摘要
随着西方社会学界在二十世纪后半叶分裂为文化与结构两大阵营,制度和精神的研究也分道扬镳。在特殊的时代和学术背景下,《宗教生活的基本形式》这一文本成为讨论涂尔干"神圣性"概念的范本,而另一文本《教育思想的演进》中对于"神圣性"的探讨却长期被学界所忽略。本文通过仔细梳理与对比两个文本中对于神圣性"传染"和对于法国大革命的讨论,指出涂尔干的教育史研究提供了对于"神圣性"这一概念的另一种理解。《宗教生活的基本形式》中神圣性表现为偶然的、爆发式的、独立于社会制度的集体欢腾状态,而《教育思想的演进》中神圣性依托于凡俗的制度才得以实现,表现为一种稳定的制度化状态,并对集体欢腾的激情有制约的道德功能。涂尔干在教育史研究中对于制度和精神交互作用的探讨有助于我们抛开学术阵营的割据,通过制度研究进入对历史时代精神气质的探讨。
In the second half of the twentieth century,the western sociological world had witnessed the battles between the 'cultural camp' and the 'structural camp',and the decoupling of the discussion on ethics and institutions.The current study aims to reexamine Durkheim's concept of 'sacredness',with which Durkheim once developed a subtle discussion of the intertwining relationship between institutions and ethics.In their effort to reconfirm the legitimacy of cultural studies,the scholars in the cultural camp rediscovered the discussion of 'the sacrcdness' as an autonomous cultural phenomenon in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.However,the equally important discussion of 'the sacredness' in another text,The Evolution of Educational Thought,is largely ignored for the same reason.By scrutinizing and comparing the concept of 'contagiousness' and the discussions of the Revolution in both texts,the article argues that the The Evolution of Educational Thought offers a different understanding of the concept of 'sacredness' :in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,the 'sacredness' is described as contingent and eruptive,as collective effervescence independent of any institutional settings,whereas in The Evolution of Educational Thought,the 'sacredness' is achieved when supported by and channeled through profane institution,stabilized and institutionalized;it even performs the moral functions of restraining the passions of collective effervescence.Hopefully,the rediscovery of Durkheim's discussion of the intertwining relationship between institutions and ethics in The Evolution of Educational Thought will help us pick up the hidden clues long-buried in the intellectual battlefield,and will provide further insights to empirical studies on institutions.
出处
《北京大学教育评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第4期61-77,共17页
Peking University Education Review
基金
国家社会科学基金项目(13BSH004)