An Analysis of the Predicaments of British New Marxist Cultural Studies

The roadmap of British New Marxist cultural studies runs from culturalism to structuralism, and then to the research paradigms of cultural hegemony and articulation theory. Regardless of the system of thought, all aim to resolve the problem of the “reflection theory” of culture. The so-called “reflection theory” takes the state of development of the productive forces as the foundation for examining all social issues, while relegating all other aspects, including culture, to the superstructure, viewing them as reflections of the economic base, and holding the economic base to be an absolute existence. This article will trace and analyze the intellectual trajectory of British New Marxist cultural studies from a critical perspective, attempting to reveal its theoretical predicaments and the causes of those predicaments.

英国新马克思主义文化研究的路线图是从文化主义到结构主义、再到文化领导权和接合理论的研究范式。无论哪种思想体系，都旨在解决文化的“反映论”问题。所谓“反映论”，是将生产力的发展状况作为考察一切社会问题的基础，而将包括文化在内的所有其他方面都归于上层建筑，并视之为对经济基础的反映，认为经济基础是绝对的存在。本文将以批判的视角对英国新马克思主义文化研究的思想历程进行追踪和评析，尝试揭示其理论困境以及导致困境的原因。

I. Paradigms of British New Marxist Cultural Studies

一、英国新马克思主义文化研究的范式

(I) The Culturalist Research Paradigm

（一）文化主义研究范式

In order to resist British native elite culturalism and the vulgar reductionism of Marxism by the Second International, a culturalist research paradigm of British New Marxism emerged in British academic circles, represented by Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, and Edward Thompson. The theoretical characteristics of culturalism are, first, situating cultural research within the real context of Britain, and second, studying culture as a whole. That is to say, the theoretical foothold of the culturalist research paradigm lies in breaking the mechanical determinist relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, and in breaking through the “reflection theory” idea of culture as a material reflection.

为了抵制英国本土的精英文化主义和第二国际对马克思主义的庸俗还原论，英国学界出现了以理查德·霍加特、雷蒙德·威廉斯和爱德华·汤普森为代表的英国新马克思主义的文化主义研究范式。文化主义的理论特点，一是将文化研究置于英国的现实语境中，二是将文化作为整体来研究。也就是说，文化主义研究范式的理论立脚点在于打破经济基础与上层建筑的机械决定关系，冲破文化作为物质的“反映论”思想。

Culturalism emphasizes the liberating power of culture, the subjective agency and creativity of human beings, and even holds that culture is a force that plays a certain determining role in social development. For instance, Williams believed that “the creative element of human beings is the root of their own individuality and external society; it can be neither confined by art nor excluded by the systems of political decision-making and economic life”; [1]1 Raymond Williams, *The Long Revolution* (London: Chatto & Windus, 1961), p. 55. for another example, Thompson pointed out that culture “is an active process — a process by which humanity creates history.” [2]2 E. P. Thompson, *The Making of the English Working Class* (London: Victor Gollancz, 1963), p. 9. In terms of method, culturalism emphasizes the importance of concrete, objective empirical description. For example, in *Culture and Society*, Williams directly selected the elements of industry, democracy, class, art, and culture, linking them directly with history, life, and experience for cultural analysis, forming a historical and empirical culturalist research paradigm. Thompson, in *The Making of the English Working Class*, also examined in detail the wages, labor, living standards, leisure, and entertainment of the English working class from 1780 to 1832, concluding that the formation of the working class was not only a fact of economic history but also a fact of political and cultural history. Culturalism adheres to the principle of cultural materialism, that is, the identity of cultural forms and material life, and takes “meaning” as its core category, viewing it as the product of human cultural activity in social life. In *The Long Revolution*, Williams regarded “culture” as “the sum total of descriptions of different societies, descriptions that enable society to acquire meaning and reflect their common experience.” [3]3 Williams, *The Long Revolution*, p. 57. Later, Williams also endowed culture with a second meaning, exploring the relationship between culture and practice, holding that “culture is the whole way of life.” [4]4 Raymond Williams, *Culture and Society 1780-1950* (London: Chatto & Windus, 1958), p. xviii. In this way, the concept of culture was expanded, going beyond the “deterministic” orientation of traditional historical materialism, permeating all social practices, becoming the sum total of “relations,” and thus being defined as “the study of relationships between elements in a whole way of life.” [5]5 Williams, *The Long Revolution*, p. 63. Later, although Stuart Hall criticized the erroneous tendency of culturalism to overemphasize experience, reduce practice to cultural experience, and essentialize experience, he still applied this research paradigm in his early cultural studies, especially in *The Popular Arts*.

文化主义强调文化的解放力量，强调人的主体能动性和创造性，甚至认为文化是对社会发展起着某种决定作用的力量。譬如，威廉斯认为，“人类的创造因素是自身个性与外在社会的根源；它既不能被艺术所限制，也不能被政治决策和经济生活的系统所排斥”；再譬如，汤普森指出，文化“是能动的过程——人类据此过程得以创造历史”。而在方法上，文化主义强调具体客观的经验性描述的重要性。譬如，威廉斯在《文化与社会》中直接选取了工业、民主、阶级、艺术及文化要素，直接与历史、生活和经验联系起来进行文化分析，形成了具有历史性、经验性的文化主义研究范式。汤普森也在《英国工人阶级的形成》中详细考察了1780—1832年英国工人阶级的工资、劳动、生活水平、休闲和娱乐等各个方面的状况，得出工人阶级的形成不仅是经济史上的事实、而且也是政治史和文化史上的事实的结论。文化主义坚持文化唯物主义原则，即文化形式与物质生活的同一，并将“意义”作为核心范畴，视之为社会生活中人的文化活动的产物。威廉斯在《漫长的革命》中将“文化”视为“有关不同社会的种种描述的总和，这些描述可以使社会获得意义并反映它们的共通经验”。之后，威廉斯还赋予了文化第二重意义，探讨了文化与实践的关系，认为“文化是生活的整体方式”。这样，文化概念就被扩大，超出了传统历史唯物主义的“决定性”指向，贯穿所有社会实践，成为“关系”的总和，从而被定义为“对整个生活方式中各个因素之间关系的研究”。后来，斯图亚特·霍尔虽然批判了文化主义过分注重经验、把实践还原为文化经验、将经验本质化的错误倾向，但还是在早期的文化研究、尤其是《通俗艺术》中运用了这一研究范式。

In summary, culturalist research scholars attempt, through the relationships among social elements, “to grasp the way in which all practices and social forms of a particular era, existing as a whole experience, influence each other,” [6]6 Stuart Hall, “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms,” *Media, Culture and Society* 2, no. 1 (1980): 60. endowing culture (consciousness and experience) with a core position, exalting human subjectivity, emphasizing experience, and displaying the humanist stance of culturalism.

