陈寿文专栏

陈寿文专栏
chenshouwen.blog.tianya.cn
阅读·实修·转化

博客信息
博主:陈寿文 
博客登录
用户:
密码:
博客搜索
日志存档
统计信息
  • 访问:35566605 次
  • 日志: 1401篇
  • 评论: 5168 个
  • 留言: 76 个
  • 建站时间: 2006-2-22
博客成员
最近访客



文字炼金术,缓慢提纯,直到黑炭变成钻石。
齐泽克评《阿凡达》:土著的回归
<<上一篇 下一篇>>
作者:陈寿文 提交日期:2010-5-18 22:53:00 | 分类:新知 | 访问量:44270





来源:http://www.douban.com/group/topic/10196085/

Return of the natives
Slavoj Zizek
Published 04 March 2010

http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2010/03/avatar-reality-love-couple-sex

4 commentsPrint versionEmail a friendListenRSS
Beneath the idealism and political correctness of Avatar, in the spotlight at the Oscars on Sunday, lie brutal racist undertones.

James Cameron's Avatar tells the story of a disabled ex-marine, sent from earth to infiltrate a race of blue-skinned aboriginal people on a distant planet and persuade them to let his employer mine their homeland for natural resources. Through a complex biological manipulation, the hero's mind gains control of his "avatar", in the body of a young aborigine.

These aborigines are deeply spiritual and live in harmony with nature (they can plug a cable that sticks out of their body into horses and trees to communicate with them). Predictably, the marine falls in love with a beautiful aboriginal princess and joins the aborigines in battle, helping them to throw out the human invaders and saving their planet. At the film's end, the hero transposes his soul from his damaged human body to his aboriginal avatar, thus becoming one of them.

Given the 3-D hyperreality of the film, with its combination of real actors and animated digital corrections, Avatar should be compared to films such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) or The Matrix (1999). In each, the hero is caught between our ordinary reality and an imagined universe - of cartoons in Roger Rabbit, of digital reality in The Matrix, or of the digitally enhanced everyday reality of the planet in Avatar. What one should thus bear in mind is that, although Avatar's narrative is supposed to take place in one and the same "real" reality, we are dealing - at the level of the underlying symbolic economy - with two realities: the ordinary world of imperialist colonialism on the one hand, and a fantasy world, populated by aborigines who live in an incestuous link with nature, on the other. (The latter should not be confused with the miserable reality of actual exploited peoples.) The end of the film should be read as the hero fully migrating from reality into the fantasy world - as if, in The Matrix, Neo were to decide to immerse himself again fully in the matrix.

This does not mean, however, that we should reject Avatar on behalf of a more "authentic" acceptance of the real world. If we subtract fantasy from reality, then reality itself loses its consistency and disintegrates. To choose between "either accepting reality or choosing fantasy" is wrong: if we really want to change or escape our social reality, the first thing to do is change our fantasies that make us fit this reality. Because the hero of Avatar doesn't do this, his subjective position is what Jacques Lacan, with regard to de Sade, called le dupe de son fantasme.

This is why it is interesting to imagine a sequel to Avatar in which, after a couple of years (or, rather, months) of bliss, the hero starts to feel a weird discontent and to miss the corrupted human universe. The source of this discontent is not only that every reality, no matter how perfect it is, sooner or later disappoints us. Such a perfect fantasy disappoints us precisely because of its perfection: what this perfection signals is that it holds no place for us, the subjects who imagine it.

The utopia imagined in Avatar follows the Hollywood formula for producing a couple - the long tradition of a resigned white hero who has to go among the savages to find a proper sexual partner (just recall Dances With Wolves). In a typical Hollywood product, everything, from the fate of the Knights of the Round Table to asteroids hitting the earth, is transposed into an Oedipal narrative. The ridiculous climax of this procedure of staging great historical events as the background to the formation of a couple is Warren Beatty's Reds (1981), in which Hollywood found a way to rehabilitate the October Revolution, arguably the most traumatic historical event of the 20th century. In Reds, the couple of John Reed and Louise Bryant are in deep emotional crisis; their love is reignited when Louise watches John deliver an impassioned revolutionary speech.

