社会的制造与集体表象

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文通过对涂尔干思想中的社会概念尤其是集体表象理论的解读，深入剖析现代社会自我证成上的困境。涂尔干一方面继承了契约论传统对社会的人为制造性的强调，另一方面又反对该传统将社会还原为个体之间约定行为的结果。集体表象理论针对的正是这一理论困境。涂尔干认为，集会或集体欢腾之际所产生的集体表象犹如化合作用，不能还原为个体的约定或契约，它是社会的产物，优先于个体。它不仅表达了个体对社会的情感，而且在定期的社会再造中创造这一情感。图腾标记对集体表象的具体化，既构成了个体认识社会的中介，又成为社会定期再造的依凭。涂尔干反对将法国大革命诠释为个体意志主导的结果，而试图通过集体表象将其诠释为社会定期再造的体现并强调社会之于个体的优先性。集体表象的神圣性既不依靠凌驾于社会之上的彼岸化的上帝，也不是个体意志的产物，而是社会性的，来自于社会的自我生产和再造。

关键词: 集体表象 , 集体欢腾 , 契约论 , 法国大革命, 社会的制造

Abstract:

This paper analyzes Durkheim’s concepts of society and collective representation in order to get an insight of the selfjustification dilemma of modern society. Though Durkheim studied the primitive religion in The Elementary Form of Religious Life, he concerned more about the dilemma of modern society, especially excessive individualism. On one hand, Durkheim inherited the social contract tradition, emphasizing society being a creation of the individuals. Durkheim’s society could be traced back to social theology, different from Milband’s thought that society was created and given by the God. The author argues that Durkheim’s society, a human aritificum, depends more on the individuals. Firstly, the moral force of society grounds in the inner heart of the individuals. Secondly, society depends on individuals’ periodic participation to reproduce it. On the other hand, Durkheim didn’t agree with what the social contract tradition contended, i.e., society generates merely from individuals’ convention. He wanted to argue for society’s primacy and priority. In order to resolve this tension, he introduced the theory of collective representation. Collective representations come from the interaction of the individuals when they participate in the assembly or collective effervescence, and they are so like the production from the reaction of chemical reaction that can’t be reduced to the contracts or conventions among the individuals. So they are the production of the society itself, which are prior to the individuals. Through the totemic forms or symbolic signs, they not only express the individuals’ emotion or affection of the society, but also become the intermediaries of the periodical reproduction of the society. In other words, collective representations not only represent the relationship between the individual and the society, but also create that relationship.Further, the theory of collective representation concerned with Durkheim’s reinterpretation of the French Revolution. He opposed other scholars’ interpretation of the French Revolution as a production of individuals’ free will and reinterpreted it as a periodic reproduction of the society by itself. The sacredness of the collective representation neither depends on the God who is above society, nor grounds on each individual’s will. On the contrary, it is social and results from the periodic reproduction of society.But the author doesn’t think that the theory of collective representation can adequately account for the heritage of the Revolution. Collective effervescences and representations can’t provide a stable and sufficient moral foundation for society to replace the foundation of individualism for modern thought. The sacredness of society has to depend on individuals’ periodic participation, reproduction, and maintenance. However, without defining the essence of happiness and goodness, this artificial sacredness is nothing but an empty form that may be filled with various dogmas and opinions to induce individuals into dangerous worship instead of providing society with a stable foundation. This just reflects the problem of the selfjustification of modern society.

Key words: the making of society, , collective representations, , collective effervescence, , social contract theory, , the French Revolution

陈涛. 社会的制造与集体表象[J]. 社会杂志.

CHEN Tao. The Making of Society and Collective Representation[J]. Chinese Journal of Sociology.