总之，文化主义研究学者试图通过社会要素间的关系“把握一个特定时代、作为整个经验性存在的所有实践和社会形态之间相互影响的方式”，赋予文化（意识和经验）以核心地位，高扬人的主体性，重视经验，展现了文化主义的人本主义立场。

(II) The Structuralist Research Paradigm

（二）结构主义研究范式

The structuralist research paradigm in cultural studies developed against the backdrop of introducing continental European Marxist intellectual resources, and its characteristics are mainly manifested in the following aspects. First, structuralist cultural studies, drawing on Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistics, challenge the reflection theory, holding that human beings speak through “structures.” Therefore, this research is based on the systemic characteristics of “structure,” emphasizing the unity (“totality”) issue within complex structures formed by differential construction. Second, structuralism holds that culture is a domain of creation, and it is through culture that social reality can be produced, constructed, and interpreted. Moreover, the constitutive relations within the system are the grammar where meaning is generated, and ideology, as a framework of thought, shapes our lives and essence. Third, structuralism opposes culturalism’s emphasis on “experience,” arguing that people are situated within cultural categories, cultural classifications, and cultural frameworks, living and experiencing their own conditions of existence through culture, and that experience is merely a result of constructed cultural ideology.

结构主义的文化研究范式是在引进欧陆马克思主义思想资源的背景下发展起来的，其特点主要表现在以下几个方面。第一，结构主义的文化研究依据弗迪南·德·索绪尔的语言学挑战反映论，认为人类是通过“结构”来言说的。因而该研究立足于“结构”的系统性特征，强调由差异建构而形成的复杂结构中的统一性（“整体”）问题。第二，结构主义认为文化是创造的领域，正是通过文化，社会现实才能够被生产、建构和阐释。而且，系统内部的构成关系是意义产生的语法所在，意识形态作为思想框架塑造着我们的生活和本质。第三，结构主义反对文化主义对“经验”的强调，认为人们处于文化范畴、文化分类和文化框架之中，是通过文化去生活、去体验自身的生存条件的，而经验不过是被构造出来的文化意识形态的结果。

The representative figures of the structuralist research paradigm all exhibit the above characteristics from different aspects in their cultural studies. Perry Anderson, on the one hand, paid great attention to the independence of the superstructure, while on the other hand, he followed traditional Marxism’s emphasis on the determining role of the economic base. Terry Eagleton completed the structuralist transformation in the field of cultural theory through the linguistic turn in cultural studies. Hall shifted his cultural studies from the “meaning” of human activity to the “signification” of linguistic operation, thereby exploring the essence of language and the significance of cultural production. He agreed with the notion that the linguistic system precedes and determines “reality,” believing that discourse is not “a ‘transparent’ presentation of ‘reality,’ but a construction of knowledge through ‘symbolic operations,’” [7]7 Stuart Hall, “The Rediscovery of ‘Ideology’: Return of the Repressed in Media Studies,” in *Culture, Society and the Media*, ed. Michael Gurevitch et al. (London: Methuen, 1982), p. 67. thereby emphasizing the specificity and irreducibility of culture. At the same time, Hall also regarded ideology as a system that generates meaning, capable of defining the practical rules of society.

结构主义研究范式的代表人物在文化研究中都从不同侧面表现出上述特征。佩里·安德森一方面对上层建筑的独立性给予了极大的关注，另一方面又遵循传统马克思主义对经济基础决定作用的强调。特里·伊格尔顿通过文化研究中的语言学转向完成了文化理论领域的结构主义转型。霍尔将其文化研究从人类活动的“意义”（meaning）转向语言运作的“意指”（signification），以此探讨语言的本质及文化生产的意义，他认同语言系统先于并决定着“现实”的观念，认为话语不是“对‘现实’的‘透明’呈现，而是通过‘符号操作’来对知识进行建构”，进而强调文化的具体性和不可还原性。与此同时，霍尔还认为意识形态是生成意义的体系，可以定义社会的实践规则。

In summary, structuralism provided an original interpretation of the concept of ideology, thereby causing cultural studies to revolve largely around ideology. Moreover, compared to culturalism’s view that “culture is the expression of lived experience,” structuralism holds that culture is the precondition for generating experience, the foundation of our consciousness and experience, “thereby completing the decentering of experience and culture.” [8]8 Hall, “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms,” 68.

总之，结构主义对意识形态概念进行了原创性阐释，从而使文化研究在很大程度上围绕着意识形态展开。而且，相对于文化主义的“文化是生活经验的表现”而言，结构主义认为文化是产生经验的前提，是我们的意识和经验的基础，“从而完成了对经验和文化的去中心化”。

(III) The Hegemony and Articulation Theory Research Paradigm

（三）领导权与接合理论研究范式

The culturalist and structuralist research paradigms’ understandings of “culture” and “ideology” are both intertwined and opposed to each other, ultimately achieving a “transcendence” through Antonio Gramsci’s thought on “cultural hegemony.” Gramsci’s “hegemony,” on the one hand, introduced factors of power and ideological struggle into the “whole way of life” of culturalist research, and on the other hand, corrected the ahistorical abstract forms of structuralism. Gramsci elucidated the operational mechanism of dominant ideology within mass cultural practices, holding that it incorporates identity control that manipulates “spiritual and moral leadership,” that is, ideology becomes a kind of “common sense” through mass cultural practices, and is thereby consented to by the ruled classes. Therefore, in Gramsci’s view, mass culture is a balanced product of “negotiation” between the ruling and ruled classes for their “common” interests; it is neither, as culturalists believe, an expression of the genuine interests of the ruled classes from below, nor, as structuralists believe, laden with the dominant ideology of the ruling class. Moreover, the process of ideological identification is inevitably filled with negotiation and struggle. At the same time, Gramsci’s thought on the active “consumption of cultural commodities” also restored the subject that was missing in the structuralist research paradigm. In summary, Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony proposed a new way of understanding mass culture within the dialectical relationship between structure and agency, production and consumption, resistance and incorporation.

