{"title":"韋伯與奧斯華德:一個能量社會學的想像","authors":"張君玫 張君玫","doi":"10.53106/221866892021120019003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 這篇文章針對1909年社會學家韋伯(Max Weber)和化學家奧斯華德(Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald)關於文化能量學的爭議,進行一種繞射的閱讀(diffractive reading),從中生產出切合當代人類世困局的觀點。首先,我彰顯當代社會複雜的能量地景,尤其是石化資本主義的高耗能模式。其次,我探討韋伯對奧斯華德的批判,聚焦在藝術和技術的利益群集,以及韋伯多元主義和奧斯華德統合理論之間的張力。接著,我討論晚近學界對奧斯華德能量論的重探,強調涉及技術科學的分子轉向,其促成有機體地景的多樣化。最後,我重新思考能量超有機體的概念,一種雜揉的綜合體,及其可能的方向。\n This paper presents a diffractive reading of the controversy on cultural energeticism involving sociologist Max Weber and chemistry Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald in 1909 to provide a relevant perspective for the Anthropocene conjunction. First, I highlight the complex energetic landscape of contemporary society, especially the high-energy-consuming model of fossil capitalism. Second, I discuss Weber’s critique of Ostwald, focusing on the clustered interests of art and technology, as well as the tension between Weber’s pluralism and Ostwald’s aspiration for a unifying theory of everything. Third, I discuss some recent revaluations of Ostwald’s energeticism, emphasizing the technoscientific molecular turn that has diversified the organismic landscape. Finally, I reassess the conception of an energetic superorganism—a hybrid synthesis— and its potential future direction. \n \n","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"社會分析","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892021120019003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
這篇文章針對1909年社會學家韋伯(Max Weber)和化學家奧斯華德(Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald)關於文化能量學的爭議,進行一種繞射的閱讀(diffractive reading),從中生產出切合當代人類世困局的觀點。首先,我彰顯當代社會複雜的能量地景,尤其是石化資本主義的高耗能模式。其次,我探討韋伯對奧斯華德的批判,聚焦在藝術和技術的利益群集,以及韋伯多元主義和奧斯華德統合理論之間的張力。接著,我討論晚近學界對奧斯華德能量論的重探,強調涉及技術科學的分子轉向,其促成有機體地景的多樣化。最後,我重新思考能量超有機體的概念,一種雜揉的綜合體,及其可能的方向。
This paper presents a diffractive reading of the controversy on cultural energeticism involving sociologist Max Weber and chemistry Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald in 1909 to provide a relevant perspective for the Anthropocene conjunction. First, I highlight the complex energetic landscape of contemporary society, especially the high-energy-consuming model of fossil capitalism. Second, I discuss Weber’s critique of Ostwald, focusing on the clustered interests of art and technology, as well as the tension between Weber’s pluralism and Ostwald’s aspiration for a unifying theory of everything. Third, I discuss some recent revaluations of Ostwald’s energeticism, emphasizing the technoscientific molecular turn that has diversified the organismic landscape. Finally, I reassess the conception of an energetic superorganism—a hybrid synthesis— and its potential future direction.
这篇文章针对1909年社会学家韦伯(Max Weber)和化学家奥斯华德(Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald)关于文化能量学的争议,进行一种绕射的阅读(diffractive reading),从中生产出切合当代人类世困局的观点。首先,我彰显当代社会复杂的能量地景,尤其是石化资本主义的高耗能模式。其次,我探讨韦伯对奥斯华德的批判,聚焦在艺术和技术的利益群集,以及韦伯多元主义和奥斯华德统合理论之间的张力。接著,我讨论晚近学界对奥斯华德能量论的重探,强调涉及技术科学的分子转向,其促成有机体地景的多样化。最后,我重新思考能量超有机体的概念,一种杂揉的综合体,及其可能的方向。 This paper presents a diffractive reading of the controversy on cultural energeticism involving sociologist Max Weber and chemistry Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald in 1909 to provide a relevant perspective for the Anthropocene conjunction. First, I highlight the complex energetic landscape of contemporary society, especially the high-energy-consuming model of fossil capitalism. Second, I discuss Weber’s critique of Ostwald, focusing on the clustered interests of art and technology, as well as the tension between Weber’s pluralism and Ostwald’s aspiration for a unifying theory of everything. Third, I discuss some recent revaluations of Ostwald’s energeticism, emphasizing the technoscientific molecular turn that has diversified the organismic landscape. Finally, I reassess the conception of an energetic superorganism—a hybrid synthesis— and its potential future direction.