Rhythm Analysis: A New Horizon in the Western Marxist Critical Theory of Time

Time is as ancient as space, and human cognition and discourse about it have been continuous. However, as the American cultural historians Stephen Kern or David Harvey describe, at the beginning of the 20th century, human sensations of space and time underwent a fundamental change. It is as if all the achievements of modernity had consciously converged to break through the long-practiced social cognition and embodied experience of the structures of time and space. In recent years, the social sciences have made time (including space) one of their core research themes, because people generally feel a scarcity of time and are also plagued by the panic of "stalling" and the anxiety of "falling behind" brought about by the rapid development of technology. The perception of time in everyday human life has become chaotic; the disastrous consequences of intoxication with speed and the anxiety neurosis of fearing elimination by the era tear apart the entire civilization of modern society. The狂热崇拜 of speed was explicitly praised in the *Futurist Manifesto*, which states that it is the dynamics of the machine age that transforms energy into speed, culminating in the consequence of ultimate self-destruction. The historical nature of temporal rhythm must be re-examined. Are there practical and theoretical differences in temporal rhythm between the pre-modern, modern, and hyper-modern? With capitalist modernity and the rapid development of science and technology reaching the degree of "creative destruction" that Schumpeter spoke of, how can we escape the ensuing social frenzy, dizziness, and life anxiety to seek a better future hope? Without understanding the changing relationship between temporal modes and social structures, we cannot understand modernity and its complex contemporary distortions. Marxism, as a critical theory of modern society, must respond to the above theoretical difficulties. "Rhythm analysis" (Rythmanalyse), painstakingly constructed in his later years by the French critical theorist of everyday life Henri Lefebvre, is a creative philosophical concept that uses Marxist social critique to address the problem of the abstraction and politicization of time in the process of social transformation. This is a new domain of Western social critical theory, yet it has not received sufficient attention from domestic academia. Of course, due to the complexity of the time issue itself, this article is not limited to Lefebvre's theory of rhythm analysis. Instead, we attempt to place this analysis of temporal rhythm within the broader scope of the entire Western Marxist critical theory of time, and, taking the political function of temporal rhythm and the accelerating transformation of social rhythm in the contemporary era as the central axis, to rethink social critical theory, thereby providing a Marxist explanation for clarifying the current acceleration of the rhythm of social life.

时间如同空间一样古老，人类关于它的认知与话题也绵延不断。不过正如美国文化史学家斯蒂芬 · 克恩（Stephen Kern) 或者大卫 · 哈维（David Harvey) 描述的那样，20 世纪初期人类的空间和时间感觉发生了根本性的变化。仿佛现代性的一切成就有意识地汇聚在一起，要冲破践行已久的有关时间和空间结构的社会认知与具身性体验。近年来社会科学已将时间（包括空间）当成研究的核心主题之一，因为人们普遍感觉到时间的匮乏，也同时饱受科技飞速发展带来的“失速”恐慌与“落伍”焦虑的困扰。人类日常生活的时间感知出现了混乱，迷醉于速度的灾难性后果以及担忧被时代所淘汰的焦虑性神经症将整个现代社会文明撕裂开来。对速度的狂热崇拜在《未来主义宣言》中得到了明确的赞扬，如该宣言所言，是机器时代的动力学把能量转化成了达到最终自我毁灭的后果的速度。时间节奏的历史性质必须重新审视。时间节奏是否存在着前现代、现代、超级现代的实践与理论差异？资本现代性与科学技术迅猛发展以至于达到了熊彼特所称的“创造性破坏”的程度，我们该如何摆脱随之而来的社会狂乱、眩晕感、生活焦虑而寻求更加美好的未来希望？不理解时间模式与社会结构之间的变化关系，我们就不能理解现代性及其复杂的当代畸变过程。作为现代性社会批判理论的马克思主义必须要回应以上理论难题。法国日常生活批判理论家亨利 · 列斐伏尔（Henri Lefebvre）晚年所着力建构的“节奏分析”（Rythmanalyse) ，便是运用马克思主义社会批判方法回答社会转型过程中时间抽象化政治化问题的创造性哲学概念。这是西方社会批判理论的新论域，却一直没有引起国内学界足够的重视。当然，因为时间问题本身的复杂性，在本文中，我们并非局限于列斐伏尔提出的节奏分析理论，而是试图将这种时间节奏分析放入整个西方马克思主义时间批判理论整体范围当中，并以时间节奏的政治功能以及社会节奏在当代的加速变迁为中轴，重新反思社会批判理论，从而为阐明当下的社会生活节奏加速状况提供马克思主义的解释。

