文章 - - 文章列表 - 焦点

在 "全球化"的复杂格局中，在社会认同发生激烈分化的情形下，如何叙述中国必然是不同政治与文化力量介入的场域。本文并不打算全面地讨论所有的中国叙述，而 是集中分析国内知识界的一种叙述形态，即在"文化自觉"这一基本诉求下展开的中国叙述。

本文是作者对自己在国内十年教学与写作的回顾与反思。首先是对当前影响最大的两大理论传统——新自由主义和后现代主义，以及两大次要理论传统——马克思主义和实体主义的简单讨论。重点不在学术史研究而在学术实用，从如此角度来点评四大理论传统。然后，回答文章的中心问题：在这样的环境中，我们要怎样对待理论，做什么样的学术研究？文章主要从自己的学术实践经验和总结来提出意见。

清代，每逢大年初一，伴随着紫禁城内的大典，太和殿前的铜香炉就会氤氲着以果皮制成、清新淡远的"四弃香"。成本低廉的香品为何会用于隆重的典礼？因为它来历不凡，寓意丰富。

本文以《再问"什么的平等"？》为总题连载于《文化纵横》2011年5-6期。现将全文合并发表于此。

讲座的标题是《阶级，或因父之名》，"因父之名"是我从刘岩教授那里选取的，他特别从主人公的父亲身份，以及主人公所富有的文化象征意味进行讨论，"因父之名"是我们一部非常著名的、表现英国爱尔兰共和军的影片片名借来的，我对它的艺术表述的再总结。会贯穿这个理论的，是阶级和因父之名的议题。

【3月21日】最近一些朋友和记者问我对"重庆实验"看法有无改变。​我看法不变，理由是我去年"重庆实验的三个理论视角：乔治、米德和葛兰西"​一文中如下一段话（再附上中文版，英文在"Modern China"）

修辞学在普通中国人心中似乎有关文学和语言，但中国春秋战国时期的修辞传统，与古希腊的修辞传统一致，关注的是口语交流，并集中关注政治法律问题。本文以知识谱系学的视角和方法，探求中国的修辞传统如何在不同的政治社会环境和权力关系中发生、衍生和演变，又如何在20世纪中国的社会变革中，重新创造了特别值得我们今天关注和珍视的，与以修辞格为中心的汉语修辞学形成反差的，关注政治法律社会公共议题，同时关注口语和文字交流的汉语修辞的实践传统。

亲爱的让-卢克，在这样的情况下，你我跟随西方共识是毫无道理的，这种共识意谓：“我们必须保持对一切发生中的事情的控制。”我们必须与共识对立，并且展示西方轰炸机和士兵的真实目标绝非可恶的卡扎菲--他只是一个被主子认为妨碍了他们的更高利益因而需要被除去的前代理人。因为轰炸机的目标明显是埃及的民众起义和突尼斯的革命，是他们出乎意料和不堪忍受的特点--政治自主性，亦即：他们的独立。（人文与社会编辑小组译校）

法学界有些人完全不考虑普通老百姓的感受，要以废除死刑为理由来实现他们的想法。从存留养亲的角度考虑，有些"该死"的情况下，法律上可以不杀。当然，必须要有限制性的条件，在几种情况下是必须要杀的。法官要去辨别民意、尊重民意，去重新塑造民意，而不要很轻易地把网络民意当成民意，网络民意往往是极端的民意挟持了真正的、广大的民意。

国民性是单面的，还是自我反身的？如何界定阿Q的阶级身份和社会类型？如何在“重复”中界定“革命”？在《阿Q正传》中，历史与本能、意识与潜意识、精神与身体是什么关系？如何解释鲁迅的“向下超越”，以及从这一角度对辛亥革命和启蒙的思考？

王钦译，插图暂缺。“藏匿于光天化日”之下的东西——多年来遮掩了一些我们本来应该知道的事情，而这一遮掩似乎相当地不经意。事到如今，假如我们仍然不去反思美国文学批评中的那个拉康，尤其是，对美国的控制论在法国，包括也在美国所发生的那种影响，继续充耳不闻，那么拉康与坡的关系就永远会在光天化日之下被遮蔽。

2010年11月17日寫於北京藍旗營寓所，2010年11月18日上午在南京國瑞大酒店會議室演講

中国不一定要像西方现代法律那样，从个人权利前提出发，而是可以同时适当采用中国自己古代的和现代革 命的传统，从人际关系而不是个人本位出发，依赖道德准则和实用思维来指导法律。

法国哲学思想家阿兰·巴迪乌（Alain Badiou）在英刊《新左翼评论》第35卷（2005年9—10月号）上发表文章，提出20世纪下半叶的当代法国哲学思潮在哲学史上具有重要地位，是继古希腊哲学、启蒙时期的德国哲学之后的第三个重要哲学阶段。文章原题为《法国哲学的探险》，主要内容如下。

当西方支持的暴君被赶走，政局长远地变化了。但革命到底能传播多远？With western-backed despots being turfed out politics has changed for ever. So just how far can the revolution spread?

