权力结构中的微观权力与人力资本
|
摘要
人力资本投资是唯经济目的的吗?这是本文所研究的问题的起始。这个问题的背后有一个强烈的意识在始终抗拒着对人力资本投资唯经济论的解释。人们在一种力的差异性关系中真切体会到的对比感受,不能随意抹掉或轻易地被归纳进单一目的。这种感受反射着一种人力资本投资的非经济目的存在。在力的差异性关系中人们的现实努力,不再被称作人力资本投资,而是称作对自我的力的“苦行锻造”。但是,无论怎样称谓,投资也好,苦行锻造也好,如果它们的目的和对象可以统一在同一种形式或事物上,如何称谓就变得无关重要,对问题的回答就可以在一个全新的视角里被展开。
法国哲学家、社会学家福柯认为,从17世纪开始,在现代社会中发展出一种新的权力形式,这种权力是传统权力的下位权力形式,它对个体和人口进行着一种隐匿的权力的控制,福柯称它为微观权力。微观权力被进一步分为另外两种权力形式,一是个体层面对身体实行改造旨在提高身体生产能力的规训权力(disciplinary power);二是在人口层面上控制出生、死亡、疾病旨在提高社会生产的生命权力(bio-power)。这两种权力都围绕身体以身体为支点展开权力机制设计,在改造身体的同时也建构了现代社会主体的人的形象,因此,福柯总结现代社会实际上是被规训机制覆盖着的“规训社会”。这个新的权力形式从根本上颠覆传统的权力是压抑的本质,宣告了权力的生产性实质。规训权力广布于生活世界的各个重要环节上——在学校、工厂、兵营、家庭都进行机制设计,将身体深深的卷入到权力设计的程序之中,它通过建构身体而建构社会主体的人。
人力资本投资的目的是在未来获得经济收益。它的过程同样是通过改造和控制身体使身体变得更为有用和有效,因而,微观权力的目的与对象与人力资本的目的与对象就统一在人的身体上。这样一来,本研究立意要回答的问题就在微观权力与人力资本投资对象和目的统一中找到了研究的控制点。
微观权力的目的起始于经济社会的生产力目标,然而它并不止于经济目标。在与人力资本分享了身体这个统一体之后,它从另外一个出口与人力资本分离,这个出口就是对现代人标准和规范的制定与建构。“现代”这一概念始于西方世界的宗教改革之后的启蒙时期,从那个时期开始,人从宗教的、神的世界中脱离出来,寻求自我的世界,理性主义从那里开始就成为了现代人自己的立法根本,生命权力即是理性主义的产物。微观权力的设计在完成对身体的改造的同时,建立了一个总体性的现代人标准,这个“现代人”具有基本整齐的生产能力和交往能力,这种整齐的能力保证了自由、平等的原则在社会所有层面上的有效实践。
因此,对人力资本的投资不仅是经济目的的,它还是权力目的的。人力资本投资与微观权力在同一个平台——身体上实现机制运作,它们又分别在经济和权力不同的目标里分道扬镳,因而,它们共同地构建了现代社会人的经济能力与政治权力,即构建了主体的现代人的最为重要的两个部分。
Is it an unitary goal of economy for investment of human capital? The study starts from a self-question of this. There is a quite strong intuition to support about that could have some other explanations for investment of human capital hiding in somewhere. What about the power? The differentiation of power between or among people causes some strong feelings when people encounter in a compare to the power of them. This kind of feelings cannot just be erasered or being implied into a pure motivation of economy to explain. This could be an answer to enlarge a view to see how people invest in themselves. From this point of view to see investment of human capital, people would not call it as a human capital investment, it would rather be called "body-empower". However, what it be called is not that important, the importance lies in that could I really find a link between investment in people and empower in body? Finally, the study came into a point that we have get both investment of human capital and "body-empower" in an unify which they share the same research object and the same research intention in human body. That would be meaningful to the research to reach this point.
Michel Foufault(a philosopher and socialist in France) argued that is power repressive? He pointed out that a new form of power which called micro-power was developed. it is a technology which appeared from 17-18 century to manage individuals and population. The one for individuals was named further as disciplinary power, which is about training the action of body to strengthen functions and efficiencies of the body, the other for population was named as bio-power, which is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population. Therefore, the new forms of power is not a repressive power, it is the power to focus on the productivity of human body. Disciplinary power and bio-power circled body and take body as a point which the power intervene of body. Foucault concluded that the modern society is a disciplinary society, discipline turned all places such as schools, prisons, hospital, army barracks and even families into a disciplinary institution. The power built the modern society as well as modern humans at the same time by discipline their body.
The purpose of investment of human capital is to reach a better income level in the future. The way of investment is to intervene body to get it more useful and more efficient as well. So the investment of human capital and micro-power was unified in human body, accordingly, the study have reached a point to unveil the question which is asked by myself at the very beginning.
The original goal of micro-power is to built up productivity of the society, however, it is not stopped on this, after it share the same track of human body with human capital. They get off the track differently. It is off from the trace to the criterion of modern people.
Modernity is a concept came up from the western society after religious revolution and the time during the age of enlightenment. After that, human beings get away from God's world and take the rationalism as a foundation to set all laws for themselves, and bio-power is the production of rationalism. Micro-power set the criterions for how to produce the modern people and popularize it in the whole society, which create a population of collectivity and they camp up with regular and orderly abilities. This is the way how modern people were created. Whereas, this also brings people a fundamental and regular capabilities to practice ideals such as freedom, democracy in the whole society.
Investment of human capital is not only the purpose of economy, but also the purpose of power. Both Investment of human capital and micro-power together have finished the creation of modern people in the way of economy and the way of modern power.
