文章 - - 人文与社会 - 文章列表 - 推荐阅读

福柯 ： 人们常说这样的话：当代音乐偏离了正轨，它的命运非常奇特，它复杂到如此的地步以致于不可接近，它的技巧使它走上了一条不归路。但另一方面，音乐吸引我的地方在于它与其他文化要素之间的多样复杂的关系。这一点从不同的角度来看都是很明显的。一方面，音乐对技术的进步非常敏感，它对技术的依赖性比其他艺术门类要大得多(也许电影是个例外)。另一方面，从德彪西和斯特拉文斯基之后的音乐发展同绘画的发展有很多密切相关之处。此外，音乐为自身提出的理论问题，它对自身的语言、结构、材料的反思方式，取决于一个在20世纪具有普遍意义的问题："形式"的问题。这个问题在塞尚((Cezanne)、立体主义者、勋伯格(Schoenberg)、俄国形式主义者或是布拉格学派那里都是存在的。 我认为我们不应该问：既然音乐已经走得如此之远，我们怎么才能再度体验和重新享有它?而应该问：这个音乐与我们所有的文化如此接近，如此一体化，我们怎么会觉得与它如此疏异、与它有如此不可逾越的距离呢? 布列兹 ： 是不是因为当代音乐的"流通"与交响音乐、室内乐、歌剧、巴罗克音乐的"流通"大不一样?后者的"流通"是很专门化和局部化的，会使人怀疑是否真的有一种总体的文化。唱片摧垮了这些藩篱，但是我们要注意，唱片另一方面又增强了公众和演奏者的专业化。古典或浪漫音乐意味着一个标准化的格式。巴罗克音乐不仅要求一个有限的群体，还要乐器与所演奏的音乐相配，要求演奏家掌握通过对古代的音乐作品和理论著作进行研究所获得的专业知识。当代音乐要求掌握新的乐器技巧，新的记谱方法，对新的演奏形式的适应。凡此种种，不胜枚举，足以表明从音乐的这个领域跨越到另一个领域有多么困难：组织的困难，把自己置于不同的情境中的困难，更不用说适应为不同的演奏而设的场所的困难了。于是，出现了这样的倾向，出现了适应不同种类的音乐的或大或小的群体，在社会及其音乐和演奏家中建立了危险的封闭的流通。当代音乐无法逃避这种发展，它无法逃避一般音乐社会的缺陷：它有它的地盘、它的聚会、它的明星、它的趋炎附势者、它的竞争对手、它的排他性；正如其他社会一样，它有市场价值、报价、盈利计算。不同的音乐圈子也就像监狱体制一样，绝大多数人在其中感到平安无事，但是他们却对别人进行痛苦的折磨。 福柯 ： 我们必须考虑到这样的事实，在很长一段时期内，音乐是为社会的祭祀和仪式而设的：宗教音乐，室内乐；在19世纪，音乐与剧院之间的纽带是歌剧(更不用提歌剧在德国和意大利的政治和文化意义了)，这也是一个凝聚性的因素。 我认为，如果谈起当代音乐的"文化隔绝"的话，在考察其他音乐的流通之后，我们马上就会要修正前面的说法。 拿摇滚乐来说吧，我们马上就有了完全相反的印象。摇滚音乐(比爵士乐从前的情形更厉害)不仅是许多人生活中不可分割的一部分，而且是文化的一种推动力：喜爱摇滚，喜爱这一类而不是那一类的摇滚，这也是一种生活方式，一种对社会作出反应的态度；这是一整套的趣味和态度。 摇滚乐紧张、强壮、生动、充满"戏剧性"(摇滚总是把自己弄得多彩多姿，听摇滚是一个事件，而且发生在舞台上)，这种音乐本身是贫弱的，但是倾听它的人却能从中达到对自己的肯定；但是，在那种复杂的音乐面前，人们感到脆弱、遥远、充满了问题，好似被排斥在外。 我们无法谈论当代文化与音乐的普遍的单一关系，而是应该更加宽容，对音乐的多重性采取一种多多少少是亲善的态度。每一类音乐都有"权利"生存，这种权利可以视为价值的平等。每一类音乐的价值都取决于实践并喜爱它的人的认可。 布列兹 ： 这样来谈论音乐的多重性是不是具有一种折衷主义的色彩?能够解决问题吗?正相反，这是把问题掩盖起来了--就像某些致力于激进自由社会的人所做的那样。所有这些音乐都是好的，它们都很棒。啊!多元主义！它对缺乏理解的人来说真是太妙了。爱情，每个人在自己的角落，但是都会爱他人。做自由主义者吧，对他人的趣味要宽容，他们反过来也会这样对待你的。一切都是好的，没有坏的东西；价值不再有了，但是每个人都会幸福。诸如此类的话语，尽管他们希望具有解放的作用，却只会相反地增强自己的隔绝状态，为自己的隔绝状态感到宽慰，特别是当自己看到了别人的隔绝状态之后。这种机制提醒我们不要迷失在这种肤浅的乌托邦中：有些音乐是为了赚钱和带来商业利益而存在的；有些音乐则要花费钱，与赢利的观念毫不相干。任何自由主义也抹杀不了这种界限。 福柯 ： 我有这样的印象，许多帮助人们接近音乐的工具到头来削弱了我们与音乐的关系。这里有一个大而复杂的机制在起作用。如果很难接触到音乐，那倒能保护人们选择音乐的能力，也带来了倾听音乐时的灵活性。但是如果更加频繁地接触音乐(电台、唱片、卡带)，对音乐越熟悉，习惯就凝固下来了；最经常出现的变成最能够接受的，最后只有一种保留下来。这导致了某种"追踪"，这是一种神经病症。 显然，市场的法则很容易运用到这种简单的机制之中。产品投放到大众之中，大众就倾听。大众发现自己在听某一类东西，因为提供的就是这种东西，这又强化了某种趣味，划定出一块规定得很好的听觉空间，制订出越来越专门化的倾听计划。而音乐则必须满足这种期待，等等。因此商业产品、评论、音乐会，所有这些增强公众与音乐的关系的东西都使人感到，要接受一种新的音乐是越来越困难了。 当然，这一过程也并不是十分确定的。对音乐的不断熟悉也会增强倾听音乐的能力，从而导致对多样性的选择；但这有可能不会很普遍，只是少数的情形，如果我们不努力地将熟悉性疏异化的话。 毫无疑问，我并不赞成减少与音乐的关系，但是要知道，这种关系如果具有了一种日常生活的色彩，再加上经济的法则凌驾其上，就能把传统僵化。并不是说要更少地接触音乐，而是要把它的频繁出现从习惯和熟悉性中拉过来。 布列兹 ： 听众对当代音乐真的缺乏注意和漠不关心吗？这种经常出现的抱怨是不是出于懒惰和习惯于舒适地呆在熟知的领域?贝尔格在半个多世纪前就写过一篇文章，题为《为什么勋伯格的音乐很难理解?》，他描述的困难同我们现在碰到的几乎一模一样。难道情形一点都没有改变吗?也许，所有的创新都会挫伤对之不习惯的人的感觉。但是如今作品向大众的传播带来了特定的困难。古典和浪漫派的音乐构成了人们熟知的主要的曲目资源，它们遵循一定的程式，人们对之的欣赏可以相对独立于单独的作品来进行。交响曲的乐章是根据其形式、特性和节奏形态来划分的，它们彼此区别开来，绝大多数乐章之间有实际的停顿，或者是明显的过渡。交响乐的语言建立在"分类的"和弦的基础之上，它们都有很好的名字，你不用分析就知道这些和弦是什么，发挥怎样的功能。它们像讯号那样富有功效和稳妥可靠；它们在这个作品中出现，又在那个作品中出现，每一次出现都带着同样的功能。逐渐地，这些令人感到宽慰的要素逐渐从"严肃"音乐中消失了。音乐的进化朝着不间断的、越来越彻底的更新的道路上发展，既包括作品的形式，也包括作品的语言。音乐作品变成了独一无二的事件，它并非完全不能让人预料，但是却不服从任何先决的、人们认可的指导体系；这当然带来了人们理解上的障碍。它要求听者熟悉作品的进程，为了达到这一点，就必须把它听上很多遍。当人们对作品的进程熟悉的时候，对作品的理解、对作品所表达的内容的感知就会开花结果。如今，初次的倾听是越来越难带来对作品的感觉和理解了。可能对作品会有自然而然的反应，通过语句的力量，美妙的音色，某些可以理解的暗示性的语句。但是深刻的理解只能通过反复的倾听来实现，通过再现音乐的进程，这种重复代替了以往那种普遍认同的范式。 这种以往的范式--语汇的和形式的--从所谓的严肃音乐中撤退出来，到某些大众流行样式中去避难，成为音乐消费的对象。在那里，创作仍然是按照特定的样式和人们所接受的形态来进行的。保守主义并不总在人们期待的地方出现：无可否认，某些保守的音乐形式和语言构成了所有商业化音乐的基础，而狂热接受这种音乐的一代人最不想要的也就是保守主义了。这是我们时代的悖论，抗议者的歌唱通过的是受到贿赂的语言，商业的成功使得抗议显得空洞无物。 福柯 ： 在这一点上，20世纪的音乐和绘画还有另一个不同的演化方向。从塞尚以来，绘画倾向于把自己创造的行为本身公之于众：这种行为是可见的、惹人注目的、在作品中确定无疑地表露出来，无论是通过使用要素性的标记，或者是通过对自身运动的追踪。正相反，当代音乐提供给听众的只是它结构的外表。 这样，在听这种音乐的时候，产生了既困难又迫切的问题。每一次倾听都把自己表现为一个事件，听者关注它，而且必须接受它。没有任何暗示让听者作某种期待和确认。他听着它发生。这是一种非常困难的倾听模式，同重复听古典音乐带来的那种熟悉感是非常矛盾的。 今日音乐的文化隔绝状态并不简单是教育和传播的缺乏引起的。光是抱怨音乐学院或唱片公司是 很容易的。情况比这严重得多。当代音乐发展到这样一种独一无二的处境，要归咎于其作品。在此意义上，它是有意要这样做的。这种音乐不想让人们熟悉。它就是要用这种方式来保持自己的优势。我们能重复它，但是它不重复自己。在这个意义上说，人们不能把它当做一个物体来返回它。它永远突兀在边界线上。 布列兹 ： 既然它渴望永不停歇的开拓和发现--新的情感领域，试验新的材料--当代音乐注定了是一个堪察加半岛(还记得波德莱尔和圣佩甫吗?)，供罕见的探险者满足他们无畏的好奇心吗?要知道，最谨严的听众是在往日的音乐商店中获得他们专有的音乐文化的，而且是特定的往日。而最开放的听众--是不是因为他们最无知呢?--则对其他的表现方式有持续的兴趣，特别是造型艺术。"陌生者"最能接受?一个危险的结合将表明现在的音乐将从"真正的"音乐文化中死去，为的是在更广大和更含混的领域中得到一席之地，在那里业余爱好占主导地位，审美变成消遣。别把这称作"音乐"--只要你别把它称为音乐，随你怎么去玩都行；那属于不同的欣赏领域，同我们所说的对真正的音乐、大师的音乐的欣赏毫不相干。当我们这样争辩的时候，即使带着天真的骄傲，也是在接近一个无可争辩的真理。判断和口味是门类划分和预先设定的范式的囚徒。他们要我们相信，这里区分的是高贵的情感表达与建立在实验基础上的危险的手艺之间的差别：思想对工具。这是一个倾听的问题，它无法被调节了去适应不同的创造音乐的方法。我当然不会去宣扬一种普适的音乐，我认为那不过是一种超级市场的美学，这种蛊惑人心的宣传不敢打出自己的旗号，把自己装扮成具有良好的用心，来掩饰自己可怜的折衷和妥协。我很清楚--幸亏我有很多的经验，而且都是非常直接的--超越了某种复杂性之后，感知就迷失了方向，陷入绝望的混乱，变得厌烦并进入停滞状态。我的意思是说我可以保持批评性的反应，但是我的执著不是自动地从"当代性"本身产生出来的。某种对听觉的调制已经在发生了，这其实是很糟糕的，因为它超越了历史的限度。我们听巴洛克音乐，不是与瓦格纳和斯特劳斯音乐一个听法。但是为了让音乐文化能够相互认同和吸收，需要去适应标准，适应成规，而创新也要视所处的历史情境而与之相适应。文化在冒险中铸造、维持和播撒自身，带着两副面孔：有时是残暴、斗争和骚乱；有时是沉思、非暴力和沉默。这种文化的冒险不管呈现怎样的形式--最吵闹的并不总是最惊人的，但是最吵闹的肯定无可救药地是最肤浅的--忽略它是不行的，取消它则更为徒劳。我们甚至能声称，也许会有更令人难受的时代，创新和成规的合流更加困难，有些创新完全超越了人们所能容忍和"理性地"接受的程度；也许会有另外的时代，到时候又回复到更直接达成的秩序中去。所有这些现象的关系--个体与集体--是如此的复杂，以至于将它们严格地对应和分组是不可能的。我们会忍不住要说：先生们，打赌吧，相信"时间的态度"，请玩游戏，尽情地玩吧!