* * *
Because sociological imagination is meaningful to the internal life and external career of different types of individuals, people with sociological imagination can see a broader historical stage and see how individuals often misunderstand their social status in chaotic daily experiences. In this confusion, we can find the framework of modern society, in which we can explain the psychological state of men and women. In this way, personal anxiety is concentrated in clear troubles, and the public is not indifferent, but participates in public topics.
The first achievement of this kind of imagination-and therefore the first lesson of social science that embodies this kind of imagination-is the idea that only when an individual is in his own time can he understand his own experience and master his own destiny, and only when he is aware of all the personal life opportunities in his own environment can he understand his own life opportunities. In many cases, this is a terrible lesson, and in many ways, it is beautiful.
We don't know the limits of human potential. There are noble pursuits, freedom and depravity, pain and joy, pleasure and cruelty, and rationality and fragrance. But in our time, we have begun to understand that the limitations of "human nature" are so extensive that people are afraid.
We have begun to understand the personal lives of several generations in a certain society; He lives in his own life course, and this mileage exists in a certain historical sequence. Because he is alive, he will contribute to the development of society and the evolution of history, no matter how insignificant this contribution is, even he himself is shaped by the promotion of society and history.
* * *
The imagination of sociology allows us to understand the relationship between history and personal life, and their relationship in society. This is his mission and prospect. Realizing this mission and prospect is the symbol of a typical social analyst. ..... Classical social analysts who imagine their job prospects always ask three kinds of questions:
(1) What is the structure of a society as a whole? What are its basic components and what is the relationship between them? How is this structure different from other social orders? In this structure, what is the specific significance of the aspects that keep it changing?
(2) What is the status of this society in the long history of mankind? What is the driving force for its change? What position and significance does it have for the overall progress of human nature? How does the specific part we are investigating interact with the historical period it will enter? What are the basic characteristics of that period? How is it different from other times? In what unique way does it build history?
(3) What kind of people are the mainstream in this period of society? What kind of people will gradually dominate the mainstream? Through what channels are these people selected, shaped, liberated and suppressed, thus becoming sensitive and dull? What kind of "life" does our behavior and personality observed in a particular society in this particular period reveal? What is the significance of "humanity" in the face of all sectors of society we have investigated?
Whether their interests are powerful countries or subtle literary styles, family, prisons and socialism, classic social analysts should ask these questions. They are the core intellectual support of people's classical research in society and the questions that people with sociological imagination will inevitably ask. Because this kind of imagination is a kind of ability to change perspectives, from one's own perspective to others', from politics to psychology, from a simple family survey to a comprehensive evaluation of the budgets of countries around the world, from seminaries to military structures, from thinking about the oil industry to studying contemporary poetry. It is such an ability that covers the most impersonal and concise social changes to the most personalized side of human self, and observes the relationship between the two. Behind the imagination of applied sociology, there is always an impulse to explore the social and historical significance of an individual in society and in an era when he exists and has his own characteristics.
Charles Deborah: China needs sociological imagination.
Source: China Reform Forum Author: Charles Bird
Bird: I think a country like China should play a very important role. Globalization is now basically done by American theories and rules.
Economic Observer: Many people say that globalization is Americanization.
Bird: This is Americanization. They choose it and create it. My point is that if you regard globalization as a game-people call it a game, and the game has some rules-then the game is mainly established by the United States, not completely, but mainly. And I believe that the globalization of the American system is in a serious crisis.
The gap between the rich and the poor in every country in the world is getting bigger and bigger, and so is China, which is caused by the world. Walking on a busy street often makes people feel distressed.
A sign of American-style globalization is the widening gap between the rich and the poor. In every country, the Gini coefficient is getting bigger and bigger. Another major problem is that the financial system is very unstable. Just think about the Asian economic crisis in the 1990s and the Argentine financial crisis in 2002. The United States has a huge trade deficit and fiscal deficit, as well as serious banking problems, but it still manages the whole system.