法国哲学家、社会学家福柯认为,从17世纪开始,在现代社会中发展出一种新的权力形式,这种权力是传统权力的下位权力形式,它对个体和人口进行着一种隐匿的权力的控制,福柯称它为微观权力。微观权力被进一步分为另外两种权力形式,一是个体层面对身体实行改造旨在提高身体生产能力的规训权力(disciplinary power);二是在人口层面上控制出生、死亡、疾病旨在提高社会生产的生命权力(bio-power)。这两种权力都围绕身体以身体为支点展开权力机制设计,在改造身体的同时也建构了现代社会主体的人的形象,因此,福柯总结现代社会实际上是被规训机制覆盖着的“规训社会”。这个新的权力形式从根本上颠覆传统的权力是压抑的本质,宣告了权力的生产性实质。规训权力广布于生活世界的各个重要环节上——在学校、工厂、兵营、家庭都进行机制设计,将身体深深的卷入到权力设计的程序之中,它通过建构身体而建构社会主体的人。
人力资本投资的目的是在未来获得经济收益。它的过程同样是通过改造和控制身体使身体变得更为有用和有效,因而,微观权力的目的与对象与人力资本的目的与对象就统一在人的身体上。这样一来,本研究立意要回答的问题就在微观权力与人力资本投资对象和目的统一中找到了研究的控制点。
微观权力的目的起始于经济社会的生产力目标,然而它并不止于经济目标。在与人力资本分享了身体这个统一体之后,它从另外一个出口与人力资本分离,这个出口就是对现代人标准和规范的制定与建构。“现代”这一概念始于西方世界的宗教改革之后的启蒙时期,从那个时期开始,人从宗教的、神的世界中脱离出来,寻求自我的世界,理性主义从那里开始就成为了现代人自己的立法根本,生命权力即是理性主义的产物。微观权力的设计在完成对身体的改造的同时,建立了一个总体性的现代人标准,这个“现代人”具有基本整齐的生产能力和交往能力,这种整齐的能力保证了自由、平等的原则在社会所有层面上的有效实践。
因此,对人力资本的投资不仅是经济目的的,它还是权力目的的。人力资本投资与微观权力在同一个平台——身体上实现机制运作,它们又分别在经济和权力不同的目标里分道扬镳,因而,它们共同地构建了现代社会人的经济能力与政治权力,即构建了主体的现代人的最为重要的两个部分。
Is it an unitary goal of economy for investment of human capital? The study starts from a self-question of this. There is a quite strong intuition to support about that could have some other explanations for investment of human capital hiding in somewhere. What about the power? The differentiation of power between or among people causes some strong feelings when people encounter in a compare to the power of them. This kind of feelings cannot just be erasered or being implied into a pure motivation of economy to explain. This could be an answer to enlarge a view to see how people invest in themselves. From this point of view to see investment of human capital, people would not call it as a human capital investment, it would rather be called "body-empower". However, what it be called is not that important, the importance lies in that could I really find a link between investment in people and empower in body? Finally, the study came into a point that we have get both investment of human capital and "body-empower" in an unify which they share the same research object and the same research intention in human body. That would be meaningful to the research to reach this point.
Michel Foufault(a philosopher and socialist in France) argued that is power repressive? He pointed out that a new form of power which called micro-power was developed. it is a technology which appeared from 17-18 century to manage individuals and population. The one for individuals was named further as disciplinary power, which is about training the action of body to strengthen functions and efficiencies of the body, the other for population was named as bio-power, which is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population. Therefore, the new forms of power is not a repressive power, it is the power to focus on the productivity of human body. Disciplinary power and bio-power circled body and take body as a point which the power intervene of body. Foucault concluded that the modern society is a disciplinary society, discipline turned all places such as schools, prisons, hospital, army barracks and even families into a disciplinary institution. The power built the modern society as well as modern humans at the same time by discipline their body.
The purpose of investment of human capital is to reach a better income level in the future. The way of investment is to intervene body to get it more useful and more efficient as well. So the investment of human capital and micro-power was unified in human body, accordingly, the study have reached a point to unveil the question which is asked by myself at the very beginning.
The original goal of micro-power is to built up productivity of the society, however, it is not stopped on this, after it share the same track of human body with human capital. They get off the track differently. It is off from the trace to the criterion of modern people.
Modernity is a concept came up from the western society after religious revolution and the time during the age of enlightenment. After that, human beings get away from God's world and take the rationalism as a foundation to set all laws for themselves, and bio-power is the production of rationalism. Micro-power set the criterions for how to produce the modern people and popularize it in the whole society, which create a population of collectivity and they camp up with regular and orderly abilities. This is the way how modern people were created. Whereas, this also brings people a fundamental and regular capabilities to practice ideals such as freedom, democracy in the whole society.
Investment of human capital is not only the purpose of economy, but also the purpose of power. Both Investment of human capital and micro-power together have finished the creation of modern people in the way of economy and the way of modern power.
