博士题目：技术竞争的演化机制分析
答辩人：陈石磊
指导老师：王伯鲁
答辩时间：2024年5月25日
绪论
0.1选题背景与意义
0.1.1选题背景
0.1.2选题意义
0.2文献综述
0.2.1马克思主义研究进路
0.2.2哲学研究进路
0.2.3军事学-政治学研究进路
0.2.4经济学-管理学研究进路
0.2.5研究现状与评述
0.3研究内容与方法
0.3.1研究内容
0.3.2研究方法
0.3.3可能的创新点
第一章 技术竞争的概念与特征
1.1技术的概念与系统性特征
1.1.1技术概念的界定
1.1.2技术是包含主体的系统
1.1.3技术是具有层级结构的系统
1.2技术竞争概念与内涵解析
1.2.1技术竞争概念界定
1.2.2技术竞争概念的内涵
1.3技术竞争的系统性特征
1.3.1技术竞争中的排他性
1.3.2竞争发生在技术系统的所有层级
1.3.3稀缺性是技术竞争的支柱
1.4技术竞争的多样性特征
1.4.1多样性特征被忽视的缘由
1.4.2技术竞争与物种竞争之比较
1.4.3多样性特征的冲击与影响
第二章 技术竞争的习得与脱钩机制
2.1习得机制
2.1.1系统封闭性
2.1.2利益倍增机制
2.1.3习得机制中竞争主体的利益损失
2.2脱钩机制
2.2.1技术范式脱钩与转换机制
2.2.2技术系统脱钩
2.2.3脱钩机制的演变
2.2.4技术范式共同体脱钩
第三章 技术竞争优势建构机制分析
3.1激发主观能动性机制
3.1.1弱势阶段的主观能动性
3.1.2强势阶段的主观能动性
3.2危机倒逼机制
3.3多样性保障与包容机制
3.3.1弱势主体保障与包容机制
3.3.2异质技术范式保障与包容机制
3.3.3边缘技术范式保障与包容机制
3.4分布式决策机制
3.4.1技术决策的分布式特征溯源
3.4.2分布式决策的两个原则
第四章 技术范式与技术霸权的转换机制分析
4.1技术范式转换形成技术霸权机制
4.1.1技术范式的正确性
4.1.2技术范式扩张正当性的丧失机制
4.1.3技术霸权形成的主要因素
4.2技术范式扩张对多样性的影响
4.2.1正当的范式扩张是对多样性的促进与包容
4.2.2技术霸权是对多样性的抑制与损害
4.3技术霸权的消解机制
4.3.1技术恐怖主义对技术霸权的消解
4.3.2技术范式单一化对技术霸权的消解
结论
参考文献
致谢
附录
在读期间发表论文目录
摘 要
技术已成为现时代最重要的议题之一。然而，关于技术的诸多问题似乎仍处于迷雾之中。在中国古代，技术曾长期被士大夫阶层轻视，精通技术的手工业者在政治上处于边缘地位；西方学术传统也缺乏对技术的深入考察。随着技术因素在国家战略竞争、经济竞争乃至个体竞争中作用的凸显，技术问题已演变为生活世界的中心问题。因此，技术竞争问题的专门研究与探索具有重要现实与理论意义。
技术竞争的相关研究已十分丰富。然而，关于技术竞争的概念问题，目前大部分研究都避而不谈。之所以如此，一个可能的原因是学界关于技术概念的界定众说纷纭、纷繁复杂，这导致技术竞争的概念难以界定。有鉴于此，梳理技术概念的界定，进而尝试对技术竞争的概念进行界定具有重要理论价值。在此过程中，技术竞争的诸多特征得以逐步呈现。由于技术具备系统性特征，导致技术竞争也具备了系统性特征。按照布莱恩·阿瑟的技术组合理论，身体本能为所有技术提供了组成成分。由此可见，技术是包含着主体，具有层级结构的系统。技术竞争是系统之争，发生在系统的所有层面。相较于物种生存竞争，多样性是技术竞争的重要特征之一，导致人类失去了达尔文所揭示的进化机制，并且显著提高了人类的社会化程度。
技术竞争概念与特征的分析表明，习得机制是技术竞争的重要基础。另外，与之对应的脱钩机制也具有理论探讨的价值。相较于物种生存竞争，由于技术竞争存在习得机制，导致传统竞争理论的利益有限性前提被一定程度消解，从而人类之间不是必然需要展开残酷的生存竞争。技术竞争中，主体既可以习得技术，也可以选择与技术脱钩。这造成参与竞争的系统不是凝滞与封闭的，而是开放的、动态的，相互竞争的对手可能融于同一技术系统或范式。另外，当利益受损时，主体也可能选择技术脱钩保障自身权利。技术脱钩包含三种类型，分别是技术范式脱钩、技术系统脱钩以及技术范式共同体脱钩。技术脱钩虽然能够避免主体利益受损，但会破坏技术之间的组合关系，同时也破坏了人与技术、人与人之间的耦合关系，从而导致利益总量的大幅萎缩。技术范式脱钩虽可能促进新技术范式的诞生，从而赋予主体竞争优势，但往往需要紧迫的危机才能促成。
相较于物种生存竞争，技术竞争存在诸多特征，例如，在自然界中，对于强势主体而言，淘汰弱势主体是有利的，但在技术竞争中却是有害的。另外，主体需通过后天努力才能习得技术，进而参与竞争。而自然界中的动植物只能通过基因遗传的本能展开竞争。通过对差异的梳理，四种技术竞争优势建构机制得以呈现，分别是激发主观能动性机制、危机倒逼机制、多样性保障与包容机制、分布式决策机制。首先，第一种机制的讨论从两个方面展开，一是讨论了在弱势阶段的主观能动性，二是讨论了在强势阶段的主观能动性。在技术竞争中，主体在竭尽所能建构优势的过程中，将不可避免面对困境。第二，危机倒逼机制的探讨强调了危机意识与危机感的重要性。个体技术化与技术范式转换的研究表明，只有在面临危机时，人类才具备放弃旧技术，选择新技术的意愿与动力。因此，维持危机意识与危机感对于技术竞争优势建构至关重要。第三，多样性保障与包容机制的分析包含三个方面，分别涉及保障与包容弱势主体、异质技术范式与边缘技术范式的讨论。最后，分布式决策机制的分析涉及了技术决策多样性、保障专家决策权、学者从政、政治权力是否适合主导技术创新等内容。正是技术竞争的多样性特征，导致了技术决策的分布式特征，从而分布式决策是技术竞争优势建构的重要机制。
