【作者简介】田启慧，中国社会科学院大学

【文章来源】《社会学评论》2026年第3期

【内容提要】弗洛伊德与埃利亚斯对文明的理解皆指向人类心灵结构与社会结构的历史进程，但论述基调却迥然不同：前者认为文明是爱欲与死欲永恒斗争之下人类的生存必然，而后者则将其视为人类相互依存的历史生成。此一分野的关键在于：弗洛伊德以压抑对外部强制的否定为文明基点，人类朝向更大共同体的内在动力正源于此；而埃利亚斯则从社会权力关系出发，将压抑与其所受限制的相互构造纳入文明进程。换言之，“生存抗争”与“相互依存”实为对人类基本生存境况的两种理解：人类永远挣扎于桎梏与挫折中，文明是对痛苦的补偿；或人与世界始终相互塑造，对抗或和谐皆为其表现。面对二战的阴云，正是这种差异令弗洛伊德深陷于现实漩涡，却让埃利亚斯免于绝望之苦。

【关键词】文明进程 / 生命驱力 / 死亡驱力 / 相互依存

【全文链接】https://src.ruc.edu.cn/CN/Y2026/V14/I3/210

Struggle for Life and Interdependence： A Comparison of Views on Civilization between Freud and Elias

Abstract: Both Sigmund Freud and Elias understand “civilization” as a historical process deeply bound up with the historical formation of human psychological structures and social structures,yet their theoretical tones are markedly different: the former views the civilizing process as an existential inevitability stemming from the eternal struggle between Eros and Thanatos,while the latter regards it as the historical generation of human interdependence. The crux of this divergence is this: Freud takes the movement of repression in negating external coercion as the basis of civilization,from which the internal drive of humans toward larger communities originates; Elias,however,proceeds from social power relations,incorporating the mutually constitutive relationship between repression and its constraints into the civilizing process itself. In other words,the so-called “struggle for life” and “interdependence” actually represent two different understandings of the fundamental human condition：one holds that humans are forever struggling against fetters and frustrations,with civilization serving as a compensation for this suffering; the other believes that humans and the world are in a constant state of mutual shaping,where conflict and harmony are merely different manifestations of this dialectic. Confronted with the specter of World War II,it was precisely this difference that led Freud to plunge into the maelstrom of reality,while it saved Elias from the pain of despair.