引文
[1]王亚南主编.《资产阶级古典政治经济学选辑》[M].商务印书馆,1979
[2]李建民著.人力资本通论[M].上海三联书店,1999
[3]亚当·斯密.《国民财富性质与原因的研究》上卷[M].商务印书馆,1988
[4]张风林著.人力资本理论及其应用研究[M].商务印书馆,2006,
[5]舒尔兹.“人力资本投资”《现代国外经济学论文选》[M].商务印书馆,1984
[6]汉斯·摩根索.国家间政治:寻求权力与和平的斗争[M].中国人民公安大学出版社,1990
[7]李有梅,孙立平,沈原主编.当代中国社会分层:理论与实证[M].社会科学文献出版社,2006
[8]边燕杰.市场转型与社会分层.[M].北京:三联书店,2002
[9]孙立平.转型与断裂:改革以来中国社会解构变迁[M].清华大学出版社,2004
[10]马克思.资本论[M]第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1975
[11]马克斯·韦伯.儒教与道教[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995
[12]亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].上海:三联书店,1989
[13]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京:译林出版社,2000
[14]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性与自我认同[M].北京:三联书店,1998
[15]汪行福.通向话语民主之路[M].成都:四川人民出版社,2002
[16]包亚明主编.现代性与空间生产[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003
[17]周穗明.现代化:历史、理论与反思[M].中国广播电视出版社,2002
[18]迪尔凯姆著,渠东译.社会分工论[M].上海:三联书店,2000
[19]列文森著,郑大华,任倩译.儒教中国及其现代命运[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000
[20]康德著,邓晓芒译.纯粹理性批判[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004
[21]黑格尔著,贺麟,王玖兴译.精神现象学,上卷[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997
[22]洛克著,叶启芳等译.政府论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1964
[23]卢梭著,其林译.社会契约论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980
[24]罗德里克·马丁著,丰子义,张宁译.权力社会学[M],北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店,1992
[25]丹尼斯·朗著,陆震纶、郑明哲译.权力论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991
[26]米歇尔·福柯,权力的眼睛,上海:上海人民出版社,1997
[27]加尔布雷斯,陶远华、苏世军译.权力的分析[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1988
[28]米歇尔·福柯著,包亚明编,严峰译.权利的眼睛[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1997
[29]刘永谋.福柯的主体解构之旅:博士学位论文.北京:中国人民大学,2005
[30]米歇尔·福柯著,刘北成、杨远婴译.规训与惩罚[M].北京:三联书店,1999
[31]汪民安.福柯的界线[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2007
[32]米歇尔·福柯著,佘碧平译.性经验史[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005
[33]米歇尔·福柯著,钱翰译.必须保卫社会[M].上海人民出版社,1999
[34]杜小真编.福柯集[M].上海:上海远东出版社,1998
[35]米歇尔·福柯著,刘北成、杨远婴译.疯癫与文明[M].上海:三联书店,1999
[36]米歇尔·福柯,谢强马,月译.知识考古学[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003
[37]尼采,楚图南.查拉斯图拉斯如是说[M].贵阳:贵州人民出版社,2004
[38]弗里德里希·尼采,张念东,凌素心译.权力意志--重估一切价值的尝试[M].北京:商务印,1990
[39]马尔库塞,刘继译.单向度的人[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1989
[40]巴塔耶,刘晖译.色情史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003
[41]德勒兹.刘汉全译.哲学与权力的谈判:德勒兹访谈录[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000
[42]华勒斯坦.刘健芝等译.学科·知识·权力[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999
[43]托马斯·L·汉金斯.任定成,张爱珍译.科学与启蒙运动[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2000
[44]汪民安等编.福柯的面孔[M].北京:文化艺术出版社,2001
[45]陈嘉明等.现代性与后现代性[M].北京:人民出版社,2001
[46]王岳川.后现代主义文化研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1992
[47]西奥多·W·舒尔茨著.吴珠华等译.论人力资本投资[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1992
[48]雅各布·明塞尔著,张风林译.人力资本研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2001
[49]加里·贝克尔.《人类行为的经济分析》[M].上海:上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,1995
[50]戴维·格伦斯基.社会分层[M].北京:华夏出版社,2005
[1]李建民.论人力资本的社会功能[J].广东社会科学,2004(3)
[2]贾宗武.论人力资本的性质与分类[J].理论与探索,2006(5)
[3]尹保云.现代性与现代化的历史定位[J].学术月刊,2005(10)
[4]李春玲.社会分层研究与理论的新趋势,中国社会学网2005年9月27日,
[5]汪丁丁.启蒙死了,启蒙万岁--评汪晖关于中国问题的叙说[J].战略与管理,1999(1)
[6]汪丁丁.试说现代性[J].读书.1997(6)
[7]陈嘉明.现代性与现代化[J].新华文摘2004(4)
