Do you seriously think we shall live long enough to see a political revolution? – we, the contemporaries of these Germans? My friend, you believe what you want to believe…. Let us judge Germany on the basis of its present history – and surely you are not going to object that all its history is falsified, or that all its present public life does not reflect the actual state of the people? Read whatever papers you please, and you cannot fail to be convinced that we never stop (and you must concede that the censorship prevents no one from stopping) celebrating the freedom and national happiness that we enjoy…
——Ruge to Marx, March 1843
您真的认为我们能够活着看到政治革命吗? 我们, 这些德国人的同时代人? 我的朋友, 你相信你愿相信的……让我们判断在它现在历史基础上的德国, 并且你肯定不反对它的全部历史都是伪造的, 它现在的全部公共生活都不反映人民的真实状况? 读一读你喜欢的每一份报纸, 你都不能不相信我们从没有停止——并且你必须承认检查制度也不能阻止任何一个人停止——过赞美我们所喜爱的国家的幸福和自由……
——卢格, 致马克思的信, 1843年3月
180. In the historical society divided into classes, culture is the general sphere of knowledge and of representations of the lived; which is to say that culture is the power of generalization existing apart, as division of intellectual labor and as intellectual labor of division. Culture detaches itself from the unity of the society of myth “when the power of unification disappears from the life of man and when opposites lose their living relation and interaction and acquire autonomy… (Hegel’s Treatise on the Differences between the Systems of Fichte and Schelling). By gaining its independence, culture begins an imperialist movement of enrichment which is at the same time the decline of its independence. The history which creates the relative autonomy of culture and the ideological illusions about this autonomy also expresses itself as history of culture. And the entire victorious history of culture can be understood as the history of the revelation of its inadequacy, as a march toward its self-suppression. Culture is the locus of the search for lost unity. In this search for unity, culture as a separate sphere is obliged to negate itself.
在历史的社会划分为阶级的情况下, 文化是知识和生命体验表征的一般领域。文化是作为一种独立实体存在的一般化的权力, 像脑力劳动的分工和分工的脑力劳动一样。”当人类生活失去了它的统一的权力, 当对立失去了他们的现存条件、相互作用并变得自主……” (黑格尔, 《关于费希特和谢林体系区别的提纲》)文化就将自己从以神话为基础的社会整体中分离出去。因此, 通过赢得它的独立, 文化开始了一种自我致富的帝国主义运动, 并最终导致了它的独立性的衰落。创造相对文化自治和相关于这一自治意识形态幻想的历史, 也将自己表这为一种文化的历史。这一整个的文化获胜的历史可以被理解为是它的不足不断暴露的历史, 理解为文化自我废除的进行曲。文化是寻求整体性丢失的领域。在这一寻求的过程中, 文化作为分离的领域不得不否定自己。
181. The struggle between tradition and innovation, which is the principle of internal cultural development in historical societies, can be carried on only through the permanent victory of innovation. Yet cultural innovation is carried by nothing other than the total historical movement which, by becoming conscious of its totality, tends to supersede its own cultural presuppositions and moves toward the suppression of all separation.
传统与创新之间的斗争是历史社会的文化内在发展的基本主题, 创新总是会胜利。然而不是通过别的而是通过总体的历史运动引起的文化创新(这一历史的总体运动又生成为文化的总体的意识), 趋向超越它自己的文化预想并走向对全部分离的压抑。
182. The growth of knowledge about society, which includes the understanding of history as the heart of culture, derives from itself an irreversible knowledge, which is expressed by the destruction of God. But this “first condition of any critique” is also the first obligation of a critique without end. When it is no longer possible to maintain a single rule of conduct, every result of culture forces culture to advance toward its dissolution. Like philosophy at the moment when it gained its full autonomy, every discipline which becomes autonomous has to collapse, first of all as a pretention to explain social totality coherently, and finally even as a fragmented tool which can be used within its own boundaries. The lack of rationality of separate culture is the element which condemns it to disappear, because within it the victory of the rational is already present as a requirement.
关于社会的知识的迅速扩张, 包括历史是文化的潜在基础的理解, 导致了一种不可逆性的自知之明, 它被表达为上帝的毁灭。但这一”任何批判的第一先决条件”也是没有终结的批判的第一义务。当不存在任何一个立得住脚的行为准则时, 文化的每一个结果都推动文化走向它的解体。像哲学一旦它达到了完全的独立, 每一个变得自主的学科都必定要瓦解——首先是作为对社会第体能够提供一种连贯性说明的可信的借口; 最终甚至作为也许可在它自己的领域使用的片断的方法论。分离文化的合理性的缺乏注定会消失, 因为这一文化已体现了一种为理性胜利而做的努力。
183. Culture grew out of the history which abolished the way of life of the old world, but as a separate sphere it is still no more than perceptible intelligence and communication, which remain partial in a partially historical society. It is the sense of a world which hardly makes sense.
