本文關(guān)鍵詞：布丟文化資本理論與文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐研究，，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

        布丟首先是一個文化創(chuàng)業(yè)者,然后才是一個文化資本理論的集大成者。布丟或者被碎片式地直接套用,或者被貶為一無是處,對不丟思想全面深入的理解還有待時日。所以,本文呼吁認(rèn)真對待布丟。人們通常在布丟的理論與象征暴力學(xué)說之間劃等號,而布丟真正的價值并非如此簡單。按照他的理解,文化資本是指當(dāng)今時代以日常生活為基礎(chǔ)的社會實踐關(guān)系的資本化,它具體表現(xiàn)為身體、產(chǎn)品和制度等方面特定的文化內(nèi)容與形式。文化資本投資就是一種社會行動,它既受慣習(xí)和場域的限制,又能動性地改變它們；社會行動的基礎(chǔ)是在這個過程中所形成的實踐感,而不是純粹的理性計算。權(quán)力與意義之間對立統(tǒng)一的矛盾關(guān)系是文化資本存在和發(fā)展的內(nèi)在動力,文化資本應(yīng)當(dāng)包括三個基本要素,即信息知識、象征形式和創(chuàng)新精神。布丟的文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐是指他利用文化資本規(guī)律創(chuàng)造性地進(jìn)行文化資本投資,建構(gòu)理論、贏得學(xué)術(shù)地位并為社會做出貢獻(xiàn)的過程。理解布丟文化資本理論和文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐的關(guān)鍵,在于抓住其方法論上破除二元對立思維模式及以社會為本位的基本原則。在此基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合他對場域、慣習(xí)和文化資本這些理論工具的界定與使用,我們可以比較全面地把握他對自己研究對象的建構(gòu)、作品體系的布局、學(xué)術(shù)生產(chǎn)節(jié)奏的設(shè)計、研究方法與話語策略的使用,等等。布丟文化資本理論和文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐的內(nèi)在統(tǒng)一性由此得以體現(xiàn)。布丟的文化資本理論,對文化創(chuàng)業(yè)概念的興起與發(fā)展具有直接開創(chuàng)之功,對創(chuàng)業(yè)理論的發(fā)展與轉(zhuǎn)折也具有重大的啟發(fā)和引導(dǎo)作用。更重要的是,布丟個人的生活經(jīng)驗、學(xué)術(shù)軌道和心路歷程是文化創(chuàng)業(yè)理論和一般創(chuàng)業(yè)理論的充分體現(xiàn)。布丟是文化資本理論的集大成者,文化資本理論大都以他為源頭或者重要參照尺度。布丟文化資本理論的發(fā)展,可以分為準(zhǔn)備期、創(chuàng)建期、擴展期與升華期等幾個階段,而每一個階段他都會根據(jù)社會發(fā)展形勢和個人生活處境確定不同的研究對象、側(cè)重點和相應(yīng)的傳播策略等,這是他理論特質(zhì)的內(nèi)在要求,而不是片面理解他的理由。20世紀(jì)50、60年代是布丟文化資本理論的準(zhǔn)備期,而這時其理論特質(zhì)與基本形態(tài)已經(jīng)相當(dāng)完備。通過對阿爾及利亞爭取民族獨立斗爭現(xiàn)狀、前途和命運的思考,布丟發(fā)現(xiàn)文化資本化是世界發(fā)展的歷史潮流；通過對貝恩亞社會婚姻、家庭、生育策略的考察,布丟指出了傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)民階級在文化資本化浪潮面前的生存危機。從理論上講,布丟認(rèn)為社會行動本質(zhì)上是策略性的,社會生活是一種游戲,人們在社會游戲中建構(gòu)現(xiàn)實,謀取利益。這樣,布丟文化資本理論和文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐的原則、框架與發(fā)展方向就基本具備。理解布丟文化資本理論的兩個關(guān)鍵點就是象征計算與世界之肉。20世紀(jì)60、70年代,是布丟文化資本理論的創(chuàng)建期,也是其文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐的關(guān)鍵期。布丟提出了“文化資本人”的假設(shè),在權(quán)力與意義之間尋找和界定文化資本理論的社會位置與發(fā)展空間。他從教育和文化消費入手,尋找文化資本化的基本表現(xiàn)形式。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),從根本上說文化資本是社會結(jié)構(gòu)再生產(chǎn)過程中的意義表征體系；文化資本化離不開歷史傳承、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)范和社會基礎(chǔ),這就是其合法性的根本要求；最終,文化資本結(jié)構(gòu)是由國家政治經(jīng)濟力量綜合決定的。對文化資本規(guī)律和社會條件的揭示與強調(diào),是這個時期布丟文化資本理論建設(shè)的主要任務(wù)。這也是包括布丟本人在內(nèi)的任何文化創(chuàng)業(yè)者需要首先面對的問題,這要求文化創(chuàng)業(yè)者認(rèn)識和把握規(guī)律而不是在它面前無所作為。20世紀(jì)80、90年代,是布丟文化資本理論的擴展期。在充分研究文化資本在社會不同集團和階級當(dāng)中的分布狀況與規(guī)律之后,他進(jìn)一步通過具體分析高校教授群體文化資本結(jié)構(gòu)與發(fā)展態(tài)勢,指出文化資本投資和文化創(chuàng)業(yè)需要內(nèi)化社會結(jié)構(gòu)和社會規(guī)則。海德格爾的哲學(xué)理論和哲學(xué)創(chuàng)業(yè)模式是布丟的重要參照,通過對海德格爾的研究,以及對男權(quán)統(tǒng)治脆弱性的分析,布丟進(jìn)一步明確了其文化創(chuàng)業(yè)的基本方法與工具,也堅定了文化創(chuàng)業(yè)的信念。在對法國文學(xué)生產(chǎn)場的研究中,布丟系統(tǒng)地總結(jié)了文學(xué)藝術(shù)生產(chǎn)的類型、特點與規(guī)律,突出強調(diào)了文化創(chuàng)業(yè)的基本方法與策略。在這個時期,布丟個人堅持文化生產(chǎn)的周期性和個人慣習(xí)的穩(wěn)定性,致力于文化生產(chǎn)的組織建設(shè)和對社會現(xiàn)實的深度參與。這有利于他確立自己文化資本理論的學(xué)術(shù)地位,也有助于他贏得在英語世界創(chuàng)業(yè)與發(fā)展的重要機會。20世紀(jì)90年代以后,是布丟文化資本理論的升華期。在這個階段,布丟文化資本理論的創(chuàng)造性品質(zhì)充分體現(xiàn)出來,其文化資本理論和文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐高度統(tǒng)一起來。這個時期,他正面分析和研究國家文化資本的運作機制,提出了公共文化資本建設(shè)的方向、日程、框架和原則方法。布丟認(rèn)同精英教育是國家文化資本生產(chǎn)的基礎(chǔ),國家文化資本運作的基本機制,就是國家精英通過壟斷社會地位和發(fā)展機會,而獲得把握現(xiàn)實的能力和勇于創(chuàng)業(yè)的精神。精英教育為資產(chǎn)階級提供了管理國家的人力資本儲備。通過對國家文化資本這個文化資本化最高形式的分析,布丟特別突出了其弱自治性、多面性和非本質(zhì)性。他希望抑制和轉(zhuǎn)化象征暴力的消極影響,激活富有民主共和、自由平等的法國傳統(tǒng)文化精神,重建國家文化資本。根據(jù)當(dāng)時的社會現(xiàn)實,布丟強調(diào),國家文化資本重建的問題與障礙,主要表現(xiàn)為無限制的新自由主義市場力量對國家文化資本的壟斷性控制。