[8]王岳川.现代性的存现方式[J].学术研究,2007(4)
[9]汪民安.现代性[J].国外理论动态,2006(12)
[10]朱苏力.发现中国的知识形态《学术思想评论》[J].辽宁大学出版社,1998(4)
[11]郭镇海.现代性视角下的技术伦理反思[J].长江论坛,2002(2)
[12]赵全军,陈艳艳.权力概念的多面解读[J].云南社会科学,2004(4)
[13]李水林,认识权力.社会学的一个基本概念[J].理论月刊,2002(12)
[14]林喆.权力的分化及其国家权力社会化[J],政治与法律,2001(2)
[15]汪民安.后现代性的哲学话语[J].外国文学,2001(1)
[16]汪民安.身体转向[J].外国文学,2004(1)
[17]莫伟民.从尼采的“上帝之死”到“人之死”[J].哲学研究,1994(3)
[18]王岩.论福柯后人道主义对尼采人学思想的超越--从“上帝之死”到“人之死”[J].江海学刊,2002(3)
[19]杨大春.现代性与他者的命运:福柯对理性与非理性关系的批判与分析[J].南京社会科学,2001(6)
[20]张文喜.现代性的幻象:“同一哲学”和“主体哲学”批判--从马克思到阿多诺[J].天津社会科学,2001(6)
[21]李晓林.论福柯的考古学与谱系学[J].齐鲁学刊,2001(2)
[22]杨大春.身体经验与自我关怀--米歇尔·福柯生存哲学研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000(8)
[23]汪民安.论福柯的“人之死”[J].天津社会科学,2003(5)
[24]汪民安.福柯与哈贝马斯之争[J].外国文学,2003(1)
[25]杨大春.反思的现代性与技术理性的解构--海德格尔与福柯论现代技术问题[J].自然辩证法研究,2003(2)
[26]汪民安.启蒙现代性[J].外国文学,2005(3)
[27]汪民安.身体的双重技术:权力与景观[J].花城
[28]汪民安.尼采与身体[J].花城
[29]汪民安.身体[J].外国文学,2002(2)
[30]汪民安.现代性的冲突[J].中国图书评论,2005(4)
[31]汪民安.现代性的冲突--西方政治现代性与文化现代性的多元矛盾[J].福建论坛,2007(5)
[32]门洪华.权力转移、问题转移、范式转移--关于霸权解释模式的探索[J].美国研究,2005(3)
[33]李水林.认识权力--社会科学的一个基本概念[J].学术论坛,2002(12)
[34]周传蛟,李宏宇.权力的分类[J].学术交流,2002(3)
[35]李小华.“权力转移”与国际体系的稳定--兼论中国威胁论[J].世界经济与政治,1999(5)
[36]余传贵.西方人力资本评述[J].财经理论与实践,2001(9)
[37]汪丁丁.资本概念的三个基本维度--及资本人格化的演变路径[J].哲学研究2006(10)
[38]兰玉杰,陈晓剑.人力资本的概念界定及其性质研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2003(4)
[39]丁栋虹.从人力资本到异质型人力资本与同质型人力资本[J].理论研究,2001(5)
[40]石军伟.人力资本流动及其模型分析[J].上海经济研究,2001(6)
[41]杨婉蓉.费正清与《中国新史》[J].人物研究,2002(2)
[42]张衍前,于志国.今年来梁启超研究综述[J].文史哲,1996(2)
[43]侯杰,林绪武.近百年来不同语境下的梁启超[J].文史哲,2004(4)
[44]侯杰,林绪武.省思与超越--近十年来梁启超研究与探讨[J].社会科学研究,2004(3)
[45]刘婵娟.现代性研究中的两个问题[J].哲学研究[J].2007(3)
[46]李少军.谱系学辨析--论谱系学的复杂性维度[J].教学与研究,2006(4)
[47]冷鹤鸣.当代中国现代化转型中的现代性问题[J].理论参考,2007(10)
[48]王岳川.福柯:现代话语与文化伦理[J].新视界
[49]陈新.历史与权力--《规训与惩罚》讲述的三个故事[J].东岳论丛,2004(9)
[50]尹红群.韦伯命题与中国现代化研究[J].石油大学学报,2004(6)
[51]岳梁.现代性话语:卡尔·马克思和马克斯·韦伯的不同境遇透视[J].首都师范大学学报,2006(4)
[52]潘成鑫.试论费正清关于近代中西关系的文化观[J].美国研究,1996(3)
[53]李帆.韦伯学说与美国的中国研究--以费正清为例[J].近代史研究,1998(4)
[54]杨龙.论权力的特性与基础[J].政治学研究,2001(6)
[55]仇华飞.从“冲击--回应”到“中国中心观”看美国汉学模式的嬗变[J].上海大学学报,2002(2)
[56]沈立岩.关于文论“失语”和“话语重建”的再思考[J].南开学报,2001(3)
[57]马宝成.中国早期现代化中的国家权力状况分析[J].齐鲁学刊,1999(2)
[58]黄兴涛.“话语”分析与中国现代思想文化史研究[J].历史研究,2007(2)
[59]陈新文.从“现代化”到“制度变迁”--当代西方政治发展理论的语境转换[J].2005(1)
[60]胡志强.文化帝国主义:一种现代化语境分析[J].国际论坛,2002(2)
[61]赵窚斐.政治现代性的要义及发展向度[J].湖北社会科学2007(2)
[62]郑莉.鲍曼论现代性与后现代性[J].马克思主义与现实,2004(1)
[63]汪辉.当代中国的思想状况与现代性问题[J].20世纪中国文艺纵横,2000(2)
[64]汪晖.如何诠释“中国”及其“现代”关于《现代中国思想的兴起》的几个问题[J].探 索与争鸣,天津社会科学,2006(2)
[65]汪晖.中国社会思想的世纪末分化[J].天涯,2001(2)
[66]张政文.康德与黑格尔国家理论中关于现代性的分歧[J].哲学研究,2007(2)
[67]范海玲.社会变迁视野中的社会分层研究[J].西北大学学报,2002(2)
[68]何历宇.现代化进程中的知识与权力[J].复旦教育论坛,2004(2)
[69]朱红文.哲学研究的中国语境、中国问题[J].哲学动态,1999(2)
[70]张颐武.晚清“现代性”:欲望的发现[J].江苏社会科学,2003(2)
[71]沈湘平.现代性的进化及其启示[J].学术研究,2005(10):10-15
[72]杜维明.新儒家人文主义的生态转向:对中国和世界的启示[J].中国哲学史,2002(2)
[73]杜维明.儒家传统的现代转化[J].浙江大学学报,2004(3)
[74]杜维明.文明对话与儒学创新[J].大连理工大学学报,2003(6)
[75]陆杨.从消费文化解读人的全面发展[J].哲学研究,2005(6)
[76]周雪光.制度是如何思维的[J].读书,2001(4)
[77]梁敬东.现代社会及其可能性[J].社会学研究,1999(1)
[78]李猛.论抽象社会[J].社会学研究,1999(1)
[79]汤一介.“文明的冲突”与“文明共存”[J].北京大学学报,2004(11)
[80]杨义.“感悟”的现代性转型[J].学术月刊,2005(11)
[81]谢立中.理解当代中国:两种不同的理论视角[J].北京大学学报1999(6)
[82]谢立中.现代性的问题及处方[J].社会学研究,2003(5)
[83]谢立中.困境与冲突:当代中国社会变革过程的再诠释[J].2001(4)
[84]谢立中.“现代性”及其相关概念词义辨析[J].北京大学学报,2001(5)
[85]陈明明.西方政治发展的逻辑:从中世纪到近代[J].理论研讨,1997(5)
[86]叶海涛.试论科学技术的发展与政治权力的社会化历程[J].江苏科技大学学报,2005(9)