What follows is the couple's lovemaking, intersected with archetypal scenes from the revolution, some of which reverberate in an all too obvious way with the sex; say, when John penetrates Louise, the camera cuts to a street where a dark crowd of demonstrators envelops and stops a penetrating "phallic" tram - all this against the background of the singing of "The Internationale". When, at the orgasmic climax, Lenin himself appears, addressing a packed hall of delegates, he is more a wise teacher overseeing the couple's love-initiation than a cold revolutionary leader. Even the October Revolution is OK, according to Hollywood, if it serves the reconstitution of a couple.

In a similar way, is Cameron's previous blockbuster, Titanic, really about the catastrophe of the ship hitting the iceberg? One should be
attentive to the precise moment of the catastrophe: it takes place when the young lovers (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet), immediately after consummating their relationship, return to the ship's deck. Even more crucial is that, on deck, Winslet tells her lover that when the ship reaches New York the next morning, she will leave with him, preferring a life of poverty with her true love to a false, corrupted life among the rich.

At this moment the ship hits the iceberg, in order to prevent what would undoubtedly have been the true catastrophe, namely the couple's life in New York. One can safely guess that soon the misery of everyday life would have destroyed their love. The catastrophe thus occurs in order to save their love, to sustain the illusion that, if it had not happened, they would have lived "happily ever after". A further clue is provided by DiCaprio's final moments. He is freezing in the cold water, dying, while Winslet is safely floating on a large piece of wood. Aware that she is losing him, she cries "I'll never let you go!" - and as she says this, she pushes him away with her hands.

Why? Because he has done his job. Beneath the story of a love affair, Titanic tells another story, that of a spoiled high-society girl with an identity crisis: she is confused, doesn't know what to do with herself, and DiCaprio, much more than just her love partner, is a kind of "vanishing mediator" whose function is to restore her sense of identity and purpose in life. His last words before he disappears into the freezing North Atlantic are not the words of a departing lover, but the message of a preacher, telling her to be honest and faithful to herself.

Cameron's superficial Hollywood Marxism (his crude privileging of the lower classes and caricatural depiction of the cruel egotism of the rich) should not deceive us. Beneath this sympathy for the poor lies a reactionary myth, first fully deployed by Rudyard Kipling's Captains Courageous. It concerns a young rich person in crisis who gets his (or her) vitality estored through brief intimate contact with the full-blooded life of the poor. What lurks behind the compassion for the poor is their vampiric exploitation.

But today, Hollywood increasingly seems to have abandoned this formula. The film of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons must surely be the first case of a Hollywood adaptation of a popular novel in which there is sex between the hero and the heroine in the book, but not in its film version - in clear contrast to the old tradition of adding a sex scene to a film based on a novel in which there is none. There is nothing liberating about this absence of sex; we are rather dealing with yet more proof of the phenomenon described by Alain Badiou in his Éloge de l'amour - today, in our pragmatic-narcissistic era, the very notion of falling in love, of a passionate attachment to a sexual partner, is considered obsolete and dangerous.

Avatar's fidelity to the old formula of creating a couple, its full trust in fantasy, and its story of a white man marrying the aboriginal princess and becoming king, make it ideologically a rather conservative, old-fashioned film. Its technical brilliance serves to cover up this basic conservatism. It is easy to discover, beneath the politically correct themes (an honest white guy siding with ecologically sound aborigines against the "military-industrial complex" of the imperialist invaders), an array of brutal racist motifs: a paraplegic outcast from earth is good enough to get the hand of abeautiful local princess, and to help the natives win the decisive battle. The film teaches us that the only choice the aborigines have is to be saved by the human beings or to be destroyed by them. In other words, they can choose either to be the victim of imperialist reality, or to play their allotted role in the white man's fantasy.