（此文根据作者访谈写成，此为上篇，下篇待发）过去三十年，围绕民主问题的辩论和分歧从未停止。“历史终结论”将民主作为最后一种政治形式，普遍历史到来的标志。这一有关民主的叙述是通过将“人民民主”置于“政治专制”范畴才得以完成的。然而，接着社会主义体系的瓦解而来的，是反恐战争、宗教冲突、生态破坏、高风险社会和在这次金融危机中暴露出的全球资本主义体制的深刻矛盾。这些矛盾也引发了“社会民主”的危机。西方民主的空洞化、新兴民主的内在矛盾，以及第三世界国家的民主困境，与上述危机密切相关，成为讨论当代民主问题不能忽略的课题。为什么二十世纪形成的两种社会体制先后陷入了危机？

David Fincher’s The Social Network, which tells the story of Facebook, is fast and intelligent and mean, a sort of screwball comedy without the laughs. It’s written by Aaron Sorkin, whose credits include The West Wing and A Few Good Men, and based on a novelised history by Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires. As long as it stays with the details of its tale – the faces, the clothes, the dialogue, the rooms, the parties, the sleek restaurants – the movie seems both restrained and sure-footed, willing to leave the thinking and the conclusions to us. But its larger plot movements are strangely dedicated to an insistence on two intriguing but evasive fables. One says that genius needs humiliation to get it going: so much so that the humiliation may be more important than the genius, a nicely faux-democratic message. The other says you can only make real money, money beyond dreams as distinct from just a lot of ordinary money, if you don’t care about wealth at all. Genius doesn’t calculate, even when it’s a computational genius.The film’s best line appears in a long, intense, information-crowded conversation before the credits. Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg, a student at Harvard, is sitting in a bar with a girl from the far less classy Boston University and boasting about his implausible chances of getting into one of Harvard’s fancy and exclusive social clubs. Once he’s in, he says, he’ll be able to introduce her to a better class of people than the ones she knows. For some reason the girl, Erica Albright, played by Rooney Mara, doesn’t take kindly to this suggestion, and the mood goes from lousy to worse. Finally she gets up and leaves, telling him that he will go through life believing that people don’t like him because he’s a nerd. This won’t be true. They won’t like him because he’s an asshole.Zuckerberg trots back to his dorm room and proves by inventing Facebook that Erica is absolutely right. No, that’s not quite the film’s line of argument, but it is largely what it shows us and a late attempt at a revision of Erica’s line lends it a weird retrospective authority. Just before the movie ends, a woman lawyer who has been present at the depositions regarding various suits against Zuckerberg and what he stole from or owed to whom, looks at our lonely hero, forlorn and with only his computer to befriend him, and says: ‘You know, you’re not really an asshole, you’re just trying so hard to be one.’ Then comes a truly mawkish moment. Zuckerberg hesitates, then types onto his Facebook page a version of the request that millions are now making and receiving every day: will Erica be his friend? No answer, film ends. Just as we’re wondering whether this little scene wouldn’t have been too soppy for David Selznick let alone David Fincher, a text crawls up the screen telling us how much Zuckerberg settled for: $65 million in one case, an ‘undisclosed amount’ in another. Facebook, the text informs us, is worth 26 billion. This is just a grand old American story after all. Nice guys finish last and assholes finish rich. If you’re feeling sentimental, you can ask the key, corny question. Yes, but are they happy?Of course a lot happens between Erica’s insult and this ending, and what humanises Zuckerberg in the movie is the possibility that he’s so angry not because Erica has upped and left him, but because she had the last word and she’s smarter than he is. He can’t have this. When he gets back to his room, he drops a few sexist and ethnic slurs about Erica onto his blog for all who care to see, toys with inventing a web-game where people – I mean male students – are invited to compare pictures of girls with pictures of animals, and then settles for devising another game called Facemash. This involves hacking into the records of the university’s residence halls, collecting photographs of all the female students, and putting them up on the screen in pairs. The game is really subtle. The guys just say which of the two girls is ‘hotter’, and chortle away. The game is so successful that before the night is over Harvard’s computer system has crashed and Zuckerberg is famous.Enter the Winklevoss brothers. These are two athletes, rowers, members of an elite that will never admit Zuckerberg even into its environs, who are looking for a programmer for an idea they have: a computer-based social network trading on the snob value of Harvard’s name, an extended electronic version, in other words, of the system