论文部分内容阅读
本文认为,贾斯汀·奥康诺围绕艺术与工业关系的讨论是对马克思这一命题的布尔迪厄式解读——即用区隔进一步强化了“文化(艺术)”与“生产(工业)”之间的敌对关系。从马克思主义文化生产理论脉络出发来反观贾斯汀对文化创意产业的分析,我们发现:一方面,从“文化(艺术)”和“生产(工业)”二元关系出发进行讨论显示其对马克思文化生产理论的某种继承;另一方面在方法论上倚重以权力、区隔为特征的布尔迪厄的文化再生产理论,则表现出对马克思主义研究思路的某种偏离。马克思主义视域中的文化生产绝非铁板一块,而是具有不同的研究层理和问题意识,甚至在理论立场上具有针锋相对的意味。在对文化生产的研究中,从马克思主义经典作家、法兰克福学派、后马克思主义到伯明翰学派,经历了从“文化生产”到“文化再生产”的研究范式的转型。贾斯汀·奥康诺的观点更具有后马克思主义的某些特征。
This article argues that Justin O’Connor’s discussion of the relationship between art and industry is a Bourdieu interpretation of Marx’s proposition - that is, “cultural (art)” and “production” (industrial) “Between the hostile relations. From the perspective of Marxist theory of cultural production, we can see that Justin’s analysis of the cultural and creative industries reveals that on the one hand, the discussion on the dual relationship between ”culture (art)“ and ”production (industry)“ On the other hand, Forsyth Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction, which relies on methodological emphasis on power and division, shows some deviation from the Marxist research ideas. The cultural production in the Marxist field of vision is by no means a monolithic one but has a different research layering and problem awareness and even has a diametrically opposed meaning on the theoretical standpoint. In the study of cultural production, from the classical Marxist writers, the Frankfurt school, the post-Marxism to the Birmingham school, has undergone a transformation from ”cultural production“ to ”cultural reproduction" paradigm shift. Justin O’Connor’s point of view has some of the characteristics of post-Marxism.