From modernity through postmodernity to reflexive modernization. Did we learn anything?
From modernity through postmodernity to reflexive modernization. Did we learn anything?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/03906701.2011.544177
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Heiskala, Risto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Heiskala, Risto
在社会学传统中，现代化通常被理解为日益分化。像马克思、涂尔干、韦伯和帕森斯这样不同的理论家都认为现代化意味着开辟新的视野。利奥塔的《后现代状况》的出版改变了话语世界：与分化理论社会学的传统相反，这本小册子将现代化解释为一个过程，在这个过程中，地方文化传统的多元性被摧毁，它们的各种叙述在科学、进步和启蒙的压抑性元叙事下被重新表达为一个统一的现代经典。起初，社会学家们对这种新的解释并不认同，直到贝克、吉登斯和拉什在他们的《自反性现代化》（1994）和相关出版物中提出了两个阶段的现代性概念。他们认为，“传统的现代性”是基于文化封闭，如统一的阶级身份、民族和固定的性别身份，但随之而来的是“第二”或“反思的现代性”，正如后现代主义者所声称的那样，几种传统并存。一场激烈的辩论出现了。文章问道：我们是否从反思性现代化的辩论中学到了什么？如果是的话，这些经验教训能否有效地用于当代社会的研究？答案似乎在很大程度上是否定的。然而，现代化的理论方法仍然可以被视为一个有用的工具，为框架的研究问题，并有助于诊断的时代。这就是为什么它仍然可以为研究提供一个出发点，但不能提供所有的答案。
Modernization, in the sociological tradition, was usually understood as increasing differentiation. Theorists as different as Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Parsons all shared the view that modernization meant the opening of new horizons. The publication of Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition transformed the discursive universe: contrary to the tradition of differentiation theoretical sociology the pamphlet interpreted modernization as a process in which the plurality of local cultural traditions was destroyed and their various narratives were rearticulated into a unified modern canon under the repressive metanarratives of science, progress and the Enlightenment. At first, sociologists were at odds with this new interpretation until Beck, Giddens and Lash brought up the idea of modernity in two phases in their Reflexive Modernization (1994) and related publications. According to them, `traditional modernity' was based on cultural closures, such as unified class-identities, nationalities and fixed genderidentities, but it was followed by a `second' or `reflexive modernity', where several traditions lived side by side, just as the postmodernists claimed. An intense debate emerged. The article asks: did we learn anything from the debate on reflexive modernization and if so, can the learnt lessons be used fruitfully in the study of contemporary society? The answer seems to be negative for the most part. However, the modernization theoretical approach can still be seen as a useful tool for framing research questions and contributing to the diagnosis of the era. This is how it can still provide a point of departure for research, but not deliver all the answers.