[87]邹吉忠.经济理性、生产制度与现代权力本质--福柯现代性思想初探[J].天津社会科学,2003(1)
[88]周舒.生产“看”的场域--一种对福柯的解读方式[J].西南民族大学学报,2005(8)
[89]刘永谋.主体是如何被解构的--重读福柯[J].河北大学学报,2006(6)
[90]刘永谋.现代人的境遇与解放[J].中国人民大学学报,2006(6)
[91]雅尼克·诺琳.米歇·福柯对权力的分析[J].同济大学学报,2007(6)
[92]陈炳辉.福柯的权力观[J].厦门大学学报,2002(4)
[93]熊万胜.论政治互动的类型[J].华东理工大学学报,2004(2)
[94]任大齐.论权力的品质与法律[J].广州大学学报,2000(2)
[95]王英津.论政治权力与政治权利关系的二重性[J].中国人民大学学报,2003(5)
[96]刘文旋 社会、集体表征和人类认知--涂尔干的知识社会学[J]哲学研究,2003(9)
[1] Michel Foucault. The Order of Things[M].London: Routledge, 2002
[2] Michel Foucault. The Will to Knowledge, The history of sexuality, wolurane [M]. London,1990
[3] Michel Foucault. The Use of Pleasure[M].New York: Vintage Books, 1990
[4] Fairbank and Deng, China's response to the west: A documentary survey, 1889-1923,Cambridge: Harward University Press 1963.
[5] Ed. Armstrong, Michel Foucault : Philosopher, Hemel Hempatead, Harwester Wheatsheaf,1992
[6] Boyne, R. Foucault and Derrida: The other side of reason, London, Unwin Hyman, 1990
[7] Ed. Burke, R. Critical Essays on Michel Foucualt, Critical Thought Series 2, Cambridge,seolar Press, 1992
[8] Gutting, G Michel Foucault"s Archealolgy of Scientific Reason, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989
[9] Ed. Caputo, J. and yount, M. Foucault and the Critique of Institution, Pennsylvania state University Press, 1993
[10] Ed. Hoy,D. Foucault: A Critical reader, Basil Black well,1986
[11] O'Farrell, C. Foucault: Historian or Philosopher? London Macmillan,1989
[12] Ed. Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. The Foucault: Studies in Governmentality,Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1991
[1] Finis Welch, Human Capital Theory: Education, Discrimination, and Life Cycles. The American Economic Review,V.65,N.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty～seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association(May, 1975):63—73.
[2] Harry Jerome, The Measurement of Productivity Changes and the Displacement of Labor. The American Economic, V.22, N.1,Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (Mar., 1932) :32 —40.
[3] Lee Benham, Benefits of Women's Education within Marriage. The Journal of Po itical Economy,V.82, N.2, Part 2: Marriage, Family Human Capital, and Fertility (Mar.～Apr.,1974):S57-S71.
[4] Mincer Jacob, The Production of Human Capital and the Life Cycle of Earnings: Variations on A Theme. Journal of Labor Economics, V.15, N.1, Part 2:Essays in Honor of Yoram Ben-Porath (Jan., 1997):S26-S47.
[5] Murray Brown, John S de Cam, A Measure of Technological Employment. The Review of Economics and Statistics,V.45, N.4 (Nov., 1963) :386-394.
[6] Richard Mchugh, Jullia Lane, The Role of Embodied Technological Change in the Decline of Labor Productivity.
[7] Ritzen Jozef M, Winkler Donald R? The Production of Human Capital Over Time. The Review of Economics and Statistics,V.59, N.4 (Nov., 1977):427-437.
[8] Ryder Harl E, Frank P Stafford, Paula E Stephen, Labor, Leisure and Training Over the Life Cycle .International Economic Review , V.17, N.3 (Oct., 1976):651-674.
[9] Schwab D, Heneman H, Effects of Age and Experience on Productivity. Industrial Gerontology, N.4 (1977):113-117.
[10] Shephard Roy J, Aging and Productivity: Some Physiological Issues. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, V.25, N.5 (May, 2000):535-545.