文化主义研究范式与结构主义研究范式对“文化”和“意识形态”的理解既相互交织又彼此对峙，最终通过安东尼奥·葛兰西的“文化领导权”思想得到了“超越”。葛兰西的“领导权”一方面为文化主义研究中的“整体生活”引入了权力及意识形态的斗争因素，另一方面也纠正了结构主义反历史的抽象形式。葛兰西阐释了支配性意识形态在大众文化实践中的运作机制，认为它加入了操纵“精神及道德领导权”的认同控制，即意识形态通过大众文化实践而成为一种“常识”，进而被统治阶级认同。所以，在葛兰西看来，大众文化是统治阶级与被统治阶级为了双方的“共同”利益而进行“商谈”的平衡产物，它既不像文化主义者所认为的那样，是被统治阶级自下而上的真实利益的表达，也不像结构主义所认为的那样，负载着统治阶级的支配性意识形态。而且，意识形态的认同过程必然充满着谈判和斗争。与此同时，葛兰西积极主动的“文化商品消费”思想也恢复了结构主义研究范式中缺失的主体。总之，葛兰西的文化领导权理论在结构与能动、生产与消费、抵制与融合的辩证关系中提出了认识大众文化的新思路。

Williams’s cultural studies, after self-correction, moved from a simple emphasis on subjective agency to a direct confrontation with dominance and subordination in culture, as well as the mutual struggle, negotiation, and compromise between them, thereby extending the cultural structuralist understanding of ideology to all social consciousness. Moreover, Williams, based on the theory of hegemony, reinterpreted each term in the metaphorical proposition of “base–superstructure” and their interrelations, arguing that the “base” is a dynamic developmental process, encompassing all concrete activities carried out by individuals and classes, including even struggle and negotiation. Thus, emerging forces, as subjects of individuals or social groups, bearing unrealized aspirations and demands, also exert their agency.

而威廉斯的文化研究经过自我修正，从单纯强调主体能动性转入直面文化中的主导与从属，以及它们之间的相互斗争、协商和妥协，进而将文化结构主义对意识形态的理解扩展至所有的社会意识。而且，威廉斯还依据领导权理论对“基础—上层建筑”这一隐喻性命题中的每个术语以及它们之间的关系进行了重新阐释，认为“基础”是一个动态的发展过程，包含个人和阶级所进行的一切具体活动，甚至包括斗争与协商。所以，作为个人或社会团体之主体的新兴力量，带着尚未实现的意愿和要求，也施展了它们的作用力。

Hall similarly creatively employed Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony and excavated Ernesto Laclau’s theory of articulation, namely, “we call articulation any practice establishing a relation among elements such that their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practice,” thereby guiding British cultural studies toward articulation theory. Hall held that different elements within ideology are interconnected; they inevitably converge and move or change in a mutually cooperative manner, and the identity of ideology is the result of articulatory practice, formed by the combination of different elements into a discourse of “unity in difference.” The formal differences and recombination of various elements can disrupt existing meanings and create new ones. “One of the ways ideological struggle occurs and transforms is by articulating elements in different ways, thereby producing different meanings: breaking the fixed chains of meaning in which they are currently held.” Hall also, through the theories of Louis Althusser, Gramsci, Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe, generated the idea of “autonomy” within structure. He “superimposed the structuralist autonomous system of signification onto the culturalist autonomous subject of signification, while retaining the ‘economic’ autonomy inherited from economistic Marxism and bourgeois economics.” In Hall’s view, only when ideology and the free, self-conscious subject are mutually compatible can the subject be interpellated by ideology. In this way, the question of ideology gained dynamic consideration. Because elements can be rearticulated in different ways, there is always a fluid process of disarticulation, articulation, and rearticulation, and meaning is produced in this dynamic process. However, Hall also emphasized that articulation is not an arbitrary linkage of any forces, but a conjunction carried out in a specific context through “structured” relations (relations of domination and subordination). Thus, articulation theory opened up theoretical spaces for research on identity, representation, the politics of difference, and so on.

霍尔同样创造性地运用了葛兰西的文化领导权思想，并挖掘了恩斯特·拉克劳的接合理论，即“我们把任何建立要素的实践称之为接合，那么要素的同一性被规定为接合实践的结果”，以此引导英国的文化研究走向了接合理论。霍尔认为，意识形态内的不同要素之间存在着关联，它们不可避免地聚合，并以相互合作的方式移动或改变，而意识形态的同一性就是接合实践的结果，由不同的要素结合形成“差异中同一”的话语。各种要素的形式差异以及再组合可以破坏已存在的意义，并创造出新的意义。“意识形态斗争发生和转化的方式之一是以不同的方式对要素进行接合，进而生产出不同的意义：打破它们当下被固定的意义链条。”霍尔还通过路易·阿尔都塞、葛兰西、拉克劳和查塔尔·墨菲的理论，生发出结构中的“自主性”思想。他将“结构主义的自主表意系统与文化主义的自主表意主体进行叠加，同时保留了从经济主义的马克思主义和资产阶级经济学继承而来的‘经济’自主性”。在霍尔看来，唯有意识形态与自由自觉的主体彼此契合，才能被意识形态所召唤。这样一来，意识形态问题就获得了动态的思考。因为，要素可以通过不同的方式再接合，总是存在着解接合、接合、再接合的流动过程，意义就在这个动态的过程中产生。但是，霍尔也强调接合并非任何力量随意的链接，而是通过“被结构”的关系（统治与从属的关系）在一定的语境下进行的联合。这样，接合理论就打开了身份认同、表征、差异政治等理论研究的空间。

II. The Original Predicament of British New Marxist Cultural Studies

二、英国新马克思主义文化研究的原始困境

From the three paradigms of British New Marxist cultural studies, we see that they all elucidate the core issues of cultural studies and exhibit different practical characteristics. However, we also see that the first two paradigms—the culturalist paradigm and the structuralist paradigm—are interwoven with numerous problems and have fallen into an either-or paradox. Even later, the articulation theory represented by Hall attempted to rescue this predicament, but it never escaped the quagmire of antinomy. Specifically, on the one hand, the culturalist argument is: human experiential life produces meaning; culture, as a result, is generative and is the premise of ideology; moreover, culture, as a mode of social organization, runs through all practices in society and is a living tradition, “through which those ‘understandings’ (of existence) are expressed and manifested.” Therefore, culturalism emphasizes the concreteness, complexity, and subjective agency of experience. In its view, new components that produce and manifest the meaning of human existence and originate from experiential practice are absorbed into culture, and all this is based on the manifestation of human active forces. On the other hand, although structuralism also regards culture as meaning, its meaning is an objective symbolic system that precedes and determines individual experience, i.e., “signification.” Structuralism holds that the constitutive relations within the system are the grammar of meaning production; it places “ideology” in a prior position, arguing that experience is merely a constructed result of cultural ideology—that is, experience is not the cause of meaning but its effect. Structuralism reduces the subject to the uniqueness of a specific structure, to the extent that human purposes, plans, consciousness, and reason are suppressed and subordinated within the framework of ideology. Thus, on the one hand, the humanist tendency of culturalists inevitably confronts the anti-humanist tendency of structuralists; on the other hand, culturalism’s understanding of historical materialism as temporal process inevitably confronts structuralism’s understanding of historical materialism as spatial fixity. This is the confrontation between the logic of history (humans as active agents who create their history) and the logic of structure (humans as bearers who are spoken and positioned by their structure). Although Hall later attempted to merge culturalism and structuralism—on the one hand inheriting the culturalist idea that “meaning” is a social subject’s response to living conditions, and on the other hand endorsing the structuralist idea of forging the relational structure of elements through ideology to thereby construct the meaning of social subjects—Hall superimposed the structuralist autonomous system of signification onto the culturalist autonomous subject of signification. But because the two were originally incompatible, “articulation” ultimately became neither one thing nor the other. For structuralist theory lies in the principle of construction; elements themselves have no substantive meaning; only when structure places them in relation to each other do they become manifest. Therefore, the conclusion that the subject can recombine elements to produce different meanings is absurd.