文化产生于废除了古老世界生活方式的历史, 但作为一种分离的领域在一个部分的历史的社会, 它的理解力和感官交流不可避免地保持为部分的。文化是没有足够意义的世界的意义。
184. The end of cultural history manifests itself on two opposite sides: the project of its supersession in total history, and the organization of its preservation as a dead object in spectacular contemplation. One of these movements has linked its fate to social critique, the other to the defense of class power.
文化历史的终结证明它自己两个相互对立的方面: 一是在总体历史内部文化的自我超越的计划; 二是对景观沉思来说的作为无生命事物的文化的储藏。第一种趋向把文化的命运与社会批判相联系, 第二种趋向把文化的命运与阶级权力的捍卫相联系。
185. The two sides of the end of culture–in all the aspects of knowledge as well as in all the aspects of perceptible representations exist in a unified manner in what used to be art in the most general sense. In the case of knowledge, the accumulation of branches of fragmentary knowledge, which become unusable because the approval of existing conditions must finally renounce knowledge of itself, confronts the theory of praxis which alone holds the truth of them all since it alone holds the secret of their use. In the case of representations, the critical self-destruction of society’s former common language confronts its artificial recomposition in the commodity spectacle, the illusory representation of the non-lived.
文化终结的两种形式的每一个方园都有一种整体的存在, 不仅在知识的所有方面之内, 而且也在感觉表征的所有方面之内, 换句话说, 在这一词的最宽泛的意义, 是在从前被理解为艺术的领域。就知识而论, 由碎片组成的知识分支的积聚已不能用, 因为对现存条件的赞同最终导段对它自己的知识的拒绝; 另一方面, 实践的理论独自的接近了这些知识的真理, 因为它独自洞悉了这些知识运用的秘密。就感觉表征方面而言, 社会前共同语言(langage commun)批判的自我毁灭在商品景观中与它的人工重建(非生命之物的幻想的表征)是对立的。
186. When society loses the community of the society of myth, it must lose all the references of a really common language until the time when the rifts within the inactive community can be surmounted by the inauguration of the real historical community. When art, which was the common language of social inaction, becomes independent art in the modern sense, emerging from its original religious universe and becoming individual production of separate works, it too experiences the movement that dominates the history of the entirety of separate culture. The affirmation of its independence is the beginning of its disintegration.
一旦社会失去它以神话为基础的共同体, 它也就失去了真正共同语言的全部参考要点, 直至静止共同体(communauté inactive)内部的分裂被真实历史共同体的开幕式所超越。当从它的原初宗教宇宙中浮现出来, 变成了分离著作的个体生产的艺术——社会无为的共同语言在现代的意义上变成独立艺术时, 作为分离的领域, 它也变得屈从于统治整个分离文化的历史运动。因此, 艺术独立的宣言也是它的终结的开始。
187. The loss of the language of communication is positively expressed by the modern movement of decomposition of all art, its formal annihilation. This movement expresses negatively the fact that a common language must be rediscovered no longer in the unilateral conclusion which, in the art of the historical society, always arrived too late, speaking to others about what was lived without real dialogue, and admitting this deficiency of life but it must be rediscovered in praxis, which unifies direct activity and its language. The problem is to actually possess the community of dialogue and the game with time which have been represented by poetico-artistic works.
全部艺术现代解体和毁灭的积极意义是交往(communication)语言的丧失。这一发展的消极含意是: 从历史的艺术观点看, 对于那些没有真实对话经历, 又接受生活的匮乏为必然的他人而言, 那总是迟迟出场的、新的共同语言在单边结论的形式中没有被发现, 但这一共同语言在将直接行动和与其自己相称的语言统一在一起的实践中被发现。问题的关键是至今真正地占有对话共同体及与时间游戏关系的, 只不过是在诗歌和艺术的作品中被表现过的东西而已。
188. When art, become independent, depicts its world in dazzling colors, a moment of life has grown old and it cannot be rejuvenated with dazzling colors. It can only be evoked as a memory. The greatness of art begins to appear only at the dusk of life.
