Postmodern society

[Daniel_Cheung]

這裡延續之前的讀物建議。
http://www.christianroundtable.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1408&postcount=3

另外，我想建議看一看社會學家Zygmunt Bauman的書，這個不是神學，不是哲學，也沒有談基督教的。但其中討論到今天的社會特色，頗發人深省。人文與社會，是本會所關注的。

http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Zygmunt_Bauman

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-6507300-1198331

我看過Work, Consumerism and the New Poor和Globalization，相信其他的也不錯。這兩本有一好處，就是十分短，分別有160和144頁。（當然我個人會想看其他的。）不知跳進了社會學系裡的Eric有何高見？恐怕Eric會比較喜歡看Wright和Giddens，若有相關性的話，或者可以用半年連續看兩三本書或幾篇文章。屆時同時會有幾組閱讀小組，這個就不會是大問題。

我估計Bauman的書有些已有中譯，各位可以提供一些資料嗎？

:)

我在網上找到著名社會學家Bauman的幾本中譯。那麼，我想再提出來，請大家考慮看看他的書。理由是，他的書比較短，寫得大眾化，而且內容針對今時的「後現代」社會，適合用來刺激我們思考與社會有關的事。（另一個理由：本會不是只講神哲學的。）

１．Bauman, Zygmunt著，張君玫譯，2001，《全球化—對人類的深遠影響》。台北：群學出版社。
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/023111429X/102-3193673-6757768?v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books（可看到目錄的）

２．Bauman, Zygmunt著，朱道凱譯，2002，《社會學動動腦》，台北：群學。
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0631219293/102-3193673-6757768?v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books（可看到目錄的）

３．Bauman, Zygmunt著，王志弘譯，2003，《工作、消費與新貧》，台北：巨流。
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0335201555/102-3193673-6757768?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance（可看到目錄的）

我會建議看１和３，若大家喜歡，也可以再看２。

若您支持，請回應一下，謝謝！ :)

[herby]

雖然只看過 Bauman 著作的很小很小部份，但深覺這位社會學大師的書很可讀、而且very relevant。我支持版主的建議。

[Daniel_Cheung]

還有沒有人支持？如果您覺看甚麼都無所謂，也請寫出來。開了組後卻沒有人來，那就不太好。

[ABC]

質成。我對這方面沒有認識，所以也想讀讀這些書。

[rseric]

我借了3，初步看來不錯。

看完再和大家講。 :)

[Daniel Zou]

我贊成。我雖説是主修電子的，但是我的輔修是社會學，對社會學的問題很感興趣！但是能夠不斷地從基督信仰的立場來矯正之就是我們需要做的工作。

關於分組，我同意國棟的意見。

我很喜歡這個學會！ :)

[clement]

我贊成。我雖説是主修電子的，但是我的輔修是社會學，對社會學的問題很感興趣！但是能夠不斷地從基督信仰的立場來矯正之就是我們需要做的工作。

關於分組，我同意國棟的意見。

我很喜歡這個學會！ :)

其實社會學有甚麼弊病需要基督教信仰立場來矯正？
難道基督教信仰立場仍然是不同學科的判準？
關於這點，我不太明白。

[rseric]

其實社會學有甚麼弊病需要基督教信仰立場來矯正？
難道基督教信仰立場仍然是不同學科的判準？
關於這點，我不太明白。

The selection of topic in Sociology would be influenced by one's value. On the other hand, despite one should be neutral on doing research, one have to interpret the findings using sympathetic understanding, and it seems to difficult to avoid judgement by values. (Of course, what I'm saying is the Weberian approach. Others, e.g. Durkheim would not agree. )

In this sense Christianity may have its contribution to the field.

However, I still feel that it is odd to create something call "Christian Sociology". 讓真理自己說話，不要為基督教而基督教好了。

[clement]

The selection of topic in Sociology would be influenced by one's value. On the other hand, despite one should be neutral on doing research, one have to interpret the findings using sympathetic understanding, and it seems to difficult to avoid judgement by values. (Of course, what I'm saying is the Weberian approach. Others, e.g. Durkheim would not agree. )

In this sense Christianity may have its contribution to the field.

