這是用戶在 2024-11-7 15:54 為 https://criticallegalthinking.com/2014/06/17/civilisation-savage-crowd/ 保存的雙語快照頁面,由 沉浸式翻譯 提供雙語支持。了解如何保存?

Civilisation & the Savage Crowd
文明與野蠻群眾

by | 17 Jun 2014
伊蘭·魯亞·沃爾

spiteriAny­one famil­iar with ‘crowd the­ory’ will have been told repeat­edly that Gus­tave Le Bon is an ori­gin. This asser­tion is quickly masked by obfus­ca­tion. He is not a first, of course, pre­ceded by the his­to­rian Taine and the early crim­i­nol­o­gists Lom­broso and Sighele. But Le Bon is the one who draws these dis­persed though influ­en­tial works together into a tra­di­tion or a the­ory. He con­sti­tutes an iden­tity of crowd psy­chol­ogy, crowd the­ory or even social psy­chol­ogy. Le Bon was a pop­u­lar­izer and a syn­the­sizer, rejected by the aca­d­e­mic and sci­en­tific estab­lish­ment, he writes for pop­u­lar audi­ences. And with The Crowd he cer­tainly finds one. In a sense, Le Bon per­fectly instan­ti­ates the para­dox of ori­gins. They do not begin any­thing but are still the begin­ning. Le Bon is not the start of think­ing about crowds. But he con­sti­tutes a dis­course, or bet­ter, we ret­ro­spec­tively con­sti­tute the dis­course of crowd the­ory by ascrib­ing Le Bon the orig­i­nat­ing sta­tus. To put it in the most banal and obvi­ous of ways: when we start talk­ing about crowds with Le Bon, we make him the start. This ori­gin then echoes through the oeu­vre, requir­ing that each per­son who takes up the the­o­ri­sa­tion must work hard to try to over­come the ori­gin that we our­selves perpetuate.
古斯塔夫·勒龐被視為群眾理論的起源。

Le Bon’s crowd is a sav­age thing. But sav­agery does not sim­ply equate to con­dem­na­tion – although that comes as well. To begin, the crowd is not an aggre­ga­tion of indi­vid­u­als. It is not made up of a col­lec­tion of sin­gle enti­ties, but rather in this gath­er­ing a new sub­ject it born. The crowd is a col­lec­tive uncon­scious­ness. When men enter the heav­ing mass of the crowd they descend the lev­els of civil­i­sa­tion, los­ing their indi­vid­u­al­ity and regress­ing to their com­mon uncon­scious nature.1 In this sense, Man’s most base instincts are released.
勒龐的群眾是一個野蠻的事物。但是野蠻並不等同於譴責 - 儘管也有這種情況。首先,群眾不是個人的集合體。它不是由單個實體的集合組成的,而是在這次聚會中誕生了一個新的主體。群眾是一種集體無意識。當人們進入群眾的沸騰質量中時,他們就會下降到文明的水平,失去個性並倒退到他們共同的無意識本性。在這個意義上,人類最基本的本能被釋放了。

A crowd is not merely impul­sive and mobile [in its sen­ti­ments]. Like a sav­age, it is not pre­pared to admit any­thing can come between its desire and the real­i­sa­tion of its desire. It is the less capa­ble of under­stand­ing such inter­ven­tions, in con­se­quence of the feel­ing of irrestible power given it by its numer­i­cal strenght. The notion of impos­si­bil­ity dis­ap­pears for the indi­vid­ual in a crowd. An indi­vid­ual knows well enough that alone he can­not set fire to a palace or loot a shop, and should he be tempted to do so, he will eas­ily resist the temp­ta­tion. Mak­ing part of a crowd, he is con­scious of the power given to him by num­ber, and it is suf­fi­cient to sug­gest to him the ideas of mur­der and pil­lage for him to yield imme­di­ately to temp­ta­tion.2
群眾並非只是衝動和移動[在其情感上]。像一個野蠻人,它沒有準備接受任何東西會出現在它的欲望和願望實現之間。由於其數量優勢給予的不可抗拒的力量感,它越是無法理解這種干預。對個人而言,在人群中,不可能的概念消失了。個人很清楚,單獨一個人無法縱火燒毀宮殿或劫掠商店,如果受到誘惑,他會很容易抗拒。作為群眾的一份子,他意識到數量給予他的力量,僅僅是向他暗示謀殺和搶劫的想法,他就會立即屈服於誘惑。

