectivity, Freud sees it as stacked against the individual. In lieu of homo economicus Freud presents us with an image of humankind as homo sexualis, whose irrational drives must be channeled into productive labor in order for civilization to carry on. Society sublimates sex into the striving for success. As a champion of the Enlightenment, Freud was highly suspicious of any notions that would contradict his famous dictum, "Where id is, there shall ego be." Although he was not blind to suffering and to the sources and means for overcoming it, he maintained his rational posture and dis-
精神生活的主导倾向,也许是一般的神经生活的主导倾向,是努力减少、保持不变或消除由于刺激引起的内部紧张。人类生活中的这一倾向在快乐原则中得到了部分体现,它通过满足欲望而努力减少欲望的紧张。此外,弗洛伊德将涅槃原则作为相信死亡本能存在的依据。他假定,生命正在努力返回到它最初离开的事物的初始状态。因此,“所有生命的目的就是死亡”。在超个人或历史层面上,死亡本能表现在文化退化、内战和国际对立的时期。事实上,现今的时代被雷蒙德·阿隆描述为 “全面战争的世纪”。当然,历史上充斥着战争、瘟疫、饥荒、革命、文明的崩溃等等。黑格尔曾经说过,“我们从历史中学到的是,我们没有从历史中学到什么”。今天和昨天的根本区别在于,随着核武器的技术发展和复杂的化学·生物战方法,我们的物种现在有能力完全消灭自己。对于人类事务,弗洛伊德是一个悲观主义者。他承认集体和个人都有死亡的愿望。但他并没有完全放弃希望。在《文明及其不满》的结论段落中,弗洛伊德引用了生命力,即爱神,作为另一种天上的力量,以崛起并击败其同样不朽的对手,塔纳托斯。晚年生涯 在他的晚年,弗洛伊德转向了老年哲学家的角色,开始评论战争与和平、现代世俗历史的漂移以及人类在生物宇宙中的地位等问题。直到 1939 年,弗洛伊德结束了他的生命,戴上了科学家·探索者的衣冠。在 1932 年写给爱因斯坦的一封长信中,弗洛伊德表示,希望反对战争的 “文化态度” 和对未来战争后果的恐惧相结合,可能导致战争作为一种过时的制度被消除。在《文明及其不满》中,他提出了现代的关键问题。文明不是建立在压抑之上吗?如果是这样,人类的普遍神经症不就是它的代价吗?与马克思不同的是,弗洛伊德认为历史的牌是针对集体的,他认为它是针对个人的。作为经济人的替代,弗洛伊德向我们展示了人类作为性人的形象,其非理性的驱动力必须被引导到生产性劳动中去,以使文明得以延续。社会将性升华为对成功的追求。作为启蒙运动的倡导者,弗洛伊德非常怀疑任何与他的著名论断相矛盾的概念,“本体在哪里,自我就在哪里”。尽管他对苦难以及克服苦难的来源和手段并不盲目,但他仍然保持着理性的姿态,不
missed religion as a consolation for the person who possesses neither art nor science. In The Future of an Illusion he psychoanalyzes religion as a projected superego of the helpless individual who identifies with an omnipotent and omniscient God, the father-king. Like the skeptical Voltaire, Freud wanted to live without illusions and preferred to cultivate Reason's garden. THE FREUDIAN MOVEMENT: ADLER AND JUNG Within the span of a half-century, the psychoanalytic movement gathered disciples, both wayward and orthodox, and established professional associations in countries around the globe. Psychoanalytic thinking has penetrated the social sciences as well as the humanities. Whole societies have been explained by a cultural "unconscious," and studies on the sexual customs and habits of populations have been published. No longer is a classic appreciated on the sole basis of art for art's sake; nowadays, we inquire a la Freud into the artist's early childhood secrets or sexual hangups to see what really makes him or her tick. By 1909 Freud had achieved international recognition. In that year he journeyed to America to deliver a series of lectures at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. He gave five talks in German to large audiences on the fundamental techniques of psychoanalysis and was generally well received by such American psychological luminaries as Adolf Meyer, Edward Titchener, and William James. The lectures were published as The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement. In this polemic he explained his revolutionary ideas, sketched the movement's history, and castigated Alfred Adler and Carl Jung as heretics. Adler was more concerned with the phenomenon of power in society, and he based his psychotherapy upon the patient's neurotic sense of power- lessness or inferiority. The thrust of his teaching was the attempt to understand and to cure this condition by the psychotherapeutic reawakening of social interest. Adler comprehended sexual conflicts more as products of the individual's maladjustments in his later social milieu than as reflections of early childhood difficulties. Adler, Karl Menninger, Harry Stack Sullivan, and Carl Rogers emphasized social more than sexual factors in the etiology of mental illness. Notwithstanding Freud's early indignation at this line of approach, their work has made the greatest impact upon the practice of psychotherapy in America. Carl G. Jung (1875-1961), Freud's most influential disciple, was born in a suburb of Basel, Switzerland, the son of a Protestant minister. Religious experiences in early childhood helped Jung to transcend the psychic ropes of the conventional piety of the Church, which he observed to be more concerned with rituals, rites, and roles than with considering Jesus Christ and the spirit of God as a living reality. He was a lonely youth, read everything he could, and chose the study of medicine as a compromise between the sci-
他认为宗教是对既无艺术又无科学的人的一种安慰。在《幻觉的未来》中,他将宗教分析为无助的个人的投射超我,他认同一个无所不能、无所不知的上帝,即父王。像持怀疑态度的伏尔泰一样,弗洛伊德希望在没有幻想的情况下生活,宁愿在理性的花园里耕耘。弗洛伊德的运动。在半个世纪的时间里,精神分析运动聚集了门徒,包括落伍的和正统的,并在全球各国建立了专业协会。精神分析的思想已经渗透到社会科学和人文科学中。整个社会已经被文化 “无意识” 所解释,关于人口的性习俗和习惯的研究已经出版。欣赏经典作品不再仅仅是为了艺术而艺术;如今,我们会像弗洛伊德那样调查艺术家的早期童年秘密或性困惑,以了解他或她的真正原因。到 1909 年,弗洛伊德已经获得了国际认可。这一年,他前往美国,在马萨诸塞州伍斯特市的克拉克大学发表了一系列演讲。他用德语向广大听众做了五次关于精神分析基本技术的讲座,并受到阿道夫·梅耶、爱德华·蒂切纳和威廉·詹姆斯等美国心理学界名人的普遍好评。这些讲座以《精神分析运动的历史》的形式出版。在这场论战中,他解释了他的革命思想,勾勒了运动的历史,并把阿尔弗雷德·阿德勒和卡尔·荣格斥为异端。阿德勒更关注社会中的权力现象,他的心理治疗以病人的神经性无权或自卑感为基础。他教学的主旨是试图通过心理治疗唤醒社会兴趣来理解和治疗这种状况。阿德勒将性冲突更多地理解为个人在后来的社会环境中不适应的产物,而不是早期儿童困难的反映。阿德勒、卡尔·门宁格、哈里·斯塔克·沙利文和卡尔·罗杰斯在精神疾病的病因学方面强调社会因素多于性因素。尽管弗洛伊德早期对这种方法感到愤慨,他们的工作对美国的心理治疗实践产生了最大的影响。卡尔·荣格(1875-1961)是弗洛伊德最具影响力的弟子,出生于瑞士巴塞尔的一个郊区,是一位新教牧师的儿子。早年的宗教经历帮助荣格超越了教会传统虔诚的心理绳索,据他观察,教会更关注仪式、典礼和角色,而不是把耶稣基督和上帝的精神视为一种活生生的现实。他是一个孤独的青年,阅读了所有他能读到的东西,并选择了医学研究作为科学和医学之间的折衷办法。
ences and humanities. He was attracted to psychiatry as the study of "diseases of the personality," became interested in psychic phenomena, and wrote his thesis "On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena." Jung did his internship at the Burgholzli Medical Hospital in Zurich, which became his permanent home. He studied with Pierre Janet, the famous French psychiatrist, in 1902, set up an experimental laboratory at the Psychiatric Clinic, and invented the word-association test for psychiatric purposes. He became a lecturer and senior physician there in 1905 and sent copies of his articles and his first book, The Psychology of Dementia Praecox, to Freud. His intellectual mentor invited him to Vienna and the pair of great psychologists talked non-stop for thirteen hours in their first dialogue. Weekly correspondence followed, and Freud came to regard Jung as his Jung's Structure of the Psyche
医学和人文科学。他被作为研究 “人格疾病” 的精神病学所吸引,对精神现象产生了兴趣,并撰写了他的论文《论所谓神秘现象的心理学和病理学》。荣格在苏黎世的 Burgholzli 医学医院实习,那里成为他永久的家。1902 年,他跟随法国著名精神病学家皮埃尔·雅内(Pierre Janet)学习,在精神病诊所建立了一个实验实验室,并发明了用于精神病学的词汇联想测试。1905 年,他成为那里的讲师和高级医生,并将他的文章和他的第一本书《痴呆症心理学》的副本寄给了弗洛伊德。他的智力导师邀请他去维也纳,这对伟大的心理学家在他们的第一次对话中不停地交谈了 13 个小时。之后每周都有通信,弗洛伊德将荣格视为他的《荣格的心灵结构》。
Signtund Freud: Conquistador of the Irrational 155 successor because of the disciple's deep insight as well as his scientific connections in the Christian society of early-twentieth-century Europe. Although they maintained a close friendship, the founding fathers of psychology had basic disagreements. Freud insisted that the causes of repression are always sexual trauma and Jung disagreed. He saw humans as more than biological and sexual beings and took an interest in the way occult, mythological, and spiritual phenomena were interwoven throughout daily life and the case histories of his patients. Jung published Symbols of Transformation in 1912, which analyzed the Freudian concept of libido as generalized psychic energy and contained other ideas that varied from Freud. Jung's increasing self-reliance caused a break between himself and Freud, but Jung stood by his own convictions despite the pain of the split from his guru. Unlike Freud, who traveled little, Jung was more cosmopolitan; he visited Africa, India, and the Pueblo Indians, and studied non-European cultures while developing his own theories of the unconscious and religious symbolism. When their collaboration ended in 1913, Sandor Ferenczi, an associate of Freud's, quipped, "The Jung no longer believe in Freud." Jung is in accord with Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Sumner, Cooley, and Mead in the assumption that society precedes the individual in the inter- connectedness of mind as well as the ways in which the individual expresses in his or her personality the characteristics of the culture as a whole and the qualities of the historical phase in which we live. The following interrelated concepts are relevant for the comprehension of Jung in sociological and historical terms: the psyche; psychic energy; archetypes and history; the persona; anima and animus; the attitudes and functions; and the collective unconscious. The circle motif pervaded Jungian psychology and the self is portrayed as the central archetype of the total personality. Jung conceived of an archetype as a form or image of a collective nature which occurs cross-culturally. In the individual product it is unconscious. The concept of the unconscious in the Jungian topography of the psyche occupies a much vaster space than that of the conscious. The unconscious includes the nonwaking stages of dream and deep sleep and is divided into personal and collective aspects. The personal unconscious contains psychic contents which have been repressed or forgotten and drives which have not reached the layer of consciousness. It contains material which has been in consciousness or may be potentially in consciousness and is related to a particular individual. The psyche is the functional starting point for analyzing the framework of Jung's thinking. It is a container, and when he asks what moves in its "space," he discovers "energy." He borrowed the Freudian term libido for instinctual sexual energy and redefined it as psychic energy, or the energy of the processes of life. Jung had a larger and more flexible concept of energy than Freud, as the energy is expressed on the cosmic level of life in the sociological network of relationships, and on the individual plane of the psyche of the human being. Jung takes a dialectical orientation based on the idea that all forms of life may be understood as a struggle of contending
西格坦德·弗洛伊德。155 位继承人,因为这位弟子的深刻洞察力以及他在二十世纪初欧洲基督教社会中的科学联系。尽管他们保持着密切的友谊,但这对心理学的奠基人却有基本的分歧。弗洛伊德坚持认为压抑的原因总是性创伤,而荣格不同意。他认为人类不仅仅是生物和性的存在,并对神秘学、神话和精神现象交织在日常生活和他的病人的病历中的方式感兴趣。荣格在 1912 年出版了《转化的象征》,其中分析了弗洛伊德关于性欲是普遍的精神能量的概念,并包含了与弗洛伊德不同的其他观点。荣格越来越多的自我依赖导致了他和弗洛伊德之间的决裂,但荣格坚持自己的信念,尽管与他的大师的分裂带来了痛苦。与弗洛伊德不同,荣格的旅行很少,他更具有世界性;他访问了非洲、印度和普埃布洛印第安人,并研究了非欧洲文化,同时发展了自己的无意识和宗教象征主义理论。当他们的合作在 1913 年结束时,弗洛伊德的同事桑多·费伦奇(Sandor Ferenczi)打趣道:“荣格不再相信弗洛伊德了”。荣格与韦伯、杜克海姆、西美尔、萨姆纳、库利和米德的假设是一致的,即社会先于个人的心灵相互联系,以及个人在他或她的个性中表达整个文化的特征和我们所处的历史阶段的品质。以下相互关联的概念与从社会学和历史学角度理解荣格有关:心理;精神能量;原型和历史;角色;阿尼玛和阿尼姆斯;态度和功能;以及集体无意识。圆圈主题充斥着荣格心理学,自我被描绘成整体人格的中心原型。荣格将原型设想为一种跨文化发生的集体性质的形式或形象。在个体产品中,它是无意识的。荣格心理学中的无意识概念比有意识的概念占据了更大的空间。无意识包括梦境和深度睡眠的非清醒阶段,并被分为个人和集体两个方面。个人无意识包含被压抑或遗忘的心理内容,以及未达到意识层的驱动力。它包含已经在意识中或可能在意识中的材料,与特定的个人有关。心理是分析荣格思维框架的功能起点。它是一个容器,当他问什么在它的 “空间” 中运动时,他发现了 “能量”。他借用了弗洛伊德关于本能性能量的术语 liido,并将其重新定义为精神能量,或生命过程的能量。荣格对能量的概念比弗洛伊德更大、更灵活,因为这种能量表现在社会学关系网络的生命宇宙层面上,也表现在人的心理的个体层面上。荣格采取了一种辩证的取向,其基础是所有形式的生命都可以被理解为一种争夺性的斗争。
forces. Male and female, yang and yin, destruction and creation, death and rebirth, cold and hot, suffering and joy, damnation and salvation, pain and pleasure, doubt and faith, despair and hope, hate and love are all examples of the constant dance and drama of the pairs of opposites. Jung saw all life as energy and the principle of opposites is an integral part of his conception of the psyche. Yet he always remained aware that the map is not the territory. According to Jung, the amount of psychic energy generated varies directly with the intensity and depth of a conflict, and he stated that the greater the tension between the pairs of opposites, the greater will be the energy that is set loose. The psychic energy that is generated by the dynamic interplay of the pairs of opposites is the moving force of society. The process of self-indication and the interaction of selves in institutions and organizations are driven by the libido and psychic energy. Just as the central archetype of the personality is the self, which functions as the nucleus from which the ego and persona radiate, so the primal archetypes of religious symbolism are God and the Messiah. All world religions have names for God, and the most sacred object, in the Durkheimian sense, is the legend and myth of the Messiah as the expectation of the Coming One. This empirical phenomenon is a matter of comparative religion and not mystical wish-fulfillment. The archetypes and history converge at a deep level of the collective unconscious as the panorama of a world historical age in themes such as the Second Coming of Christ, the Advent of the Messiah, and the return of the Mahdi in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The rise of Panduranga Vittala and the Coming of the Maitreya Buddha appear in Hinduism and Buddhism. This arrival of a Great Savior has been forecast by all world religious scriptures, tribal story-teller sages, mythologies, and folklore of the human race. The Messiah archetype may be another name for a highly refined and infinitely renewable energy. Jung's concept of the persona is similar to the Mead-Cooley theory of the social self. The persona is the way we present ourselves to one another in daily life, and Jung referred to it as the mask individuals wear for social intercourse. The life process is conceived of as a theater of social encounters in various milieux, and the ego projects images of a persona that is suitable to the situation as it emerges. Thus, the persona includes social roles, the clothes and costumes we wear, and our styles of self-expression in ideas, speech, facial gestures, and body language. The persona functions as a cover for the inner life of the individual in the stage play of society, which requires easily identifiable occupational categories and basic attitudes, such as amiability or harshness. While Freud postulated the constitutional bisexuality of human nature, Jung recognized that in every man there is a woman and within every woman there is a man. The Jungian psyche is balanced by the feminine side in men, which he called the anima, and by the masculine side in women, which he called the animus. The feminist movement owes a good measure of its success to the growth of the animus factor in the female population, while the gay liberation movement has been partially fueled by the rise of
力量。男与女、阳与阴、毁灭与创造、死亡与重生、冷与热、苦难与欢乐、诅咒与救赎、痛苦与快乐、怀疑与信仰、绝望与希望、仇恨与爱,这些都是对立面的不断舞蹈与戏剧的例子。荣格把所有的生命都看作是能量,对立的原则是他心理概念的一个组成部分。然而,他始终意识到,地图并不是领土。荣格认为,产生的心理能量的多少直接取决于冲突的强度和深度,他说,对立面之间的张力越大,被释放的能量就越大。由这对对立面的动态相互作用产生的精神能量是社会的推动力。自我暗示的过程以及机构和组织中自我的互动是由性欲和精神能量驱动的。正如人格的中心原型是自我,它是自我和人格辐射的核心,所以宗教象征主义的原始原型是上帝和弥赛亚。世界上所有的宗教都有对上帝的称呼,而在杜克海姆的意义上,最神圣的对象是弥赛亚的传说和神话,是对即将到来者的期待。这种经验现象是一个比较宗教的问题,而不是神秘的愿望实现。在基督教、犹太教和伊斯兰教中,原型和历史在集体无意识的深层汇聚成世界历史时代的全景,如基督再临、弥赛亚降临和马赫迪的回归等主题。印度教和佛教中出现了潘多拉维塔拉的崛起和弥勒佛的到来。世界上所有的宗教经文、部落讲故事的圣人、神话和人类的民间传说都预测了这位伟大救世主的到来。弥赛亚原型可能是一种高度精炼和无限再生的能量的另一个名称。荣格的角色概念与米德·库利的社会自我理论相似。角色是我们在日常生活中向对方展示自己的方式,荣格将其称为个人在社会交往中所戴的面具。生活过程被认为是在各种环境中的社会相遇的戏剧,自我投射出适合于所出现的情况的人格形象。因此,角色包括社会角色、我们穿的衣服和服装,以及我们在思想、语言、面部手势和身体语言中的自我表达方式。角色的功能是掩盖个人在社会舞台剧中的内在生活,这需要容易识别的职业类别和基本态度,如和蔼可亲或严厉。弗洛伊德认为人性中存在着双性恋,而荣格则认为每个男人都有一个女人,每个女人都有一个男人。荣格的心理是由男性的阴性面和女性的阳性面所平衡的,他称之为阿尼玛(anima),而女性的阳性面则被他称之为阿尼玛(animus)。女权运动的成功在很大程度上归功于女性群体中阿尼玛因素的增长,而同性恋解放运动则部分地受到了阿尼玛的崛起的推动。