否则，那该是多么地令人厌烦啊!Michel Foucault & Pierre Boulez: Contemporary Music and the Public MICHEL FOUCAULT. It is often said that contemporary music has drifted off track; that it has had a strange fate; that it has attained a degree of complexity which makes it inaccessible; that its techniques have set it on paths which are leading it further and further away. But on the contrary, what is striking to me is the multiplicity of links and relations between music and all the other elements of culture. There are several ways in which this is apparent. On the one hand, music has been much more sensitive to technological changes, much more closely bound to them than most of the other arts (with the exception perhaps of cinema). On the other hand, the evolution of these musics after Debussy or Stravinsky presents remarkable correlations with the evolution of painting. What is more, the theoretical problems which music has posed for itself, the way in which it has reflected on its language, its structures, and its material, depend on a question which has, I believe, spanned the entire twentieth century: the question of "form" which was that of Cézanne or the cubists, which was that of Schoenberg, which was also that of the Russian formalists or the School of Prague.I do not believe we should ask: with music at such a distance, how can we recapture it or repatriate it? But father: this music which is so close, so consubstantial with all our culture, how does it happen that we feel it, as it were, projected afar and placed at an almost insurmountable distance?PIERRE BOULEZ. Is the contemporary music "circuit" so different from the various "circuits" employed by symphonic music, chamber music, opera, Baroque music, all circuits so partitioned, so specialized that it's possible to ask if there really is a general culture? Acquaintance through recordings should, in principle, bring down those walls whose economic necessity is understandable, but one notices, on the contrary, that recordings reinforce specialization of the public as well as the performers. In the very organization of concerts or other productions, the forces which different types of music rely on more or less exclude a common organization, even polyvalence. Classical or romantic repertory implies a standardized format tending to include exceptions to this rule only if the economy of the whole is not disturbed by them, Baroque music necessarily implies not only a limited group, but instruments in keeping with the music played, musicians who have acquired a specialized knowledge of interpretation, based on studies of texts and theoretical works of the past. Contemporary music implies an approach involving new instrumental techniques, new notations, an aptitude for adapting to new performance situations. One could continue this enumeration and thus show the difficulties to be surmounted in passing from one domain to anther: difficulties of organization, of placing oneself in a different context, not to mention the difficulties of adapting places for such or such a kind of performance. Thus, there exists a tendency to form a larger or smaller society corresponding to each category of music, to establish a dangerously closed circuit among this society, its music, and its performers. Contemporary music does not escape this development; even if its attendance figures are proportionately weak, it does not escape the faults of musical society in general: it has its places, its rendezvous, its stars, its snobberies, its rivalries, its exclusivities; just like the other society, it has its market values, its quotes, its statistics. The different circles of music, if they are not Dante's, none the less reveal a prison system in which most fed at ease but whose constraints, on the contrary, painfully chafe others.MICHEL FOUCAULT. One must take into consideration the fact that for a very long time music has been tied to social rites and unified by them: religious music, chamber music; in the nineteenth century, the link between music and theatrical production in opera (not to mention the political or cultural meanings which the latter had in Germany or in Italy) was also an integrative factor.I believe that one cannot talk of the "cultural isolation" of contemporary music without soon correcting what one says of it by thinking about other circuits of music,With rock, for example, one has a completely inverse phenomenon. Not only is rock music (much more than jazz used to be) an integral part of the life of many people, but it is a cultural initiator: to like rock, to like a certain kind of rock rather than another, is also a way of life, a manner of reacting; it is a whole set of tastes and attitudes.Rock offers the possibility of a relation which is intense, strong, alive, "dramatic" (in that rock presents itself as a spectacle, that listening to it is an event and that it produces itself on stage), with a music that is itself impoverished, but through which the listener affirms himself; and with the other music, one has a frail, faraway, hothouse, problematical