At the same time as Avatar is making money all around the world (it generated $1bn after less than three weeks of release), something that strangely resembles its plot is taking place. The southern hills of the Indian state of Orissa, inhabited by the Dongria Kondh people, were sold to mining companies that plan to exploit their immense reserves of bauxite (the deposits are considered to be worth at least $4trn). In reaction to this project, a Maoist (Naxalite) armed rebellion exploded.

Arundhati Roy, in Outlook India magazine, writes that the Maoist guerrilla army

is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa. They are people who, even after 60 years of India's so-called independence, have not had access to education, health care or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel. Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadres who have lived and worked and fought by their sides for decades. If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have - their land . . . They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated . . . their ragged, malnutritioned army, the bulk of whose soldiers have never seen a train or a bus or even a small town, are fighting only for survival.

The Indian prime minister characterised this rebellion as the "single largest internal security threat"; the big media, which present it as extremist resistance to progress, are full of stories about "red terrorism", replacing stories about "Islamist terrorism". No wonder the Indian state is responding with a big military operation against "Maoist strongholds" in the jungles of central India. And it is true that both sides are resorting to great violence in this brutal war, that the "people's justice" of the Maoists is harsh. However, no matter how unpalatable this violence is to our liberal taste, we have no right to condemn it. Why? Because their situation is precisely that of Hegel's rabble: the Naxalite rebels in India are starving tribal people, to whom the minimum of a dignified life is denied.

So where is Cameron's film here? Nowhere: in Orissa, there are no noble princesses waiting for white heroes to seduce them and help their people, just the Maoists organising the starving farmers. The film enables us to practise a typical ideological division: sympathising with the idealised aborigines while rejecting their actual struggle. The same people who enjoy the film and admire its aboriginal rebels would in all probability turn away in horror from the Naxalites, dismissing them as murderous terrorists. The true avatar is thus Avatar itself - the film substituting for reality.

Slavoj Žižek is a philosopher and critic
The Academy Awards ceremony is on 7 March

-----------------------

全译本/ 齐泽克评《阿凡达》:土著的回归

占士金马伦的《阿凡达》,诉说一个伤残的前海军的故事:他被派往一个遥远的、住着蓝色皮肤原住民的星球,他的任务是渗透该族群,以及游说他们让其主顾开发该星球上的天然资源。经过一连串复杂的生物控制技术,主人公终于操控得到一个年轻的原住民躯壳,即其「avatar」。

这班原住民极具灵性,并与大自然和睦共处(他们能把一条由自己身体长出来的尾巴装东西,插进马儿或大树里,与它们沟通)。可以想象,男主人公当然 会与某位漂亮的原住民公主相爱,然后拯救该星球,协助他们把人类侵略者扫出家门。电影的结局,主人公甚至将其灵魂由他残缺的躯壳,转移到原住民的躯壳,破 釜沈舟地成为原住民的一份子。

电影的3-D效果,加上其结合真实演员及数码动画处理等,应令《阿凡达》与《Who Framed Roger Rabbit》 (1988)及《The Matrix》 (1999)等相提并论。上述电影,主人公都被卡于日常的现实及一个想象的领域——即《rogerr rabbit》的卡通世界,及《the matrix》的数码现实——还有《阿凡达》的星球里被数码处理过的日常现实。不能不察的是,《阿凡达》的叙事虽然表面上是在同一个「真实」的现实里发 生,但我们需处理的——在根本的符号经济的层次上——究竟是两层现实:一层是见怪不怪的帝国主义殖民主义世界,另一层是住满原住民,在大自然过着近亲相奸 的生活的幻想世界。(千万别将这层现实与真实地被剥削的人民的悲惨现实混淆)由此观之,电影的结局就是主人公彻底地由现实移民到幻想世界,如在《the matrix》里,neo决定重新沉浸回到母体里。

