|
|
|
1. 我了解文化的過程 我在高一 – 高二時,讀了家父的《中國文化之前途》後(出版年代不詳),第一次從知識角度接觸到文化的概念。我當時寫了一篇讀後感,發表在《建中青年》。過了60年,現在已經不記得那篇文章的內容。當然,我後來也拜讀了家父的《古代中國文化與中國知識份子》(第5版)。 初中時從歷史課本學到國家積弱一百多年,內憂外患不斷;在國民黨「反共抗俄」教育下,「外有強敵」的陰影揮之不去。很自然的培養出追求富國強兵的意識。初、高中時,在經濟學和社會學的入門書之外,也看了《孫子兵法》和《戰爭藝術》。 大一時修了「社會學」這門課;教授是一位愛爾蘭神父,他非常詼諧。課堂中笑聲四起,更加深了我對社會學的興趣。開始工作後讀了一些介紹世界各地區文化的書(請見「參考資料」)。下班後在加州庫比蒂諾市的迪安薩社區大學修了一門「文化人類學」(Haviland 1983)。上了這門課以後,我從李基教授的《人類的成長》開始,進一步閱讀考古學、考古人類學、人類演化史、人類出非洲史、人類遷徙史、基因人類學、和population等領域的科普書籍和報導。 1980年以後,由於試圖了解「結構主義」,進而接觸到「後結構主義」和「後現代主義」。我花了相當多時間閱讀「後現代」理論諸大師的著作,寫過相關的一篇書評。也開始從「文化研究」領域的角度進一步了解「文化」。 對哲學的興趣,讓我有機會了解語言學(1959,書林)和符號學(1986)的理論。我從初中時就對「行為」和指導行為的「原則」很好奇;對倫理學的探索先後把我帶進社會學、心理學、和認知科學等相關領域的涉獵。我也就能夠從認知科學和心理學(1992)的角度來了解「文化」。理學院的訓練和在高科技產業界工作經驗,則使我養成從現實角度了解事情和事理的傾向。 以上是我試圖了解「文化」這個概念的簡單歷程,也是我相信自己能夠就「文化」相關議題略表淺見的依據。 我本來想把我對「文化」這個概念的了解,寫成一篇系統性的論文;斷斷續續地寫了近三年,終究因為老邁而無法成章。只在這篇拙作中簡要的做了說明(該文第3節)。 此外,我在網上曾多次討論「文化」議題(討論1、討論2、討論3 – 此欄有多篇討論「文化」的文章);各位可以根據它們和上引拙作,評鑑一下我對文化的了解是否成立和說得通。 請參考本欄的姐妹欄:《古代文化/文明小檔案》。 2. 本部落格「文化研究」目錄 待增補。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
《現代性的左傾盲動化》小評
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
「現代性」通常是哲學或社會學這兩個領域的議題(該欄主文--9之6);但馬霍尼教授的意旨近於「文化批評」(本欄上一篇貼文),和梅克格拉教的調調異曲同工(本欄第2篇貼文);所以放在此欄。 這是另一位保守派學者的「大作」。他的功力看來在梅克格拉教授之上;但跟後者一樣(本欄2024/05/13貼文),馬霍尼教授或者有認知障礙,或者言不及義,或者言不由衷 (該文附註5)。總之,兩位不過是彌爾所說的sincere bigot (該文2.1-2)小節);或者拿到博士學位的Archie Bunker。 中文標題所用「左傾盲動」一詞,賣弄和揶揄兼而有之。暫時寫到這裏,以後有空再多說幾句。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
現代性的左傾盲動化 -- Daniel J. Mahoney
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
請參見下一篇《小評》。 索引: agitprop:(尤指透過戲劇、藝術、書籍等進行的)政治性宣傳或煽動 DEI:多元共融 dysphoria:煩躁,失望,不滿 euthanasia:安樂死 invigorating:令人振奮的,加油打氣的 passé(法文):落伍,老掉牙,(人或時尚)「過去式」 tethere:系繩,系鏈;界限,範圍栓;束縛,限制;此處:結合,掛勾 verisimilitude:逼真,跟真的一樣,看起來像真的;此處:近於,接近 Voegelin, Eric:美國頗負盛名的政治哲學家 The Shipwreck of Modernity Daniel J. Mahoney, 05/10/24 We must recover the moral foundations of democracy. It was commonplace during the long Cold War for conservatives and the more classical of classical liberals to make a firm distinction, at once conceptual and practical, between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy”; between moderate modernity and what Eric Voegelin called “modernity without restraint” in the final pages of his classic 1952 book The New Science of Politics. With much truth, the Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Nazis were placed on one side, godless, murderous, and contemptuous of moral and political constraints as they were; and on the other side, we had the noble principles of the American Founding and what Alexis de Tocqueville called “liberty under God and the laws.” In this understanding of things, Anglo-American democracy, the remarkably sober and decent politics of “the English-speaking peoples” as Winston Churchill famously called them, represented that non-ideological current of modernity that remained faithful, however imperfectly, to constitutionalism, common sense, moral decency and the living embers of classical and Christian wisdom. If rights had priority, duties were not forgotten. The American Revolution inaugurated no splenetic “Year Zero” as the French Revolution did, no frenzied war against the Christian religion or the broader Western civilizational inheritance, no misplaced effort to fundamentally remake human nature. The English-speaking peoples embodied that rarest of things, modernity with restraint, natural rights tethered to natural law, invigorating principle to sound prudence, material progress to a proper sense of limits and a well-grounded suspicion of utopian delusions. As Leo Strauss so suggestively said in his 1941 talk on “German Nihilism” at the New School For Social Research, the English, more than any people in continental Europe, had the great good sense to interpret their version of moderate modern liberty in continuity with older traditions of constitutionalism and civilized restraint. They refused, he said, to “throw the baby out with the bath.” And Americans largely followed but with rather less overt “classicism.” For the longest time, one could thus confidently state that the Anglo-American sphere was immune to full-scale ideological politics and to the kind of moral subversion and facile nihilism preferred by continental intellectuals, great and small. Common sense seemingly reigned supreme, and religion still informed the exercise of individual freedom. Tocqueville’s account of American democracy—grounded in law, vigorous civic and associational life, and sound mores—still had