当艺术独立并以五彩缤纷的色彩描绘它的世界, 生活的这一时刻就已变老。但五彩缤纷的色彩不可能使这一时刻返老还童。它只能在记亿中被唤起。艺术的伟大只是出现于生活的黄昏。
189. The historical time which invades art expressed itself first of all in the sphere of art itself, starting with the baroque. Baroque is the art of a world which has lost its center: the last mythical order, in the cosmos and in terrestrial government, accepted by the Middle Ages–the unity of Christianity and the phantom of an Empire has fallen. The art of the change must carry within itself the ephemeral principle it discovers in the world. It chose, said Eugenio d’Ors, “life against eternity.” Theater and the festival, the theatrical festival, are the outstanding achievements of the baroque where every specific artistic expression becomes meaningful only with reference to the setting of a constructed place, a construction which is its own center of unification; this center is the passage, which is inscribed as a threatened equilibrium in the dynamic disorder of everything. The somewhat excessive importance given to the concept of the baroque in the contemporary discussion of esthetics is an expression of the awareness that artistic classicism is impossible: for three centuries the attempts to realize a normative classicism or neoclassicism were no more than brief artificial constructions speaking the external language of the State, the absolute monarchy, or the revolutionary bourgeoisie in Roman clothes. What followed the general path of the baroque, from romanticism to cubism, was ultimately an ever more individualized art of negation perpetually renewing itself to the point of the fragmentation and complete negation of the artistic sphere. The disappearance of historical art, which was linked to the internal communication of an elite and had its semi-independent social basis in the partly playful conditions still lived by the last aristocracies, also expresses the fact that capitalism possesses the first class power which admits itself stripped of any ontological quality, a power which, rooted in the simple management of the economy, is equally the loss of all human mastery. The baroque, artistic creation’s long-lost unity, is in some way rediscovered in the current consumption of the totality of past art. When all past art is recognized and sought historically and retrospectively constituted into a world art, it is relativized into a global disorder which in turn constitutes a baroque edifice on a higher level, an edifice in which the very production of baroque art merges with all its revivals. The arts of all civilizations and all epochs can be known and accepted together for the first time. Once this “collection of souvenirs” of art history becomes possible, it is also the end of the world of art. In this age of museums, when artistic communication can no longer exist, all the former moments of art can be admitted equally, because they no longer suffer from the loss of their specific conditions of communication in the current general loss of the conditions of communication.
侵入艺术的历史时间首次在艺术自身领域证明自己, 开始于巴洛克时期。巴洛克艺术是与最后的神话秩序的崩溃相一致的失去其中心的那个世界的艺术, 这一最后的神话秩序, 作为统一基督教与帝国幽灵的中世纪的合成物, 协调了即是天堂又是现世的政府。变化的艺术必然体现了在世界上呈现的同样昙花一现的事物。正如吉尼奥·道奥斯指出的它选锋”生活而不是不朽”。戏剧和音乐节或者戏剧性的节日是巴洛克艺术的显著成就, 在那里每一个特殊艺术表达的唯一目的都是有助于场景的布局, 这一场景必须作为它自己的一致的中心; 这一中心是一种通道(passage), 一种在全面的动态无序状态内即将来临的平衡之表达的通道。在当代美学争论中过分夸大巴洛克概念的重要性反映了这样一种意识: 艺术的古典主义不再可能。过去三个世纪期间建立标准化的古典主义或新古典主义的企图, 不过是操着国家官方语言的短命的人为的模仿(不管它是以绝对君主专制的形式还是借披着古罗马外衣的革命资产阶级的形式)。最终沿着巴洛克的常规发展道路而采的是一种更加个人主义的否定的艺术, 从浪漫主义到立体主义, 它们不断地更新它们的攻击形式, 直至粉碎和毁灭了整个艺术领域。与精英分子的内在交流相联系, 在偏爱嬉戏环境中有着半独立的社会基础并被最后的贵族所经验的历史艺术的消失, 也反映了这样一个事实: 资本主义是第一个承认自己缺乏本体论性质的阶级力力量——这一基础扎根于单纯经济管理的力量是全部人类自制力丧失的症候。长期以来, 巴洛克艺术在艺术创作的世界丢失的统一性, 在某种意义上在今天对过去艺术总体的批发消费中被重新发现。当所有过去的艺术被历史的认可和鉴赏, 并回顾性地被重新划分为唯一的”世界艺术”的阶段, 巴洛克艺术就被合并进一种可能在更高水平上将自己视为巴洛克艺术体系的全球无序状态之中，这一巴洛克艺术体系是真正的巴洛克艺术产产品和它的全部复兴物的大混合。今天, 所有时代、所有文明的艺术第一次可以同时被认识和接受, 但一旦这种艺术历史的”纪念品收藏”成为可能, 这也就意味着艺术世界终结。在这一艺术沟通不再可能的博物馆时代, 每一个和所有以前艺术的瞬间或表达, 都可以被作为价值相等的东西来接受, 因为, 在沟通的普遍先决条件已经丧失的情况下, 没有人会再遭受他自己沟通的特殊能力丧失之痛苦。
190. As a negative movement which seeks the supersession of art in a historical society where history is not yet lived, art in the epoch of its dissolution is simultaneously an art of change and the pure expression of impossible change. The more grandiose its reach, the more its true realization is beyond it. This art is perforce avant-garde, and it is not. Its avant-garde is its disappearance.
艺术解体的时期——在历史的社会内部寻求艺术超越的否定运动(在这一社会历史尚没有直接被经历)——是立刻变化的艺术和变化的不可能性的纯粹表达。它的抱负越宏伟, 它的真实实现就越是超越了它。这一艺术必然是先锋, 但同时又不真实存在。它的先锋就是它的消失。
191. Dadaism and surrealism are the two currents which mark the end of modern art. They are contemporaries, though only in a relatively conscious manner, of the last great assault of the revolutionary proletarian movement; and the defeat of this movement, which left them imprisoned in the same artistic field whose decrepitude they had announced, is the basic reason for their immobilization. Dadaism and surrealism are at once historically related and opposed to each other. This opposition, which each of them considered to be its most important and radical contribution, reveals the internal inadequacy of their critique, which each developed one-sidedly. Dadaism wanted to suppress art without realizing it; surrealism wanted to realize art without suppressing it. The critical position later elaborated by the Situationists has shown that the suppression and the realization of art are inseparable aspects of a single supersession of art.
