From the Pursuit of Perfect Order to the Practice of Cultural Theory

Based on the crises and predicaments that modernity has manifested in its own process of development, numerous Western thinkers have reflected on and critiqued the mechanisms of modernity from fields such as philosophy, sociology, ethics, and anthropology, and have conducted unremitting explorations into the causes, essence, and paths of transcendence of these crises. Especially since the mid-20th century, in the face of the deep alienation exhibited by modern human society and civilization, scholars such as Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Agnes Heller have carried out fruitful explorations into how to overcome this crisis and alienation. Among them, Zygmunt Bauman, with his unique life experience and theoretical practice, has responded to the crisis of modernity and its way out. Overall, Bauman uses various metaphorical rhetorical devices to critically analyze the existential conditions of modern humanity, attempting, through theoretical exploration of cultural practice and the highlighting of human creative value, to provide a solution to the crisis of modernity. As Dennis Smith remarks: “If you are unfamiliar with the currently very popular debates about modernity and postmodernity, it is best to start by reading Zygmunt Bauman’s books.” [1]1 Dennis Smith, *Zygmunt Bauman: Prophet of Postmodernity* (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999), p. 1. Based on the deep influence of Marxism, existentialism, and structuralism, and especially on a deep understanding of the essence of the structural transformation of Western society, Bauman approaches the study of social problems through cultural theory. He regards culture as a creative practical activity, an understanding of culture that is similar to Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis. Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis emphasizes transforming the real world through active practical activity, focusing on creating a new culture as the foundation of practical activity, thereby achieving the unity of theory and practice and completing the actualization of theory. Bauman precisely regards culture as a special mode rooted in human practical activity, which leads him to realize that the innovative power of culture originates from its internal contradictions. There is a resonance between the inherent contradictory nature of cultural concepts and the specific contradictory nature of the modern condition; together, they endow the ability to transcend the existing order and for individuals to exercise creativity in cultural transformation, but at the same time, they also regulate human social structure as a destined, unchangeable natural law. This contradictory nature is a true portrayal of the development of modernity and the real state faced by the existential conditions of modern humanity.

基于现代性在自身发展过程中所呈现出的危机与困境，众多西方思想家从哲学、社会学、伦理学、人类学等诸多领域反思、批判现代性机制，并就危机的成因、实质及其超越路径等进行了不懈探索。尤其自20世纪中叶以来，面对现代人类社会和人类文明所表现出的深层异化，于尔根·哈贝马斯、米歇尔·福柯、雅克·德里达、阿格妮丝·赫勒等学者就如何克服这一危机与异化进行了卓有成效的探索。在此之中，齐格蒙特·鲍曼以独特的生存体验和理论实践，对现代性危机及其出路进行了回应。整体而言，鲍曼以各种隐喻的修辞手法对现代人类的生存境遇进行了批判性分析，试图通过文化实践的理论探索，通过对人之创造性价值的彰显，进而为现代性危机的解决提供方案。诚如丹尼斯·史密斯所言：“假如你对时下极为流行的有关现代性与后现代性的论争感到生疏的话，最好先读一下齐格蒙特·鲍曼的书。”基于马克思主义、存在主义、结构主义的深层影响，特别是对西方社会结构转型本质的深层理解，鲍曼以文化理论切入对社会问题的研究。他将文化视为一种创造性的实践活动，这种对文化的理解与安东尼奥·葛兰西的实践哲学有类似之处。葛兰西的实践哲学强调通过能动的实践活动去改造现实世界，注重创建新的文化作为实践活动的基础，从而实现理论与实践的统一，完成理论的现实化。鲍曼正是将文化视为一种植根于人类实践活动的特殊方式，这使他意识到文化的革新力量源于文化的内在矛盾。文化观念内在的矛盾性与现代状况特有的矛盾性之间存在共鸣，二者共同赋予超越现存和个体在文化转型中发挥创造性的能力，但同时也作为一种注定的、无法改变的自然法则规约着人类的社会结构。这种矛盾性是现代性发展的真实写照，也是现代人类生存境遇所面临的真实状态。

I. The Manifestations and Essence of the Crisis of Modernity

一、现代性危机的表征与实质

Along with the deepening of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment, humanity has achieved unprecedented accomplishments in the spiritual and material realms, especially the processes of mechanization, industrialization, and informatization, which have continuously liberated humans from heavy physical labor. But beneath this surface of ever-increasing freedom and liberation, “the fully enlightened world radiates disaster triumphant.” [2]2 Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 1972), p. 3. Just as Enlightenment reason, while enabling humanity to dispel ignorance, break free from shackles, and achieve liberation, has simultaneously alienated into a new “Enlightenment myth,” modernity is also like a double-edged sword: while greatly improving human living conditions, it has also brought new alienation and challenges. Bauman understands modernity as a new belief manifested in the process of scientific knowledge and technological progress, a belief that means reason replaces ignorance and faith, thereby becoming the standard of truth. This also implies that the transition from tradition to modern society is a transition from a devout religious world to a secular scientific world, a process of disenchantment and demystification. This transition has brought unprecedented freedom of choice to modern individuals, but at the same time, it has placed them in a state of uncertainty. This is because individual choices are often irrational and unpredictable, symbolizing a potential threat to the stable boundaries imposed by social order. Therefore, modern society’s pursuit of order tends to exclude things that do not conform to the standards of order; for example, anything imperfect, ugly, or suffering cannot claim the right to exist. Bauman believes that it is precisely because modern order is built on the suppression of chaos and contingency that imperfect contingency causes people to be deeply anxious while pursuing perfection. This precisely reflects the inherent contradiction of modernity, namely the continuous tension between order and chaos, clarity and ambiguity: “ambivalence is the main affliction of modernity and its most worrying concern.” [3]3 Zygmunt Bauman, *Modernity and Ambivalence* (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 15.

伴随着工业革命和启蒙运动的深化，人类在精神和物质领域取得了空前的成就，尤其是机器化、工业化、信息化进程，将人类不断地从繁重的体力劳动中解放出来。但在这种不断获得自由和解放的表面，“被彻底启蒙的世界却笼罩在一片因胜利而招致的灾难之中”。正如启蒙理性在使人类祛除愚昧、挣脱禁锢、获得解放的同时，又异化为一种新的“启蒙神话”，现代性也如一把双刃剑，在极大地改善人类生存状况的同时，也带来了新的异化与挑战。鲍曼将现代性理解为在科学知识和技术进步的过程中呈现出的一种新的信念，这种信念意味着理性代替蒙昧与信仰，进而成为真理的标准。这也就意味着从传统向现代社会的转变就是从虔诚的宗教世界向世俗的科学世界的转变，就是祛魅化、去神秘化。这种转变给现代个体带来了前所未有的选择自由，但同时也将他们置于一种不确定状态。这是因为个体的选择往往是非理性且不可预测的，它象征着社会秩序所施加的稳定边界的潜在威胁。因此，现代社会对秩序的追求往往会排斥那些不符合秩序标准的事物，例如任何不完美、丑陋或苦难都不能要求存在的权力。鲍曼认为，正是由于现代秩序建立在抑制混乱和偶然性的基础上，以至于不完美的偶然性造成人们在追求完美的同时又深陷焦虑。这恰恰反映了现代性的内在矛盾，即秩序与混乱、明确与模糊之间存在着持续的张力，“矛盾性成了现代性的主要苦楚和最揪心的担忧”。