remarkable verisimilitude. Americans still admired the Founding Fathers and statues of them had not yet been toppled. But that “exceptionalism” is now largely a thing of the past and was much more vulnerable to assault than many of us suspected. The old liberalism has been replaced by emancipatory politics and liberty has been confused with a project for complete “liberation” from all limits and restraints. Natural rights, still informed by moral conscience and customary morality, by common sense and a recognition that some things are right and wrong “by nature,” has given way to ill-defined “human rights.” These new rights know no limits whether rooted in nature or tradition or the civic common good. They are thus largely immune to political debate and discussion. Abortion-on-demand has been sacralized by the progressive-minded and is seen by them as a “positive good” of the first order, like slavery with the southern slavocrats of old. Western democracies, from Belgium and Canada to France, compete to legalize and liberalize euthanasia, betraying the primordial task of the medical art “to do no harm” and showing open contempt for the sacred commandment “not to kill,” that is to murder, whatever the excuse or extenuating circumstance. In this new moral and political dispensation, patriotism is passé, and the young are taught to be “citizens of the world” (whatever that means). At the same time, a fevered obsession with “race” and “gender” poisons common life and the relations between men and women. Sexual dysphoria is endemic and young women (in particular) suffer from unprecedented levels of anxiety and depression as a result. A cult of unrelieved victimization makes almost everyone whiny and resentful when they are not violent and aggressive. In addition, student activists and academics (and the nearly the whole of the left-wing of the Democratic party) enthusiastically identify with the totalitarian Islamism and genocidal ideology of Hamas and give way to a hatred of Israel and Jews that is tied to their loathing of the Western world. In the academic world, “postcolonial discourse”—at once naïve, ignorant, and fanatical—assumes that peaceful, ecologically-minded “indigenous peoples” have everywhere been robbed of their birthright. But as Gene Callahan recently pointed out at Modern Age, there are no peoples who are simply “indigenous peoples” since conquest and settlement, peaceful or warlike, is inherent in the human economy of things. It is, alas, built into human nature and international life, it is how the world works. And indigenous peoples are hardly models of moral decorum, to say the least. As Leo Strauss wrote in 1942, a prudent and civilized human being should readily be able to tell the difference between “the tolerably decent imperialism of the Anglo-Saxon brand and the intolerably indecent imperialism of the Axis brand.” George Orwell chastised Gandhi in 1949 for failing to make that absolutely necessary distinction (see “Reflections on Gandhi,” one of his very last essays). And this from the fiercely anti-imperialist author of Burmese Days (1934). Authentic liberal and civic education ought to prepare serious men and women for making precisely such distinctions. But such education, rare in any time or place, is on life-support today. Let us hope that the promising new institutes of “Civic Thought” that are being established in state universities in various red and purple states might make a dent in the massive replacement of true political and historical education by ideological agitprop of the most fanatical kind. We have nowhere to go but up. On top of this galloping march of the totalitarian impulse within once liberal currents of modernity, this open subversion of what not too long ago could justly be called liberal democracy, the very meaning of democracy is being redefined by progressive elites. One does not have to bury what is right and just in the American Founding or in the decent currents of moderate modernity, to recognize that decayed liberalism is complicit in this frontal assault on what is left of political common sense and what we have called modernity with restraint. The evidence is all around us: tyrannical “lawfare” criminalizing opposition to the woke regime and attempting to incarcerate a former president of the United States on the most spurious and frivolous grounds; “hate laws” that make it a crime to uphold the traditional family or to oppose the arbitrary constructions of LGBTQ++ ideology; ongoing efforts to