达达主义和超现实主义是标志着现代艺术终结的两种趋势。尽笛他们只是部分地意识到这一点, 他们是无产阶级革命运动当代最后的最强烈的进攻; 并且将他们限制于他们所宣告的真正衰朽的艺术领域的这一运动的失败, 是对他们定位的基本理由。在历史上, 达达主义和超现实主义是彼此联系又相互对立的。这一对立包括了这两个运动最重要和激进的贡献, 但它也显示了他们单方面批判的内在不足。达达主义企图废除没有实现达达主义的艺术; 超现实主义企图实现没有废除超现实主义的艺术。稍后由情境主义者所发展的批判立场显示: 艺术的废除和实现是艺术超越不可分离的两个方面。
192. Spectacular consumption which preserves congealed past culture, including the recuperated repetition of its negative manifestations, openly becomes in the cultural sector what it is implicitly in its totality: the communication of the incommunicable. The flagrant destruction of language is flatly acknowledged as an officially positive value because the point is to advertise reconciliation with the dominant state of affairs–and here all communication is joyously proclaimed absent. The critical truth of this destruction the real life of modern poetry and art is obviously hidden, since the spectacle, whose function is to make history forgotten within culture, applies, in the pseudo-novelty of its modernist means, the very strategy which constitutes its core. Thus a school of neo-literature, which simply admits that it contemplates the written word for its own sake, can present itself as something new. Furthermore, next to the simple proclamation of the sufficient beauty of the decay of the communicable, the most modern tendency of spectacular culture–and the one most closely linked to the repressive practice of the general organization of society–seeks to remake, by means of “team projects,” a complex neo-artistic environment made up of decomposed elements: notably in urbanism’s attempts to integrate artistic debris or esthetico- technical hybrids. This is an expression, on the level of spectacular pseudo-culture, of developed capitalism’s general project, which aims to recapture the fragmented worker as a “personality well integrated in the group,” a tendency described by American sociologists (Riesman, Whyte, etc.). It is the same project everywhere: a restructuring without community.
以凝固形式保藏过去的文化, 包括被增选的它的否定性表现形式之改写的景观消费, 在文化领域公然表这出景观在其整体性中所暗示的东西: 不能沟通(communication)的沟通。对语言最极端的破坏公开被认为是一种积极的价值, 因为问题在于, 它宣扬了与占统治地位的现状的和解, 在那里全部沟通都被得意洋洋地宣布为缺席。毁灭这一现代诗歌和艺术的真实生活的批判真理明显是被隐藏的, 因为景观的功能就是运用文化去埋葬全部历史的记忆, 就是将它的基本策略运用于它的现代派的伪创新的提升。因此, 为了它自己的缘故, 坦率承认只注视书面文字的新文学学派, 将自己作为有点新的东西展现出来。同时, 与这一简单宣称相并肩的是沟通的死亡, 它有自己独有的足够的美丽, 景观文化最现代的趋势——也是与社会一般组织的压仰的实践紧密相联的——借助于”集体计划”寻求重建由零碎物和废弃物等元素构成的复杂的新艺术环镜, 已在都市生活的整合艺术废料或美学技术形式的混合物的企图被看到。这是一种表达, 一种在景观伪文化领域的表达, 一种将碎片式的工人改铸成”社会的完整个性”的发达资本主义普遍计划中的表达, 这一趋势已为美国社会学家(瑞斯曼·怀特等)所描述。这是一个到处都同样的计划: 没有共同体的社会。
193. When culture becomes nothing more than a commodity, it must also become the star commodity of the spectacular society. Clark Kerr, one of the foremost ideologues of this tendency, has calculated that the complex process of production, distribution and consumption of knowledge already gets 29% of the yearly national product in the United States; and he predicts that in the second half of this century culture will be the driving force in the development of the economy, a role played by the automobile in the first half of this century, and by railroads in the second half of the previous century.
当文化仅仅变成了商品, 它必定也变成景观社会的明星商品。克拉克·凯乐, 预见这一趋势的第一流的思想家曾计算这一复杂的知识生产、分配和消费的过程占美国年总产量的29%; 并且他预言在下半世纪文化将成为经济发展的主导力量, 这一作用在上半个世纪是通过汽车, 在前一个世纪的下半个世纪是通过铁路运输。
194. All the branches of knowledge, which continue to develop as the thought of the spectacle, have to justify a society without justification, and constitute a general science of false consciousness. This thought is completely conditioned by the fact that it cannot and will not investigate its own material basis in the spectacular system.
