布丢文化资本理论与文化创业实践研究

  本文关键词：布丢文化资本理论与文化创业实践研究，，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

        布丢首先是一个文化创业者,然后才是一个文化资本理论的集大成者。布丢或者被碎片式地直接套用,或者被贬为一无是处,对不丢思想全面深入的理解还有待时日。所以,本文呼吁认真对待布丢。人们通常在布丢的理论与象征暴力学说之间划等号,而布丢真正的价值并非如此简单。按照他的理解,文化资本是指当今时代以日常生活为基础的社会实践关系的资本化,它具体表现为身体、产品和制度等方面特定的文化内容与形式。文化资本投资就是一种社会行动,它既受惯习和场域的限制,又能动性地改变它们；社会行动的基础是在这个过程中所形成的实践感,而不是纯粹的理性计算。权力与意义之间对立统一的矛盾关系是文化资本存在和发展的内在动力,文化资本应当包括三个基本要素,即信息知识、象征形式和创新精神。布丢的文化创业实践是指他利用文化资本规律创造性地进行文化资本投资,建构理论、赢得学术地位并为社会做出贡献的过程。理解布丢文化资本理论和文化创业实践的关键,在于抓住其方法论上破除二元对立思维模式及以社会为本位的基本原则。在此基础上,结合他对场域、惯习和文化资本这些理论工具的界定与使用,我们可以比较全面地把握他对自己研究对象的建构、作品体系的布局、学术生产节奏的设计、研究方法与话语策略的使用,等等。布丢文化资本理论和文化创业实践的内在统一性由此得以体现。布丢的文化资本理论,对文化创业概念的兴起与发展具有直接开创之功,对创业理论的发展与转折也具有重大的启发和引导作用。更重要的是,布丢个人的生活经验、学术轨道和心路历程是文化创业理论和一般创业理论的充分体现。布丢是文化资本理论的集大成者,文化资本理论大都以他为源头或者重要参照尺度。布丢文化资本理论的发展,可以分为准备期、创建期、扩展期与升华期等几个阶段,而每一个阶段他都会根据社会发展形势和个人生活处境确定不同的研究对象、侧重点和相应的传播策略等,这是他理论特质的内在要求,而不是片面理解他的理由。20世纪50、60年代是布丢文化资本理论的准备期,而这时其理论特质与基本形态已经相当完备。通过对阿尔及利亚争取民族独立斗争现状、前途和命运的思考,布丢发现文化资本化是世界发展的历史潮流；通过对贝恩亚社会婚姻、家庭、生育策略的考察,布丢指出了传统农民阶级在文化资本化浪潮面前的生存危机。从理论上讲,布丢认为社会行动本质上是策略性的,社会生活是一种游戏,人们在社会游戏中建构现实,谋取利益。这样,布丢文化资本理论和文化创业实践的原则、框架与发展方向就基本具备。理解布丢文化资本理论的两个关键点就是象征计算与世界之肉。20世纪60、70年代,是布丢文化资本理论的创建期,也是其文化创业实践的关键期。布丢提出了“文化资本人”的假设,在权力与意义之间寻找和界定文化资本理论的社会位置与发展空间。他从教育和文化消费入手,寻找文化资本化的基本表现形式。结果发现,从根本上说文化资本是社会结构再生产过程中的意义表征体系；文化资本化离不开历史传承、标准规范和社会基础,这就是其合法性的根本要求；最终,文化资本结构是由国家政治经济力量综合决定的。对文化资本规律和社会条件的揭示与强调,是这个时期布丢文化资本理论建设的主要任务。这也是包括布丢本人在内的任何文化创业者需要首先面对的问题,这要求文化创业者认识和把握规律而不是在它面前无所作为。20世纪80、90年代,是布丢文化资本理论的扩展期。在充分研究文化资本在社会不同集团和阶级当中的分布状况与规律之后,他进一步通过具体分析高校教授群体文化资本结构与发展态势,指出文化资本投资和文化创业需要内化社会结构和社会规则。海德格尔的哲学理论和哲学创业模式是布丢的重要参照,通过对海德格尔的研究,以及对男权统治脆弱性的分析,布丢进一步明确了其文化创业的基本方法与工具,也坚定了文化创业的信念。在对法国文学生产场的研究中,布丢系统地总结了文学艺术生产的类型、特点与规律,突出强调了文化创业的基本方法与策略。在这个时期,布丢个人坚持文化生产的周期性和个人惯习的稳定性,致力于文化生产的组织建设和对社会现实的深度参与。这有利于他确立自己文化资本理论的学术地位,也有助于他赢得在英语世界创业与发展的重要机会。20世纪90年代以后,是布丢文化资本理论的升华期。在这个阶段,布丢文化资本理论的创造性品质充分体现出来,其文化资本理论和文化创业实践高度统一起来。这个时期,他正面分析和研究国家文化资本的运作机制,提出了公共文化资本建设的方向、日程、框架和原则方法。布丢认同精英教育是国家文化资本生产的基础,国家文化资本运作的基本机制,就是国家精英通过垄断社会地位和发展机会,而获得把握现实的能力和勇于创业的精神。精英教育为资产阶级提供了管理国家的人力资本储备。通过对国家文化资本这个文化资本化最高形式的分析,布丢特别突出了其弱自治性、多面性和非本质性。他希望抑制和转化象征暴力的消极影响,激活富有民主共和、自由平等的法国传统文化精神,重建国家文化资本。根据当时的社会现实,布丢强调,国家文化资本重建的问题与障碍,主要表现为无限制的新自由主义市场力量对国家文化资本的垄断性控制。为此,他分析了大众传媒对知识分子文化生产场的象征暴力机制,总结了艺术生产场域文化资本投资的重要经验,提出了知识分子文化生产场域重建的基本策略和原则；进而要求知识分子在进行文化资本投资的同时,应当肩负公共文化资本建设的历史使命。对布丢来说,个人文化创业和公共文化资本投资是统一的。文化资本的创新性最终表现为个人的创造精神。布丢以其个人文化资本投资历程证明了这种个人创业的可能性、规律性和基本原则。个人创业的主要内容就是立足个人惯习和场域的稳定性,发现和创造可能性,建设自己的生活轨道。本文也探讨了布丢没有正面论述的个人文化资本投资所需具备的心态和情感特征,突出了其内在超越性的一面。布丢强调,知识分子文化生产必须具备批判精神,要以参与社会实践的姿态,反对经院主义,重建客观性；他进而提出整个知识分子场域文化资本建设的总纲领,意在建立与新自由主义相抗衡、基于知识分子联盟的、新的普遍主义文化资本类型。布丢对知识分子文化资本改造和公共文化资本建设理论与实践的倡导,以及对社会运动的关注和支持,导向了一种关于社会自我组织、自我更新的研究视野。本文探讨了布丢文化资本理论的贡献、不足与发展。布丢文化资本理论的贡献表现在对文化资本化现象的深入理解与把握、对文化资本化内在危机与出路的揭露与探索、对启蒙精神的继承与发扬、对新型创业社会的回应与参与。布丢理论的缺陷主要表现在操作性的缺乏上。布丢理论的继承者和批判者,也对他文化资本理论的内涵、创新价值和现实意义进行了深入探讨。另外,本文还考察了布丢文化资本理论在文化价值与内容、组织研究、文化全球化等方面的发展方向,并指出了学界对布丢文化资本理论进行综合与改造的研究取向。综上所述,布丢的文化资本概念包含三个基本要素：知识传承、象征利用和创新发展。因此,布丢实质上开启了一种社会本位的文化生态研究方向,其基本格调就是强调文化生态中意义与权力的平衡。布丢文化资本理论与文化创业实践为我们观察与研究文化资本化问题提供了基本途径与重要方法。