I don't want to stop prosperity, but we need different rules. This may create more regional centers like the United States and Argentina in Latin America. Latin American countries have had very bad historical experiences under American rules, such as Argentina, which experienced financial collapse, but this country created the Latin American Trade Area. China and other Asian countries also need to make a strong and creative regional agreement, so that they can be more independent of the United States. I have no intention of stopping trade with America. I mean, these different regions are all part of the world, and there should be ways and structural rules that suit their own situation.
What you need to consider is, what will China look like in 50 years? Some people say that they want to be like America. There seem to be only two answers to the future model, one is the United States and the other is Japan. But I think this is something that China people should avoid. You should think about where China will go in the future. You need to consider the American model. The American model has many positive aspects, but there are also many big problems. So what I want to do hard is to explore some social problems, and the economy cannot solve everything.
I think economists live in a fantasy world. They have a very strict theory, a very academic theory. This means that these theories have little to do with real people in the real world. This is a very serious problem. I often argue with American economists, and it feels like talking to people on another planet. Because I think what economists say is based on the theory of how the market economy should work, but you know, the real situation of economic life is completely different from what economists know from textbooks. I'm not talking about people who do business, but people who modify economic theory in universities. In many places in China, the theory of market economy has become a new favorite. For example, I talked to an economist in Shanghai. He asked me what my philosophy was and how I understood the foundation of human development. I replied that I would return to 1948 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, which affirmed some foundations of human rights, and I think it should also be the foundation of human rights in the international community. He doesn't agree with me that all social development should be based on market economy.
What is the market? The market is a social system. Sociologists will say that the market is just a social system. If you ask economists, where does the market come from? They will answer that this is natural, because people naturally have the need to exchange things, so it is based on the laws of nature. However, the market is also a political structure. In any country, markets are created by rulers, hereditary monarchs or elected leaders. God did not create rulers, but the people themselves and the political system created them. In fact, the market has always been the product of construction and political society. It is very important for people to play a major role in how the market develops. So I think this is why there are so many demonstrations against globalization, WTO and so on. As long as the world's top finance ministers attend the meeting, there will be a large number of demonstrators. I think that's because the whole system has hurt them, and they must find ways to participate in changing this huge economic rule. Similarly, as long as you find at the recent WTO meeting, poor countries have launched a large number of movements against the forces of the United States, the European Union and Japan, and they are only dominant at the meeting.
Some views on global democratization have been discussed recently. What I want to say is that it should not be the opinion of a certain country (such as the United States) that affects the global system. In this system, other countries should be allowed to participate in changing the rules. The standards set by the United States are double standards, such as imposing restrictions on China's textile exports. The United States also signed a document to protect domestic agriculture, while preventing the Mexican government from protecting its farmers. As a result, thousands of Mexican farmers gave up their land because they could not compete with protected agricultural production. American agriculture is highly protected. Farmers in the United States, farmers who grow sugar crops and farmers who grow cotton ... receive millions of government subsidies every year, so their products are very cheap. They force the government to find markets for their products all over the world, but they don't allow other governments to protect their farmers. It's not fair.
I think what economists want is to promote the free market economy all over the world, but this is not the market in the real world. In the real world, sugar market and cotton market are not free markets, but markets constructed by American government and its rules. The initial development of American economy was carried out under protection, because they knew that they could not compete with Britain. I think my words may be hard to hear in China, because most people in China simply believe that they have seen the tremendous economic growth brought about by opening up. Similarly, it is also a problem for large companies to control the economy.
It's hard for China people to hear criticism from sociologists, especially American sociologists like me. They will think: that's easy for him to say, but what we see is great changes in this country, and we have great economic growth. But I think China has achieved some success, because the government can control the change of the situation. The government of China is very powerful. You know almost every American company wants to enter China, because the China market is too big. However, the China government has a series of market access standards.
