{"title":"后共产主义文化中的工人阶级身份","authors":"B. James","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public discourse in the West about the postcommunist economies of East Central Europe centres on the pace of privatisation, the adoption of capitalist financial institutions, and foreign investment in industries ranging from automotive to nuclear power (Clash 1996, Kraar 1996). The inevitability and desirability of capitalism are assumed, and the central focus is on macro-economic indicators of progress. Little attention is given to the material consequences of, and responses to, economic upheaval among those who are experiencing its costs, including rising unemployment and a growing disparity between rich and poor. Instead, human experience is reduced to questions of preference for the old system versus the new, and responses are reported in aggregates that gloss over distinctions based on class, education, or other significant factors. For example, The Economist reports that a steadily rising number of East Europeans are happy to live under the rigors of the free market, and that outside the former Soviet republics, nearly two-thirds are broadly chirpy about their new system (Feeling Perkier 1996, 48-49). To the extent that class ever enters into the dominant discourse of post-communist transition, it is typically articulated to the emergence of a nouveau riche entrepreneurial class (Boris on Bond Street 1995). In addition to masking issues of class, these examples also reveal a logical inconsistency. As Stjepan Metroviæ (1993, 1994) has pointed out, Western experts treat capitalism as if it were a rootless, self-sustaining abstraction, severed from history and culture. But at the same time, those who proclaim the unequivocal moral virtues of capitalism are hardly able to disguise the underlying, ethnocentric assumption that it will be the American brand of BEVERLY JAMES","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"43 1","pages":"19-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working Class Identities in Postcommunist Culture\",\"authors\":\"B. James\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Public discourse in the West about the postcommunist economies of East Central Europe centres on the pace of privatisation, the adoption of capitalist financial institutions, and foreign investment in industries ranging from automotive to nuclear power (Clash 1996, Kraar 1996). The inevitability and desirability of capitalism are assumed, and the central focus is on macro-economic indicators of progress. Little attention is given to the material consequences of, and responses to, economic upheaval among those who are experiencing its costs, including rising unemployment and a growing disparity between rich and poor. Instead, human experience is reduced to questions of preference for the old system versus the new, and responses are reported in aggregates that gloss over distinctions based on class, education, or other significant factors. For example, The Economist reports that a steadily rising number of East Europeans are happy to live under the rigors of the free market, and that outside the former Soviet republics, nearly two-thirds are broadly chirpy about their new system (Feeling Perkier 1996, 48-49). To the extent that class ever enters into the dominant discourse of post-communist transition, it is typically articulated to the emergence of a nouveau riche entrepreneurial class (Boris on Bond Street 1995). In addition to masking issues of class, these examples also reveal a logical inconsistency. As Stjepan Metroviæ (1993, 1994) has pointed out, Western experts treat capitalism as if it were a rootless, self-sustaining abstraction, severed from history and culture. But at the same time, those who proclaim the unequivocal moral virtues of capitalism are hardly able to disguise the underlying, ethnocentric assumption that it will be the American brand of BEVERLY JAMES\",\"PeriodicalId\":46298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"19-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost-The Public","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
西方关于东欧后共产主义经济的公开讨论集中在私有化的步伐,资本主义金融机构的采用,以及从汽车到核电等行业的外国投资(Clash 1996, Kraar 1996)。假设资本主义的必然性和可取性,中心焦点是进步的宏观经济指标。很少有人注意到经济动荡的物质后果,以及那些正在承受其代价的人对经济动荡的反应,包括失业率上升和贫富差距扩大。相反,人类的经验被简化为对旧制度和新制度的偏好问题,而反应被汇总报道,掩盖了基于阶级、教育或其他重要因素的差异。例如,《经济学人》报道,“越来越多的东欧人乐于生活在严格的自由市场之下”,而在前苏联加盟共和国之外,“近三分之二的人对他们的新体制普遍感到高兴”(《感觉更活跃》1996,48 -49)。在某种程度上,这个阶级曾经进入后共产主义转型的主导话语,它通常是与暴发户企业家阶级的出现联系在一起的(“鲍里斯在邦德街”1995)。除了掩盖类的问题外,这些示例还揭示了逻辑上的不一致。正如Stjepan Me æ troviæ(1993,1994)所指出的,西方专家将资本主义视为一种无根的、自我维持的抽象,与历史和文化相分离。但与此同时,那些“宣称资本主义具有明确的道德美德”的人几乎无法掩饰其潜在的、种族中心主义的假设,即资本主义将成为贝弗利·詹姆斯(BEVERLY JAMES)的美国品牌
Public discourse in the West about the postcommunist economies of East Central Europe centres on the pace of privatisation, the adoption of capitalist financial institutions, and foreign investment in industries ranging from automotive to nuclear power (Clash 1996, Kraar 1996). The inevitability and desirability of capitalism are assumed, and the central focus is on macro-economic indicators of progress. Little attention is given to the material consequences of, and responses to, economic upheaval among those who are experiencing its costs, including rising unemployment and a growing disparity between rich and poor. Instead, human experience is reduced to questions of preference for the old system versus the new, and responses are reported in aggregates that gloss over distinctions based on class, education, or other significant factors. For example, The Economist reports that a steadily rising number of East Europeans are happy to live under the rigors of the free market, and that outside the former Soviet republics, nearly two-thirds are broadly chirpy about their new system (Feeling Perkier 1996, 48-49). To the extent that class ever enters into the dominant discourse of post-communist transition, it is typically articulated to the emergence of a nouveau riche entrepreneurial class (Boris on Bond Street 1995). In addition to masking issues of class, these examples also reveal a logical inconsistency. As Stjepan Metroviæ (1993, 1994) has pointed out, Western experts treat capitalism as if it were a rootless, self-sustaining abstraction, severed from history and culture. But at the same time, those who proclaim the unequivocal moral virtues of capitalism are hardly able to disguise the underlying, ethnocentric assumption that it will be the American brand of BEVERLY JAMES
期刊介绍:
Javnost - The Public, an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed social and cultural science journal published by the European Institute for Communication and Culture in association with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, addresses problems of the public sphere on international and interdisciplinary levels. It encourages the development of theory and research, and helps understand differences between cultures. Contributors confront problems of the public, public communication, public opinion, public discourse, publicness, publicity, and public life from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives.