注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

生态学马克思主义:中国未来改革深化的理论利器  

2009-05-18 22:31:41|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |


ECOLOGICAL MARXISM

生态学马克思主义


Michael Goldman 、Rachel A. Schurman




Manyhave argued that the theoretical limit of the Marxist-socialist project hasbeen its preoccupation with a productivist paradigm that endorses unlimitedeconomic growth and ignores environmental degradation (Habermas 1984, Goldblatt1996).Yet a new wave of social theory seeks precisely to overcome these charges(see O'Connor 1988, 1998, and much of the work published in the journalCapitalism, Nature, Socialism; Toledo 1989; M O'Connor 1994; Benton 1989, 1993,1996; Redclift & Benton 1994; Leff 1995; Harvey 1996; Foster 1999, 2000).

许多人会说,马克思主义的社会主义方案,专注于“生产主义(productivist)范式”,该范式支持无限制的经济增长,而忽略环境的退化,这是它的理论缺陷。(哈贝马斯 1984Goldblatt 1996)。然而,社会理论中,有一波全新的浪潮,就是在努力战胜这些指责(O’Connor1988, 1998, 以及他在《资本主义、自然,社会主义》这本杂志上发表的许多作品 Toledo 1989; M O'Connor1994; Benton 1989, 1993, 1996; Redclift & Benton 1994; Leff 1995; Harvey1996; Foster 1999, 2000)。

 

Thistheory is not rooted in nineteenth-century politics but in observations ofcurrent political and environmental trends-e.g. air, land, and water pollution,workplace and community-based movements against toxic poisoning and otherthreats to human health-with hardly a trace of the "normativepresuppositions of unprincipled vanguardism" (Goldblatt 1996). It isneither stuck in an evolutionary model of progress, nor does it gloss over the contradictionsof economic rationality. On the contrary, it explicitly theorizes thesecontradictions, recognizing the relations between nature and society asprofoundly dialectical (Goldfrank et al 1999).

这个理论,并未根植于19世纪的政治,而是植根于当前的政治趋势和环境趋势——即:空气、土地和水的污染、针对那些对人类健康的毒物毒害和其他威胁的车间运动和社区运动。从这个理论中,找不到以前作品中的“无耻先驱者”这样的“规范前提”(Goldblatt 1996)。它既非来源于“进步的演化模型”,也未掩盖经济理性的矛盾。相反,它明确地将这些“矛盾”进行了理论化,认识到自然与社会之间具有深深的辩证法的关系。(Goldfrank 1999)。

 

Overthe past decade, Marxist political economy has taken a major step forward withJames O'Connor's theoretical work on the current contradictions of capitalism(1988, 1994, 1998). O'Connor has revitalized the Marxist notion ofcontradiction by introducing nature alongside capital and labor as afundamental category. In addition to the primary contradiction, which existsbetween capital and labor and reflects an overproduction or realization crisis,is a second contradiction that exists between capital and labor on the onehand, and nature on the other. Under certain circumstances, argues O'Connor,capitalism today undermines its own production conditions, namely, human nature(labor power), nonhuman nature (the external biophysical world), and the builtenvironment (including public space and infrastructure). As ecosystems becomeheavily polluted and mined, workers and communities poisoned, andinfrastructure destroyed, capitalists suffer a cost crisis due to the highcosts (economic and noneconomic) of revitalizing degraded production conditions.To overcome these new barriers to expansion, capital must either restructureproduction conditions in productivity-enhancing ways, or seek more social formsof reproducing the conditions of production. O'Connor (1994) suggests that thelatter does not seem likely to occur today because of the large measure ofregulation and planning required, which is anathema to current ideologicaltrends in most liberal democracies. More likely, individual capitals will seekto lower their production costs through technological innovation, e.g. throughgenetic engineering or by employing "toxic-eating" microorganisms toclean up toxic spills. As this happens, "we [will] enter a world in whichcapital does not merely appropriate nature, then turn it into commodities ...but rather a world in which capital remakes nature and its productsbiologically and physically (and politically and ideologically) in its ownimage." (O'Connor 1994, p. 158; emphasis ours).