the anima element in the male population. Jung even asserted a biological basis for these sexual opposites within the personality. Although Jung's biological claim has not been demonstrated, the concepts of the anima and the animus play an important role in the social psychology of sex. Notwithstanding the androgynous person's mode of integrating the anima and animus, Jung explains introversion and extroversion as the atti- tudinal types which symbolize the inward and outward movement of the reservoir of psychic energy. They are ideal types, in the Weberian sense that no individual conforms all the time to either an inward or an outward orientation but lends in one direction or another depending on will and circumstance. The psychic energy is constantly expressed in four functions, two of which are termed rational and two nonrational. Thinking and feeling are defined as rational functions of the psyche because they involve the individual taking a deliberate attitude and action toward an object. The thinker interprets an object; the feeler judges it. Sensation and intuition are considered nonrational because they are not purposive. Jung saw the sensation function as passive because the object is experienced by the individual instead of acted upon. The function of intuition is such that during the nature of the process the individual does not seek directly to understand the object. An idea, an answer, etc., just "comes" to you, and is therefore nonrational. One should see the overlaps and variations in these functions and attitudes and not analyze them as neat and separate categories. They are heuristic devices for understanding psychological types and trends in society and history. For example, Jung contrasted Immanuel Kant, an introverted-thinking type, with Charles Darwin, an extroverted-thinking type. Both theoreticians developed thinking as their dominant function, but Darwin turned it outward and Kant inward. Jung said, "Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general."3 The Collective Unconscious Jung borrowed Freud's bimodal paradigm of the structure of the psyche by portraying a division between the conscious mind and the huge realm of the unconscious. According to Jung, the human infant is born with a psychological, as well as a biological, heritage. The neonate inherits more than a human body with a long evolutionary past and the genes of its parents; the baby comes equipped with a kind of psychic receptacle Jung called the collective unconscious, which is filled with archetypes. He used the word "collective" to differentiate it from "personal" and to indicate its priority to the individual personality. It is not collective in the ordinary sociological meaning of joint possessiveness; rather, it is collective in the sense that it is something generically present in humans and collectively held by all people. The unconscious is not a negative concept, as in Freud. Jung refers to the unconscious as that vast reservoir of psychic energy out of which all the 3C. G. Jung, Psychological Types, trans, by H. G. Baynes (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1923), p. 484.
男性人口中的阿尼玛元素。荣格甚至断言,这些个性中的性对立有其生物学基础。尽管荣格的生物学主张没有得到证实,但阿尼玛和阿尼姆斯的概念在社会性心理学中发挥了重要作用。尽管雌雄同体的人整合阿尼玛和阿尼姆斯的模式,荣格将内向和外向解释为象征着精神能量库的内向和外向运动的 atti- tudinal 类型。它们是理想的类型,在韦伯的意义上,没有一个人一直符合内向或外向的方向,而是根据意愿和情况,向一个方向或另一个方向借贷。精神能量不断表现为四种功能,其中两种被称为理性的,两种是非理性的。思考和感觉被定义为心理的理性功能,因为它们涉及个人对某一对象采取慎重的态度和行动。思考者解释一个对象;感觉者判断它。感觉和直觉被认为是非理性的,因为它们不是目的性的。荣格认为感觉的功能是被动的,因为对象是由个人体验的,而不是采取行动的。直觉的功能是这样的:在这个过程的性质中,个人并不直接寻求对对象的理解。一个想法,一个答案,等等,只是 “来到” 你身边,因此是非理性的。人们应该看到这些功能和态度的重叠和变化,而不是把它们作为整齐和独立的类别进行分析。它们是理解社会和历史中的心理类型和趋势的启发式装置。例如,荣格将内向思考型的伊曼纽尔·康德与外向思考型的查尔斯·达尔文进行了对比。两位理论家都把思考作为他们的主导功能来发展,但达尔文是向外的,康德是向内的。荣格说:“达尔文在客观事实的广泛领域内进行研究,而康德则将自己限制在对一般知识的批判上。”3 集体无意识 荣格借用弗洛伊德的心理结构的双模范式,描绘了有意识的头脑和无意识的巨大领域之间的划分。荣格认为,人类的婴儿出生时就带有心理学和生物学的遗产。新生儿继承的不仅仅是具有悠久进化历史的人类身体和其父母的基因;婴儿还配备了一种被荣格称为集体无意识的心理容器,其中充满了原型。他用 “集体” 一词来区分它与 “个人”,并表明它对个人人格的优先性。它不是普通社会学意义上的共同占有的集体;相反,它是集体的,因为它是人类普遍存在的东西,是所有人共同拥有的。无意识不是一个消极的概念,就像弗洛伊德那样。荣格把无意识称为巨大的精神能量库,所有的精神能量都来自于此。荣格,《心理学类型》,由 H·G·贝恩斯翻译(纽约:Harcourt, Brace,1923),第 484 页。
materials of consciousness emerge. Although the idea is amorphous and difficult to analyze, it is theorized as a positive and creative entity which supplies the symbols and other psychic contents which are brought to the surface of waking-state consciousness in daily life. Jung went beyond the psychological to the archetypal self in Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Jung understood that we live in anomic times, in an historical transition period from an old to a new order of society, and recognized that individuals have spiritual needs which transcend the economic marketplace, social status, and the political arena. As a psychiatrist, he assisted his patients on their paths of growth to individuation; he also explored the collective unconscious and pointed to the cross-cultural archetypes, such as the eternal wonder child (e.g., Jesus, Hermes, Moses, Zeus), the universal mother as earth goddess in Hindu, Greek, and Roman religions, the grandmother of the American Indians, and the hero cycles in world mythologies. Jung had a marvelous way as a therapist of bringing people to their creative selves in the individuation process of his analytic and depth psychology. Through the interpretation of dreams, myths, and symbols, he brought people to a higher level of awareness of their fund of psychic energy that is the source of self-fulfillment, worldly prosperity, and the ongoing symbolic interaction of society. And yet, Jung was aware of the shadow side of human nature, of the irrational element in the collective unconscious of civilization, represented by such death archetypes as Yama-Raj (God of Death in Hinduism), Thanatos (the Death Wish in Greek), and the Grim Reaper. Equating the archetypal self with "spirit" and "Christ" is counterbalanced in Jung's dualistic pairs of opposites schema by the shadow side of the inner executive ego, portrayed as a demon or the devil. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are built into the psyche and its social manifestations. The causes of World War II may be explored through a social orientation of Jung's psychology. Nazi Germany can be seen as a classic example of demons and the Wotan symbols (e.g., primitivism, violence, and cruelty) of pre-Christian Germanic mythology arising from the historical depths of the collective unconscious into the national character and social psychology of a modern warlike state. Speaking generally, Jung says, "It is—and always was—my opinion that the political mass movements of our time are psychic epidemics, i.e., mass psychoses."4 Jung thus made the connection between the archetypes, the collective unconscious, and history. FREUD'S LAST TESTAMENT Freud continued to live in his beloved Vienna until the situation there became intolerable. With the rise of Hitler to power in Germany the predicament of the Jews worsened. Psychoanalysis was "liquidated" in Germany. 4C. G. Jung, Essays on Contemporary Events (London: Kegan Paul, 1947), p. 79.
意识的材料出现了。尽管这个想法是无定形的,难以分析,但它被理论化为一个积极的和创造性的实体,它提供符号和其他精神内容,在日常生活中被带到清醒状态的意识的表面。荣格在《寻找灵魂的现代人》中超越了心理学,进入了原型的自我。荣格明白,我们生活在一个原子时代,处于从社会的旧秩序到新秩序的历史过渡期,并认识到个人的精神需求超越了经济市场、社会地位和政治舞台。作为一名精神病学家,他帮助病人走上个性化的成长之路;他还探索了集体无意识,并指出了跨文化的原型,如永恒的奇迹之子(如耶稣、赫尔墨斯、摩西、宙斯),印度、希腊和罗马宗教中作为大地女神的普遍母亲,美国印第安人的祖母,以及世界神话中的英雄循环。荣格作为一个治疗师,在他的分析和深度心理学的个性化过程中,有一种奇妙的方式把人们带到他们的创造性自我。通过对梦境、神话和符号的解释,他把人们带到了一个更高的层次,让人们意识到他们的精神能量是自我实现、世俗繁荣和社会持续符号互动的源泉。然而,荣格意识到了人性的阴暗面,意识到了文明的集体无意识中的非理性因素,这些因素由 Yama-Raj(印度教中的死神)、Thanatos(希腊语中的死神)和 Grim Reaper 等死亡原型代表。在荣格的二元对立模式中,将原型自我等同于 “精神” 和 “基督” 的做法被内心执行自我的阴影面所抵消,被描绘成恶魔或魔鬼。杰基尔博士和海德先生被构建在心理及其社会表现中。第二次世界大战的原因可以通过荣格心理学的社会取向来探讨。纳粹德国可以被看作是一个典型的例子,即恶魔和前基督教日耳曼神话中的沃坦符号(如原始主义、暴力和残忍)从集体无意识的历史深处产生,进入现代好战国家的民族性格和社会心理中。荣格笼统地说:“我认为,我们这个时代的政治性群众运动是精神上的流行病,也就是群众性精神病。弗洛伊德的最后一份遗嘱 弗洛伊德继续住在他心爱的维也纳,直到那里的情况变得无法容忍。随着希特勒在德国的上台,犹太人的困境更加恶化。精神分析学在德国被” 清算 "了。4C·荣格,《当代事件论》(伦敦:Kegan Paul,1947),第 79 页。
Freud's and other psychoanalytic books were burned in Berlin in 1933, and Jews were forbidden to serve on any scientific council. The Nazis seized control of the German Society for Psychotherapy, renamed it the International General Medical Society for Psychotherapy, and required all members to make Hitler's Mein Kampf the basis for their work. Several official Nazi psychotherapists met with representatives of the society and informed them that psychoanalysis could continue only if Jews were excluded from membership. Threats accompanied pressure, and the leveling process continued as the various branches of science were "nationalized," brought under a central control, and geared to serve National Socialist aims. In lieu of Freud's psychoanalysis and Einstein's theory of relativity, Nazi science adopted the doctrine of Aryan racial superiority. With the Nazi invasion of Austria in March 1938, the streets of Vienna were lined with roaring tanks and trainloads of patriotic "extras" shouting, "Heil Hitler!" Freud was surprisingly reluctant to leave his native land; but his biographer and friend Ernest Jones managed to convince him to leave, and Jones arranged the complicated diplomatic details of Freud's emigration from Austria to England. However, the Nazis extracted their pound of flesh. They confiscated Freud's bank account and demanded a fugitive tax, without which they threatened to confiscate his library and art collection. During these trying times Freud worked an hour a day on his Moses and Monotheism, which tormented him like a "ghost not laid." During his short stay in London Freud continued to practice psychoanalysis, kept up his correspondence, worked consistently on Moses and Monotheism, and received visiting dignitaries. His callers included the writer H. G. Wells, the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, the painter Salvador Dali, and the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Three secretaries of the Royal Society asked him to sign its Charter Book, which contained the signatures of Newton and Darwin. Although Freud was in agony from a jaw cancer that eventually claimed his life, he received these accolades with the grace of a nobleman and maintained his sense of humor to the end. Upon hearing a radio announcement to the effect that this war was to be the last war, a friend asked Freud if he believed that. Freud replied, "Anyhow it is my last war." Freud's last will and testament was Moses and Monotheism. In this quasi- mystical, novelistic essay of self-discovery, Freud develops his general theory of monotheism, which focuses on Moses as the father figure and lawgiver of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Saul of Tarsus, the renegade rabbi who is commonly known as St. Paul, was to organize Christianity in early- second-century Rome on the foundations of original sin and salvation through sacrificial death. Saul's revelation was that human suffering is the effect of having murdered God the father, and his mission as the Apostle Paul was to preach that the sacrificial victim was indeed the long-awaited Messiah in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Freud argued that Christianity, which emerged from ancient Judaism, became a "Son religion" as a result of having displaced the slain primal father. In Moses and
1933 年,弗洛伊德和其他精神分析书籍在柏林被烧毁,犹太人被禁止在任何科学委员会任职。纳粹夺取了德国心理治疗协会的控制权,将其更名为国际心理治疗医学总会,并要求所有成员将希特勒的《我的奋斗》作为其工作的基础。一些官方的纳粹心理治疗师会见了该协会的代表,并告诉他们,只有将犹太人排除在会员之外,精神分析才能继续下去。威胁伴随着压力,随着科学的各个分支被 “国有化”,被置于中央控制之下,并为国家社会主义目标服务,平整的过程继续进行。为了取代弗洛伊德的精神分析和爱因斯坦的相对论,纳粹科学采用了雅利安人的种族优越性学说。随着 1938 年 3 月纳粹入侵奥地利,维也纳的街道上出现了轰鸣的坦克和一列列爱国的 “临时演员”,他们高喊着 “希特勒万岁!” 弗洛伊德出人意料地不愿意离开他的祖国;但他的传记作者和朋友欧内斯特·琼斯设法说服他离开,琼斯安排了弗洛伊德从奥地利移民到英国的复杂外交细节。然而,纳粹提取了他们的一磅肉。他们没收了弗洛伊德的银行账户,并要求缴纳逃亡税,否则他们威胁要没收他的图书馆和艺术品收藏。在这些艰难的日子里,弗洛伊德每天都要花一个小时来写他的《摩西与一神论》,这本书像一个 “没有躺下的幽灵” 一样折磨着他。在伦敦的短暂停留期间,弗洛伊德继续从事精神分析,保持他的信件往来,持续不断地创作《摩西与一神论》,并接待来访的贵宾们。他的来访者包括作家威尔斯(H·G. Wells)、人类学家马林诺夫斯基(Bronislaw Malinowski)、画家萨尔瓦多·达利和犹太复国主义领袖柴姆·魏茨曼。皇家学会的三位秘书请他在学会的宪章书上签名,其中有牛顿和达尔文的签名。尽管弗洛伊德因下颌癌而痛苦不堪,最终夺走了他的生命,但他以贵族的风度接受了这些赞誉,并将幽默感保持到了最后。在听到广播中大意是这场战争将是最后一场战争时,一位朋友问弗洛伊德他是否相信。弗洛伊德回答说:“无论如何,这是我最后的战争”。弗洛伊德的最后遗嘱是《摩西与一神教》。在这篇准神秘主义的自我发现的小说性文章中,弗洛伊德发展了他的一神论的一般理论,其重点是摩西作为犹太教·基督教传统的父亲形象和法律制定者。大数的扫罗,这位叛逆的拉比,通常被称为圣保罗,将在第二世纪初的罗马组织基督教,其基础是原罪和通过牺牲性的死亡获得救赎。扫罗的启示是,人类的痛苦是谋杀上帝之父的结果,而他作为使徒保罗的使命是宣扬牺牲者确实是期待已久的弥赛亚,即上帝之子耶稣基督。弗洛伊德认为,从古代犹太教中产生的基督教由于取代了被杀的原始父亲而成为 “儿子宗教”。在摩西和
Monotheism Freud not only amplified and extended the insights of Totem and Taboo and The Future of an Illusion; he was also reacting covertly to the oncoming pogrom. He concludes his book about Moses with the wry observation: "Only a part of the Jewish people accepted the new doctrine. Those who refused to do so are still called Jews." Beyond the personal meaning that this rather speculative work had for Freud, Moses and Monotheism is highly suggestive theoretically. Its methodology rests on the projection of the psychoanalytic procedure onto the world historical plane. The history of a people may be read as if it were the history of an individual, with the intention of unearthing the cultural secrets or "repressed content" of the collectivity, whether the latter be a cult, a nation, a religion, or a civilization. Research along this line might illuminate the phenomenon of leadership in accordance with Freud's emphasis on leaders as embodiments of the collective superego. Such an approach would allow freer reign for what Mills called "the sociological imagination" to come to grips with what is going on in today's world at the fine point where biography intersects with society and history. CRITICISM AND ADVANCES Freud's theories gave rise to a flurry of psychological experiments in the 1930s and 1940s. Most of these were dubious tests of his hypotheses; for example, attempts were made to test repression by seeing if people find it harder to remember unpleasant things than pleasant ones, even though the mechanism of repression was postulated only for strong instinctual drives and their derivatives. A combination of behaviorist orthodoxy and middle- class America's reluctance to deal with any of the strong emotional drives that Freud was discussing has meant that academic psychology has done little to follow up his leads. Clinical practice, on the other hand, has heeded Freud's recommendations to pay attention to emotions and behaviors of which we are not ordinarily conscious (for example, childhood experiences, sex, and aggression). That clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are ambivalent about the veracity of Freudian theories and the effectiveness of his therapeutic methods should not obscure the fact that Freud's most basic discoveries have been vindicated, so much so that they have almost passed into the realm of common knowledge. One criticism that may be leveled against Freud is that he reified his concepts. Notwithstanding his analytic disclaimers, he treated such mental ephemera as ego, id, superego, consciousness, and unconsciousness as if they were real objects; and Freudian terminology has come to be used by many professionals and laypeople in the same way. There is a measure of truth in the assertion that concepts, once entrenched in the literature, develop a life of their own; however, this linguistic phylogenesis must not blur the distinction between the real and the nominal. It should be underlined that Freud's conceptualizations are analytic tools rather than actual entities.
