The Frankfurt School’s Paths of “Civilization” Critique

The Frankfurt School, renowned for its critical theory, has formed a “constellation” composed of different modalities of critique. Within this constellation, the critique of “civilization” runs through it throughout, presenting three main paths: dialectics, psychoanalysis, and intersubjectivity. Studying the Frankfurt School’s paths of critique of “civilization” and their deficiencies holds certain theoretical significance for expanding China’s research on Western Marxism.

以批判理论著称的法兰克福学派，形成了一个由批判的不同样态组成的“星丛”，在这个星丛里“文明”批判贯穿始终，其主要呈现出辩证法、精神分析和主体间性三重路径。研究法兰克福学派对于“文明”批判的路径及其缺失，对于拓展中国的国外马克思主义研究具有一定的学理意义。

The Dialectical Path of “Civilization” Critique

“文明”批判的辩证法路径

Within the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer and Adorno jointly inaugurated the dialectical path of “civilization” critique. In their view, “in dialectical thinking, every thing is what it is, and at the same time transforms into what it is not”; what *Dialectic of Enlightenment* critiques is precisely civilization’s transformation into what it “is not.” Their focus is on the development of human civilization. By generalizing the concept of enlightenment, they expound the developmental course of humanity from barbarism to civilization, and then from civilization back to barbarism. By examining the relationship between enlightenment and myth, and between enlightenment and domination, within the “process of the collapse of contemporary bourgeois civilization,” Horkheimer and Adorno present us with the reversal logic whereby enlightenment step by step relapses into myth and enlightenment step by step becomes a new form of domination.

在法兰克福学派中，霍克海默和阿多诺共同开创了“文明”批判的辩证法路径。在他们看来，“在辩证思维中，每一种事物都是其所是，同时又向非其所是转化”，《启蒙辩证法》所批判的正是文明向“非其所是”的转化。他们的着眼点是人类文明的发展，通过把启蒙概念泛化，论述了人类从野蛮到文明，再从文明到野蛮的发展历程。霍克海默和阿多诺通过考察“当代资产阶级文明崩溃过程”中的启蒙与神话、启蒙与统治的关系，为我们展现了启蒙一步步重新遁入神话和启蒙一步步又成了新的统治的反转逻辑。

Horkheimer and Adorno define the program of enlightenment as “to disenchant the world, and to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge.” It is precisely the realization of this program that gave rise to bourgeois civilization. As the subjective power of human beings increased, the world of myth was shattered. Reason replaced God as this sacred image, but it itself became a new sacred image, and humanity fell into a new myth. Enlightenment regressing into myth also means that bourgeois civilization has become a new mythical world. In this world, “myth has become secularized”; fetishism is the greatest myth of secularization, and the critique of civilization ultimately turns into a critique of commodity fetishism.

霍克海默和阿多诺把启蒙的纲领定为“祛除神话，并用知识代替幻想”，正是这一纲领的实现造就了资产阶级文明。随着人的主体力量的增强，神话的世界被打破，理性取代了神这一神圣形象，但其自身又成了一种新的神圣形象，人类又陷入了新的神话当中。倒退为神话的启蒙，也意味着资产阶级文明成了一个新的神话世界，在这个世界中，“神话已经世俗化了”，拜物教就是世俗化的最大神话，对于文明的批判最终变成了对于商品拜物教的批判。

In the regression from civilization to barbarism, enlightenment not only becomes a new myth but also becomes a form of domination, bringing disaster to humanity through this regression. For Horkheimer and Adorno, the spirit of enlightenment is the spiritual essence of human society entering civilization, namely, “to liberate human beings from fear and establish their autonomy.” *Dialectic of Enlightenment* opens with Bacon’s “knowledge is power” as the guiding principle of enlightenment, and further explains that the bourgeoisie has transformed knowledge into technology, thereby turning power into a kind of authority; “technology is power” is the true “truth” of bourgeois civilization. “Knowledge does not satisfy itself with showing people the truth; only ‘operation’ does.” Enlightenment as a “dominating power” seeks to dominate all things, and it does so “by acting upon human existence and consciousness.” Therefore, enlightenment not only subjects the fate of nature and humanity, but also the whole of human civilization, to a self-inflicted disaster. This disaster is manifested not only in the degeneration of enlightenment reason into instrumental reason, which, with the logic of number, spreads from the sphere of production to the sphere of mass culture, becoming “the enlightenment of mass deception,” but also in the collusion between enlightenment reason and totalitarianism, ultimately leading to the emergence of Auschwitz, the most extreme manifestation of identity-consciousness in reality. Human civilization is completely shrouded in disaster, turning into its own opposite.