為此,他分析了大眾傳媒對知識分子文化生產(chǎn)場的象征暴力機制,總結(jié)了藝術(shù)生產(chǎn)場域文化資本投資的重要經(jīng)驗,提出了知識分子文化生產(chǎn)場域重建的基本策略和原則；進(jìn)而要求知識分子在進(jìn)行文化資本投資的同時,應(yīng)當(dāng)肩負(fù)公共文化資本建設(shè)的歷史使命。對布丟來說,個人文化創(chuàng)業(yè)和公共文化資本投資是統(tǒng)一的。文化資本的創(chuàng)新性最終表現(xiàn)為個人的創(chuàng)造精神。布丟以其個人文化資本投資歷程證明了這種個人創(chuàng)業(yè)的可能性、規(guī)律性和基本原則。個人創(chuàng)業(yè)的主要內(nèi)容就是立足個人慣習(xí)和場域的穩(wěn)定性,發(fā)現(xiàn)和創(chuàng)造可能性,建設(shè)自己的生活軌道。本文也探討了布丟沒有正面論述的個人文化資本投資所需具備的心態(tài)和情感特征,突出了其內(nèi)在超越性的一面。布丟強調(diào),知識分子文化生產(chǎn)必須具備批判精神,要以參與社會實踐的姿態(tài),反對經(jīng)院主義,重建客觀性；他進(jìn)而提出整個知識分子場域文化資本建設(shè)的總綱領(lǐng),意在建立與新自由主義相抗衡、基于知識分子聯(lián)盟的、新的普遍主義文化資本類型。布丟對知識分子文化資本改造和公共文化資本建設(shè)理論與實踐的倡導(dǎo),以及對社會運動的關(guān)注和支持,導(dǎo)向了一種關(guān)于社會自我組織、自我更新的研究視野。本文探討了布丟文化資本理論的貢獻(xiàn)、不足與發(fā)展。布丟文化資本理論的貢獻(xiàn)表現(xiàn)在對文化資本化現(xiàn)象的深入理解與把握、對文化資本化內(nèi)在危機與出路的揭露與探索、對啟蒙精神的繼承與發(fā)揚、對新型創(chuàng)業(yè)社會的回應(yīng)與參與。布丟理論的缺陷主要表現(xiàn)在操作性的缺乏上。布丟理論的繼承者和批判者,也對他文化資本理論的內(nèi)涵、創(chuàng)新價值和現(xiàn)實意義進(jìn)行了深入探討。另外,本文還考察了布丟文化資本理論在文化價值與內(nèi)容、組織研究、文化全球化等方面的發(fā)展方向,并指出了學(xué)界對布丟文化資本理論進(jìn)行綜合與改造的研究取向。綜上所述,布丟的文化資本概念包含三個基本要素：知識傳承、象征利用和創(chuàng)新發(fā)展。因此,布丟實質(zhì)上開啟了一種社會本位的文化生態(tài)研究方向,其基本格調(diào)就是強調(diào)文化生態(tài)中意義與權(quán)力的平衡。布丟文化資本理論與文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐為我們觀察與研究文化資本化問題提供了基本途徑與重要方法。

    Bourdieu is first a cultural entrepreneur and then a master of cultural capital theories. He is either fragmentarily accepted or degraded to be nothing. We need time to understand him further and wholly. A call is made for treating Bourdieu seriously in this thesis.Symbolic violence is not the whole but only a part in his theory. According to Bourdieu, culture capital is the capitalization of social practical relationship on the basis of the daily life, it contains embodied, objectified, and institutional forms. Cultural capital investment is a kind of social action, it is restricted by and transforms habitus and field at the same time. The foundation of social action is the sense of practice but not rational calculation. The eclectic relationship between meaning of life and rational power is the dynamic of cultural capital development. Knowledge, symbolic form and creative spirit are the three fundamental elements of cultural capital. Bourdieu’s cultural entrepreneurship in this study refers to his cultural capital investment in theory construction, field position-taking and contribution to society. The key to understand Bourdieu is to grasp his Society-oriented way of breaking binary thinking model. In combination with his manipulation of such theoretical tool as field, habitus and cultural capital, We can understand in the Way-seeking method his construction of study-object, structure of works system, configuration and rhythm of his academic output, and the skill of expression and discursive rhetoric, etc. So, in this perspective, his cultural capital theory and cultural entrepreneurial practice is united harmoniously.Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory, directly engendered the emergency and rising of the concept of cultural entrepreneurship, and is closely relevant to the development and paradigm shifting of the entrepreneurship theory in general. Moreover, Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory and cultural entrepreneurship practice is perfectly embodied in Bourdieu’s personal life and academic career. The Said synthesizer, all other cultural capital theories and practices trace back, or refer to him.Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory developed in three phases, he has different research objects, foci, and corresponding strategies in each one. This is not the pretext for us to cut him up, but the innate demand of his theory. Bourdieu’s cultural theory budded and began to take shape in50’s and60’s,20th century in Algeria and Beam, France. Principle, framework, and developmental direction of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory and cultural entrepreneurial practice took form through his understanding of the relationship between individual habitus and environment, life experience and reality construction, holistic recognition and social condition, and also through his observation of first son status and marital exchange relation, thinking of the game nature and profit gain mechanism of social life, analysis of autonomy of social game and the way out for the disadvantaged. In this regard, symbolic computation and world corporeity are two keys important to understand Bourdieu.Sixties and seventies20th century saw Bourdieu’s establishment of his cultural capital theory and his critical period of cultural entrepreneuring. Bourdieu forwarded the cultural capitalist participation assumption, and explored and localized the position of cultural theory and practice on the continuum between power and meaning. Starting from research of education and cultural consumption, he decided that education system is the direct producer of cultural capital and the latter is not personal affair as it seems to be, but the arbitrary act and even the monopoly of symbolic violence by group or class. Cultural capital needs tradition, standard, and social status to be rational, and it is determined eventually by political and economic power in general. Eighties and nineties saw the expansion of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory. After analyzing the structure and rules of cultural capital distribution in social groups, strata, and classes, Bourdieu did the case study of professor groups in higher education system, uncovering the fierce competition and hardship of cultural capital amassing and operation for them. However, for Bourdieu himself, Heidegger is the illuminating star of cultural capital and theory in his view timely. With Heidegger as the philosophical cultural entrepreneurial star in his sky and male domination fragility under his hypercritical microscope, Bourdieu found the route and confidence to be a cultural entrepreneur. Further, in the study of the case of Flaubert and the whole literary field of France, Bourdieu made out generally and systematically the categories and characteristics of cultural production and the rules of cultural entrepreneurship. On the cultural entrepreneurial practice, Bourdieu insisted upon the periodicity of cultural production and the stability of personal habitus, striving for the organization establishment of cultural production and in-depth social participation, and winning the privileged scholarship position and the opportunity to develop in the English world, especially in the U.S.. Nineties onward in20th century, Bourdieu confronted the mechanism of national cultural capital operation, proposing the direction, agenda, frame, and principle of the cultural capital construction and operation in national level. Bourdieu regarded the cultivation of the elite as the foundation of the national cultural capital production. In this regard, personal cultural capital of national elite is integrated closely into the national cultural capital, of which the mechanism is to monopoly the privileged social position and opportunity and further to form the spirit of realism and entrepreneuring. Through the analysis of national cultural capital, Bourdieu