The crowd, ‘like a sav­age’ will not allow any inter­rup­tion between that which it desires and the real­i­sa­tion of this desire. Theindi­vid­ual can quickly repress any desire he might have had to over­throw, loot or pil­lage. His civil­i­sa­tion depends pre­cisely upon his abil­ity to sus­pend the real­i­sa­tion of his desire. In fact, the extent to which he is civilised is deter­mined by the extent to which this thought even enters his head. Some­one who has to con­sciously repress the urge to trans­gress has not suf­fi­ciently inte­ri­orised this civilisation.
群眾,「像野蠻人一樣」不會允許任何干擾在它所渴望的事物與實現這種渴望之間。個人可以迅速壓抑任何他可能有的推翻、劫掠或搶劫的慾望。他的文明正是基於他能夠暫停實現自己欲望的能力。事實上,他被文明化的程度取決於這種想法進入他腦海的程度。有意識地壓抑違法的衝動的人尚未充分內化這種文明。

The sus­pen­sion of indi­vid­u­al­ity in the crowd is a man­i­fes­ta­tion of the sus­pen­sion of civil­i­sa­tion. Man is ‘torn between the pri­mal ele­ments of sen­ti­ment and rea­son, the lat­ter hav­ing emerged only recently in human evo­lu­tion and sel­dom exer­cis­ing real influ­ence on human affairs.… All emo­tions, fear, hate and sex­ual pas­sions, were sur­vivals of sav­agery, and, accord­ing to Le Bon, espe­cially dom­i­nant in those who lacked the oppo­site prin­ci­ple, rea­son.’3 The crowd is sav­age, unrea­soned. With the sus­pen­sion of indi­vid­u­al­ity, comes sug­gestibil­ity. The crowd is a col­lec­tive sub­ject capa­ble of being infi­nitely directed from above. This sounds like the crowd is being framed as a pure instru­ment, but the leader’s own psy­chol­ogy is not the ratio­nal Machi­avel­lian idea that we might expect. Leaders:
在人群中個體性的暫停,是文明暫停的表現。人『被一種原始情感和理性的元素撕裂,後者在人類演化中才剛剛出現,且極少對人類事務產生實際影響。...所有情緒,恐懼、仇恨和性激情,都是野蠻殘餘,特別體現在缺乏相反原理理性的人身上。』群眾是野蠻的、無理的。伴隨個體性的暫停而來的是可被暗示性。群眾是一個可以無限受高層領導的集體主體。這聽起來好像群眾被框定為純粹的工具,但領導者自己的心理卻並非我們所期待的理性的馬基維利主義思想。領導者:

are espe­cially recruited from the ranks of those mor­bidly ner­vous, excitable, half-deranged per­sons who are bor­der­ing on mad­ness…. They sac­ri­fice their per­sonal inter­est, their fam­ily – every­thing. The very instinct for self-preservation is entirely oblit­er­ated in them, and so much so that often the only rec­om­pense they solicit is that of mar­tyr­dom….. The mul­ti­tude is always ready to lis­ten to the strong-willed man, who knows how to impose him­self upon it. Men gath­ered in a crowd lose all force of will and turn instinc­tively to the per­son who pos­sesses the qual­ity they lack.4
特別從那些痛苦神經質、易激動、半瘋狂的人員中招募。他們犧牲了個人利益、家庭,甚至一切。自我保護的本能在他們那裡完全被消除。他們所求的僅僅是烈士般的報償。群眾總是樂意傾聽一個強意志的人,他知道如何在群眾中施加自己的影響。群眾失去了意志力,本能地服從擁有他們所缺乏品質的人。

