【作者】 赵文力；

【导师】 张廷国；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 货币经济促进了社会的分化，孕育了市场主体自我负责的精神，从而催生了个体的觉醒；而社会分化也促成了社会在功能上的整合，进而反过来对个体形成片面化的功能上的肢解与宰制。西美尔从文化哲学、生命哲学的角度来透视现代个体的这种遭遇，认为这是文化自身的内在冲突。在西美尔看来，文化作为人的创造物，它本应该作为丰富、涵养个体自身的途径和手段，最终是为人的完善而存在的，但在现代社会，客观文化越来越脱离创造者的控制，日益成为一种自主的、压迫性的异己力量与人相对立。这就是西美尔所说的“客观文化与主观文化之间的文化冲突”。那么，如何认识这种文化冲突呢?本文以西美尔的《货币哲学》为依据，同时参照他的生命哲学、文化哲学、社会学等相关著作，按照逻辑推演的顺序，从以下几个方面来探究西美尔的文化冲突理论。第一，文化冲突的根源。西美尔认为文化冲突的根源在于生命自身之中。生命是一个生成、运动、不断超越的过程，它必须以一定的形式表现出来，而每一种形式必然被新的形式所替代，生命冲动不会结晶于任何形式之中。这种生命与其形式的对抗是一种本源性的矛盾，生命与其形式既对立又依存地存在于个体自身之中，它们之间不会出现相互分离的倾向；而当形式以“社会化形式”出现个体面前时，个体的生命力就显得无能为力，因为这些社会化形式是在人与人之间的互动关系中产生的，它们是群体的创造物。所以，社会化形式生成之时就埋下了主观文化与客观文化对抗与分离的种子。第二，文化冲突的社会动力。文化的内在矛盾要在社会生活中外显出来需要一个时代的契机——现代货币经济的出现，货币推动社会发生分化、整合，逐渐成为一个有机体，从而使个体变成它的一个部件。本文第三部分从货币本质的角度，解释了货币为何能够成为构造社会结构的动力的原因：由于货币作为一般交换媒介，具有无任何特性、无任何内容的特点，它才能发挥中介的功能，成为社会的“关节”和“血液”，对社会发挥分化、整合、构造的功能，促成了现代社会的形成。第三，文化冲突现代生成的现实逻辑。本文第四部分从对文化形式变迁的内在矛盾的分析中，全面展现劳动分工与货币推动文化冲突产生的现实逻辑。劳动分工推动了客观文化和主观文化的分离与冲突，导致了客观文化以损害压抑个体的人格完整为代价的扩张，而这个过程和货币经济的发展成熟不可分割地交织在一起。货币既是劳动分工的促进者，又作为劳动产品进入交换、消费环节的最一般的媒介和手段，从而，成为客观化逻辑的执行者。第四，文化冲突下的现代性体验。货币作为一种社会动力不仅在宏观方面推动了文化冲突的形成，而且在微观方面也影响了个体的精神感受，即各种现代性的体验：原子化的生存状态；目的被手段所僭越；价值观念的扭曲，眼里只剩下金钱；精于理智上的算计而情感衰落；自由的空洞化。第五，文化冲突下个体生命的反应。面对客观文化对个性的压制以及货币经济下人与人冷漠的金钱关系，现代个体以顺应与抗拒来做出反应：如矜持冷漠、追逐时尚、沉醉娱乐和热衷冒险等等。但这些外在的反抗在西美尔看来只是现代人迫不得已的自然反应而已，并不能改变自身的尴尬处境，为此他希望在审美活动中、主体性宗教中实现精神自身的内在整合，实现个体精神的突围。当然，西美尔的精神救赎方案也有它的局限性。第六，文化冲突与现代性的困境。西美尔的文化冲突理论实质上是解读现代性的一条路径。本文最后一部分通过对西美尔、马克思、韦伯的现代性思想的比较，加深对西美尔文化冲突理论的认识，并分析现代性困境的出路以及中国语境下的现代性，希望能从儒家文化中得到有价值的启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 Monetary economy promotes the social division, gives birth to the spirit ofself-responsibility of market-subject, which led to the awakening of the individual; whileat the same time, social division are also contributed to the social integration in functions,which in turn formed one-sided functional dismemberment and domination on individual.From the view of the philosophy of culture and the philosophy of life, Simmle sawthrough the undergoing of modern individuals and considered that this is an inherentconflict in culture itself. In Simmel’s words, culture as a human creation, it should be theway and mean to enrich, and to cultivate individuals, which exist for the perfect of maneventually. But in modern society, objective cultural divorced from the control of thecreator more and more, and it was increasingly becoming an independent, oppressive andalien power which was opposed to man. This is what Simmel called the cultural conflictbetween objective culture and subjective culture.Then, how to understand the cultural conflict? In this paper, based on Simmel’s"philosophy of money", reference to his philosophy of life, philosophy of culture,sociology and other related works at the same time, in accordance with the order of thelogic of deduction, we will study Simmel’s theory of cultural conflict from the followingaspects.First: the foundation of cultural conflict. Simmel believes that cultural conflict isrooted in life itself. Life is the process of generating, moving, and overtaking, and it mustappear in a certain forms, while every form is bound to be replaced by a new form. Lifeimpulse will not be the crystallization in any form of life. This confrontation between lifeand its form is the original contradiction. Life and its forms are both opposite andinterdependent which exists in an individual, and there is no tendency to separate betweenthem. When the forms appear as "socialized forms" before the individual, the individual’s life-force would become powerless, because these socialized forms