Bauman points out that the essence of modernity is the production of order, and order requires the delegitimization of everything that cannot be assimilated. Culture, as the self-consciousness of modern society, removes structures that are ineffective or obsolete, replacing them with the construction of a transparent, as-perfect-as-possible order. This perfect order implies the elimination of all uncertain, fragmented contradictions. Modernity firmly believes that through reason, science, and bureaucratic methods, rational planning can be achieved. However, based on the limits of this order-planning, the action of pursuing order inevitably leads to the disorder of the Other. Under the surveillance, classification, and management of modern order, the Other of order is a microcosm of chaos and, moreover, a potential threat to the stable order established by modernity. In Bauman’s view, the perfect order pursued by modernity can only be realized through regulating actions and breaking down resistance to this order; the “panopticon” [4]4 “Panopticon” refers to a circular prison design by Jeremy Bentham that allows a single guard to observe all inmates without them knowing whether they are being watched; Michel Foucault used it as a metaphor for modern disciplinary power. and the “gardening ambition” [5]5 “Gardening ambition” is Bauman’s metaphor for the modern state’s project of rationally ordering society, analogous to a gardener cultivating a garden by removing weeds (undesirable elements). are the forms in which modernity’s pursuit of order manifests itself, and the universal consequence of this is the suppression of humanity and the confinement of thought.

鲍曼指出，现代性的本质是关于秩序的生产，秩序要求对一切不可同化之物去合法化。作为现代社会之自我意识的文化，将那些不起作用的、过时的结构移除，取而代之的是建构一个透明的、尽可能完美的秩序，这种完美的秩序意味着消除各种不确定的、碎片化的矛盾性。现代性坚信通过理性、科学和官僚主义的方式能够作出合理的规划。但是，基于这种秩序规划的限度，决定了追求秩序的行动必将导致他者的失序。在现代秩序的监控、分类、管理之下，作为秩序的他者是混乱的缩影，更是对现代性所建立稳固秩序的潜在威胁。在鲍曼看来，现代性所追求的完美秩序只有通过规范行动和打破对这种秩序的抵制才能实现，“全景式监狱”和“造园抱负”则是现代性追求秩序的表现形态，由此导致的普遍后果便是人性的压抑和思想的禁锢。

Compared with previous societies, the typical characteristic of modern social order lies in constructing a cultural legitimation based on reason as its spiritual pillar, taming disorder through rational control and planning. Conversely, the crisis of modern society originates from modernity’s perfect pursuit of order: “the most horrifying evils in human memory did not originate from the laxity of order, but from the rule of a perfect, irreproachable, and unchallenged order.” [6]6 Zygmunt Bauman, *Modernity and the Holocaust* (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), p. 151. In Bauman’s view, constructing order and expelling ambivalence are the eternal dual tasks of modernity. It is precisely the logic of creating the concept of order that gives rise to new areas of chaos; their opposition and complementarity constitute the unfolding process of modernity. In the reality of modern society, the prerequisite for creating order is to arrange social control institutions to institutionalize the regulation of thought, with the state power as the axis, and these institutions formulate rules and supervise people’s compliance. As Foucault points out in his analysis, the characteristic of modern society is covert suppression and surveillance, aimed at achieving control over individual thought and the right to discourse. To describe the social predicament brought about by modern order, Bauman, following Foucault, borrows and deepens the term “panopticon.” Foucault regards the social structure of the “panopticon” as a combination of power and knowledge, mainly manifested as an asymmetrical surveillance, where everyone is subject to all-round surveillance, while the subject of surveillance is the power institution of the modern state. “This is an important mechanism, for it automates and deindividualizes power. Power is no longer embodied in a particular person, but in a certain unified distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms can produce the relations that constrain each individual.” [7]7 Michel Foucault, *Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison*, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1977), p. 202. On the basis of Foucault’s critique of modernity, Bauman metaphorizes modern society as follows: the goal of the modern state is to structure and order social space, using order as a means to divide social space into different fields employing specific scientific technologies. Through this structuring, individuals can be controlled within social space, and the actions and thoughts of groups can be shaped, thereby forming a universal mode of human behavior. However, the standardization and predictability of behavior limit the freedom and creativity of modern individuals, turning people into machine-like producers rather than independent individuals. The consequence of this surveillance of modern order is cultural homogenization; individuals are integrated through surveillance and the internalization of hegemonic concepts of order, and thus individual self-awareness and value are suppressed, leaving them only to passively submit to the domination and surveillance of order norms. This classic internal logic of the “panopticon” perfectly interprets the manifestations of the crisis of modernity.

与以往的社会相比，现代社会秩序的典型特征在于以理性为精神支柱建构一种文化上的合法化，通过合理的控制和规划来驯服无序。相反，现代社会的危机则源于现代性对秩序的完美追求，“人类记忆中最耸人听闻的罪恶不是源自于秩序的涣散，而是源自完美无缺、无可指责且未受挑战的秩序的统治”。在鲍曼看来，构建秩序和驱除矛盾是现代性永恒的双重任务。正是创造秩序观念的逻辑又衍生出新的混乱领域，二者的对立与互补构成了现代性的展开过程。在现代社会的现实中，秩序创建的先决条件是以国家权力为轴心，安排社会控制机构规范思想的制度化，由这些机构制定规则并监督人们的遵守情况。正如福柯在分析中指出的，现代社会的特点是隐匿性压制和监视，目的是实现对个体思想及话语权的控制。为了描述现代秩序带来的社会困境，鲍曼继福柯之后借用并深化了“全景”一词。福柯将“全景”的社会结构视为权力与知识的结合，主要表现为一种不对称性的监视，即所有人都要受到全方位的监视，而监视的主体则是现代国家的权力机构。“这是一种重要的机制，因为它使权力自动化和非个性化，权力不再体现在某个人身上，而是体现在对于肉体、表面、光线、目光的某种统一分配上，体现在一种安排上。这种安排的内在机制能够产生制约每个人的关系。”在福柯的现代性批判理论的基础上，鲍曼将现代社会隐喻如下：现代国家的目标是使社会空间结构化、秩序化，以秩序为手段将社会空间划分为使用特定科学技术的不同领域。通过这种结构化，可以在社会空间中控制个体，塑造群体的行动和思想，从而形成一种普遍的人类行为方式。然而，行为的标准化和可预测性限制了现代个体的自由与创造力，使人们成为机器般的生产者，而非独立的个体。这种现代秩序监控导致的后果是文化的同质化，个体通过监视和霸权主义的秩序观念的内化而被整合，进而个体的自我意识和价值受到压制，只能消极地服从秩序规范的支配和监控。这一经典的“全景式监狱”的内在逻辑，完美地诠释了现代性危机的表征。