make adherence to the racialist and discriminatory DEI regime a prerequisite for being hired at a university; the shameless “debanking” of prominent conservatives such as John Eastman; and the attempt to shut down the National Conservative Conference in Brussels last month, as if advocates of humane national loyalty are indistinguishable from skinheads and neo-Nazis. All of this is evidence of a “creeping authoritarianism” inherent in contemporary liberalism itself, as John Gray suggests in a recent thought piece in The New Statesman. Gray argues, rightly in my view, that “the fundamental threat to freedom in the West comes not from Marxism, postmodernism or even the increasing sway of autocratic regimes in boardrooms and universities, but from within liberalism.” Gray adds that liberalism “has become a self-referential world-view that screens out forbidden truths.” It is a censorious “secular catechism, an exercise designed to banish other modes of thought.” In light of the rise of a new authoritarianism/totalitarianism in the name of the “cultish programs” of the ecological and life-style Left, Gray recommends democracy as the proper response to the “hyper-liberal extremism” that has led to “the politicization of law and the hollowing out of politics” in the Western world. The defeat of a referendum in Ireland promising far-reaching additional assaults on traditional social arrangements is no doubt a promising development of democracy at work, as is the backlash against an absurd “Hate Law” in Scotland. In the United States, many rally to Donald Trump, that most imperfect of vehicles, because he rightly discerns a new and menacing coercive despotism where many establishment figures on the Right see politics as usual. Freedom Conservatism (for all its good intentions) won’t do because it radically understates the need to restore and reinvigorate the crucial moral foundations of a once liberal order. Freedom without self-limitation and deference to the ends and purposes informing human freedom cannot begin to overcome the totalitarian impulse within contemporary hyper-liberalism. Democracy, in contrast, in the form of the revitalization of self-government, provides a very good start, indeed. But democracy will perish if the old common sense is not renewed by right reason, recta ratio as our forebears used to call it. We must become cognizant of the deep and abiding reasons for opposing the modernity without restraint which saps our souls of strength and empties our civic freedom of meaningful content. As Brad Littlejohn has recently written at World magazine, we can no longer rely on a “silent majority” partly (largely?) converted to materialism and a debased individualism. Hyper-liberalism openly wars with the idea of the Good itself, finding even in human nature itself an intolerable obstacle to a freedom that is collapsing into despotism and moral incoherence. That is where we are. To refuse to acknowledge our present circumstances is to bury one’s head in the sand, to abdicate our intellectual, moral, and civic responsibilities. As we fight the good fight day by day, we must patiently, but vigorously, recover and renew the pediments and principles that undergird American liberty and Western civilization, rightly understand. That vital task lies before us. Daniel J. Mahoney is a Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute and professor emeritus at Assumption University. He has written widely on French politics and political thought and has also written extensively on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the moral grounds of opposition to totalitarianism. His latest books are The Statesman as Thinker: Portraits of Greatness, Courage, and Moderation and Recovering Politics, Civilization, and the Soul: Essays on Pierre Manent and Roger Scruton.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
「馬克斯主義文化論」和梅克格拉教授的批評
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