relation with an erudite music from which the cultivated public feels excluded.One cannot speak of a single relation of contemporary culture to music in general, but of a tolerance, more or less benevolent, with respect to a plurality of musics. Each is granted the "right" to existence, and this right is perceived as an equality of worth. Each is worth as much as the group which practices it or recognizes it.PIERRE BOULEZ. Will talking about musics in the plural and flaunting an eclectic ecumenicism solve the problem? It seems, on the contrary, that this will merely conjure it away - as do certain devotees of an advanced liberal society. All those musics are good, all those musics are nice. Ah! Pluralism! There's nothing like it for curing incomprehension. Love, each one of you in your corner, and each will love the others. Be liberal, be generous toward the tastes of others, and they will be generous to yours. Everything is good, nothing is bad; there aren't any values, but everyone is happy, This discourse, as liberating as it may wish to be, reinforces, on the contrary, the ghettos, comforts one's clear conscience for being in a ghetto, especially if from time to time one tours the ghettos of others. The economy is there to remind us, in case we get lost in this bland utopia: there are musics which bring in money and exist for commercial profit; there are musics that cost something, whose very concept has nothing to do with profit. No liberalism will erase this distinction.MICHEL FOUCAULT. I have the impression that many of the elements that are supposed to provide access to music actually impoverish our relationship with it. There is a quantitative mechanism working here. A certain rarity of relation to music could preserve an ability to choose what one hears, and thus a flexibility in listening. But the more frequent this relation is (radio, records, cassettes), the more familiarities it creates; habits crystallize; the most frequent becomes the most acceptable, and soon the only thing perceivable. It produces a "tracing" as the neurologists say.Clearly, the laws of the marketplace will readily apply to this simple mechanism. What is put at the disposition of the public is what the public hears. And what the public finds itself actually listening to, because it's offered up, reinforces a certain taste, underlines the limits of a well-defined listening capacity, defines more and more exclusively a schema for listening. Music had better satisfy this expectation, etc. So commercial productions, critics, concerts, everything that increases the contact of the public with music, risks making perception of the new more difficult.Of course the process is not unequivocal. Certainly increasing familiarity with music also enlarges the listening capacity and gives access to possible differentiations, but this phenomenon risks being only marginal; it must in any case remain secondary to the main impact of experience, if there is no real effort to derail familiarities.It goes without saying that I am not in favor of a rarefaction of the relation to music, but it must be understood that the everydayness of this relation, with all the economic stakes that are riding on it, can have this paradoxical effect of rigidifying tradition. It is not a matter of making access to music more rare, but of making its frequent appearances less devoted to habits and familiarities.PIERRE BOULEZ. We ought to note that not only is there a focus on the past, but even on the past in the past, as far as the performer is concerned. And this is of course how one attains ecstasy while listening to the interpretation of a certain classical work by a performer who disappeared decades ago; but ecstasy will reach orgasmic heights when one can refer to a performance of 20 July 1947 or of 30 December 1938. One sees a pseudo-culture of documentation taking shape, based on the exquisite hour and fugitive moment, which reminds us at once of the fragility and of the durability of the performer become immortal, rivaling now the immortality of the masterpiece. All the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin, all the powers of modem magic, what more could you want as an alibi for reproduction as opposed to real production? Modernity itself is this technical superiority we possess over former eras in being able to recreate the event. Ah! If we only had the first performance of the Ninth, even - especially - with all its flaws, or if only we could make Mozart's own delicious difference between the Prague and Vienna versions of Don Giovanni. . . . This historicizing carapace suffocates those who put it on, compresses them in an asphyxiating rigidity; the mephitic air they breathe constantly enfeebles their organism in relation to contemporary adventure. I imagine Fidelio glad to rest in his dungeon, or again I think of Plato's cave: a civilization of shadow and of shades.MICHEL