Dissertations / Dissertationen
Johan Jakob Bachofen (1815-1887) was a Swiss anthropologist and sociologist whose 1861 book, Mother Right: An Investigation of the Religious and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World is best known for his radical claims that matriarchy preceded patriarchy, and that matriarchy is the source of human society, religion, and morality. Scholars have acknowledged Bachofen’s influence on a long list of writers, including but not limited to: Lewis Henry Morgan, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Mann, Friederich Engels, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Joseph Campbelll, Emile Durkheim, Carl Gustav Jung, Thorstein Veblen, Ferdinand Tonnies, and Pitirim Sorokin. The focus of my thesis is to bring attention to Bachofen’s influence on the early sociologists (Engels, Durkheim, Tonnies, Sorokin), and more importantly, on the later sociologists and other social scientists whom these early sociologists in turn influenced, including: David Riesman, Talcott Parsons, and Jean Baudrillard.
The paper analyses the Freud’s dilemma in his theory of civilization, on this basis, finds the course of problem. In this process, we begin with the two basic concepts, namely civilization and instinct. In Freud’s theory, the civilization is existed as the performance of difference between people and animals. It not only include the knowledge and ability that formed in dealing with the relationship between human and nature, but also include the various rules and regulations between peoples. Instinct, as a core concept in his theoretical system, is inherited from the theory of biological evolution. He believes that the instinct urged the organism returning to the previous state, and eventually, he divided the instinct into instinct for life and death instinct, and believed it has fundamental confliction between the two instincts. When Freud’s perspective turns to the field of the social life, he also looks at modern civilization from the perspective of instinct, and believes that modern civilization oppresses the satisfaction of instinct and meets the demands of instinct at the same time. But, he does not completely abandon the idea of civilization or instinct, he thinks that civilization can oppress instinct appropriately. However, the oppression what degree is appropriate, Freud does not give a clear standard. So, in fact, the problem he encountered has not been fully resolved. Aiming at the difficulties encountered by Freud, other scholars such as Marcuse and Fromm have tried to solve this problem. But, their theories have their own shortcomings. Marcuse does not fully understand Freud’s problem, he is more concerned about Freud’s instinct for life. In fact, Freud is more attention about death instinct. As for Fromm, he integrates the spirit of Marxism and psychoanalysis, in the face of the difficulties encountered by Freud, he thinks that the problem can disappear with the development of society. So, he gives us only a hope, a utopian existence. So, we should explore the root cause of the dilemma encountered by Freud, and analyze whether the dilemma exist or not in actually.