【作者】 荣跃明；

【导师】 唐金海；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文以马克思主义政治经济学作为研究框架,依据马克思的精神生产理论,从考察人类社会的文化生产历史出发,以史论结合的方法,研究分析人类文化生产的基本构成、结构特征、历史形态及其演变规律,初步构建了一个生产方式视角下阐释人类文化生产历史发展和演进的理论体系。本文重点考察了文化生产如何再生产与特定社会生产方式相适应的生产关系和社会组织形态;分析概括了以交换为目的的文化产业形成和发展(即文化生产的生产性转变)的历史条件和基础;尤其是以马克思对资本生产作为特定历史时期的生产方式的研究为依据,考察资本生产方式在人类历史进程中其运动、发展和演进如何从物质生产领域逐步扩展到文化生产领域,进而使生产性文化生产成为社会生产的主体,并将资本生产推向其历史终点,为文化超越资本创造条件的过程。文化的现代定义是一个总体性概念。但是,文化生产通常只是指通过现代产业形式组织开展的生产性文化生产。文化生产这一相对狭窄的定义,使其无法被用来统摄整体性的人类文化生产活动。本文立足于马克思精神生产理论,通过对文化概念建构历史的梳理和分析,对文化生产进行了重新定义,即将文化生产视作人类生产方式的两大基本形式之一。本文尝试提出了关于人类文化生产的历史分期,区分了文化生产的生产性和非生产性,并对人类文化生产从非生产性向生产性转变的历史条件和基础,做了概括和描述。本文认为,文化的非物质本质决定了文化生产所创造、传播和实现的价值是一个客观化过程。这一过程受到时空条件的制约,从而使文化生产的经济价值具有不确定性和不稳定性。本文认为,公共文化具有全民参与、共享、非营利的性质,人类社会的文化从诞生之日起就具有公共性,因而,公共文化的存在与发展本质上是一种非生产性文化生产形态。生产性文化生产——文化产业的发展是当代社会经济、政治、文化融合发展在产业层面的具体表现。在新技术的推动下,文化产业以独特的形态演变和运行方式与其他产业发生广泛而复杂的联系,极大地影响着一国的社会文化和国民经济。本文认为,城市经济与文化生产有着天然地密切联系。城市经济在产业结构升级过程中,主要表现为文化产业在城市经济结构中规模和比重的不断扩大。文化产业的生命周期不同于一般制造业,它总是能在新技术的支撑下,实现自我的更新发展,是城市社会的象征形态,对于城市经济的持续发展发挥着空间重组的作用,是城市经济的重要组成部分。本文认为,创意产业的形成和发展是当代资本生产条件下,即在资本有机构成不断提高和社会生产平均利润率趋于下降这一规律作用下,生产性文化生产融合科技研发和文化创意的必然趋势。资本生产作为一种生产方式,是一个历史范畴。马克思预言了随着资本生产的扩张,资本主义社会的非物质(文化)生产必然要转变为生产性非物质(文化)生产。当代资本生产的虚拟化表明,资本生产已经扩张到了人类生产的最后疆域——文化生产领域;而生产性文化生产成为社会生产主体,则预示了资本生产作为历史范畴的生产方式开始走向其历史终点。在这一阶段,马克思提出的资本极限命题,即资本内在的固有矛盾和弊端已经暴露无遗。文化具有共享和超越的本质,生产性文化生产成为社会生产主体,同时为生产性文化生产向非生产性回归以及人的全面解放创造了条件,并为人类文化最终超越资本奠定了基础。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation composes an initial theoretical system of interpreting the historical development and evolution of human cultural production from a viewpoint of the mode of production. Based on a research framework of Marxist political economics as well as the Marxist theory of mental production, the author starts from examining the history of cultural production in human society, investigates and analyzes the basic composition, structural features, historical phases and its law of evolution by combining theory with practice. This dissertation lays its emphasis on examining how cultural production re-produces the production relations and the morphology of social organization. It analyzes and summarizes the historical conditions and foundations of the formation and development of cultural industry (i.e., the productive transformation of cultural production) with exchange as its aim. More important is that it examines, based on Marx’s studies on the capital production as a mode of production in a special period of history, the process of the mode of capital production in human history, and its movement, development and progress expands from material production into the field of cultural production, and further makes productive production of culture the major body of social production, pushes capital production to its historical end, to create conditions for culture surpassing capital.The modern definition of culture is a comprehensive one. But cultural production usually refers to productive production of culture engaged in the organization of modern industrial form. The comparatively narrow definition of cultural production could not be applied to the whole activity of human cultural production. This dissertation takes the position of Marxist theory of mental production, and re-establishes the definition of cultural production through sorting and analyzing the history of connotation-forming of culture, i.e., acknowledges that cultural production is one of the two basic forms of the mode of production for human beings. The author puts forward the idea of the historical division of human production of culture, distinguishes productive nature from non-productive nature in cultural production, and summarizes and describes the historical condition and foundation of human cultural production transformed from non-productive to productive nature.The author maintains that it is the non-material nature of culture that determines an objective process in which cultural production creates, communicates and realizes its value. This process is restricted by time and space, so that the economical value of cultural production is indefinite and unstable. The common culture has the nature of national attendance, pervasive sharing and being non-profitable. The culture of human society has its common nature ever since it was born, therefore, the existence and development of common culture is essentially the morphology of non-productive production of culture. The development of productive production of culture, i.e., cultural industry, is the concrete expression of contemporary social economy, politics and culture in its merging and developing on the stratum of industry. Promoted by new technology, cultural industry with its unique evolution of morphology and forms of operation establishes extensive an complicated relationship with the other industries, and greatly influences social culture and national economy for a country.The author believes that the urban economy is inherently and closely related to cultural production. In its process of the up-grading of industrial structure, urban economy will be chiefly expressed as the cultural industry is continuously extending its scope and ratio in urban economical structure. The life-span of cultural industry is different from that of the other ordinary industries. It always realizes its self-promotion and self-development supported by new technology, and becomes a symbolic morphology for urban society. It is also an important component part of urban economy and functions to re-organizes the space for a continuous development in urban economy.The author holds that the formation and development of creative industry an inevitable trend in which productive production of culture is combined with scientific and technological R & D and cultural creativity under the condition of current capital production, i.e., by the function of the law in which the organic composition of capital is ever-raising while the average rate of profit of social production is ever-descending. Capital production is, as a mode of production, a historical category. Marx predicates that, with the expansion of capital production, the non-material (cultural) production in capitalist society is inevitably transformed into productive non-material (cultural) production. The cyber nature of contemporary capital production demonstrates that the capital production has been expanding into the field of cultural production, the last territory of human production. But that the productive production of culture becomes the subject of social production predicates that the capital production as historical category of mode of production begins the way to its historical end. In this phase, the proposition of capital limit, which means the innate contradiction and flaws of capital, put forward by Marx, is exposed thoroughly. Culture has its nature of common-sharing and transcending, so that the productive production of culture becomes the subject of social production and, at the same time, creates the condition for productive production of culture to return to non-productive production (as well as the total emancipation of human being) and lays a foundation for human culture of its ultimate transcending over capital.更多还原