The Thinking of Dissensus: Politics and Aesthetics
The Thinking of Dissensus: Politics and Aesthetics
复制标题
分歧的思考：政治与美学
DOI：
10.5040/9781472547378.ch-001
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
0.4
通讯作者：
Jacques Rancière
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jacques Rancière
在不同的概念下思考政治和美学意味着什么？1显然，不同不仅仅是关于政治和美学的概念。这一概念还为政治和美学本身以及将它们的对象联系在一起的那种关系搭建了理论舞台。在最抽象的层面上，异端意味着意义和意义之间的区别：同一内部的差异，对立面的相同。如果你假设政治是一种不同意见的形式，这意味着你不能从社区的任何本质中推断出它，无论你是从实现交际语言等共同属性的角度积极地这样做，还是消极地从使人与人对立的破坏性本能的反应方面这样做(霍布斯)。之所以有政治，是因为普通民众存在分歧。现在，这种划分不是级别的差异。理智和理智之间的对立并不是理智和易懂之间的对立。政治分歧不是潜在的社会和经济进程的表象或形式。根据马克思主义的概念化，阶级斗争是政治的实际现实，而不是其隐藏的原因。让我们从第一点开始。在不同意见中，我重新审视了亚里士多德将政治动物定义为会说话的动物的旧定义。一些批评家认为这是对经典的回归，这对他们来说也意味着对语言的旧观点和对主题的旧理论的回归，这将忽视德里达的解构或利奥塔的不同。但这种观点具有误导性。从亚里士多德的“会说话的动物”开始并不意味着
What does it mean to think politics and aesthetics under the concept of dissensus? 1 Obviously dissensus is not only the concept of what politics and aesthetics are about. This notion also sets up the theoretical stage on which politics and aesthetics themselves are thinkable and the kind of relations that tie their objects together. At the most abstract level, dissensus means a difference between sense and sense: a difference within the same, a sameness of the opposite. If you assume that politics is a form of dissensus, this means that you cannot deduce it from any essence of the community, whether you do it positively in terms of implementation of a common property such as communicative language (Aristotle) or negatively in terms of a response to a destructive instinct that would set man against man (Hobbes). There is politics because the common is divided. Now this division is not a difference of levels. The opposition between sense and sense is not an opposition between the sensible and the intelligible. Political dissensus is not the appearance or the form that would be the manifestation of an underlying social and economic process. In reference to the Marxist conceptualization, class war is the actual reality of politics, not its hidden cause. Let us start from the first point. In Disagreement I re-examined the old Aristotelian definition of the political animal as a speaking animal. Some critics saw it as ‘a return to the classics’, which also meant to them a return to an old view of language and an old theory of the subject that would ignore Derrida’s deconstruction or Lyotard’s differend. But this view is misleading. Starting from the Aristotelian ‘speaking animal’ does not mean