– When analyzing Freud’s theory of civilization, we finds that to imagine a non-oppressed civilization, the biggest obstacle we faced is the death instinct.– So, the question is weather the death instinct is necessary. Karen·Horney raises doubts in this regard. Through her own analysis, she thinks that it is not necessary to mention death instinct, for, there is no full evidence to certificate it, and it also contradict with the reality. However, the death instinct, after all, as a real theory is putted forward by Freud, and when the theory take the great dilemma to him, he still use it. So, it was necessary to explore the theoretical way what his death instinct produced. Freud is impacted by the theory of evolution deeply, and he introduces the concept of instinct as a biological field into the psychological field. In this course, he also introduce the logic of evolution into psychological field. So, the things what are established in biological field are similarly established in psychological field. When he discovers that the people have the tendency to repeat previous activities, he considers that it represents a kind of instinctive tendency also. On this basis, he puts forward the death instinct that is, return to the previous inorganic state. However, when he looks at human civilization, he is still from the view of biology, and considers that people and animals have no essential difference. This is a non-scientific idea .It has been recognized by many scholars that it has essential difference between people and animals. Therefore, the study of human civilization should be from the fundamental characters of human.– In the history of Western thoughts, it has been existed the concept of rational person religionary person and biological person. Cassirer puts forward the concept of symbolic person, on the basis of analyzing the limitation of these concepts, and it mainly emphasize the higher level ability of free creating what human has. This is consistent with the Marx’s incisive elucidation. So, >people are symbolic animals< seizes the people’s fundamental characters. From the concept of >human is symbolic animals<, human has the ability of creating and using the symbol. This is the universal dynamic creativity what human has. In the course of creating and using symbol, human has the ability of giving the value to symbols freely and dynamicly, so the symbol system is a free system also. Civilization is a development course of self-determination. It develops and heritages through the symbol media. Thus, the development of civilization is a free, dynamic process also. So the development of civilization not only does not oppress anything, but also is not hampered by other things. Thus, in Freud’s view, the course of the development of civilization does not oppress instinct. [Translation: www.cnki.net, 6/2023]