Since the 1970s, with the deepening of the civilizational process and the continuous growth of intellectual authority, the landscape-like construction of social order has again accelerated, manifesting as a “gardening ambition” that negates any difference. The purpose of this gardening is to create for modern people a well-ordered social structure, thereby limiting or eliminating the uncertainty of events. However, the practice of gardening also implies that the freedom and individuality of modern humans are suppressed and neglected, exacerbating the crisis and contradictions of modern society. The gardening metaphor first proposed by Bauman in his book *Legislators and Interpreters* can well illustrate his understanding of the “gardening ambition.” Bauman points out: “The power that dominates modernity (that is, the pastoral power of the state) is precisely an imitation of the gardener’s role.” The role of the state and power is like that of a gardener, manipulating things within the plot (in the garden, in the nation, or in culture), and defining itself as the designer of the perfect arrangement of human living conditions and the ideal life. “Weeds in the garden, an uninvited, unplanned, self-sown plant, enhance the fragility of the artificial order imposed on nature; they remind gardeners of the need for uninterrupted management and surveillance of the garden.” Metaphorically, modernity’s relentless pursuit of order is like the construction of a garden: through the removal of weeds within the garden, it manipulates modern humans, forcing them to grow, develop, and act only within the designed blueprint. Bauman further points out in his book *Modernity and the Holocaust* that the grand design of modern gardening is not merely a tool for pursuing pure order, but also a means of perpetuating violence and oppression. He connects modernity with the Holocaust not to equate the two, but to illustrate the necessary link between them. There is a selective affinity between modernity and the Holocaust; modernity, through rational design, provided the necessary conditions for the implementation of the Holocaust, while the Holocaust was an attempt to ensure the practice of “perfect” order. The Nazi Holocaust was not merely a problem targeting Jews, nor was it merely an accidental historical event; it was an inevitable outcome of the logic of modernity. The Holocaust is a problem unimaginable outside modern culture and technology; “the means of destruction, the concentration camps, the transport system, and the bureaucratic apparatus that enabled its implementation are not products of the past, of old traditions, but new products born with modernity.” Auschwitz is precisely an inevitable extension of the modern engineering system, essentially an industrial mode of killing that applies the strategy of Fordist factory production to the mass destruction of human beings. In other words, it is precisely under the interaction of modern “gardening culture” and the modern bureaucratic system that the Holocaust, supported by the technical forms of scientific rationality, physically eliminated the “Other” symbolizing chaos. Therefore, the peculiarity of the Holocaust lies not in its uniqueness, but in its being a perfect embodiment of modern engineering, relatively effectively and efficiently executing the modern order plan.

自1970年代以来，随着文明进程的深化以及知识权威的不断增长，社会秩序的景观式构建再次加速，表现为否定任何差异的“造园抱负”。这种造园的目的是为现代人营造一种井然有序的社会结构，从而限制或消除事件发生的不确定性。然而，造园实践也意味着现代人类的自由和个性受到压制和忽视，加剧了现代社会的危机和矛盾性。鲍曼在《立法者与阐释者》一书中首次提出的园艺隐喻，可以很好地向我们阐明他对“造园抱负”的理解。鲍曼指出：“支配现代性的权力（即国家的牧人式的权力）正是对园丁角色的摹仿。”国家和权力的作用就像园丁一样，操控情节中（在花园中、在民族中或在文化中）的事物，并将其自身定义为人类生存境遇的完美安排和理想生活的设计者。“园中的野草，一种不请自到的、漫无计划的、自生自灭的植物，增强了强加于自然的人为秩序的脆弱性，它们让园丁们想到需要对田园进行不间断的管理和监视。”从隐喻上讲，现代性对构建秩序的不懈追求就如同园林的构建，通过对园内杂草的清除来操纵现代人类，使其只能在设计的蓝图中生长、发展和行动。鲍曼在《现代性与大屠杀》一书中进一步指出，现代园艺式的宏大设计不仅仅是追求纯粹秩序的工具，更是一种延续暴力和压迫的手段。他将现代性与大屠杀结合起来并非将两者等同，而是力图说明二者之间存在的必然联系。现代性与大屠杀之间存在选择性亲和关系，现代性以理性的设计为大屠杀的实施提供了必要条件，而大屠杀则是为保障“完美”秩序实践的一次尝试。纳粹大屠杀不仅仅是针对犹太人的问题，也不仅仅是一次偶然的历史事件，而是现代性逻辑的必然结果。大屠杀是一个在现代文化和技术之外无法想象的问题，“毁灭的手段、集中营、运输制度以及使其得以实施的官僚机构不是过去的、旧传统的产物，而是伴随现代性诞生的新产物”。奥斯维辛正是现代工程系统必然的延伸，本质上是一种将福特主义工厂生产的战略应用于大规模人类毁灭的工业杀戮模式。换句话说，正是在现代“园艺文化”和现代官僚体系的相互作用下，大屠杀依据科学理性支持的技术形式，从肉体上消灭象征混乱的“他者”。因此，大屠杀的特殊之处不在于它的独特性，而在于它是现代工程的完美体现，相对有效和高效地执行了现代秩序计划。

Undoubtedly, the modern order project, through the “panopticon” and the “gardening ambition,” has caused a comprehensive crisis in modern society, which is essentially the inevitable result of modernity

毫无疑问，现代秩序工程通过“全景式监狱”和“造园抱负”造成了现代社会的全面危机，这实质上是现代性追求完美秩序的必然结果。在鲍曼看来，所有寻求完美的尝试都将是悲剧性的，因为完美所在的世界本身就是不完美的。现实世界不能等同于想象的世界，因为它是由涉及人类选择的偶然性事件所引导的。换句话说，现代项目的核心是一个悖论，这种悖论在于对矛盾、差异、偶然的“执著”否定，而矛盾性、差异性、偶然性恰恰是现代社会不可或缺的产物。但是，现代性在不断追求确定性的过程中，逐步发现和揭示了现代社会所具有的偶然性。正是这种偶然性被现代性视为无序和混乱的源泉，而非接受其固有的存在和矛盾。简言之，现代性力图根除混乱、差异、矛盾，但却在现代实践与规划中又重现了一个逼真的复制品。

II. Culture as the Self-Consciousness of Modern Society

二、作为现代社会自我意识的文化

Culture, as the inner mechanism of human social operation, profoundly influences the course of human history from a deep level. Culture reflects the way humans view and think about the world, endowing human behavior with basis and meaning, while also exerting a decisive constraining effect on the survival of the individuals embedded within it. The characteristic of culture is that it is inherent in all practical activities of human beings, and is the objectification of the species-essential activity of humans. As Marx stated: "Through practice, creating an objective world, transforming inorganic nature, man proves himself to be a conscious species-being." [8]8 Karl Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," in Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 42 (Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1979), p. 96. In his unremitting critique of modernity, Bauman takes culture as an objective reference point, analyzing the existential circumstances of modern humans, thereby presenting the real contradictory state of modernity. He inherits Marx's view, emphasizing that culture must be interpreted within the framework of social relations, which make culture possible and construct its usability. Bauman points out that linking culture to the real social conditions—social order, bureaucracy, technological rationality, and the economy—can highlight or reproduce many social facts. In this process, culture is not a passive system of symbols; it possesses a profound capacity to expose the dark side of modernity. Specifically, culture's critique of reality does not simply put forward a narrative of social development, but rather, through the evolution and deconstruction of cultural concepts, reflects on the contradictions existing in the cultural sphere, and thereby explores the possibility of cultural practice resolving the crisis of modernity.

