论文部分内容阅读
本文的标题可能会让读者感觉有些不自在,它听起来似乎是不恰当的或令人无言以对的。通过直接挑战“正确”的观点,本文提出这样一个问题:对于个体来说,为了实现某种利益,他们必须或者天生就倾向于形成一个群体吗?这种合作对于我们取得成功——确立并实现我们认为对于作为独特的个体(这是现代性加给我们的冠冕)而言十分重要的目标来说是值得追求或可取的吗?在如今被浸染于实践着极端主体性的某种后现代性的个体中间,在以自我至上,但从漠不关心的立场上看又受到他人触动的独特个体中间,形成群体以实现共同利益,仍然是值得向往的吗?或者说这还有可能吗?本文将对集体行动这个主题的探讨置于对布宜诺斯艾利斯视觉艺术家的考察这一非常特殊的语境之下。从人类学的视角,我们将看到艺术家的某些观念(原创性、宝贵的时间、敌视的氛围、猜疑的制度、不恰当的法律、对遭受羞辱的恐惧)如何以及为什么能与艺术家的具体实践连贯地衔接起来。这篇文章将强调集体行动的缺乏效率和稀缺(与集体行动话语的持续对立),以及次优的结果(这种结果未能满足行动者表达的最低期望值)。尤其是,我将分析版权及其集体保护的可能性。对于这些行动者的个人主义态度和团结情绪的阵阵发作,将通过他们从上述那些观念的角度进行重新阐释,尽管本文的分析表明,单是那些观念并不能解释有限数量的集体行动及其乏善可陈的结果。
The title of this article may make the reader feel uncomfortable, it may seem inappropriate or unmotivated. By directly challenging the notion of “right”, the paper raises the question of whether individuals must, or are born to be, inclined to form a group in order to achieve some kind of interest. This cooperation is a success for us - to establish And to achieve what we consider worth pursuing or desirable for the very important goal of being a singular individual (this is the crowning of modernity to us)? In what is now being drenched in some sort of practicing extreme subjectivity Is it still desirable to form a group in order to realize common interests among the individual individuals who are self-supremacy but indifferent to others and touched by others? Or is this still possible? The discussion of the subject of collective action is placed under the very special context of a visual artist in Buenos Aires. From an anthropological perspective, we will see how and why artists' concepts (originality, precious time, hostile atmosphere, suspicious regimes, inappropriate laws, fear of humiliation) and the artist's specificities Practice coherently connected. This essay will emphasize the lack of efficiency and scarcity of collective action (the ongoing antagonism to the collective action discourse) and the suboptimal result (which fails to meet the minimum expectations expressed by the actors). In particular, I will analyze the possibility of copyright and its collective protection. The bursts of individualism and solidarity of these actors will be reinterpreted by them from the perspectives of the above, though the analysis in this paper shows that those ideas alone do not account for the limited number of collective actions and their lack of goodness the result of.