在从文明走向野蛮的倒退中，启蒙不仅变成了新的神话，更是成为一种统治，使得这一倒退给人类带来了灾难。在霍克海默和阿多诺这里，启蒙精神是人类社会进入文明的精神本质，即“摆脱恐惧，树立自主”。《启蒙辩证法》开篇以培根的“知识就是力量”作为启蒙的主旨，并进一步说明资产阶级已经把知识转化为技术，进而使得力量成了一种权力，“技术就是权力”才是资产阶级文明的“真理”。“知识并不满足于向人们展示真理，只有‘操作’。”作为“统治力量”的启蒙就是要支配万物，而且是通过“作用于人的存在和意识”的方式。因此，启蒙不仅使自然和人的命运，而且使整个人类文明都陷入了自我招致的灾难中。这种灾难不仅表现为启蒙理性退化为工具理性，以数的逻辑从生产领域蔓延到大众文化领域，成了“大众欺骗的启蒙”，更表现为启蒙理性和极权主义的合谋，最终导致现实中作为同一性意识最极端表现的奥斯维辛集中营的出现，人类文明也彻底笼罩在灾难之中，走向了自身的反面。

The Psychoanalytic Path of “Civilization” Critique

“文明”批判的精神分析路径

The psychoanalytic path is another path of “civilization” critique pioneered by scholars of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. Represented by Marcuse, the pioneers of this path critique the civilization of advanced industrial society by starting from the relationship between civilization and instinct, and this critique relies primarily on psychoanalytic theory. Marcuse explicitly stated that *Eros and Civilization* “aims to contribute to the philosophy of psychoanalysis, not to psychoanalysis itself.” In this sense, Marcuse transforms psychological categories into political problems. Psychoanalytic theory is introduced into social critical theory, becoming a general analysis of the times, questioning the legitimacy and rationality of advanced industrial civilization by critiquing the combination of progress and domination within it.

精神分析路径是第一代法兰克福学派学者们开创的另一条对于“文明”批判的路径，以马尔库塞为代表的这一路径的开拓者从文明与本能的关系入手批判发达工业社会的文明，而这一批判主要依赖于精神分析理论。马尔库塞明确说过，《爱欲与文明》“旨在对精神分析哲学而不是对精神分析本身有所贡献”。在这个意义上，马尔库塞把心理学范畴变成了政治问题，精神分析理论被引入了社会批判理论中，成了对于时代总的剖析，以批判发达工业文明中的进步与奴役的结合质疑了它的合法性和合理性。

In Freud, civilization and instinct are in conflict, because the entire modern civilization is represented by bourgeois civilization, a civilization “oriented toward labor” based on the reality principle. Marcuse, by examining the choice between the conflict of instinct and civilization in the course of progress, argues that the pursuit of civilization is an actual need of people. In his view, people sacrifice the instinctual pursuit of happiness to pursue civilization not because they do not want happiness, but because, with the development of production and technology, living conditions have improved, allowing people to obtain more satisfaction and live a better life. The problem that emerges in the present era is that the acceleration of progress is linked to the intensification of unfreedom, and this has become a universal phenomenon in the entire industrial civilization world.