FOUCAULT. Certainly listening to music becomes more difficult as its composition frees itself from any kind of schemas, signals, perceivable cues for a repetitive structure.In classical music, there is a certain transparency from the composition to the hearing. And even if many compositional features in Bach or Beethoven aren't recognizable by most listeners, there are always other features, important ones, which are accessible to them. But contemporary music, by trying to make each of its elements a unique event, makes any grasp or recognition by the listener difficult.PIERRE BOULEZ. Is there really only lack of attention, indifference on the part of the listener toward contemporary music? Might not the complaints so often articulated be due to laziness, to inertia, to the pleasant sensation of remaining in known territory? Berg wrote, already half a century ago, a text entitled "Why is Schonberg's music hard to understand?" The difficulties he described then are nearly the same as those we hear of now. Would they always have been the same? Probably, all novelty bruises the sensibilities of those unaccustomed to it. But it is believable that nowadays the communication of a work to a public presents some very specific difficulties. In classical and romantic music, which constitutes the principal resource of the familiar repertory, there are schemas which one obeys, which one can follow independently of the work itself, or rather which the work must necessarily exhibit. The movements of a symphony are defined in their form and in their character, even in their rhythmic life; they are distinct from one another, most of the time actually separated by a pause, sometimes tied by a transition that can be spotted. The vocabulary itself is based on "classified" chords, well-named: you don't have to analyze them to know what they are and what function they have. They have the efficacy and security of signals; they recur from one piece to another, always assuming the same appearance and the same functions. Progressively, these reassuring elements have disappeared from "serious" music. Evolution has gone in the direction of an ever more radical renewal, as much in the form of works as in their language. Musical works have tended to become unique events, which do have antecedents, but are not reducible to any guiding schema admitted, a priori, by all; this creates, certainly, a handicap for immediate comprehension. The listener is asked to familiarize himself with the course of the work and for this to listen to it a certain number of times. When the course of the work is familiar, comprehension of the work, perception of what it wants to express, can find a propitious terrain to bloom in. There are fewer and fewer chances for the first encounter to ignite perception and comprehension. There can be a spontaneous connection with it, through the force of the message, the quality of the writing, the beauty of the sound, the readability of the cues, but deep understanding can only come from repeated hearings, from remaking the course of the work, this repetition taking the place of an accepted schema such as was practiced previously.The schemas - of vocabulary, of form - which had been evacuated from what is called serious music (sometimes called learned music) have taken refuge in certain popular forms, in the objects of musical consumption. There, one still creates according to the genres, the accepted typologies. Conservatism is not necessarily found where it is expected: it is undeniable that a certain conservatism of form and language is at the base of all the commercial productions adopted with great enthusiasm by generations who want to be anything but conservative. It is a paradox of our times that played or sung protest transmits itself by means of an eminently subornable vocabulary, which does not fail to make itself known: commercial success evacuates protest.MICHEL FOUCAULT. And on this point there is perhaps a divergent evolution of music and painting in the twentieth century. Painting, since Cézanne, has tended to make itself transparent to the very act of painting: the act is made visible, insistent, definitively present in the picture, whether it be by the use of elementary signs, or by traces of its own dynamic. Contemporary music on the contrary offers to its hearing only the outer surface of its composition.Hence there is something difficult and imperious in listening to this music. Hence the fact that each hearing presents itself as an event which the listener attends, and which he must accept. There are no cues which permit him to expect it and recognize it. He listens to it happen. This is a very difficult mode of attention, one which is in contradiction to the familiarities woven by repeated hearing of classical music.The cultural insularity of music today is not simply the consequence of deficient pedagogy or propagation. It would be too facile to groan