在发展景观思想的过程中, 各种各样知识分支的任务就是证明没有正当性的社会是正当的, 并建立起一种伪意识的一般科学。这一思想完全被在景观体系中既不可能也不希望理解它自己的物质基础的事实所制约。
195. The system’s thought, the thought of the social organization of appearance, is itself obscured by the generalized sub-communication which it defends. It does not know that conflict is at the origin of all things in its world. Specialists in the power of the spectacle, an absolute power within its system of language without response, are absolutely corrupted by their experience of contempt and of the success of contempt; and they find their contempt confirmed by their knowledge of the contemptible man, who the spectator really is.
表象社会组织的官方思想自身是被由它辩护的一般化的潜沟通弄得晦涩难懂的。它不能理解在它的世界, 斗争是一切事情发生的源头。景观权力专家在单面沟通的景观语言领域是绝对的, 通过蔑视他们的体验及这一蔑视的成功, 景观专家是绝对地腐败的。因为他们感到他们的蔑视已被他们所熟悉的只配被鄙视的个人——真正的观众所证实。
196. Within the specialized thought of the spectacular system, a new division of tasks takes place to the extent that the improvement of this system itself poses new problems: on one hand, modern sociology which studies separation by means of the conceptual and material instruments of separation itself, undertakes the spectacular critique of the spectacle; on the other hand, in the various disciplines where structuralism takes root, the apology for the spectacle institutes itself as the thought of non-thought, as the official amnesia of historical practice. Nevertheless, the false despair of non-dialectical critique and the false optimism of pure advertising of the system are identical in that they are both submissive thought.
当景观体制的真实成功形成了新的难题, 一种新的分离任务在这一体制的专门化思想内部显现出来。一方面, 借助于分离的概念和物质工具, 仅仅研究分离的现代社会学采取了一种景观的景观式批评; 另一方面, 在各种各样以结构主义为基础的学科中, 产生了一种景观辩护学——一种没有头脑的思想, 一种关于全部历史实践的强加的正式健忘症。但是, 非辩证批判的虚假绝望和明显推进体制的虚假乐观主义同样都是屈从的思想。
197. The sociology which began, first in the United States, to focus discussion on the living conditions brought about by present development, compiled a great deal of empirical data, but could not fathom the truth of its subject because it lacked the critique immanent in this subject. As a result, the sincerely reformist tendency of this sociology resorts to morality, common sense, appeals devoid of all relevance to practical measures, etc. Because this type of critique is ignorant of the negative at the core of its world, it insists on describing only a sort of negative surplus which it finds deplorably annoying on the surface, like an irrational parasitic proliferation. This indignant good will, even if genuine, ends up blaming only the external consequences of the system, yet thinks itself critical, forgetting the essentially apologetic character of its assumptions and method.
开始提出由现代社会发展所导致的(首先是在美国)关于生存环境问题的社会学家, 已整理了大量经验材料, 但不能理解他们所研究的这一课题的真正本质, 因为他们不能认识到内在于这一课题的批判。结果, 那些真诚的希望改革这一环境的社会学家, 只能求助于道德准则、常识、适度等其他不能充分处理这一问题的标准和尺度。因为, 这一批判方法没有意识到自己领域中心的消极性, 它集中描述和深表痛惜是一种多余的消极性, 像非理性寄生的害虫一样它似乎只是枯萎了这一世界的外袭。这个愤慨地善良意志, 即使在它自己道德化的框架内, 是后也只是指责这一体系的外在结果, 只有当这一批判不理睬它的方法和设想的本质辩护特性时, 才能将其视为批判的。
198. Those who denounce the absurdity or the perils of incitement to waste in the society of economic abundance do not understand the purpose of waste. They condemn with ingratitude, in the name of economic rationality, the good irrational guardians without whom the power of this economic rationality would collapse. For example, Boorstin, in L’Image, describes the commercial consumption of the American spectacle but never reaches the concept of spectacle because he thinks he can exempt private life, or the notion of “the honest commodity,” from this disastrous exaggeration. He does not understand that the commodity itself made the laws whose “honest” application leads to the distinct reality of private life and to its subsequent reconquest by the social consumption of images.
那些公开指责丰裕社会刺激浪费为荒谬和危险的人, 不理解浪费的意义。他们以经济合理性的名义忘恩负义地谴责忠实可靠的非理性的监护人, 而正是非理性的监护人阻止了这一经济合理性力量的垮台。例如, 丹尼尔·保斯登在《影像》一书中描述了美国社会的景观商品消费, 但他没有这到景观这一概念, 因为, 他认为他可以将私生活和”最诚实商品”与他所痛心的”过度(exagération)”区分开。他也不理解商品自己制定的法律通过其”诚实”的运用, 产生了一种非常鲜明的私人生活现实, 继而又通过映像的社会消费完成了对这一现实的占领。
199. Boorstin describes the excesses of a world which has become foreign to us as if they were excesses foreign to our world. But the “normal” basis of social life, to which he implicitly refers when he characterizes the superficial reign of images with psychological and moral judgments as a product of “our extravagant pretentions,” has no reality whatever, either in his book or in his epoch. Boorstin cannot understand the full profundity of a society of images because the real human life he speaks of is for him in the past, including the past of religious resignation. The truth of this society is nothing other than the negation of this society.
