LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK(一) / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

http://www.taidupa.com/images/bbs.png

Ilaria的头像
浏览 188


 

 

fore

 

对于社会学研究的兴趣起源于在英国上学的日子,也深刻了解中国对于这一门科学研究社会的方法起步有多晚。社会学在中国貌似离生活很远,像束之高阁的学术研究,但是它却是能和哲学、心理学等构成人认知世界的基础框架。这篇来自一本德国优秀的杂志《032C》中关于社会学家的采访,我们将它拆成了三期为大家提供这篇完整的采访。

 

它和香水和气味无关,却和自我认知以及认知世界有关。

 

 

 

 

毫无疑问,齐格蒙特·鲍曼是欧洲最富影响力的社会学家之一。1990年从利兹大学退休之后,他以惊人的速度,发布了60部作品,并在各大洲被广泛阅读,

 

鲍曼创造了 “流动的现代性” 这个词描述我们的社会现状:生活的各个层面正以一种史无前例的速度发生转变——爱,工作,社会,政治和权利。他的研究覆盖的范围之大,从亲密关系到全球化,真人秀节目到大屠杀,从消费观到社区,也延及他自己专业研究领域的哲学和心理学。
 

1925年,齐格蒙特·鲍曼出生在波兰波兹兰一个穷困的犹太人家庭,他们拼了命抓住了去往苏联的最后一趟火车,也因此逃离了那场可怕的厄运。他成为了马克思主义者并参与了红军。回到波兰后,他在军事机密出担任军官,与反对政党斗争,直到1953年他成为了军队机密处的一名雇员。对苏联政权希望的幻灭使他离开了波兰政党。1968年,在反犹太清理活动中,他丢掉了华沙大学的教职,搬到了以色列,在特拉维夫大学授课2年,直到移民英国。

 

古希腊抒情诗人阿尔齐洛科斯曾经说过:“狐狸知道所有的事,但刺猬只知道一件大事”。以赛亚·柏林曾以这个比喻作家与思想家的区别。在这里面,鲍曼是一只狐狸,同时也是一只刺猬。他不是一个充满细节,数据,调查,事实以及推断的男人。他在巨大的帆布上用大画刷作画,不断引发争论并且检验各种新的假设。在人类学和社会科学领域很少有机会让他无话可说。“我的一生都花在了回收信息”,一次齐格蒙特·鲍曼如此说道。

 

正值89岁高龄,面对现行状态,这个社会学家依旧没有丧失他批判的热情以及对正义怒气。面对到访者,他总是会拿出让对方感到惊讶的、如孩童般淘气的幽默,这是在他书里所展现的无比荒凉的未来所没有的。骨子里是一个东欧人的鲍曼,坚持让我们在他家各取所需,无论是草莓蛋挞,曲奇饼干,还是在他咖啡桌前放着的葡萄,旁边环绕着高耸的书海。手执烟斗,坐在一个磨破的椅子上,鲍曼用很长时间回答了我们的提问。这些非常需要的提问,因为我们想知道:生活究竟是什么?

 

 

 

 

Q032C

 

鲍曼教授,让我们从最重要的爱开始吧。你说过,我们已经忘记如何去爱了。什么使你得到这个结论?

随着网上购物的趋势我们寻找伴侣的方式也开始网络化。我个人不喜欢网上购物——书籍,电影,衣服。如果你想要一件新的夹克,虚拟商店会向你展示他们的目录。如果你想要一个伴侣,约会网站也会向你展示他们的目录册。这种顾客和商品式的关系决定了不同个体相处的模式。

 

这跟早前我们在(现实生活的)镇上集市上遇到了未来的伴侣有什么不一样的吗?