I. The Genealogy of Rhythm Analysis: Concept, History, and Theory

一、节奏分析的谱系：概念、历史与理论

In modern times, although Marx, Nietzsche, Henri Bergson, Lukács, Gaston Bachelard, Marcuse, George Gurvitch, Guy Debord, Paul Virilio, Hartmut Rosa, and Masakazu Yamazaki have all touched upon the issue of "rhythm," the thematization of the important concept of "rhythm analysis" was first systematically articulated by the French Marxist philosopher, critical theorist of everyday life, and pioneer of urban Marxism, Henri Lefebvre. He emphasized that rhythm analysis is a refinement and supplement to the production of space. "This work shows why Lefebvre is one of the most important Marxist thinkers of the 20th century, and also proves that his critical enterprise transcends dogmatism, containing a mixed and intoxicating vision. Through rhythm analysis, he demonstrates how to understand the relationship between time and space within the totality of everyday life." Overall, for Lefebvre, rhythm analysis is the final movement of his critical theory of everyday life. In his later years, he profoundly reflected on the mechanized survival picture of everyday life under the conditions of modernity and its political consequences. Rhythm analysis is not a mysterious personal experience or poetic meditation. On the contrary, as a method of social critical theory inherited from Marxism, rhythm analysis attempts to critically analyze the deep mechanisms of the manipulation and control of time and space by the technological modernity dominated by capital in late capitalist society.

近代以来，尽管马克思、尼采、亨利 · 柏格森（Henri Bergson）、卢卡奇、加斯东 · 巴什拉（Gaston Bachelard）、马尔库塞、乔治 · 古尔维奇（George Gurvitch）、居伊 · 德波（Guy Debord）、保罗 · 维利里奥（Paul Virilio）、哈特穆特 · 罗萨（Hartmut Rosa）以及山崎正和等人都先后涉及“节奏”的问题，但是“节奏分析”这一重要概念的主题化是由法国马克思主义哲学家、日常生活批判理论家、都市马克思主义开拓者列斐伏尔最先集中阐述的，他强调节奏分析是对空间生产的润色和补笔。“这项工作显示了为什么列斐伏尔是 20 世纪最重要的马克思主义思想家之一，同时也证明了他的批判事业超越了教条主义，包含着混合的令人陶醉的视野。他通过节奏分析证明了在总体的日常生活中怎样理解时间和空间之间的关系。”总体而言，对列斐伏尔来说，节奏分析是其日常生活批判理论的最后乐章，他晚年深刻地反省了现代性条件下日常生活节奏的机械化生存图景及其政治后果。节奏分析并非神秘的个人体验与诗学冥思。相反，作为一种继承自马克思主义的社会批判理论方法，节奏分析试图对晚期资本主义社会由资本支配的技术现代性对时间空间的操纵与控制的深层机制进行批判性分析。

What is rhythm? In short, rhythm refers to the form of movement, unfolding, and pulsation of life in time and space. "The organization of all movement in time is called rhythm. Rhythm is a human perception of time, a reaction to the continuity, sequentiality, and regularity of objective phenomena. Rhythm unfolds in social time and space." At the macro level, it bears a family resemblance to Nikolai D. Kondratieff's "long wave theory" and Fernand Braudel's concept of the *longue durée*. At the micro level, it is a biological or physiological concept inseparable from the body. In a fundamental sense, it concerns the issue of the plurality of time. But within the domain of philosophy, rhythm is a philosophical concept inseparable from historical time. Rhythm concerns not only the dynamic process of historical time but also our understanding of modernity. In his essay "What is Enlightenment?", Kant defined enlightenment as the use of one's own reason to emerge from humanity's self-incurred immaturity. It is through this concept that modernity gradually came to be conceived philosophically not merely as a new historical period or a new form of historical time, but as a world-historical project. This is because our consciousness of historical time and the regularity and progress it manifests are an "invention" of modern society. In pre-historical societies, cyclicality was dominant, and time did not form a contour in human consciousness. In historical societies, history was endowed with significant meaning, and history became a unified, totalized history, gradually forming a total consciousness. The contradiction between the abstract homogenization and differentiation of history became prominent.