文化作为人类社会运行的内在机理，从深层次影响着人类历史的进程。文化反映着人类看待世界和思考世界的方式，赋予人的行为以根据和意义，同时也对置身于其中的个体生存具有决定性的制约作用。文化的特性表现为，它内在于人的一切实践活动之中，是人的类本质活动的对象化。诚如马克思所言：“通过实践创造对象世界，改造无机界，人证明自己是有意识的类存在物。”在对现代性的不懈批判中，鲍曼以文化作为客观的参照点，分析现代人类的生存境遇，进而呈现现代性真实的矛盾状态。他继承了马克思的观点，强调文化须在社会关系的框架内进行阐释，社会关系使文化成为可能，并构筑了它的可用性。鲍曼指出，将文化与社会现实条件——社会秩序、官僚机构、技术理性和经济——联系起来，能够凸显或再现诸多的社会事实。在这个过程中，文化并非是一种被动的符号系统，它具有深刻的揭露现代性黑暗面的能力。具体来说，文化对现实的批判不是简单地提出一种社会发展的叙述，而是透过文化观念的演变和解构来反思文化领域存在的矛盾性，进而探索文化实践消解现代性危机的可能性。

From a historical perspective, culture is the self-consciousness of modern society, a collection of concepts and practices formed by humans under specific historical and social circumstances. As a mechanism influencing human motivation, culture is almost always accompanied by an emphasis on the role of human will. The formation and evolution of cultural concepts are the result of humans' deepening cognition of their own existential foundations and of the natural and social world. In the latter half of the 18th century, cultural concepts in the modern sense emerged and became established in those countries with the seeds of modernity, used to distinguish the social fact of "human achievement" from the "immutable" fact of nature. While people regarded culture as a rational reflection and critical activity on reality, they also saw culture as a value-creating activity that satisfies their various needs. This cultural concept with modern significance was regarded as the sacred mark of the "turning point" of the 18th century, heralding a profound transformation in human cognition and understanding of culture. As far as the human condition is concerned, the emergence of the modern concept of culture accompanied the awakening of human self-consciousness, "a collective product of a new philosophy; it regarded the world as essentially a creation of mankind and a touchstone of human capacities. From then on, the world was first understood as a stage for human pursuits, choices, successes, and failures." [9]9 Zygmunt Bauman, Culture as Praxis (London: Sage Publications, 1999), p. 12. The evolution of cultural concepts changed people's cognition of their own existence; people were no longer slaves to the secular world, but began to examine their own life-world as subjects of cognition. From then on, the theological worldview collapsed, and the social system maintained by theology was replaced by a secular social system ruled by reason. Throughout the modern period, there existed a mutual resonance and "elective affinity" between order based on legislation and truth based on reason. Two essentially modern, closely intertwined concerns were both focused on the pragmatic method of order production, which contained instruction for human action and the shaping of spiritual will. Bauman points out that the stance of modern culture unhesitatingly stood on the side of order, sparing no effort to influence, shape, and constrain the mode of human action. "Action—a coordinated and goal-conscious action, is the dike protecting people from the tide of chaos." [10]10 Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 15. Thus, it is precisely based on the existence and characteristics of culture that humans create islands of order out of the chaotic environment of existence.

从历史的角度来看，文化是现代社会的自我意识，是人类在特定历史和社会环境中形成的观念和实践的集合。文化作为一种影响人类动机的机制，几乎总是伴随着对人类意志作用的强调。文化观念的形成与演进是人类对自身生存基础、对自然和社会世界的认知不断深化的结果。在18世纪后半叶，具有现代意义上的文化观念得以出现并定型在那些具有现代性萌芽的国家，用以区分“人类成就”的社会事实与“不容改变”的自然事实。人们在将文化视为一种现实的理性反思和批判活动的同时，也将文化看作是满足自身各种需要的价值创造活动。这种具有现代意义的文化观念被视为18世纪“转折点”的神圣标志，预示着人类对文化的认知和理解发生了深刻的转变。就人类状况而言，现代文化观念的产生伴随着人类自我意识的觉醒，“一个新哲学的集体产物；它将世界看作是本质上为人类的一种创造物及人类各种能力的试金石。从那时起，世界首先被理解为人类的追求、选择、成功与失败的舞台”。文化观念的演进改变了人们对自身存在的认知，人们不再是世俗的奴隶，而是开始以作为认知的主体审视自身的生活世界。自此，神学的世界观坍塌了，以神学维系的社会体系被以理性统治的世俗社会体系所替代。在整个现代时期，以立法为基础的秩序与基于理性之上的真理之间存在着相互共鸣和“选择性亲和”。两种本质上现代的、紧密交织的关注点都集中在秩序生产的实用主义方法上，它包含着对人类行动的教导和对精神意志的形塑。鲍曼指出，现代文化的立场毫不犹豫地站在了秩序的阵营，它不遗余力地影响、塑造并制约着人类的行动方式。“行动——一个协调而有目标意识的行动，是保护人们免遭无序（chaos）之潮袭击的堤坝。”由此可见，正是基于文化的存在和文化的特性，人类才从混乱的生存环境中创造出秩序的岛屿。

From the perspective of the formation of social order, culture embodies humanity’s transcendence of nature and instinct, manifests the species-essence of human beings, and constitutes the core of social existence. Creating an artificial living environment through culture, i.e., constructing social order, is a prerequisite for human survival in a contingent world. Humans cannot live within a naturally preordained order like animals; they must establish a social order unique to themselves, building their own “second nature.” In Bauman’s view, order, as the opposite of disorder, represents a reduction in the scope of uncertainty. Creating social order means controlling the probability of events, “so that the proximate world in which we live is subjected to rules, becomes measurable and controllable.” [11]11 Zygmunt Bauman, *Culture as Praxis*, London: Sage Publications, 1999, p. 5. It can be seen that the construction of cultural order is a process of continuously pursuing certainty, but as each social domain is determined, new contradictions and disorder also arise. Humans obtain order through culture; “the logical contradictions of the idea of creating order in turn reflect the real social contradictions constructed through the practice of creating order,” [12]12 Zygmunt Bauman, *Culture as Praxis*, p. 6. which constitutes the inherent contradictory nature of culture. Contradictoriness is inherent to cultural order; in every distinct social domain there exist objects of exclusion, which Bauman understands as the “other” of order. In this sense, culture, as something deep and mechanism-like internal to social order, governs the internal and external behavioral rules of social members and represents a transformation in the fundamental mode of human existence. Through culture, people acquire the capacity to construct social order and autonomously participate in the construction of order. However, while creating order through culture, people inevitably also constrain themselves, because the cognitive mode through which people understand and interpret the world is essentially determined by culture. In other words, humans construct their own social world through culture, but are also bound by the social structures they have created. This ambivalent attitude reflected in the concept of culture stems from the fact that the concept of culture provides humans with a free space for self-determination, yet it is precisely this self-determining freedom that confines people within a limited, comprehensive, and operable mode.

从社会秩序形成的角度来看，文化体现着人类对自然和本能的超越，展现了人的类本质，构成了社会存在的核心。通过文化创造一个人为的生存环境，即构建社会秩序，是人类能够在一个偶然的世界中生存的先决条件。人类不能像动物一样生活在自然预设的秩序中，而是必须建立一种自己特有的社会秩序，建立自己的“第二自然”。在鲍曼看来，秩序作为无序的对立面，代表着对不确定性范围的缩减。创造社会秩序意味着控制事件发生的概率，“以使得我们所生活的邻近的世界服从于规则，变得可以测之，和可以控制”。可见，文化秩序的建构是一个不断追求确定性的过程，但在每一社会领域被确定的同时，也会带来新的矛盾和无序。人类因文化而获得秩序，“创造秩序观念的逻辑矛盾反过来反映了通过创造秩序实践所建构的真正的社会矛盾”，这构成了文化内在的矛盾性。矛盾性是文化秩序所固有的，在每个不同的社会领域中都存在被排斥的对象，鲍曼把它理解为秩序的他者。在这种意义上，文化作为内在于社会秩序的深层的、机理性的东西，左右着社会成员的内在的和外在的行为规则，代表着人的根本生存方式的转变。通过文化，人们获得了构建社会秩序的能力，并自主地参与到秩序的建构中。然而，在通过文化创造秩序的同时，人们也不可避免地限制了自身，这源于人们理解和解释世界的认知方式在本质上是由文化决定的。换句话说，人类通过文化构建了自身的社会世界，同时也被其创造的社会结构所束缚。文化观念反映出的这种矛盾态度，源于文化这一概念为人类提供了一个自决的自由空间，但也恰恰是这种自决的自由将人们限制在一种有限的、全面的和可操作的模式中。