一神论 弗洛伊德不仅扩大和延伸了《图腾与禁忌》和《幻觉的未来》的见解;他还对即将到来的大屠杀做出了隐秘的反应。他在关于摩西的书中以诙谐的观点作为结尾。“只有一部分犹太人接受了新学说。那些拒绝这样做的人仍然被称为犹太人”。除了这本颇具猜测性的作品对弗洛伊德的个人意义之外,《摩西与一神教》在理论上也具有高度的暗示性。它的方法论在于将精神分析的程序投射到世界历史层面上。一个民族的历史可以被当作个人的历史来阅读,目的是发掘集体的文化秘密或 “被压抑的内容”,无论后者是一个邪教、一个国家、一个宗教还是一个文明。沿着这条路线的研究可能会根据弗洛伊德对领导者作为集体超我的化身的强调来阐明领导现象。这样的方法将允许米尔斯所谓的 “社会学想象力” 更自由地掌握当今世界在传记与社会和历史相交的细微之处发生了什么。批评与进步 弗洛伊德的理论在 20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代引起了大量的心理学实验。其中大多数是对他的假设的可疑测试;例如,人们试图通过观察人们是否发现不愉快的事情比愉快的事情更难记住来测试压抑,尽管压抑的机制只被假设为强烈的本能驱动及其衍生品。行为主义的正统观念和美国中产阶级不愿意处理弗洛伊德所讨论的任何强烈的情感驱动力的结合,意味着学术心理学在跟进他的线索方面做得很少。另一方面,临床实践听从了弗洛伊德的建议,关注我们通常没有意识到的情绪和行为(例如,童年经历、性和攻击性)。临床心理学家和精神病学家对弗洛伊德理论的真实性和他的治疗方法的有效性持矛盾态度,这不应该掩盖这样一个事实:弗洛伊德最基本的发现已经得到了平反,以至于它们几乎已经进入了常识的领域。对弗洛伊德的一个批评是,他把他的概念重新加以化。尽管他有分析性的声明,但他把自我、本我、超我、意识和无意识这些精神上的短暂现象当作是真实的物体;弗洛伊德的术语也被许多专业人士和普通人以同样的方式使用。一旦概念在文献中根深蒂固,就会发展出自己的生命,这种说法有一定的道理;但是,这种语言的系统化不应该模糊真实和名义之间的区别。应该强调的是,弗洛伊德的概念化是分析的工具,而不是实际的实体。
In addition, it may be said of Freud that he was culturally bound in his thought. His Eros/Thanatos duality is subject to this critique, in the sense that Freud's attitude toward death reflects a pessimistic period of Western thought. In conjunction with his contemporaries Freud regarded aging and death as the irresistible antithesis of life. This viewpoint contrasts with such recent Western European psychological paradigms of inner growth as Erikson's "ages of man" and Maslow's "hierarchy of needs," and contradicts Eastern doctrines of spiritual rebirth, through which aspirants attain enlightenment and come to see the world through the eyes of one newly born. Neither age nor sex is a barrier to this experience, as long as life is understood as a process of interior growth and personal development rather than as a slow decline into the grave. The most valid criticism of Freud is that he observed repressed, middle- class, Victorian men and women and generalized from them to all humankind. Twentieth-century anthropological research by Bronislaw Malinowski, Margaret Mead, and others has shown that neither the latency period nor the Oedipus complex is universal. The type of adult sexual repression that Freud found in the social milieu of his day is by no means characteristic of all cultures. In addition to traditional societies on the Asian, African, and South American continents, contemporary lower- and middle-class subcultures in Europe and North America have mores different from Freud's formulations. However, all of this does not invalidate Freud's work. It means, rather, that appropriate theoretical modifications must be made. Such innovations have been attempted by a group of "left-wing" Freudians, including Erik Erikson, Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, Geza Roheim, Herbert Marcuse, and Fritz Perls, who opened up a broad path for social and historical factors to enter this ongoing colloquy on human nature. If Freud's work is understood as describing a particular historical period, it is a valuable complement to that of Weber. The Protestant-ethic personality—hard-working, uptight, repressed, puritanical—is exactly what Freud was depicting. Thus, the dictum, "Neurosis is the price we pay for civilization" is the clinical insight corresponding to Weber's pessimism about the effects of rationalization and bureaucratization on the quality of modern life. Freud also complements Durkheim. Durkheim was of two minds about modern society. At first he argued that "organic solidarity" was a sufficient condition for social order, even though the contractual network first had to emerge from the emotionally binding "mechanical solidarity" of traditional societies. Later, after the Dreyfus affair and the tremendous conflict of turn- of-the-century France, Durkheim reconsidered and concluded that a purely formal, rules-and-regulations type of society created widespread anomie. As a social remedy for the normless state of affairs he advocated a return to workers' guilds, in which emotional solidarity could be found. Freud bolsters the later phase of his French contemporary's theory by suggesting that if people's feelings are overly repressed, any strains in the social order are
此外,可以说弗洛伊德在他的思想中受到了文化的约束。他的 Eros/Thanatos 二元论受到这种批评,因为弗洛伊德对死亡的态度反映了西方思想的一个悲观时期。与他同时代的人一起,弗洛伊德将衰老和死亡视为生命不可抗拒的对立面。这种观点与埃里克森的 “人的年龄” 和马斯洛的 “需求层次” 等近代西欧心理学的内在成长范式形成对比,并与东方的精神重生学说相矛盾,通过这些学说,有志之士获得了启蒙,并通过新生的眼睛来看世界。年龄和性别都不是这种体验的障碍,只要生命被理解为一个内部成长和个人发展的过程,而不是缓慢地堕入坟墓。对弗洛伊德最有效的批评是,他观察了被压抑的、中产阶级的、维多利亚时代的男人和女人,并从他们身上概括出全人类。Bronislaw Malinowski、Margaret Mead 等人在二十世纪的人类学研究表明,潜伏期和俄狄浦斯情结都不具有普遍性。弗洛伊德在他那个时代的社会环境中发现的成人性压抑的类型,绝不是所有文化的特征。除了亚洲、非洲和南美大陆的传统社会之外,欧洲和北美的当代中下层亚文化也有与弗洛伊德的表述不同的习俗。然而,所有这些并不能使弗洛伊德的工作失效。相反,它意味着必须进行适当的理论修改。一批 “左翼” 弗洛伊德学者,包括埃里克·埃里克森、卡伦·霍尼、埃里希·弗洛姆、盖扎·罗海姆、赫伯特·马尔库塞和弗里茨·珀尔斯,已经尝试了这种创新,他们为社会和历史因素进入这场关于人性的持续对话开辟了一条广阔的道路。如果弗洛伊德的工作被理解为描述了一个特定的历史时期,那么它就是对韦伯工作的一个宝贵补充。新教伦理的人格 —— 勤奋、紧张、压抑、清教徒 —— 正是弗洛伊德所描绘的。因此,“神经衰弱是我们为文明付出的代价” 这一论断是与韦伯关于合理化和官僚化对现代生活质量影响的悲观主义相对应的临床洞察力。弗洛伊德也是对杜克海姆的补充。Durkheim 对现代社会有两种看法。起初,他认为 “有机团结” 是社会秩序的充分条件,尽管契约网络首先必须从传统社会的情感约束的 “机械团结” 中产生。后来,在德雷福斯事件和世纪之交的法国的巨大冲突之后,杜克海姆重新考虑并得出结论:纯粹的正式、规则和条例类型的社会造成了普遍的不正常现象。作为对这种无序状态的社会补救措施,他主张回到工人行会,在那里可以找到情感上的团结。弗洛伊德认为,如果人们的情感被过度压抑,那么社会秩序中的任何紧张都会得到加强,从而支持他的法国当代理论的后期阶段。
likely to cause a channeling of pent-up emotion into social movements that allow them an outlet. WAS FREUD A SEXIST? With the resurgence of feminism, Freud again became controversial. On the one hand, he has been accused of being sexist. Psychoanalysis justifies traditional male and female roles in society, keeping women in the home while men pursue outside careers. On the other hand, some feminist theorists have tried to use and revise Freud precisely in order to explain the sexism that has dominated the social world. On a certain level, it is true that Freud was an old-fashioned sexist. Despite the fact that most of his patients were women, he constantly wrote his theories from a male viewpoint. The Oedipus complex, the key to the psychic structure, is obviously a male problem: the little boy who must repress his desires for his mother and come to identify with his father. Freud never really explained how this worked in the case of females. His principal theory about women is one that has outraged feminists. Freud argued that a small girl, when she notices she lacks a penis, assumes that she has been castrated. This results in a lifelong sense of inferiority to men, and a more passive role in adult society. Should she exhibit aggressiveness or the desire to achieve in the masculine, public world, Freudians attribute this to her penis envy. Nevertheless, despite these serious drawbacks, a number of feminist thinkers have attempted to revise Freud to help explain why we have had a male-dominated society. Their analyses are not designed to show the inevitable, but to see just what it is that needs to be changed. Juliet Mitchell, one of the first to argue that women are economically subjugated, went on to state that the patriarchal system of male domination is nevertheless older than capitalism, and constitutes an independent force behind sexism. To understand this, it is necessary to see how love, sexuality, and motherhood are internalized within the female psyche; and Freudian theory comes in handy for this purpose. Among the most important of these feminist revisions of Freud is the theory of Nancy Chodorow. Her key question is, why do women do mothering in our society? Mothering, the process of taking care of a child, physically and especially emotionally, is not the same as sheer biological child- bearing or the nursing of an infant at the breast. Once children are born, their own biological mother need not be the person who takes care of them. This has been true especially since bottle feeding was first practiced. In fact, however, women do most of the mothering, caring for toddlers, and even older children. Some feminists even argue that women are mothering their whole lives: They mother their husbands at home, just as on the job as secretaries, nurses, or waitresses they are expected to perform mother-like roles for male bosses and customers.