over the conservatories or complain about the record companies, Things are more serious. Contemporary music owes this unique situation to its very composition. In this sense, it is willed. It is not a music that tries to be familiar; it is fashioned to preserve its cutting edge. One may repeat it, but it does not repeat itself. In this sense, one cannot come back to it as to an object. It always pops up on frontiers.PIERRE BOULEZ. Since it wants to be in such a perpetual situation of discovery - new domains of sensibility, experimentation with new material - is contemporary music condemned to remain a Kamchatka (Baudelaire, Sainte-Beuve, remember?) reserved for the intrepid curiosity of infrequent explorers? It is remarkable that the most reticent listeners should be those who have acquired their musical culture exclusively in the stores of the past, indeed of a particular past; and the most open - only because they are the most ignorant? - are the listeners with a sustained interest in other means of expression, especially the plastic arts. The "foreigners" the most receptive? A dangerous connection which would tend to prove that current music would detach itself from the "true" musical culture in order to belong to a domain both vaster and more vague, where amateurism would preponderate, in critical judgment as in creation. Don't call that "music" - then we are willing to leave you your plaything; that is in the jurisdiction of a different appreciation, having nothing to do with the appreciation we reserve for true music, the music of the masters. Then this argument has been made, even in its arrogant naiveté, it approaches an irrefutable truth. Judgment and taste are prisoners of categories, of pre-established schemas which are referred to at all costs. Not, as they would have us believe, that the distinction is between an aristocracy of sentiments, a nobility of expression, and a chancy craft based on experimentation: thought versus tools. It is, rather, a matter of a listening that could not be modulated or adapted to different ways of inventing music. I certainly am not going to preach in favor of an ecumenicism of musics, which seems to me nothing but a supermarket aesthetic, a demagogy that dare not speak its name and decks itself with good intentions the better to camouflage the wretchedness of its compromise. Moreover, I do not reject the demands of quality in the sound as well as in the composition: aggression and provocation, bricolage and bluff are but insignificant and harmless palliatives. I am fully aware - thanks to many experiences, which could not have been more direct - that beyond a certain complexity perception finds itself disoriented in a hopelessly entangled chaos, that it gets bored and hangs up. This amounts to saying that I can keep my critical reactions and that my adherence is not automatically derived from the fact of "contemporaneity" itself. Certain modulations of hearing are already occurring, rather badly as a matter of fact, beyond particular historical limits. One doesn't listen to Baroque music - especially lesser works - as one listens to Wagner or Strauss; one doesn't listen to the polyphony of the Ars Nova as one listens to Debussy or Ravel. But in this latter case, how many listeners are ready to vary their "mode of being," musically speaking? And yet in order for musical culture, all musical culture, to be assimilable, there need only be this adaptation to criteria, and to conventions, which invention complies with according to the historical moment it occupies. This expansive respiration of the ages is at the opposite extreme from the asthmatic wheezings the fanatics make us hear from spectral reflections of the past in a tarnished mirror. A culture forges, sustains, and transmits itself in an adventure with a double face: sometimes brutality, struggle, turmoil; sometimes meditation, nonviolence, silence. Whatever form the adventure may take - the most surprising is not always the noisiest, but the noisiest is not irremediably the most superficial - it is useless to ignore it, and still more useless to sequestrate it. One might go so far as to say there are probably uncomfortable periods when the coincidence of invention and convention is more difficult, when some aspect of invention seems absolutely to go beyond what we can tolerate or "reasonably" absorb; and that there are other periods when things relapse to a more immediately accessible order. The relations among all these phenomena - individual and collective - are so complex that applying rigorous parallelisms or groupings to them is impossible. One would rather be tempted to say: gentlemen, place your bets, and for the rest, trust in the air du temps. But, please, play! Play! Otherwise, what infinite secretions of boredom!Foucault, Michel and Pierre Boulez. 1985. Contemporary Music and the Public. Perspectives of New Music, 24 (1 Fall-Winter), pp.6-12. 