然而,这不表示我们应该更「真诚」地接受现实世界,从而否定《阿凡达》。事关如果我们从现实中减除幻觉,现实将失去基本的一致性,结果会是瓦解。 我们并不是要从「要么接受现实,要么选择幻觉」里二选一:如果希望改变或逃出社会现实,我们首先是要改变幻觉,因幻觉把我们妥妥贴贴地装嵌在现实里。正因 为《阿凡达》的主人公并没有达成这改变,所以他的主体位置,不过是拉康就萨德所言的「被其幻觉所骗」(le dupe de son fantasme)。

因此,不难想象,若《阿凡达》有续集的话,大概会是几年(或…几个月)的幸福过后,主人公开始感到某种奇异的不满,甚至开始想念那个腐败的人类世界。不满 的产生,不仅因为再完美的世界迟早也会令我们失望。完美的幻觉,正正就是因为其完美,才令我们失望:完美意味着我们——带着这幻觉的主体——在其中根本没 有位置。

[补译] 《阿凡达》所设想的乌托邦延循了好莱坞的情侣生产配方----一个顺从的白人英雄不得不走入野蛮人当中寻找一位合适的性伴侣 (请回忆”与狼共舞”)。在一部典型的好莱坞产品中,任何事情,从圆桌骑士的命运到小行星撞地球,都变调成一种俄底浦斯式叙事。 这一荒谬的顶点体现在把重大历史事件设置为撮合一对情侣的背景。比如华伦比蒂的电影《REDS》(1981),在这部电影里,好莱坞成功地改造了”十月革命”,这个被论证为20世纪最具创伤性的历史事件。在REDS里,由John Reed 和Louise Bryant所饰演的情侣正面临一场重大的情感危机;当Louise望着John发表一篇充满激情的革命演说时,他们的爱火被再次点燃了。

[补译]接下来是这对情侣的做爱场面,床戏与典型革命场面交叉剪辑,其中一些革命场面非常明显地带有性意味。比如,当John穿透Louise时,画面跳接至一条挤满了乌压压示威群众的街道,群众包围并拦截了一辆具有穿透性的“有阴茎象征意味”的有轨电车----这一切都以“国际歌”的歌声为背景发生。当情侣到达高潮时,列宁的画面出现了,他在一个挤满了代表的大厅发表讲话。他更像是一位睿智的老师,监督着这对爱侣的爱情新生,而非一位冷冰冰的革命领袖。 按照好莱坞的做法,即使是”十月革命”也OK,只要它能服务于重新撮合一对情侣。

金马伦的前作《titanic》,真是一套邮轮撞向冰山的灾难片吗?要留意的是灾难的一刻:撞船发生的一刻,正是在两人确认其感情关系并回到甲板 之后。更要命的是,在甲板上,当女主人公告诉其爱郎,当船到纽约后,她便会选择随他远走高飞,情愿与她的真命天子过咸鱼白菜的生活,也不要虚伪、腐朽的上 流社会生活。

正正在这一刻,船便撞向冰山了,仿佛要防止其实竟无疑问将会发生的真正灾难。真正的灾难是甚么:当然是到达纽约后两小口的生活。我们当可大胆假设,日常生 活同住之难,会将他们之间的爱摧毁。换言之,撞船的发生,不过是为了拯救他们之间的爱,维持某种幻觉(即如果撞船不发生,他们便会永远快快乐乐在一起)不 致破灭。在最后一刻,男主人公难道不是提供了更进一步的暗示吗?当他冻得快要呜呼时,女主人公竟然是抱着浮木安然无恙。女主人公知道她快要失去爱郎时,一 边说「我不会放弃你的!」说时迟那时快,她一手便把男主人公推开了。

为何如此?因为男主人公功成,便身退了。最表面的爱故事之下,《titanic》其实还有另一个故事要说:一个被宠坏的富家女的身份危机。她感到 迷茫,不知如何是好;迪卡比奥因而不只是她的爱郎,他的真正身份是一个「消失的中界」(vanishing mediator),其功能是复原她对其身份的自觉,与及人生目标。他冻死于北大西洋前的说话,并不是与爱人临别的话语,而是一个传道人的讯息,忠告她要 对自己诚实。