From the perspective of the contradictory nature of culture, culture is a representation of modern society, reflecting and exposing the real contradictory state of modernity. Bauman attempts to incorporate the concept of culture into three independent yet interrelated “discursive worlds,” clarifying the confusion of the term “culture” across different categories by distinguishing its differences in various contexts. However, Bauman gradually realizes that this effort cannot eliminate the contradictory nature contained within cultural discourse. More importantly, he believes that removing the inherent contradictory nature of the cultural concept is not a good thing, because “this contradictory nature faithfully reflects the ambiguity of the historical situation that the concept seeks to grasp and narrate, and it is precisely this that makes the concept a fruitful and enduring cognitive and intellectual tool.” [13]13 Zygmunt Bauman, *Culture as Praxis*, p. 7. It is the contradictory nature of the cultural concept that reflects the contradictory nature of the idea of creating order, enabling it to reveal the universal contradictory state and structural predicament of modern society. Within the composite concept of culture, “modernity itself contains inevitable contradictoriness.” [14]14 Zygmunt Bauman, *Culture as Praxis*, p. 8. The existence of this contradictoriness is based on the conflict between “creativity” and “regulation,” a conflict that modernity cannot avoid in the idea of creating order. “Creativity” and “regulation” can no longer be further separated and are not easily reconciled; their sharp opposition develops in different directions, causing the circumstances of modern human life to exhibit a contradictory form that swings between two poles. The conflict between the two stems from their different value orientations toward human life and social order, manifested as the contradiction between the pursuit of individual freedom and creativity and the constraints of social norms and institutions. Specifically, “creativity” refers to a cultural concept that resists norms and breaks established boundaries, stimulating people’s thinking to transcend social reality, critique the social status quo, and reflect on social problems. In contrast, “regulation” implies a cultural concept of routinization and patterning, which extinguishes human subjective initiative in the process of pursuing modern norms. In essence, “one discourse treats the cultural concept as a realm of free-ranging spiritual activity, as a place for creation, invention, self-criticism, and self-transcendence; the other discourse assumes culture as a tool of routinization and continuity, that is, a handmaiden of social order.” [15]15 Zygmunt Bauman, *Culture as Praxis*, p. 9. Thus, culture is a two-way process of continuous change; it can both creatively challenge established and fixed things and provide pattern maintenance and conflict management for specific social forms, thereby ensuring the orderliness of social life.

从文化的矛盾性视域出发，文化是现代社会的表征，反映并揭露了现代性真实的矛盾状态。鲍曼试图将文化概念纳入三种独立且相互关联的“话语世界”，通过区分文化在不同语境下的差异，澄清“文化”一词在不同范畴间的混淆。但是，鲍曼逐渐意识到，这种努力并不能够去除文化话语中所包含的矛盾性。更重要的是，他认为去除文化观念内在的矛盾性并非一件好事，因为“这种矛盾性如实地反映了该观念所力图把握并叙述的历史状况的模糊性，这一点恰恰使得该观念成为一种富有成效并持久的认知和思想工具”。正是文化观念的矛盾性反映了创造秩序观念的矛盾性，使它能够揭示现代社会普遍存在的矛盾状态和结构化困境。在复合的文化观念中，“现代性本身就包含着必然的矛盾性”。这种矛盾性的存在基于“创造性”与“规约”二者之间的冲突，这种冲突是现代性在创造秩序观念中无法回避的问题。“创造性”与“规约”无法再进一步分离且不易调和，二者的尖锐对立朝着不同的方向发展，致使现代人类生活的境遇呈现出两极摇摆的矛盾形态。两者之间的冲突源于它们对人类生活和社会秩序的不同价值取向，表现为个体自由和创造力的追求与社会规范和制度的限制之间的矛盾。具体而言，“创造性”是指一种抵制规范并破除既定界限的文化观念，它激发着人们具有超越社会现实、批判社会现状及反思社会问题的思维。相比之下，“规约”则意味着例行化和模式化的文化观念，它在追求现代规范的进程中泯灭人的主观能动性。质言之，“一种话语将文化观念作为自由驰骋的精神活动，以及创造、发明、自我批评和自我超越的场所；另一种话语则将文化假定为一种例行化和连续性的工具，即一种社会秩序的婢女”。由此可见，文化是一种双向的持续变化过程，它既能够对已确立的和固定的事物提出创造性的挑战，又能为特定的社会形态提供模式维持和冲突管理，以保障社会生活的有序性。

In summary, Bauman’s exploration of the inherent contradictory nature of culture aims to break the common-sense barriers of modern human thinking and stimulate critical, transcendent, and creative thinking. The very foundation of being human lies precisely in human cultural creation. As a cultural being, humans not only construct their own social world but are also constrained by social structures. Therefore, culture, as the self-consciousness of modern society, presents “creativity” and “regulation” as two indispensable aspects of the human condition. Or, more precisely, culture is both about following norms and about transcending norms; it is both a tool of order and a driver of disorder. The core contradiction of the “culture” concept reflects the contradictory nature of the idea of creating order, and order is the pivot of modern development. In Bauman’s view, the essence of the crisis of modern society stems precisely from the adverse reaction of modernity’s pursuit of order; it can only be dissolved in culture as practice, because both the image of order and creative practice are endowed by culture.

总之，鲍曼探究文化内在的矛盾性，旨在打破现代人类思维的常识性障碍，激发批判性、超越性和创造性思维。人之为人的基础，恰恰在于人的文化创造。人作为一种文化的存在，不仅构建了自身的社会世界，同时也受到社会结构的制约。因此，文化作为现代社会的自我意识，呈现的“创造性”和“规约”是人类生存境遇不可或缺的两个方面。或者，更确切地说，文化既是关于遵循规范的，又是关于超越规范的；既是秩序的工具，又是失序的动因。“文化”概念的核心矛盾反映了创造秩序理念的矛盾性，而秩序是现代性发展的枢纽。在鲍曼看来，现代社会危机的实质恰恰源于现代性对秩序的追求之逆动，只有在作为实践的文化中才有消解的可能性，源于秩序的意象以及创造性的实践都是文化赋予的。

III. Cultural Practice and the Dissolution of the Crisis of Modernity

三、文化实践与现代性危机的消解

After analyzing the asymmetry and contradictory state involved in modern society, Bauman shifts his research perspective to cultural practice, i.e., culture as practice. In the field of modernity, the functionalist concept of “culture” is widely applied, treating culture as a tool for regulating and constraining individual behavior. Therefore, Bauman condemns the concept of culture appropriated and used by the social sciences, on the grounds that it has been improperly reduced to covering only the predictable, routinized, and institutionalized instrumental aspects of human behavior. This modern culture is an adaptation to a rigid, unchangeable reality; only by adapting does it become useful. In Bauman’s view, however, culture should be a creative practice that transcends modern norms: “Culture is presented not in its existing form, but in the form it ought to have, in the form of certain ideal standards, that is, in the results of its own ‘task,’ not in its ‘reality’ results.” [16]16 Zygmunt Bauman, *Culture as Praxis*, p. 10. In this sense, culture is no longer an abstract concept but a concrete practice. This practice provides culture with concrete and feasible ways and means, transforming it from a passive yardstick into an active force for change. It is precisely the creativity and innovativeness of cultural practice that make it an effective way to dissolve the crisis of modernity. Bauman points out that the predicament faced by modern society cannot be resolved merely through reflection on and reconciliation with reality; rather, creative cultural practice is needed to drive social change. The essence of cultural practice lies in the dissolution of the crisis of modernity, and this dissolution depends on whether modern individuals can liberate themselves from the determinism of structure and norms.