在过去的十年里,马克思主义的政治经济学,因为James O'Connor对资本主义的当前矛盾所进行的理论工作,而取得了最大的进步。O'Connor引入了自然,并将之与资本和劳动并列为一个基本类别,从而使马克思主义的矛盾观,得到了新生。在资本和劳动之间存在着主要的矛盾,这种矛盾也反映了生产过剩危机或“变现危机”(realization crisis)。除此之外,还有第二个矛盾,一方面存在于资本与劳动之间,另一方面存在于资本与自然之间。O'Connor指出,在一定的条件下,当今的资本主义,会破坏自己的生产环境,即:人的自然(劳动力)、非人的自然(生物物理学的外部世界)、和建立起来的环境(包括公共空间和基础设施)。随着生态系统受到严重的污染和开采,随着工人和社区受到了毒害,随着基础设施被破坏,资本家们就会因为要使退化的生产环境重得新生的高额成本(经济成本和非经济成本),而受困于成本危机。要克服这些全新的扩张障碍,资本就必须以提高生产率的方式来重构生产环境,或者,必须寻求更多的社会形式,来重建生产环境。O'Connor (1994)认为,后一种作法,会因为需要大规模的管制和计划,而这又为大部分的自由民主政体所厌恶,所以,在今天不太可能会发生。更可能的是,私人资本会努力通过技术革新,即:利用遗传工程或利用“食毒”微生物来洁净污染源,来降低它们的生产成本。正如现在的情况一样,“我们[]进入一个资本不只是侵吞自然、然后将之转化为商品的世界……而是一个资本重造自然、以它所想象的生态环境和物理环境(以及政治环境和意识形态环境)来重新生产产品的世界。”(O'Connor 1994, p. 158

 

TedBenton is another sociologist actively pushing Marxist sociology in a moreecological direction (Benton 1989, 1993; Redclift & Benton 1994). His workcan be seen as an important touchstone for scholars trying to retheorizenature- society relations through the prism of nature-based productiveactivities. Taking Marx's focus on the labor process as his starting point, Benton argues thatdifferent kinds of human activities have distinct "intentionalstructures" that go beyond the primary ideal type identified by Marx(productive-transformative intentional structures). By ignoring appropriativelabor processes such as fishing or felling trees, and ecoregulatory activitiessuch as agriculture, Benton contends that "Marx underrepresents thesignificance of non-manipulable natural conditions of labor processes and overrepresentsthe role of human intentional transformative powers vis-a-vis nature"(Benton 1989, p. 64).

Ted Benton是另一个活跃的社会学家,他更多地在生态的方向上,推进马克思主义的社会学(Benton 1989, 1993; Redclift & Benton 1994)。对于那些试图通过“基于自然的生产活动”的三棱镜来叙述自然与社会关系的专家来说,他的作品可以视为一个重要的试金石。Benton将马克思对“劳动过程”的侧重,作为自己的起点,他指出,不同的人类活动,具有独特的“意图性结构”(intentional structure),它超过了马克思所确定的主要理想模式(生产转化的意图结构)。Benton忽略了像打鱼和砍树这样的专用性劳动活动,忽略了像农业这样的生态管理活动,他争论道:“马克思在劳动活动的非可控自然条件的重要性上表述不足,而在人类相对自然的意图型转化力量所具有的作用上却表述过多”(Benton 1989, p. 64)

 

ForBenton,ecoregulatory practices are labor processes that aim to sustain, regulate, orreproduce rather than transform the conditions of agricultural production. Benton suggests that thework of transformation in seed and livestock production is actually carried outby organic and inorganic natural processes such as photosynthesis andmetabolism, which are "relatively impervious to intentional manipulation."(Benton 1989, p. 68) There are strong parallels here with the work of StephenBunker (1985, 1989, 1992; also see Barham et al 1994), who has also attemptedto theorize the difference between industrial or transformative activities and resourceextraction, and was one of the first sociologists seeking to ecologize Marxism.Building on the work of both of these authors, a recent paper by Boyd et al(1999) develops the idea of nature as actor in nature-based industries (e.g.mining, agriculture, or silviculture), arguing that a direct reliance on thebiophysical world introduces a unique source of surprise, opportunity, and riskinto the capitalist production process.