对已具备竞争优势，脱颖而出获得胜利的技术范式展开分析也具有理论价值。在利益的驱动下，技术范式具备无限扩张的倾向。事实上，技术霸权是由技术范式转换形成的。技术范式在扩张的过程中，存在是否具备正当性的问题。当扩张具备正当性时，技术范式扩张能使所有主体受益，而当正当性丧失时，技术范式则转换为技术霸权，使竞争主体利益受损，从而威胁其生存权与发展权。由此技术霸权必然受到激烈的反对与抵制。这可能引发技术恐怖主义的诞生。进一步分析，技术范式无限制地扩张形成技术霸权，将导致其他技术范式被吞噬，从而使技术范式趋向单一化与极化，最终被自身反噬。事实上，多样性是判断技术范式扩张是否具备正当性的重要指标。倘若扩张有助于技术范式多样性程度的提高，则具备正当性，当扩张抑制技术范式多样性，则正当性丧失。即使在获取更多资源与利益支撑的情况下，由于技术优势的丧失，技术霸权也将趋于衰落。
由于关于技术竞争的研究散布于多个学科，采用跨学科的方法不可避免。不同学者的理论提供了研究框架。例如托马斯·库恩的“范式”理论、斯蒂格勒的“耦合”思想以及布莱恩·阿瑟的“组合”理论均具有重要借鉴价值。多样性是技术竞争研究中的关键。按照组合理论，由于新技术是由已有技术组合形成，技术多样性程度越高，新技术诞生的概率就越大，而新技术往往赋予竞争主体巨大优势。技术霸权正是由于抑制了多样性，导致竞争优势的丧失。由此可见，人口规模与数量优势仍具有重要价值，即对技术范式多样性的支撑。
可能的创新点主要包括：一是推进了技术意向性的研究，认识到技术在竞争中具备趋利避害的意向性。该创新点基于技术的概念与特征的分析，具有较强的理论支撑；二是关注到了多样性的重要意义，有条理地剖析了技术竞争的多样性特征对人类的影响与冲击，为技术竞争的研究提供了重要的切入点；三是通过习得机制的分析，较成功地消解了传统竞争理论中的利益有限性前提，从而为大国竞争规避马尔萨斯陷阱与修昔底德陷阱提供了理论图景；四是归纳的四种技术优势建构机制具有普遍性，且具有较强的实践意义与操作性，可为不同层面的主体提供参考与指导；五是通过技术霸权形成机制的分析，进一步揭示了技术范式多样性的重大价值，深入认识技术范式单一化与极化的严重危害，从而为不同层面竞争主体提供借鉴。
关键词：技术竞争；技术范式；生存竞争；机制分析；技术霸权
Abstract
Technology has become one of the most important issues of our time. However, many questions about the technology seem to remain shrouded in mystery. In ancient China, technology was despised by the scholar-official class for a long time, and craftsmen who were proficient in technology were politically marginalized; the Western academic tradition also lacked in-depth examination of technology. As technological factors play an increasingly prominent role in national strategic competition, economic competition and even individual competition, technological issues have evolved into central issues in the living world. Therefore, special research and exploration of technology competition issues have important practical and theoretical significance.
There are already abundant related studies on technology competition. However, most current research avoids discussing the conceptual issue of technology competition. One possible reason for this is that there are diverse and complex definitions of the concept of technology in academic circles, which makes it difficult to define the concept of technology competition. In view of this, it is of great theoretical value to sort out the definition of technology concepts and then try to define the concept of technology competition. In this process, many