何谓节奏（Rhythm）？简而言之，节奏指的是生命在时间与空间中的运动、展开与律动形式。“一切运动在时间上的组织都叫作节奏，节奏是人们对时间的一种知觉，是客观现象的延续性、顺序性和规律性的反应，节奏在社会时间和空间里展开。” 在宏观层面，它与尼古拉 ·D. 康德拉季耶夫（Nikolai D. Kondratieff）的“长波理论”以及费尔南 · 布罗代尔（Fernand Braudel）的“长时段”概念有着家族相似性。在微观层面，它是一个与身体分不开的生物学或者生理学概念。在根本的意义上，它关系到时间多元性的问题。但是在哲学的论域中，节奏是与历史时间分不开的一个哲学概念，节奏不仅仅关乎到历史时间的动态过程，而且关乎到我们对现代性的理解。康德在《什么是启蒙》一文中将启蒙定义为运用自己的理智脱离人类的不成熟状态，正是通过这个概念，现代性才逐渐在哲学上不再仅仅被设想为一个新的历史时期或一种新形式的历史时间，而且被设想为世界历史性的事业。因为我们的历史时间意识及其所表现出来的规律性、进步性是一个现代社会的“发明”。在前历史社会，循环性居于主导而时间没有在人类意识中形成轮廓。在历史社会中，历史被赋予了重要的意义，而历史变成了一个统一的总体化的历史并逐渐形成一种总体意识，历史的抽象同质化与差异化矛盾凸显出来。

Here we cannot discuss in detail the philosophical investigations of time by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Walter Benjamin, and Paul Ricoeur. In summary, both Hegel and Marx attempted to transcend Kant's transcendental view of time. However, Hegel, through absolute knowledge or absolute spirit, eternalized the "now," and the movement of history ended in the highest spiral of spirit. Hegel had to confront the objectivity of time as a natural condition, but his subjective spiritual consciousness of time, rooted in immanence, detached itself from the temporal dimension of social practice. Historical materialism, as a "science of history," provides a scientific explanation of the problem of historical time. In Marx's view, historical time is neither eternal nor a neutral natural existence. On the contrary, history is created by real, living human beings through the practical activity of material production. However, this creation is not arbitrary; it is a free creation based on the productive forces and material wealth created by all previous humanity. In other words, historical materialism resolves the dilemmas in the interpretation of historical time faced by classical philosophers like Kant and Hegel. It transforms Kant's idealist transcendental form of time into a socio-historical transcendental, ensuring both the objective premise of historical existence and the human agency in creating history, while also overcoming the linear metaphysical teleological dilemma of Hegel's historical time and the transcendence of his temporal consciousness.

在此我们无法详细论述黑格尔、马克思、尼采、胡塞尔、海德格尔、瓦尔特 · 本雅明（Walter Benjamin）、保罗 · 利科（Paul Ricoeur）等人对时间的哲学考察。概而言之，黑格尔与马克思都试图超越康德的先验时间观，但是黑格尔以绝对知识或者绝对精神将“现在”永恒化了，历史的运动在精神的最高螺旋当中终结了。 黑格尔必须直面作为自然条件的时间的客观性问题，他的内在性的主观主义精神时间意识脱离了社会实践的时间维度。作为“历史科学”的历史唯物主义对历史时间问题给出了科学的解释，在马克思看来，历史时间并非永恒的也不是自然的中立性存在，相反，历史是由具有现实的生命的人类在物质生产实践活动当中创造出来的。但是这种创造不是随心所欲的，而是建立在整个人类先前创造的生产力与物质财富的基础之上的自由创造。换言之，历史唯物主义解决了康德与黑格尔等古典哲学家历史时间阐释的困境，既将康德的唯心主义先验时间形式转换为社会历史先验，保证了历史存在的客观前提性与人类创造历史的能动性，同时也克服了黑格尔历史时间的线性形而上学目的论困境与时间意识的超验性。