    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.

布丢文化资本理论与文化创业实践研究

中文摘要8-12ABSTRACT12-15第一章 导论：认真对待布丢16-56    第一节 选题的背景与价值20-37    第二节 主要观点、结构与思路37-47    第三节 相关文献综述47-51    第四节 研究方法51-54    第五节 创新点、难点与不足54-56第二章 一个文化创业者和文化资本理论的集大成者56-93    第一节 文化创业概念与文化资本理论的内在联系57-66    第二节 抛入社会上升轨道66-71    第三节 确定文化创业方向71-77    第四节 建构创业空间、市场位置与发展逻辑77-85    第五节 重塑公共知识分子形象85-89    第六节 贯通文化资本概念谱系89-93第三章 共同体裂变、象征交换市场统一与文化资本化视角93-130    第一节 故国他乡——阿尔及利亚时期跨文化生涯与成就94-107    第二节 陌生的熟人——文化资本理论的贝恩亚试验107-117    第三节 家庭、文化共同体与文化资本的本性117-120    第四节 象征计算与世界之肉120-130第四章 教育、艺术与社会空间的演化130-175    第一节 社会本位文化资本理论的初创132-140    第二节 文化资本理论的整合、完善与被定型140-149    第三节 文化资本理论的创造性与实践性品格149-164    第四节 文化资本理论的资本化运作164-175第五章 全球化、国家职能与知识分子公共参与机制的建设175-206    第一节 国家文化资本及其重建176-186    第二节 知识分子与公共文化资本186-197    第三节 布丢的创业行动与知识分子文化创业的历史使命197-206第六章 文化创新与人的自由206-235    第一节 个人的社会性与超越性207-218    第二节 反对经院主义与对理性的重建218-222    第三节 知识分子场域文化资本建设与反思性总体社会学222-228    第四节 社会的解放与自由的创造228-235第七章 布丢文化资本理论的贡献、不足与发展235-274    第一节 布丢文化资本理论的贡献236-250    第二节 关于布丢文化资本理论不足的若干讨论250-258    第三节 布丢文化资本理论的发展258-274第八章 结论：文化资本化呼唤一种社会实践本位的文化生态建设274-287    结论一：布丢理论的精神实质是维护社会的文化生态平衡276-279    结论二：布丢揭示了文化资本自我组织和自我更新的内在机制279-284    结论三：布丢开创了社会本位的文化创业研究与实践的新模式284-285    结论四：布丢文化资本理论在个人自我完善研究方面潜力巨大285-287参考文献287-295人名对照表295-300后记300-301学位论文评阅及答辩情况表301

  本文关键词：布丢文化资本理论与文化创业实践研究，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。