本文選題：意識形態(tài) + 生成機(jī)制��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：諾斯和馬克思二人,由于其所處歷史與文化的時代背景不同,所期望實(shí)現(xiàn)的目標(biāo)不同,造成二者理論上所達(dá)到的理論層次和造成的影響也是不一樣的。由于馬克思關(guān)于意識形態(tài)的論述比較系統(tǒng)、比較詳細(xì),所以我們就從諾斯對意識形態(tài)在相關(guān)方面所做的分析入手,進(jìn)而闡述馬克思在此觀點(diǎn)上的一些看法,并通過這些方面的對比,進(jìn)而對二者在意識形態(tài)方面的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行比較和分析。本文主要從內(nèi)涵、形成機(jī)制、社會功能這三個方面進(jìn)行剖析,他們都認(rèn)為意識形態(tài)來源于人類通過實(shí)踐活動獲得的主觀感知,但是馬克思強(qiáng)調(diào)意識形態(tài)的階級性,強(qiáng)調(diào)其是思想的上層建筑;在形成機(jī)制上,諾斯是從個體心理——微觀認(rèn)知出發(fā),而馬克思則強(qiáng)調(diào)意識形態(tài)形成的歷史性、整體宏觀性,分析了意識形態(tài)的形成、發(fā)展以及消亡的整個過程;在功能分析上,諾斯主要強(qiáng)調(diào)意識形態(tài)節(jié)約社會成本的經(jīng)濟(jì)功能,馬克思在承認(rèn)其節(jié)約成本的同時,指出了意識形態(tài)因其階級性而造成的社會資源浪費(fèi)的另一面,不僅指出其維持社會秩序的正面功效,而且指出其對大多數(shù)的人的剝削、奴役性,對社會的改革和發(fā)展造成阻礙的負(fù)面效應(yīng)。在意識形態(tài)與制度變遷的影響方面,諾斯認(rèn)為意識形態(tài)對制度變遷造成路徑的依賴性,馬克思在承認(rèn)生產(chǎn)力、生產(chǎn)關(guān)系決定各種層次的上層建筑的同時,并沒有否認(rèn)意識形態(tài)對社會變革的影響。意識形態(tài)影響著人們思維,也同時影響著對社會結(jié)構(gòu)的建構(gòu),也因其國家、民族的文化與意識形態(tài)的不同,而使所建構(gòu)的社會結(jié)構(gòu)模式也迥然有異。所以相比馬克思而言,諾斯從個體主義的角度,從其正面性對意識形態(tài)進(jìn)行分析,結(jié)果就是不能從歷史地、辯證地宏觀的視角分析其實(shí)現(xiàn)的過程,不能解釋出其所產(chǎn)生的雙重功能與矛盾的特征,同時也不能指出意識形態(tài)功能得以存在的歷史動力,顯得很膚淺和感性。但是,不可否認(rèn),諾斯的理論符合現(xiàn)代各國發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)的要求,在一定程度上對于完善和發(fā)展馬克思主義也具有一定的啟發(fā)意義。
[Abstract]:Because of their different historical and cultural backgrounds, the two men, North and Marx, expect to achieve different goals, which result in different theoretical levels and effects. As Marx's exposition on ideology is more systematic and detailed, so we begin with North's analysis of ideology in related aspects, and then expound some of Marx's views on this point of view. And through these aspects of comparison, and then on the ideological point of view are compared and analyzed. This article mainly analyzes from three aspects: connotation, formation mechanism and social function. They all think that ideology comes from the subjective perception obtained by human beings through practical activities, but Marx emphasizes the class nature of ideology. It is emphasized that it is the superstructure of thought, and in forming mechanism, North starts from individual psychology and micro cognition, while Marx emphasizes the history of ideology formation, and analyzes the formation of ideology as a whole. In function analysis, North emphasizes the economic function of ideology saving social cost. Pointing out the other side of the waste of social resources caused by the class nature of ideology, not only its positive effects in maintaining social order, but also its exploitation and servitude of the majority of the population, The negative effect on the reform and development of society. In terms of the influence of ideology and institutional change, North thinks that ideology is dependent on the path of institutional change. Marx acknowledged that productive forces and production relations determined the superstructure at various levels. It does not deny the influence of ideology on social change. Ideology influences people's thinking as well as the construction of social structure. Because of the different cultures and ideologies of their countries and nations, the social structure models are different. Therefore, compared with Marx, North analyzes ideology from the angle of individualism and from its positivity. The result is that the process of its realization cannot be analyzed from a historical, dialectical and macroscopic perspective. It is very superficial and perceptual to explain the features of dual functions and contradictions produced by ideology and to point out the historical motive force for the existence of ideological functions. However, it is undeniable that North's theory meets the requirements of modern countries' economic development, and to a certain extent, it has certain enlightening significance for the perfection and development of Marxism.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：F091.91;F091.349

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周宏;意識形態(tài)理論與當(dāng)代中國意識形態(tài)理論研究[J];安徽師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2005年03期

2 夏寧;意識形態(tài)的制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析[J];商業(yè)研究;2004年23期

3 陳捷;新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的意識形態(tài)理論及其啟示[J];中國地質(zhì)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年02期

4 龐永紅;從諾斯意識形態(tài)理論看倫理道德的功能作用——諾斯意識形態(tài)理論探析[J];道德與文明;2004年02期

5 蔡萍;華章琳;;論意識形態(tài)與經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展[J];法制與社會;2006年21期

6 道格拉斯·諾斯,路平 ,何瑋;新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)及其發(fā)展[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)社會體制比較;2002年05期

7 古小軍;新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的意識形態(tài)理論簡評[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)與社會發(fā)展;2005年10期

8 張秀玲;論意識形態(tài)的經(jīng)濟(jì)功能與現(xiàn)實(shí)意義[J];江西社會科學(xué);2002年02期

9 黃新華;意識形態(tài)的新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析[J];理論與改革;2000年06期

10 魯品越;論社會隱秩序與顯秩序——兼論德治與法治的關(guān)系[J];南京大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué).人文科學(xué).社會科學(xué)版);2002年04期

，

本文編號：2066926