characteristics of technology competition have gradually emerged. Because technology has systemic characteristics, technology competition also has systemic characteristics. According to Brian Arthur's technology combination theory, physical instincts provide the building blocks for all technology. It can be seen that technology is a system that contains the subject and has a hierarchical structure. Technology competition is a system battle that occurs at all levels of the system. Compared with the competition for species survival, diversity is one of the important characteristics of technology competition, which has caused humans to lose the evolutionary mechanism revealed by Darwin and significantly increased the degree of human socialization.
The analysis of the concepts and characteristics of technology competition shows that the acquisition mechanism is an important basis for technology competition. In addition, the corresponding decoupling mechanism also has the value of theoretical discussion. Compared with the competition for survival of species, due to the acquisition mechanism of technology competition, the premise of limited interests in traditional competition theory has been eliminated to a certain extent, so that cruel competition for survival is not necessary between humans. In technology competition, subjects can either acquire technology or choose to decouple from technology. This makes the competing systems not stagnant and closed, but open and dynamic, and competing opponents may be integrated into the same technical system or paradigm. In addition, when interests are damaged, subjects may also choose technological decoupling to protect their rights. There are three types of technological decoupling, technological paradigm decoupling, technological system decoupling and technological paradigm community decoupling. Although technological decoupling can avoid damage to the interests of the subject, it will destroy the combination relationship between technologies, and also destroy the coupling relationship between people and technology, resulting in a significant shrinkage of the total amount of benefits. Although the decoupling of technological paradigms may promote the birth of new technological paradigms and thus give subjects a competitive advantage, it often requires an urgent crisis to promote it.