有可能导致压抑的情绪被引导到社会运动中,使其得到宣泄。弗洛伊德是个性别歧视者吗?随着女权主义的重新兴起,弗洛伊德再次引起了争议。一方面,他被指控为性别歧视。精神分析学为传统的男女社会角色提供了理由,将女性留在家中,而男性则在外面追求事业。另一方面,一些女权主义理论家试图利用和修正弗洛伊德,正是为了解释主导社会世界的性别歧视。在某种程度上,弗洛伊德确实是一个老式的性别歧视者。尽管他的大多数病人是女性,但他不断地从男性的角度来写他的理论。俄狄浦斯情结是心理结构的关键,显然是一个男性问题:小男孩必须压抑他对母亲的欲望,来认同他的父亲。弗洛伊德从未真正解释过这在女性身上是如何运作的。他关于女性的主要理论是一个让女权主义者感到愤怒的理论。弗洛伊德认为,当一个小女孩注意到她缺乏阴茎时,她会认为自己已经被阉割了。这导致她终生都有一种对男性的自卑感,并在成人社会中扮演更被动的角色。如果她表现出攻击性或渴望在男性化的公共世界中取得成就,弗洛伊德认为这是她对阴茎的嫉妒。然而,尽管有这些严重的缺点,一些女权主义思想家试图修正弗洛伊德,以帮助解释为什么我们有一个以男性为主的社会。他们的分析不是为了显示不可避免,而是为了看到需要改变的只是什么。朱丽叶·米切尔(Juliet Mitchell)是最早论证妇女在经济上被奴役的人之一,她接着说,尽管如此,男性统治的父权制度比资本主义更古老,并构成了性别歧视背后的独立力量。为了理解这一点,有必要看到爱、性和母性是如何在女性心理中内化的;而弗洛伊德的理论在这方面很有帮助。在这些对弗洛伊德的女权主义修正中,最重要的是南希·乔多罗的理论。她的关键问题是,为什么妇女在我们的社会中要做母亲?做母亲,照顾孩子的过程,身体上的,尤其是情感上的,与纯粹的生理上的生儿育女或哺乳婴儿的过程是不同的。一旦孩子出生,他们的亲生母亲不需要是照顾他们的人。特别是自从有了奶瓶喂养以来,这一点一直是事实。然而,事实上,妇女做了大部分的母亲工作,照顾幼儿,甚至更大的孩子。一些女权主义者甚至认为,妇女一生都在做母亲。她们在家里是丈夫的母亲,就像在工作中作为秘书、护士或女服务员,她们被期望为男性老板和顾客履行母亲般的角色。
Mothering, then, is a social role, not a biological one. It is not instinctual, Chodorow points out; studies show that both men and women react similarly to infants' cries and smiles, and among animals even males will often care for an infant of their species if left alone with one. Similarly, women who are separated from their infants for medical reasons shortly after childbirth do not develop as much affection for them. The mothering role is learned. But how? Chodorow draws on a version of Freudian themes for the answer. Both the infant boy and girl are cared for by a mother. In the original state of the child's psyche, there is no reality-oriented ego, but only a pleasurable merging with the other. It is this infant experience, according to Freud, that is the prototype of later sexuality; long afterwards, the child and then the grown adult seeks unconsciously to recapture this feeling by sexual contact (or some symbolic displacement of it). This transfer is inevitable; no one can remain an infant in mother's arms indefinitely. There are social pressures, too, in the form of incest taboos, which force the child to give up any sexual designs on the mother, and seek sex partners outside the family. For a boy, this process results in the classic Oedipus complex. The jealous father has a special role in depriving the son of his mother. The little boy, fearing his punitive father, not only gives up his sexual desires for his mother, but internalizes his father in the form of a superego, a kind of fantasy father that he identifies with and carries around inside his head. For a little girl, though, the break is not so severe. She is given more permission to be close and affectionate with her mother, even in a physical way. True, she too has to pull away, and fathers normally carry on a degree of flirta- tiousness with their daughters that is basic to encouraging them into a heterosexual role. But there is not the traumatic pressure as in the case of the boy. Moreover, the girl does not come to identify with her father, or internalize him as her superego. Instead she acquires a distinctively feminine superego, and indeed a whole feminine psychic apparatus or personality. This feminine personality is characterized by an underseparation between herself and other people. Whereas the boy develops a sharp separation between himself and the world, due to the forceful and abrupt giving up of his mother in the Oedipal complex, the girl does not experience this sharp division. Men turn out to be distant, oriented toward the world of objects, domineering, and achievement-driven. Women prefer intimacy and warmth in personal relationships, and define themselves more in relation to a group of others. And this, Chodorow concludes, is exactly what makes up the maternal personality. A mother is simply a typical female, finding her personality needs in being close to other people and submerging herself in the group— in this case, the group made up of her own family, and especially her children. Because of her continuing lack of psychic separation from her own mother, she has a need to continue this kind of close and nurturant relation with others. Mothering reproduces itself across the generations. Chodorow concludes that if women are to break out of this sex-typed
那么,做母亲是一个社会角色,而不是一个生物角色。Chodorow 指出,这不是本能;研究表明,男人和女人对婴儿的哭声和微笑都有类似的反应,在动物中,即使是雄性动物,如果被单独留在那里,也常常会照顾他们的婴儿。同样,在分娩后不久因医疗原因与婴儿分离的妇女不会对他们产生那么多感情。母亲的角色是学来的。但是如何做到的呢?乔多罗从弗洛伊德主题的一个版本中找到了答案。男孩和女孩的婴儿都是由母亲照顾的。在儿童心理的原始状态下,没有以现实为导向的自我,而只有与他人的愉悦融合。弗洛伊德认为,正是这种婴儿时期的经验,是后来性行为的原型;此后很长一段时间,儿童和后来长大的成年人都会不自觉地通过性接触(或某种象征性的转移)来寻求重新获得这种感觉。这种转移是不可避免的;没有人可以在母亲的怀抱中无限期地保持一个婴儿。也有社会压力,以乱伦禁忌的形式,迫使孩子放弃对母亲的任何性设计,而在家庭之外寻找性伙伴。对于男孩来说,这个过程导致了典型的俄狄浦斯情结。嫉妒的父亲在剥夺儿子的母亲方面有特殊的作用。小男孩害怕他的惩罚性父亲,不仅放弃了对母亲的性欲,而且以超我的形式内化了父亲,一种他认同的、在他头脑中的幻想中的父亲。然而,对于一个小女孩来说,这种断裂没有那么严重。她得到了更多的许可,可以与母亲亲密无间,甚至以身体的方式。诚然,她也必须拉开距离,而父亲通常会对女儿进行一定程度的调情,这是鼓励她们进入异性恋角色的基本条件。但是,在男孩的情况下,没有那种创伤性的压力。此外,女孩不会认同她的父亲,或将他内化为她的超我。相反,她获得了一个独特的女性超我,甚至是一个完整的女性心理装置或人格。这种女性人格的特点是她和其他人之间的分离不足。男孩由于在恋母情结中对母亲的强行和突然的放弃,在自己和世界之间形成了一种尖锐的分离,而女孩则没有经历这种尖锐的分离。男人变成了遥远的,面向物体世界的,专横的,以成就为导向的。女性在个人关系中更喜欢亲密和温暖,并更多地在与他人群体的关系中定义自己。Chodorow 总结说,这正是构成母性人格的因素。母亲只是一个典型的女性,她在与他人的亲近中找到自己的人格需求,并将自己淹没在群体中 —— 在这种情况下,由她自己的家庭,特别是她的孩子组成的群体。由于她与自己的母亲持续缺乏心理上的分离,她有必要继续与他人保持这种亲密和养育的关系。母亲的身份在几代人之间重现。Chodorow 的结论是,如果妇女要打破这种性别类型的
situation and take their places successfully in the larger society, this cycle of role reproduction must be broken. One way it can be broken is if men take a larger part in caring for children, especially emotionally. Then children will grow up with less radical separation between male and female worlds; psychologically, boys brought up in this way should have less of the depersonalizing split between self and others, while girls will identify more with fathers and acquire greater psychic entree into the hitherto male-dominated worlds of work, politics, and achievement. Chodorow's theory is not without its flaws. For one thing, sexist domination of society is not simply a matter of women willingly complying with nurturant feminine household roles. There are also the economic processes of which the Marxist feminists have written, and the sheer struggle for sexual domination from which men benefit. Moreover, Chodorow's women are too idealized: warm, loving, selfless creatures who have no demands of their own. In fact, plenty of women have been tough, aggressive, suspicious, or selfish, and have fought for position both inside the family and outside it. Chodorow fails to see enough conflict in society, either in the outer world where sexual discrimination is practiced, or in the family itself. Women have been quite capable of fighting with their husbands over family power when they have had the resources to do so. And mothering itself is not so idyllic as Chodorow makes it; women get angry at their children, sometimes even abusing them, and fight with their children over control more than they would like to admit. What has to be borne in mind is that Freud's perspective is one of conflict, too. The tendencies that Chodorow describes probably do exist, but they coincide with other tendencies—assertive and selfish ones—what Freud called the id. A mother can simultaneously love her children and fight with them, just as she can both nurture her husband and hate his patriarchal controls. It is this kind of inner conflict and ambivalence, in fact, that makes divorces so bitter, and makes the struggle for women's rights one of the most emotionally difficult of battles. Freudian theory thus continues to play an important part in our thinking today. Clearly the last word is not in on a theory of sexism in male-female relations. In addition to Chodorow and other feminist theorists who emphasize the mother role as the archetypal female activity, a theory of gender stratification has been developed from Freud's emphasis on sexual drives as a primary human desire. In this perspective, developed by Randall Collins on the basis of earlier theories of Kingsley Davis and Claude Levi-Strauss, men have sought to control women as erotic property. In earlier tribal societies, women were exchanged among groups to make political alliances. In modern society, men and women bargain directly in a sexual marketplace, in which men have up until now held most of the economic bargaining cards. In this perspective, it is not surprising that as women acquire greater economic resources of their own, they can afford to bargain with men less for men's earning power and more for their own sex-
在这种情况下,必须打破这种角色再生产的循环,并在更大的社会中成功占有一席之地。打破这种循环的一个方法是,男性在照顾孩子方面发挥更大的作用,特别是在情感方面。这样,孩子们在成长过程中,男性和女性世界之间的分离就会减少;在心理上,以这种方式长大的男孩应该减少自我和他人之间的非人格化分裂,而女孩将更多地认同父亲,并在心理上更多地进入迄今为止男性主导的工作、政治和成就的世界。Chodorow 的理论并非没有缺陷。首先,性别主义对社会的支配并不仅仅是妇女自愿服从女性家庭角色的问题。还有马克思主义女权主义者所写的经济过程,以及男性从中受益的纯粹的性统治斗争。此外,乔多罗笔下的女性过于理想化:温暖、有爱、无私的生物,没有自己的要求。事实上,很多女性都是强硬的、好斗的、多疑的或自私的,并且在家庭内部和外部都为地位而战。Chodorow 没有看到社会上有足够的冲突,无论是在实行性别歧视的外部世界,还是在家庭本身。当妇女有足够的资源时,她们一直很有能力与丈夫争夺家庭权力。而做母亲本身并不像 Chodorow 说的那么田园诗般的美好;妇女会对她们的孩子生气,有时甚至会虐待他们,并与她们的孩子争夺控制权,比她们愿意承认的要多。必须牢记的是,弗洛伊德的观点也是一种冲突。乔多罗描述的倾向可能确实存在,但它们与其他倾向 —— 自信和自私的倾向 —— 弗洛伊德称之为本体的倾向 —— 相吻合。一个母亲可以同时爱她的孩子并与他们争吵,就像她可以既培养她的丈夫又恨他的父权控制。事实上,正是这种内心的冲突和矛盾,使离婚变得如此痛苦,并使争取妇女权利的斗争成为情感上最困难的战斗之一。因此,弗洛伊德的理论在我们今天的思考中继续发挥着重要作用。显然,关于男女关系中的性别歧视理论,最后的结论并不在此。除了乔多罗和其他女权主义理论家强调母亲角色是典型的女性活动外,还从弗洛伊德强调性驱力是人类的主要欲望中发展出一种性别分层的理论。在这个观点中,由 Randall Collins 在 Kingsley Davis 和 Claude Levi-Strauss 的早期理论的基础上发展起来的,男性一直试图将女性作为情欲财产来控制。在早期的部落社会中,妇女在群体之间被交换以建立政治联盟。在现代社会中,男人和女人直接在性市场上讨价还价,在这个市场上,男人到现在为止一直掌握着大部分的经济谈判牌。从这个角度来看,随着妇女自己获得更多的经济资源,她们有能力与男人讨价还价,而不是为了男人的挣钱能力,而是为了自己的性,这并不令人惊讶。
ual attractiveness; hence the time of the feminist movement also turned out to be a time of erotic liberalization. Freud, in fact, may have been closer to this than we realize. Freud's own theories were paternalistically sexist, but his data were not. Bearing in mind that the first great wave of women's liberation in Europe began in the German-speaking countries around the turn of the twentieth century, one can put into perspective Freud's patients, mostly neurotic women from this very era, suffering from the family stresses of a newly emerging situation in which women were beginning to assert some independent rights. Freud may have misinterpreted what was going on, claiming to see in these conflicts an eternal psychic pattern when it may only have been an historically temporary one, as women struggled over sexual repression as a strategy within a male-dominated society. But the genius of a theorist may be to point at the crucial processes, more than to arrive immediately at the correct answer.
因此,女权运动的时代也变成了一个色情自由化的时代。事实上,弗洛伊德可能比我们意识到的更接近于此。弗洛伊德自己的理论是家长式的性别歧视,但他的数据却不是。考虑到欧洲的第一次妇女解放大潮是在二十世纪之交的德语国家开始的,我们可以把弗洛伊德的病人放在眼里,他们大多是这个时代的神经质妇女,在一个新出现的情况下遭受家庭的压力,妇女开始主张一些独立权利。弗洛伊德可能误解了正在发生的事情,声称在这些冲突中看到了一种永恒的心理模式,而这可能只是一种历史上的暂时性模式,因为妇女在一个男性主导的社会中作为一种策略而与性压抑作斗争。但理论家的天才可能是指出关键的过程,而不是立即得出正确的答案。
CHAPTER NINE The Discovery of the Invisible World: Simmel, Cooley, and Mead SIMMEL About the same time that Emile Durkheim was giving sociology a distinctive scientific identity in France, a similar attempt was being made in Germany. The German equivalent of Durkheim was Georg Simmel (1858-1918), whose career is strikingly similar to Durkheim's—and also strikingly different. For Durkheim was successful, and Simmel was not. Like Durkheim, Simmel formulated a view of society as a level of analysis independent of observable individuals, with laws of its own that required a separate science to investigate them. Simmel pointed out more clearly than anyone that since only individuals are physically real, the subject matter of sociology must be an invisible world of symbols and forms of interaction. He thus avoided some of the possible mystification inherent in Durkheim's "collective conscience." But Durkheim went on to become one of the most prominent thinkers in France, while Simmel spent twenty-nine long years waiting to be called to a professorship in Germany. All his life Simmel was an outsider, and his work shows both the strengths and weaknesses peculiar to that position. Simmel came from a wealthy and cultured Jewish family, and indeed his work is full of echoes of music, art, and drawing-room conversation. After studying philosophy, he became a privatdozent (private lecturer) at the University of Berlin in 1885. Not until 1914—just four years before his death—was he to gain the long-sought promotion to full professor. Forces conspired to keep him out. He was a Jew in a time of growing anti- Semitism, a liberal in Imperial Germany, the proponent of a discipline, sociology, that was associated with the un-German politics of Comte and Spencer. Simmel retreated more and more into the world of art and sociability, his sociology becoming a collection of insights—a theory of society, as it were, as if seen by a passerby, catching a few features as they struck 166
第九章 无形世界的发现。西梅尔、库利和米德 西梅尔 就在埃米尔·杜克海姆在法国赋予社会学一个独特的科学身份的同时,德国也在进行类似的尝试。与杜克海姆相当的德国人是乔治·西梅尔(Georg Simmel,1858-1918),他的职业生涯与杜克海姆惊人地相似,同时也惊人地不同。因为杜克海姆是成功的,而西梅尔却不是。与杜克海姆一样,西美尔提出了一种社会的观点,认为它是独立于可观察到的个人的一个分析层次,有其自身的规律,需要单独的科学来研究它们。西梅尔比任何人都更清楚地指出,由于只有个人是物理上真实的,社会学的主题必须是一个看不见的符号和互动形式的世界。因此,他避免了杜克海姆的 “集体意识” 所固有的一些可能的神秘化。但杜克海姆后来成为法国最杰出的思想家之一,而西梅尔则花了 29 年的时间等待被召到德国担任教授。西梅尔一生都是一个局外人,他的作品显示了这种地位所特有的优势和弱点。西梅尔来自一个富裕而有教养的犹太家庭,事实上,他的作品中充满了音乐、艺术和客厅谈话的回声。在学习了哲学之后,他于 1885 年成为柏林大学的私人讲师(privatdozent)。直到 1914 年,也就是他去世前的四年,他才获得渴望已久的正式教授的晋升。各种力量合谋将他拒之门外。他是一个反犹太主义日益严重的时代的犹太人,是帝国德国的自由主义者,是一门与孔德和斯宾塞的非德国政治有关的学科 —— 社会学的支持者。西梅尔越来越多地退缩到艺术和社会性的世界中,他的社会学成为一种见解的集合 —— 一种社会的理论,就像一个路人所看到的那样,抓住了一些特征,因为它们让人印象深刻。