These lead­ers start from the mass, but break away by their fix­a­tion upon an idea. The are pos­sessed by the idea. ‘It has taken poses­sion of him to such a degree that every­thing out­side it van­ishes, and that every con­trary opin­ion appears to him an error or a super­sti­tion.’5 The leader uses the crowd instru­men­tally, cer­tainly, but they are not in con­trol of their use, their desires. Instead it is the idea which pos­sesses them that has become sov­er­eign. Their maddness, their pos­ses­sion by the idea, gen­er­ates a crowd that is rabid.
這些領導者起源於群眾,但被對一個想法的迷戀所束縛。他們被這個想法佔有。「它佔有他們的程度到了一個地步,以至於一切外部事物都消失了,任何相反的意見在他們看來都是錯誤或迷信。」5這位領導者無疑利用群眾,但他們並不控制他們的使用和欲望。相反,是佔有他們的想法成為了主宰。他們的瘋狂,他們被這個想法佔有,產生了狂熱的群眾。

Cru­cially then, the crowd become an expres­sion of the lead­ers uncon­scious­ness. 6 This uncon­scious­ness how­ever, is not a mys­ti­cal thing, but rather it stems from the shared hered­i­tary (racial) nature of the crowd. And this is what so often goes unsaid in the var­i­ous accounts of Le Bon, par­tic­u­larly in the post-Freudian read­ings. In their regres­sion down the line of civil­i­sa­tion, the crowd return to their ‘com­mon origns’. Pre­vi­ously in The Psy­chol­ogy of Peo­ples, Le Bon wrote:
關鍵是,群眾成為領導者潛意識的表達。這種潛意識並非神秘事物,而是源於群眾所共享的遺傳(種族)本性。這是在各種關於勒龐的說法中常被忽略的。在退回到文明的原點上,群眾回到了他們的'共同起源'。在《人群心理學》中,勒龐曾寫到:

This iden­tity of the men­tal con­sti­tu­tion of the major­ity of the indi­vid­u­als of a race is due to very sim­ple phys­i­o­log­i­cal rea­sons. Each indi­vid­ual is the prod­uct not merely of his imme­di­ate pre­ci­dents but also of his race, that is of the entire series of his ascen­dents. A learned econ­o­mist M. Cheysson has cal­cu­lated that in France, sup­pos­ingth­ere to be three gen­er­a­tions in a cen­tury, each of us would have in his veins the blood of twenty mil­lion of the peo­ple liv­ing in the year 1000. ‘In con­se­quence all inhab­i­tants of a given local­ity, of a given dis­trict, nec­es­sar­ily pos­sess com­mon ances­tors, are moulded of the same clay, bear the same impress, and they are all brought back unceas­ingly to the aver­age type by this long and heavy chain, of which they are merely the last links. We are the chil­dren at once of our par­ents and our race. Our coun­try is our sec­ond mother for phys­i­o­log­i­cal and hered­i­tary as well as sen­ti­men­tal rea­sons.’’7
某一個種族中大多數人的心理構成的同一性,是由於非常簡單的生理原因所造成的。每個個體都不僅是其直接前輩的產物,也是其整個種族的後代。一位受學的經濟學家謝松先生計算過,在法國,假設每個世紀有三代人,那麼我們每個人的血管中都會有來自公元 1000 年時期二千萬人的血液。因此,同一地區、同一區域的所有居民都擁有共同的祖先,都是由同樣的泥土塑造,都承載著相同的印記,並且通過漫長而深重的連鎖永遠被拉回到平均類型。我們既是父母的孩子,也是種族的孩子。從生理和遺傳,也從情感上來說,我們的國家就是我們的第二個母親。