The question of historical time is not the core of our discussion here, because we believe that the issue of rhythm is not simply a matter of historical time. On the whole, rhythm is the rhythm of the unfolding, development and change of human social life in multidimensional space. It has three dimensions: first, rhythm denotes the temporality of the cosmos or nature; second, rhythm concerns experiential or phenomenological duration, or the individual’s time-consciousness; third, rhythm contains an intersubjective or social perspective, symbolising the diversity of time-consciousness and the social forms produced through the struggle against conflicting rhythms. This threefold distinction derives mainly from the French sociologist Georges Gurvitch. Gurvitch held that time is not only spiritual time but also social, biological, cosmic, linear and cyclical. Linear time replaced cyclical time by constantly superseding absolute space with abstract temporality, although the latter has never disappeared. This idea of Gurvitch’s deeply influenced Henri Lefebvre, who emphasised in the second volume of the *Critique of Everyday Life*: “The critique of everyday life studies the problems and troubles and results produced by the interaction of linear time and cyclical time in modern industrial society.” Gurvitch argued that the bourgeoisie maintains its power and position precisely through its effort to control time. “The bourgeoisie created an illusion that anticipatory time occupies a dominant position; the bourgeois pursuit of the ideology of progress and its relatively high tempo of action and mobility led this fast rhythm not toward future action but to a vacillation between progress and lag, prosperity and crisis.” Using a “dialectical hyper-empirical method”, Gurvitch questioned and criticised Bergson’s conception of duration, seeking to liberate time from objectivism and subjectivism and to establish a multi-layered method of time analysis. Although Gurvitch’s study of the levels of social time was groundbreaking, he did not go on to think through and critique in depth the reasons for the dominance of the linear view of history and time in modern society — a task that Lefebvre accomplished over decades in his critique of everyday life.

历史时间问题并非我们此处要讨论的核心，因为我们认为节奏问题并不是单纯的历史时间问题，整体而言，节奏是人类社会生活在多维空间中的展开与发展变化的节律。它有三重维度 ：首先节奏表示宇宙的或自然的时间性 ；其次节奏关乎体验的或现象学的绵延性或个人的时间意识 ；再次，节奏蕴含主体间的或社会的视角，它象征着时间意识多样性及其通过与冲突的节奏做斗争而产生的社会形态。这三重维度的区分主要来自于法国社会学家乔治 · 古尔维奇（George Gurvitch) 。古尔维奇认为时间不仅是精神的时间，而且是社会的、生物的、宇宙的、直线的与循环的。线性时间以抽象时间性不断地取代绝对空间的方式取代了循环时间，虽然后者从未消失过。古尔维奇的这一思想深深地影响了列斐伏尔，后者在《日常生活批判》（第二卷）中强调 ：“日常生活批判研究现代工业社会线性时间和循环时间相互作用产生的问题与烦恼以及结果。” 古尔维奇认为资产阶级维护其权力和地位正是通过努力控制时间而达到的。“资产阶级制造出了一种幻象即超前时间占据统治地位，资产阶级追求进步的意识形态和那相对高速的行动节奏和流动性，导致了这种快节奏并非导向未来的行动，而是摇摆于进步与滞后、繁荣和危机之间。”古尔维奇用“辩证的超验主义方法”对柏格森的绵延时间观提出了质疑和批判，意欲把时间从客观主义和主观主义中解放出来，建立多层级的时间分析法。古尔维奇对社会时间层级的研究虽然具有开创性意义，但是他却没有继续对现代社会线性历史观和时间观占统治地位这一现象之原因进行深入思考和批判，而这些是列斐伏尔在数十年的日常生活批判中完成的。