Benton来说,生态管理的实践,是一个旨在维持、管理或重造农业生产条件的劳动过程,而不是一个转化农业生产条件的劳动过程。Benton认为,种子和生畜的生产中的转化工作,实际上,是由有机的或无机的自然过程(如光合作用和新陈代谢这些“相对不受意图性操控”的自然过程)来完成的(Benton 1989, p. 68)。在这方面,他与Stephen Bunker(1985, 1989, 1992; 亦见 Barham 1994)的研究有很强的相似性。Bunker也试图对工业活动(或转化活动)与资源提炼(resource extraction)之间的差异进行理论化,而且,Bunker还是第一批试图使马克思主义生态化的社会学家之一。最新的一篇由Boyd等人(1999)所写的论文,在这二类作者的研究基础上,提出了“自然为自然为基础的产业(即采矿、农业或造林)的主角”这样的观点,他们指出:对生态物理世界的直接依赖,是资本主义生产过程中,引起“惊异”、“机会”和“风险”的独特源泉。

 

Approachingthe idea of nature in capitalist production from the field of semiotics, MartinO'Connor (1993) suggests that capital's response to ecological crisis has beento represent formerly noncapitalist realms-the biophysical world,non-industrialized economies, and the household-as reservoirs and stocks of"capital" and therefore no longer external to capitalism. Onceparticular conditions of production are colonized in this way, argues O'Connor,it becomes possible to justify their rational and ecological management byeconomic actors. That is, in the semiotic shift toward the capitalization ofnature, environmental degradation and resource exhaustion are being diagnosedas management problems rather than as a crisis or breakdown; this managementexercise then becomes a new source of dynamism for capitalism.

Martin O'Connor (1993),在符号学的领域里,分析了资本主义生产中的自然观点,指出:资本对生产危机的反应,已经将以前的非资本主义的领域——生态物理世界、非工业化的经济和家庭——体现为“资本”的储备和存量,因此,也就不再外在于资本主义了。O'Connor 认为,曾经是特殊的生产环境,而今以这种方式移入其中,所以,经济参与者,就可以来判断他们的理性管理和生态管理了。即,当发生了“自然资本化”(capitalization of nature)发生了符号学的变化,那么,环境退化和资源耗竭,就可以处理为“管理问题”了,而不是一个危机或崩溃;这样,这个管理工作,就成了资本主义动态学的新来源。

 

DavidHarvey, perhaps the most accomplished theorist of urban geography and a majorcontributor to the ecological reformation of Marxism, takes us in yet anotherdirection (Harvey1996). Instead of romanticizing the imagined world of nature, Harvey focuses on the builtenvironment-arguably the most common environment today, especially to theworking class and, in some countries, for minority ethnic groups. Harvey argues that natureis so mediated by capitalist structures and practices that there is no otherway to think of nature as currently experienced except as a product of capital.In fact, Harvey's attention to the urbanenvironment could be read as a corrective to the mainstream US environmentmovement's parochial interpretation of environmental issues (see also Di Chiro1998).