0. 前言 梅克格拉教授對馬庫色和馬克斯主義文化觀的批評「文字」上還算平實(請見本欄第二篇貼文);畢竟當過教授,公然罵街總不是個事兒。但他提及Bill此人的部份,我不敢說是虛構;不過,我相信它或者是「項莊舞劍」筆法,或者在反襯馬庫色不食人間煙火。這種放冷箭的文風算得上「戲劇化」了。 拙作《邱著《全球化下的紅綠政治實踐》讀後》中(本欄第3篇),我在第3節的討論補充了梅克格拉教授對「美國勞工」的分析。關於「言行一致」的看法,則間接觸及到:「文化」(意識與思考)與「革命」的相關性。本文就「馬克斯主義文化論」和梅克格拉教授的筆法兩者略做評論。 1. 馬克斯主義文化論 1.1 馬克斯「革命理論」的困境 梅克格拉教授指出,馬庫色最初是個「行動馬克斯主義者」,後來卻轉型成為「馬克斯主義文化論」大師。這個「轉型」有他「不得不」的苦衷。說穿了,這個苦衷來自馬克斯的「革命理論」早就跟不上「時代」的變化。這一點可從上引我對「美國勞工」的了解,以及梅克格拉教授下面這段話來佐證: “The longshoremen in San Pedro may have wanted more pay, better working conditions, and more medical benefits, but they did not want a destruction of the American way of life. 用馬克斯的術語來說,美國「勞工階級」的「社會存在」已經脫離了「無產階級」的貧窮和無助;她/他們早就過著有車、有房、有閒錢渡假的「小資產產階級」生活。從而,針對19世紀「勞工階級『社會存在』」所建構的(馬克斯)「革命理論」,自然不再叫座。 1.2 馬克斯「革命理論」的修正 格蘭西(1891 – 1937)已經發現馬克斯的「革命理論」不管用。於是他提出「宰制論述」來解釋(馬克斯「革命理論」)「不管用」的原因。但是,「解釋」很難導致「管用」;於是,馬庫色和法蘭克福學派諸大師提出「馬克斯主義文化論」。希望藉由對「資本主義文化」的批判,再度喚起並點燃「革命」的激情和聖火。 在我看來,1970年代後期興起的「『後現代』論述」,和格蘭西、馬庫色等都是一脈相傳的「馬克斯主義『修正論』」。請參考下面這段分析: 唸成「後現代」主義,它是批判社會的一種立場和策略(Lyotard, 1993,Best/Kellner, 1994)。大多數法蘭克福學派成員和「後現代」主義者,都師出馬克思主義。他們的不同在於:前者(如Habermas)認為「現代性」仍是實用的價值系統,後者(如Baudhillard、Lyotard)認為它已淪為當權集團悍衛既得利益的意識型態(比較81 - 12)。「後現代」主義者認為當代社會是資本主義制度下的一場惡夢(25)。但他們無法撼動資本主義的生產模式。到了20世紀50年代,西歐知識份子對共產制度的幻想終於完全破滅(26),在鬥爭策略上需要新的出路,在意識型態上需要新的旗幟。「後現代」主義者採取了鬥倒鬥臭現代社會主流價值的策略,企圖從顛覆上層建築(78 - 11)下手,來瓦解資本主義制度。(《評《另類哲學:現代社會的後現代化》(9之6)》2.2-b.小節) 換句話說,正統馬克斯主義者或馬克斯主義基本教義派,在面對馬克斯「革命理論」窒礙難行的困境下,或者試圖解釋這個局面(何以窒礙難行?);或者試圖提出另一個能激發「革命鬥志」的理論。可惜到目前為止,這個努力成效不彰。 1.3 馬克斯主義文化論的盲點 馬克斯主義文化論的盲點在於:奉馬克斯之名來建構文化論的學者們,忘了祖師爺「『社會存在』決定『意識』」的教訓。 如上面所說,當人們過著有車、有房、有閒錢渡假的生活後,她/他們不可能有打破現狀的需求和動力;反之,當有另一個群體(如少屬族群或新進移民)要跟她/他們分一杯羹,這些人會第一時間跳出來捍衛「現狀」。 馬庫色和「後現代」理論家的努力,即使能讓一般人了解到資本主義社會的上層建築是多麼的不堪,多麼的虛偽,多麼的壓抑、壓制、或讓人窒息,這些「覺悟」、「認知」、或「意識」是不可能讓有車、有房、有閒錢渡假的人走上街頭;當然更不可能鼓動她/他們去賣命。 1.4 左翼怎麼辦? 馬克思206歲誕辰剛過,「左翼論壇」舉辦了紀念會;我因為年紀大了,體力日衰,沒有能躬逢其盛。但我對其中「左翼怎麼辦?」這個討論議題有些興趣,借這個機會略表淺見。 參加11/18的「反對以巴戰爭抗議行動」後,由於人數、聲勢等各方面都顯得蒼白無力,我曾有:「(這個狀況跟)缺乏左翼思想家後起之秀的理念宣揚,導致一般大眾,特別是年輕人的「社會意識」薄弱,也有一定程度的關係」的感概。 因此,就「左翼怎麼辦?」這個問題來說,我的看法是: 1) 放棄馬克斯的「革命理論」,如「無產者在這個革命中失去的只是鎖鏈。他們獲得的將是整個世界」這種話。原因很簡單,因為在開發中國家或已開發國家,勞工身上根本沒有「鎖鏈」。 2) 確實掌握「批判/顛覆『上層建築』」不可能撼動「下層建築」這個原則。 3) 建構一個符合21世紀勞工/低階層群體「社會存在」的「革命理論」。 2. 梅克格拉教授的論述 梅克格拉教授的立場很顯然是站在既得利益階層發言。這當然無可厚非。在「言論自由」這個原則外,任何人都有維護自己利益的「權利」。 我要批評和譴責的是他在最後一段中的文字: According to Critical Theory, we white folk are supposed to have something called “white privilege.” In my personal experience, I’ve seen special privileges granted to people because they were not white, but I’ve never received special consideration because I am white. 任何一個有大學教育程度的人都知道:當我們用「特權」一詞時,它有兩個層級的意義。一是「個人」的特權;一是「群體」的特權。 生活在美國社會中,否認「白人」(做為和「黑人」或其他少數族群相對的群體)具有「特權」,是毫無羞恥感的公然說謊。也是沙垂所說bad faith的典範。 3. 結論 1) 梅克格拉教授對馬庫色和馬克斯主義文化觀的批評,有他中肯之處。 2) 梅克格拉教授整篇大作顯出美國一般「大學教授」的水準,也就不過跟賣中古車者一個檔次。 3) 左派人士需要建構新的,符合當前現實情況的革命理論和/或批判論述。 後記: 1967是我到美國那一年。學長兼樓友滌清兄甚為博聞,他當時訂閱了《時代週刊》和星期天的《費城詢問報》。我忘了是從滌清兄處或這兩份媒體上,第一次得知馬庫色其人。如梅克格拉教授大作所說,當時馬庫色和馬克斯、毛澤東並列「3 M」;可謂大名鼎鼎。 1972年我到加州並進入高科技產業混飯吃。開始工程師生涯和穩定的生活;也就有閒錢和餘暇逛逛書店。不過,我書架上60%以上的書來自美國一些校園附近的舊書攤。《單向度的人》是我1974年在史丹福大學書店買的。它和一些馬克斯著作是我接觸「社會分析」論述的開始;也是我受到左派觀點和思考方向洗禮的啟蒙書籍。 很久沒有看到學者提到馬庫色和《單向度的人》;讀了梅克格拉教授這篇文章,不免想起四、五十年前讀書、逛書店、到各個校園圖書館K書的往事;略誌數語以懷舊。
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
邱著《全球化下的紅綠政治實踐》讀後
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
本文第一次發表於02/10/2003。 0. 前言 前兩天在《小板凳》電子報上,看到邱花妹小姐介紹《究竟該怎麼辦?》("What On Earth Is To Be Done?")這本書的文章;我一時找不到該書,這裏先就邱小姐的大作,表達一些讀後感。 我沒有人文、社會科學的專業訓練,只是因為喜歡讀書和關切、觀察、及思考社會問題,幾十年下來,累積了一些觀點。大家也許可以體會到為什麼我的看法相當的庸俗和現實。 我沒有理論,沒有政策,也沒有方向。我不能告訴別人「到那邊去」(該文第3則)。如果有人有地方要去,我也不能告訴他/她「怎麼去」。我能做的是分享自己跑了幾十年冤枉路的經驗:告訴別人前面那條路有陷阱、那條路有坍方,也許這條路走向奈何橋,那條路通往夕暉區。所以,我常常被叫做擾人春夢的烏鴉嘴。 以下就邱小姐大作涉及到的四個議題,分別提供一些淺見給大家做參考。 1. 理想和實踐 1.1 理想 「理想」幫助人類的文化演變和累積。如果先人沒有理想,我們今天大概還在茹毛、飲血、穴居。 1.2 實踐 「人的行動要受到現實和理想的指引」。這個命題傳統上屬於行為層面的「實踐」範圍。孔子說:「古者言之不出,恥躬之不逮也」。翻譯成白話文就是:一個有原則的人,會努力做到言行一致。或:一個有原則的人,會身體力行自己所宣示或宣揚的理想。我不是一個「原則」掛帥的人,我只是在有問題時,希望把問題解決掉的人。闖蕩江湖和書叢十多年後,我發現「言之不出」的原則,剛好也是解決問題的有效步驟之一,所以20多年來,我一直以此自持。 2. 言行一致 2.1 聽其言同時觀其行 如果一個自稱「生態中心主義」者,他或她家中的用水量、用電量、汽油用量、和垃圾量,不在同收入、同人數的普通家庭用量的2/3以下的話,我不知道他或她用「生態」、「中心」、或「主義」這些字眼時在說些什麼。應用同樣的思考邏輯:一個主張「非核家園」者,他或她家中的用電量,應該在類似的普通家庭用量的1/2以下。林義雄先生:你願意告訴我們你家的用電量嗎?一個自稱「反對」或要「取代」資本主義的人,如果四口之家住在至少50坪、有空調設備的住宅,家中有兩部汽車、兩個冰箱、兩個電視、或兩個電話的話,我不知道他或她用「反對」、「取代」、或「資本主義」這些字眼時在說些什麼。(50坪原為2000平方呎 – 05/2024) 我不是說,每個人都要一簞食、一瓢飲。我只是指出:「理想」(意識)和「生活方式」(存在)間有某種關係。此所以儒家講:「安貧樂道」。如果我們想了解:何以「歐洲左翼不斷分裂、重整、修正與自我反省」,何以「新自由主義者無不明目張膽地慶祝資本主義在全球的勝利」(這兩句摘自邱小姐大作);只要做個非正式的調查,看看有多少40歲以上、以「左翼」自居的歐洲人(或美國人、或中國人),尤其是知識份子,能夠實踐「言之不出」這個原則所要求的生活方式。也就是說:自稱「生態中心主義」或「反對資本主義」的人,生活方式應該不超過下述規格:50坪(或以下)的住宅,家中只有一部汽車、一個冰箱、一個電視、和一個電話。住宅大小除外,我把其餘的家電看成生活必需品,但第二個就是奢侈品;家中的用水量、用電量、汽油用量、和垃圾量,在同收入、同人數的普通家庭用量的2/3以下。這才能表示他/她在有「意識」的節省資源。 邱小姐大作中所說的:「紅綠陣營都相信,人類需要另類的社會型態,也就是未來的『生活方式』要和目前生活方式有『根本』的不同」(雙引號是我加的),和我講的是同一個道理。只不過我受到儒家餘風的影響,略為懂得嚴以律己而已。老子說:「千里之行,起於足下」。有個廣告句子說:「未來就在此刻」。如果「未來的生活方式」不適合在「目前」過,我們為什麼要追求它呢?如果這個「未來」的「生活方式」適合在「目前」過,我們為什麼要等到「未來」呢?大家都聽過「知行合一」,我對王陽明的學說沒有研究,想來「言之不出」的原則,應該是「知行合一」這個概念的子集。 2.2 言行不一的原因 如果一個有「理想」的人,在開會、遊行、研究、發宣言之外,不能有意識的把自己的「理想」融入日常「生活方式」中,我可以猜想出至少以下六個可能性: 1) 所謂「理想」,其實是幻想。 2) 所謂「理想」,其實是虛偽意識。 3) 所謂「理想」,其實是意識型態。 4) 此人跟著別人起鬨。 5) 此人沒有意志力。 6) 此人言不由衷(1)。 2.3 言行一致的重要性 如果有人覺得我太嚴苛,我只引兩句大家耳熟能詳的話,來支持我以上的看法(雙引號是我加的。): 1) 孫中山:「『主義』是一種『思想』、一種『信仰』、和一種『力量』」。 