the eye but never penetrating to the heart of the edifice. Like the subject of one of his most famous essays, Simmel was the stranger who sees things that other humans, wrapped in their familiar routines, cannot see, a man privy to secrets given him because he has no one to tell them to. The formal background of Simmel's sociology was the tradition of German philosophy—Kant, Hegel, Dilthey, Wundt—which showed how humans see the world through a veil of their own perceptual forms and how these forms were passed on through human history in language, artistic ideals, myths, and legal systems. Accordingly, Simmel argues that society is an invisible world with laws of its own. These laws are found in the flow of culture—language, technology, social institutions, art—which molds each new generation along the lines of the past, and in forms or patterns of interaction among humans that have effects on what they may individually do. But humans are also living individuals. The culture that molds them and the interactions that constrain them are what make them human, but they are also something external and alien. The drama of humankind is, then, a struggle between the individual and the society—a drama that is fundamentally a tragedy, for the two forces must always exist together in every living person. Simmel's sensitivity to these two simultaneous levels of existence resulted in a striking insight, one that has been followed up only recently: The social institutions that make up the relatively permanent heritage of a society—the state, the family, the economy, the class structure—are only an extended version of the everyday interactions of men and women meeting on the street, in stores and offices, or at a party. Thus, by studying the formal structure of the more fleeting encounters, we reach the essence of our invisible society. "The interactions we have in mind when we talk about "society' are crystallized as definable, consistent structures such as the state and the family, the guild and the church, social classes and organizations based on common interests," wrote Simmel. But in addition to these, there exists an immeasurable number of less conspicuous forms of relationship and kinds of interaction. Taken singly, they may appear negligible. But since in actuality they are inserted into the comprehensive and, as it were, official social formations, they alone produce society as we know it. . . . Without the interspersed effects of countless minor syntheses, society would break up into a multitude of discontinuous systems. Sociation continuously emerges and ceases and emerges again. Even where its eternal flux and pulsation are not sufficiently strong to form organizations proper, they link individuals together. That people look at one another and are jealous of one another; that they exchange letters or dine together; that irrespective of all tangible interests they strike one another as pleasant or unpleasant; that gratitude for altruistic acts makes for inseparable union; that one asks another man after a certain street, and that people dress and adorn themselves for one another—the whole gamut of relations that play from one person to another and that may be momentary or permanent, conscious or unconscious, ephemeral or of grave consequence (and from which these illustrations are quite casually chosen), all these
在他的作品中,我们可以看到很多东西,但从来没有深入到建筑的核心。就像他最著名的一篇文章的主题一样,西梅尔是一个陌生人,他看到了其他人类在他们熟悉的常规中看不到的东西,一个人知道他的秘密,因为他没有人可以告诉他们。西梅尔的社会学的正式背景是德国哲学的传统 —— 康德、黑格尔、狄尔泰、冯特 —— 它显示了人类如何通过他们自己的感知形式的面纱来看世界,以及这些形式如何通过人类历史在语言、艺术理想、神话和法律制度中传递。因此,西梅尔认为,社会是一个无形的世界,有其自身的规律。这些法则存在于文化的流动中 —— 语言、技术、社会制度、艺术 —— 它沿着过去的路线塑造着每一代人,也存在于人类之间的互动形式或模式中,对他们个人可能做的事情产生影响。但人类也是活生生的个体。塑造他们的文化和约束他们的互动是使他们成为人类的原因,但他们也是外部的和外来的东西。因此,人类的戏剧是个人和社会之间的斗争 —— 从根本上说是一场悲剧,因为这两种力量必须始终存在于每个活生生的人身上。西梅尔对这两个同时存在的层面的敏感,导致了一个惊人的洞察力,这个洞察力直到最近才被跟进。构成一个社会相对永久遗产的社会机构 —— 国家、家庭、经济、阶级结构 —— 只是男人和女人在街上、在商店和办公室、或在聚会上的日常互动的延伸版本。因此,通过研究更多转瞬即逝的相遇的形式结构,我们就能达到我们无形社会的本质。西梅尔写道:“当我们谈论” 社会 "时,我们所想到的互动被具体化为可定义的、一致的结构,如国家和家庭、行会和教会、社会阶层和基于共同利益的组织。但是,除了这些,还存在着不可估量的、不太明显的关系形式和互动种类。单独来看,它们可能显得微不足道。但是,由于它们实际上被插入了全面的、官方的社会形态中,因此,只有它们才能产生我们所知道的社会。. . . 如果没有无数次要综合的穿插影响,社会就会分裂成许多不连续的系统。社会不断地出现,停止,再出现。即使在其永恒的变化和脉动不足以形成适当的组织的地方,它们也将个人联系在一起。人们相互注视,相互妒忌;他们交换信件或一起吃饭;不管所有有形的利益,他们都会让对方感到愉快或不愉快;对利他行为的感激使人们不可分割地结合在一起;一个人向另一个人询问某条街道的情况,人们为彼此穿戴和装饰自己 —— 从一个人到另一个人的全部关系,可能是一时的或永久的,有意识的或无意识的,短暂的或严重的后果(这些例子是很随意地选择的),所有这些
incessantly tie men together. Here are the interactions among the atoms of society. They account for all the toughness and elasticity, all the color and consistency of social life, that is so striking and yet so mysterious.1 In one of his essays, Simmel speaks of men whose profession is to sit at home in full dinner dress, ready for a call from superstitious hostesses who find that they have a dinner party of thirteen about to sit down at table. Simmel was himself something of a "fourteenth man at dinner." Always the outsider, even in his chosen sphere of fleeting encounters, Simmel could not divest himself of his sociologist's detachment. Even more so than his later incarnation Erving Goffman (whom we shall meet in Chapter 13), Simmel was simultaneously within and without; neither completely participant nor completely observer; and his writings are a texture of insights that never quite make a solid system. \j Simmel was the first to remove sociability from the realm of the taken- for-granted and to analyze it as part of the social structure. Sociability, he pointed out, is a little world within the world, with laws all of its own. Here one did not allow practical and serious matters to intrude. The doings of the outer world might provide the starting place as subject matter for conversation, but the conversation was to rule the subjects and not vice versa. In the hands of skilled conversationalists, politics, business, art, gossip, the weather, all become the vehicle for talk that is carried on for the sake of talking, as raw material to be shaped by the formal requirements of these artists of fleeting symbols. Sociability is thus a world of make-believe, making the world of "outer" reality into a fantasyland that exists solely for the pleasure of the players. In the same vein, Simmel offers a perceptive analysis of the game of flirtation (which suggests that he must have been experienced at it—as do his knowledgeable remarks on love affairs and secrets). In its most refined form flirtation takes the raw material of sex and weaves from it a fabric of delight and fantasy, a symbolic world which turns the simplicity of physical passion into the subtle universe of love. By such sketches Simmel takes us into the heart of the salon society of Europe in one of its most dazzling eras. But Simmel never really pushes through to a sociological theory of the causes and effects of sociability or pursues the ramifications of his view of humankind's symbolic performances into a general model of society. He does not draw the implication, just recently being developed, that individuals create their worldviews out of just such encounters—not only in polite upper-bourgeois drawing rooms, but in all classes of society—and that it is just such shared fantasy worlds that bind some individuals together and set them off against others. Simmel's payoff is aesthetic rather than sociological. He concludes his discussion of sociability with the observation that polite conversation has the same sort of function as a majestic view of the 'Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, Kurt H. Wolff, ed. Published in 1950 by The Free Press Division of the Macmillan Company. Reprinted by permission.
不停地把人绑在一起。这里是社会原子之间的相互作用。在他的一篇文章中,西梅尔谈到了一些人,他们的职业是穿着全套的晚宴服装坐在家里,准备迎接迷信的女主人的召唤,因为她们发现有一个由 13 个人组成的晚宴即将入席。西梅尔本人就是一个 “晚餐中的第十四个人”。西梅尔总是局外人,即使在他所选择的转瞬即逝的接触领域,他也无法摆脱社会学家的疏离感。甚至比他后来的化身埃尔文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)(我们将在第 13 章见到他)更甚,西梅尔同时在内部和外部;既不是完全的参与者,也不是完全的观察者;他的著作是一种见解的纹理,从来没有完全形成一个坚实的体系。\西梅尔是第一个将社会性从 “理所当然” 的领域中剥离出来,并将其作为社会结构的一部分进行分析的人。他指出,社会性是世界中的一个小世界,有其自身的规律。在这里,人们不允许实际和严肃的事情侵入。外部世界的行为可能为谈话的主题提供起点,但谈话是为了统治主题,而不是反过来。在熟练的谈话者手中,政治、商业、艺术、八卦、天气,都成为谈话的载体,为了谈话而谈话,作为原材料被这些转瞬即逝的符号艺术家的形式要求所塑造。因此,社会性是一个虚构的世界,使 “外部” 现实的世界成为一个只为玩家的快乐而存在的幻想世界。同样,西梅尔对调情游戏进行了敏锐的分析(这表明他在这方面一定很有经验 —— 就像他对爱情事务和秘密的博学评论一样)。在其最精炼的形式中,调情采用了性的原材料,并从中编织出快乐和幻想的织物,一个象征性的世界,将简单的身体激情变成了微妙的爱情宇宙。通过这样的素描,西梅尔把我们带入了欧洲沙龙社会最令人眼花缭乱的一个时代的中心。但是,西梅尔从未真正推进到关于社会性的原因和影响的社会学理论,也没有将他关于人类的象征性表演的观点延伸到社会的一般模式中。他没有得出最近刚刚发展起来的暗示,即个人正是从这样的相遇中创造了他们的世界观 —— 不仅是在彬彬有礼的上层资产阶级的客厅里,而且是在社会的所有阶层,正是这样的共同幻想世界把一些人捆绑在一起,使他们与其他人相对抗。西梅尔的回报是审美的而不是社会学的。他在讨论交际能力时最后说,礼貌的谈话具有与 “乔治·西美尔” 的雄伟景观相同的功能。1950 年由麦克米伦公司的自由出版社分部出版。经许可重印。
ocean: Both give pleasure because they transmute the turmoil of life into a pleasing spectacle, viewed from a distance. The tragedy of conflict and failure, of individual versus society, exists in sociability as in serious life, but as material for play, and hence no longer dangerous and uncontrolled. The conversationalist emerges victorious in his world of symbols. Simmel's sociology ranged much wider than drawing rooms, to include the serious realms of power, money, and historical change. As always, this material yields insights to Simmel's eye as he abstracts out the formal properties of diverse situations. His analyses of the effects of group size are classic, demonstrating that a group too large for all its members to converse together will have a different structure than a smaller one. The point is drawn even more sharply when he compares two-person groups with three-person groups. The dyad's fundamental reality is its perishability, for it will dissolve whenever one person decides to leave; this gives each partner a particular hold on the other. The triad, however, has a basic independence of its members, for it will still exist if one person leaves. The individual thus becomes less significant to the group. Moreover, new configurations open up here, as it becomes possible for two to form a coalition against the third, or one to play the other two off against each other. In short, the whole realm of organized society and its power relations opens up through shifts in numbers and in the resulting geometry of social relationships. Simmel thus develops the meaning of Thoreau's remark, "I have three chairs in my house: one for solitude, two for company, three for society." Simmel had other insights, some of them brilliant, on the structure of group conflicts, on the social relationships created by secrets, on the way in which the variety of groups in modern society gives each individual a distinctive set of social ties and hence produces modern individualism. But Simmel never really carried these ideas far enough to produce a comprehensive sociological theory. Unlike Durkheim, he does not try to test causal propositions against empirical evidence, but only to display a philosophy of the forms that flicker across the human landscape. At bottom, Simmel, the lonely outsider, hated society. He wrote that people in groups are ruled by the lowest common denominator and that the higher forms of intellect and morality are always individual products. This personal disposition contradicted Simmel's own insights on the ways in which the individual is a product of society, and it kept him from pressing on to the breakthroughs that came to Durkheim when he realized that people's moralities and ideas have their origins in groups and their rituals. But if Simmel, the outsider of the German intellectual world, could not produce a genuine sociology from the leads it offered, there were others who would. The American universities had been reformed in the 1870s and 1880s along German lines, and American intellectuals were shaking off the stupor of the era of petty religious colleges. American sociologists, full of the same German philosophy that sustained Simmel and impressed by the empirical approaches of the new experimental psychology, were to succeed
海洋:两者都给人以快乐,因为它们将生活的动荡转化为一种令人愉悦的景象,从远处看。冲突和失败的悲剧,个人与社会的冲突,在交际中存在,就像在严肃的生活中一样,但作为游戏的材料,因此不再是危险和不受控制的。谈话者在他的符号世界中取得了胜利。西梅尔的社会学范围比画室要广得多,包括权力、金钱和历史变革等严肃领域。像往常一样,当西梅尔抽象出各种情况的形式属性时,这些材料产生了对西梅尔的洞察力。他对群体规模的影响的分析是经典的,表明一个太大的群体,其所有成员都能在一起交谈,会有一个与较小的群体不同的结构。当他将两人小组与三人小组进行比较时,这一点就更加尖锐了。二人组的基本现实是它的易逝性,因为只要有一个人决定离开,它就会解体;这使每个伙伴对另一个伙伴有特别的牵制。然而,三人组有其成员的基本独立性,因为如果有一个人离开,它仍然会存在。因此,个人对团体来说变得不那么重要。此外,新的配置在这里打开,因为两个人有可能组成一个联盟来对抗第三个人,或者一个人把另外两个人玩弄于股掌之间。简而言之,有组织的社会的整个领域及其权力关系通过人数的变化和由此产生的社会关系的几何形状而开放。西梅尔因此发展了梭罗所说的 “我的房子里有三把椅子:一把用于孤独,两把用于陪伴,三把用于社会” 的意义。西梅尔还有其他的见解,其中一些很有见地,关于群体冲突的结构,关于秘密创造的社会关系,关于现代社会的各种群体如何给每个人提供一套独特的社会联系,从而产生现代个人主义。但西梅尔从未真正将这些想法深入到足以产生一个全面的社会学理论。与杜克海姆不同,他并没有试图用经验证据来检验因果命题,而只是展示了一种关于在人类景观中闪烁的形式的哲学。从根本上说,西梅尔这个孤独的局外人憎恨社会。他写道,群体中的人们被最低的共同点所统治,而智力和道德的较高形式总是个人的产物。这种个人倾向与西梅尔自己对个人是社会产物的方式的见解相矛盾,这使他无法继续推动杜克海姆在认识到人们的道德和思想起源于群体及其仪式时的突破。但是,如果西梅尔这个德国知识界的局外人不能从其提供的线索中产生真正的社会学,那么还有其他人可以。美国的大学在 19 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代按照德国的路线进行了改革,美国的知识分子正在摆脱小宗教学院时代的迷惑。美国的社会学家们充满了支撑西梅尔的德国哲学,并被新的实验心理学的经验方法所打动,他们将成功地进行研究。
where Simmel failed. In Cooley and Mead, the relationship between the invisible world of social symbols and the mind of the individual was to become a theory of considerable power. THE LIFE AND WORK OF COOLEY Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929) was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the fourth of six children. His father was a migrant from western New York, who had a distinguished career as a justice on Michigan's Supreme Court. Charles was an introspective, imaginative, and ambitious boy who read profusely. He prepared himself for college at age sixteen; however, ill health forced him to take seven years to graduate from the University of Michigan. Before taking his doctorate in economics in 1894, Cooley studied mechanical engineering, worked for the Interstate Commerce Commission, and traveled abroad. For his doctoral dissertation he presented a theory of transportation relating a socioeconomic solution of the railway question to the study of territorial demography. This work remains a benchmark in "human ecology," a field that was to be fruitfully researched and developed by Roderick McKenzie, Robert Park, and Ernest Burgess in Chicago a generation hence. Cooley's early inspiration came from Emerson, Goethe, and Darwin. From Herbert Spencer, whom he criticized subsequently for his subjectivity and lack of "culture," Cooley received his first broad outline of evolutionary knowledge. Franklin Giddings of Columbia University encouraged his aspirations to teach sociology as a university subject at Michigan. Cooley was a member of an academic clique that admired John Dewey, whose personality and lectures on political economy in 1893 and 1894 made a deep impression on Cooley's thought. Dewey criticized and went beyond Spencer by maintaining that society was an organism in a more profound way than the latter had perceived. Dewey's analysis of language as the "sensorium" of society corroborated Cooley's burgeoning interpretation of written language as the social medium of transmission par excellence. While preparing his thesis, Cooley became intrigued by the "psychic mechanism"; he was especially concerned with the transmission and modes of recording language through space and time. He studied these processes in their historical and contemporary forms until he developed a conception of communication that was consistent with his organic view of society. In his lectures and studies he continually related his findings to such major aspects of the social process as conflict, survival, and adaptation. Cooley transcended the Darwinian climate of opinion by becoming a social psychologist. He came to the realization that he could never actually see the social life of humankind unless he understood the processes of mind with which society was indissolubly linked. He observed the mental-social development of his children as a method of organizing and expanding his theoretical insights. After beginning to teach, he read Walter Bagehot, William
