Maze of Resistance: Crowd,Space and the Politics of Resisting Subjectivity

Abstract

In 1968 the streets around the world saw a rise of a mass political movements. Nowadays, 46 years later, a nostalgic revolutionary aura surrounds that time; as since, such is the impression, the street is yet to emerge as a strong political actor or an effective practice of resistance is yet to take form. It seems as if the old ways of resistance have met their end, and new ways have not quite come in place. However, the most recent protests, as this paper aims to show, might have started a new path of resistance at the centre of which is a particular political subjectivity gaining its power from a space of resistance and appearing in a form of a ‘crowd’. By looking at the power of the crowd as a particular embodiment or a cross between a political subject and a multitude this paper explores the constituent power of political gatherings by rejecting race, ethnicity, religion, class or gender as their mobilizing force and instead focusing on the power of coming-together (common) in a particular space. The political capacity of such ‘common’ mobilising force was fully exposed in the recent protests across Europe and the Arab world (the two examples on which this paper draws). The paper opens with a discussion of the distinct relationship between the sovereign (or state) and political subjectivity. The constitutive moment of subjectivity (the self-other relation) is placed in a political context and by drawing on the examples of sans papiers and Bouazizi's act of self-immolation the difficulties of the act of resistance and their inherent and unavoidable violence are highlighted. These two recent acts of resistance expose the need to think political subjectivity otherwise, and point to vistas (the crowd), which can facilitate such a different thinking. By drawing on the constitutive idea of the common as logic of subjectivation the intricate relationship between the body and the political space as manifested in the most recent against austerity and oppressive political regimes protests is interrogated. In the hope of placing the political subject closer to the driving seat of politics a case is made for a rather distinct relationship between political subjectivity of the crowd and the emerging space of resistance. This is a relationship that amounts to a new ‘resisting political subjectivity’ and that can bring about a new way of engaging with the politics of oppression and begins to think political contestations otherwise.     

是同一与差异之争，还是其他——评德法之争对形而上学奠基之裂隙的指涉

本文通过对勘辨析德里达的海德格尔批评文本与海德格尔本人的相关文本,指出:德里达对海德格尔思想的解构,表面上看起来是对同一性原则的批评以及对原初差异性思想的贯彻;但实际上,这种貌似彻底的解构恰恰运作在“非此即彼”的传统逻辑学思路上,并因而错失了海德格尔“之间”思想的充满权变智慧的临界性,从而为一种源于犹太传统的弥赛亚虚无主义开启了后现代的可能性。     

解构的伦理面向:德里达与列维纳斯

德里达一直致力于对人道主义、人性、伦理这些论域的解构,这使人们容易认为,解构与伦理学相对立。德里达早年对列维纳斯的批评,亦使人们相信,德里达也把伦理学列入解构的重点。但德里达后期却明显地转向伦理学,此时他所提出的所有的问题,实际上都可以归结为他者的伦理问题。而德里达后期关于他者、礼物、宽恕、死亡、绝境、没有宗教的宗教性等思想,都印有列维纳斯影响的痕迹。解构的伦理性已经是理解解构主义重要的维度,正是在解构伦理学中,解构给予了一种伦理性。这也使我们有必要重新审视德里达早年对列维纳斯的批判。德里达正是清理了列维纳斯关于他者的同一性思想,而发展出他的解构思想。尽管那时的德里达怀疑希伯来进向的可能性,后来却从列维纳斯给予的希伯来的某种思想资源中获益匪浅。从德里达早期对列维纳斯的思想批判中,可以看出德里达解构思想最初运作的思路和价值取向。     

德里达诗学与中国传统诗学之比较

本文通过解读雅克·德里达 (JacquesDerrida)的《何谓诗》一文 ,阐述了德里达的诗学 ,并指出了德里达的诗学同中国传统诗学的一些相似之处。德里达不落西方传统诗学的窠臼 ,用两个词回答了何谓诗这个问题。这两个词就是“记忆”和“心灵”。     

‘All present and correct?’ Exclusionary inclusion within the English educational system

This paper critically analyses discourses of educational inclusion in England through the lens of Derridean deconstruction. Linking Derrida’s thesis on writing and speech to presence and absence, the paper contends that inclusion acts as a suppléance to previous policies of integration. The paper suggests that, for many teachers, inclusion is grounded upon the forced absence of children rather than upon any notions of equality or justice.     

德里达传播哲学及其方法论启示

德里达解构主义哲学对“意义”进行了重新思考,复活其广阔自由和无限可能性,从而解放了长期以来为在场形而上学所封闭和僵化了的“意义”。而“意义”的构建与交流正是传播学研究的内核,因此德里达解构主义哲学实际上构筑了一种富于解放性内涵的传播哲学。它的无中心、差异化的多维思路可以启发人们在传播活动中还原“意义”的自由,重视“意义”的个体性、精神性,并且建构多元差异和谐共存的传播情境。     

The Benedictine Ethic and the Modern Spirit of Scheduling: on Schedules and Social Organization*

This paper examines the role of schedules in social life. It first explains why both the schedule and the clock were introduced to the West through the Benedictine monasteries. Then it brings into focus the main principle underlying the schedule, namely temporal regularity, which involves the standardization of the temporal locations of events and activities and of their rates of recurrence, as well as the rigidification of their durations and sequential structures. Following a discussion of the constraints as well as the conveniences involved in using the schedule, it also examines two other implications of its introduction to the West–an abstract conception and a utilitarian philosophy of time. It ends with a discussion of the role of the schedule in enhancing both mechanical and organic solidarity.     

雅克拉康视域下的阿库乌雾诗歌解析

阿库乌雾的诗歌以其独特的语言风格和意象,在世界少数族裔文学中越来越受到关注,国内外学者将更多的关注点聚焦在文学的边缘地位、作者本人的身份、少数民族文化的独特性等问题,较少关注诗歌本身。采用跨学科的研究方法,用雅克拉康的镜像理论分析阿库乌雾诗歌,探究阿库乌雾是如何打破雅克拉康的虚像,向内求真直抵文学生命的思想和精神层面,回归少数民族文学研究的文学性。     

Fantasias of terrorism

An introduction to this special issue of the Journal for Cultural Research, this essay explains how terrorism may be said to equate to a “fantasia”, and how this fantasia has operated in different times and places. It also takes a close look at the popular fantasia promoted by the entertainment industry today, beginning with representations of the enemies of James Bond. In popular culture, terrorism is a spectre (along the lines of Ian Fleming’s SPECTRE) bent on the destruction of society, and yet it is also a sign of disorder at the heart of the very society which it attacks. Jacques Derrida’s comments on 9/11, using the metaphor of an auto-immune disorder, are pertinent. Film and television fantasias of terrorism offer critiques of the modern world order, but they offer the wrong critique.     

自由的文本、权力的世界——比较德里达与福柯的文本观

索绪尔的结构主义语言学引发人们重新思考文本与世界之间的相互关系。德里达把文本看作语言游戏的迷宫,认为文本之外无它物,文本中的一切都不需要来自外部世界的联系和支援,我们也不再渴望文本能够为我们再现某种世界的真理,而应积极投入到能指的海洋之中。相反,福柯则认为看似封闭、清白、静止的文本其实是各种权力话语的织体,它总是产生并服务于某一特定集团的利益关切。任何自明和常识的知识/文本都有隐藏权力的特性,而这些权力恰恰是生产控制的工具。两者之间的差异也恰好体现出后现代主义文学对待文本与世界之间关系的两条路径。