emphasized its weak autonomy, multi-facedness and non-essentialist characteristics, wishing to get rid of the symbolic violence, rejuvenate the traditional republicanism rich in democracy, liberty, and equality, and then reconstruct French national cultural capital. Bourdieu stressed that the obstacle to reconstruct the national cultural capital was mainly the unlimited manapuation of it by neo-liberalism. After analysis of the intervention of intellectual cultural production field by the symbolic violence, Bourdieu, according to the experience of art production field, proposed the basic principle and strategy of the whole intellectual cultural production field. For Bourdieu, intellectuals are endowed with the mission of partaking the construction of national cultural capital, and he himself is an excellent example.The creativity of cultural capital is represented by the originality spirit of the individual ultimately. Bourdieu demonstrated the possibility, regularity, and principle, of personal cultural entrepreneurship with his own achievement. For Bourdieu, personal entrepreneuring is to situate oneself in the stability of his habitus and field, discovering and creating possibility and constructing his life track. We explore the emotional characteristics or mentality of personal cultural capital investment which Bourdieu himself did not cope with openly, and stressing its intrinsic and transcendent character. Bourdieu also explored the necessity for the intellectuals to take part in objectivity construction and fight the neo-liberalism with critical mentality. Moreover, Bourdieu forwarded the general outline for cultural capital construction of the field of intellectuals for the purpose of the establishment of new universalism which founded on intellectual union and fighting against neo-liberalism. A champion of rejuvenating intellectual cultural capital and social innovation, Bourdieu initiate new frontiers for a study of self-organization and self-regeneration of Society.We summarized the main contributions, shortcomings, and further developments of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory. First, the contributions are the deeply exploring and understanding of the phenomenon of capitalization of culture, the discovering of the inner crisis of capitalization of culture and path-founding of new world, the inheriting and carrying forward of the spirit of Enlightenment movement, and responding to and partaking of the new entrepreneurship society; Second, the main short-coming of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory is its lack of operationality. Yet, many followers and critics scrutinized the connotation, creativity, and influence of his theory. We also probed the developmental direction of Bourdieu’ theory in terms of cultural value and content, organization study, cultural globalization, and pointed out the trend of integrating and transforming the Bourdieuian theory of cultural capital theory in world scholarship.In summary, we think that in Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory contains three fundamental elements:knowledge inheriting, symbolic leverage, and creativity and innovation. The integration of the three elements and especially the last one as the most important driving force, enable Bourdieu’s theory to open up a society-oriented cultural ecology scholarship, which emphasizing the balance-keeping between life meaning and social power. In a word, Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory and cultural entrepreneuring practice provide us with a fundamental way to observe and study cultural capitalization.

