商品世界的物质装置与价值斗争:法国经济社会学的“再市场化” 从布迪厄的经济场域谈起

Material Devices and Value Struggles in the World of Commodities:“Re-marketization”in French Economic Sociology:Taking from Bourdieu’s Economic Field

面对商品世界,以惯例经济学和转译社会学为代表的法国当代经济社会学通过叩问商品价值和价格等不可还原为社会空间的独特现象,归还经济行动者以反身性,发掘市场地方等非人装置的使能性,揭示了充满价值斗争的资本主义市场之变迁逻辑:行动者调用熟悉的价值及相关评价形式,对某商品的价格进行批判或辩护,在微观的交易、中观的产业乃至宏观的经济等维度重组关于商品世界(物及其价格的等级结构)的临时共识。在试图走出布迪厄以"经济惯习"和"经济场域"为核心概念、具有社会决定论和还原论倾向的"去市场化"模型的同时,他们重新审视商品世界背后的权力关系,提供了一个既开放又带有决定论色彩的"再市场化"研究方案。

Confronting with the world of commodities,the contemporary French economic sociology,represented by Economics of Conventions and Sociology of Translation,seeks to reveal the value struggles in capitalist markets and their logic of change.In order to do so,it renews attention to the long neglected“reflexivity”of actors,probes into material market devices and questions singular phenomena that cannot be reduced to social space such as commodity prices.In so doing,French economic sociology stepped away from Bourdieu’s“de-marketized”conceptual system and offered a research approach of“remarketization”.Firstly,this paper points out the central problem of Bourdieu’s market model in contemporary French thinking.Due to the non-reflexive“economic habitus”and priori commodity value,the concept of“economic field”is socially deterministic and reductionist,overlooking both the“market”problem in economics and the empirical“marketplaces”.Secondly,this paper analyzes the uncertainty of commodity values and prices,a common concern of Economics of Conventions and Sociology of Translation in response to social reductionism.It also analyzes the valuation capacity of actors and the“agency”of nonhuman devices in response to social determinism,and concludes with a discussion on the logic of innovation and change in capitalist markets.Economic actors critique or defend the price of a certain or a certain type of commodity based on familiar values and valuation forms,and then reconstruct a provisional“bien commun”about the commodity world(the hierarchy of things and their price)in micro-transactional,meso-industrial and macro-economic dimensions.Lastly,the paper discusses two schools’recent reflection on their own concepts,namely asymmetry of“qualculative devices”and“limited reflexivity”,and points out that although they still refer back to“economic field”in the dimension of power relations,both schools place emphasis on the relative independence of the commodity world from social space,and distance themselves from rigid structuralism.