西美尔失败的地方。在库利和米德那里,社会符号的无形世界与个人心灵之间的关系将成为一种具有相当力量的理论。库利的生活和工作 查尔斯·霍顿·库利(1864-1929)出生于密歇根州的安阿伯,是六个孩子中的第四个。他的父亲是一位来自纽约西部的移民,曾在密歇根州最高法院担任法官,成绩斐然。查尔斯是一个内向、富有想象力、雄心勃勃的男孩,他阅读量很大。他在 16 岁时就准备上大学;然而,健康状况不佳迫使他花了七年时间才从密歇根大学毕业。在 1894 年获得经济学博士学位之前,库利学习了机械工程,为州际商业委员会工作,并到国外旅行。在他的博士论文中,他提出了一个运输理论,将铁路问题的社会经济解决方案与领土人口学研究联系起来。这项工作仍然是 “人类生态学” 的一个基准,这个领域在一代人之后由罗德里克·麦肯锡、罗伯特·帕克和欧内斯特·伯吉斯在芝加哥进行了富有成效的研究和发展。库利的早期灵感来自爱默生、歌德和达尔文。库利从赫伯特·斯宾塞(Herbert Spencer)那里得到了他对进化论知识的第一个大体轮廓,他后来批评了斯宾塞的主观性和缺乏 “文化”。哥伦比亚大学的富兰克林·吉丁斯(Franklin Giddings)鼓励他在密歇根大学教授社会学作为一门大学课程的愿望。库利是一个崇拜约翰·杜威的学术集团的成员,杜威的个性和 1893 年和 1894 年关于政治经济学的讲座给库利的思想留下了深刻的印象。杜威批评并超越了斯宾塞,认为社会是一个有机体,其深刻程度超过了后者的认识。杜威对语言作为社会的 “感觉” 的分析,证实了库利对书面语言作为卓越的社会传播媒介的蓬勃发展的解释。在准备他的论文时,库利对 “心理机制” 产生了兴趣;他特别关注语言在空间和时间中的传播和记录模式。他研究了这些过程的历史和当代形式,直到他发展出一个与他的社会有机观相一致的交流概念。在他的讲座和研究中,他不断地将他的发现与社会进程的主要方面如冲突、生存和适应联系起来。库利通过成为一名社会心理学家超越了达尔文主义的舆论氛围。他认识到,除非他了解与社会密不可分的心理过程,否则他永远无法真正看到人类的社会生活。他观察了自己孩子的心理社会发展,以此作为组织和扩展其理论见解的方法。开始教书后,他阅读了沃尔特·巴盖特、威廉
James, Gabriel Tarde, and Mark Baldwin and readied himself for his first book, in 1902, Human Nature and the Social Order. Cooley preferred a life of contemplation and continued to teach at his midwestern alma mater all his life. He turned down a professorship at Columbia, although he did consent reluctantly to serve as president of the American Sociological Society in 1918. COOLEY'S SYSTEM Cooley's social thought encompasses several interrelated dimensions: (1) His approach was organic; (2) his viewpoint was evolutionary; (3) his outlook was moral and progressive; and (4) his ideal was democratic. His organicism rested upon the theoretical assumption of the reciprocity of the individual and society. In his first book he systematically debunks the alleged antithesis of the individual versus society on the grounds that the latter is a psychical whole of which the individual is a particular expression. As the separate individual is a myth, so is society an illusion when conceived of apart from individual members. For Cooley "society" and "individuals" are collective and distributive aspects of the same thing rather than empirically separable phenomena. Thus, society becomes a living whole, or organism, composed of differentiated members, each of which has a special function. A university, for example, is composed of administrators, faculty, and students, with each status group having particular roles to perform within the organizational structure. This approach was a predecessor of the emerging functionalist system. Cooley's evolutionary viewpoint suffuses his system; yet it differs from the social evolutionism of Spencer and the leading nineteenth-century anthropologists in its emphasis on individual rather than collective aspects of development. Cooley is more concerned with the evolution of the individual's social being (how the growing organism acquires a sense of the "I") than with grand historical sequences or stages of cultural evolution. His view encourages the student of human nature to believe in life as a creative process of which the human will is an integral ingredient. Far from being a passive element of society, each individual does his or her unique share in the work of the common whole. Cooley perceived each individual as a "fresh organization of life," which flows from the hereditary and social past. He envisioned each life history as containing a stream and a road; he discerned the stream as heredity, which comes through the germ plasm. He apprehended the road as "communication or social transmission," including language, interaction, and education. The road, which contemporary sociologists might call "culture," is a later development than the stream. Cooley's moral outlook is expressed in his equation of rationality with the judgment of right. By rationality Cooley meant more than the product of formal reasoning; he pointed to the more profound rationality of conscience as an outcome of the social life of a person, including one's interac-
詹姆斯、加布里埃尔·塔尔德和马克·鲍德温,并在 1902 年为他的第一本书《人性与社会秩序》做好准备。库利更喜欢沉思的生活,一生都在他的中西部母校任教。他拒绝了哥伦比亚大学的教授职位,尽管他不情愿地同意在 1918 年担任美国社会学会的主席。库利的体系 库利的社会思想包含了几个相互关联的方面。(1)他的方法是有机的;(2)他的观点是进化的;(3)他的观点是道德的和进步的;(4)他的理想是民主的。他的有机主义建立在个人和社会互惠的理论假设之上。在他的第一本书中,他系统地驳斥了所谓的个人与社会的对立,理由是社会是一个心理整体,而个人是其中的一个特殊表现。正如独立的个人是一个神话一样,如果脱离了个人成员的设想,社会也是一个幻觉。对库利来说,“社会” 和 “个人” 是同一事物的集体和分配的方面,而不是经验上可分离的现象。因此,社会成为一个活生生的整体,或有机体,由不同的成员组成,其中每个成员都有特殊的功能。例如,一所大学是由行政人员、教师和学生组成的,每个身份群体在组织结构中都有特殊的作用。这种方法是新兴功能主义体系的前身。库利的进化论观点充斥着他的体系;但它与斯宾塞和 19 世纪主要人类学家的社会进化论不同,它强调发展的个人而非集体方面。库利更关注个人的社会存在的演变(成长中的有机体如何获得 “我” 的感觉),而不是宏大的历史序列或文化演变的阶段。他的观点鼓励研究人性的学生相信生活是一个创造性的过程,人类的意志是其中不可分割的组成部分。每个人都不是社会的被动因素,而是在共同的整体工作中做出自己独特的贡献。库利认为每个人都是一个 “新鲜的生命组织”,它来自遗传和社会的过去。他设想每个生命史都包含一条溪流和一条道路;他认为溪流就是遗传,它来自于种质。他把道路理解为 “交流或社会传播”,包括语言、互动和教育。道路,当代社会学家可能称之为 “文化”,是比流更晚的发展。库利的道德观表现在他把理性等同于对权利的判断。库利所说的理性不仅仅是指形式上的推理的产物;他指出更深刻的良心理性是一个人的社会生活的结果,包括一个人的交往。
tions with others and imaginary conversations with oneself. By locating society in the mind, Cooley, in his ethical treatise "The Social Aspect of Conscience," was able to explain the moral nature of confession as the opening of oneself to another, higher, more ideal person from whose vantage point one is able to obtain an outside view of oneself. Cooley's morality was thus rational, social, and progressive. While he did not feel, like some ethnocentric evolutionists, that twentieth-century culture was the apex of civilization, he did believe in the necessity for humankind to have a high and vivid image of personality that was morally edifying. One's reach, so to speak, should exceed one's grasp. He discerned three practically universal ideas of right: loyalty to the group, kindness to group members, and adherence to the customs of the tribe. Whereas his contemporary, Max Weber, understood the rationalization of the world in terms of continual disenchantment (for example, the recent demystification of the moon), Cooley stressed the possibilities for personal growth in a right (that is, rational) society efficiently organized according to democratic principles. His conception of democracy embodied a philosophy of mind-enlarging consciousness. Cooley found the earliest forms of democratic unity in Western civilization among the pre-Roman Teutonic tribes, especially in the social units of the family, clan, and village group. Without indirect communications media such as the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television, people had to come together in face-to-face contact to experience the rising tide of social excitement that led to higher levels of consciousness. The people of old held feasts, games, and public assemblies and ceremonies as occasions for group exaltation and as opportunities for the expression of public opinion. Modern-day Americans celebrate the astronauts' space flights through the mass medium of television; the Romans fed Christians to the lions in stone stadiums; and the ancients chanted, sang, and danced festively around the campfire. Rock concerts and jazz, gospel, and country festivals are contemporary examples of a return to primitive modes of togetherness, with the added thrill of amplified sound made possible by recent technological and cultural developments. Cooley stated that although "democracy as a spirit is spontaneous," it could only have a large-scale spiritual effect with the liberation of the creative faculties of the members composing the body politic. He saw in the present epoch the potentiality for a "higher and freer consciousness" and understood democracy as the general phase of that enlarged consciousness. Cooley comprehended institutions as definite and established products of the public mind which were the outcomes of the organization and crystallization of thought around the forms of customs, symbols, beliefs, and lasting sentiments. He perceived such institutions as language, the family, industry, education, religion, and law as continually responsive to the needs of human nature. He saw them as "apperceptive systems" of the public mind, which were inseparable from, and unreal without relation to, one another. Here again one can notice glimmerings of functionalism; Cooley, however, did not make the mistake of reifying the social system
与他人的对话和与自己的想象的对话。通过将社会定位在头脑中,库利在他的伦理学论文《良心的社会方面》中,能够解释忏悔的道德性质,即把自己开放给另一个更高更理想的人,从他的有利位置,人们能够获得对自己的外部看法。因此,库利的道德观是理性的、社会的和进步的。虽然他并不像一些民族中心主义的进化论者那样认为二十世纪的文化是文明的顶点,但他确实相信人类有必要拥有一个高大而生动的人格形象,在道德上具有启发性。可以说,一个人的能力应该超过他的掌握。他发现了三种几乎是普遍的权利观念:对群体的忠诚,对群体成员的仁慈,以及对部落习俗的遵守。他的同代人马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)从持续的失望角度来理解世界的合理化(例如,最近对月亮的解密),而库利则强调在一个按照民主原则有效组织的正确(即理性)社会中个人成长的可能性。他的民主概念体现了一种扩大思想意识的哲学。库利发现西方文明中最早的民主团结形式是在罗马以前的日耳曼部落中,特别是在家庭、宗族和村组等社会单位中。在没有电报、电话、广播和电视等间接通讯媒介的情况下,人们必须在面对面的接触中走到一起,才能体验到社会兴奋点的上升,从而导致更高水平的意识。古代的人们举行盛宴、游戏、公共集会和仪式,作为群体升华的场合和表达公众意见的机会。现代的美国人通过电视这一大众媒介来庆祝宇航员的太空飞行;罗马人在石头体育场里把基督徒喂给狮子;古人在篝火旁吟唱、歌唱、跳舞,充满了节日的气氛。摇滚乐会和爵士乐、福音和乡村音乐节是当代回归原始团结模式的例子,最近的技术和文化发展使放大的声音变得更加刺激。库利说,尽管 “民主作为一种精神是自发的”,但它只有在构成政治体的成员的创造性能力得到解放的情况下才能产生大规模的精神效果。他在当今时代看到了 “更高、更自由的意识” 的潜力,并将民主理解为这种扩大的意识的一般阶段。库利把制度理解为公众思想的明确和既定的产品,这些产品是围绕着习俗、符号、信仰和持久情感等形式的思想组织和结晶的结果。他认为语言、家庭、工业、教育、宗教和法律等制度是对人性需求的持续回应。他把它们看作是公众心智的 “感知系统”,它们与彼此不可分割,也是不真实的,没有关系。在这里,我们可以再次注意到功能主义的影子;然而,库利并没有犯重化社会系统的错误
and locating needs in it rather than in the people who created it. Since sociality is mental, the institution is an individual habit of mind that is largely unconscious because of its commonality. The individual is not merely a passive effect of the social order; he or she is an effective cause as well. The Looking-Glass Self and the Primary Group In Human Nature and the Social Order Cooley presents his theory of the social self. Drawing upon Wilhelm Wundt and especially upon William James, he discusses the meaning of the "I" as observed in daily thought and speech. This "I" is the empirical self that can be verified by observation; it is neither an a priori Cartesian assumption nor a metaphysical entity. Cooley observed that this primal idea referred least often to the body and most often to either the "my feeling" or to the "looking-glass self." He regarded the self as a feeling state that is more or less consistent with ideas as they arise in our experience. The former "my" attitude refers to the individual's sense of appropriation toward various objects and people. He gives the example of gloating as a reflective self-feeling state in which the person who has either accomplished or acquired something that is pleasing thinks "mine, mine, mine" with a warm sensation. Cooley extends James's definition of psychology as the study of states of consciousness by establishing the sociality of selfhood as it relates to the thought of others. The social self emerges as an idea taken from the communicative life that the mind treasures as its own. It was from this line of reasoning that the concept of the looking-glass self was born. In order to grasp this germinal idea, one should bear in mind Cooley's dictum: "The imaginations people have of one another are the solid facts of society." The dimensions of the looking-glass self are threefold: First, we imagine our appearance or image in the eyes of the other; second, we imagine some judgment of that appearance; and finally, we experience some sort of self-feeling such as pride or mortification. In other words, "I feel about me the way I think you think of me." For example, a person would be ashamed to appear ignorant in the presence of a learned man, or glad to be recognized by a celebrity. This phenomenon pervades our everyday existence in the social arena at even subtler levels than shame or joy. All the little looks and gestures that happen in daily encounters with others constitute the very fabric of society. This aspect of Cooley's sociology has been developed in the social thought of Erving Goffman, a man whom we shall meet in a later chapter. In Cooley's primary theory of social psychology, that we are the imaginations that we have of one another, and that society is the organic whole of which all imagining individuals are parts, he asserted that these imaginations are the solid facts of society. In the relation of self to society, individuals project images of their selves, which, as James said, are basically of the modes of self-denial or self-affirmation. From the latter group come the stars in the institution of entertainment (or "show business"). The star sys-
并将需求定位在它身上,而不是在创造它的人身上。由于社会性是精神性的,机构是一种个人的思维习惯,由于其共同性,它在很大程度上是无意识的。个人不仅仅是社会秩序的被动效果;他或她也是一个有效的原因。在《人性与社会秩序》中,库利提出了他的社会自我理论。他借鉴威廉·冯特(Wilhelm Wundt),特别是威廉·詹姆斯(William James)的观点,讨论了在日常思维和言语中观察到的 “我” 的意义。这个 “我” 是可以通过观察来验证的经验性自我;它既不是先验的笛卡尔式假设,也不是形而上学的实体。库利观察到,这种原始观念最不常提到身体,最常提到的是 “我的感觉” 或 “望远镜中的自我”。他认为自我是一种感觉状态,或多或少与我们经验中出现的观念相一致。前者的 “我的” 态度是指个人对各种物体和人的占有感。他举例说,幸灾乐祸是一种反思性的自我感觉状态,在这种状态下,完成或获得令人高兴的东西的人认为 “我的,我的,我的”,并有一种温暖的感觉。库利将詹姆斯的心理学定义扩展为对意识状态的研究,确立了自我身份的社会性,因为它与他人的思想有关。社会性的自我是作为一种想法出现的,这种想法取自于心灵所珍视的交流性生活。正是从这一推理思路中,诞生了望远镜式的自我概念。为了把握这个萌芽的想法,我们应该牢记库利的箴言:“人们对彼此的想象是社会的坚实事实”。镜中自我的层面有三个方面。首先,我们想象自己在对方眼中的外貌或形象;其次,我们想象对这种外貌的某种判断;最后,我们经历某种自我感觉,如骄傲或羞愧。换句话说,“我对我的感觉就像我认为你对我的看法一样”。例如,一个人在一个有学问的人面前显得无知会感到羞愧,或者很高兴被一个名人认出。这种现象充斥着我们在社会领域的日常存在,甚至比羞愧或高兴更微妙的层次。在与他人的日常接触中发生的所有小眼神和小动作都构成了社会的基本结构。库利社会学的这一方面在埃尔文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)的社会思想中得到了发展,我们将在后面的章节中见到这个人。在库利的社会心理学的主要理论中,我们是我们对彼此的想象,而社会是一个有机的整体,所有想象中的个人都是其中的一部分,他断言这些想象是社会的坚实事实。在自我与社会的关系中,个人投射出自我的形象,正如詹姆斯所说,这些形象基本上属于自我否定或自我肯定的模式。从后者中产生了娱乐机构(或 “演艺界”)中的明星。明星系统