保斯登描写的与我们无关的世界的过度, 就好像过度与我们的世界无关一样。但像一个道德和心理学的预言家一样, 当他指责作为我们”放纵欲望”的一种产物的肤浅的影像统治时, 他已含蓄地将这些过度与无论在他的书中还是在他的时代都没有任何真实性的”正常”生活进行了对照。保斯登没有办法理解影像社会的全部深刻性, 因为他所谈到的真实的人类生活对他来说是在过去, 包括宗教顺从的过去。这一社会的真理不过是这一社会的否定。
200. The sociology which thinks that an industrial rationality functioning separately can be isolated from the whole of social life can go so far as to isolate the techniques of reproduction and transmission from the general industrial movement. Thus Boorstin finds that the results he depicts are caused by the unfortunate, almost fortuitous encounter of an oversized technical apparatus for image diffusion with an excessive attraction to the pseudo-sensational on the part of the people of our epoch. Thus the spectacle would be caused by the fact that modern man is too much of a spectator. Boorstin fails to understand that the proliferation of the prefabricated “pseudo-events” which he denounces flows from the simple fact that, in the massive reality of present social life, men do not themselves live events. Because history itself haunts modern society like a spectre, pseudo-histories are constructed at every level of consumption of life in order to preserve the threatened equilibrium of present frozen time.
认为能够将运行着的工业合理性, 个别地从整体社会生活中隔离出来的社会学, 同样也会将传播与复制的技术看作普通工业发展的自主性。因此, 保斯登推断他所描写的这种情形是由一种不幸的遭遇引起的, 但这是一种偶然的遭遇, 一种过度的影像扩散技术与今天部分公众中过度的激情主义欲望的遭遇。所以, 景观是由这样一个事实引起的, 即现代人太过于做一个观众。保斯登不能理解预制”伪事件”的分蘖繁殖, 他的谴责来自于这一简单事实: 现在社会存在的无法抵抗的现实, 阻止人们自己生活于自己的事件之中。因为历史本身像一个幽灵一样神出鬼没于现代社会, 为了保存将要来临的凝固的时间的平衡, 伪历史不得不在每一个层次上被编造。
201. The assertion of the definitive stability of a short period of frozen historical time is the undeniable basis, proclaimed consciously and unconsciously, of the present tendency toward a structuralist systematization. The vantage point from which anti-historical structuralist thought views the world is that of the eternal presence of a system which was never created and which will never end. The dream of the dictatorship of a preexisting unconscious structure over all social praxis could be erroneously drawn from models of structures elaborated by linguistics and anthropology (and even the analysis of the functioning of capitalism)–models already misunderstood in this context–only because the academic imagination of minor functionaries, easily overwhelmed and completely entrenched in the awestruck celebration of the existing system, flatly reduces all reality to the existence of the system.
结构主义者制度化的流行趋势或明或暗建立在这样一种假定之上, 即历史时间的直接凝固将永恒待续。结构主义反历史的思想相信系统的永恒在场, 它永不创造也永无终结。全部社会实践都不知不觉被先前结构所决定的结构主义幻想, 建立在由语言学和人类学发展出的结构模式的不合理类比之上——即使这一模式运用于分析资本主义的运行——这一模式在其原初语境中就已被误用。这一谬误的推理来自于解释这一思想的学院小职员的狭小智力与想象力, 这一小职员如此彻底地被对现存制度的令人敬畏的庆典所吸引, 而在这一制度中他们所做的不过是将全部现实简化这一制度的存在。
202. In order to understand “structuralist” categories, one must keep in mind, as with every historical social science, that the categories express forms as well as conditions of existence. Just as one cannot appraise the value of a man in terms of the conception he has of himself, one cannot appraise–and admire–this particular society by taking as indisputably true the language it speaks to itself; “…we cannot judge such epochs of transformation by their own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must rather be explained in the light of the contradictions of material life…” Structure is the daughter of present power. Structuralism is the thought guaranteed by the State which regards the present conditions of spectacular “communication” as an absolute. Its method of studying the code of messages is itself nothing but the product, and the acknowledgement, of a society where communication exists in the form of a cascade of hierarchic signals. Consequently it is not structuralism which serves to prove the transhistorical validity of the society of the spectacle; it is on the contrary the society of the spectacle imposing itself as massive reality which serves to prove the cold dream of structuralism.