[11] Willian J Haley, Human Capital: The Choice Between Investment and Income. The [12] D.NorthJnstitutions. Institutional change, and Econonic Performance.Cambridge University Press. 1990
[13] American Economic Review,V.63, N.5 (Dec, 1973):929-944
[14] B.F. Kiker, The historical roots of the concept of human capital, Journal of political economics,1966 vol.75(5),P498-499
[15] Michel Foucault, The Subject and Power, Critical Inquiry, Vol.8, No.4, Summer, 1982,777-795
[2]李建民著.人力资本通论[M].上海三联书店,1999
[3]亚当·斯密.《国民财富性质与原因的研究》上卷[M].商务印书馆,1988
[4]张风林著.人力资本理论及其应用研究[M].商务印书馆,2006,
[5]舒尔兹.“人力资本投资”《现代国外经济学论文选》[M].商务印书馆,1984
[6]汉斯·摩根索.国家间政治:寻求权力与和平的斗争[M].中国人民公安大学出版社,1990
[7]李有梅,孙立平,沈原主编.当代中国社会分层:理论与实证[M].社会科学文献出版社,2006
[8]边燕杰.市场转型与社会分层.[M].北京:三联书店,2002
[9]孙立平.转型与断裂:改革以来中国社会解构变迁[M].清华大学出版社,2004
[10]马克思.资本论[M]第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1975
[11]马克斯·韦伯.儒教与道教[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995
[12]亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].上海:三联书店,1989
[13]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京:译林出版社,2000
[14]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性与自我认同[M].北京:三联书店,1998
[15]汪行福.通向话语民主之路[M].成都:四川人民出版社,2002
[16]包亚明主编.现代性与空间生产[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003
[17]周穗明.现代化:历史、理论与反思[M].中国广播电视出版社,2002
[18]迪尔凯姆著,渠东译.社会分工论[M].上海:三联书店,2000
[19]列文森著,郑大华,任倩译.儒教中国及其现代命运[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000
[20]康德著,邓晓芒译.纯粹理性批判[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004
[21]黑格尔著,贺麟,王玖兴译.精神现象学,上卷[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997
[22]洛克著,叶启芳等译.政府论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1964
[23]卢梭著,其林译.社会契约论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980
[24]罗德里克·马丁著,丰子义,张宁译.权力社会学[M],北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店,1992
[25]丹尼斯·朗著,陆震纶、郑明哲译.权力论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991
[26]米歇尔·福柯,权力的眼睛,上海:上海人民出版社,1997
[27]加尔布雷斯,陶远华、苏世军译.权力的分析[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1988
[28]米歇尔·福柯著,包亚明编,严峰译.权利的眼睛[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1997
[29]刘永谋.福柯的主体解构之旅:博士学位论文.北京:中国人民大学,2005
[30]米歇尔·福柯著,刘北成、杨远婴译.规训与惩罚[M].北京:三联书店,1999
[31]汪民安.福柯的界线[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2007
[32]米歇尔·福柯著,佘碧平译.性经验史[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005
[33]米歇尔·福柯著,钱翰译.必须保卫社会[M].上海人民出版社,1999
[34]杜小真编.福柯集[M].上海:上海远东出版社,1998
[35]米歇尔·福柯著,刘北成、杨远婴译.疯癫与文明[M].上海:三联书店,1999
[36]米歇尔·福柯,谢强马,月译.知识考古学[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003
[37]尼采,楚图南.查拉斯图拉斯如是说[M].贵阳:贵州人民出版社,2004
[38]弗里德里希·尼采,张念东,凌素心译.权力意志--重估一切价值的尝试[M].北京:商务印,1990
[39]马尔库塞,刘继译.单向度的人[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1989
[40]巴塔耶,刘晖译.色情史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003
[41]德勒兹.刘汉全译.哲学与权力的谈判:德勒兹访谈录[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000
[42]华勒斯坦.刘健芝等译.学科·知识·权力[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999
[43]托马斯·L·汉金斯.任定成,张爱珍译.科学与启蒙运动[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2000
[44]汪民安等编.福柯的面孔[M].北京:文化艺术出版社,2001
[45]陈嘉明等.现代性与后现代性[M].北京:人民出版社,2001
[46]王岳川.后现代主义文化研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1992
[47]西奥多·W·舒尔茨著.吴珠华等译.论人力资本投资[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1992
[48]雅各布·明塞尔著,张风林译.人力资本研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2001
[49]加里·贝克尔.《人类行为的经济分析》[M].上海:上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,1995
[50]戴维·格伦斯基.社会分层[M].北京:华夏出版社,2005
[1]李建民.论人力资本的社会功能[J].广东社会科学,2004(3)
[2]贾宗武.论人力资本的性质与分类[J].理论与探索,2006(5)
[3]尹保云.现代性与现代化的历史定位[J].学术月刊,2005(10)
[4]李春玲.社会分层研究与理论的新趋势,中国社会学网2005年9月27日,