As he repeats, through­out his odi­ous oeu­vre, the crowd is an expres­sion of the psy­chol­ogy of quasi-national races.8 Thus he can say that crowds ‘are every­where dis­tin­guished by fem­i­nine char­ac­ter­is­tics, but Latin crowds are the most fem­i­nine of all.’9 He con­trasts the ‘latin crowd’ with the ‘anglo-saxon crowd’, which is more sta­ble and less likely to spring into being at the slight­est national insult.10
他不斷重複,通過他令人厭惡的作品,群眾是半民族性種族心理的表達。8因此,他可以說群眾"無一例外都帶有女性特徵,但拉丁人群眾是最具女性特點的"。9他將"拉丁人群眾"與"英美群眾"形成對比,後者更加穩定,不太容易因最微小的民族侮辱而爆發。10

Race is the cru­cial deter­min­ing fea­ture of Le Bon’s work. In Ori­en­tal­ism, Said was cor­rect to say that Les Lois Psy­chologiques de L’Evolution des Peu­ples (1894) is the par­a­digm of a type of ori­en­tal­ism that:
种族是勒邦作品的关键决定性特征。在《东方主义》中,萨义德正确地说,《种族心理学法则》(1894)是一种东方主义范例,即:

was linked… to ele­ments in West­ern soci­ety (delin­quents, the insane, women, the poor) hav­ing in com­mon an iden­tity best described as lam­en­ta­bly alien. Ori­en­tals were rarely seen or looked at; they were seen through, analysed not as cit­i­zens, or even peo­ple, but as prob­lems to be solved or con­fined or – as the colo­nial pow­ers openly cov­eted their ter­ri­tory – taken over. The point is that the very des­ig­na­tion of some­thing as Ori­en­tal involved an already pro­nounced evau­la­tive judg­ment, and in the case of the peo­ples inhab­it­ing the decayed Ottoman Empire, an implicit pro­gram of action. Since the Ori­en­tal was a mem­ber of a sub­ject race, he had to be sub­jected: it was that sim­ple.11
被連結到西方社會(違法者、精神病患者、婦女、窮人)有著可悲的異質身分。東方人很少被注意或觀看;他們被當作對象,不是作為公民或人,而是需要解決或約束的問題,或者—正如殖民大國羨慕他們的領土—需要被征服。問題在於,將某物稱為東方已涉及一項已經明確的評判,而對於居住在衰落的奧斯曼帝國的人民而言,則隱含著一項行動計劃。因為東方人是一個臣屬種族的成員,所以必須臣屬:這就是問題的核心所在。

But unlike the rest of his work where the sav­age oth­ers are analysed through the degen­er­ates of France, The Crowd uses the ori­en­tal to under­stand ‘west­ern civil­i­sa­tion’. The sav­age other is there within ‘west­ern civil­i­sa­tion’, as Said notes.
但與他其餘作品不同,在那裡野蠻的他者是通過法國的退化者分析的,群眾使用東方人來理解'西方文明'。正如賽義德指出,野蠻的他者存在於'西方文明'之中。