Bergson’s conception of time was always an object of Lefebvre’s critique. In fact, Lefebvre’s rhythmanalysis and his concept of the instant derive in part from Gaston Bachelard and the latter’s critique of Bergson’s theory of duration. Lefebvre himself admitted that he had benefited greatly from Bachelard’s criticism of Bergson. Bachelard, in turn, traced the origin of the concept of “rhythmanalysis” to a work written in 1931 by the Brazilian philosopher Peinherio dos Santos. Bachelard deployed the full “knowledge” of the new sciences — relativity physics, Einstein’s critique of simultaneity, quantum physics — to refute Bergson’s doctrine of duration, but he also inherited Bergson’s critique of rationalism and scientific positivism, which was itself a critique and counterattack against the progressive scientific outlook of the Enlightenment since Bacon and the linear progressive view of time and history closely tied to it. Bachelard held that Bergson “was mistaken in finding the essence of time in duration. The essence of time lies in the instant.” In Bachelard’s view, duration is something a priori that the intellect imposes on itself, and rejecting this a priori is crucial for acquiring the capacity to develop “the obvious fact of the instant”. From this Bachelard advanced his own “rhythmanalysis”. For him, “duration flows” is an illusion and a deception, a mental trap; our world is discontinuous, and the continuous flow of duration is merely a mental construction. Time and history are not continuous, linear duration but are full of ruptures, gaps, leaps, rhythms, nodes, and heterogeneities. “Matter … is not only highly sensitive to rhythm but also stubbornly exists at the level of rhythm, and the time it uses to develop certain details is a wave-like time.” Bachelard argued that duration (la durée) is essentially dialectical, formed on the basis of rhythm and wave; they are material, vital and psychological. Bachelard’s goal was to understand the complexity of life through the plurality of temporalities, each with its own specific rhythm. Later, in his poetic analyses of the elements — water, fire, air, dreams and earth — Bachelard explored in depth the “poetics of the metaphysics of the instant” and the “multiple variations of discontinuity”, enriching the “basic material” through which people experience rhythm. This view of Bachelard’s also had an important influence on Lefebvre.

柏格森的时间观一直是列斐伏尔批判的对象，其实列斐伏尔的节奏分析和瞬间概念部分源于巴什拉及其对柏格森绵延说的批判。列斐伏尔自己也曾坦言他从巴什拉对柏格森的批评中获益良多。而巴什拉则是从巴西哲学家佩里尼奥 · 多斯桑托斯（Peinherio dos Santos）写于 1931 年的著作中追踪到“节奏分析”概念起源的。巴什拉运用了新科学的全部“知识”，以相对论物理学、爱因斯坦对同时性观点的批判、量子物理为依据驳斥了柏格森的绵延学说，但是他也继承了柏格森对理性主义、科学实证主义的批判，是对自培根以来的启蒙主义进步科学观，以及与此紧密相关的线性进步时间观和历史观的批判和阻击。 巴什拉认为柏格森“在绵延中发现时间的本质，这是错误的。时间的本质存在于瞬间之中”。 在巴什拉看来，绵延是一种智性强加于自身的先天的东西，而拒绝这种先天的东西对于获取开发“瞬间的明显事实”的那种能力来说是至关重要的。 由此巴什拉提出了自己的“节奏分析”。在他看来，“绵延流动着”是一种幻觉和骗局，是一种精神圈套，我们的世界是不连续的，连续的绵延之流只是一种精神的建构，时间和历史并不是连续的、线性的绵延，而是充满着断裂、裂口、跳跃、节奏、节点、异质。“物质……不仅对节奏非常敏感，而且顽强地存在于节奏层面，并且它用来开发某些细节的时间是一种波动的时间。”巴什拉认为绵延（la duree）本质上是辩证的，在节奏与波动的基础上形成 ；它们是物质的、生命的与心理的。巴什拉的目标是通过时段的多元性来理解生命的复杂性，每种时段都有其特殊的节奏。后来，巴什拉又在对水、火、气与梦幻和土地等元素诗意的分析中深入地探讨了作为“瞬间的形而上学的诗学”，以及作为“非连续性的多重变奏曲”，丰富了人们体验节奏的“基本材料”。而巴什拉这种观点对列斐伏尔也有重要影响。

If Marx and Heidegger helped Lefebvre break with the absolute conception of space and time that had prevailed since Descartes, Newton and Kant, then Nietzsche played an important role in breaking Lefebvre’s attachment to dogmatic Marxism and historical determinism. Nietzsche had a crucial influence on Heidegger, Leo Strauss, Georges Bataille, Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Lefebvre was no exception. Lefebvre considered Nietzsche a man who “finally opened the path of difference; the same cannot affirm itself without the other; the other reveals itself through the same, contains itself through identity. The struggle of differences has only just begun; it will not end with history.” It is evident that Nietzsche’s almost frenzied critical and negating “superman” spirit provided Lefebvre with a very important spiritual force and theoretical pillar for escaping the ideological control of Christianity and for an uncompromising, fierce critique of dogmatism and bureaucracy. Lefebvre combined Bachelard with Nietzsche’s view of history as eternal recurrence, emphasising the unity of historical continuity and discontinuity and the unity of linear development and cyclical recurrence in time, while the “instant” and “rhythm” are precisely what break continuity or linearity. Lefebvre always stressed the importance of irrational factors such as the cyclical rhythm of life, sexuality and poiesis, and emphasised the enormous power of festivals and carnival to resist and subvert everyday life that had been fully organised and bureaucratised by technology. Lefebvre insisted on preserving the cyclical rhythm of life to resist mechanical repetition, because life-time had become the object of comprehensive colonisation by capital; time outside labour and production had become the space for capital to realise the augmentation of surplus value.