David Harvey,可能是都市地理学(urbangeography)方面的最有成就的理论家,他也是马克思主义的生态学改革方面的主要贡献者。他把我们引导向另一个方向(Harvey 1996)。Harvey并没有对想象的自然世界进行浪漫主义的处理,相反,他侧重于成型的环境——可论证地,是当年最常见的环境,特别是工人阶级的环境,以及(一些国家中的)少数民族群体。Harvey认为,资本主义结构和资本主义实践,对于自然采取如此的调和态度,以至于我们除了将自然视为资本的产品之外,再没有别的办法将之视为当前的体验。实际上,Harvey对都市环境的关注,应该解读为一种修正:它修正了美国主流环境运动对环境问题的狭隘解释。(亦见Di Chiro 1998

 

Besidesreconceptualizing the idea of nature vis-a-vis capitalism, ecological Marxistsare also emphasizing how social movements and other agents of change respond tocapital-driven ecological transformations. James O'Connor (1998) perceives manyof today's social movements, from the public health movement to women'smovements to movements of people of color, as a direct response to theecological contradictions of capitalism. Harvey(1996) has a similar interpretation of the environmental justice movement as itunfolds in multiple local-to-global sites around the world. Harvey draws together Raymond Williams' ideaof "militant particularism" with his own notion of "globalambition" as a practical way to overcome the pitfalls of"localist" politics. These politics often exclude people with whomthere could be potential solidarity, such as people from different ethnicgroups or nations but similar locations in relation to contemporary capitalism(see also Schaeffer 1997, Gille 2000). Daniel Faber's work on U.S. environmental movements makes a clear linkbetween changes in U.S.capitalism, social movement politics, and state regulatory practices (Faber1998). He shows that local-based environmental activists have stopped numerousplanned municipal incinerators and forced many public and private employers toclean up neighborhoods and make workplaces safer. These successful actionshave, in turn, fed into national and international political strategies forgreater democratic participation in decision-making processes over the means ofproduction and the circulation of toxic waste (see also Schaeffer 1999).

除了重新构建自然观念相对于资本主义的概念之外,生态学马克思主义者,还强调针对资本驱动的生态转化的社会运动和其他主事者(agent of change)。James O'Connor (1998)就认为,今天的许多社会运动,从公共健康运动到妇女运动到有色人种运动,都是对资本主义生态矛盾的直接回应。Harvey(1996)对环境正义运动(environmental justice movement)也有着相似的解释,因为它在全球范围内的“地方向全球”的多层水平上展开了。HarveyRoymond Williams的“好战的排它主义”与他自己的“全球野心观”结合在一起,来作为克服“地方主义”政治陷阱的实际手段。这些政治,常常将那些本质上休戚与共的人们(如不同种族或不同国家的、但却因当前资本主义有关的原因而处于相似位置的人们)排除在外(亦见Schaeffer 1997,Gille 2000)。Daniel Faber对美国环境运动的研究,在美国资本主义、社会运动政治与州的管理实践的变化之间,建立了清晰的联系(Faber 1998)。他说明了:基于地方的环境活动家们,已经阻止了无数的计划修建的市级焚烧炉,迫使许多公共雇主或私人雇主清理周边环境,迫使他们让车间变得更加安全。这些成功的行动,反过来,也注入了国家政治策略和国际政治策略,使得在生产工具和有毒废料的循环的决策过程上,具有更高的民主参与性。(亦见 Schaeffer 1999)

 

Inall of these discussions, the social "production of nature" iscentral (Smith 1984, 1998). Significantly, when ecological Marxists use theconcept of production, they do not relegate themselves only to the corridors ofFordist factories. Indeed, their scholarship reveals an understanding ofproduction in the broadest terms-as social, economic, cultural, and ecologicalproduction, circulation, and consumption. Nature is, or natures are, internalto these transformations (LeFebvre 1991). This intellectual project-tocomprehend both the social production of nature and the natural production ofsociety-is enormous.

在所有这些讨论中,社会的“自然生产”是核心(Smith 1984, 1998)。显著地,当生态学马克思主义者使用生产的概念时,他们并没有仅仅将自己降格于福特主义工厂的狭窄区域内。实际上,他们的学术成就,在最广泛的用词上(如社会的生产、经济的生产、文化的生产和生态的生产、循环和消费)揭示了对生产的理解。整个自然就是(或全部自然都是)这些转化的内在物(LeFebvre 1991)。这个智力方案(即充分领悟“自然的社会生产”和“社会的自然生产”),是异常巨大的。

  评论这张
 
阅读(279)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017