[5]汪丁丁.启蒙死了,启蒙万岁--评汪晖关于中国问题的叙说[J].战略与管理,1999(1)
[6]汪丁丁.试说现代性[J].读书.1997(6)
[7]陈嘉明.现代性与现代化[J].新华文摘2004(4)
[8]王岳川.现代性的存现方式[J].学术研究,2007(4)
[9]汪民安.现代性[J].国外理论动态,2006(12)
[10]朱苏力.发现中国的知识形态《学术思想评论》[J].辽宁大学出版社,1998(4)
[11]郭镇海.现代性视角下的技术伦理反思[J].长江论坛,2002(2)
[12]赵全军,陈艳艳.权力概念的多面解读[J].云南社会科学,2004(4)
[13]李水林,认识权力.社会学的一个基本概念[J].理论月刊,2002(12)
[14]林喆.权力的分化及其国家权力社会化[J],政治与法律,2001(2)
[15]汪民安.后现代性的哲学话语[J].外国文学,2001(1)
[16]汪民安.身体转向[J].外国文学,2004(1)
[17]莫伟民.从尼采的“上帝之死”到“人之死”[J].哲学研究,1994(3)
[18]王岩.论福柯后人道主义对尼采人学思想的超越--从“上帝之死”到“人之死”[J].江海学刊,2002(3)
[19]杨大春.现代性与他者的命运:福柯对理性与非理性关系的批判与分析[J].南京社会科学,2001(6)
[20]张文喜.现代性的幻象:“同一哲学”和“主体哲学”批判--从马克思到阿多诺[J].天津社会科学,2001(6)
[21]李晓林.论福柯的考古学与谱系学[J].齐鲁学刊,2001(2)
[22]杨大春.身体经验与自我关怀--米歇尔·福柯生存哲学研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000(8)
[23]汪民安.论福柯的“人之死”[J].天津社会科学,2003(5)
[24]汪民安.福柯与哈贝马斯之争[J].外国文学,2003(1)
[25]杨大春.反思的现代性与技术理性的解构--海德格尔与福柯论现代技术问题[J].自然辩证法研究,2003(2)
[26]汪民安.启蒙现代性[J].外国文学,2005(3)
[27]汪民安.身体的双重技术:权力与景观[J].花城
[28]汪民安.尼采与身体[J].花城
[29]汪民安.身体[J].外国文学,2002(2)
[30]汪民安.现代性的冲突[J].中国图书评论,2005(4)
[31]汪民安.现代性的冲突--西方政治现代性与文化现代性的多元矛盾[J].福建论坛,2007(5)
[32]门洪华.权力转移、问题转移、范式转移--关于霸权解释模式的探索[J].美国研究,2005(3)
[33]李水林.认识权力--社会科学的一个基本概念[J].学术论坛,2002(12)
[34]周传蛟,李宏宇.权力的分类[J].学术交流,2002(3)
[35]李小华.“权力转移”与国际体系的稳定--兼论中国威胁论[J].世界经济与政治,1999(5)
[36]余传贵.西方人力资本评述[J].财经理论与实践,2001(9)
[37]汪丁丁.资本概念的三个基本维度--及资本人格化的演变路径[J].哲学研究2006(10)
[38]兰玉杰,陈晓剑.人力资本的概念界定及其性质研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2003(4)
[39]丁栋虹.从人力资本到异质型人力资本与同质型人力资本[J].理论研究,2001(5)
[40]石军伟.人力资本流动及其模型分析[J].上海经济研究,2001(6)
[41]杨婉蓉.费正清与《中国新史》[J].人物研究,2002(2)
[42]张衍前,于志国.今年来梁启超研究综述[J].文史哲,1996(2)
[43]侯杰,林绪武.近百年来不同语境下的梁启超[J].文史哲,2004(4)
[44]侯杰,林绪武.省思与超越--近十年来梁启超研究与探讨[J].社会科学研究,2004(3)
[45]刘婵娟.现代性研究中的两个问题[J].哲学研究[J].2007(3)
[46]李少军.谱系学辨析--论谱系学的复杂性维度[J].教学与研究,2006(4)
[47]冷鹤鸣.当代中国现代化转型中的现代性问题[J].理论参考,2007(10)
[48]王岳川.福柯:现代话语与文化伦理[J].新视界
[49]陈新.历史与权力--《规训与惩罚》讲述的三个故事[J].东岳论丛,2004(9)
[50]尹红群.韦伯命题与中国现代化研究[J].石油大学学报,2004(6)
[51]岳梁.现代性话语:卡尔·马克思和马克斯·韦伯的不同境遇透视[J].首都师范大学学报,2006(4)
[52]潘成鑫.试论费正清关于近代中西关系的文化观[J].美国研究,1996(3)
[53]李帆.韦伯学说与美国的中国研究--以费正清为例[J].近代史研究,1998(4)
[54]杨龙.论权力的特性与基础[J].政治学研究,2001(6)
[55]仇华飞.从“冲击--回应”到“中国中心观”看美国汉学模式的嬗变[J].上海大学学报,2002(2)
[56]沈立岩.关于文论“失语”和“话语重建”的再思考[J].南开学报,2001(3)
[57]马宝成.中国早期现代化中的国家权力状况分析[J].齐鲁学刊,1999(2)
[58]黄兴涛.“话语”分析与中国现代思想文化史研究[J].历史研究,2007(2)
[59]陈新文.从“现代化”到“制度变迁”--当代西方政治发展理论的语境转换[J].2005(1)
[60]胡志强.文化帝国主义:一种现代化语境分析[J].国际论坛,2002(2)
[61]赵窚斐.政治现代性的要义及发展向度[J].湖北社会科学2007(2)
[62]郑莉.鲍曼论现代性与后现代性[J].马克思主义与现实,2004(1)
[63]汪辉.当代中国的思想状况与现代性问题[J].20世纪中国文艺纵横,2000(2)
[64]汪晖.如何诠释“中国”及其“现代”关于《现代中国思想的兴起》的几个问题[J].探 索与争鸣,天津社会科学,2006(2)
[65]汪晖.中国社会思想的世纪末分化[J].天涯,2001(2)
[66]张政文.康德与黑格尔国家理论中关于现代性的分歧[J].哲学研究,2007(2)
[67]范海玲.社会变迁视野中的社会分层研究[J].西北大学学报,2002(2)
[68]何历宇.现代化进程中的知识与权力[J].复旦教育论坛,2004(2)
[69]朱红文.哲学研究的中国语境、中国问题[J].哲学动态,1999(2)
[70]张颐武.晚清“现代性”:欲望的发现[J].江苏社会科学,2003(2)
[71]沈湘平.现代性的进化及其启示[J].学术研究,2005(10):10-15
[72]杜维明.新儒家人文主义的生态转向:对中国和世界的启示[J].中国哲学史,2002(2)
[73]杜维明.儒家传统的现代转化[J].浙江大学学报,2004(3)
[74]杜维明.文明对话与儒学创新[J].大连理工大学学报,2003(6)
[75]陆杨.从消费文化解读人的全面发展[J].哲学研究,2005(6)
[76]周雪光.制度是如何思维的[J].读书,2001(4)
[77]梁敬东.现代社会及其可能性[J].社会学研究,1999(1)
[78]李猛.论抽象社会[J].社会学研究,1999(1)
[79]汤一介.“文明的冲突”与“文明共存”[J].北京大学学报,2004(11)
[80]杨义.“感悟”的现代性转型[J].学术月刊,2005(11)
[81]谢立中.理解当代中国:两种不同的理论视角[J].北京大学学报1999(6)
[82]谢立中.现代性的问题及处方[J].社会学研究,2003(5)
[83]谢立中.困境与冲突:当代中国社会变革过程的再诠释[J].2001(4)
[84]谢立中.“现代性”及其相关概念词义辨析[J].北京大学学报,2001(5)
[85]陈明明.西方政治发展的逻辑:从中世纪到近代[J].理论研讨,1997(5)
[86]叶海涛.试论科学技术的发展与政治权力的社会化历程[J].江苏科技大学学报,2005(9)
[87]邹吉忠.经济理性、生产制度与现代权力本质--福柯现代性思想初探[J].天津社会科学,2003(1)
[88]周舒.生产“看”的场域--一种对福柯的解读方式[J].西南民族大学学报,2005(8)
[89]刘永谋.主体是如何被解构的--重读福柯[J].河北大学学报,2006(6)
[90]刘永谋.现代人的境遇与解放[J].中国人民大学学报,2006(6)