Zuckerberg was describing to Erica. They contact Zuckerberg, who says he’ll work with them but does nothing but stall them for a month or two. Meanwhile he invents his own social network, and calls it The Facebook – later he drops the ‘the’. He and his friends, notably Eduardo Saverin, played by Andrew Garfield, who puts a little money into the venture, start to include other universities in the system, including places on the West Coast, and well before the end of the movie, the network has gone international. The Winklevoss brothers learn about it just after they have narrowly lost a race at Henley. Close but no cigar; just the news that the locals too have Facebook.Did Zuckerberg steal the Winklevosses’ idea? They think so, and the $65 million they received in the settlement suggests there was something ($65 million, to be precise) in the thought. Zuckerberg’s position is that he so transformed a lame, provincial project that he can’t possibly be taken as having nicked it: this would be like saying Shakespeare stole Macbeth from Holinshed, or Newton stole gravity from the apple. The case of Saverin is rather different. At the centre of the movie, with flashbacks radiating out from it, is the room where the depositions are being heard in the two cases. Saverin lent Facebook more and more money, and was CFO of the company. However, once Zuckerberg had met the charismatic Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake), and moved to California, Saverin was edged out, and the film pictures him as the model of East Coast caution trumped by West Coast cool. Parker is the real-life inventor of Napster, a music-piracy system whose failure did more damage to the recording industry than even its success could have done, and what Zuckerberg likes about him is not just his savoir-faire, the sort of fast style that makes the poshest Harvard club look like a garden party, but his sense of risk and the future. Saverin too is suing Zuckerberg, ostensibly for cheating him out of the continuing profits but in movie terms for betraying the only friend he has.The acting in the movie is quite wonderful, very disciplined and focused. Timberlake as Parker is charming, funny, reckless, even dangerous, but also nervous, an ex-nerd who hasn’t entirely forgotten his past. The film’s second-best moment, after Erica’s early line, comes when Parker announces at a party, as everything is being filmed, that soon all our lives will instantly be on the internet. Two minutes later the police burst into the apartment and take him off for snorting cocaine. Did somebody set him up? Saverin out of envy and revenge? Zuckerberg because he thought Parker was putting the company at risk?Garfield is good as Saverin: sympathetic, decent, but limited, and easily made to feel inferior, a nice guy who won’t finish last but won’t be near the front either. The triumph of the movie is Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg. He manages that stolid, stubborn, stupid look that clever people often have, and when his expression changes, which is not often, we may think he is getting angry. But then Eisenberg’s closed manner robs us of any confidence that we can read any of his expressions. This is the whole trick of the performance. We can’t gauge the expression, yet our curiosity forces us to do something with a face that is held so long and so often in front of our eyes. So we keep guessing. Was that almost a smile, and if so, what did it mean? Contempt? Some milder form of amusement at the idiocy of others? Some of our guesses are irresistible, and might even be right. Zuckerberg’s social awkwardness, presumably real enough at one stage, has become a style, a mask, an aggressive pose. His confidence in his own intelligence, and his conviction that he owes nothing to anyone, least of all any sort of obligation to be nice to them, come across very clearly whatever expression is on his face, and his only weakness, it seems, is a defensive impatience: he just can’t afford to think anyone else has a mind that matters. He is a monster of sorts, and like all monsters, a mirror of something that humans want or need or fear. Certainly it’s as a monster that he is compelling, and that’s why the attempt to reduce him to a little boy lost, just a nerd after all, is so craven, a shameless reaching out for the Oscar-worthy stereotype.

根据史学家的资料，中国古典园林起源于房前屋后的果木蔬圃。园、囿这些文字由象形文字演化而来，外围的方框表示一定的边界或墙垣，方框内则表示栽培植物或蓄养动物。而在西方，景观设计师也主要来源农场主、牧场主。可以说，生产是景观的最早的功能。在中国，五、六十年代也曾出现过"园林结合生产"的运动。而在当今快速的城市化之下，大量的农田被蚕食，残存在城市中的农业也一度被认为是阻碍城市发展的隐患。当景观的生产性功能再一次被强调，为了避免重蹈历史的错误，我们应该以怎样的态度来看待生产性景观呢？

西班牙导演罗德里格·科特Rodrigo Cortés 的这部异常高概念化，高焦虑，但低成本的梦魇型电影保证能让每个有幽闭恐惧症的家伙都惨遭一次永恒的神经崩溃。事实上，它保证能让每个人都患上永恒的幽闭恐惧症。 ...在电影开始后的几分钟内，我们就得知保罗是一个在伊拉克工作的平民合同工（contractor）， 这解决了一些疑团，但又引发了更多新疑问。