如果说马克思和海德格尔帮助列斐伏尔打破了自笛卡尔、牛顿和康德以来的绝对时空观，那么尼采则对列氏打破教条马克思主义和历史决定论有重要作用。尼采对海德格尔、利奥 · 施特劳斯（Leo Strauss）、乔治 · 巴塔耶（Georges Bataille）、福柯、吉尔 · 德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）都产生了至关重要的影响，列斐伏尔也不例外。列斐伏尔认为尼采是一位“最终打开差异之路的人，相同离开他者不能确证自身 ；他者通过相同而揭示自身，通过同一来包含自身。差异的斗争才刚刚开始，它与历史一起不会结束”。可见尼采近乎疯狂地批判和否定的“超人”精神，为列斐伏尔摆脱基督教的思想控制，毫不妥协地激烈批判教条主义和官僚主义提供了非常重要的精神力量和理论支柱。列斐伏尔把巴什拉与尼采永恒轮回的历史观相结合，强调历史的连续性与非连续性的统一和时间上的线性发展与循环轮回的统一，而“瞬间”与“节奏”则是对连续性或线性的打破。列斐伏尔始终强调生命循环节奏、性和诗创等等非理性主义因素的重要性，强调节日和狂欢对技术全面组织化和官僚化的日常生活的巨大反抗与颠覆力量。列斐伏尔强调要保持生命的循环节奏以抵御机械的重复，是因为生命时间已经成为资本主义全面殖民化的对象，劳动生产之外的时间已经成为了资本实现剩余价值增值的空间。

In fact, Lukács had already recognised this in *History and Class Consciousness*. On the basis of Marx’s concept of reification and Max Weber’s concept of bureaucratic “rationality”, he understood the organised management of time and space by the logic of capital and its political consequences. “The principle of rational mechanisation and calculability extends to all forms of the manifestation of life”; the relations between people are “increasingly mediated by the abstract laws of the mechanical process”. “The compulsive consciousness of modern time is not limited to the sphere of labour and work measured by productive forces; it has occupied all areas of life.” People’s life-time increasingly loses its qualitative, variable, fluid character and solidifies into a homogeneous, divisible reified space; indeed, with the spread of “Taylorism” in the labour process, even the worker’s soul and psychological characteristics are reified. In the Frankfurt School we can see this even more clearly. *Dialectic of Enlightenment* critiques the hidden enslavement of people by advertising and the culture industry: people’s entire inner life has been turned into a “sensitive instrument … the most intimate reactions of human beings have been thoroughly reified”. Even in Marcuse’s view, the rationality of science and technology, together with manipulation, has produced a new form of social control; the power of technology and scientific rationality invade everyday life — society, culture and thought — and everything human becomes “one-dimensional”. The diverse, even conflicting, rhythms of everyday life are homogenised into the monotonous linear rhythm of industrial production.

其实，卢卡奇在《历史与阶级意识》中就意识到了这一点，他在马克思的物化与马克斯 ·韦伯（Max Weber）的科层制“合理性”概念的基础上，认识到资本逻辑对时间和空间的组织化管理及其带来的政治后果。“合理机械化的和可计算性的原则遍及生活的全部表现形式”，人与人之间的联系“越来越由机械过程的抽象规律来中介”。“现代时间的强迫意识不只体现在以生产力为标准的劳动工作的范围内，它已经占据了所有生活领域。”人们的生命时间越来越失去了质的、可变的、流动的性质而凝固成可以均质化分割的物化空间，甚至由于劳动过程的“泰罗制”的推广，工人的灵魂与心理特性都物化了。在法兰克福学派那里我们可以看得更加清楚。《启蒙辩证法》批判了广告与文化产业对人本身的隐性奴役 ：人们的整个内心生活都已经被变成了一种“灵敏的仪器……人类之间最亲密的反应都已经被彻底物化了”。甚至在马尔库塞看来，由于科学技术的合理性和操纵一起产生了一种新的社会控制形式，技术的力量与科学合理性侵入社会、文化与思维等日常生活领域，人类的一切都变成“单向度的”了。日常生活中多样的甚至冲突对立的节奏都同一化为单调的工业化生产线性节奏。

