为实现个体目标而超越或抛弃集体行动

Going beyond or abandoning collective action to achieve individual goals

本文的标题可能会让读者感觉有些不自在,它听起来似乎是不恰当的或令人无言以对的。通过直接挑战"正确"的观点,本文提出这样一个问题:对于个体来说,为了实现某种利益,他们必须或者天生就倾向于形成一个群体吗?这种合作对于我们取得成功——确立并实现我们认为对于作为独特的个体(这是现代性加给我们的冠冕)而言十分重要的目标来说是值得追求或可取的吗?在如今被浸染于实践着极端主体性的某种后现代性的个体中间,在以自我至上,但从漠不关心的立场上看又受到他人触动的独特个体中间,形成群体以实现共同利益,仍然是值得向往的吗?或者说这还有可能吗?本文将对集体行动这个主题的探讨置于对布宜诺斯艾利斯视觉艺术家的考察这一非常特殊的语境之下。从人类学的视角,我们将看到艺术家的某些观念(原创性、宝贵的时间、敌视的氛围、猜疑的制度、不恰当的法律、对遭受羞辱的恐惧)如何以及为什么能与艺术家的具体实践连贯地衔接起来。这篇文章将强调集体行动的缺乏效率和稀缺(与集体行动话语的持续对立),以及次优的结果(这种结果未能满足行动者表达的最低期望值)。尤其是,我将分析版权及其集体保护的可能性。对于这些行动者的个人主义态度和团结情绪的阵阵发作,将通过他们从上述那些观念的角度进行重新阐释,尽管本文的分析表明,单是那些观念并不能解释有限数量的集体行动及其乏善可陈的结果。

The title may make the reader slightly uneasy.It sounds suspiciously inappropriate or perhaps unspeakable.In diametric opposition to correct thought it raises the question:is it inherently positive or necessary for individuals to form a group in order to attain a good? Is such collaboration desirable or is it preferable for us to make our own way,setting and reaching the objectives that we consider it important to achieve as unique individuals,as modernity has crowned us? Is it still desirable or possible to form groups to obtain a common good among individuals now immersed in a post-modernity that practices extreme subjectivity,among unique individuals who think of themselves first but who,albeit from a position of indifference,are touched by others? This article addresses the subject of collective action in a very specific context:visual artists in the city of Buenos Aires.From an anthropological focus,we see how and why certain notions of artists(originality,lack of time,hostile environment,distrusted institutions,inappropriate laws,and fear of stigmatisation) link coherently with their practices.The article highlights the inefficiency and lack of collective action(In permanent tension with the discourse) and its suboptimal results that fail to meet the minimum expectations expressed by the agents.In particular,I analyse copyright and the possibility of its collective protection.The agents’ individualistic attitudes and spasms of solidarity are reinterpreted by them in the light of those notions,although the analysis shows that those concepts alone do not explain the limited amount of collective action and its poor results.