However, I still feel that it is odd to create something call "Christian Sociology". 讓真理自己說話，不要為基督教而基督教好了。

你提到的基督教作為一種資源貢獻於整個學術討論世界，豐富人們的視域，我完全同意呀。

但「矯正」的意思似乎是，社會學裏面存在著非基督教的錯誤，因此需要正確的基督教來校正。這就令我覺得奇怪了，《聖經》本身或者「基督教核心信仰」本身，有無蘊含或者特別指定一套「（基督教）社會學」呢？

例如我想分析社會上的青少年問題，是否要加入「因為他們不信耶穌，所以許多家庭都出現了各種各樣的問題」等等宣稱？

[rseric]

What I think it that it is good to provide a perspective, but we should not say that we should "correct" anything. If we could accept that the Bible is not an encyclopedia, we then could not say that Sociology should learn from the Bible and Christianity. What we can say is the reverse: Christians should learn from Sociology, using the perspective they learned from the Bible.

For statements like 「因為他們不信耶穌，所以許多家庭都出現了各種各樣的問題」, it is not something that a Sociologist, or a Christian Sociologist , should say. What a Sociology could say would be something like "There are more family probelms in Societies lacking solidarity", "Joining a Christian institution, as we spectulate, may be able to increase Social solidality, and we can test on it", and nothing more.

[Daniel_Cheung]

待了良久，是決定的時候了。我想沒有表達意見的朋友覺得沒所謂。在Younger Evangelicals後，3月26日那週起，我們會看3，然後看1。先看3，是因為那書在3之前。這書的中譯應可在香港的二樓書店訂購。　

屆時Eric兄已讀了差不多兩個學期社會學，可以來多點分享一些有關社會學的東西！
:)



１．Bauman, Zygmunt著，張君玫譯，2001，《全球化—對人類的深遠影響》。台北：群學出版社。
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/023111429X/102-3193673-6757768?v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books（可看到目錄的）

３．Bauman, Zygmunt著，王志弘譯，2003，《工作、消費與新貧》，台北：巨流。
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0335201555/102-3193673-6757768?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance（可看到目錄的）

[Daniel_Cheung]

屆時Eric兄已讀了差不多兩個學期社會學，可以來多點分享一些有關社會學的東西！
:)


忘記了TC袁也讀過社會學的，失敬！失敬！

（希望沒有其他遺漏。）

[銀狐]

What I think it that it is good to provide a perspective, but we should not say that we should "correct" anything. If we could accept that the Bible is not an encyclopedia, we then could not say that Sociology should learn from the Bible and Christianity. What we can say is the reverse: Christians should learn from Sociology, using the perspective they learned from the Bible.

For statements like 「因為他們不信耶穌，所以許多家庭都出現了各種各樣的問題」, it is not something that a Sociologist, or a Christian Sociologist , should say. What a Sociology could say would be something like "There are more family probelms in Societies lacking solidarity", "Joining a Christian institution, as we spectulate, may be able to increase Social solidality, and we can test on it", and nothing more.


我又不是咁睇，我反而覺得教會如果不對社會作先知式的宣講，那教會便很容易被社會所同化，世人之所以對教會抱有希望，往往是因為這個社會本身問題重重吧。

如果我們只是視基督教為一個試點，ｗｏｒｋ便好，不ｗｏｒｋ便Nothing more，那是不是太容易放棄呢？

另外，我同意聖經不是百科全書，但透過對聖經處境式的詮釋，聖經能否對我們講更多的話？而這些經過現代人於限定的時空中所詮釋得來的觀點，又是否巨有絕對性的權威？

[rseric]

小弟只是說我們很難可以建構出一套「基督教社會學」而已。教會當然可以(而且我認為是應該 )對社會作出批判，只是那並不是學術意義上的社會學。

社會學家不是不可以對他所發現的社會現象作價值判斷。即使是韋伯，他自己亦不是像《學術作為志業》所講的那麼超然：他那兩篇關於志業的演講，像先知的批判多於像一篇學術演說。即或如此，社會學家只能讓他的價值影響選題及對現狀的詮釋，卻不可以讓價值影響研究及測量。

[el244]

My feeling is that if such research has an ideological agenda (such as preaching the gospel), then it's bound to be biased, in the way that one could try to fit biblical situations with real life one's when they don't really match so well.

Research is supposed to reflect what the society is like (i believe, anyway) and thus we should not, to being with, bound such reality within certain confines (e.g. those which has already been seen in the Bible).

Eugene

[Daniel_Cheung]

My feeling is that if such research has an ideological agenda (such as preaching the gospel), then it's bound to be biased, in the way that one could try to fit biblical situations with real life one's when they don't really match so well.

Research is supposed to reflect what the society is like (i believe, anyway) and thus we should not, to being with, bound such reality within certain confines (e.g. those which has already been seen in the Bible).

Eugene

我大體上是贊成你的講法的，只是要補充，小心不要假定有絕對的客觀，畢竟，在學術研究裡人們認為應如何看社會，也可以是有ideological agenda的。