Compared with the competition for species survival, technology competition has many characteristics. For example, in nature, it is beneficial for advantage competitors to eliminate disadvantage competitors, but it is harmful in technology competition. In addition, subjects need to work hard to acquire technology and then participate in competition. Animals and plants in nature can only compete through genetically inherited instincts. By sorting out the differences, four technological competitive advantage construction mechanisms are presented. The first is the stimulation of subjective initiative mechanism, the second is the crisis mechanism, the third is the diversity inclusion mechanism, and the last one is the distributed decision-making mechanism. First of all, the discussion of the first mechanism is carried out from two aspects. One is to discuss the subjective initiative in the weak stage, and the other is to discuss the subjective initiative in the strong stage. In technology competition, subjects will inevitably face difficulties in the process of doing their best to build advantages. Second, the discussion of crisis mechanism emphasizes the importance of crisis awareness and crisis sense. Research on individual technologicalization and technological paradigm transformation shows that only when facing a crisis do humans have the will and motivation to abandon old technologies and choose new ones. Therefore, maintaining crisis awareness and sense of crisis is crucial to building technological competitive advantage. Third, the analysis of diversity protection and inclusion mechanisms includes three aspects, including the protection and inclusion of vulnerable subjects, the discussion of heterogeneous technology paradigms and edge technology paradigms. Finally, the analysis of the distributed decision-making mechanism involves the diversity of technical decisions, ensuring the decision-making power of experts, and whether political power is suitable for leading technological innovation. It is the diversity characteristics of technology competition that lead to the distribution of technological decision-making. Therefore, distributed decision-making is an important mechanism for the construction of technological competitive advantages.
It is also of theoretical value to analyze technological paradigms that already have achieved competitive advantages. Driven by interests, technological paradigms tend to expand infinitely. In fact, technological hegemony is formed by technological paradigm shifts. In the process of expansion of technological paradigms, there is a question of rightness. When the expansion is right, the expansion of the technological paradigm can benefit all subjects. When the rightness is lost, the technological paradigm transforms into technological hegemony, harming the interests of competing subjects and threatening their rights to survival and development. As a result, technological hegemony will inevitably encounter fierce opposition and resistance. This could give rise to technological terrorism. Further analysis shows that the unrestricted expansion of technological paradigms to form technological hegemony will lead to other technological paradigms being perished, causing technological paradigms to tend to be single and polarized, and eventually be eliminated by themselves. In fact, diversity is an important indicator of whether the expansion of technological paradigms is justified. If expansion helps to increase the diversity of technological paradigms, it will be right. If expansion inhibits the diversity of technological paradigms, rightness will be lost. Even with more resources and interests support, technological hegemony will tend to decline due to the loss of technological advantages.
Since research on technology competition is spread across multiple disciplines, an interdisciplinary approach is inevitable. The theories of different scholars provide the research framework. For example, Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm" theory, Stiegler's "coupling" thought, and Brian Arthur's "combination" theory all have important reference value. Diversity is key in the study of technology competition. According to the combination theory, since new technologies are formed by the combination of existing technologies, the higher the degree of technological diversity, the greater the probability of the birth of new technologies, and new technologies often give competing subjects huge advantages. Technological hegemony leads to the loss of competitive advantage precisely because it suppresses diversity. It can be seen that population size and numerical advantages still have important value, that is, support for the diversity of technological paradigms.
Possible innovation points mainly include: First, it promotes the research on technological intentionality and recognizes that technology has the intentionality to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages in competition. This innovation is based on the analysis of the concepts and characteristics of technology and has strong theoretical support; Second, it pays attention to the importance of diversity, and methodically analyzes the impact of the diverse characteristics of technology competition on human beings. The research provides an important entry point; Third, through the analysis of the acquisition mechanism, it has successfully dispelled the premise of limited interests in traditional competition theory, thus providing a theoretical picture for great power competition to avoid the Malthusian Trap and Thucydides Trap; Fourth, the four summarized technological advantage construction mechanisms are universal and have strong practical significance and operability, which can provide guidance for subjects at different levels; The fifth is to further reveal the significant value of the diversity of technological paradigms through the analysis of the formation mechanism of technological hegemony, and to deeply understand the serious harm of the singularity and polarization of technological paradigms, thereby providing guidance for different levels of competitive subjects.
Key Words：Technology competition; technological paradigm; survival competition; mechanism analysis; technological hegemony
站内搜索