The theory of social character and social unconsciousness is Erich Fromm’s great breakthrough in the field of spirits analysis, and is established by absorbing the historical materialism on the basis of individual unconsciousness theory of Freud’s an collective unconsciousness theory of Carl Gustav Jung. Fromm stresses the role of social psychology in social historical process through the analysis of social character, reveals the method by which social unconsciousness is transformed into consciousness. Fromm proceeds from the combination of psychological factor economic factor and political factor, analyzes the relationship between the generation of social unconsciousness social character social consciousness and social existence. We cannot simply consider that the social psychology methodology is the extensive application of individual psychological analysis to social psychology, most theoretic researchers haven’t conducted systematic and detailed research about the relationship between social character and social unconsciousness theory, the innovation of this paper is to elaborate the complicated and close relationship between social character and social unconsciousness.– This paper introduces the theory origins of social character and the definition classification function significance of social unconsciousness, expounds the mechanism and function of social character and social unconsciousness in social system, the significance of social character and social unconsciousness in Fromm’s ideas system, analyzes the theoretic methodology of social character by Fromm, discusses who decide and how to decide social characters from the perspective of human situation, human nature relationship and so on, points out the contribution and limits of the theory of social character and social unconsciousness, hopes to find something unique and essential to be borrowed to construct the harmonious society currently.
本文对弗洛伊德主义马克思主义思想家弗洛姆的>逃避自由<理论进行了系统研究,深入分析和阐释了弗洛姆逃避自由理论的理论基础、理论内涵及其理论启示与限度,力图彰显这一理论的当代意义和价值。本文共分三个部分进行了论述第一部分,阐述了弗洛姆逃避自由理论产生的时代背景及其理论来源。包括弗洛姆所生长的家庭环境及个人成长经历、弗洛姆所生活的时代背景对其思想产生的现实基础。同时弗洛姆将弗洛伊德的精神分析学说与马克思关于人的学说结合起来,综合分析了现代人逃避自由的社会性格形成的原因。第二部分:主要介绍了弗洛姆逃避自由理论的主要内容。首先,阐述了自由的含义,弗洛姆把人的自由区分为消极的自由和积极的自由,分析了资本主义社会中自由的双重含义,一方面随着科学技术的发展,人们逐渐摆脱了自然界的控制,获得了广泛的自由,有了自主性、独立思考、自主行动的权力。另一方面,获得这种自由的前提是以牺牲自我的安全感和归属感为代价,这时人们又会感到孤独、无权力和不安全感,从而产生了逃避自由的心理。其次,分析了现代人在逃避自由的过程中形成的三种不健康的性格特征:极权主义、破坏性和机械趋同。揭露了资本主义生产方式的异化必然产生异化的自由,这实质上就是人的异化,它的必然结果是使人丧失了主体性和创造性,失去了自我。再次,阐述了这种异化的心理正是纳粹主义在德国民众中迅速崛起的社会心理基础。最后论述了只有培养健全的人格才能形成现代人积极的自由,用爱来消解现代人自由的悖论,对实现健全的社会具有极其重大的理论价值。第三部分,论述了弗洛姆逃避自由理论对我国构建和谐社会的启示作用。在现代文明得以发展的今天,人们有自由却缺乏安全感,现代人对生活的态度是冷漠的、表面的、机械的。对他人的态度是理性的、没有任何感情的。随着人的个体化和独立性的增强,随之而来的孤独感和焦虑感也不断加强。随着社会经济的不断发展,社会出现很多的不和谐因素,现代人面临着诸多的如就业、失业等生存压力,贫富差距过大,严重影响人们的心理平衡。人际关系的不和谐、不融洽是人们心理问题的主要危机。因此弗洛姆所提倡的要求人们用创造性的爱去融合内心和世界,实现人与人之间的融合,让自己与自然、他人和谐相处,形成良性的互动关系,处理好人与人之间的和谐正是我国目前所坚持的以人为本,实现健全人格、修身养性、坦直率真、心灵健康,从而达到自身和谐的理论基础。但是弗洛姆提出的社会改良的方法,有它不切实际的一面。弗洛姆把人的发展和命运看作是自己选择的结果,而忽视了社会经济和环境对人的发展的决定作用,从而夸大了人的心理作用。他仅仅从抽象的人道主义出发,批判资本主义异化的本身,而没有批判资本主义社会制度,有明显的唯心和主观臆断倾向。
