西方公共知识分子的死与生
发布时间：2018-08-05 14:54
【摘要】：自从19世纪的德雷福斯事件以来,“知识分子”一词在现代西方逐渐获得了特殊的政治意涵,知识分子由此变成了一个颇受公众争议的群体。也因此,西方学者创造了“公共知识分子”一词,用来将这些活跃在公共领域中的知识分子与传统定义里的知识分子区别开来。但需要指出的是,这个词在“世纪末”(Fin-de-Siècle)之前,曾经有着完全不同的含义,而这一点恰恰被许多中国的研究者所忽略。另一方面,中国的研究者在分析现代西方的知识分子时,常常将其研究对象视为铁板一块,而未能认识到这些知识分子由于文化背景和个人经历的不同而对其知识分子身份的理解大不相同。而本论文就将尝试在这些方面做出一系列理论贡献。要之,在20世纪以前的西方文化语境中,知识分子往往指那些具有学术研究兴趣或是在智力上超越常人的人,即“有知识的人”。但在现代法国,启蒙哲人(尤其是伏尔泰)为后来的知识分子树立了公共生活中的榜样。法国的知识分子(或者用拉塞尔·雅各比的术语准确地来说,公共知识分子)因此常常参与到公共事件当中,为遭遇了社会不公和身处社会底层的人发声,并且时常持有一种与权威对抗的心理。这样一来,现代法国知识分子的事例变成了后来知识分子的“神话”和榜样,也在某种程度上改变了“知识分子”一词的原初含义。但一些研究者在深入研究后发现,事实上这些(公共)知识分子与他们所标榜的自我形象很不一样。大革命之后的法国知识分子笃信于他们的思想先辈所创造出的知识分子“神话”而无视那些与他们信念向左的事实。在德雷福斯事件中,他们还进而引起了群众的激情浪潮。而纽约知识分子尽管在早期对美国资本主义社会提出了一定的批评,但其中的大多数人在后来的岁月中由于各种原因而变成了意识形态的辩护士或文化冷战的斗士:他们声称为了自由、公正和真理而奋斗,但却将他们对名望、金钱和自我满足方面的欲望偷偷地隐藏在这些堂而皇之的目标之下。所有这些都是纽约知识分子“制度化”的体现。至于60年代以后在美国大学中出现的文化研究,它们的问题在于其进步思想渐渐地变成了空洞的意识形态口号,因而不具有任何思想活力,甚至于被新自由主义的政客所利用。那么,到底当代知识分子身上缺失了什么?本论文的作者认为,要解决这一困境的真正关键就在于重新唤起辩证法的潜能。
[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 猫 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.
【学位授予单位】：中国艺术研究院
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：C912.2
，
本文编号：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 猫 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.
【学位授予单位】：中国艺术研究院
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：C912.2
，
本文编号：2166134
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/shgj/2166134.html
教材专著