“知识，显然就是处在相同条件下的所有个人都能看到和观察到的东西。在这个程度上讲，知识的结构成了公共结构。任何人都有知识。简单讲来，每个人的知识并不总是相同的，人们的知识既不具有相同的构成度，也不具有相同的确切度，等，但并不是无知者处在一方，而学者处在另一方。现在，在一个知识点上发生的事总是非常快地在另一个知识点中引起反响。在这个程度上说，我认为知识从未被专业化，从来没有被专业化，然而，知识也不再快速地与自身相沟通了。”

接到为这个关于保守主义未来的系列文章撰稿的邀请时，我有些犹豫，因为我认为，无论是在美国还是在欧洲，最需要的似乎不是一种新形式的保守主义，而是左翼思想的重塑。

乡土文学论争中，王拓与陈映真同被余光中《狼来了》点名，而97年纪念乡土文学论争20周年时，王拓抛出《乡土文学论战与台湾本土化运动》，此时他已从左翼统派转向台独。陈映真对此文展开批评。

　卡扎菲在与美欧联军抗衡中，坚持了许久终而不敌阵亡，他在利比亚的统治不得人心，他所借用的现代国家体制，在利比亚的部落文明脉络中也是格格不入。反对他的人，身在反压迫与反现代的矛盾之间，以至于国家与国家之间的和平，以及国家与社会之间的民主自由机制，到了利比亚，都必须不断重新理解。

對於如何解釋臺灣戰後經濟發展的優異成績，臺灣內部仍是眾說紛紜，且甚至成為藍綠派別性對立的一部份。

盛宁教授于1996年写的鲍德里亚介绍。

人类宪政的历史尚未终结，中国一部分反宪政理论的政治实践，并不是折射出中国距离理想宪政形态的距离，而是为中国宪法的研究者提供了由实践去检验理论、发展理论的学术富矿，但真正开掘这一矿藏，就要求我们摆脱理论前见的桎梏，直面事实本身，进入八二宪法的实践。在此意义上，需要"立"起来的与其说是中国宪法，不如说是中国宪法理论。

中国当下确实面临着自己的宪法问题，边疆治理、代际政治、一国两制，而美国实际上也有着同样或者在功能上等价的宪法问题，但这些问题在美国并没有 "政治问题司法化"，也无法参考美国现有的学说体系。如果我们天真地以为司法审查可以让中国宪法"活"起来--只要找到读过美国宪法解释ABC的人，由他们解释宪法，我们的宪法问题就可以迎刃而解，这其实是对美国宪政史的最大误读，这大概解决不了任何中国问题，它本身可能就是问题。

出路在何方？人类在21世纪有没有可能形成一种"团结紧张、严肃活泼"的宪法秩序？

阿克曼新书旨在告诉读者，美国宪制内的最危险分支已经由国会变为总统。而且，由于总统分支和军队领导权的结构性变革、宪法正当性的新理念出现、以及互联网的兴起与职业新闻业的相应衰退，美国总统的职位上在21世纪将出现更多的小布什，而不是奥巴马