我们不应轻易被金马伦膏浅的「荷理活马克思主义」(即他粗陋地标榜草根阶层,以及卡通化处理富人的残暴和贪念)骗倒。他对穷人的同情下其实还有一层反动的 迷思,这迷思最早于 Rudyard Kipling的Captains Courageous已完整地展开。故事指一个面对危机的年轻富人,经过一段短时间的实牙实齿贫困生活后,终于回复其生命力。换言之,潜藏在他们对穷人的 慈悲里的,其实不过是吸血鬼式的剥削。

今时今日,好莱坞看来已逐渐抛弃这种生产情侣的方程式。丹•布朗的<天使与魔鬼>无疑就是首部改编流行小说时却把小说里原有的男女主人公的性爱场面在电影版本里删掉的电影。好莱坞原有的传统恰恰相反:小说原本没有的性爱场面,电影版本都会加插进去。[补译]性爱的缺席并没有什么解放性可言; 我们所应对的是更多的这类由哲学家阿兰•巴迪乌(Alain Badiou)在他的<爱之颂>(Éloge de l'amour)里所描述过的现象的证据----今天,在我们实用主义兼自恋的时代, 堕入爱河这一概念,即对一位性伴侣热烈的爱慕,被认为是过时且危险的。

《阿凡达》白人娶了原住民公主而成为大王的故事,其忠诚地追随传统的生产情侣方程式,其对爱的幻觉的深信不疑,令之成为一个意识型态上保守、守旧的电影。 而其高超的电脑特技将这根本的保守性深深的埋藏。然而,不难发现的是,埋藏在这政治正确的主题(老实的白人支持环保的原住民,抵御「军事-工业」复合的帝 国主义侵略者)下的残暴种族主义母题:一个下身残废而被地球抛弃的人,有能力转个头便便羸得美丽的原住民公主欢心,并协助一班土著保卫其星球。电影告诉我 们,原住民只有两个选择,要么被人类拯救,要么被人类消灭。换言之,他们若不选择成为帝国主义现实的受害者,便得乖乖饰演白人幻想中早已分配好的角色。

正当《阿凡达》横扫全球票房时(不足三星期已大收十亿美元),一件与《阿凡达》剧本何其相似的事情却在发生。印度的住着东加里亚空达 (dongria kondh)人的奥利沙邦(state of orissa)北边的山区,被卖了给矿业公司,并计划大肆开采当地丰富的铝氧石(该矿床估计价值四万亿美元)。拒绝坐以待毙,一场毛派(纳萨尔派分子 Naxalite)的武装叛乱因而爆发。

Arundhati Roy于《印度现况》杂志里,如此描述这帮毛派的游击队:

“… 几乎全部由穷得绝望的的部落人民组成,他们活于长期饥饿的状态——那是比得上非洲撒哈啦沙漠南部地区程度的饥荒。他们在印度所谓独立六十年后,仍然未能获 得任何教育、医疗和法律补偿。几十年来他们不断被无情地剥削,小商人持续地欺骗他们,警察及林业部门的人员像攞正牌地强暴他们的妇女。一直以来,因为一批 毛派的同志与他们一同生活、工作及并肩作战,他们才能走上一条夺回他们尊严的道路上。部落人民今天拿起他们的武器,也是因为政府一直以来除了给他们带来暴 力与忽略之外,甚么都没贡献过,今天甚至还要夺走他们唯一的财产——土地。……他们相信若今天再不为土地而战,便无异于被歼灭。这班衣衫褴褛、营养不良的 部队,当中好一部份士兵连火车、巴士和小镇都没见过,现在正为生存而战。

