美的再帰性と伝統 : 『再帰的近代化』の再解釈をつうじて

機関リポジトリ Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • ビテキ サイキセイ ト デントウ : 『サイキテキ キンダイカ』 ノ サイカイシャク オ ツウジテ
  • Biteki saikisei to dento : "Saikiteki kindaika" no saikaishaku o tsujite
  • Aesthetic reflexivity and tradition : a reinterpretation of Reflexive Modernization

この論文をさがす

抄録

type:text

This paper argues that Scott Lash's and Anthony Giddens's different views on reflexivity are based not on their views of aesthetic reflexivity but on their approach to tradition and communities. By following their discussions in Reflexive Modernization (1994), we immediately find it is difficult to bridge the gap between Lash and Giddens. We tend to think their opposition is whether reflexivity is aesthetic or not : Lash claims aesthetic reflexivity exists while Giddens holds the opposite view. At a first glance it seems Lash is only discussing about aesthetic reflexivity more than anything. In my view, however, Lash and Giddens have different views on tradition. In reflexive modernity or high modernity, Giddens introduces a dualism of tradition and modernity. Furthermore, he assumes actors and institutions becomes detraditionalized because they are "dis-embedded." As a result, modernization destroys tradition. On the other hand, Lash demands a retrieval of tradition and communities because he thinks tradition and communities are conditions of reflexivity. Lash's discussion on the concept of aesthetic reflexivity aims at 'anti-individualization', that is, the restoration of communities and tradition. We are able to distinguish between aesthetic reflexivity as deconstruction and as anti-individualization. In this paper, aesthetic reflexivity as anti-individualization is examined and how Lash's interests lie on tradition and communities is revealed.

論文

収録刊行物

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