从英国新马克思主义文化研究的三种范式中，我们看到，它们都阐明了文化研究的核心问题，也表现出不同的实践特征。但是，我们也看到，前两种范式——文化主义研究范式与结构主义研究范式——之间交织着诸多问题，并陷入了非此即彼的悖论之中，即便后来以霍尔为代表的接合理论试图拯救这种困境，也始终没有走出二律背反的泥潭。具体来讲，一方面，文化主义的论点是：人的经验生活产生意义，文化作为结果具有生成性，它是意识形态的前提；而且文化作为社会组织模式贯穿于社会中的所有实践，是活生生的传统，“通过它们，那些（对生存的）‘理解’被表现和显现出来”所以，文化主义强调经验的具体性、复杂性和主体能动性，在它看来，那些产生并展现人类生存意义且源自经验实践的新成分被吸收到文化中，而且这些都是以人类能动力量的彰显为基础的。另一方面，结构主义虽然同样将文化视为意义，但其意义是先于并决定个体经验的客观符号系统，即“意指”。结构主义认为系统内部的构成关系是意义产生的语法所在，它将“意识形态”置于先在地位，认为经验不过是被构造出来的文化意识形态的结果，即经验不是意义的原因，而是结果。结构主义将主体归结为特定结构的独一无二性，以至于人的目的、计划、意识、理性被压抑和屈服在意识形态的框架内。由此可见，一方面，文化主义者的人本主义倾向必然对峙于结构主义者的反人本主义倾向；另一方面，文化主义对历史唯物主义的时间过程性的理解必然对峙于结构主义对历史唯物主义的空间固定性的理解。这是历史的逻辑（人是创造其历史的主动者）与结构的逻辑（人是言说和安置其结构的承受者）的对峙。尽管后来霍尔试图将文化主义与结构主义合二为一，即一方面承袭“意义”是社会主体对生存状况的回应的文化主义思想，另一方面也赞同以意识形态锻造各种要素的关系结构、进而构建社会主体的意义的结构主义思想。霍尔将结构主义的自主表意系统与文化主义的自主表意主体相叠加，但因为两者原本互不相容，“接合”最后也变得不伦不类。因为，结构主义理论在于构造原则，要素本身并没有实质性意义，唯有结构将它们置于彼此的关系中才得以呈现。所以，主体据此重组要素而产生不同意义的结论是荒谬的。

We find in this many issues that remain unclear. For example, culturalism emphasizes human active forces, but how does it represent the limitation of humans by objective material conditions? To highlight the agency of the superstructure, such as culture, while suspending the question of the economic base, or declaring the “autonomy” of the economy—such loopholes are ultimately untenable. Moreover, in order to criticize mechanical materialism and the reflection theory, culturalism emphasizes the relations between elements. But is this interaction between elements an interaction between different elements after they have been separated into an economic base and a superstructure, or is it an interaction among all elements of society that breaks the framework of historical materialism? Culturalism does not answer this. In fact, all these divergences revolve around an original predicament: how to understand the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, and how to define culture in relation to it? People have attempted to interpret it in various ways, but they remain confused, narrowed, and constrained by a series of concepts in historical materialism—such as “economic base” and “superstructure,” “determination” and “reflection”—and their interrelations. Faced with the narrow interpretation of “economic determinism,” British New Marxist scholars have taken refuge in the cultural sphere, emphasizing the significance of culture, even to the point of breaking the boundary between economic base and superstructure, either integrating society through culture, or regarding culture as the domain where meaning is produced and experienced, or constructing articulations between economic, political, cultural, and other forms through the generation of ideological discourse.

我们从中发现了诸多尚未明晰的问题。譬如，文化主义强调人的能动力量，但如何表征人被客观物质所限定呢？为了张扬文化等上层建筑的能动性而悬置经济基础问题，或者宣称经济的“自主性”，这样的漏洞毕竟经不起推敲。而且，为了批判机械唯物主义和反映论，文化主义强调要素之间的关系，但这种要素间的相互作用究竟是置于被分离为经济基础与上层建筑之后的不同要素之间的相互作用，还是打破历史唯物主义框架的社会所有要素之间的相互作用？文化主义对此并未作出回答，实际上，所有这些分歧都围绕着一个原始困境：如何理解经济基础与上层建筑之间的关系问题，以及如何界定与之相关的文化？人们试图用各种方式进行解读，但却仍然混淆、窄化并受制于历史唯物主义理论中的“经济基础”与“上层建筑”、“决定”与“反映”等一系列概念及其相互关系。面对“经济宿命论”的偏狭解读，英国新马克思主义学者落脚于文化领域，强调文化的意义，甚至不惜冲破经济基础与上层建筑的界线，或是用文化整合社会，或是将文化视为从事生产和体验意义的领域，或是通过意识形态话语的生成来构筑经济、政治、文化等形式之间的接合。

Williams reassessed Marxism, intending to break through the fixed, abstract imagery of the “base” and the determined imagery of culture as reflection and representation. He advocated for the practical, processual orientation of the “base,” attempting to construct the content of the superstructure through cultural practice. By shifting the elements of historical materialism from a spatial framework to a temporal perspective, Williams released the static arrangement of these elements into a dispersed, dynamic process. “We must reassess ‘determinism’ as the arrangement of limited elements and the release of pressures, moving away from a predictable, controllable content; we must reassess the ‘superstructure’ as a series of related cultural practices, moving away from a reflective, representational, and especially dependent content; and, most crucially, we must reassess the ‘base,’ moving it away from a fixed economic or technological abstraction and toward the concrete practical activities of human beings in real socio-economic relations.” In Williams’s reconstruction, the “base” is no longer a state but a process; society is no longer a determined structure but a constitutive process mediated by practice.