为了理解”结构主义的”范畴, 人们必须牢记这些范畴, 像每一门历史社会科学一样, 这些范畴都反思了存在的条件和形式。正像人们不能根据一个人自己的观念判断他的价值一样, 人也不能通过认为自己对自己说的话就是绝对真实的, 来判断和赞美这个特定的社会。”我们不能根据它自己的意识判断这一变革的时代, 相反, 这一意识必须根据物质生活的矛盾来解释。”结构是现存权力的后裔。结构主义是被国家认购的思想。这一思想形式将景观”沟通”的现代条件看作绝对。它研究信息密码的方法, 本质上不过是对那种沟通采取了等级信号层叠形式的社会的认可和产物。结构主义不能证明景观社会超历史的合法性, 相反, 它是景观的社会将自己强加于它的压倒性现实之上的、证实了结构主义的冰冷梦想的景观社会。
203. The critical concept of spectacle can undoubtedly also be vulgarized into a commonplace hollow formula of sociologico-political rhetoric to explain and abstractly denounce everything, and thus serve as a defense of the spectacular system. It is obvious that no idea can lead beyond the existing spectacle, but only beyond the existing ideas about the spectacle. To effectively destroy the society of the spectacle, what is needed is men putting a practical force into action. The critical theory of the spectacle can be true only by uniting with the practical current of negation in society, and this negation, the resumption of revolutionary class struggle, will become conscious of itself by developing the critique of the spectacle which is the theory of its real conditions (the practical conditions of present oppression), and inversely by unveiling the secret of what this negation can be. This theory does not expect miracles from the working class. It envisages the new formulation and the realization of proletarian imperatives as a long-range task. To make an artificial distinction between theoretical and practical struggle since on the basis defined here, the very formulation and communication of such a theory cannot even be conceived without a rigorous practice it is certain that the obscure and difficult path of critical theory must also be the lot of the practical movement acting on the scale of society.
毋庸置疑, 景观的批判概念非常容易变成一种社会学、政治学修辞的虚伪空洞的套语, 去抽象地解释和指责一切事情, 所以它常常是用来强化景观体系的。很明显没有思想能够超越现存的景观, 但却有超越关于景观的现存思想。为了有效地消灭景观社会, 需要的是把实践的力量置入行动中。只有与社会一切否定的实际潮流相联合, 景观的批判理论才可能是真实的; 并且这一否定, 这一革命阶级斗争的重新复兴, 应通过发展景观批判变成自己的意识, 景观的批判是关于它自己真实条件(现存压迫的实际条件)的理论, 并且相反地, 它还要揭开这个否定到底是什么这一神秘的面纱。这一理论不能期望来自工人阶级的奇迹。它必须正视作为一项长期任务的无产阶级的实现和再形成。为了使在这里被定义基础上的理论和实践斗争之间的人为区别显示出来, 这一理论的真正规划和传播不能没有严酷的实践而被设想, 可以肯定的是, 朦胧的、艰难的批判理论的道路一定也是按照社会规模行动的实践活动的命运。
204. Critical theory must be communicated in its own language. It is the language of contradiction, which must be dialectical in form as it is in content. It is critique of the totality and historical critique. It is not “the nadir of writing” but its inversion. It is not a negation of style, but the style of negation.
批判理论必须在其自己的语言中自我沟通——这是矛盾的语言, 它必须在内容与形式上都是辩证的。它是总体的批判也是历史的批判。包不是”写作的零度”而是它的颠覆。它不是一种风格的否定, 而是一种否定的风格。
205. In its very style. the exposition of dialectical theory is a scandal and an abomination in terms of the rules and the corresponding tastes of the dominant language, because when it uses existing concrete concepts it is simultaneously aware of their rediscovered fluidity, their necessary destruction.
辩证理论的真正风格是一种丑闻, 是对语言的流行标准及由这些标准所塑造的敏感性的憎恨。因为当它使用现存的具体的概念时, 它同时也意识到了他们的流动性及他们必然的毁灭。
206. This style which contains its own critique must express the domination of the present critique over its entire past. The very mode of exposition of dialectical theory displays the negative spirit within it. “Truth is not like a product in which one can no longer find any trace of the tool that made it” (Hegel). This theoretical consciousness of movement, in which the movement’s very trace must be evident, manifests itself by the inversion of the established relations between concepts and by the diversion of all the acquisitions of previous critique. The inversion of the genetive is this expression of historical revolutions, consigned to the form of thought, which was considered Hegel’s epigrammatic style. The young Marx, recommending the technique Feuerbach had systematically used of replacing the subject with the predicate, achieved the most consistent use of this insurrectional style, drawing the misery of philosophy out of the philosophy of misery. Diversion leads to the subversion of past critical conclusions which were frozen into respectable truths, namely transformed into lies. Kierkegaard already used it deliberately, adding his own denunciation to it: “But despite all the tours and detours, just as jam always returns to the pantry, you always end up by sliding in a little word which isn’t yours and which bothers you by the memory it awakens” (Philosophical Fragments). It is the obligation of distance toward what was falsified into official truth which determines the use of diversion, as was acknowledged by Kierkegaard in the same book: “Only one more comment on your numerous allusions aiming at all the grief I mix into my statements of borrowed sayings. I do not deny it here nor will I deny that it was voluntary and that in a new continuation to this pamphlet, if I ever write it, I intend to name the object by its real name and to clothe the problem in historical attire.”