布丟文化資本理論與文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐研究

中文摘要8-12ABSTRACT12-15第一章 導(dǎo)論：認(rèn)真對待布丟16-56    第一節(jié) 選題的背景與價值20-37    第二節(jié) 主要觀點、結(jié)構(gòu)與思路37-47    第三節(jié) 相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)綜述47-51    第四節(jié) 研究方法51-54    第五節(jié) 創(chuàng)新點、難點與不足54-56第二章 一個文化創(chuàng)業(yè)者和文化資本理論的集大成者56-93    第一節(jié) 文化創(chuàng)業(yè)概念與文化資本理論的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系57-66    第二節(jié) 拋入社會上升軌道66-71    第三節(jié) 確定文化創(chuàng)業(yè)方向71-77    第四節(jié) 建構(gòu)創(chuàng)業(yè)空間、市場位置與發(fā)展邏輯77-85    第五節(jié) 重塑公共知識分子形象85-89    第六節(jié) 貫通文化資本概念譜系89-93第三章 共同體裂變、象征交換市場統(tǒng)一與文化資本化視角93-130    第一節(jié) 故國他鄉(xiāng)——阿爾及利亞時期跨文化生涯與成就94-107    第二節(jié) 陌生的熟人——文化資本理論的貝恩亞試驗107-117    第三節(jié) 家庭、文化共同體與文化資本的本性117-120    第四節(jié) 象征計算與世界之肉120-130第四章 教育、藝術(shù)與社會空間的演化130-175    第一節(jié) 社會本位文化資本理論的初創(chuàng)132-140    第二節(jié) 文化資本理論的整合、完善與被定型140-149    第三節(jié) 文化資本理論的創(chuàng)造性與實踐性品格149-164    第四節(jié) 文化資本理論的資本化運作164-175第五章 全球化、國家職能與知識分子公共參與機制的建設(shè)175-206    第一節(jié) 國家文化資本及其重建176-186    第二節(jié) 知識分子與公共文化資本186-197    第三節(jié) 布丟的創(chuàng)業(yè)行動與知識分子文化創(chuàng)業(yè)的歷史使命197-206第六章 文化創(chuàng)新與人的自由206-235    第一節(jié) 個人的社會性與超越性207-218    第二節(jié) 反對經(jīng)院主義與對理性的重建218-222    第三節(jié) 知識分子場域文化資本建設(shè)與反思性總體社會學(xué)222-228    第四節(jié) 社會的解放與自由的創(chuàng)造228-235第七章 布丟文化資本理論的貢獻(xiàn)、不足與發(fā)展235-274    第一節(jié) 布丟文化資本理論的貢獻(xiàn)236-250    第二節(jié) 關(guān)于布丟文化資本理論不足的若干討論250-258    第三節(jié) 布丟文化資本理論的發(fā)展258-274第八章 結(jié)論：文化資本化呼喚一種社會實踐本位的文化生態(tài)建設(shè)274-287    結(jié)論一：布丟理論的精神實質(zhì)是維護社會的文化生態(tài)平衡276-279    結(jié)論二：布丟揭示了文化資本自我組織和自我更新的內(nèi)在機制279-284    結(jié)論三：布丟開創(chuàng)了社會本位的文化創(chuàng)業(yè)研究與實踐的新模式284-285    結(jié)論四：布丟文化資本理論在個人自我完善研究方面潛力巨大285-287參考文獻(xiàn)287-295人名對照表295-300后記300-301學(xué)位論文評閱及答辯情況表301

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：布丟文化資本理論與文化創(chuàng)業(yè)實踐研究，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。