"学术的自由市场"既不可能，也不可欲。本文对法经济学的"去自然化"，如果成功的话，并不意味着法经济学就不应去学或者无法去学，它最多表明法经济学只是"工欲善其事，必先利其器"意义上的"器"，我们不能把这种实用主义者的新工具变成一种新的学术拜物教或理论的意识形态。

我们有很多法律人都在想象着一种独立性。在这种想象中，中国现阶段法制改革的困局和出路都可以一言以蔽之：虽然问题千万重，但归根到底都是由于独立性的缺失。

主张"可以不读",是希望回应近来流传的一种观念：要理解美国宪法，就要读布雷耶，而读了布雷耶，也就读懂了美国宪法。一时间，布雷耶及其所代表的司法化宪法叙述似乎成为理解美国宪法的充要条件。这正是我近期思考所致力于超越的美国宪政叙述模式

6月14日，甘阳在华东政法大学就宪政问题做演讲，题为《守法，变法与保守主义》。他详细解读了阿克曼、列文森和波斯纳三位美国宪法学家对于宪政变迁问题的处理思路。现场提问时，他回答了有关中国当下宪政争论的几个问题。演讲中谈到"迟来者"心态：每天都在赞美过去贬低自己，这就是现在很盛行的民国范

"中德启蒙对话"这样的活动很难避免一种尴尬，因为被邀请参加对话的人尤其是主讲人，很容易被看成不仅代表他个人，而且多多少少代表他来自的国家--中国或德国--的主流观点，因此每个个人的发言也就成了某种"中国的"或"德国的"观点。为此，我想特别强调，我个人的看法在中国社会不具有任何代表性，因此我的发言仅仅只代表我个人的看法，而不能代表任何其他"中国人"的看法，更不能代表所谓"中国的"看法。 "反启蒙"是启蒙本身不可或缺的重要部分 恕我直言，我对"启蒙对话"这个题目并没有很大的热情，因为这个题目容易让人想起鲁迅的名言：老调子又唱起来了。我很怀疑，除了陈辞滥调以外，关于启蒙还能谈出什么新东西？例如，这些年一谈启蒙，大家好像都必须从康德的文章"什么是启蒙"开始，这不免让人厌倦。不过，为了表示对康德的尊重，让我也从康德开始，我愿引用康德《判断力批判》（Critique of Judgmen）第40节的一句话："从迷信中解放出来是谓启蒙"（Liberation from superstition is called enlightenment）。从这个意义上讲，启蒙并非是西方现代的产物，也并非一定与西方现代性相关，相反，启蒙就是从任何根深蒂固的迷信中解放出来。因此，要谈启蒙，首先必须问某个时代某个地方最大的迷信是什么？ 正如我所尊重的德国思想家伽达默尔（Gadamer）指出的，启蒙在西方并非从现代才开始，相反，西方至少发生过三次大的启蒙，第一次启蒙是在古希腊，当时最大的迷信是神话，启蒙表现为古希腊哲学以理性取代神话这种迷信；第二次启蒙则是人们熟悉的西方现代的启蒙，当时西方最大的迷信是启示宗教与基督教圣经，启蒙表现为以"不需上帝启示帮助的理性"（unaided reason）来取代启示宗教与基督教圣经的权威，实际上康德所谓"勇于使用你自己的理智"（havethe courage to use your own understanding），只有在批判启示宗教与基督教圣经这种当时最大迷信的意义上才能理解，"你自己的理智"就是"不需要上帝启示帮助的理性"，否则"你自己的理智"这话根本就没有意义，康德的意思无非是说，欧洲人长期不敢使用自己的理智，是因为上帝的启示和基督教圣经凌驾于"你自己的理智"之上；同样，康德所谓"不需要别人的指引"（without the guidance of another）归根结蒂是指不需要基督教圣经权威的指引，否则这句话就是荒谬的，这会导致对任何教育的否定，有任何一个学生不需要教师的指引吗？因此有必要强调，离开了从启示宗教和基督教圣经这种迷信的解放，西方第二次启蒙根本就无从谈起，没有启示宗教和基督教圣经这种迷信，西方第二次启蒙不会发生。 西方的第三次启蒙，则是在20世纪特别是第二次世界大战和奥斯威辛集中营以后发生的，这次启蒙的表现形式或许可以称为"反启蒙"，因为要破除的最大迷信可以说正是"启蒙本身的迷信"，亦即西方现代启蒙所导致的种种现代迷信：对技术的迷信，对理性本身特别工具理性的迷信，对人掠夺自然奴役自然的权力的迷信，对宏大话语和普遍主义的迷信，以及对西方中心论的迷信，等等。特别是1960年代到1980年代期间，西方很多思想家对"现代性"和"启蒙规划"的深刻批判凸显了"西方现代启蒙"的黑暗面，从而促进了现代人从"启蒙本身的迷信"中解放出来。 可以说，启蒙的辩证法或启蒙的悖论就在于，启蒙在破除迷信的同时往往也在创造自己的新的迷信。