西方公共知識分子的死與生
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-05 14:54
【摘要】：自從19世紀(jì)的德雷福斯事件以來,“知識分子”一詞在現(xiàn)代西方逐漸獲得了特殊的政治意涵,知識分子由此變成了一個頗受公眾爭議的群體。也因此,西方學(xué)者創(chuàng)造了“公共知識分子”一詞,用來將這些活躍在公共領(lǐng)域中的知識分子與傳統(tǒng)定義里的知識分子區(qū)別開來。但需要指出的是,這個詞在“世紀(jì)末”(Fin-de-Siècle)之前,曾經(jīng)有著完全不同的含義,而這一點(diǎn)恰恰被許多中國的研究者所忽略。另一方面,中國的研究者在分析現(xiàn)代西方的知識分子時,常常將其研究對象視為鐵板一塊,而未能認(rèn)識到這些知識分子由于文化背景和個人經(jīng)歷的不同而對其知識分子身份的理解大不相同。而本論文就將嘗試在這些方面做出一系列理論貢獻(xiàn)。要之,在20世紀(jì)以前的西方文化語境中,知識分子往往指那些具有學(xué)術(shù)研究興趣或是在智力上超越常人的人,即“有知識的人”。但在現(xiàn)代法國,啟蒙哲人(尤其是伏爾泰)為后來的知識分子樹立了公共生活中的榜樣。法國的知識分子(或者用拉塞爾·雅各比的術(shù)語準(zhǔn)確地來說,公共知識分子)因此常常參與到公共事件當(dāng)中,為遭遇了社會不公和身處社會底層的人發(fā)聲,并且時常持有一種與權(quán)威對抗的心理。這樣一來,現(xiàn)代法國知識分子的事例變成了后來知識分子的“神話”和榜樣,也在某種程度上改變了“知識分子”一詞的原初含義。但一些研究者在深入研究后發(fā)現(xiàn),事實(shí)上這些(公共)知識分子與他們所標(biāo)榜的自我形象很不一樣。大革命之后的法國知識分子篤信于他們的思想先輩所創(chuàng)造出的知識分子“神話”而無視那些與他們信念向左的事實(shí)。在德雷福斯事件中,他們還進(jìn)而引起了群眾的激情浪潮。而紐約知識分子盡管在早期對美國資本主義社會提出了一定的批評,但其中的大多數(shù)人在后來的歲月中由于各種原因而變成了意識形態(tài)的辯護(hù)士或文化冷戰(zhàn)的斗士:他們聲稱為了自由、公正和真理而奮斗,但卻將他們對名望、金錢和自我滿足方面的欲望偷偷地隱藏在這些堂而皇之的目標(biāo)之下。所有這些都是紐約知識分子“制度化”的體現(xiàn)。至于60年代以后在美國大學(xué)中出現(xiàn)的文化研究,它們的問題在于其進(jìn)步思想漸漸地變成了空洞的意識形態(tài)口號,因而不具有任何思想活力,甚至于被新自由主義的政客所利用。那么,到底當(dāng)代知識分子身上缺失了什么?本論文的作者認(rèn)為,要解決這一困境的真正關(guān)鍵就在于重新喚起辯證法的潛能。
[Abstract]:Since the events of Dreyfus in the 19th century, the term "intellectual" has gradually gained a special political meaning in the modern West, and intellectuals have become a controversial group. As a result, Western scholars coined the term "public intellectuals" to distinguish these intellectuals active in the public sphere from those in the traditional definition. It should be noted, however, that the term had a completely different meaning before "Fin-de-Si 貓 cle," which has been overlooked by many Chinese researchers. On the other hand, when Chinese researchers analyze intellectuals in the modern West, they often regard them as a monolithic object of study. But failed to realize that these intellectuals have different understanding of their intellectual identity because of their different cultural background and personal experience. This paper will try to make a series of theoretical contributions in these aspects. To be sure, in the western cultural context before the 20th century, intellectuals often refer to those who have an interest in academic research or have intellectual transcendence, that is, "knowledgeable people". But in modern France, Enlightenment philosophers, especially Voltaire, set an example in public life for later intellectuals. French intellectuals (or, to be exact, public intellectuals in Russell Yakubi's terminology) are thus often involved in public events, speaking out for people who have suffered social injustice and are at the bottom of society. And often hold a mentality against authority. In this way, the example of the modern French intellectuals became the "myth" and the role model of the intellectuals later, and to some extent changed the original meaning of the word "intellectual". But some researchers have found that, in fact, these intellectuals are very different from their self-image. The French intellectuals after the Revolution believed in the intellectual "myths" created by their forefathers, ignoring the facts that were to the left of their beliefs. In the Dreyfus incident, they also caused a wave of passion among the masses. Although New York intellectuals criticized the capitalist society of the United States in the early days, But most of them became ideological defenders or cultural Cold War fighters for a variety of reasons in later years: they claimed to have fought for freedom, justice and truth, but they made them famous. The desire for money and self-satisfaction is stealthily hidden under these grand goals. All this is the embodiment of the "institutionalization" of New York intellectuals. As for the cultural studies that emerged in American universities after the 1960s, the problem is that their progressive ideas have gradually become empty ideological slogans and thus have no ideological vitality, even being exploited by neoliberal politicians. So what is missing from contemporary intellectuals? The author believes that the real key to solve this dilemma is to reawaken the potential of dialectics.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國藝術(shù)研究院