2) 毛澤東:「『革命』不是請客吃飯」。 2.4 言行一致與認知活動 上一節將焦點放在行為層面。現在談談「言之不出」在認知層面的應用。言行一致和人類生活有關的「問題」,來自現實和理想之間有衝突。所以,人需要,也須要認識現實、面對現實加之於我們活動的「限制」;和了解這些限制為什麼會造成現實及理想間的衝突。人的知識來自於經驗。因此,人通常要在實踐的過程中,才能實現上述認知活動。這些認知活動幫助我們培養分別理想和幻想的能力,以及分析現實和理想衝突原因的能力。有了這些能力,人才能試圖脫離或解除現實的限制,「有效的」處理和解決問題。因此,一個不能做到或了解「言之不出」這個原則的人,往往也有困難認識現實、了解問題、和解決問題。這段話翻譯成口語就是:「光說不練,成不了氣候」。 3. 勞工議題 3.1 生活掛帥 管子說:「衣食足則知榮辱」,孔子說:「行有餘力,則以學文」。住在50坪(或以上)、有空調設備的住宅,有兩部汽車、兩個冰箱、兩個電視、兩個電話(有時還外帶一個情婦或面首)的人,當然比在「六不起」壓力下的勞工們(2),有熱情、餘裕、或本錢去關切「生態」。綠色份子對工會的批判,在我聽起來,跟「何不食肉糜?」有一點異曲同工。這是「存在決定意識」的範例。 3.2 美國勞工 1960年代後期到1970年代中期,美國汽車(資深)工人的工資,大概平均每小時在15美元到20美元之間。一個大學畢業的工程師,起薪每小時在5 - 10美元左右(3)。美國汽車工人罷工時,2 - 3個月內可以拿到90%的薪資。換句話說,他/她除了要輪流到場「鬥陣」外(4),罷工等於是放長假。勞工的力量不是「轉弱」,而是被「同化」或「收編」。了解這些事實,就不難理解何以今天的勞工不再替小資產階級賣命,此所以艾金斯教授要說:「勞工的力量現在已經不再是政治力」(這句摘自邱小姐大作;5)。我不知道艾金斯教授原文是怎麼說的;我認為一個比較切合實際的說法應該是:「勞工的目標現在已經不再是推翻政府或改變社會結構」。因為,美國勞工現在已經升級到「小布爾喬亞階級」。 3.3 人在福中不知福 有人說過:「失去自由的人,才知道自由的可貴」。也許:「在資本主義庇蔭下的人,才有批判資本主義的意識」。在台灣出生、40歲以下的中生代和新生代,是「資本主義、工業主義」以及「世界貿易組織(WTO)、國際貨幣基金(IMF)、世界銀行(World Bank)」等制度的受益人。「當前,全世界80%的收入集中在地球上20%的人的手中,全球超過12億的人口一天收入不到台幣三十五元」的統計數字(這段話摘自邱小姐大作),只是銅板的一面。50年或100年前,那時大概「全世界95%的收入,集中在地球上5%的人的手中」。今天其他80%的人的收入(計入通貨膨脹率),大概是50年前的3到5倍,100年前的10到15倍(6)。那時相當於當前12億人口比率的人數,可能一天沒有任何收入。以上數字,純屬推測。我只是用它們表達:「統計數字只能用在『兩相比較』的情況下才有意義」這個常識。(經濟學家或教科書上會有可靠的估計)。事實是:對在饑餓線邊緣掙扎的人來說,「廉價」的勞力比「無價」的勞力(沒有工作機會)派得上用場(7)。 附帶說一句,我無意挑起或進入「人類社會是否有進步?」這類大辯論;但全球人類生活水準有改善是個事實(該欄2024/05/04貼文)。至於這個「改善」的「成果」是否和它的「代價」相當,則是另一場大辯論。(本段為05/11/24增補) 4. 生態議題 沒有合適的生態環境,人類不能永續生存。我們追求合適的生態環境,是為了人類或人類後代的生存條件,不是為了鯨魚、企鵝、松鼠、麻雀、或任何其他的生物(8)。所以,人類中心主義和生態中心主義並不是兩個對立或矛盾的立場。它們只是在不同的公共議題上,對不同的人來說,在決策過程中有著不同的比重,或站著不同的優先順位。這些分歧,可以用合「理性」的討論方式,依公評或公議來解決(9)。 破壞生態的頭號殺手是自然。依破壞性的強度或幅度,有颱風、地震、洪水、聖嬰現象、火山爆發、隕石落在地球、冰河等等。人並不是破壞生態的唯一生物。如口蹄疫病毒、狂牛症病毒、黑死病病毒、和某些昆蟲類對植物的傷害等。 根據達爾文的演化論或新演化論,生態的形成是隨機和演化而來,不是設計而成。因此,理論上,生態不是絕對不能改變。只是人類目前的知識(也許在可見的未來,甚至永遠),不足以預估生態改變的後果。 我對《孟子》一書不熟,記得他說過下河捕魚不要捉光、上山伐樹不要砍光的話。可見生態的問題和觀念自古有之。 以上不是替資本主義或現代人開脫,我只是提醒大家不要戴著一副羅曼蒂克的眼鏡看問題,歌頌「自然中心主義」。我認為在20 - 21世紀,生態問題日益嚴重,有以下三個根本原因: 1) 科技和生活方式,造成人類嬰兒夭折率減低、成人壽命延長、和人口暴增。這三點算不算破壞「生態平衡」?如果算,有人反對嗎?如果不算,「生態平衡」是什麼意思?最新人口狀況請見此文(該欄2024/05/04)。 2) 科技和生活方式,造成人類對資源需求在種類和數量上的大幅增加;馬爾薩斯大概會說:「以幾何級數成長。」 3) 技術大幅(也是幾何級數?)增加人對生態破壞的力量、方式、和程度。 因此,資本主義的「生產方式」或「消費方式」,只是造成生態危機的次要原因。「生態危機」是人類生存、繁殖、和文化演變等等「過程」累積後造成的現實。例如:任何大型工程都會「改變」(也就有某種程度的破壞)自然生態。水利工程(不論是傳說中的大禹治水或目前的三峽水壩)是第一個例子(10);(水力、火力、風力、或核能)發電廠的興建和高壓傳輸電線的架設是第二個例子;石油(或煤礦)的開採、提煉、和運輸是第三個例子;公路、鐵路、或國家公園的建造是第四個例子。一個自稱「生態主義」的人,不論他/她反對或不反對上述任何一項工程,我建議他/她試圖合「理性」的說明自己的立場、論述邏輯、和「生活方式」(11)。 在1960年代後期到70年代初期,歐、美的,或在台灣的(如果當時有)「左翼」、「基進」份子,大概也會或曾經批判:「帝國主義、資本主義入侵台灣、不但剝削純樸的台灣人的廉價勞力、將會造成環境污染、危害台灣的生態。」等等。根據註(7)-3中的工資比較,和已知的RCA(以及其他未發現)環境污染個案,這個批判的確合於事實。但是我們對照當時和現在的台灣社會;再看看菲勞、泰勞、印尼勞到今天要離鄉背井來「出賣」廉價勞力;相形之下,這種「左翼」、「基進」式的批判有意義嗎?這類批判,現在好像還被用在墨西哥和非洲地區。 5. 結論 5.1 面對現實才能解決現實造成的為題 我並不是資本主義、帝國主義、或法西斯主義的走狗。我只是了解,找個出氣筒或發洩情緒的對象很容易,打擊假想敵也很過癮(尤其當他/她們不屑還手時),但這些行為對處理和解決問題毫無幫助。 試試改變自己「目前」的「生活方式」,也許大家就能體會,「自己」是造成自己企圖解決的「問題」的部分原因(「問題」的一部分)。也許我們就會開始嚴謹的、深入的、面對全方位現實的去分析、思考、規劃、...。 5.2 思考方向的建議 最後贈送研究社會科學的朋友(方法上的)八字真言:「思前想後,左顧右盼」。 1) 思前 -- 在歷史和文化的脈絡中檢討理論或政策。(思考方向或讀書報告例題:「中國當代史 - 從大躍進到改革開放」)。 2) 想後 -- (用邏輯)推論理論或政策應用在生活上的後果。(思考方向或讀書報告例題:「人民公社在台灣」)。 3) 左顧 -- 觀察理論或政策在其他社會實際應用的結果。(思考方向或讀書報告例題:「北韓(或古巴)的經濟現況及前景」)。 4) 右盼 -- a. 比較替代理論或政策的論述基礎(目標、假設、立場、邏輯)和這些基礎的優、缺點。(思考方向或讀書報告例題:「《建國大綱》和《共產主義者宣言》」)。 b. 比較替代理論或政策在社會實際應用的結果;例如,一個思考的方向或讀書報告的例題可以是:「1970年代匈牙利和南斯拉夫的社會狀況」)。 後記: 由於轉登批評馬庫色的文章,我在搜尋《單向度的人》一書時找到這篇舊作。它和梅克格拉教授的大作有些相關性(本欄上一篇);例如,討論到「美國勞工」的部份;它也從另一個角度間接觸及到:「文化」與「革命」的相關性等等;「文化」一詞在此處著重於每個人的意識和/或想法。因此,我就文字和編排兩者略做修正後(未涉及主旨和思路),將它重刊於此。過了20年,我的看法多多少少會改變;本文內容和我近年來的觀點有些出入,應該在所難免。 -- 2024/05/11 附註: (1) 我借用這四個字翻譯沙特的「bad faith」。 (2) 2002年勞工秋鬥的訴求。歐、美的勞工沒有台灣勞工目前「六不起」的壓力,但「工作權」(失業)是全球勞工共有的隱憂;馬克思「工人無祖國」主張的根據在此。但是,由於先進(帝國主義)國家的優勢,以及「資源不敷分配」的現實,「工人主祖國」的說法終究經不起現實的考驗。(馬克思 … 以下為2024/05/11增補。) (3) 資深工程師的薪資遠遠超過資深工人的工資。工程師又有機會變成管理階層,更上層樓。薪資是否合理或平等的議題,不在我論述能力的範圍。 (4) 當美國勞工以罷工來抗議資方的不公待遇時,通常在商業或企業店面前舉牌抗議,這群工人稱為picket line(此處借「鬥陣」來翻譯)。不通過抗議人群,也就是不跟被抗議的商家做生意,以表示支持勞工,稱為honor the picket line。走過抗議人群去和被抗議的商家做生意,或為被抗議的商家或企業做替代工人,稱為cross the picket line。「2 - 3個月」是一般罷工基金能持續發放的期間。罷工基金由工資中扣除一定的百分比和工會基金投資所得而來,資方也需支付一定的百分比。所有關於美國勞工的資料由當時報章雜誌讀到,如有錯誤,我願意受教。 (5) 請參考《《縱欲與虛無之上:現代情境裡的政治倫理》讀後 - 政治篇》(胡卜凱, 2002,9月),註17中對知識份子和勞工之間恩怨情仇的簡述。(此文待重新刊出) (6) 以我自己為例,家父是老立委,我們是6口之家。中學時代(1956 - 1962),我一年零用錢的來源是壓歲錢(不會超過1,000元)。大學時代,我的中飯預算是1塊半到2塊錢。和我自己的家庭相比,我退休前是基層主管(經理),3口之家。我兒子唸國中時,每個月的零用錢在1,500元左右(中飯錢、車錢、壓歲錢、CD錢、Game錢在外),中飯預算是50塊錢。 (7) 請參考《論智財權》中第1.2.1節對資本主義、社會主義的簡略論述。這裏再多說幾句。 1) 我到美國兩年後(1969),就了解到:「社會主義的理想,要經由資本主義的制度來達到」。 2) 我讀了馬庫色的《單向度的人》後(1970),了解到「消費方式」是美國資本主義制度的第一個基礎。 3) 我在矽谷工作一、兩年後(1974),體會到三個現實: a. 美國資本主義制度的第二個基礎是在此制度下,「發揮個人潛能」的環境和機制。依重要性來劃分,「生產方式」和帝國主義只是美國資本主義制度的第三和第四個基礎。「發揮個人潛能」一詞來自:我把尼采「will to power」中的 “power” 解讀為「個人潛能」。 b. 美國IC工業建立在對婦女勞工、移民勞工、和學生零工的「剝削」上。這可由工資結構看出。當時(1970年代),電子業女工的工資在每小時3 - 5美元左右。IC業如果付汽車工人的工資(正文第3.2節),大概熬不過三年。當時我有個想法:從社會學觀點,研究美國離婚率和IC工業發展的關係。 c. 「廉價」(不平等)的勞力比「無價」(沒有工作機會)的勞力派得上用場。當時台灣IC業女工的工資在每小時0.50美元左右(以當時匯率計算)。 (8) 如果有人堅持自己是個「為生態而生態」的生態中心主義者或「不以人類為中心」主義者,我很想知道他/她吃不吃五穀雜糧和雞、鴨、魚、肉;穿不穿衣服。 (9) 請參考《統、獨議題和公共政策》,第1節和第2.2節。 (10) 沒有水利工程,可能就沒有人類今天的文化和文明,當然也就不會有資本主義。這個銅板的另一面,就是我們大概還在茹毛、飲血、騎馬打仗、逐水草而居。 (11) 請參考《論智財權》第0節中關於「合『理性』」的論述。
