Formalization and Informalization: Changing Tension Balances in Civilizing Processes
Formalization and Informalization: Changing Tension Balances in Civilizing Processes
复制标题
正规化和非正规化：文明进程中不断变化的张力平衡
DOI：
10.1177/0263276486003002002
复制
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Wouters
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Wouters
1. 60年代和70年代，西方社会的社会行为准则越来越“宽容”，越来越宽容。许多以前被禁止的行为模式现在都被允许了，特别是在性方面，在书面和口头语言、服装、音乐、舞蹈和发型等行为领域，行为和情感变得不那么正式。在以前的一篇文章中，我试图解释非正式化过程中越来越多的宽容。在这些过程中，越来越多的社会行为的主导模式，象征着制度化的权力关系，开始被忽视和攻击，结果是社会行为的标准变得更加宽容、多样化和分化。与此同时，这意味着社会上级和下级之间的权力关系发生了有利于后者的变化。根据诺伯特·埃利亚斯的文明化进程理论，这些发展可以解释为行为守则的种类或细微差别的增加。进入世纪以来，欧洲中产阶级和工人阶级的生活方式和社会行为标准越来越相似。在这一过程中，行为、情感和道德方面的差异范围缩小了，而对其间的差异或细微差别的敏感性则增强了。从某种意义上说，这种发展似乎与文明化进程理论并不一致：根据这一理论的某些表述，更宽松的社会行为标准与更宽松的自我控制模式密切相关，对有关人员的情绪控制要求较低。在
1. Informalization Revisited In the sixties and seventies, there was increasing "permissiveness", together with growing leniency in codes of social conduct in western societies. Many modes of conduct that had formerly been forbidden were now allowed, particularly in matters of sexuality, and conduct and emotions became less formally regulated in such spheres of behaviour as the written and spoken language, clothing, music, dancing and hair styles. In an earlier article I attempted to explain the increasing permissiveness in terms of informalizing processes. In these processes more and more of the dominant modes of social conduct, symbolizing institutionalized power relationships, come to be ignored and attacked, with the result that the standards of social conduct change towards greater leniency, variety and differentiation. At the same time this signifies a shift in power relationships between social superiors and subordinates in favour of the latter. These developments can be interpreted in terms of Norbert Elias's theory of civilizing processes as increased varieties or nuances in the codes of conduct. Ever since the turn of the century, the life styles and standards of social conduct of the middle classes and the working classes of Europe have come to be more and more alike. In that process, the range of differences in conduct, emotions and morals has been diminished, and the sensitivity to varieties or nuances in between has been intensified. In one sense this development did not seem to be in accordance with the theory of civilizing processes: according to some formulations of this theory, more lenient standards of social conduct go hand in hand with more lenient patterns of self-control, with lower requirements in regard to emotional controls on the part of the people involved. In