鲍曼在分析完现代社会所关涉的不对称性和矛盾性状态后，将研究视角转向了文化实践，即作为实践的文化。在现代性领域，“文化”的功能主义概念被广泛应用，这种概念将文化视为一种规范和制约个体行为的工具。因此，鲍曼谴责社会科学挪用和使用的文化概念，理由是它已经不适当地削减到只涵盖人类行为的可预测、常规化和制度工具方面。这种现代文化是对僵化的、不可改变的现实的一种适应，只有适应了，它才变得有用。而在鲍曼看来，文化应是一种超越现代规范的创造性实践，“文化不是以现有的形式，而是以应有的、某些理想的标准的形式而呈现的，也就是说在自身的‘任务’结果，而非‘现实’结果中”。在这种意义上，文化不再是一种抽象的概念，而是一种具体的实践。这种实践为文化提供了具体可行的方式和途径，并将其从被动的衡量标准转变为积极的变革力量。正是文化实践的创造性和革新性，使之成为消解现代性危机的有效途径。鲍曼指出，现代社会所面临的困境无法仅仅通过对现实的反思和调和来解决，而是需要有创造性的文化实践来推动社会变革。文化实践的实质是对现代性危机的消解，这种消解在于现代个体能否从结构和规范的决定论中解放出来。

On this basis, Bauman conducts an in-depth exploration and analysis of culture as “structure” and culture as “practice.” “Culture as structure” is a traditional structural-functionalist view, namely that culture consists of an ordered, patterned system of symbols. Under this conception of culture, the main purpose of culture is to maintain the status quo and avoid the disruption or anomie of the social structure. In contrast to this view, Bauman, drawing on the perspectives of Marx, Georg Simmel, and Gramsci among others, regards “culture as practice” as an active practical activity that participates in structuring activities, capable of creating and reshaping the life-world of modern human beings. In this practice, “there emerges a proposition important for Marx, namely the transition from the ‘realm of necessity’ to the ‘realm of freedom,’ which is directly related to his understanding of culture.” [17]17 This refers to the Marxist concept of the transition from the “realm of necessity” (where labor is compelled by material survival) to the “realm of freedom” (where human creative potential is fully realized under communism), as discussed in Marx’s *Capital*, Volume 3. It is precisely on the basis of this understanding and emphasis on culture that Bauman explicitly takes the position of “culture as practice” in opposition to the conception of “culture as structure.” The former elucidates the creativity and criticality of culture, while the latter removes from culture human subjectivity and the possibility of change. Therefore, in the face of modern humanity’s existential predicament and the crisis of modernity, Bauman focuses on cultural practice as a mechanism for generating social change, a mechanism that gives due weight to human agency.

在此基础上，鲍曼对作为“结构”的文化和作为“实践”的文化进行了深入的探讨和分析。“作为结构的文化”是一种传统的结构功能主义观点，即文化由一个有序的、模式化的符号系统组成。在这种文化观念下，文化的主要目的是维持现状，避免社会结构的破坏或失范。与此观念相反，鲍曼在借鉴马克思、格奥尔格·齐美尔和葛兰西等人观点的基础上，将“作为实践的文化”视为参与到结构化活动中的一种积极的实践活动，可以创造和重塑现代人类的生活世界。在这种实践中，“出现了对马克思而言重要的命题，即从‘必然王国’向‘自由王国’的过渡，这和他对文化的理解直接相关”。正是基于对文化的理解与强调，鲍曼明确地站在“作为实践的文化”的立场反对“作为结构的文化”观念，前者阐明了文化的创造性和批判性，后者则从文化中剔除了人的主体性和变革的可能性。因此，面对现代人类的生存困境和现代性危机，鲍曼关注的是文化实践作为一种产生社会变革的机制，这种机制将给予人的能动性以应有的重视。

First, structured cultural practice. Structuration is the term Bauman uses to summarize cultural practice; it is understood as the space humans construct for innovation on the basis of infinite possibilities, an understanding that fully accords with the foundation for awakening human critical thinking. The characteristic of human life is a world-constructing practice: “continuous and unceasing structuring activity constitutes the core of human practice, that is, the mode of human existence in the world.” Bauman strongly opposes regarding “society” or “culture” as a fixed structural system, and advocates stimulating humans’ inherent capacity to question the status quo and seek alternatives to it through structured cultural practice. In 2016, in the afterword he wrote for *Sketches in the Theory of Culture*, Bauman reviewed the inspiration he drew from structuralism: “I regarded Lévi-Strauss’s work as—in grasping culture and studying culture—a path from utopia to practice, more specifically, from ‘structure’ to ‘structuration.’ From then on, the compulsive impulse of structuration in the mode of human existence in the world seemed to be the mode of existence of a cultural phenomenon—and this quality did not keep culture constant, or make it a force for consolidating the ‘system,’ but quite the opposite: it was a tool that constantly, persistently, and irreversibly vitalized the human condition.” It is precisely because Claude Lévi-Strauss regarded structuration as a practical activity that Bauman was able to transform the concept of structure from a weapon of identity into a tool of diversity; from a protective shield of stability into an engine of ceaseless change. Cultural practice as structuration means that theoretical reflection on culture should be consistent with the nature of culture, which is “a permanent revolution,” a never-ending structuring activity, or a revolt against any attempt to permanently maintain the order of social reality. In other words, “culture, which has the same meaning as specific human existence, is a brave assault undertaken to win freedom from necessity and to create freedom.” Culture as a structuring practical activity represents the tension or struggle between freedom and necessity, between creation and regulation. This tension highlights two aspects of human cultural practice: on the one hand, modernity’s pursuit of order leads to the obliteration and suppression of human subjectivity, which is precisely the essence of the crisis of modernity; on the other hand, culture as a creative structuring activity emphasizes the positive role of modern humans in shaping reality.

第一，结构化的文化实践。结构化是鲍曼用来概括文化实践的术语，它被理解为人类在无限多可能性的基础上构建创新的空间，这种理解完全符合作为唤醒人类批判性思维的基础。人类生活的特点是一种构建世界的实践：“持续而无止境的结构活动构成了人类实践的核心，即人类在世间存在的方式。”鲍曼强烈反对将“社会”或“文化”视为一种固定的结构体系，主张通过结构化的文化实践来激发人类质疑现状和寻求替代现状的内在能力。2016年，鲍曼在为《文化理论概论》（Sketches in the Theory of Culture）一书撰写的后记中，回顾了他从结构主义中获得的灵感：“我把列维-斯特劳斯的工作视为——在把握文化和研究文化方面——一条从乌托邦到实践的道路，更具体地说，是从‘结构’到‘结构化’的道路。从那时起，人类在世界中存在方式的结构化的强迫性冲动似乎是一种文化现象的存在方式——而这种品质并没有使文化保持恒定，或者成为一种巩固‘系统’的力量，但恰恰相反：它是一种不断地、坚持地、不可逆转地使人类境况充满活力的工具。”正是因为克洛德·列维-斯特劳斯把结构化视为一种实践活动，鲍曼才得以将结构的观念从作为同一性的武器转变为多样性的工具；从作为稳定性的保护盾变为无休止变化的引擎。作为结构化的文化实践意味着，与文化相关的理论反思应与文化的本质相一致，这种性质是“一场永久性的革命”，一种永不停息的结构化活动，或者是对任何永久维持社会现实秩序的试图的反抗。换句话说，“与特定的人类存在具有相同意义的文化是为了从必然性中获得自由和创造自由而进行的一次勇敢的冲击”。文化作为一种结构化的实践活动，它代表了自由与必然、创造与规约之间的张力或斗争。这种张力凸显了人类文化实践的两个方面：一方面，现代性对秩序的追求导致了人类主体性的湮没和压制，这正是现代性危机产生的实质；另一方面，文化作为一种创造性的结构化活动，强调现代人类在塑造现实中的积极作用。