[91]雅尼克·诺琳.米歇·福柯对权力的分析[J].同济大学学报,2007(6)
[92]陈炳辉.福柯的权力观[J].厦门大学学报,2002(4)
[93]熊万胜.论政治互动的类型[J].华东理工大学学报,2004(2)
[94]任大齐.论权力的品质与法律[J].广州大学学报,2000(2)
[95]王英津.论政治权力与政治权利关系的二重性[J].中国人民大学学报,2003(5)
[96]刘文旋 社会、集体表征和人类认知--涂尔干的知识社会学[J]哲学研究,2003(9)
[1] Michel Foucault. The Order of Things[M].London: Routledge, 2002
[2] Michel Foucault. The Will to Knowledge, The history of sexuality, wolurane [M]. London,1990
[3] Michel Foucault. The Use of Pleasure[M].New York: Vintage Books, 1990
[4] Fairbank and Deng, China's response to the west: A documentary survey, 1889-1923,Cambridge: Harward University Press 1963.
[5] Ed. Armstrong, Michel Foucault : Philosopher, Hemel Hempatead, Harwester Wheatsheaf,1992
[6] Boyne, R. Foucault and Derrida: The other side of reason, London, Unwin Hyman, 1990
[7] Ed. Burke, R. Critical Essays on Michel Foucualt, Critical Thought Series 2, Cambridge,seolar Press, 1992
[8] Gutting, G Michel Foucault"s Archealolgy of Scientific Reason, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989
[9] Ed. Caputo, J. and yount, M. Foucault and the Critique of Institution, Pennsylvania state University Press, 1993
[10] Ed. Hoy,D. Foucault: A Critical reader, Basil Black well,1986
[11] O'Farrell, C. Foucault: Historian or Philosopher? London Macmillan,1989
[12] Ed. Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. The Foucault: Studies in Governmentality,Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1991
[1] Finis Welch, Human Capital Theory: Education, Discrimination, and Life Cycles. The American Economic Review,V.65,N.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty～seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association(May, 1975):63—73.
[2] Harry Jerome, The Measurement of Productivity Changes and the Displacement of Labor. The American Economic, V.22, N.1,Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (Mar., 1932) :32 —40.
[3] Lee Benham, Benefits of Women's Education within Marriage. The Journal of Po itical Economy,V.82, N.2, Part 2: Marriage, Family Human Capital, and Fertility (Mar.～Apr.,1974):S57-S71.
[4] Mincer Jacob, The Production of Human Capital and the Life Cycle of Earnings: Variations on A Theme. Journal of Labor Economics, V.15, N.1, Part 2:Essays in Honor of Yoram Ben-Porath (Jan., 1997):S26-S47.
[5] Murray Brown, John S de Cam, A Measure of Technological Employment. The Review of Economics and Statistics,V.45, N.4 (Nov., 1963) :386-394.
[6] Richard Mchugh, Jullia Lane, The Role of Embodied Technological Change in the Decline of Labor Productivity.
[7] Ritzen Jozef M, Winkler Donald R? The Production of Human Capital Over Time. The Review of Economics and Statistics,V.59, N.4 (Nov., 1977):427-437.
[8] Ryder Harl E, Frank P Stafford, Paula E Stephen, Labor, Leisure and Training Over the Life Cycle .International Economic Review , V.17, N.3 (Oct., 1976):651-674.
[9] Schwab D, Heneman H, Effects of Age and Experience on Productivity. Industrial Gerontology, N.4 (1977):113-117.
[10] Shephard Roy J, Aging and Productivity: Some Physiological Issues. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, V.25, N.5 (May, 2000):535-545.
[11] Willian J Haley, Human Capital: The Choice Between Investment and Income. The [12] D.NorthJnstitutions. Institutional change, and Econonic Performance.Cambridge University Press. 1990
[13] American Economic Review,V.63, N.5 (Dec, 1973):929-944
[14] B.F. Kiker, The historical roots of the concept of human capital, Journal of political economics,1966 vol.75(5),P498-499
[15] Michel Foucault, The Subject and Power, Critical Inquiry, Vol.8, No.4, Summer, 1982,777-795