威廉斯对马克思主义进行了重估，意图冲破“基础”的固定性、抽象性意象以及文化作为反映和再现的被决定性意象，主张“基础”的现实实践性指向，试图借助文化实践来构建上层建筑的内容。通过将历史唯物主义要素从空间架构转换到时间视域中，威廉斯将这些要素的静止排列状态释放为分散的、动态的过程。“我们必须把‘决定论’重估为有限要素的排列和压力的释放，并远离一种可预测的、可控制的内容；我们必须把‘上层建筑’重估为一系列相关的文化实践，并远离一种反映的、再现的、尤其是依赖性的内容；而且，最为关键的是，我们必须重估‘基础’，使它远离一种固定的经济或技术的抽象概念，而朝向现实的社会经济关系中人类具体的实践活动。”在威廉斯的重构中，“基础”不再是一种状态，而是一个过程；社会也不再是被决定的结构，而是一种借助实践的构成性过程。

Eagleton, on the other hand, explained the historical role of culture within the framework of the economic base and superstructure. In his view, the historical role of culture can only be reasonably explained within this framework. When the economic base is underdeveloped and material goods are scarce, culture can only be constrained by the superstructure, functioning as a supporter of ideology. Only when the economic base is sufficiently developed can culture achieve autonomy, thereby potentially transcending ideology and acquiring the capacity to change the world. In the communist stage of material abundance, the constraint of the economic base on the superstructure is torn apart, culture becomes dominant, and people will rely on cultural life to a greater extent.

伊格尔顿则在经济基础与上层建筑的框架中阐释文化的历史作用，在他看来，文化的历史作用只有在这一框架中才能得到合理的解释。在经济基础尚不发达、物质匮乏的情况下，文化只能受制于上层建筑，发挥意识形态支持者的功能；唯有经济基础足够发达，文化才能获得自律，从而有可能超越意识形态，具备改变世界的能力；而到了物质极大丰富的共产主义，经济基础对上层建筑的制约性被撕裂，文化成为主导，人们将更大程度地依靠文化生活。

Hall, however, turned to post-Marxism, arguing that politics, economy, society, and culture constitute the “engine” of modern society, with no single element having priority. He believed that the pluralization of key concepts marks the progress of knowledge. Both culturalism and structuralism questioned the metaphor of the economic base and superstructure in Marx and Engels’s *The German Ideology*, focusing on the reactive effect of the superstructure, treating culture as a premise, and thereby transcending the referential framework of the economic base and superstructure. In response, Hall argued that merely replacing the oscillation between “reductionism” (“reductive theory,” “reflection theory”) and “idealism” is insufficient. Cultural studies must turn to the specific characteristics of different practices and the forms of the articulated whole they constitute—that is, the “form of interpretive unity constituted by different practices.” Hall intended to use Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of articulation to combine the two paradigms of culturalism and structuralism, unifying the historical logic of culturalism with the structural logic (logical thinking). He proposed rethinking the relationship between society, economy, and culture.

而霍尔则转向了后马克思主义，认为政治、经济、社会、文化构成了现代社会的“发动机”，其中没有一个要素获得优先权。他认为，关键概念的多元化标志着知识的进步，无论是文化主义还是结构主义，都对马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中关于经济基础与上层建筑的隐喻提出了质疑，并侧重于上层建筑的反作用效果，将文化视为前提，超越了经济基础与上层建筑的指涉语。对此，霍尔认为，仅仅取代“简化论”（“还原论”“反映论”）与“唯心论”之间的摇摆是不够的，文化研究必须转向不同实践的各自特征以及由此组成的接合整体的形式，即不同实践“构成的阐释的统一体的形式”。霍尔意图借助葛兰西的领导权理论和拉克劳、墨菲的接合理论，结合文化主义与结构主义两种范式，将文化主义的历史逻辑与结构逻辑（思维逻辑）相统一，并提出要重新思考社会、经济、文化的关系问题。

However, Hall’s so-called “transcendence” merely superimposed the content of the two paradigms mentioned above and discussed the “identity of differences” among elements only within ideology. That is, Hall attempted “to move from a lingering attachment to a revised version of the binary metaphor of ‘economic base and superstructure’ toward a total theoretical turn to the concept of discourse power as a thoroughgoing ideology.” Moreover, Hall’s reconstruction of cultural studies—granting culture a higher explanatory status, viewing culture not merely as a reflection of social life but as a constitutive element of the modern world and a factor in economic, political, or social change—ultimately departed from Marxist political economy and moved toward post-Marxism. That is, it turned to the political and cultural realm of exploring “the relationship between society and signs, the ‘game’ of power and culture,” ultimately treating culture as the sign of social life (i.e., the production of social meaning) as a necessary condition for all social practical functions, thereby breaking away from the Marxist research paradigm.

然而，霍尔的所谓“超越”不过是叠加了上述两种范式的内容，且仅在意识形态内部讨论要素之间“差异的同一”。也就是说，霍尔试图“从与‘经济基础和上层建筑’的二元隐喻的改良版本的藕断丝连，向彻底的意识形态的话语权力概念的总体理论转向”。况且，霍尔对文化研究的重构（赋予文化更高的解释地位，认为文化不仅仅是社会生活的反映，而且是现代世界的构成要素，以及经济、政治或社会变迁的要素）最终远离了马克思主义政治经济学，走向后马克思主义，即转入探讨“社会和符号的关系，权力和文化的‘游戏’”的政治、文化领域，最终将作为社会生活之符号的文化（即社会意义的生产）作为一切社会实践功能的必备条件，从而脱离了马克思主义研究范式。

The author believes that the superiority of historical materialism lies in its thinking about social relations, and the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness is precisely the fundamental issue of cultural studies. This is because human beings can only produce culture when they engage in concrete practical activities within specific historical backgrounds and social relations. Moreover, whether it is products in the economic sphere (non-culture) or the products of the superstructure (culture), both are the materialization of human practical activity, the “common products of labor” of the objectifying activity of human cultural essence. As Colin Sparks pointed out, one cannot avoid or detach from the relationship between “the mode of production and civil society and cultural forms” and “civil society and culture itself.” If cultural studies separates economy, civil society, and culture, it will inevitably lose its critical edge. Society is a dynamic, conflictual system of social relations, a resource, a field, and an object of signification. If one only criticizes historical materialism from the perspective of Althusser’s structuralist Marxism, how is the autonomous production of cultural practice, divorced from other practices, possible? Cultural studies must be both historical and synchronic research, and this inevitably cannot be separated from historical materialism.