正因为如此，"反启蒙"必须被看成是启蒙本身不可或缺的重要部分，没有"反启蒙"，启蒙就无法克服自己造成的新的迷信，因此，"反启蒙"有助于启蒙的健康发展，没有"反启蒙"制约的"启蒙"必然会走向"启蒙的走火入魔"（enlightenment gone mad）。 现代中国必须从对西方的迷信中解放出来 下面我就从这种启蒙辩证法的角度简略谈谈我对中国启蒙的看法。但要讨论中国的启蒙，我们同样必须首先问，中国不同时代的最大迷信是什么？没有迷信，就没有启蒙，只有先搞清什么是有待解放的最大迷信，才有可能真正讨论启蒙。 这里不可能详细讨论中国文明自身的启蒙传统，但可以确认，中国的第一次大启蒙是由孔子和儒家奠定的，孔子和孟子时代的最大迷信是对武力和霸权的迷信，孔子和儒家以"仁"为核心的道德理性和道德实践取代对武力和霸权的迷信，奠定了中国的启蒙传统。儒家的道德理性和道德实践并不追求形而上的绝对真理，而强调个体修养的日常道德实践，因此儒家没有启示宗教那样的绝对教义，也没有基督教圣经那样的绝对神圣文本，儒家的所有经典都是人间的，都是用"你自己的理智"可以把握的。正因为没有启示宗教的迷信，也没有类似基督教圣经那样的神圣文本迷信，类似西方第二次启蒙那样的启蒙运动不会在中国传统内部发生，也不需要发生，因为并没有那样的迷信需要解放。 中国现代的启蒙不是在中国思想传统内部发生的，而是外来的，是在中国文明全盘瓦解后学习西方特别是西方第二次启蒙思想的结果。这一中国现代启蒙过程充满了启蒙的辩证法或启蒙的悖论，亦即它在破除迷信的同时也在不断创造新的迷信。中国现代启蒙破除了从前中国人的最大迷信，即认为中国文明是最高最好的文明这种迷信，从而转向学习西方特别是西方第二次启蒙的成果，但它同时创造了自己的新的迷信，即认为西方的月亮都比中国的月亮圆，因此中国文明传统必须全盘彻底地否定。 特别值得注意的是，中国这一现代启蒙过程基本上缺乏"反启蒙"来平衡，虽然1920年代前后曾有梁启超和梁漱溟等人提出对西方第二次启蒙的批判并曾发生"科玄论战"这样的启蒙辩论，但这些人物和思想很快就被边缘化，毫无影响。20世纪中国的思想主流始终是不断强化对西方第二次启蒙的全面认同，因此20世纪以来几乎每过15年或20年就会有人提出需要"新启蒙"，亦即认为中国走向西方第二次启蒙仍然不够彻底，需要更加激进的启蒙。 更有意思的是，尽管20世纪以来中国发生的一切都是接受西方第二次启蒙的结果，但几乎从没有人认为20世纪中国发生的任何错误与接受西方第二次启蒙有关，而总是认为是启蒙不够彻底所导致。例如改革以来，几乎从来没有人认为毛泽东的错误与中国全面接受西方启蒙有任何关系。中国思想家李泽厚也并不认为检讨现代革命问题首先需要检讨西方第二次启蒙，反而认为现代中国的全部问题是"救亡压倒了启蒙"，仍然是启蒙不够彻底。 如果我们问，中国现在需要什么样的启蒙，那么我们首先要问中国现在最大的迷信是什么？在我看来，答案是清楚的，中国现在最大的迷信就是对西方的迷信，特别是对西方第二次启蒙的迷信。正是这种现代中国迷信，实际使得现代中国人几乎不会用"自己的理智"去思考，因为他们认为必须求助"西方人的理智"，同样，中国的思想界和舆论界至少目前做不到"不需要别人的指引"，因为大家实际认为中国人需要"西方人的指引"。这，大概就是启蒙与迷信的辩证法在现代中国的表现，也是中国现代启蒙的最大悖论。 我的结论因此是，现代中国人如果要"用自己的理智"而"不需要别人的指引"，就必须从对西方的迷信特别是西方第二次启蒙的迷信中解放出来。在这一迷信解放的过程中，中国自身的启蒙传统，以及西方第一次启蒙和第三次启蒙都可能成为重要的思想资源，近年来已经有不少中国学者开始注意这些不同于西方第二次启蒙的启蒙传统。 （作者为中山大学人文高等研究院院长；本文为作者在2011年11月17日中国国家博物馆"启蒙之对话"论坛上的发言）

如果我们认为中国只能像西方一样，建立在赤裸裸的、毫无关系的个体基础之上，如果我们认为目标只是重建一个没有血肉的、抽象的伦理共同体的话，我认为是错误的。

甘阳谈及大学人文教育，提出应该处理好如下7种关系：大学与中学－－尤其是高中教育、本科教育和研究生教育、人文教育与职业教育、“文理”、人文与社科、“西学与中学”、“纲”与“目”。

2011年12月初举行的“两岸三地《四书》教学研讨会”概述

“天魔”舞蹈的内容，从“天魔”诱惑佛祖或菩萨未能得逞的佛教传说敷衍而来。元代的舞蹈“十六天魔”可能是元的亡国之君顺帝根据被禁的同题杂剧而改编成的艳舞，与西番僧所传的秘密宗纠缠在一起。大致说来虽然这个舞蹈中既有诱惑，也有道法，依照史料，顺帝的侧重在前者。“天魔舞”在明代被视为元代淫靡亡国之象征，但在民间改编后仍有上演，甚至传播很广，杨维桢诗句中也提到了天魔舞。这篇考据文章的作者为暨南大学古籍研究所教授。