这种包含一种自我批判的风格, 必须表达为超越了它的全部过去的现代批判。辩证理论的真正阐明模式显示了其内部的否定精神。”真理不像那些已完成的产品, 在其中人们不再能够发现制造它的工具的任何踪迹”(黑格尔)。这一运动的真实踪迹十分明显的理论意识被一种已确立关系的颠倒所证明, 这种关系就是在概念和异轨(détournement)先前批判的全部成就之间己确立的关系。黑格尔的颠倒属格式的实践, 是一种历史革命的表达, 尽管这一表达仅被限制在思想形式方面。由于受费尔巴哈系统地主词和谓词颠倒方法的鼓励, 青年马克思达到了这种反叛的风格中最恰到好处运用: 因此”贫困的哲学”变成了”哲学的贫困”。异轨重新激进化了已被石化为可尊敬的真理的先前的批判结论, 并将它们转变为谎言。基尔凯郭尔曾故意使用它, 尽管他也公开指责它: “然而不管你怎样游历和迂回, 正如果酱总要放回食品室一样, 你最后总要引入很少一点措词, 一点并非你自己的, 又唤醒令人烦扰的记忆的措词”(《哲学片断》)。正如他在这本书别处所承认的, 这一异轨的运用, 需要与那种无论怎样都会变成一种官方真理的东西保持着距离: “人们可更进一步谈论我把许多虚构的陈述, 引入我说明的关于你的大量非难, 我不否认我做的这些, 事实上我是故意这样做的。在这一著作的下一章节, 如果我不断地写这样的章节, 我打算用它的真实名称来命名它, 并以历史的服装遮盖难题。”
207. Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author’s phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it with the right idea.
思想在改进, 词义参与了这一改进。剽窃是必然的, 进步依靠它。它拥抱作者的措词, 使用了他的表达, 抹去了错误的思想并用正确的替代之。
208. Diversion is the opposite of quotation, of the theoretical authority which is always falsified by the mere fate of having become a quotation a fragment torn from its context, from its movement, and ultimately from the global framework of its epoch and from the precise choice, whether exactly recognized or erroneous, which it was in this framework. Diversion is the fluid language of anti-ideology. It appears in communication which knows it cannot pretend to guarantee anything definitively and in itself. At its peak, it is language which cannot be confirmed by any former or supra-critical reference. On the contrary, its own coherence, in itself and with the applicable facts, can confirm the former core of truth which it brings out. Diversion has grounded its cause on nothing external to its own truth as present critique.
异轨是引用的对立面, 是诉诸理论权威的对立面, 而理论权威必然会为这一简单事实所败坏, 即它变成可引用的了——这一引用是从它自己的发展与背景中撕下来的一个片断, 最后是从它那个时期的一般结构, 从这一结构内部它所代表的特定选择(正确的或不正确的)中撕下来的一个片断。异轨是反对意识形态的一种弹性的语言。它显现于那种意识到它没有能力宣示任何最后的确定性的沟通类型之中。它是一种不可能也不需要被任何以前的或在批判之上的引用所证实的语言, 相反, 它自己的内在一致和实践效能却是对已被重建的先前真理核心的确认。异轨将它的根据仅仅立基于作为目前批判的它自己的真理之上。
209. What openly presents itself as diverted in theoretical form, denying the durable autonomy of the sphere of the theoretically expressed by introducing there, through this violence, the action which upsets and overthrows the entire existing order, reminds us that the existence of theory is nothing in itself, and that it can know itself only through historical action and the historical correction which is its real counterpart.
在系统表达的理论中, 展开的异轨要素驳斥了某一理论将永远独立的任何概念。通过将瓦解和推翻每一种现存秩序的猛烈颠覆的同一风格的异轨引进理论领地, 异轨担任了提醒人的职务: 理论本质上什么也不是, 它只有通过历史行动, 通过真正忠诚的对历史的校正, 才能实现自身。
210. Only the real negation of culture can preserve its meaning. It can no longer be cultural. Thus it is what in some way remains at the level of culture, but with a completely different meaning.
文化的真实价值只能通过否定文化来保持, 但这一否定不再是文化的否定。在某种意义上它也许发生在文化内部, 但它指向对它的边越。
211. In the language of contradiction, the critique of culture presents itself as a unified critique in that it dominates the whole of culture, its knowledge as well as its poetry, and in that it no longer separates itself from the critique of the social totality. This unified theoretical critique goes alone to meet unified social practice.
在矛盾的语言中, 文化的批判是一种统一的批判, 说其是统一的是因为它支配文化的整体——作为知识的文化和作为诗歌的文化——并且还因为它不再把自己同社会整体的批判相分离。统一的理论批判独自地去会见了统一的社会实践。
Published by