In The Crowd, it is not sim­ply a mat­ter of den­i­grat­ing the crowds as ori­en­tal, but mak­ing them ‘the objects of a new tech­nol­ogy of power.’12 The crowds’ for­ma­tion and ten­den­cies are shaped by the shared herdi­tary uncon­scious­ness of the par­tic­i­pants.13 The crowd was the sav­age within society/the indi­vid­ual, capa­ble of ter­ri­ble acts of degri­da­tion. How­ever, Le Bon also notes that the crowd, the sav­age beast, is also capa­ble of acts of fero­cious hero­ism. In fact, he insists that were it not for the crowd, ‘civil­i­sa­tion would not have grown up on our planet, and human­ity would have had no his­tory.’14 The crowd is the motor of his­tory, bru­tally dri­ving mankind for­ward. Thus, we dis­cover a strange moment in Le Bon’s analy­sis of crowds. The crowd is an echo of an old form of mankind (sen­ti­ment), super­sceded in West­ern soci­ety by the higher level of con­scious­ness (rea­son). But yet the motor of this progress, this evo­lu­tion of Man, is pre­cisely the crowd. To have his­tory which leads to higher con­scious­ness, Man must first regress to the unthink­ing, uncon­scious Man. Irra­tional­ity is the motor of rea­son. Le Bon sees a meta­phys­i­cal dichotomy between ‘sen­ti­ment’ and ‘rea­son’; between pas­sion, affect and sav­agery on one side; with civil­i­sa­tion, rea­son and indi­vid­u­al­ity on the other. Because he sees rea­son as a recent addi­tion in the long chain of the his­tory of man’s evo­lu­tion, it has not been ‘bed­ded in’. Civil­i­sa­tion still lies on the sur­face. To ‘bed it in’ fur­ther, Man must live through rea­son for gen­er­a­tions. The progress of civil­i­sa­tion does not march inex­orably, how­ever, because the crowd (of sen­ti­ment and sav­agery) threat­ens its course. And yet this threat also presents the process whereby rea­son progresses.
群眾 群眾中,這不僅僅是貶低群眾為東方人,而是將他們視為「新權力技術的對象」。12參與者共同的潛意識遺傳形塑了群眾的形成及傾向。13群眾是社會/個人內部的野蠻面,能夠做出可怕的退化行為。然而,勒龐也指出,群眾這隻野獸,也同樣能夠做出勇敢的英雄主義行為。實際上,他堅持,如果沒有群眾,「文明不會在我們的星球上發展,人類也就沒有歷史」。14群眾是歷史的推動力,殘暴地推動人類前進。因此,我們在勒龐對群眾的分析中發現了一個奇特的時刻。群眾是人類舊形態(感性)的回響,在西方社會被更高層次的意識(理性)所取代。但是,這種進步,這種人類的演化,的動力正是群眾。要有導向更高意識的歷史,人類必須首先退回到無思考、無意識的狀態。非理性是理性的動力。勒龐看到「感性」和「理性」之間的形而上二元對立;一方是激情、感性和野蠻,另一方是文明、理性和個性。由於他認為理性是人類歷史長河中最近才出現的,所以它還沒有根深蒂固。文明還停留在表面。要使其深植,人類必須通過理性生活若干代。然而,文明的進步並非必然,因為群眾(感性和野蠻)的威脅也是理性進步的過程。