tern represents a stratification of social selves—from the "superstars" to the less famous—in relation to the nonstars—viewers, audience, fans, or public. The old adage that stars are born and not made may be true; however, the promotion of the social self of a star is the secondary function of an effective agent with the right business connections and contacts in the industry as well as the charisma of the performer. The decline of the hero in our times has given rise in mass society to the phenomenon of the celebrity, a manufactured personality with or without talent. The celebrity's image is sold to the collectivity through advertising in the media (especially television, movies, radio, newspapers, and magazines). The Hollywood-derived star image is an economic commodity competing with other marketable image-commodities of packaged personalities. Perceptive commentators on America have observed that we, and many of the other high-tech countries, are living in the era of the cult of the personality. Movies are to the twentieth century what oil paintings were to the nineteenth, and such legends as Al Jolson, Maurice Chevalier, Jimmy Durante, Bette Davis, John Wayne, Jack Benny, Judy Garland, Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby, Charlie Chaplin, Noel Coward, Marlene Dietrich, Bob Hope, Danny Kaye, Frank Sinatra, and Marilyn Monroe took time and space to magnify themselves in our imaginations. As the movies are replaced by television as the primary entertainment medium, the marketplace of the star system shifts from the public place of the theater to the private locale of the home. Since advertising remains a constant factor of American society, the star system maintains itself in a modified form. Still, the mind, in which the stars themselves exist, remains the locus of society in the Cooleyan framework. Hollywood has been the dream factory and the center of Romantic America. As the scene switches more to television, "TV Guide" has become the log of that civilization. And now we are entering a new era in the evolution of communications, as well as a transition from one electronic source-dyad of the definition of "reality"—the movies and radio—to another—television and the computer. In Social Organization (1909) Cooley introduced the concept of the primary group. Such an association is characterized by intimacy, face-to-face interaction, emotional warmth, and cooperation. These groups are the seedbeds of society in the sense that they are fundamental in forming the social nature of the individual and his or her primary ideals, including love, freedom, and justice. The outcome of a primary relationship involves a "we" feeling that makes for close identification of the self with the life of the group. Sociologically universal examples of this mode of association are the children's play group, the family, the neighborhood, and the council of elders. The basic experience of the primary group is the feeling of social unity with other members. In contemporary times primary groups have been emerging in the form of urban and rural communes, as people begin to band together with varying degrees of success for survival purposes and to reexperience a lost or shattered home life. For Cooley the self-governing, democratic village commune was the highest social form. He quotes
这代表了社会自我的分层 —— 从 “超级明星” 到不太出名的人 —— 与非明星 —— 观众、受众、粉丝或公众的关系。明星是天生的而不是后天造就的这句老话可能是正确的;然而,对明星的社会自我的宣传是一个有效的经纪人的次要功能,他有正确的商业关系和行业内的联系,以及表演者的魅力。在我们的时代,英雄的衰落使大众社会出现了名人现象,一个有或没有天赋的人造人格。名人的形象通过媒体(尤其是电视、电影、广播、报纸和杂志)的广告被卖给了集体。好莱坞衍生的明星形象是一种经济商品,与其他可销售的形象商品竞争,即包装好的人格。对美国敏锐的评论家已经注意到,我们和其他许多高科技国家,正生活在个性崇拜的时代。电影对 20 世纪的意义就像油画对 19 世纪的意义一样,像阿尔·乔尔森、莫里斯·谢瓦利埃、吉米·杜兰特、贝蒂·戴维斯、约翰·韦恩、杰克·本尼、朱迪·加兰、弗雷德·阿斯泰尔、宾·克罗斯比、查理·卓别林、诺埃尔·考华德、玛琳·迪特里希、鲍勃·霍普、丹尼·凯、弗兰克·辛纳屈和玛丽莲·梦露这样的传奇人物,在时间和空间上放大了自己的想象。随着电影被电视取代成为主要的娱乐媒介,明星系统的市场也从剧院的公共场所转移到家庭的私人场所。由于广告仍然是美国社会的一个恒定因素,明星系统以一种修正的形式维持着自己。然而,在库利的框架内,明星本身存在的心灵仍然是社会的中心。好莱坞一直是美国的梦工厂和浪漫主义的中心。随着场景更多地转向电视,“电视指南” 已成为该文明的日志。而现在,我们正在进入一个通信演变的新时代,以及从一个电子来源 —— “现实” 定义的桎梏 —— 电影和广播向另一个电子来源 —— 电视和电脑的过渡。在《社会组织》(1909)中,库利提出了初级群体的概念。这种协会的特点是亲密无间、面对面的互动、情感温暖和合作。这些群体是社会的苗圃,因为它们在形成个人的社会性质和个人的主要理想(包括爱、自由和正义)方面具有根本意义。初级关系的结果涉及一种 “我们” 的感觉,使自我与群体的生活密切认同。在社会学上,这种联合模式的普遍例子是儿童游戏小组、家庭、邻里和长老会。初级群体的基本经验是与其他成员的社会团结的感觉。在当代,初级群体以城市和农村公社的形式出现,因为人们开始以不同程度的成功为目的团结起来,重新体验失去的或破碎的家庭生活。对库利来说,自治的、民主的乡村公社是最高的社会形式。他引用了
Tocqueville: "It is man who makes monarchies and establishes republics, but the commune seems to come directly from the hand of God." In contrast to the primary group the secondary group is impersonal, contractual, formal, and rational. Relationships are cool rather than warm. Professional associations, corporate bureaucracies, and nation-states are classic examples of this group type. But primary and secondary groups should not be taken as mutually exclusive categories. For example, primary groups may emerge within the secondary bureaucracies in the forms of boards of directors, academic cliques, circles of confidants, and like-minded associations. CRITICISM OF COOLEY Cooley's methodology was one of "sympathetic introspection." By this he meant the process of the social scientist putting himself or herself in touch with various sorts of persons, attempting to imagine how the world appears to them, and then recollecting and describing as closely as possible their particular feeling states. By this method Cooley essayed to understand the inner lives of rich and poor, criminals and children, conservatives and radicals, idiots and idealists. No phase of human nature was alien to him, so deep and wide were his sympathies. He took his own nature as a reflecting prism of the whole, and by examining his responses to others' presentations of self, he sought to pierce the invisible veil of society. Since Cooley's methodology was analogous to Max Weber's verstehen and Pitirim Sorokin's "logico-meaningful" method, it may be criticized on similar grounds. A major canon of scientific method is that its statements must be intersubjectively testable; otherwise, reliability of results becomes impossible. Indeed, one of the scientific dilemmas of Western sociology has been the immense difficulty of agreeing upon uniform methods and procedures. Since Cooley depended primarily on his personal powers of observation and drew his insights by an imaginative reconstruction of society from his peculiar vantage point, there would be no way for objective social scientists to test his conclusions empirically. Mead himself took Cooley to task for locating society in the mind instead of in the social world out of which psychical experiences arise. However, Cooley was breaking new ground by locating the self in consciousness rather than in behavior and therefore felt free to unload his mind of positivist baggage. Methodological precision concerned him far less than breadth of comprehension. Cooley was a sanguine practitioner, whose small-town sociology is suffused with the mores and attitudes of midwestern, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant liberalism. Cooley spent most of his life with his family and in the academic cloister at Ann Arbor, preferring not to venture into the flow of surrounding society. The prime advantages of this sheltered existence were the opportunities to meditate calmly and deeply on the quality of social life and to consolidate an expanding sociology department at the
托克维尔。“制造君主制和建立共和国的是人,但公社似乎直接来自上帝之手”。与一级群体相比,二级群体是非个人的、契约的、正式的和理性的。关系是冷静的,而不是温暖的。专业协会、企业官僚机构和民族国家是这种群体类型的典型例子。但是,初级和二级群体不应该被视为相互排斥的类别。例如,初级群体可能以董事会、学术小团体、知己圈和志同道合的协会等形式出现在二级官僚机构中。对库利的批评 库利的方法是 “同情性反省”。他的意思是,社会科学家把自己和各种人联系起来,试图想象世界对他们来说是什么样子,然后尽可能地回忆和描述他们的特殊感觉状态。通过这种方法,库利试图了解富人和穷人、罪犯和儿童、保守派和激进派、白痴和理想主义者的内在生活。人类的任何阶段对他来说都是陌生的,他的同情心是如此的深刻和广泛。他把自己的本性作为整体的反射棱镜,通过研究他对他人自我介绍的反应,他试图刺破社会的无形面纱。由于库利的方法类似于马克斯·韦伯的 verstehen 和皮特里姆·索罗金的 “逻辑·意义” 方法,它可以根据类似的理由受到批评。科学方法的一个主要法则是,它的陈述必须是主观上可检验的;否则,结果的可靠性就变得不可能。事实上,西方社会学的科学困境之一是在统一方法和程序上达成一致的巨大困难。由于库利主要依靠他个人的观察力,并通过从他独特的有利位置想象性地重建社会来获得他的洞察力,客观的社会科学家就没有办法从经验上检验他的结论。米德本人认为库利将社会定位在头脑中,而不是定位在心理体验所产生的社会世界中。然而,库利将自我定位在意识中而不是行为中,是一个新的突破,因此他觉得可以自由地卸下他头脑中的实证主义包袱。他对方法论的精确性的关注远远低于对理解力的广泛性。库利是一个乐观的实践者,他的小镇社会学充满了中西部、白人、盎格鲁·撒克逊人、新教自由主义的风尚和态度。库利一生中大部分时间都与家人在一起,并在安阿伯的学术回廊中度过,不愿冒险进入周围的社会流动。这种受保护的生活的主要好处是有机会冷静地、深入地思考社会生活的质量,并在安阿伯大学巩固一个不断扩大的社会学系。
University of Michigan. The main disadvantage was Cooley's failure to come into direct or frequent contact with people of diverse modes of life. He understood the problems of social organization in terms of personal degeneracy; his analysis, while penetrating, was more speculative than empirical. His uplifting armchair sociology rings with a kind of idealization of the real, which disdained the painstaking task of data gathering. Unlike Freud, Cooley was relatively out of touch with the world of unconscious wishes and motives. Cooley accepted Goethe's notion of the individual as a unified whole and rejected both biological and psychological determinism. The underlying theme of Cooley's theory of self was the metaphor of growth. His faith was in the individual's untapped potentialities, or what Dewey called "the infinite perfectability of man." Cooleyan sociology was a rationalistic blend of the provincial and the universal. The former attitude was a reflection of an isolationist America that had yet to be swept onto the international scene by a world war, while the latter pointed to the essentially Christian foundations of American civilization and the subsequent emergence of the national drive to "make the world safe for democracy." THE LIFE AND WORK OF MEAD George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) was born in South Hadley, Massachusetts, the son of a pastor. He studied at Harvard under the tutorship of Josiah Royce and William James. He traveled widely and took courses at overseas universities, mainly in Germany. In 1893 he was awarded a recently founded chair in philosophy at the University of Chicago, where John Dewey became a colleague and personal friend. Mead taught there until his death in 1931. He exercised a tremendous influence on several generations of students, principally through his oral teaching; his publications during his life consisted of scattered articles, notes, and critical studies in various philosophical, psychological, sociological, and pedagogical journals. All those who knew Mead personally were unanimous in remembering him as a rare, high, and disinterested spirit. He was a professor who knew how to charm as well as interest his students. He had a manner well suited to the exposition of ideas; he reasoned in a spiral by returning to what he had already said and then integrating it at a higher level of understanding. He made a new point with each line of reasoning, weaving previous threads into a larger and more comprehensive fabric of thought. Colleagues and students admitted, moreover, that conversation was his medium; writing was a poor second best. Despite the pressure of the academic world to "publish or perish," Mead became chairman of the University of Chicago's philosophy department without having published a single book. Four volumes of lecture notes gathered by pupils and friends were issued posthumously under the titles of The Philosophy of the Present (1932), Mind, Self, and
密歇根大学。主要的缺点是库利未能直接或经常与不同生活方式的人接触。他从个人堕落的角度来理解社会组织的问题;他的分析虽然深入浅出,但更多的是推测性的,而不是经验性的。他令人振奋的扶手椅社会学响起了一种对现实的理想化,它不屑于数据收集的艰苦任务。与弗洛伊德不同,库利与无意识的愿望和动机的世界相对脱节。库利接受歌德关于个人是一个统一整体的概念,并拒绝生物和心理决定论。库利的自我理论的基本主题是成长的隐喻。他相信个人尚未开发的潜力,或者杜威所说的 “人的无限完美性”。库利的社会学是一种理性主义的省级和普遍性的融合。前者反映了尚未被世界大战席卷到国际舞台的孤立主义的美国,而后者则指出了美国文明本质上的基督教基础以及随后出现的 “使世界对民主安全” 的国家动力。米德的生活和工作 乔治·赫伯特·米德(1863-1931)出生于马萨诸塞州的南哈德利,是一位牧师的儿子。他在哈佛大学学习,师从约西亚·罗伊斯和威廉·詹姆斯。他四处游历,并在海外大学,主要是德国的大学学习课程。1893 年,他被授予芝加哥大学最近成立的哲学讲座,约翰·杜威在那里成为他的同事和私人朋友。米德在那里教书,直到 1931 年去世。他对几代学生产生了巨大的影响,主要是通过他的口头教学;他一生的出版物包括零散的文章、笔记和在各种哲学、心理学、社会学和教育学杂志上的批评研究。所有认识米德本人的人都一致认为他是一个罕见的、高尚的、无私的精神。他是一位知道如何吸引学生并使其感兴趣的教授。他有一种非常适合阐述观点的方式;他通过回到他已经说过的内容,然后在更高的理解水平上进行整合,从而进行螺旋式的推理。他的每一条推理都有新的观点,把以前的线索编织成一个更大、更全面的思想结构。此外,同事和学生都承认,谈话是他的媒介;写作则是次要的。尽管学术界有 “不出版就灭亡” 的压力,米德成为芝加哥大学哲学系的主席,却没有出版过一本书。学生和朋友们收集的四卷讲义以《当下的哲学》(1932 年)、《心灵、自我、和我》(1932 年)为题,在死后发行。
Society (1934), Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century (1936), and The Philosophy of the Act (1938). Like Georg Simmel, he was a philosopher turned social scientist, and in order to get a clearer portrait of Mead's social psychology within the history of sociological theory it helps to consider his philosophical perspective. MEAD'S SYSTEM Mead's social thought is relational, evolutionary, and pragmatic. Upon reading Mead one is struck with a sense of what Alfred North Whitehead called "the interrelatedness of things." As a philosopher of science Mead understood the mechanical and atomistic bias of the nineteenth century as an outcome of past systems of ideas. The chemists and physicists of the preceding century were mainly preoccupied with the notion of matter as composed of static, solid, self-sufficient particles. Their focus was on the structure rather than on the activities of the atom. With the recent emergence of relativistic theories in the natural sciences, atoms were perceived in terms of "eigen states" or "patterns of stability." This shift in emphasis, which provided a wider theoretical frame of reference for explaining physical events, was paralleled in Mead's social psychology by the dissolution of the implicitly atomistic image of humankind of much nineteenth-century sociology. The sociologies of Comte, Marx, Spencer, and even Durkheim apprehended the relationship between society and the individual primarily in a deterministic manner. The locus for action resided almost wholly in the social or economic system such that "the invisible hand of society" totally controlled human behavior. The human individual was portrayed as a kind of self-contained molecule within the larger social organism. Mead's rela- tionism consisted of his theoretical joining of self and society in the ongoing social process such that the individual was neither isolated from his or her fellows nor wholly determined by any abstract system. Mead's theoretical achievement was arrived at inductively by observation of what happens in the daily lives of human beings. For Mead the society in which we interact with one another in sundry groups constitutes an empirical reality. It is a product of evolution and is divisible into many modes of social reality, which are dependent upon variable definitions of the situation. He distinguished between Aristotelian and Darwinian ideas of evolution; according to the former doctrine, evolution is the development of the existing plant or animal species (which is the Latin word for the Greek term "form") without reference to the environment. In contrast, the theory presented in Darwin's Origin of Species is not concerned with the development of a particular species as such; rather, it is interested in showing how various forms evolve and survive in response to environmental pressures. Those forms survive that can best adapt themselves to changing life conditions. Behind this post-Aristotelian conception is the idea of a life pro-