Economic Observer: But many people in China think that a strong government will hinder the further development of the economy.
Bird: Yes, I think the China administration needs internal reform, but China's advantages in its relations with the United States are commendable. My point is that China needs to improve its ability to act internally and act as soon as possible; Externally, China should become an active participant in trade with other countries. This is not a contradiction.
Economic Observer: For sociologists, the biggest enemy of this society is economists. Of course, this is a joke.
Deborah: In my opinion, economists have dominated the ideology of western political circles, even somewhat similar to religion. The biggest enemy of sociologists is not economists, but an irreplaceable system created by a powerful financial system.
Economic Observer: What if sociologists become mainstream?
Bird: The most important thing is to increase the participation of ordinary people in the process of power and political decision-making. I think sociologists serve social justice, and they should speak for the silent majority of society. I don't think sociologists need special policies. They just want to make sure that all voices are heard in the decision-making process.
In China, this means that various social organizations and forces in China can fully express themselves and have ways to express themselves. I have been to many cities in China, and I have just returned from Shanghai and Hongkong. I am deeply impressed by how many rich people, especially the younger generation. They have higher requirements for life, but they are more materialistic. They look happy, but they can't hear their voices in a larger field.
Why is the market economy the foundation of social development? Economists say that because people express themselves in the market, people find their subjectivity and identity in it. But the self-image of people aged 18 and 19 is shaped by fashion and media companies, isn't it? People just want to wear a certain brand of clothes It's all very much like America. People can't express themselves in other ways. They just use the way of consumers. For them, consumers have replaced the concept of citizens.
To say the least, I don't think I'm against consumers. People enjoy their lives, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However, if we want to have a better life, people should not just indulge in eating and wearing.
Economic Observer: Do you think the consumer society will become the mainstream in the long run?
Bird: I think consumerism is strongly advocated. Young people grow up looking at photos of beautiful women, which is very powerful. However, the real situation of people's lives is worse than their dreams. There is a gap between what they need to satisfy happiness and what they can actually afford. First of all, they can't afford that kind of consumption at this level; Second, personal consumption is a pleasant thing, but it is not the basis of personal happiness. You know, I have no objection to consumption. When I was in Shanghai, I was glad to see many young people dressed in fashion. But the danger is that people are likely to stagnate at this stage, because everything they want is already here. Sometimes I have this idea when I am in Shanghai and Hong Kong. There are many beautiful young people there, and they are also very talented, but they spend a lot of time shopping in the mall. It may be unfair to say this, because I am not from China, but I do have the feeling that those young people don't think about big problems, they only think about their lover, what to buy next and so on. Do you think it's fair for them that I say this? I think it's terrible. This is a serious problem. This is the structure of economy and society, which is why I say we need voices outside the economy. Economy can only give happiness such a choice, but there should be other things in life besides economy and material things.
Economic Observer: Why does the same consumption-oriented mentality appear in two countries with huge differences between China and America?
Bird: It has something to do with history. Some of the most powerful economic organizations, such as multinational corporations and financial markets, have global "personality characteristics". The same theme, the same ideology spread everywhere. I saw the same enterprises in China, from Wal-Mart to McDonald's to Microsoft. I walk on the streets of Beijing and Shanghai, just like walking in Boston. The reason why consumerism is the same in so many different countries is that the same economic organizations have the same agenda all over the world. In these countries, alliances between companies, financial institutions and governments are increasing.
In the United States, it is much easier to achieve this, because most people have reached a high level in material life. They know the problems that consumerism may bring, it will corrode society, and it can't really make them happy. But at different stages of development in China, many people just want to gain more markets and more profits, which is understandable.
Another important question is, what will happen between China and the United States? Many people think that in the 2 1 century, the real contest and the most complicated competition will take place between China and the United States. But in my opinion, there will be no military danger between China and the United States.
References:
u.edu.cn/dispbbs.asp? board id = 106 & amp； ID=7450 1