Le Bon draws our atten­tion15 to the con­ti­nu­ity between west­ern civil­i­sa­tion and sav­age colo­nial­ism. Iden­ti­fy­ing that beas­t­ial acts are per­formed in the name of rea­son, but this beas­t­ial­ity is not exter­nal to rea­son, it is its dark side. In other words, The Crowd intu­its that beas­t­ial­ity is actu­ally a fun­da­men­tal part of civil­i­sa­tion. If Man is beas­t­ial to ensure civil­i­sa­tion, if civil­i­sa­tion is civilised because of beas­t­ial­ity, then the two form a con­ti­nu­ity not a break: Civil­i­sa­tion and bar­barism are on a moe­bus strip, front turns into back and then front again with­out inter­rup­tion. Civil­i­sa­tion is/becomes bar­barism, and bar­barism is/becomes civil­i­sa­tion. Le Bon, how­ever, does not see this as a cri­tique. Per­haps Le Bon did not even quite realise the con­tours of the idea that he was propos­ing. But this con­ti­nu­ity between civil­i­sa­tion and bar­barism, would later become cru­cial to the rad­i­cal responses to Euro­pean ‘enlight­en­ment’ and colo­nial­ism. The Sur­re­al­ists,16 for instance, in 1932 penned theMur­der­ous Human­i­tar­i­an­ism pam­phlet: ‘The colo­nial machin­ery that extracts the last penny from nat­ural advan­tages ham­mers away with the joy­ful reg­u­lar­ity of a pole ax. The white man preaches, doses, vac­ci­nates, assas­si­nates and (from him­self) receives abso­lu­tion. With his psalms, his speeches, his guar­an­tees of lib­erty, equal­ity and fra­ter­nity, he seeks to drown the noise of his machine guns.’ Or again, dif­fer­ently in 1950 Aimé Césaire would write in Dis­course on Colo­nial­ism:
勒邦引起我們的注意15到西方文明與野蠻殖民主義之間的連續性。他認定野獸般的行為是以理性的名義來進行的,但這種野蠻性並不是外在於理性,而是它的黑暗面。換句話說,群眾直覺到野蠻性實際上是文明的基本組成部分。如果人為了確保文明而表現得野蠻,如果文明是因為野蠻性而文明,那麼這兩者就是連續而非分裂的:文明和野蠻是在一條莫比烏斯帶上,前變成後,後再變前,無間斷地循環。文明就是/變成野蠻,野蠻就是/變成文明。然而,勒邦並未將此視為批判。也許勒邦自己也未完全意識到他所提出概念的輪廓。但這種文明與野蠻的連續性,日後將成為對歐洲"啟蒙"和殖民主義的激進回應的關鍵。例如,在 1932 年,超現實主義者16寫下了殺人的人道主義小冊:「殖民機器從自然優勢中榨取最後一文錢,以斧頭般的快樂規律砰砰作響。白人傳教,施藥,接種,刺殺,並(從自己身上)獲得赦免。憑藉他的詩篇、演講和自由、平等、博愛的保證,他試圖淹沒機關槍的聲音。」又或者,1950 年艾美·塞澤爾在《殖民主義演講》中寫道:

First we must study how col­o­niza­tion works to deciv­i­lize the col­o­nizer, to bru­tal­ize him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to cov­etous­ness, vio­lence, race hatred, and moral rel­a­tivism; and we must show that each time a head is cut off in Viet­nam and in France they accept the fact, each time a lit­tle girl is raped and in France they accept the fact, each time a Mada­gas­can is tor­tured and in France they accept the fact, civil­i­sa­tion acquires another dead weight, a uni­ver­sal regres­sion takes place, a gan­grene sets in, a cen­tre of infec­tion begins to spread; and that at the end of all these treaties that have been vio­lated, all these lies that have been prop­a­gated…, at the end of all the racial pride that has been encour­aged, all the boast­ful­ness that has been dis­played, a poi­son has been dis­tilled into the veins of Europe and slowly but surely, he con­ti­nent pro­ceeds toward sav­agery.17
首先,我們必須研究殖民化如何使殖民者去文明化,在真正意義上使其野蠻化,使其墮落,喚醒其被埋藏的本能,如貪婪、暴力、種族仇恨和道德相對主義。我們必須表明,每當越南和法國斬首一人,他們都接受這個事實;每當一個小女孩被強暴,他們都接受這個事實;每當一個馬達加斯加人遭到酷刑,他們都接受這個事實,文明就會增添另一個死亡的負重,一種普遍的倒退就會發生,一種溃疽就會開始蔓延;最後,在所有被違反的條約、被散佈的謊言之後,在所有被鼓勵的種族虛榮和被展示的自負之後,一種毒藥就被酿造進了歐洲的血管,慢慢而確定地,這個大陸走向野蠻。

He notes that Fas­cism was the result of a ‘boomerang effect’: ‘before they were its vic­tims, they were its accom­plices; that they tol­er­ated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legit­imized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peo­ples.’18
他指出,法西斯主義是一種"回旋效應"的結果:"在成為它的受害者之前,他們是它的同謀;他們容忍納粹主義在它被加諸於他們之前,他們原諒了它,閉上眼睛,合法化了它,因為在那之前,它只被施加到非歐洲人民身上。"18

