打字猴:1.7033677e+09
1703367700
1703367701 28B. Anderson,Imagined Communities:Reflections of the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,London:Verso,1983,p. 19.
1703367702
1703367703 29H. Bansinger,Volkskunde,Tubingen:Tubinger Vereinigung fur Volkskunde,1987,pp. 40ff.
1703367704
1703367705 30G. Bott,“Das germanische Nationalmuseum in Nurnbery-ein naionales Museum?”in M. L. von Plessen,ed.,Die nation und ihre Museum,Frankfurt:Campus,1992.
1703367706
1703367707 31C. Stolzl,“Statt eines Vorwortes:Museumsgedanken,”in M.-L. von Plessen,ed.,Die nation und ihre Museum,Frankfurt:Campus,1992,p. 15.
1703367708
1703367709 32《中国大百科全书——文物、博物馆》,第565页。
1703367710
1703367711 33Andrew Hoskins,“Signs of the Holocaust:Exhibiting Memory in a Mediated Age,”Media,Culture and Society,25:1(2003),pp. 722. Rachel Hughes,“The Abject Aetefacts of Memory:Photographs from Cambodia’s Genocide,”Media,Culture and Society,25:1(2003),pp. 2344.
1703367712
1703367713 34Tamara Hamlish,“Global Culture,Modern Heritage:Re-membering the Chinese Imperial Collections,”in Susan A. Crane,ed.,Museums and Memory,Stanford,C. A.:Stanford University Press,2000,pp. 137158.
1703367714
1703367715 35R. P. Assogba,“Revolution and the Conservation of a National Heritage,”Museum,4(1976),p. 218.
1703367716
1703367717 36B. Anderson,Imagined Communities,p. 19.
1703367718
1703367719 第十五章 物品文化和日常生活秩序
1703367720
1703367721 1Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood,The World of Goods:Towards an Anthropology of Consumption,New York:Basic Books,1979. Marshall Sahlins,Culture and Political Reason,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1976.
1703367722
1703367723 2J. L. Austin,How to Do Things with Words,New York:Oxford University Press,1965. S. J. Tambiah,“The Cosmological and Performative Significance of a Thai Cult of Healing through Mediation,”Culture,Medicine,and Psychiatry,1(1977):97132.
1703367724
1703367725 3Roland Barthes,Elements of Semiology,New York:Hill and Wang,1977. Umberto Eco,A Theory of Semiotics,Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1979. Jean Baudrillard,Le systeme des objets:la consommation des signes,Paris:Denoel/Gonthier,1968;For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign,St. Louis: M. O.:Telos,1981.
1703367726
1703367727 4将物品的“需要”、“用途”、“作用”去自然化,可以揭示物品在任何社会秩序中所起的等级区分作用,这是20世纪80年代以西方资产阶级文化为对象的文化批评所作出的一个主要贡献。在批判资产阶级文化这一点上,文化革命和西方文化批评有一些共同之处。但这二者间的区别似乎更为重要。“文革”期间的批判资产阶级是为政治服务的,而西方文化批评则不是。“文革”的“批资”形成了一个以“革命暴力”为价值中心的社会秩序。这个暴力社会秩序是“文革”物品意义的文化背景。认识“文革”的物品文化,需要的不只是了解一个单纯的、文本性的符号系统,而更是那个使它为暴力专制服务的政治社会秩序。
1703367728
1703367729 5程文超:《波鞋与流行文化中的权力关系》,载《文化研究》,2002年第3期,第240页。
1703367730
1703367731 6Grant D. McCracken,Culture and Consumption,Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1988,p.81.
1703367732
1703367733 7Roland Barthes,Elements of Semiology,New York:Hill & Wang,1964. Grant McCracken,Culture and Consumption,Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1988,pp. 8081.
1703367734
1703367735 8Dan Slater,Consumer Culture and Modernity,Cambridge,U. K.:Polity Press,1997. p. 150.
1703367736
1703367737 9在封建王朝时代,君王官权等级与物品使用等级有着直接的关联。皇帝使用的物品,从颜色、品质到数量都是直接成为至高无上权力的象征,公卿百官无不在物品使用上与普通百姓有尊卑上下之分。但即使他们也都必须占有物品方能享有物品。为了尽量享有物品,就必须有尽量大的占有能力,那就是钱,贪污受贿由此而起。与“文革”时相比,今天除非官位特高,不占有便能享有的拥有(“公家分配”)已经十分有限,钱又重新成为为享有而占有的主要途径。官员的贪污受贿重新又成为一个令人注目的焦点。
1703367738
1703367739 10Ignatieff以莎士比亚的《李尔王》一剧说明需要和身份等级的关系。李尔王被废黜以后,在旷野上与野兽为伍,方才明白,当年他贵为帝王时的那些“正当需要”其实是多么荒唐。“文革”中,许多养尊处优惯了的“高层人士”在牛棚、干校和下放处境中的体验,想来有相似的“需要教育”效果。Michael Ignatieff,The Needs of Strangers,New York: Elisabeth Sifton Books,1984,pp. 2553.
1703367740
1703367741 11Agnes Heller,Beyond Justice,New York:Blackwell,1987,p. 186.
1703367742
1703367743 12Michael Ignatieff,The Needs of Strangers,p. 14.
1703367744
1703367745 13Ibid.,p. 11.
1703367746
1703367747 14Kate Soper,On Human Needs:Open and Closed Theories in a Marxist Perspective. Sussex,U. K.:The Harvester Press,1981,p. 2.
1703367748
1703367749 15Len Doyal and Ian Gough,A Theory of Human Need,New York:The Guilford Press,1991,p. 4.
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.7033677e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]