社会》(1934)、《十九世纪的思想运动》(1936)和《行为的哲学》(1938)。和乔治·西美尔一样,他也是一位由哲学家转为社会科学家的人,为了在社会学理论史中更清楚地了解米德的社会心理学,我们需要考虑他的哲学视角。米德的体系 米德的社会思想是关系的、进化的和实用的。在阅读米德时,人们对阿尔弗雷德·诺斯·怀特海(Alfred North Whitehead)所说的 “事物的相互关联性” 有一种震撼感。作为一名科学哲学家,米德理解十九世纪的机械和原子主义偏见是过去思想体系的结果。上个世纪的化学家和物理学家主要专注于物质是由静态、固体、自给自足的粒子组成的概念。他们关注的是原子的结构而不是原子的活动。随着最近自然科学中相对论的出现,人们从 “特征状态” 或 “稳定模式” 的角度来看待原子。这种重点的转移为解释物理事件提供了更广泛的理论参考框架,在米德的社会心理学中,19 世纪大部分社会学中隐含的人类原子论形象的消解与此相类似。孔德、马克思、斯宾塞、甚至杜克海姆的社会学主要以决定论的方式来理解社会和个人之间的关系。行动的地点几乎完全在社会或经济体系中,因此 “社会的无形之手” 完全控制着人类的行为。人类个体被描绘成更大的社会有机体中的一种自足的分子。米德的关系主义包括他在理论上将自我和社会结合到正在进行的社会进程中,这样,个人既不与他或她的伙伴们隔离,也不完全由任何抽象系统决定。米德的理论成果是通过对人类日常生活中发生的事情的观察而归纳出来的。对米德来说,我们在各种群体中相互作用的社会构成了一个经验性的现实。它是进化的产物,可分为许多社会现实的模式,这些模式取决于对情况的不同定义。他区分了亚里士多德和达尔文的进化思想;根据前一种学说,进化是现有植物或动物物种的发展(这是希腊语中 “形式” 一词的拉丁语),而不参考环境。相比之下,达尔文《物种起源》中提出的理论并不关注某个特定物种本身的发展;相反,它感兴趣的是显示各种形式如何在环境压力下演变和生存。那些能够最好地适应不断变化的生活条件的形式得以生存。在这个后亚里士多德的概念背后,是一个生命亲缘的概念。
cess that takes on various forms (or species), which arise and decline through space and time. The human form is a relatively recent evolutionary development. It was the German romantic idealists, culminating with Hegel, who formulated a philosophy relevant to the human life form in terms of the reflexive experience of ourselves as actors in the social world. According to this tradition the self is not a static unity that exists in vacuo; it is a dynamic, historical process that involves a subject-object relationship and arises as a result of interaction with other selves. The more we become aware of ourselves in the continuing social process, the more we increase our "species consciousness." In other words, we become more able to understand our human form as a consequence of life and social processes. As a pragmatist philosopher Mead is heir to James and Dewey. Mead viewed modern research science, with its mathematical and experimental methods, as both a cultural outgrowth of the European Renaissance and Enlightenment and an emergent evolutionary tool whereby humans might intelligently control their social institutions. He was in agreement with Dewey that scientific method applied to the problems of society was the key to the door of progress. Mead interpreted pragmatist doctrine as having three phases and two primary sources. The former included the following assumptions: (1) that a hypothesis is "true" if it works when tested, (2) that the process of knowing lies within human conduct, and (3) that knowledge is a process of acquiring the necessary "scientific apparatus" (including ideas, concepts, units of analysis, theoretical models, paradigms, equations, and so forth) to carry out the desirable task of social reconstruction in a democratic state. He understood the sources of pragmatism to be (1) behavioristic psychology, which enables the social scientist to apprehend intelligence in terms of human activity, and (2) the process of research or scientific method, which is self-revising and tests an hypothesis by how it works. Mead recognized the French Revolution as the pivot of modern history; it built the principle of revolution into social institutions by incorporating the people's right to change or amend the constitution upon which the state is founded. The fundamental scientific problem that emerged in Mead's mind, then, was how we become selves in a rapidly changing and seemingly chaotic world. How to preserve order and at the same time accommodate change was Mead's perennial question. The Social Self That the human being has a self is the major supposition of Mead's theoretical framework. It is no mystical conjuration but an empirical exercise to observe that human beings make indications to themselves in the course of everyday life. Mead defined these "self-indications" as anything of which one is conscious, such as a ringing telephone, a friend's remark, the lyrics of a song, a thought, the recognition of a familiar figure, and so forth. The im-
形成各种形式(或物种)的过程,在空间和时间中产生和衰退。人类的形式是一个相对较新的进化发展。正是以黑格尔为顶峰的德国浪漫主义理想主义者,从我们自己作为社会世界的行动者的反思性经验出发,制定了与人类生命形式相关的哲学。根据这一传统,自我并不是一个存在于虚空中的静态统一体;它是一个动态的、历史性的过程,涉及到主客体的关系,并作为与其他自我互动的结果而产生出来。我们在持续的社会过程中越是意识到自己,就越是增加我们的 “物种意识”。换句话说,我们变得更能够理解我们的人类形式是生命和社会进程的结果。作为一个实用主义的哲学家,米德是詹姆斯和杜威的继承人。米德认为现代研究科学及其数学和实验方法,既是欧洲文艺复兴和启蒙运动的文化产物,也是一种新兴的进化工具,人类可以据此智能地控制其社会机构。他同意杜威的观点,即应用于社会问题的科学方法是通往进步之门的钥匙。米德把实用主义学说解释为有三个阶段和两个主要来源。前者包括以下假设。(1)如果一个假设在被检验时有效,它就是 “真的”;(2)认识的过程在于人类的行为;(3)知识是一个获得必要的 “科学仪器”(包括思想、概念、分析单位、理论模型、范式、方程式等等)的过程,以便在一个民主国家中完成社会重建的理想任务。他认为实用主义的来源是:(1)行为主义心理学,它使社会科学家能够从人类活动的角度来理解智力;(2)研究过程或科学方法,它是自我修正的,并通过它的工作方式来检验一个假设。米德承认法国大革命是现代历史的支点;它通过纳入人民改变或修正国家赖以建立的宪法的权利,将革命的原则纳入社会体制。那么,出现在米德脑海中的基本科学问题是,我们如何在一个快速变化且看似混乱的世界中成为自我。如何在维护秩序的同时适应变化是米德的长期问题。社会的自我 人类有一个自我,这是米德理论框架的主要假设。这不是什么神秘的幻觉,而是观察人类在日常生活中对自己的暗示的一种经验性工作。米德将这些 “自我暗示” 定义为人们意识到的任何东西,如电话铃声、朋友的话语、歌曲的歌词、一个想法、对一个熟悉人物的认识等等。暗示
portance of discerning the existence of these self-indications is twofold: (1) An object (physical, abstract, or social) may be extricated from its setting and acted upon; and (2) the fact of human self-indication enables the individual's action to be constructed rather than simply released. Mead distinguished between the stimulus and the object. The former does not have an intrinsic character that acts upon individuals. In contrast, the meaning of the object is conferred upon it by the individual. Human beings react to a stimulus (for instance, an unexpected pin prick), but they act toward an object (for example, the determination not to flinch at an injection). Individuals are not surrounded by a world of preexisting objects that coerce them; rather, they build up their environment of objects according to their ongoing activities. From a myriad of prosaic everyday acts, such as getting dressed or preparing food, to major life decisions, such as choice of vocation or mate, the individual is making self-notations of objects, assigning them meaning, assessing their utility in reaching various goals, and then deciding what to do on the basis of such judgments. Mead understood this interpretive or self-conversational process as acting on a symbolic basis. Mead made fuller sense of Dewey's notion of language as the sensorium of society by delving into the symbolic processes of human communication. He distinguished between gesture and symbol, deriving his concept of the former from Wundt's Volkerpsychologie and from Darwin's psychological classic The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. By the term "gesture" Mead meant a social act that operates as a stimulus for the response of another form engaged in the same act. He presents as an example of a "conversation of gestures" the dogfight, in which the forms interact with one another on a nonsymbolic basis by growling, baring the teeth, and nipping the flanks. In such a situation each dog does not stop to ascertain the meaning of the other's aggressive behavior. One dog's response of growling to the other's baring of teeth is not made on the basis of what that gesture stands for. The first dog does not respond to the meaning of the second dog's gesture, because it does not indicate to itself the hostile intentions of that gesture. The adjustive behavior (that is, the ensuing fight) is called forth by the character of the stimulation, without any intermediary process of interpretation of meaning. Human beings respond not to the gesture but to its meaning; thus, human language or communication is symbolically interactive. Take, for example, the baseball situation of "at bat." The pitcher peers down from the mound to receive the signal from the catcher as to what type of pitch to throw, while the batter checks with the third-base coach for hitting instructions relayed from the manager in the dugout. The catcher may indicate a curve ball by extending, say, two fingers, and the third-base coach may order a bunt by touching his ear and tipping his cap. Thus, before the delivery of the pitch, the situation has been structured according to prearranged signal systems, which have a common meaning (that is, evoke similar responses) for the actors involved. That the pitcher has the option of calling for another pitch and that the batter might be guessing that a curve will be
辨别这些自我暗示的存在有两方面的意义。(1)一个对象(物理的、抽象的或社会的)可以从它的环境中解脱出来并采取行动;(2)人类自我暗示的事实使个人的行动得以构建,而不是简单地释放。米德区分了刺激和对象。前者不具有作用于个人的内在特征。相反,对象的意义是由个人赋予的。人类对一个刺激(例如,一个意外的针刺)作出反应,但他们对一个对象采取行动(例如,在注射时不退缩的决心)。个人并不是被一个强迫他们的预先存在的物体世界所包围;相反,他们根据他们正在进行的活动建立起他们的物体环境。从无数平淡无奇的日常行为,如穿衣服或准备食物,到重大的生活决定,如选择职业或配偶,个人都在对物体进行自我注释,赋予它们意义,评估它们在实现各种目标方面的效用,然后在这些判断的基础上决定做什么。米德把这种解释或自我对话的过程理解为在符号的基础上行动。米德通过深入研究人类交流的符号过程,更充分地理解了杜威关于语言是社会的感应器的概念。他区分了手势和符号,他对前者的概念来自于冯特的 Volkerpsychologie 和达尔文的心理学经典《人和动物的情感表达》。米德所说的 “手势” 是指一种社会行为,它对从事同一行为的另一种形式的反应起刺激作用。他以斗狗作为 “手势对话” 的例子,在斗狗过程中,各种形态通过咆哮、龇牙和咬住侧翼等非象征性的方式相互影响。在这种情况下,每只狗都不会停下来确定对方攻击性行为的含义。一只狗对另一只狗的呲牙咧嘴的反应并不是基于这种姿态所代表的意义而做出的。第一只狗没有对第二只狗的手势的含义作出反应,因为它没有向自己表明该手势的敌对意图。调整行为(即随后的争斗)是由刺激的特性所引起的,没有任何解释意义的中间过程。人类不是对手势作出反应,而是对其意义作出反应;因此,人类的语言或交流是象征性的互动。以棒球 “击球” 的情况为例。投手从投手丘上往下看,接收捕手发出的投球类型的信号,而击球手则向三垒教练询问从球馆经理那里转达的击球指示。捕手可以通过伸出比如说两个手指来指示曲线球,而三垒教练可以通过触摸他的耳朵和翻动他的帽子来命令击球。因此,在投球之前,情况已经根据预先安排的信号系统进行了结构化,这些信号系统对相关的行为者具有共同的意义(也就是说,唤起类似的反应)。投手可以选择叫另一个投球,而击球手可能会猜测一个曲线将被投出。
thrown mean that the players are not merely reacting like dogs to gestures; they are interpreting symbolically the meaning of the signs, thereby organizing their activity to act intelligently toward the situation confronting them. When the gesture evokes the same attitude in the receiving as well as the sending form, it is a significant symbol. When the bodily or vocal gesture (speech) reaches that stage, it has become what we call "language." What enables human beings to interact meaningfully (that is, symbolically) with one another in the ongoing social process is the primary mechanism of role taking. As human beings become objects to themselves and learn to act toward themselves in various ways, they also learn to assume the roles of others in constructing their behavior. They learn to cast themselves imaginatively into the other person's frame of reference and to assume an attitude toward themselves that reflects this sympathetic understanding. For example, a parole-board officer attempts to ascertain the prisoner's fitness for parole on the basis of his moral and sympathetic judgment of the prisoner's current attitude toward the law. The self is reflexive in the sense that it coils back upon itself in the communicative process, and it is social in the sense that it is built up continually in the course of daily encounters with other human beings. The social self is a product of a series of defining situations which arise in the life of the individual. In addition, the social self is an emergent process within society, which Mead construes as the fitting together of individual lines of action in human groups via role taking. The social self is neither a static intellectual monad like Descartes' cerebral "I" nor a defense structure such as Freud's executive "ego"; rather, it is a dynamic and changing transaction between the individual and others. Mead described the contents of the social self in terms of "I" and "me" aspects. The conception of the self as binary rather than unitary was mentioned by James and developed by Cooley, but it found its fullest expression in Mead. Mead understood that the social act itself is phasic in that the human being delays his or her action toward other forms. In preparing the act, the individual can consider the possible responses of the other in lieu of reacting wholly on impulse. Furthermore, the self that organizes its behavior within the social act in relation to other forms is composed of conditioned and spontaneous phases. Mead identifies the former as the "me" and the latter as the "I." The "me" represents the organized set of group attitudes that the member assumes. It is the conventional, habitual, and routinized aspect of self that is always there. The "me" determines our self-consciousness insofar as we are able to take the role of others within the larger community of selves. Each member of a choir, for example, knows the score he or she is supposed to sing, and the resulting harmony of sound is a product of cooperation among the sopranos, tenors, and basses. The "I" stands for the response of the individual to the organized attitudes of others. It is aware of the social "me" in the sense that the "I" of one moment is present in the "me" of the next. In other words, the "now" or what Mead called "the present" is the
抛出的意思是,球员不只是像狗一样对手势作出反应;他们正在象征性地解释符号的含义,从而组织他们的活动,对他们面临的情况采取明智的行动。当手势在接受者和发出者中唤起同样的态度时,它就是一个重要的符号。当身体或声音的姿态(语言)达到这个阶段时,它就成为我们所说的 “语言”。使人类能够在持续的社会进程中进行有意义的互动(也就是象征性的)的,是角色承担的主要机制。当人类成为自己的对象并学会以各种方式对自己采取行动时,他们也学会在构建自己的行为时承担他人的角色。他们学会将自己想象性地投向他人的参考框架,并对自己采取反映这种同情性理解的态度。例如,假释委员会的官员试图根据他对犯人目前对法律的态度的道德和同情的判断,来确定犯人是否适合假释。自我是反思性的,因为它在交际过程中回旋于自身;自我是社会性的,因为它在与其他人的日常接触过程中不断地建立起来。社会自我是个人生活中出现的一系列决定性情形的产物。此外,社会自我是一个在社会中出现的过程,米德把它解释为人类群体中的个人行动路线通过角色承担而组合在一起。社会自我既不是像笛卡尔的大脑 “我” 那样的静态智力单体,也不是像弗洛伊德的执行 “自我” 那样的防御结构;相反,它是个人与他人之间的动态和变化的交易。米德用 “我” 和 “我” 的方面来描述社会自我的内容。詹姆斯提到了自我是二元的而不是单一的概念,库利也发展了这种概念,但它在米德那里得到了最充分的表达。米德理解,社会行为本身是阶段性的,因为人类推迟了他或她对其他形式的行动。在准备行为时,个人可以考虑对方可能的反应,而不是完全根据冲动做出反应。此外,在社会行为中组织其与其他形式有关的行为的自我是由条件性和自发性阶段组成的。米德把前者称为 “我”,把后者称为 “我”。我 “代表成员所承担的一套有组织的群体态度。它是自我的传统的、习惯的和常规化的方面,一直存在。我” 决定了我们的自我意识,因为我们能够在更大的自我社区中扮演他人的角色。例如,合唱团的每个成员都知道他或她应该唱的乐谱,由此产生的和谐的声音是女高音、男高音和男低音之间合作的产物。我 “代表了个