网上约会包括了要尝试去定义潜在伴侣的特点,这是个体意愿的最佳呈现。而候选者被选择的条件是基于头发,肤色,身高,体形,胸围,年龄,兴趣,习惯,喜欢的东西与不喜欢的东西等。这里一个潜在的观点是:爱,可以由一系列可衡量的外化的、社交化的特征所组成。在这个过程中,最具决定性的因素被忘记了:那就是人作为人的本身。

 

即使当一份看似完美的个人档案被挑选出来,但一旦你开始了解那个人,一切都还是变了。还是有很多东西超过了我们所看到的这些外在。

这种关系模式的危险之处就在于它与世俗的实用主义越来越相似。我们从来不会给一张椅子承诺。为什么我会愿意保留一把椅子直到我老去呢?如果我不再喜欢它,很简单我直接买一把新的就好了。许多人往往意识不到,但却学会了用这种物化的思考方式看世界和他人。

 

您的意思是伴侣间更早地分开了。

我们进入关系是因为它们让人感觉满足。当我们觉得第三者可能更理想时,我们就会分手重建一个新关系。开始一个关系需要两个人的同意。结束它却只需要一个人。因此,大多数情侣都生活在一个持续的忧虑中,那就是她(他)可能被另外一个人抛弃,就像一件过时的夹克被丢弃一样。

 

就像你在谈论友情和关系的书《流动的爱》中所提到的,这是一个谬见。

这是"流动的爱“产生的问题。在动乱时代,我们需要朋友伴侣,那些关心我们不会放任我们失落的人,在我们需要时他们的时候一直都在。稳定的关系,在我们生活中是如此重要。Facebook的160亿美元估值就是基于不想孤单的社会需求。另一方面,我们又怕死了承诺,卷入某人的生活被捆绑。我们担心错过。我们渴求安全的避风港但我们仍希望双手自由。

 

您与Janina Lewinson结婚60年了,直到她2009年过世,什么创造了真爱?

对彼此来说,最难以捉摸却巨大的快乐是当“你和我”成为一体时的感觉。这份快乐源自于你创造了一些不仅仅对你而言很重要的不同。被需要,甚至无可替代,是一种令人兴奋的感受。这很难实现,也很难持续,如果我们坚持自我,仅仅愿意为自我利益而付出行动的话。

 

 


 

你说过消费社会中,我们很难变得快乐因为它取决于我们不快乐的状态。

不快乐在这个方向是一个太大的词了。但所有的市场经理都坚持自家产品为消费者创造了满意度。如果这正确的话,则没有消费经济一说。如果需求完全被满足了,那就没有理由出现替代的新产品了。

 

消费者也是市场的一部分,今天,你宣称他们也越来越像一件商品了。

今天的消费文化是被想要成为别人的压力所创造的,就是试图去获得更多市场所需求的属性。将自己作为一个产品去推销,从而吸引自己的客群。悖论是:强制去模仿别人的生活方式已然是被市场里的小贩们宣扬的,因此修正自我的特征不被理解成是来自于外界的压力,反而是一种追求自由的表现。

 

关于自我认知,按法国社会学家Francois de Singly的说法,身份认定不再有任何根基。因此他用了抛锚的暗喻,与其永久地割断你的社会根基,相比较一个可升吊的锚,却有更多的自由度。对于自我,什么困扰了你?

只有不沉浸在过去的自己,我们才有可能变成另外一个人。我们不得不把上一任自我永久抛弃。而在之后的新选择里,我们很快见到了过去的自己:落伍的,拘束的,不那么令人满意的部分。

 

难道没有一些让我们可以自由转换的力量吗?

处境变得艰难的情况下,调头就跑并不是一个新战略。终其一生,人们都在这样做。新的是,我们渴望将逃离自我的欲望发展成为提升新自我的动力。但这种自信地走入新的世界的开始,也可能很快变成了一条强制的路线。“你可以成为其他人”变得有强迫性——“你必须成为其他人”。这种义务对于我们所渴望的自由状态无益,因此很多人奋起反抗。

 

什么意味着自由?

自由意味着有能力去追求自己内心的欲望及目标。消费导向的现代流动社会承诺了这种自由,但却未能兑现。

 

generation)的概念,西班牙哲学家何塞·奥尔特加-加塞特提出这个概念已有一个世纪之久了。这个词在今天意味着什么?

回到一战那些痛苦的记忆,它促成了两代人的代际分离。这个在欧洲群体特征中明显的分裂,使得 “代”这个词成为了社会调查与政治分界线的重要工具之一。作为一个客观科学的范畴,它建立在主观的、高度不同的多样生活经历之上。今天,这些经由多种经历而定义一代人特征的作用如此之小,甚至对于下一代人来说,几乎没有任何参考价值。

 

 “社区这个词怎么去理解?

