查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 社會不平等及社會結構研究中的個體主義：系統理論對「結構／個體」的超越
- 跳出妒恨的認同政治，進入解放的培力政治--串聯尼采和工運（或社運）的嘗試思考
- 近代德國的世界史觀
- 戰後臺灣文化變遷的主要方向：個體性的覺醒及其問題
- 穆勒論「言論自由」
- 文明的提昇與沉淪--彌爾、嚴復與史華茲
- 什麼是「民主」?什麼是「公共」?--杜威對自由主義的批判與重建
- 評：Urs Stäheli & Rudolf Stichweh eds., Exclusion and Socio-Cultural Identities: Systems Theoretical and Poststructuralist Perspective (Stuttgart：Lucius & Lucius, 2002)
- 辛默爾與現代/後現代--一個社會學的回應基礎
- Nouns or Classifiers: A Non-Movement Analysis of Classifiers in Chinese
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 社會不平等及社會結構研究中的個體主義：系統理論對「結構／個體」的超越=Reflexion on the Individualism in the Analyse of Social Unequality and Social Structure: From “Structure/Individual” to “Inclusion/Exclusion” |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 魯貴顯; | 書刊名 | 東吳社會學報 |
| 卷 期 | 13 民91.12 |
| 頁 次 | 頁1-25 |
| 分類號 | 546 |
| 關鍵詞 | 個體; 個體性; 階序; 涵括; 排除; Individual; Individuality; Hierarchy; Inclusion; Exclusion; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 社會不平等與社會結構的研究基本上是從「結構╱個體」這組差異出發的。其中：﹙1﹚在個人主義之下假設了，人原本是平等，但另一方面又由於社會結構而使得不平等出現並得以辨識。據此，一般的研究取向強調社會結構因素（收入財富、教育程度、社會聲望等）對於個體的影響。但是，社會學極容易在設定社會結構因素時反省到，因素的選取往往是任意的，因此，研究者就將此反省投射到（研究對象中的）個體本身，也就是將個體視為一個有選擇能力、自省能力的人，社會結構也因此不再佔有絕對的影響力，而此種相對化表現在，結構研究中增加了因素的類別以及將因素之間的比重相對化。氛圍以及生活風格研究應是屬於此類反省。﹙2﹚這種反省由「結構╱個體」差異中的結構走向個體。雖然不否定社會結構所給予的行動限制，但主要仍在強調個體的價值取向、生活態度、審美觀、體驗等等才是不平等、差異的製造者。 以「個體」當作理論最後的指涉點，在理論上仍留有尚待反省之處。理論的建構上來說，之前的個體與結構之對立，現今則轉變成個體與社會的對立，即，社會依賴於個體之間的差異製造。但是，什麼﹙以及如何﹚保證了個體能表達出可理解的差異？個體如何能自省自己作為一個個體？系統理論在此提供了一個解答的可能性：個體作為溝通的建構物。而這又以「溝通╱意識」（或「社會系統╱心理系統」）的差異為前提。社會藉由溝通建構出某些彷彿生理的、心理的事件（即涵括），同時也排除了真正身體、心理層次的事物。「涵括╱排除」在全社會層次上則表現為，個體是否能保有著進入功能系統的資格，此時，被排除出去的是個體性。社會以排除的形式要求個體必須為自己的認同負責，即，個體被要求製造出自己的個體性。其製造方式有三種：複製、多元的自我、生命史。從演化上來說，社會藉著「個體（性）」這個建構物，能為自己提供演化上必要的多樣性，以及實驗的可能。 |
| 英文摘要 | In the research on social inequality and social structure “structure / individual” is a fundamental difference, in which (1) it is assumed that, on the on hand, human beings in principle are equal, and on the other, through the social structure inequalities occur and are identifiable. Accordingly, most researches emphasize the influences of social factors such as property, education and prestige upon individuals. The selected factors are however susceptible to the arbitrariness of the researcher. The awareness that individuals as researchers, act with the capacity of self-reflection, will lead to a theoretical suggestion that individuals can be viewed as an actor capable of decision-making and self-reflection, and consequently, social structure could not be the only dominant factor responsible for social inequality. The studies of social nische in German sociology and the researches on life-style take account of this theoretical reflection. (2) Thus this raises a crossing within the “structure / individual” difference from the side “structure” to the other side “individual”. Hier emphasis is laid on individuals’ value, life attitude, experience, aesthetic taste, etc. However, the theoretical practice that takes “individual” as the last reference point should be closely examined. The thesis that modern society produces differences through individuals may have empirical validity, but still need to be elaborated further with the following question: how could an individual express sensible differences in society and reflect upon itself? With systems theory we can consider “individual” as a social construction which presupposes a distinction between social and psychic systems (communication / consciousness). Through communication society establishes so-called physical and psychic events (inclusion) and excludes the real body and psychic things. Society articulates its “inclusion” of individuals in such a way that they can obtain the performance of functional systems. The individuality is therefore excluded, for which individuals must be responsible. Namely, the individuals are asked to produce their individuality. Three modes of individuality production are invented: copy, multiple self, and life career. With the construction of “individuality”, modern society gives itself necessary diversity for evolution and experiment. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。