Culture is a continuous creative process, or a constantly changing structuring force, but it is by no means “serving the self-reproduction of social order by eliminating humans’ inner diversity and the spontaneity of their self-creation.” From the practical dimension, Bauman understands structured cultural practice as a positively creative state of existence, “a continuous, essentially aimless process of change that affects all structures, especially those rigid, coercive structures—rather than contributing to the generation and survival of these structures.” Culture as a structuring practical capacity originates from endless choice and innovation; it represents a discourse of change, self-criticism, and self-transcendence. It can be seen that the structured cultural practice advocated by Bauman is “the idea of innovation, the idea of actively assimilating the cosmos, and the idea of imposing an ordered structure of intelligent human action on a chaotic world—these ideas are permanently embedded in the idea of practice—and are truly intelligible only when regarded as an attribute of the community, a capacity to transcend natural or ‘naturalized’ orders and to create new and different orders.” The social reality created by structured cultural practice is a changeable, dynamic form, because it no longer refers to a structure that imposes boundaries, but is regarded as a key factor for human individuals to transcend boundaries. In other words, this practice symbolizes a structure infinitely open to the future, the life-source of the continuous creativity of human practical activity and the basis of social change, rather than being based on monotonous replication and reproduction. Therefore, Bauman believes that when cultural practice as structuration is grasped, culture can provide a feasible plan for the resolution of the crises of modern society.

文化是一种持续的创造性过程，抑或是一种不断变化的结构力量，但绝不是“通过消除人的内在多样性及自我创造之自发性，来服务于社会秩序的自我再生产”。鲍曼从实践维度将结构化的文化实践理解为一种积极创造的生存状态，“一种持续的、本质上无目标的变化过程，它影响了所有结构，尤其影响了那些牢固的、强制性的结构——而不是有助于这些结构的产生及其生存”。文化作为一种结构化的实践能力源于无尽的选择和创新，它代表了一种变革、自我批判和自我超越的话语。可见，鲍曼所主张的结构化的文化实践是“创新的观念，积极同化宇宙的观念以及对混乱的世界强加人类智能行动的有秩序结构的观念——这些观念被永久地嵌入实践观念之中——只有被看做是共同体的属性、能够超越自然或‘自然化’秩序以及创造新的不同秩序的能力时才确实是可理解的”。结构化的文化实践所创造的社会现实是一种多变的、动态的形式，因为它不再是指一种强加边界的结构，而是被视为人类个体超越边界的关键因素。换句话说，这种实践象征着一种面向未来无限开放的结构，是人类实践活动持续创造力的生命之源和社会变革的基础，而非基于单调的复制和再生产。因此，鲍曼认为，当作为结构化的文化实践被掌握时，文化可以为现代社会危机的消解提供一种可行性方案。

Second, utopian cultural practice. In his critique of the positivist/functionalist concept of culture, Bauman points to the potential of culture as a utopian practice. Since positivism “is based on the historical temporary suppression of the creativity of the subject that has been removed from control, and also on the reduction of creativity to a purely technical basis as a result of this suppression,” Bauman therefore emphasizes the transcendence of existing reality and the creative role of the individual in the transformation of cultural reality—that is, he attempts to use utopian cultural practice as a critique of the modern human condition and of the world that humans unreflectively take for granted. In the book *Socialism: The Active Utopia*, Bauman treats socialism as a utopian practical conception, comprehensively elaborating the various forms in which utopia persists, and attempting to show that utopia is a force that actively shapes the human life-world, particularly by providing a cultural orientation opposed to capitalist exploitation, alienation, and inequality. Utopianism is not an empty idealism but an active, critical, and tradition-breaking practice, whose aim is to explore future possibilities from within a fixed, rigid, and necessity-bound society. This means that utopianism is a challenge to and transcendence of social reality; it awakens people’s reflection on reality and inspires their longing for the future. Therefore, Bauman believes that “only by giving due attention to the enormous role of utopia can social life be truly understood. To paraphrase Santayana, utopia, together with culture as a whole, possesses a quality: it is a blade thrust into the future.” In essence, utopia is a positive existence, because it constantly and uncompromisingly aims to critique the modern human condition and to provide a possible blueprint for humanity’s longing for a better future. It is precisely this utopian mentality of Bauman’s—emphasizing possibility and potential in cultural practice, rather than naturalness and necessity—that makes it possible to dissolve the crisis problems of existing society and to free humanity from its shackles. Thus, utopian cultural practice has a dual significance: on the one hand, it is a creative practical activity that inspires modern humans to think about how to create a social form fundamentally different from the current one; on the other hand, it is committed to restoring the critical and transcendent thinking of modern humans from modern norms, and to exploring the possibility of constructing a future world.

第二，乌托邦式的文化实践。鲍曼在对实证主义/功能主义文化概念的批判中，指出了文化作为一种乌托邦式的实践的潜力。由于实证主义“是以历史上对从控制中转移出来的主体的创造性的临时压制为基础的,也是以将创造性还原为这种压制结果的纯粹技术性为基础的”，因此，鲍曼强调对现有现实的超越和个人在文化现实转型中的创造性作用，即试图通过乌托邦式的文化实践作为对现代人类生存境遇和人类不加反思地认为理所当然的世界的一种批判。在《社会主义：积极的乌托邦》（Socialism: The Active Utopia）一书中，鲍曼将社会主义视为一种乌托邦式的实践构想，全面阐述了乌托邦持续存在的各种形式，并试图说明乌托邦是一种积极塑造人类生活世界的力量，特别是提供了一种反对资本主义剥削、异化和不平等的文化指向。乌托邦主义并非是一种空洞的理想主义，而是一种积极的、批判的和打破传统的实践，其目的在于从固定的、僵化的和必然性的社会中探寻未来的可能性。这意味着乌托邦主义是对社会现实的挑战与超越，它唤醒人们对现实的反思，并激发人们对未来的憧憬。因此，鲍曼认为，“只有对乌托邦的巨大作用给予应有的关注，才能真正理解社会生活。套用桑塔亚那（Santayana）的解释，乌托邦与文化的整体具有一种特质，那就是一把刺向未来的利刃”。从本质上说，乌托邦是一种积极的存在，因为它不断地、毫不妥协地旨在批判现代人类的生存境遇，为人类憧憬美好的未来提供一种可能性的规划。正是鲍曼的这种乌托邦心态——在文化实践中强调可能性和潜能，而非自然性和必然性，使得消解现存社会危机问题和使人类摆脱束缚成为可能。因此，乌托邦式的文化实践具有双重意义：一方面，它是一种创造性的实践活动，激发现代人类思考如何创造一种与当前社会有着根本区别的社会形态；另一方面，它致力于从现代规范中恢复现代人类的批判性和超越性思维，并探索构建未来世界的可能性。