在弗洛伊德那里，文明和本能是冲突的，因为整个现代文明是以资产阶级文明为代表的，这是一种以现实为原则的“朝向劳作的”文明，马尔库塞则从本能与文明的冲突在进步中的选择论证了对于文明的追寻是人们的实际需要。在他看来，人们之所以会牺牲本能的对于幸福的追寻而去追求文明，不是因为人们不想要幸福，而是因为随着生产和技术的发展，生活条件更好了，人们能够得到更多的满足、过上更好的生活。而现今时代出现的问题是进步的加速和不自由的加剧联系在一起，而且成了整个工业文明世界的普遍现象。

The shift from the pleasure principle to the reality principle indicates the developmental course from instinct to civilization. In this shift, there is repression. But this repression is “basic repression.” In Marcuse’s view, the problem lies not with basic repression, but with “surplus repression,” which follows the “performance principle” as the “prevailing historical form of the reality principle.” It is precisely because of the prevalence of the performance principle that, “at a moment that seems to make possible the establishment of a truly free world,” “the most effective conquest and destruction of human beings by human beings” occurs. This moment, which Marcuse calls the “peak of civilization,” is the moment when the reasons that “those people of old” accepted domination—such as scarcity and toil—have all disappeared. Yet, precisely at this moment, along with the progress of human civilization and the development of science and technology, what people see is the performance principle’s repression of human instinct and restriction of freedom; freedom and servitude are taken for granted as combined. It is based on this consideration that Marcuse focuses on the level of existence and being to discuss liberation. Since economic and political means can no longer awaken people’s search for the liberation of this society, he appeals to psychological factors to examine their impact on the development of human civilization, hoping that by reversing the direction of progress from repressive civilization to non-repressive civilization, he can find the possibility of establishing true freedom.

从快乐原则到现实原则的转变表明从本能到文明的发展历程，在从快乐原则到现实原则的转换中存在着压抑。但这种压抑是“基本压抑”，在马尔库塞看来，出现问题的不是基本压抑，而是“额外压抑”，额外压抑遵循的是作为“现实原则的现行历史形式”的操作原则。也正是因为操作原则的流行，使得在这个“仿佛可以使人建立一个真正自由的世界的时刻”却发生了“人对人的最有效征服和摧残”。这个被马尔库塞称为“文明之巅”的时刻，是“原来那些人们”接受统治的理由，譬如匮乏、苦役等都消失的时刻，可就是在这个时刻，伴随着人类文明的进步和科学技术的发展，人们看到的却是操作原则对人的本能的压抑和自由的限制，自由和奴役理所当然地结合在一起。也正是基于这样的考虑，马尔库塞聚焦于生存和存在层面去讨论解放问题，既然经济的方式和政治的方式已经无法唤醒人们对于这个社会解放的寻求，他就诉诸心理因素考察其对人类文明发展的影响，也希望能借由从压抑性文明到非压抑性文明进步方向的扭转，找到建立真正自由的可能性。

The Intersubjective Path of “Civilization” Critique

“文明”批判的主体间性路径

Unlike the first-generation Frankfurt School scholars, who critiqued “civilization” by starting from the opposition and deviation of barbarism and instinct from civilization, Habermas’s inquiry into civilization begins from within. He focuses primarily on the problem of modernity, a problem that accompanies the development of European civilization and is generated within European civilization itself. Discussing its fate is, in fact, inquiring into the fate of civilization. Habermas adopts an intersubjective path for his critique of “civilization”: “the normative content of modernity can only be deciphered under the sign of intersubjectivity.” He attempts, through this path, to reconstruct the enlightenment that had collapsed in Horkheimer and Adorno, thereby finding a path to transcend modern civilization.

与第一代法兰克福学派的学者从野蛮和本能与文明的对立和背离入手批判“文明”不同，哈贝马斯对于文明的探究是从内部入手的，他重点探讨的是现代性问题，而这是一个伴随着欧洲文明发展并在欧洲文明内部生成的问题。探讨它的命运，实际上也就是在探究文明的命运。哈贝马斯对于“文明”批判采取的是主体间性路径，“现代性的规范内涵只有在主体间性的标志下才能被解读”。他试图通过这样的路径，重构在霍克海默和阿多诺那里已经崩溃的启蒙，从而寻找到一条超越现代文明的路径。

Hegel takes the freedom of subjectivity as the principle of modern society. In modern society, the freedom of subjectivity is primarily manifested at the transcendental level; at the empirical level, human freedom remains dominated. The human being as subject is a dual existence of transcendental subject and empirical subject, and the freedom of the transcendental subject and the unfreedom of the empirical subject are in the same process. How to bridge the gap between the two is the question Habermas ponders. Habermas seeks to resolve this problem by appealing to intersubjectivity, emphasizing that an individual “can only become a subject capable of language and action by integrating into an intersubjectively shared lifeworld.” He attempts to start from the intersubjective paradigm, which differs from the subject-object paradigm of traditional philosophy of consciousness, to complete modernity as an “unfinished project.”