真实的社区概念已经被社交网络的概念取代了。社区有着难以进入的特征。例如,不是每一个人都能成为瑞士人,这需要在这个地方呆上漫长的时间。从一个社区撤离也是一样困难,你必须打破社会设计精巧的束缚。你必须提出原因,你不得不去谈判。但即使你成功了,你也无法得知这股力量是否会再重新出现。在社交网络上——比如Facebook则是完全不一样的一个故事。它很容易参与,也很容易退出。

 

 

 未完待续  

To be continued... ...

 

下期关键词:

TECHONOLOGY, UTOPIA, HUMAN WASTE

 

 

 


 

原文载于《032C》第29期,2015/2016 Winter

 

 

 

 

ORIGINAL English Script  

   Zygmunt Bauman is without question one of Europe’s most influential sociologists. His oeuvre, read on all continents, encompasses some sixty books, which he has continued to publish at a daunting pace since his 1990 retirement from the University of Leeds in England.

 

Bauman coined the term “liquid modernity,” which refers to the present state of our society and its transformation of all aspects of life at an unprecedented rate – love, work, society, politics, and power. He has covered a wide spectrum of topics from intimacy to globalization, reality television to the Holocaust, and consumerism to community, extending far beyond his core area of expertise into the fields of philosophy and psychology.

 

Bauman was born in 1925 into a poor Jewish family in Poznan, Poland, who managed to catch the last train to Soviet Russia and thus saved themselves from a terrible fate. He became a Marxist and fought in the Red Army. After his return to Poland, he served as a political officer in the security corps, fighting against opponents of the regime, and then as an employee in the military’s secret service until 1953. Disillusioned with Soviet communism, he left the Communist Party of Poland. Following a vicious anti-Semitic campaign, he lost his position at the University of Warsaw in 1968 and moved to Israel, where he taught at the University of Tel Aviv for two years before migrating to England.

 

“The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing,” the Greek poet Archilochus once said. In this famous categorization of writers and thinkers elaborated by Isaiah Berlin, Bauman is both a “hedgehog” and “fox.” He is not a man of details, statistics, surveys, facts, and extrapolations. He paints with a broad brush on a large canvas, provoking debates and injecting discussions with new hypotheses. Yet there is very little in the humanities and social sciences that would leave him with nothing to say. “My life is spent recycling information,” Bauman once said.

 

At the age of 89, the sociologist has lost none of his trademark passion for criticism and righteous fury toward the prevailing state of affairs. He still astonishes visitors with a mischievous humor that is not found in the bleak vision of the future in his books. Eastern European to the core, he insists that his guests help themselves to the strawberry tarts, cookies, and grapes laid out before him on the coffee table, surrounded by towering stacks of books. Seated on a worn-out wingback chair with pipe in hand, Bauman takes plenty of time to answer our questions. And this is very much needed, because we want to know: What is life?

 

 

Peter Haffner: Professor Bauman, let’s start with the most important thing: love. You say that we are forgetting how to love. What brings you to that conclusion?

Zygmunt Bauman: The trend of finding a partner on the Internet goes hand in hand with the trend of online shopping. I personally don’t like going to shops and buy most things online – books, films, clothing. If you want a new jacket, the virtual store’s website will show you a catalog. If you want a partner, the dating website will also present you with a catalog. The pattern of relationships between customers and commodities defines the patterns of relationships between individuals.

 

How does it differ from earlier times when future partners met at village fairs or town balls?
Online dating involves an attempt to define the features of a potential partner that best reflect one’s own longings and desires. Candidates are chosen based on hair or skin color, height, figure, bust size, age, interests and hobbies, preferences and dislikes. The underlying idea is that an object of love can be assembled from a number of measurable physical and social characteristics. In the process, the most decisive factor gets forgotten: the human person.

 

But even when such an ideal profile is defined, everything changes once you get to know the person. They are much more than the sum of all these external attributes.
The danger is that the pattern of relationships is coming to resemble the way we relate to mundane objects of utility. We would never pledge our devotion to a chair. Why would I vow to remain on this chair until my dying day? If I no longer like it, I’ll simply buy a new one. It’s not a conscious process but it’s the way we learn to see the world and other human beings.

 

You mean that couples separate prematurely.