are generated from theinteraction between people, and consequently they are creations of groups. Therefore,when the socialized forms are generated, the seed of confrontation and separation betweensubjective culture and objective culture are buried.Second: the social dynamics of cultural conflict. The opportunity of era wasneeded while the inner contradiction of culture comes into being in social life, namely, theemergence of a modern monetary economy. Society was promoted by money to divisionand integration, and gradually it became an organism, thus individuals becoming one of itscomponents. The third part of this paper from the perspective of the monetary nature,explains why money can be the driving force to form the structure of social structure.Because money as a general medium of exchange, it has the characteristics without any ofidentity and content, as a result, it can play an intermediary function, becomes the "joint"and "blood" of society, and play the function of division, integration and structure insociety, which led to the formation of modern society.Third: the real logic of cultural conflict generated in modern society. The fourthpart of this paper, from the analysis of the inner contradictions in changes of cultural form,spreads completely the real logic in the process of that the division of labor and moneypromoted the cultural conflict into reality. The division of labor promoted the separationand conflict between objective culture and subjective culture, led to the expansion ofobjective culture at the cost of the damage and suppression to individual’s personalintegrity. This process was inextricably intertwined with the development of monetaryeconomy. Money is not only a facilitator of the division of labor, but also as the mostgeneral media and means which help the products enter the links of exchanging andconsuming, thus, it become an enforcement of objective logic.Fourth: the modern experiences in the cultural conflict. Money as a socialdynamics, not only in the macro level promotes the formation of a cultural conflict, but also in the micro level impacts the spiritual feelings of individual. That is a variety ofmodern experiences: the survival state of atoms; purpose was overcome by means; valuewas distorted, only money in eyes; expert at intellectual calculation while emotiondeclining; the hollowing freedom.Fifth: the reaction of individuals who live in the cultural conflicts. Facing with thesuppression on personality from the objective culture, as well as the indifferentrelationship among people under the monetary economy, modern individuals respond withcomplying and resistance, such as the reserved indifference, chasing fashion, indulging inentertainment, and keen to adventure and so on. However, in the view of Simmel, theseexternal resistances seemed only the natural reaction, which did not change theembarrassment of their situation. Therefore, Simmel hoped to realize the spiritual internalintegration in aesthetic activities and the subjective religion. Of course, Simmel’s spiritualsalvation program has its limitations.Sixth: cultural conflict and the plight of modernity. Simmel’s cultural conflicttheory is essentially a path of interpretation of modernity. The last part of this paperthrough the comparison of thoughts in modernity of Simmel, Marx and Weber, would liketo deepen the understanding of Simmel’s theory of cultural conflict, and analyses the wayout of the plight of modernity, as well as analyses the modernity in the context of China,and hope to get some valuable inspiration from the Confucian culture.更多还原