Pr, 3 groups of Questions ^ ^
[font=Arial][size=3]Dear Pr Han, I have 3 "groups" of questions or comments about the discussions on that class (as my thoughts're [/size][size=3]too disordered to propose not in groups.)[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3]First one is about the concepts, such as "Modernity","post-modern", or sth like that. When talking about them, [/size][size=3]even the modes and theories based on them, at least to me, the meanings are really ambiguous. Frankly [/size][size=3]speaking, it's uncomfortable of me to use these "un-scanned" concepts. Meanwhile, that's also the reason why I [/size][size=3]and some other students can talk about chinese traditional concepts, e.g.[i][b]yin yang(阴阳),tian xia(天下)[/b][/i],a little [/size][size=3]more smoothly (not only because they're chinese): we can get close to [b]1)[/b] the history of the concepts production; [/size][size=3]and [b]2)[/b] some reflections of them in real life. Well, Let's turn to some "western words". Ahead of talking theories [/size][size=3]consisted of them, I think, it's important and even necessary to clarify the history of this certain knowledge---[/size][size=3]sometimes, only a kind of "local knowledge"; and get the realistic representations of them, especially in East Asian social context. The former one aims to find the boundary of theories, while the latter aiming to face another sensitive question: is the theory more theoretical or ideological? (Of course, I agree with there's no clear border, but it doesn't mean that they are the one thing, still.)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3]Secondly, Pr, you mentioned the modern mode with 3 basic parts including state, market and civil society. I want to know the relationship between this mode and the "balance" which is the other word you talked many times: [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=3][b]1)[/b] what does the balance mean? [b]2)[/b] Is the "3 parts" mode the only mean to keep balance, of course when it's in good shape? (not as the economists expected) [b]3)[/b] What's the standard of "good"?[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3]At last, I have to clarify my understanding about Beck's "Risk Society" again. As I said, this concept conveys two points, at least: [b]1) [/b] increasing uncertainty and many consequences caused by it, which we've discussed deeply; [b]2)[/b] (but more important is,) with development of science and exeunting of religions (in some sense), people started to realize they're living in a world full of uncertainty, but no god can save them. [i]It's interesting that: Friedrich Wilhelm said, god's dead; But in U.S, God still bless the nation. So "risk society" seems much more popular in Europe, only as far as I know. (Joking ^_^)[/i] Without the latter point, it's really difficult to explain why our ancestors believed they're ruled by destiny tightly, who live in an uncertain world too. (Considering the pestilence, earthquake, and some other unexpected disasters, Obviously, the extent of their world's uncertainty is also considerable.)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3]I must apologize that my written E is as poor as my thoughts. Pls give me sharp criticism and help,
The more, The better. ^_^
Thank you![/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3] From Jack[/size][/font]
short reply to good questions
[font=굴림][size=2]Dear Jack,[/size][/font][font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]I am glad to see you working very late. I opened your email only tonight since I came [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]back to Beijing this afternoon. Let me first express my thanks to your three groups of [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]question each of which is interesting and important.[/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]1) Many people make the same complains as you do. But there is no way out. We [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]have to understand what modernity or postmodern means. To avoid ambiguities, and [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]to make clear their meanings, I think it is better to focus on clear-cut changes taking [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]place in the real world which we refer to by the concepts of modernity or postmodern. There are many philosophical, methodological or meta-theoretical meanings and [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]overtones of these concepts. If you want, disregard them and concentrate on the [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]sociological substances of these concepts. You can then ask what tradition, [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]modernity and postmodern may mean with regard to, for example, family, work, [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]communication, religion, science, arts, politics, authority, community, individual, and [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]so on. You will find significant changes taking place in each of these fields. [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]Your concern with Yin Yang, Tian Xia, and so on, are of course understandable. I [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]believe that these concepts can be fruitfully explored for social science, but not in [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]opposition to the Western conceptual parameter, but probably more