We enter relationships because they promise satisfaction. When we get the feeling that a different partner would be more satisfying, we break off the old relationship to begin a new one. Starting a relationship takes the consent of two people. Ending it only takes one. As a result, both partners live in constant fear of being abandoned by the other, of being tossed aside like a jacket that’s gone out of fashion.

 

And that’s a misconception, as you write in Liquid Love, your book on friendship and relationships. 

It’s the problem of “liquid love.” In turbulent times, we need friends and partners who won’t let us down, who are there for us when we need them. The desire for stability is important in life. The 16 billion dollar valuation of Facebook is based on this need to not be alone. On the other hand, we dread the commitment of becoming involved with someone and getting tied down. We are afraid of missing out. We long for a safe haven yet we still want to keep our hands free.

 

You were married to one woman for 60 years, Janina Lewinson, who died in 2009. What makes for true love?
This elusive but overwhelming joy of the “you and I,” being there for each other, becoming one. The pleasure from the fact that you make a difference in something that is not only important to yourself. To be needed, or even irreplaceable, is an exhilarating feeling. It’s hard to achieve, and unattainable when we persist in the solitude of the egoist who acts solely out of self-interest.

 

 

The consumer society, you say, makes it difficult to be happy because it depends on us being unhappy.

“Unhappy” is too big of a word in this context. But all marketing managers would insist that they create satisfaction with the products they offer. If that were correct, we would not have a consumer economy. If needs were fully satisfied, there would be no reason to replace one product with the next.

 

Consumers are also part of the market. Today, as you claim, they too are becoming commodities.

The culture of consumerism is marked by the pressure to be someone else, the attempt to acquire characteristics for which there is market demand. You have to concern yourself with marketing, to promote yourself as a commodity that can attract a clientele. The paradox is that the compulsion is to imitate whatever lifestyle is currently being offered and touted by paid market criers, and hence revising one’s own identity is perceived not as outside pressure but as a manifestation of personal freedom.

 

That raises the question of identity. According to the French sociologist François de Singly, identity no longer has any roots. Instead, he uses the metaphor of the anchor. Rather than severing your social and paternal roots, which is permanent, the hoisting of an anchor isn’t irreversible or final. What disturbs you about this?

We can only become someone else if we stop being who we were before. We have to perpetually discard our previous self. In view of the continual supply of new options, we soon come to see our old self as outmoded, constrictive, and unsatisfying.

 

Isn’t there something liberating about the ability to transform who we are?

It’s certainly not a new strategy to turn tail and run when the going gets tough. People have tried this throughout the ages. What’s new is the desire to flee from ourselves by adopting a new self out of a catalog. What might have started out as a self-confident step toward new horizons quickly turns into an obsessive routine. The liberating “you can become someone else” becomes the compulsive “you must become someone else.” This “must-do” sense of obligation has very little to do with the longed-for state of freedom, and many people rebel against it for this very reason.

 

What does it mean to be free?

Being free means being able to pursue one’s own desires and goals. The consumer-oriented art of living in the age of liquid modernity promises this freedom, but fails to deliver on its promise.

 

The concept of “generation,” articulated by the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, is barely a century old. What does it mean today?

Its emergence goes back to the harrowing experience of the First World War, which split one generation from another. The resulting rupture in the European identity made the term “generation” one of the most important tools in the investigation of social and political dividing lines. As an objective scientific category, it is based on subjective and highly diverse life experiences. Today, for other reasons, the experiences that define a generation play a minor role, or none at all, for the next generation.

 

What does that mean in terms of community?

The idea of community has been replaced by the idea of the network. A community is characterized by the fact that it is difficult to enter. For example, not everyone can become Swiss. There are lengthy procedures in place. Withdrawing from a community is similarly difficult, breaking these social bonds takes considerable ingenuity. You have to come up with reasons. You have to negotiate. And even if you succeed, you never know if and when there could be a backlash. On social networks – on Facebook – it’s a different story. It’s very easy to join in and participate. And it’s just as easy to leave.

By Peter H BeginWithScent

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK() / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

相关阅读:

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK() / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK() / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

评论

1
11号导师的头像

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK(一) / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

Q&A ON PERFUME | 香水香氛常见知识问答 | 前往
2016 最新表评 | 持续更新 | 前往

相关阅读

关于手表 关于手表那些事儿
关于红酒
关于搭配
关于香水
微信关注我们