参考文献

参考文献（References）
亚历山大. 2008. 社会学的理论逻辑（第二卷）［M］. 夏光，等，译.北京：商务印书馆. ［Alexander, J. 2008. Theoretical Logic in Sociology, Vol.Ⅱ，translated by XIA Guang, et al. Beijing: The Commercial Press.］
Aristotle. 1985. Physics, I-II, translated by W. Charlton. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
亚里士多德. 2003. 尼各马可伦理学［M］. 廖申白,译. 北京：商务印书馆. ［Aristotle. 2003. Ethika Nikomachea, translated by LIAO Shenbai. Beijing: The Commercial Press.］
阿隆. 1999.社会学主要思潮［M］.葛智强,等,译.北京：华夏出版社.［Aron, R.1999. Les Etapes de la Pensee Sociologique, translated by GE Zhiqiang, et al.Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House.］
Augustine. 1998. Confessions, translated by Chadwick, H. New York: Oxford University Press.
加缪.2010. 局外人［G］//加缪全集·小说卷. 柳鸣九,译. 上海译文出版社. ［Camus, A. 2010. “L’Etranger.” In Albert Camus: Oeuvres Completes, Tome 1, translated by LIU Mingjiu. Shanghai Translation Publishing House.］
杜蒙，路易. 2003. 个人主义论集［M］. 黄柏琪,译. 台北：联经出版社. ［Dumont, L. 2003. Essais sur L’individualisme, translated by HUANG Boqi. Taipei: Linking Publishing Company.］
Durkheim, E. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated by J.W. Swain. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. 1966. Suicide: A Study in Sociology, translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson. New York: The Free Press.
涂尔干. 1995. 社会学方法的准则［M］. 狄玉明, 译. 北京：商务印书馆. ［Durkheim, E. 1995. Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique, translated by DI Yuming. Beijing: The Commercial Press.］
涂尔干. 1999. 宗教生活的基本形式［M］. 渠东,译. 上海人民出版社. ［Durkheim, E. 1999. Les Formes Elémentaires de la Vie Religieuse, translated by QU Dong. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.］
涂尔干.2000.社会分工论［M］.渠东,译.北京：三联书店.［Durkheim, E. 2000. De la Division du Travail Social, translated by QU Dong. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.］
涂尔干. 2002. 个体表现与集体表现［G］//社会学与哲学. 梁栋,译. 上海人民出版社. ［Durkheim, E. 2002. “Representations Individualles et Representations Collectives.” In Sociologie et Philosophie，translated by LIANG Dong. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.］
涂尔干. 2006a. 1789年的原则与大革命［G］//乱伦禁忌及其起源. 渠东,译. 上海人民出版社. ［Durkheim, E. 2006. “Les principles de 1789 et la sociologie.” In La Prohibition de L’Inceste et Ses Origines,translated by QU Dong. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.］
涂尔干. 2006b. 职业伦理与公民道德［M］. 渠东,等,译. 上海人民出版社. ［Durkheim, E. 2006b. Leons de Sociologie: Physique des Moeurs et du Droit, translated by QU Dong,et al. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.］
Figgis, J. 1965. The Divine Right of Kings. New York: Harper & Row.
傅勒. 2005. 思考法国大革命［M］. 孟明,译. 北京：三联书店. ［Furet, F. 2005. Penser la Revolution Francaise, translated by MENG Ming. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.］
Gane, M. 1992. The Radical Sociology of Durkheim and Mauss. London & New York: Routledge.
Giddens, A. 1996. “Four Myths in the History of Social Thought.” In In Defence of Sociology. London: The Polity Press.
霍布斯. 2003. 利维坦（英文影印本）［M］. Richard Tuck,编. 北京：中国政法大学出版社. ［Hobbes, T. 2003. Leviathan, edited by Richard Tuck. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.］
Jonas, S.S. 1996. “What Does Durkheim Mean by ‘Thing’.” Durkheimian Studies (2).
洛克. 2003. 政府论两篇（英文影印本）［M］.Peter Laslett, 编. 北京：中国政法大学出版社. ［Locke, J. 2003. Two Treatises of Government, edited by Peter Laslett. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.］
Marion, J. 1994. “Metaphysics and Phenomenology: A Relief for Theology.” Critical Inquiry (4).
Milbank, J. 1991. Theology and Social Theory. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
米尔斯. 2005. 社会学的想象力［M］. 陈强、张永强,译. 北京：三联书店. ［Mills, W. 2005. The Sociological Imagination, translated by CHEN Qiang and ZHANG Yongqiang. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.］
Nisbet, R. 1976. “Introduction.” In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated by J.W. Swain. London: George Alien & Unwin.
Paoletti, G. 1998. “The Cult of Images: Reading Chapter Ⅶ, BookⅡof The Elementary Forms.” In On Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, edited by N.J.Allen, W. S. F. Pickering, and W. Miller. London: Routledge.
Paoletti, G. 2000. “Representation and Belief: Durkheim’s Rationalism and the Kantian Tradition.” In Durkheim and Representations, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. New York: Routledge.
Pickering, W. S. F. 2000. “What do Representations Represent: The Issue of Reality.” In Durkheim and Representations, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. New York: Routledge.
渠敬东. 1999a.缺席与断裂：有关失范的社会学研究［M］.上海人民出版社.［QU Jingdong. 1999a. Absence and Breakage: A Sociological Study of Anomy. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.］
渠敬东. 1999b. 涂尔干的遗产：现代社会及其可能性［J］. 社会学研究(1). ［QU Jingdong. 1999b. “The Heritages of Durkheim: Modern Society and Its Possibilities.” Sociological Studies(1). (in Chinese)］
Scott, J. A. 1951. Republican Ideas and the Liberal Tradition in France, 1870-1914. New York: Columbia University Press.

责任编辑：田青 | 路英浩