笔者认为，历史唯物主义的优越性就在于对社会关系的思考，而物质与意识的辩证关系恰恰是文化研究的基础性问题。因为，人类只有在一定的历史背景和社会关系中从事具体的实践活动，才能产生文化。而且，无论是经济领域的产品（非文化）还是上层建筑的产物（文化），都是人类实践活动的物质化，都是作为人的文化本质的对象化活动的“共同的劳动产品”。正如柯林·斯帕克斯所指出的，不能回避或脱离“生产方式和市民社会与文化形式”以及“市民社会与文化本身”的关系问题。倘若文化研究将经济、市民社会与文化相分离，必将丧失其批判性。社会是动态的、冲突的社会关系系统，是资源、场域和意指的对象，如果只从阿尔都塞的结构主义的马克思主义出发来诟病历史唯物主义，那么背离其他实践活动的文化实践的自主生产又何以可能？文化研究必须是历史性和共时性研究，而这必然无法脱离历史唯物主义。

The various problems mentioned above require us to trace the roots of their intellectual divergences, return to historical materialism, and clarify the status of culture within it. To this end, we must answer the following questions: In historical materialism, does culture exist only in the superstructure above the economic base? Does “the economic base determines the superstructure” signify the passivity of culture? Is there a more ontological understanding of culture hidden in Marx’s thought? In what sense did Marx discuss culture? Can we break through the many misinterpretations of “the economic base determines the superstructure,” allowing culture to break out of its cocoon and actively surge forth? Can we, conversely, analyze Marx’s historical materialism through Marx’s view of culture? Does the historical materialism it contains imply a single-level understanding, or an interweaving of multiple problematics? If practice is the core of Marx’s philosophy, can we re-examine the connotations of historical materialism and culture based on a broad sense of “practice”? Furthermore, faced with the two paradigms of structuralist cultural ideology and culturalist empirical implications—or, in other words, the dichotomy between abstraction and anti-abstraction, rationalism and empiricism—can we find or deduce a completely new concept of culture and its corresponding interpretive model through Marx’s thought, one that can encompass the many definitions of culture, making cultural studies clearer, more precise, and with sufficient theoretical foundation, always maintaining the unity of the logic of theoretical thinking and the logic of historical process?

上述种种问题需要我们追溯其思想分歧的根源，回归历史唯物主义，澄清文化在其中的地位。为此，我们必须回答下述问题：在历史唯物主义中，文化是否只存在于经济基础之上的上层建筑领域，“经济基础决定上层建筑”是否表征着文化的被动？在马克思的思想中，对文化是否隐藏着更为本体的理解，马克思究竟是在何种意义上讨论文化的？我们是否可以冲破对“经济基础决定上层建筑”的诸多误读，使文化破茧而出、积极涌动？我们能否反过来通过马克思的文化观解析马克思的历史唯物主义，其历史唯物主义所内蕴的是单一层面的理解，还是多重问题域的交织？如果说实践是马克思哲学的核心，那么我们能否依据广义的“实践”重新考察历史唯物主义和文化的内涵？进而言之，面对结构主义的文化意识形态与文化主义的经验意蕴这两种范式，或者说面对抽象与反抽象、理性主义与经验主义的二分，我们能否通过马克思的思想找到或推论出一个全新的文化概念及其相应的解读模式，以便包容文化的诸多定义，使得文化研究更加清晰、明确且具有充分的理论根据，始终保持理论思维逻辑与历史过程逻辑的统一？

III. The Contemporary Dilemmas of Cultural Studies

三、文化研究的时代困境

British New Marxism has expanded Marx’s thought in cultural studies and has elucidated certain issues to varying degrees. However, besides having to confront the original dilemmas of cultural studies, British New Marxism must also face epochal problems—cultural identity and openness—which remain caught in an either/or predicament between structuralism and culturalism. For structuralism, each element within an interdependent structure must submit to the overarching pattern and conform to norms, i.e., so-called identity. That is to say, the ideological character of structuralism and the “closure” of structure manifest the necessary rationality of identity. For culturalism, by contrast, the openness of experience resists structure, and thereby resists conformity with the totality of norms, i.e., resists identity. Moreover, the opposition between internal and external elements of the system is an opposition between certainty and uncertainty, which returns the focus of the problem to the contradiction between cultural identity and openness. If one follows the structuralist paradigm, cultural identity is often understood as a “belonging” that is obtained without struggle, contestation, or defense. This belonging is confined to a partial world, and thinking is also subsumed under the ideological totality of social consciousness. Of course, this understanding in fact renders cultural identity static and narrow. If one follows the culturalist paradigm, culture should possess openness; cultural choice is then a matter of openness, and cultural choice, which permeates all social life, has priority. Thus culturalism emphasizes openness, which in turn keeps cultural elements in constant flux, rendering cultural identity virtually inoperative.

英国新马克思主义在文化研究中扩展了马克思的思想，也不同程度地阐发了一些问题。但是，除了需要面对文化研究的原始困境，英国新马克思主义还要面对时代性问题——文化的认同与开放，它们在结构主义与文化主义之间依旧处于非此即彼的两难境遇。对于结构主义而言，各要素在一个相互依赖的结构中必须服从于总体性的模式，与规范保持一致，即所谓的认同。也就是说，结构主义的意识形态特征和结构的“封闭性”表现出认同的必然合理性。而对于文化主义而言，经验的开放性则抵制结构，进而抵制与规范总体的一致，即抵制认同。而且体系的内在要素与外在要素的对立是确定性与不确定性的对立，这使得问题的关注点又回到了文化认同与开放的矛盾之中。如果按照结构主义范式，文化认同常常被理解为不需要斗争、争取、保卫而获得的“归属”。这种归属被限定在局部的世界里，思考也归属于意识形态化了的社会意识总体。当然，这种理解其实是将文化认同静止化、狭义化了。而按照文化主义范式，文化应具有开放性，文化选择就是一个开放性的问题，而且渗透于所有社会生活的文化选择具有优先性，所以文化主义强调开放，这又使得文化要素一直处于变动中，使文化认同形同虚设。