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
馬庫色和馬克斯主義文化論 – Roger D. McGrath
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
請見本欄2024/05/11和2024/05/13的相關貼文。
索引: chum:好朋友;此處:鯊魚餌 insidiously:日積月累的,不易被察覺的,慢慢發作、沒有明顯症狀的疾病;伺機而動的,有害但又具誘惑力的(如毒品) sine qua non:必要條件,必備條件 staple:訂書針,U 形釘(如U 形電線卡);主打,基本的、主要產品 Summer of Love:夏日溫馨,1967年源於舊金山的美國社會現象 The Man Who Made Cultural Marxism ROGER D. MCGRATH, 05/2024 I first became aware of cultural Marxism as an undergraduate student at UCLA during the 1960s. There were several professors and teaching assistants with whom I came into contact who were fans of Herbert Marcuse and his two most recent books, One-Dimensional Man and A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Marcuse had once been an orthodox, revolutionary, class-struggle Marxist but during the post-World War II era had moved towards achieving the same communist goals through transforming the culture—education, art, literature, language, religion, family, even one’s own consciousness. I recall that one of the teaching assistants—I’ll call him Bill—announced to us lowly undergrads in his section that he was a Marxist. I suppose that was a bold admission to make at the time, but I could see he took delight in projecting himself as a revolutionary. He was our own campus Che, and like Che, he had come from an upper-middle-class family and had attended private schools. Nonetheless, he saw class struggle everywhere and was on a mission to destroy capitalism. While he praised the work of Marcuse, he seemed to have missed Marcuse’s essential message of insidiously changing the culture first. Bill’s approach was to take some of his comrades to the docks in San Pedro to pass out leaflets to longshoremen. In Bill’s twisted mind, he thought the longshoremen were the perfect proletariat. Of course, he had never met a longshoreman. I don’t know if he had ever even been to San Pedro. The waterfront there was not what it had been during the 1940s and ’50s, but it was still a rugged stretch full of hardened merchant marines, commercial fishermen, and shipyard workers. Bill had long hair—before hippies made it common for guys—and a soft, pudgy body. It was obvious contact sports were foreign to him and the only fight I could ever imagine him in was a verbal duel in a moot court in his prep school. I thought to myself, “This guy will be sliced to bits and used for chum.” After missing several sections, Bill was back at UCLA looking the worse for wear. Evidently, the longshoremen were not captivated by his leaflets and communist rhetoric. I was only surprised that he hadn’t woken up in the hold of a ship halfway between San Pedro and Singapore—or hadn’t woken up at all. This is exactly what Marcuse understood—the working classes of Europe, and especially those in America, were not ready for revolutionary change. The longshoremen in San Pedro may have wanted more pay, better working conditions, and more medical benefits, but they did not want a destruction of the American way of life. Marcuse and his fellow cultural Marxists saw the transformation of the culture as the sine qua non of revolutionary change. Herbert Marcuse was born in 1898 to upper-middle-class Jewish parents in Berlin, Germany. He received an excellent education at primary and secondary schools but upon graduation in 1916 was drafted into the Germany army. He wasn’t sent to the front but spent World War I in Berlin cleaning horse stables. While in the army, he was allowed to attend lectures at the University of Berlin. By that time, he was a confirmed socialist, especially influenced by the works of Karl Marx. After the war, Marcuse participated in the Spartacist uprising of January 1919, a week-long attempt by socialists and communists to forcibly overthrow the German government. The attempt failed miserably, which stunned Marcuse, who thought Germany, with its large proletariat class, high unemployment, and food shortages, was ripe for