黑格尔把主体性的自由作为现代社会的原则，在现代社会中，主体性的自由主要体现在先验层面上，在经验层面上人的自由还是受到了宰制。人作为主体是先验主体和经验主体的双重存在，而先验主体的自由和经验主体的不自由是处在同一个过程中的，二者之间的鸿沟如何弥补，是哈贝马斯思考的问题。哈贝马斯把对于这一问题的解决诉诸主体间性，强调个人“唯有融入一个主体间共有的生活世界，才能成为有语言和行为能力的主体”，试图从与传统意识哲学的主客体范式不同的主体间性范式入手，完成现代性这项“未竟的工程”。

In the process of completing modernity, Habermas, through his investigation of organized capitalist society, regards the crisis of legitimation, which is closely related to intersubjectivity, as the specific crisis of this society: “overcoming the crisis means the liberation of the subjects caught in the crisis.” The liberation of subjects caught in crisis needs to be achieved through dialogue and communication, which are the two most core elements related to intersubjectivity. The realization of both requires recourse to the language of “doing things with words,” because language is not only the need for dialogue between subjects but also the need for communication between subjects. Habermas, with his discourse ethics, constructs an “ideal speech situation,” providing the possibility for mutual understanding and communication among subjects in the lifeworld composed of culture, society, and individuals.

在完成现代性的进程中，哈贝马斯通过对有组织的资本主义社会的考察，把与主体间性密切相关的合法化危机看作这一社会的特殊危机，“危机的克服意味着陷入危机的主体获得解放”。解放陷入危机的主体，需要通过对话和交往来实现，这是与主体间性相关的两个最核心的内容，二者的实现又都需要诉诸“以言行事”的语言，因为语言不仅是主体间对话的需要，更是主体间交往的需要。哈贝马斯以他的话语伦理学构筑了一个“理想的言说情境”，为由文化、社会、个人组成的生活世界的主体间的相互理解和交往提供了可能性。

When Adorno speaks of the critique of ontology, he says, “not to judge this ontology from on high, but to understand it from the perspective of its own problematic needs and to critique it immanently.” This applies equally to the critique of the Frankfurt School’s “civilization” critique. The Frankfurt School’s threefold path of “civilization” critique highlights the relationships between civilization and barbarism, civilization and instinct, and civilization and modernity. It critiques the price that modern civilization has exacted from humanity and the disasters it has brought, and seeks to redirect the course of modern civilization and the possibility of constructing a new civilization. However, due to the limitations of their own theory, this critique remains trapped in absolute negation and opposition, while its constructive aspects are overly idealistic and detached from reality. In this sense, to truly critique modern civilization, we must still return to Marx’s critique of political economy. And the gradual departure of the Frankfurt School from Marx’s critique of political economy in the course of its development may be the fundamental reason for the deficiency in their “civilization” critique.

阿多诺在谈到对于本体论的批判时说，“不是居高临下地裁判这种本体论，而是出自它自身的成问题的需要来理解它并内在地批判它”，这同样适用于对于法兰克福学派“文明”批判的批判。法兰克福学派对于“文明”批判的三重路径，凸显了文明与野蛮、文明与本能、文明与现代性之间的关系，批判了现代文明使人类付出的代价以及给人类带来的灾难，寻找了扭转现代文明的方向和构建新的文明的可能性。但是，由于他们理论本身的限制，这一批判仅停留在绝对的否定和对立中，建构又过于理想而远离现实。在这个意义上，要对现代文明展开真正的批判，还是需要我们返回到马克思的政治经济学批判。而法兰克福学派在发展进程中所表现出来的对马克思的政治经济学批判的逐渐远离，可能才是他们“文明”批判中的缺失的根本原因所在。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