As Laclau notes, The Crowd stands at a cross­roads, between the nine­teenth cen­tury ways of think­ing about crowds as an abber­a­tion and the mod­ern real­ity wherein they were des­tined to stay. In this, ‘they can­not be dis­missed and sum­mar­ily con­demned, but have to become the objects of a new tech­nol­ogy of power.’19 The life of the crowd must become the new polit­i­cal tech­nol­ogy, it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a more per­fect instan­ti­a­tion of biopol­i­tics. In fact the entire edi­fice of Le Bon’s thought is like a micro­cosm of an intense biopol­i­tics: The com­mon hered­ity (the bio­log­i­cal life and lin­eage) of a race deter­mines the uncon­scious of a par­tic­u­lar national group­ing. The racial hered­ity is fed back to the same group­ing as a process of val­oris­ing its power to over­come its den­i­gra­tion. This uncon­scious emerges in crowds which are, to be turned to the task of renew­ing west­ern civil­i­sa­tion. The sav­age crowd must be dis­ci­plined, but also it must be brought to bear on the declin­ing civil­i­sa­tion to drive its evo­lu­tion onwards. It is dis­ci­plined by the right sort of leaders.
正如拉克勞所指出的,《群眾》站在十九世紀將群眾視為異常現象與現代現實之間的十字路口,後者認為群眾注定會持續存在。在這裡,「群眾不能被輕易地否定和定罪,而必須成為新權力技術的對象」。群眾的生活必須成為新的政治技術,這完全體現了生政治學的概念。事實上,勒龐的思想體系就像是一個激烈的生政治學的縮影:種族的共同遺傳(生物學上的生命和系譜)決定了特定民族群體的潛意識。這種種族遺傳又回饋給同一群體,成為提升其力量以克服羞辱的過程。這種潛意識在群眾中浮現,並將其導向更新西方文明的任務。野蠻的群眾必須受到紀律約束,但也必須用來推動衰落的文明向前發展。它由適當的領導者加以約束。

With Le Bon, as I began, we have reached an ori­gin. The ori­gin of a think­ing of crowds, whose line runs from the colo­nial through to fas­cism and into cer­tain (para­mil­i­tary) police log­ics. It is not the den­i­gra­tion of the crowd that is the prob­lem. It is not his pol­i­tics, as many the­o­rists sug­gest. Rather it is his very ontol­ogy that is at stake. As we have seen from the var­i­ous recu­per­a­tions of Schmitt, one’s pol­i­tics can be under­mined if there is the germ of util­ity in your ontol­ogy. How­ever, Le Bon’s ontol­ogy is poi­son. When placed upon the racial reg­is­ter it becomes pre­cisely the stuff of fascism.
與勒邦一起,正如我開始時所說,我們已經到達一個源頭。群眾思想的源頭,其線條從殖民主義一直延伸到法西斯主義,並進入某些(半軍事性)警察邏輯。問題不在於對群眾的貶低。問題也不在於他的政治,正如許多理論家所建議的那樣。問題在於他的本體論本身。正如我們從施米特的各種復興中看到的,如果你的本體論中存在效用的種子,你的政治就可能受到破壞。然而,勒邦的本體論是有毒的。當它被置於種族登記冊上時,它正好成為法西斯主義的材料。

Details of the Crowded Sovereignty Project can be found here, along with all previous posts.
人群主權計劃的詳情可在此找到,以及所有先前的帖子。

0 Comments 0 評論

Submit a Comment 提交評論

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
您的電子郵件地址將不會被發佈。必填欄位標記為 *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

POSTS BY EMAIL 透過電子郵件發佈

Join 4,767 other subscribers
加入 4,767 位其他訂閱者

We respect your privacy.
我們尊重您的隱私。

Fair Access Publisher 公平准入出版商
(pay what you can, free option available) 
(按自願付費,免費選項可用)

↓ just published
剛剛發佈

PUBLISH ON CLT 在 CLT 上發表

Publish your article with us and get read by the largest community of critical legal scholars, with over 4500 subscribers.
將您的文章與我們一同發佈,並獲得超過 4500 名訂閱者的批判性法學學者社群閱讀。