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：C912.2
，
本文編號：2166134
[Abstract]:Since the events of Dreyfus in the 19th century, the term "intellectual" has gradually gained a special political meaning in the modern West, and intellectuals have become a controversial group. As a result, Western scholars coined the term "public intellectuals" to distinguish these intellectuals active in the public sphere from those in the traditional definition. It should be noted, however, that the term had a completely different meaning before "Fin-de-Si 貓 cle," which has been overlooked by many Chinese researchers. On the other hand, when Chinese researchers analyze intellectuals in the modern West, they often regard them as a monolithic object of study. But failed to realize that these intellectuals have different understanding of their intellectual identity because of their different cultural background and personal experience. This paper will try to make a series of theoretical contributions in these aspects. To be sure, in the western cultural context before the 20th century, intellectuals often refer to those who have an interest in academic research or have intellectual transcendence, that is, "knowledgeable people". But in modern France, Enlightenment philosophers, especially Voltaire, set an example in public life for later intellectuals. French intellectuals (or, to be exact, public intellectuals in Russell Yakubi's terminology) are thus often involved in public events, speaking out for people who have suffered social injustice and are at the bottom of society. And often hold a mentality against authority. In this way, the example of the modern French intellectuals became the "myth" and the role model of the intellectuals later, and to some extent changed the original meaning of the word "intellectual". But some researchers have found that, in fact, these intellectuals are very different from their self-image. The French intellectuals after the Revolution believed in the intellectual "myths" created by their forefathers, ignoring the facts that were to the left of their beliefs. In the Dreyfus incident, they also caused a wave of passion among the masses. Although New York intellectuals criticized the capitalist society of the United States in the early days, But most of them became ideological defenders or cultural Cold War fighters for a variety of reasons in later years: they claimed to have fought for freedom, justice and truth, but they made them famous. The desire for money and self-satisfaction is stealthily hidden under these grand goals. All this is the embodiment of the "institutionalization" of New York intellectuals. As for the cultural studies that emerged in American universities after the 1960s, the problem is that their progressive ideas have gradually become empty ideological slogans and thus have no ideological vitality, even being exploited by neoliberal politicians. So what is missing from contemporary intellectuals? The author believes that the real key to solve this dilemma is to reawaken the potential of dialectics.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國藝術(shù)研究院
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：C912.2
，
本文編號：2166134
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/shgj/2166134.html
最近更新
教材專著
