Refine
Language
Document Type
- Articles (138)
- Dissertations (44)
- Books (12)
- Reviews (7)
- Collections (5)
Has Fulltext
- no (206) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2014 (206) (remove)
Well before the now flourishing field of animal studies, the thinkers associated with Frankfurt, Germany’s Institute of Social Research theorized and problematized society’s troubling relationship with animals. Early critical theory explored the various manifestations of >unrelenting exploitation< animals have experienced in human societies and maintained that the domination of animals is intimately linked to the domination of human beings, especially of women and racial and ethnic minorities. They criticized Western thought for instrumentalist attitudes toward animals and were committed to extending compassion to animals. Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse mount four challenges to sociologists today: (1) to unmask the shared forms of domination experienced by both animals and marginalized human beings, (2) for environmental sociologists to make animals a principle subject of investigation, (3) for sociological animal studies scholars to engage with philosophy, and (4) to adopt a critical and normative sociological perspective when studying human–animal relations.
Erich Fromm argues that the only reliable way to solve the environmental crisis is to alter current social formations in a way in which biophilia can flourish, so humankind can solve its existential dichotomy as well as meet survival needs in an ecologically sound way. However, society's preoccupation with the non-alive-elements such as technique, the mechanical, gadgets, and commodities – shows that the modern social character is far from biophilous. Instead, modern societies are inherently ecologically destructive due to systematic processes and attraction to its progress is a less acute form of, what Fromm terms, necrophilia. His insights can help formulate a social theory of environmental degradation that includes structural and ideational variables. Prescriptively, this means appeals for value changes must correspond with fitting appeals for structural changes in social systems.
本文将以阿兰•西利托小说《星期六的晚上和星期天的早晨》为例,对20世纪英国50年代的工人阶级青年人在追求自由的过程中遭遇的困境做出系统的分析,并试图找到他们追求积极自由的可行性道路。本文以埃利•希弗洛姆关于人性的精神分析理论以及主人公亚瑟的精神转变为参照,试图对亚瑟—《星期六的晚上和星期日的早上》的主人公,同时也是愤怒的青年的代表人物所追寻的自由进行分析。首先试图对主人公亚瑟在追求激进自由,也就是消极自由时所表现出来的叛逆行为和散漫的生活以及由其追求的消极自由所带来的异化进行分析,进而揭示其偏激自由观的本质。在这一阶段,本论文试图从亚瑟对社会制度和传统道德的反叛行为入手进而得出亚瑟对过激自由的执着追求是受到了社会压力,工人阶级的生活压力以及本人的不健全性格等多重合力的影响而造成的结果。从以上的论述和分析中我们可以得出结论,亚瑟所奉行的偏激自由思想正如弗洛姆在其理论中描绘的所谓>消极自由<,这种自由在表面上似乎带给了他无尽享受与轻松,但实质上带给他更多的空虚与孤独。因此,任何只求轻松而逃避责任并力图疏离于人际纽带之外的偏激自由都是消极自由。与消极自由不同的是,积极自由可以带给人们一种真正的自我和归属感。因而只有通过回归真实的生活,勇于担当,构筑起人与人之间的和谐纽带,现代人才有可能踏上通往追求真正的自由之路