This paper argues that Scott Lash's and Anthony Giddens's different views on reflexivity are based not on their views of aesthetic reflexivity but on their approach to tradition and communities. By following their discussions in Reflexive Modernization (1994), we immediately find it is difficult to bridge the gap between Lash and Giddens. We tend to think their opposition is whether reflexivity is aesthetic or not : Lash claims aesthetic reflexivity exists while Giddens holds the opposite view. At a first glance it seems Lash is only discussing about aesthetic reflexivity more than anything. In my view, however, Lash and Giddens have different views on tradition. In reflexive modernity or high modernity, Giddens introduces a dualism of tradition and modernity. Furthermore, he assumes actors and institutions becomes detraditionalized because they are "dis-embedded." As a result, modernization destroys tradition. On the other hand, Lash demands a retrieval of tradition and communities because he thinks tradition and communities are conditions of reflexivity. Lash's discussion on the concept of aesthetic reflexivity aims at 'anti-individualization', that is, the restoration of communities and tradition. We are able to distinguish between aesthetic reflexivity as deconstruction and as anti-individualization. In this paper, aesthetic reflexivity as anti-individualization is examined and how Lash's interests lie on tradition and communities is revealed.

論文