印度总理把这叛乱形容为「单一最大型的国内安全威胁」;商业媒体把他们描述为极端地反对发展,媒体也不再报导「伊斯兰恐怖主义」了,取而代之的是 铺天盖地的「赤色恐怖主义」。无怪乎印度政府以大规模的军事行动,对府印度中部森林里的「毛派大本营」。在这场战争中,两方的确都诉诸大型武力,而毛派的 「人民公义」也不是省油的灯。然而,对于我等自由派的品味,无论这里的暴力是多么惹人讨厌,但我们却无任何资格谴责之。为甚么?他们的状况,正正就是黑格 尔所说的乌合之众:印度纳萨尔派的反叛分子是童叟无欺的饥民,他们连生命最低限度的尊严都被剥夺。”

此情此景,金马伦的电影有甚么位置?没位置:奥利沙没有矜贵的公主等待白人英雄来诱惑她及帮助其部落人民,只有一班声名狼藉的毛派在组织饥民。电影让我们 能操作一种典型的意识型态区别:同情被理想化了的原住民,同时否定人民真实的斗争。欣赏《阿凡达》及仰慕原住民反叛的观众,有所有理由在恐惧中否定纳萨尔 派份子,把他们打成杀人成性的恐怖主义者。真正的na 'vi族人躯壳其实就是《阿凡达》本身——电影已经替代了现实。


#日志日期:2010-5-18 星期二(Tuesday) 晴 送小红花 推荐指数:复制链接 举报

评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2010-6-1 22:14

 斯拉沃热·齐泽克(Slavoj Zizek),斯洛文尼亚卢布尔雅那大学社会学和哲学高级研究员,拉康传统最重要的继承人,他长期致力于沟通拉康精神分析理论与马克思主义哲学,将精神分析、主体性、意识形态和大众文化熔于一炉,形成了极为独特的学术思想和政治立场,成为20世纪90年代以来最为耀眼的国际学术明星之一,被一些学者称为黑格尔式的思想家。   

他曾任法国巴黎第八大学、美国明尼苏达大学、哥伦比亚大学、普林斯顿大学等许多知名高等院校的访问教授、活跃于各种哲学、精神分析和文化批评国际学术讨论会,所到之处儿乎都引起广泛的注意。詹姆逊说他“发出了一种不平常的声音,我们将在今后数年内反复聆听”。伊格尔顿评价他是欧洲近十年来最重要的思想家之一。   

能把齐泽克的话当真吗?正如《纽约客》上发表的一篇关于齐泽克的文章所写的:“我们未必总要过分认真地看待他的观点,因为这会导致范畴谬误(category mistake)。”   

在地理版图上,斯洛文尼亚只是一个小巧玲珑的国家,但一旦进入了观念世界,与其狭小的疆界和稀疏的人口密度相比,斯洛文尼亚获得的声誉却大得不成比例,这都要归功于斯拉沃热·齐泽克(Slavoj Zizek)。齐泽克今年55岁,是来自斯洛文尼亚的首都卢布尔雅那的哲学家。他的著作已经被译成20多种文字,涉猎的范围包括希区柯克、列宁、歌剧和9·11恐怖主义袭击等等毫不相关的领域。他以天马行空式的说话风格和写作风格,以及擅长将心理分析、政治和黄色笑话融为一体而著称。   

齐泽克在家中是独子,十几岁时就热衷电影和书籍。他在卢布尔雅那大学的硕士毕业论文着重考察了拉康、德里达、克里斯蒂瓦以及其它欧陆哲学家的著作。尽管这篇论文才华横溢,但齐泽克还是无法获得硕士学位,直到他同意增加一个附录,对上述哲学家的著作进行充分的马克思主义批判。尽管修订了论文,学校还是认为齐泽克不适合任教,于是他只好前往法国,在拉康的女婿和知识继承人雅克-阿兰·米勒(Jacques-Alain Miller)的指导下学习,跟着米勒进入了精神分析领域。   

齐泽克后来结过两次婚,也离过两次。每一次婚姻都留下了一个儿子,现在一个30岁,一个3岁。在卢布尔雅那,齐泽克独住在一居室的小公寓里。屋里摆着两张单人床、一台电视机、一台录像机、一台DVD机、一张桌子、一台笔记本电脑。书架靠在墙上,上面摆满了书籍和录像带。“对我而言,录像带和DVD毁了电影。我不再看电影,而是买电影,然后是拥有。既然已经拥有,为什么还要再去看它?”   