If structuralism and culturalism remain trapped in an either/or dilemma regarding cultural identity and openness (which is in fact a continuation of the original dilemma), this can only indicate the inherent narrowness of their theories. For, in reality, cultural identity, as a very important cultural fact that requires profound reflection in the present era, needs to have its true connotation expanded. The fluidity of modernity itself inevitably breaks the traditional understanding of cultural identity, because “modernity is also an era that transcends local totalities, an era that seeks the aid of power or yearns for ‘imagined communities,’ an era that establishes nations and composes, assumes, and constructs cultural identities.” [11]11 Li Xintong is citing a passage that characterizes modernity in relation to cultural identity; the original source is not specified in the text. If different nations and ethnicities are like containers that organize culture, endowed with different content and forms within different sociocultural systems, then identity manifests as “belonging,” requiring a convergence of boundaries from within one’s own cultural tradition—i.e., a top-down cohesion. Moreover, it is precisely the cultural boundaries of a nation that define the boundaries of community members or groups; it is an identity of overarching characteristics or uniqueness, such as identification with one’s own cultural tradition. As a cognitive existence, it controls the spiritual and practical activities of individuals, as well as the possible scope within which these activities unfold. Rules participate in the social structure, so they appear before individuals as a priori laws. Within this, individual identity endows the self with meaning, while social identity guarantees a sense of security, because the individual is included, accepted, and self-confirmed, and it is only within the community and its value consensus that there is a “we.” The openness of cultural choice manifests as the variability of interaction; it still needs to be continuously absorbed into the “structure,” becoming a variable element of cultural identity.

倘若结构主义与文化主义在对待文化认同与开放的问题上仍然陷入非此即彼的两难困境（这其实仍然是原始困境的延续），只能说明其理论的内在狭隘性。因为，实际上文化认同在现时代作为一个非常重要且需要深刻反思的文化事实，其真正的内涵需要扩大。现代性本身的流动性必然打破对文化认同的传统理解，因为“现代性也是一个超越地方总体性的时代，一个寻求力量援助或渴望‘想象的共同体’的时代，一个建立民族以及组成、假定和建构文化认同的时代”。如果说不同的民族、种族如同一个将文化组织起来的容器，在不同的社会文化系统中被赋予了不同的内容和形式，那么认同就表现为“归属”，需要来自本民族文化传统的边界收敛，即自上而下的凝聚。而且，正是民族的文化边界确定了共同体成员或群体的边界，它是总体特征或独特性的认同，譬如说对本民族文化传统的认同。作为一种认识的存在，它控制着个体的精神和实践活动，以及这个活动得以展开的可能范围。规则参与到社会结构中，所以它们作为先验的法则必然地出现在个体面前。在其中，个体的认同赋予自身以意义，社会的认同保证其安全感，因为个体被包容、接受和自我确证，且在共同体内部及其价值共识中才有了“我们”。而文化选择的开放性表现为交往的变动性，它仍然需要被不断地吸纳进“结构”，成为文化认同的变动元素。

So, does cultural belonging exist only in a partially delimited world? Can cultural identity maintain a balance within the tension between belonging and openness? In this sense, Hall has endowed cultural identity with a broader meaning; he proposes a distinction between a “naturalistic” understanding and a “discursive” understanding of the process of identity confirmation. This is undoubtedly an attempt to unify culturalism and structuralism, a relatively judicious interpretation of cultural identity. He interprets the “naturalistic” understanding as: “identity is established on the recognition of a common origin or shared characteristics with others or a group, or with an idea, or with the natural boundaries of solidarity and alliance built upon this basis.” [12]12 Li Xintong is citing Stuart Hall’s distinction between naturalistic and discursive understandings of identity; the specific work is not named. He interprets the “discursive” understanding as: “identity is a construction, a process that is never completed—always ‘in process.’ It is not determined in the sense that it can always be ‘won’ or ‘lost,’ retained or abandoned.” [13]13 Li Xintong is continuing the citation of Stuart Hall’s discursive understanding of identity. Zygmunt Bauman believes that it is this second understanding that grasps the true character of the contemporary process of identity (confirmation).

那么，文化归属只存在于局部限定的世界吗？文化认同不能在归属与开放的张力中保持平衡吗？从这个意义上讲，霍尔赋予了文化认同更广泛的意义，他建议对身份确认过程的“自然主义的”理解与“话语的”理解进行区分。这无疑是将文化主义与结构主义相统一的一次尝试，是对文化认同的一种比较明智的解读。他将“自然主义的”理解解读为：“认同建立在对他人或群体、或一种理念、或与在此基础上建立的团结与联盟的自然边界有共同起源或共享特征的承认的基础上。”他将“话语的”理解解读为：“认同是一种建构，一个从未完成的过程——总是‘在过程中’。它并不在可能总是被‘赢得’或被‘失去’、被保留或被放弃”的意义上被决定。”齐格蒙特·鲍曼认为，正是第二种理解把握了当代认同（身份确认）过程的真正特征。

Therefore, cultural identity in a broad sense lies in the dialectical tension between top and bottom, inside and outside—that is, the dialectical relationship between top-down ideological norms and bottom-up popular cultural choices, as well as the dialectical relationship between the relatively stable totality of internal value norms and the dialogic integration of external elements. It is precisely in this tension that vitality and novelty emerge; only in this way will culture not become inert and ultimately perish. For structuralist theory holds that elements within a system are interconnected and interact; each element depends on all other elements, and elements must submit to the overarching pattern to maintain a state of equilibrium. The possible range of variation for any element must remain within the boundaries determined by the network of interdependence and be constrained within a mutually restrictive, bounded system. Therefore, when confronting issues of identity or assimilation, a “one-way street” of simple submission to the structural totality appears, because external factors can only enter the assimilation process and thereby integrate on the condition that they submit to the overarching norms. In this case, the assimilation of external factors is, for the system (the totality of cultural imagery), merely a deepening of its own self-confirmation.

因此，广义的文化认同在于上与下、内与外的辩证张力，即意识形态自上而下的规范与大众自下而上的文化选择之间的辩证关系，以及相对稳定的内在价值规范总体与外在要素的对话交融之间的辩证关系。正是在张力中，才有活力和新鲜；也唯有如此，文化才不会充满惰性，以致最终消亡。因为结构主义理论认为，体系内的要素相互关联、相互作用，每一个要素都有赖于所有其他要素，且要素必须服从总体的模式，以维持均衡的状态，任何要素可能的变动范围都必须保持在相互依赖的网络所确定的界限内，并在相互制约的、有边界的体系中受到限制。因此，在面对认同或同化问题时，就会出现单纯服从于结构总体的“单行道”，因为外在因素必须在服从总体规范的前提下才有可能进入同化程序，进而融入其中。在这种情况下，外在因素被同化的情形对于体系（总体性的文化意象）而言只不过是自我确证程度的深化而已。