>批判理论<这一术语是由20世纪20年代和30年代早期法兰克福致力于跨学科社会研究的新马克思主义理性研究小组联合定义的。这个学会建立于1923年,以发展马克思主义社会研究为目的。法兰克福学派的主要代表人物有:T•W•阿多诺,W•本杰明,E•弗洛姆,卡尔•格律伯格,M•霍克海默,里奥•洛文塔尔,H•马尔库塞,F•波洛克和弗郎茨•纽曼,及新法兰克福学派的代表人物哈贝马斯。法兰克福学派除了受到马克思的影响外,还深受康德、黑格尔、卢卡奇以及尼采和弗洛伊德等的影响。文章简要概述了康德的>三大批判<、黑格尔的辩证法、马克思—政治经济学批判的科学社会观、卢卡奇的《历史与阶级意识》的思想对其的影响。康德的>三大批判<构成的以人的价值为本体的人本主义哲学为批判理论提供了基础。黑格尔理性中所蕴涵的辩证思想,为批判理论提供了理论基础。马克思强调的辩证法是>否定的辩证法<,>辩证法在对现存事物的肯定的理解中同时包含对现存事物的否定的理解,即对现存事物的必然灭亡的理解,<这种否定性,是马克思批判理论的核心内涵。卢卡奇的《历史与阶级意识》通过对资本主义社会>物化<现象的批判,掀起了西方马克思主义现代性批判的理论思潮。文章通过概述批判理论的发展过程,霍克海默的批判理论,启蒙辩证法,阿多诺的否定辩证法,马尔库塞的社会批判理论到新法兰克福学派批判理论的发展,分析了法兰克福学派社会批判理论的主要特点,即否定同一性,强调理性和对资本主义变革可能性的探索。批判理论之于社学科学哲学的意义,体现在认识论、方法论、本体论意义;批判理论的社会科学特性,包括揭示社会矛盾和危机,反思主义特性,强调人的主体性和创造性思维;对资本主义的批判性认识,包括批判理论与马克思主义的分歧,科学技术成为新的意识形态;法兰克福学派大众文化批评理论对西方文化价值危机进行了深刻的反思,体现了一种对晚期资本主义文明的强烈批判精神。批判理论与实在论、解释论构成了社会科学的新哲学。西方社会所遭遇的困惑有很多正是我们今天面对的非常棘手的问题,如主体的认识和行为问题、语言的作用问题、交往行为问题、现代化和全球化问题等,作为一种批判理论,它在否定的辩证法意义上对现代社会进行了病理诊断,提供了批判的灵感和武器,这正是西方马克思主义对当代中国最可贵的现实意义
西方马克思主义者、20世纪著名的心理学家、哲学家、精神分析学家弗罗姆对发达资产阶级社会中人的生活方式进行了总结,区分了>重占有<和>重生存<的概念,主张应以自由、独立、理性的重生存生活方式代替重占有的生活方式,由此对资本主义社会人的生存困境作出了解答。弗罗姆的理论体现出对资本主义消费社会的不满,对人性的关怀和期望。目前的中国处于社会转型期,物质财富日益丰富,人们的购买能力日益扩大,消费水平日益提高,许多人开始形成重占有、轻生存的生活方式,这是许多社会问题产生的深层根源。正确处理这些问题,已经成为和谐社会建设的重要内容。由于重占有的生活方式在物质资源丰富的西方表现得淋漓尽致,弗罗姆提出的重生存生活方式对当代中国有很好的借鉴作用和理论价值。我们要联系我国在达到整体小康的情况下人的生存现状,和达到全面小康时对人的生活方式的思考,在此基础上选择一种适合人性发展的健康、自然、本真的重生存的生活方式。
《一九八四》是二十世纪英国作家乔治•奥威尔最出色的作品之一。小说对未来社会的描写令人惊悚,自其出版就在国外引起广泛关注,但目前大多数评论家都是围绕其反乌托邦这一主题进行探讨或者是从政治角度进行剖析。本文拟从埃利希•弗洛姆的人本主义理论和精神分析法透视人如何在极权统治下被异化而丧失人性。论文将主要分析小说中所描述的大洋国存在的几个病态现象,如人的异化,社会无意识的压抑以及对人渴求爱的滥用以揭示专制主义给人类正常生活带来的负面影响。通过对比温斯顿的现实生活和他渴望的生活,本文试图找出主人公在这样一个专制的非人性化社会中的寻求自我的心理变化过程,其中也涉及到弗洛姆所致力探求的人性主题,如爱和自由。此外,在诺曼•霍兰德心理分析式读者反映理论的支持下,本文从温斯顿追求人性的过程中揭示出四个关于人生的主题:单纯和成熟,服从与反抗,爱和创造,自由和死亡。它们存在于人生的各个阶段,是永恒的焦点。虽然我们现在所处的世界比奥威尔笔下的大洋国更民主,更人性化,但社会准则和人性中的冲突仍然存在,而这两种分析法的重要性在于它能够帮助读者审视其在现代社会中所持有的价值观。该论文的创造性主要体现在两个方面。一、视角新颖。论文所采用的弗氏理论虽然被广泛讨论,但是该理论尚未广泛地在文学研究中展开运用,运用于《一九八四》的研究就更少了。二、选材新颖。《一九八四》因为其内容对中国社会主义的中国比较敏感,向来乏人问津。在国内,直到20世纪80年代出现该作的中文译本之后,才陆续出现了研究者。总之,本文只是借用一套系统的理论对《一九八四》的又一次实验性研究。其中弗洛姆的理论主要用于解读人在一个病态社会中的精神状态,而霍兰德的理论则侧重探寻人的内在发展和追求。
索尔•贝娄是美国文学历史上最杰出的作家之一。在其四十余年的创作生涯中,贝娄创作了八部长篇小说,出版了许多中短篇小说集,并且荣获了多种文学奖项。在创作思想上,贝娄主张文学作品应该反映历史的真实。他的作品深刻地揭示了当代西方世界存在的精神危机,提出了资本主义文明面临的问题。在表现方法上,他善于把内心活动和外在世界糅合在一起,把现实描写与历史回忆交织起来。《赫索格》是贝娄的代表作之一,其内容主要反映了现代社会中资产阶级的人道主义危机。在该部作品中,作者将主人公的内心世界与外在处境相结合,使读者清楚地认识到赫索格本人的精神危机实质上是一种时代病。自问世以来,该作品即受到了评论界的广泛关注。由于作品的丰富内涵,学者们得以从不同角度对该作品予以分析。分析的内容主要集中在:主人公的精神历程,主人公的异化,现代人的生存困境,作品中的犹太元素,作品的自传性质,作品的叙事技巧等方面。这些评论从不同层面分析了作品的主题,及作品主题的体现形式。同时,这些研究为从更广泛的角度探讨作品主题提供了可能。因而,本文作者综合考虑了以上各要素,运用弗洛姆的后现代生存主义心理分析理论,从人性异化与回归的角度分析了作品主题。本文首先对《赫索格》这部作品本身,作品的创作背景,以及弗洛姆的理论进行了分析与介绍,旨在为分析作品的主题提供基础,然后从真爱的遗失,人格的异化以及混乱的社会精神状况三方面分析了人性异化的现象,说明了当代西方文明的危机是造成西方社会病,导致人与人关系异化及人格异化的根本原因。之后,本文从真爱的追寻与复得,健全人格的重建,以及人与自然和谐关系的角度分析了主人公及作品中其他人物人性的追寻与回归过程。同时,为进一步深化主题,本文在>人性回归<这一部分,分析了主人公对理想社会状态的想往。从而得出结论,真爱是对人类生存问题的回答。只有在健全的社会文化环境下,真正健全的人格才能得以保障,人性的本真才能得以永久的闪光。