他的书架上既有理论著作,也有通俗小说。齐泽克特别喜欢侦探小说,他认为,“那些说‘别告诉我结尾’的人全都错了。我先读前10页,然后读结尾,这就是考验:我是否还想再读下去?”他收集的电影既包括纳粹宣传片《死不绝的犹太人》(The Eternal Jew)——这部电影在德国是禁止销售的(“我所有的德国左翼朋友都有这部录像带”),也包括苏联时期有关幸福农工的爱情影片。他还收藏了一些流行影片,包括《大话王》(Liar Liar)和《最后的诱惑》(The Last Seduction)。他的卫生间里放着一些旅行装的洗发香波,它们来自许多国家的宾馆。“我的袜子全都来自汉莎航空公司。”他说。   

卢布尔雅那坐落在萨瓦河边,风景迷人。卢布尔雅那只有25.4万人,因而很像一所学院,人们彼此认识,或者睡在一起,或者斗成一团,或者既睡在一起又斗成一团。穿过主干道时,齐泽克说,“这是卢布尔雅那的主要街道,先前叫铁托大街,现在叫斯洛文尼亚大街,这是典型的后社会主义方式。”在经过一幢建于20世纪50年代的办公大楼时(这幢办公大楼与建于19世纪的大楼比邻而居),他说,“新大楼是议会的办公楼,旧大楼是共产党中央委员会的办公楼。它们居然没有装模作样地相互独立,这个样子我喜欢。”   

对于齐泽克来说,20世纪70年代是凄凉的,不过到了80年代便有了起色。尽管齐泽克和许多渴望过上美好生活的南斯拉夫人一样,也是一位共产党员,但他开始积极参与抗议运动。齐泽克相信,某些前社会主义国家的公民在社会主义的最后十年过得最好,因为除了拥有国家资助的食物、住房、工资、文化,还享受着可以抱怨政府的乐趣。“有三年时间,是绝对的自由自在,那时还没有现在这样的规章条例来管理赤裸裸的色情文化,当时到处都是报亭,它们都贴着非常具有色情味儿的海报。有一次我跟儿子一起经过一个报亭(他那时还很小),亭子上贴着一张很大的海报,上面画了个一丝不挂的女人,她双腿跨在哈雷摩托车上。我儿子说,‘快看,多棒啊!’但他没有注意到那个女人,他指的是哈雷摩托车!那是我们的失乐园。”   

齐泽克说,面对斯洛文尼亚的独立,他内心充满了矛盾:从理论上讲他反对独立,但又接受独立带来的政治利益。他花了很长时间平息内心的不安,然后开始竞选斯洛文尼亚四人总统委员会中的一个席位。那是1990年,这个国家第一次举行民主选举。他最后获得的是光荣的第五名——对他而言,到目前为止这是最好的结果;或许对于斯洛文尼亚来说,这也是最好的结果,因为,如果他真的当选了,他的第一个行动或许就是辞职。“我觉得占据那个位置意味着你每周都要开会,随之而来是影响和权力——不过我不稀罕,那是个一天要工作24小时的职业,承载着愚不可及的社会义务。”   

如果说德里达的魅力源于他那令人陶醉的艰深理论,福柯的魅力源于他在性问题上的执着,那么齐泽克的魅力则源于他尽人皆知的荒诞不经。不过,与其他学术明星们所不同的是,齐泽克没有一个门徒,也不存在什么齐泽克学派。齐泽克著作的特色之一就是,他甚至把自己的批判方法应用于自己批判研究的结果。齐泽克的好友,芝加哥大学的埃里克·桑特纳说:“他摆出的一个基本姿势就是:先提出一个问题,或者展示一个文本,之后做出你期待已久的解读,再后他会说,‘我倾向于认为,结论与此截然相反。’”   