revolution. Afterwards, Marcuse retreated into academe, first at Humboldt University in Berlin and then at the University of Freiburg, studying literature, philosophy, politics, and economics. He read extensively, including the works of Friedrich Hegel and Sigmund Freud, as well as Martin Heidegger, with whom he studied at Freiburg. In 1933, he went to work for the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, which would become known simply as the Frankfurt School. The institute was founded by a Marxist who had a rich inheritance. Because Marcuse was Jewish and conditions in Germany were becoming threatening for Jews, he soon transferred to the Institute’s branch in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1934, he and several others from the institute immigrated to the United States to work at the institute’s branch at Columbia University in New York City. It was here that members of the institute, in a collaborative effort, began moving from orthodox Marxism to cultural Marxism by developing an interdisciplinary social theory. While still emphasizing the primacy of Marx and economics, they also utilized sociology, philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and history. This approach became known as Critical Theory, which called not only for an end to capitalism but for an entire reordering of society. Despite Marcuse’s Marxism, the U.S. government put him to work during World War II in the Office of War Information, where he created anti-Nazi propaganda. Later in the war, he worked in the Research and Analysis Branch of the CIA’s predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), as a senior analyst on Germany. After the war, he worked for the State Department as an analyst of Germany and Nazism. Marcuse left the State Department in 1952 to lecture first at Columbia University and then at Harvard. From 1954 to 1965 he was a professor at Brandeis University and then at the University of California, San Diego, until 1970. He thus spent a decade working for the U.S. government and then nearly 20 years working for universities, both of which he wanted to transform utterly. He took perverse delight in getting paid by the institutions he was working to destroy, and advocated following such a practice to all young leftists. Marcuse first came to the attention of the wider public with the 1955 publication of Eros and Civilization, his synthesis of Marx and Freud. He argued that sexual instinct and drive should not be repressed and that such repression was an inherent element of Western Civilization. He further argued that capitalism represses the libido of the proletariat. Everything for Marcuse, including sex, was part of an oppression versus liberation paradigm. Although some have argued Marcuse’s influence on issues such as “gay liberation” has been exaggerated, his well-constructed theoretical challenge to all conventional sexual norms certainly provided intellectual ammunition for gay activist groups and for hippies living in “free love” communes. The sexual aspect of his influence was even seen in the rhetoric of anti-Vietnam War protesters crying, “Make Love Not War.” It was One-Dimensional Man, though, that made the big splash on campus in my time and was something of a bible for the New Left of the mid-1960s. Within a few years of its publication in 1964, it had sold more than 100,000 copies and had become a staple in college bookstores and on course syllabi. The book argued that modern industrial society had become thoroughly repressive in the West—and also to a lesser degree in the Soviet Union—because it had created a one-dimensional template of thought and action by creating false needs and then delivering the goods to satisfy those needs. This was a kind of consumerism and repression that stifled critical thinking and the revolutionary spirit. Only a year after One-Dimensional Man was published, A Critique of Pure Tolerance hit the bookshelves. The latter consists of three essays by three authors, including “Repressive Tolerance” by Marcuse. It was Marcuse’s essay that got the most attention and foreshadowed what is now occurring on college campuses and to a lesser degree in America in general. Marcuse argued that to become a truly liberated society and to realize the objective of tolerance we must be “intolerant toward prevailing policies, attitudes, [and] opinions” but tolerant to dissident, subversive, and revolutionary policies, attitudes, and opinions. This exactly describes the conditions on campuses