To resolve cultural identity, a real-world issue in contemporary society, it is first necessary to break the simplistic, rigid framework model of structuralism and understand structure as an open “domain,” and this structure as “domain” is a “dashed line.” That is to say, the separation and aggregation of social entities are both bounded and unbounded; it is not a closed system but manifests openness and wholeness, possessing generative meaning. This is also Jacques Derrida’s understanding of structure. “Values and meanings are reconstructed and awakened in their proper historicity and temporality.” [14]14 Li Xintong is citing Jacques Derrida on the reconstruction of values and meanings in historicity and temporality; the specific work is not named. Thus, “identity in a broad sense” manifests as the fusion and unity of historical succession and epochal openness. While maintaining a certain stability, it establishes a model of instability; the distinction between inside and outside of sociocultural entities is merely determined by the speed of integration. In this era of construction, separation, and reconstruction, it is the ceaseless “flow” that plays a role, which is also what Bauman calls “the role played by time, space, and those means that place us within the formation, instability (or flexibility), and eventual dissolution of social/cultural and political totalities.” [15]15 Li Xintong is citing Zygmunt Bauman on the role of time, space, and means in the formation and dissolution of totalities; the specific work is not named. Furthermore, culture is a structure composed of numerous choices; it is “a matrix of displacements that is limited in number but practically incalculable.” [16]16 Li Xintong is citing a description of culture as a matrix of displacements; the original source is not specified. Structure (domain) should not be a cage but should be an elastic, endless becoming. Only in this way can culture be creatively combined with the subject. This structure (domain) implies an openness to infinite, unfinished meaning, a demand for openness that “examines” and “discerns” change. It is constructed through discourses, practices, and positions that are both interwoven and opposed: top-down and bottom-up, from history to modernity, the historical and the synchronic.

要解决文化认同这个当今社会的现实议题，就需要首先打破结构主义简单化、凝固化的框架模式，把结构理解为一种开放的“域”，而这种作为“域”的结构就是“虚线”。也就是说，社会实体的分离与聚合变化既有界又无界，它并非封闭的系统，而是表现为开放性和整体性，具有生成意义。这也是雅克·德里达对结构的认知。“价值和意义在它们恰当的历史性和时间性中得以重建并被唤醒。”所以，“广义的认同”表现为历史的更替性与时代的开放性的融合统一。在保持一定的稳定性的同时，它建立起一种非稳定性的模式，而社会文化实体的内与外之分不过是由融合的速度决定的。在这个建构、分离、再建构的时代，正是永不停息的“流动”在其中起作用，这也是鲍曼所说的“时间、空间以及把我们置于社会/文化和政治总体性的形成、不稳定性（或灵活性）和最终消亡中那些手段所发挥的作用”。进而言之，文化是由诸多选择构成的结构，它是“一种在数量上有限而实际上无法计算的置换构成的矩阵”。结构（域）不应当是牢笼，而应当是富有弹性、没有终点的生成。唯有如此，文化才能与主体创造性地结合在一起。这种结构（域）意味着尚未完成的无限意义的开放，一种对变化“有审视”“有辨别”的开放性诉求。它通过自上而下、自下而上、从历史到现代、历史性与共时性既相互交织又彼此对立的话语、实践和立场建构起来。

In summary, British New Marxist cultural studies has undergone a transformation from the culturalist to the structuralist research paradigm, and then to the research paradigm of cultural hegemony and articulation theory. Culturalism and structuralism, with their different practical characteristics, launched discussions on culture and the “non-cultural,” and on culture and social totality, thereby exposing the problem of reflection theory. However, in Hall’s view, the overall form of the articulation of culturalism and structuralism was the core issue. Yet Hall’s “articulation,” because it still could not clarify the relationship among the economy, society, and culture, was fundamentally incapable of merging these two originally parallel and opposing paradigms into one. By the 1990s, British New Marxist cultural studies further attempted to oppose “reflection theory” with “autonomy,” but this produced a rupture with the Marxist problematic, that is, it developed from the relative autonomy of the superstructure (culture) vis-à-vis the economic base (the non-cultural) into the single autonomy of the economy, and historical necessity also submitted before contingency. At this point, the reflection of historical materialism was completely suspended. This article argues that only by examining culture within social relations and historical reality from the perspective of historical materialism can it be meaningful; and only by continuously engaging in cultural practice on this basis can we adopt the proper attitude toward the issues of cultural identity and openness in today’s world.

总而言之，英国新马克思主义文化研究经历了从文化主义到结构主义研究范式、再到文化领导权和接合理论研究范式的转换。文化主义和结构主义以不同的实践特征展开对文化与“非文化”、文化与社会总体性的讨论，以此揭露反映论问题。然而，在霍尔看来，文化主义与结构主义两者接合的整体形式才是核心问题。只是霍尔的“接合”因为仍然无法理清经济、社会与文化之间的关系，所以根本不可能让本是两种平行对峙的范式合而为一。到了1990年代，英国新马克思主义的文化研究进一步尝试以“自主性”反对“反映论”，然而却产生了与马克思主义问题式的断裂，即从上层建筑（文化）对经济基础（非文化）的相对自主性，发展为经济的单一自主性，历史的必然性也在偶然性面前臣服了。至此，历史唯物主义的反思被彻底悬置。本文认为，只有在历史唯物主义的视域中探讨社会关系和历史现实中的文化，才是有意义的；也只有在此基础上不断进行文化实践，才是面对当今世界文化认同与开放问题的应有态度。

Faced with the individualism, the law of the jungle, and the ecological crisis caused by the instrumental rationality of Western modernity, the sustainable development of human culture is constrained, the bright future promised by the human cultural spirit becomes increasingly elusive, and Western cultural values are bound to lose their core position. Socialism with Chinese characteristics, on the basis of consolidating value consensus, both continues the tradition of Chinese civilization, forming the “belonging” of the Chinese nation, and contains an open choice for Marxism and a reference to other cultures, thereby forming an open cultural space capable of harmonious dialogue and joint consultation.

面对西方现代性的工具理性造成的个人主义、丛林法则和生态危机，人类文化的可持续发展受到制约，人类文化精神所期许的美好未来变得越来越渺茫，西方文化价值必将失去其核心地位。而中国特色社会主义在凝聚价值共识的基础上，既延续了中华文明的传统，形成了中华民族的“归属”，又包含着对马克思主义的开放性选择，对他者文化的借鉴，从而形成了可以和谐对话、共同协商的开放性文化空间。

(Author: Li Xintong, School of Philosophy, Heilongjiang University)

（作者：李昕桐，黑龙江大学哲学学院）

(This article is a phased result of the 2021 National Social Science Fund project “Marx’s Practical Hermeneutics and the Construction of Chinese Hermeneutics.”)

（本文系2021年国家社会科学基金项目“马克思的实践诠释学与中国诠释学构建”的阶段性成果。）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心