齐泽克从不放过任何社会现象或自然现象,并统统将其理论化。比如,他注意到人们在进入电梯之后,喜欢不停地按关门键,但关门键并不能加快关门的速度,只是乘客自己产生一种错觉,以为自己的行为富有成效而已。齐泽克把上当受骗的按关门钮的人与西方自由民主社会中无助的公民相提并论,这些公民觉得自己通过投票参与了政治进程,但是因为两个政党已经在基本问题上达成了共识,这些公民实际上并没有任何选择可言。齐泽克喜爱的论证方式是悖论,喜爱的表述方式是杂耍演员般的大话连篇,但这些都是以虔诚信仰的外表维系着的。   

尽管齐泽克有三分之二的时间奔波在西方大学的校园里,但他却著述颇丰。或者说,他脑子转得有多快,出版著作就有多快,甚至著作的出版还要更快一些。他抱怨说:“我所有的享受都给毁了……有人说,‘真羡慕你呀,你干的活,对我们来说是娱乐,对你来说却是工作。’但他们不知道,反过来也是一样的。”他最引以为自豪的,就是有人邀请他为以牧师为读者对象的时事通讯撰写布道材料。他说:“这就好比你想找个正人君子把女孩儿们培养成窈窕淑女,结果却找了个变态狂。”   

他认为,对马克思主义的第二次重大改造,也就是毛泽东对其的传承发展。主要的(普遍的)矛盾并不会被特定情况下需要特殊处理的矛盾遮蔽——普遍性就存在于特殊性之中。在每一种具体情况 下,一种不同的“特殊的”矛盾是最主要的矛盾,准确地说,要获得解决主要矛盾的斗争的胜利,我们必须把某种特殊的矛盾作为最主要的矛盾来解决,所有其他的斗争都必须降至从属地位。   
美国著名《新左派》杂志力捧的政治哲学家,能说六种语言,著作被译成二十几种文字,涉猎的主题无所不包,享有国际声誉,誉满天下的精神分析大师。立志以精神分析为利器,揭露资本主义是以何种方式左右公众的想象力的。不读他的著作,不仅无法理解拉康学说,也无法把握形形色色的现代主义、后现代主义理论。他的表述方式是杂耍演员般的大话连篇,独树一帜的反直觉大师。“他摆出的一个基本姿势就是:先提出一个问题,或者展示一个文本,之后做出你期待已久的解读,然后他会说:‘我倾向于认为,结论与此截然相反。’”他将拉康的理论深化和发展,并使之驰骋于各个领域。齐泽克的学术风格是将精神分析、主体性、意识形态和大众文化融于一炉,从而开倡一种全新的哲学领域。齐泽克在欧美学界取得了巨大成功,他现在风靡于哲学界、文学界,并对社会学和政治学产生影响。齐泽克现在奔波于欧美两地,接受采访、出席会议、发表演说、举行讲座,他还继承了左派的介入传统,曾竞选过斯洛文尼亚总统。在西方,齐泽克取得的巨大声誉完全可以同爱德华·萨义德、以赛亚·伯林、朱莉亚·克里斯蒂瓦等相提并论。詹姆逊说齐泽克“发出了一种不平常的声音,我们将在今后数年内反复聆听”;伊格尔顿评价他是“欧洲近十多年来最重要的思想家之一”,美国评论家丽贝卡·米德的发表在《纽约客》上的文章,把齐泽克称作一个“从天而降的第欧根尼”。齐泽克文集《易碎的绝对——基督教遗产为何值得奋斗?》、《快感大转移——妇女和因果性六论》、《偶然性、霸权和普遍性——关于左派的当代对话》、《敏感的主体:政治本体论的缺席中心》、《因为我们不知道我们所做的》、《有人说过集权主义吗?》、《幻想的瘟疫》、《与齐泽克对话》等。




登录 | 新人注册>>
输入您的评论:(不支持HTML标签)


验证码
本文所属博客:陈寿文专栏
引用地址:


© 天涯社区