In Bauman’s view, “culture is the enemy of alienation,” and utopian cultural practice is an imaginative conception that highlights the possibility of overcoming alienation. As Dariusz Brzeziński points out, “Bauman focuses on current and future risks and threats, and encourages people to create and implement new, alternative solutions. In other words, utopian thought permeates his view of culture as a ‘permanent revolution.’” In this sense, Bauman summarizes three dimensions of utopian cultural practice, namely, as a comprehensive revolt against alienation, historical necessity, and naturalized reality. First, utopia exists in relation to the present; “by exposing the one-sidedness of current reality, by examining the field of possibilities that occupies only a small part of reality, utopia paves the way for critical attitudes and critical activities, and only in this way can the plight of human beings in modern society be changed.” Therefore, utopian cultural practice serves as a catalyst for social change and creativity, and can be regarded as a necessary condition for historical transformation—that is, it provides alternative solutions to the worsening conditions of modern society. Second, utopia is driven by hope; it evokes humanity’s future-oriented possibilities. The meaning of hope lies in that it allows the creation of new life forms and the development of inner potential, so that everything that is fundamentally different from the modern social order and historical necessity will be regarded as carrying unrealized utopian potential. Finally, utopian cultural practice is a creative transcendence of reality and a guide to action oriented toward the future. By exposing and presenting alienated social structures, it provides a future-world imaginary picture for the human condition. These three dimensions are interrelated; they constitute the core of utopian cultural practice and represent humanity’s inner attitude toward shaping and improving the world. But it must be pointed out that utopian cultural practice cannot be understood as a concrete society to be realized; after all, Bauman does not provide a detailed description of this future. If Bauman were to give a specific utopia in advance, that would be equivalent to turning the future into a transcendental object, thereby denying the possibility and potential of humans to create the world through cultural practice. In short, Bauman’s utopian thought is critical and humanistic, and “symbolizes a praxis of possibility, which critically seeks to open up the world, in order to resist the rigidity of reality caused by universal cognition, alienation, and barbaric violence.”

在鲍曼看来，“文化是异化的敌人”，而乌托邦式的文化实践是一种富有想象力的构想，它凸显了克服异化的可能性。正如达留什·布热津斯基所指出的那样，“鲍曼关注当前和未来的风险和威胁，并鼓励人们创造和实施新的、可替代的解决方案。换句话说，乌托邦思想渗透在他将文化视为‘永久革命’的观点中”。在这个意义上，鲍曼总结了乌托邦式的文化实践的三个维度，即作为对异化、历史必然性和自然化现实的全面反抗。首先，乌托邦相对于现在而存在，“通过揭露当前现实的片面性，通过审视现实中仅占据一小部分的可能性领域，乌托邦为批判态度和批判活动铺平了道路，只有这样才能改变人类在现代社会中的困境”。因此，乌托邦式的文化实践是作为社会变革和创造力的催化剂，可以被视为历史变革的必要条件，即为现代社会的日益恶化提供可替代的解决方案。其次，乌托邦是由希望推动的，它唤起了人类面向未来的可能性。希望的意义在于它允许创造新的生命形式和发展内在的潜能，从而与现代社会秩序和历史必然性截然不同的一切，都将被视为带有未实现的乌托邦潜力。最后，乌托邦式的文化实践是对现实的创造性超越，是面向未来的行动指南。它通过揭露并呈现异化的社会结构，为人类的生存境遇提供一个未来世界的想象图景。以上三个维度是相互关联的，它们构成了乌托邦式的文化实践的核心，代表了人类塑造和改善世界的内在态度。但需要指出的是，乌托邦式的文化实践不能被理解为一种有待实现的具体社会，毕竟鲍曼并未对这个未来提供一个详细的描述。如果鲍曼预先给出一个具体的乌托邦，那就相当于将未来变成了一个先验的对象，从而否认了人类通过文化实践创造世界的可能性和潜力。质言之，鲍曼的乌托邦思想是批判的、人道主义的，并且“象征着一种可能性的实践（praxis of possibility），它批判性地寻求开放的世界，以抵制由普遍认知、异化和野蛮暴力所造成的现实僵化”。

Undoubtedly, in the process of dissolving the crisis of modernity, Bauman emphasizes culture as a creative practical activity. Its significance lies not only in the critique of the modern order-building project, but also in its concern for the existential condition of modern individuals, aiming to provide a new humanistic path of transcendence for freeing humanity from its shackles. It can be said that Bauman’s exploration of cultural practice is always anthropological, and indeed Marxist anthropological. Bauman’s research maintains the dual focus of Marxism on anthropology: on the one hand, in the field of cultural anthropology, he is concerned with how humans express and realize themselves through cultural practice, especially the creation and destruction in the process of modernity; on the other hand, in the field of philosophical anthropology, he seeks to reflect on human capacities, character, autonomy, and dependence. It is precisely on this basis that Bauman embeds the dissolution of the crisis of modern society in the view that cultural practice is a continuous social change, using a creative structuring activity and a utopian ideal vision to restore the subjectivity and creativity of modern humans. But it is worth noting that Bauman’s utopian cultural practice has certain limitations. Utopia is always located in the “not yet” reached future; it cannot provide a specific panacea for solving the crisis of modern society, but only serves as a beautiful vision and spiritual belief, granting legitimacy to “possibility” in effective practice. If the utopian vision is positivized, empiricized, and concretized, and put into practice according to a specific social plan or model, the result will be very dangerous. Thus, while exploring plans to overcome and dissolve the crisis of modernity, Bauman also tries to awaken the utopian spirit deep within people’s hearts and the transcendent power of cultural practice, inspiring modern people to comprehend, pursue, and shape a “self-determined freedom.”

毋庸置疑，在消解现代性危机的过程中，鲍曼强调文化作为一种创造性的实践活动，其意义不仅在于对现代秩序工程的批判，更是对现代人类个体生存境遇的关注，旨在为人类摆脱束缚提供一种新的人道主义超越路径。可以说，鲍曼对文化实践的探索始终是人类学的，而且是马克思主义人类学的。鲍曼的研究保持了马克思主义对人类学的双重关注：一方面，在文化人类学领域，他关注人类如何通过文化实践来表达和实现自身，尤其是在现代性进程中的创造与破坏；另一方面，在哲学人类学领域，他寻求对人类的能力、性格、自主性和依赖性的反思。正是基于这一点，鲍曼将现代社会危机的消解渗透在文化实践是一种持续的社会变革的观点中，以一种创造性的结构化活动和乌托邦式的理想愿景，恢复现代人类的主体性和创造性。但值得注意的是，鲍曼的乌托邦式的文化实践是具有一定局限性的。乌托邦总是处在“尚未”到达的前方，不可能提供解决现代社会危机的具体灵丹秘方，而仅是作为一种美好的愿景和精神信仰，赋予有效实践中的“可能性”以合法地位。如果将乌托邦的愿景实证化、经验化、具体化，依据特定的社会规划或模式付诸实践，其结果将是十分危险的。由此可见，鲍曼在探索克服和消解现代性危机方案的同时，也力图通过唤醒人们内心深处的乌托邦精神和文化实践所具有的超越性力量，激发现代人领悟追寻并塑造生成一种“自决的自由”。

(About the authors: Zhou Laishun, Gao Yan, School of Philosophy and Research Center for Russian Language, Literature and Culture, Heilongjiang University)

（作者简介：周来顺、高岩，黑龙江大学哲学学院暨俄罗斯语言文学与文化研究中心）

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund Key Project “Research on Frontier Issues of Contemporary Russian Marxist Philosophy” and the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Project “Research on the ‘Innovative Marxist School’ in Contemporary Russia.”)

（本文系国家社会科学基金重点项目“当代俄罗斯马克思主义哲学前沿问题研究”、教育部人文社会科学青年项目“当代俄罗斯‘创新的马克思主义学派’研究”的阶段性成果）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心