today and what is described as “cancel culture” in society at large. By 1967—the year of San Francisco’s Summer of Love—Herbert Marcuse had become the New Left’s most important thinker. Chants of “Marx, Mao, and Marcuse” were heard wherever protesters gathered. “I can’t exaggerate how important it was for those of us who knew him, heard him, and read him to have someone of his age and stature legitimizing us and showing solidarity with us,” said Ronald Aronson, a student who worked under Marcuse at Brandeis. Marcuse inspired dozens of students like Aronson to become professors, high school teachers, or leftist activists in other capacities. Probably the most prominent was Angela Davis, who said, “Herbert Marcuse taught me that it was possible to be an academic, an activist, a scholar, and a revolutionary.” After earning a master’s degree under Marcuse at UC San Diego, Davis was hired in 1969 as an assistant professor of philosophy at UCLA. She didn’t have a Ph.D., a book published, or any real teaching experience but she was black, a woman, a member of the Communist Party, and a student of Marcuse. Some of Marcuse’s colleagues in the Frankfurt School had problems with Marcuse’s role as the guru of the New Left. Theodor Adorno and others thought his celebrity status had cheapened and compromised the objectives of cultural Marxism. Less surprising were condemnations of Marcuse from conservative sources. The pope not only condemned Marcuse’s philosophy but condemned Marcuse (and Freud) by name—a rare distinction. California governor Ronald Reagan called for Marcuse’s expulsion from UC San Diego. A group of San Diego conservatives hanged him in effigy from a flagpole at city hall. He received hate mail and death threats. Marcuse was paying a price for his celebrity status and his own “repressive tolerance” was being used against him. He retired from the university in 1970 and died in 1979. Marcuse’s significant contributions to cultural Marxism and Critical Theory live on. If he were around today, I wonder what he would think of the way his work has been applied to race. Western Civilization, a product of the white man, is now oppressive. Therefore, the white man has to go—or, if he is not eradicated, he must at least be discriminated against, which would be in keeping with repressive tolerance. If this weren’t all too real and serious, I would find it hilarious, at least from my personal perspective. According to Critical Theory, we white folk are supposed to have something called “white privilege.” In my personal experience, I’ve seen special privileges granted to people because they were not white, but I’ve never received special consideration because I am white. I’m now in my late 70s and I’m still waiting for my white privilege to kick in. Chronicles corresponding editor Roger D. McGrath is the author of Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes. A U.S. Marine veteran and former history professor at UCLA, he has appeared on numerous documentaries, including The Real West, Biography, Tales of the Gun, Cowboys & Outlaws, and Wild West Tech.
PREVIOUS POST Kayfabe U.S.A. NEXT POST Wars, Rumors, and Geopolitical Logic 讀者評論: RMB, MAY 3, 2024 Marcuse is the most impactful leftist scholar in our history. His connection to the Frankfurt School through the New Left, and into Critical Theory shows how he and his ideas have been a powerful current in Western/American Leftism in the 20th Century. The two underlying ideas that have bene most influential are: 1) that the revolutionary vanguard must celebrate every kind of strange, disgusting, debauched behavior, dress, and thought. The weirder the better because that would be the only way to shake the bourgeoisie out of their normality. To him normality was bad because it was Christian and capitalist. Then 2) is the idea of repressive tolerance. It allows the left to believe they are the true tolerant and therefore peaceful, loving people of the world even while they commit acts of violence and injustice. Morality is one sided politically. Anything done in the cause of the left is just by definition. It is a truly destructive idea which violates classical notions of natural law and natural rights. It is the kind of idea that should be outlawed to protect society from the chaos we are suffering under today. https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/ https://libertarianchristians.com/2024/05/03/gods-monetary-policy-in-the-bible/
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
|