in a way of mutual dialogue. Will you kindly introduce this sort of intellectual work to the class if you have any? I have, at least, one in English, "All uder Heaven" written by Zhao Tingyang. [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]2) The questions as to the concepts of, and the balance among, the state, market, [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]and civil society are to be raised to Habermas, Giddens, and Beck. For example, [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]Habermas' coincept of "modern society," and Gidden's approach to a third way [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]touches upon this question. If you don't mind, I would ask you to bring your findings to the class so that we can share your reading. [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]3) You mentioned the role of religion with respect to uncertainty (risk society). It is a [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]good point. What is the exact relationship between religion and risk society, however? Religiocity increases because of risk society? Uncertainty remains under control [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]because of active religion? Your contrast between USA and Europe is interesting, [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]but not entirely correct. The American response of anti-terrerism is another [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]expression of high risks. More important for us is, propably, the risk tendencies [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]prevalent in China and other Asian countries. [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]Why don't you bring Friedrich Wilhelm's view to the class. We may then try to compare his view with that of Habermas, and Beck. It must be intereting. [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]I will see you tomorrow. [/size][/font]
[font=굴림][size=2]Sang-Jin[/size][/font] [font=Arial]Dear Pr Han:
I am very glad to receive ur email at such a "late time". : ) [/font]
[font=Arial]Well, thanks for ur suggestion that I need read more articles and materials about what I said in the prior mail. And there'll be a better communication when I finish all the works u advised.
[/font]
[font=Arial]But, I still found some misunderstandings between us, according to ur mail. [/font]
[font=Arial]U said [i]"I think it is better to focus on clear-cut changes taking place in the real world which we refer to by the concepts of modernity or postmodern. There are many philosophical, methodological or meta-theoretical meanings and overtones of these concepts. If you want, disregard them and concentrate on the sociological substances of these concepts. You can then ask what tradition, modernity and postmodern may mean with regard to, for example, family, work, communication, religion, science, arts, politics, authority, community, individual, and so on. You will find significant changes taking place in each of these fields. " [/i][/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]On this point, I agree with you exactly[i]![/i] And my claim that "we need to clarify the concepts of 'modernity','post-modern' or sth like that" does not mean we should start an abstract discussion or conversation. On the contary, I emphasized we need to know more about the "real world" just as u said. [/font]
[font=Arial]I said in my mail [i]"we can (should) get close to 1) the history of the concepts production; and 2) some reflections of them in real life......"[/i][/font]
[i][font=Arial][/font][/i]
[font=Arial]Family, tradition, religion and so on...those are all the real world's parts. How can we use an abstract concept to generlize all the changes, or some significant changes happened in these area? Is there any profound change in common? In my eyes, that's the essence of "modernity" (Obviously, as you said, Luhmann's systems theory opposed,or we can say "modify" this classic thought arguing an unique social rule). Yup, it'll be easily understood by the people living in that culture or trandition, such as we can understand in what kind of occasion we can use [i]Tian di(天地),[/i]and what it really refers to then. (so, another misunderstanding is, [i]tian di[/i] or [i]yin yang[/i] are all instances in order to explain and compare.) But, the problem is we havn't experienced the history during which "modernity", and many other concepts emerged, there's no perceptual knowledge, even no empirical datas we can depend on. Only because of these, I proposed that we need to know sth about [i]"1) the history of the [b]concepts production[/b]; and 2) some reflections of them in [b]real life[/b]."[/i] So, I am not a "stubborn" cultural relativist who only wants to build a Chinese Sociology as I asked u at the beginning of this term. But I do believe that we have to "scan" the concepts' background (history and reality), ahead of applying them to explain our history, real life and even future. [/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Refering to Friedrich Wilhelm, as I said, that's only a joke ^_^. But if others like, I am glad to talk about his views on the class. Maybe surperficial? anyway, I'll try.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Thank you very much again![/font]
[font=Arial]Good night![/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Best regards~[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial] From Jack[/font]
[[i] 本帖最后由 shiduo 于 2006-10-17 03:41 编辑 [/i]]
页:
[1]