论文部分内容阅读
本文借助布迪厄的场域理论,首先分析了爱默生所处话语场域的生态,主张他未在当时任何主要话语集团充当代言人的角色;其次,从爱默生的社会位置、惯习、资本的结构和数量入手,探讨了他未成为主流话语代言人的缘由。在此基础上,论文通过解析爱默生在话语实践中对各种资本的占有情况,进一步证明其超验主义在那个时代并不居于主流地位,而是一种边缘话语。这一发现对较为流行的、认为爱默生对其所处时代的社会文化生活施加了重大影响的观点提出了质疑,有助于深入理解当时的话语生态,客观评述爱默生的历史地位,同时,也为文化批评探索了一种新的视角。
Based on the field theory of Bourdieu, this thesis firstly analyzes the ecology of discourse field in which Emerson is located, and advocates that he did not play a role of spokesperson at any major discourse group at that time. Secondly, from the social position of Emerson, , The structure and quantity of capital, explores the reason why he has not become the spokesman of the mainstream discourse. On this basis, by analyzing Emerson’s occupancy of various kinds of capital in discourse practice, the thesis further proves that its transcendentalism did not occupy the mainstream status in that era, but a kind of marginal discourse. This finding casts doubt on the more popular view that Emerson had a significant influence on the social and cultural life of the time in which it is located, helps to understand the discourse ecology at the time, objectively reviews Emerson’s historical position, At the same time, it also explores a new perspective for cultural criticism.