This monotonous rhythm of industrial production increasingly dominates the general landscape of social life. What is truly profound about Guy Debord, the leader of the Situationist International, is that he saw the abstract time of commodity production as a complete inversion of time in the sphere of human development, while consumption time becomes a “pseudo-cyclical time” that dominates everyday life. Although this time is the homogeneous time of exchange value, it disguises itself through leisure, festivals, and the like, in order to satisfy people’s false individual needs. Yet this pseudo-cyclical time ultimately renders everyday life “dull.” “Pseudo-cyclical time” is in fact an imitation of natural time; it is time transformed by industry, “the time of the spectacle, which serves both as the time of image consumption in the narrow sense and as the consumption of images of time in its overall extension.” This is precisely the typical feature of consumer society: through the incessant production and reproduction of the spectacle, a “pseudo-nature” is produced, with leisure and holidays becoming its main images. This is an era without festivals; the ritual ceremonies of cyclical time in premodern society have been replaced by the false festivals of the pseudo-cyclical era. Debord sharply reveals the spectacular mechanism behind it: “It is the spectacle that presents itself, that reproduces itself, reaching a more intense degree. What is presented as real life merely shows itself as more real spectacular life.” Debord ultimately chooses the artist’s “dérive” and psychogeographical “détournement” as the means to supersede alienation and achieve a revolution in everyday life, thereby exposing the spectacle fetishism embedded in everyday life, and constructing an authentic life situation within playful, revolutionary negating situations. Although Henri Lefebvre once worked closely with Debord and others, he did not agree with the revolutionary strategy of the Situationist International, considering it too abstract, leaning toward psychologism and artistic imagination, and lacking practical feasibility.

这种单调的工业生产节奏日益支配了普遍的社会生活景观。情境主义国际的领袖德波真正深刻的地方在于他看到了生产商品的抽象时间是人类发展领域的时间的彻底倒置，而消费时间成为一种“伪循环时间”支配着日常生活。这种时间虽然是同质化的交换价值时间但是却以休闲、节日等等形式伪装起来，以满足人们虚假的个性化需求。但是这种伪循环时间最终会使日常生活“变得迟钝”。“伪循环时间”其实是对自然时间的模仿，它是被工业改造过的时间，是“景观的时间，它既充当狭义上的图像消费的时间，也充当其整体扩展中时间的消费图像”。这正是消费社会的典型特征，通过景观不停地生产与再生产从而生产出“伪自然”，休闲与假期成为了伪自然的主要形象，这是一个没有节日的时代，在前现代社会循环时间当中的节日仪式已经被伪循环时代的虚假节日替代了。德波尖锐地揭示了其背后的景观机制 ：“是景观在自我展现，在自行复制，达到了一个更密集的程度。那个被表现为真实生活的东西，却仅仅显示为更加真实的景观生活。”德波最终选择艺术家的“漂移”与心理地理学的“异轨”作为扬弃异化和达到日常生活革命的途径，从而揭露日常生活中存在的景观拜物教，在游戏性、革命性的否定情境中建构本真的生活情境。列斐伏尔虽然与德波等人有过密切合作，但是他并不认同情境主义国际的革命策略，认为其太过于抽象化，偏向心理主义与艺术想象而缺乏实践可行性。

This may be related to Lefebvre’s vigilance and critique of psychoanalysis as represented by Jacques Lacan. Lefebvre sought to replace psychoanalysis with rhythm analysis, thereby making the latter “a science, a new field of knowledge.” Lefebvre believed that psychologists, psychoanalysts, and psychiatrists tend to reduce capitalist alienation “to a single sexual suffering, thereby neglecting its relationship with the state,” and that they gradually turned the doctrines of the unconscious and sexuality into “a standard ideology and a mythology of desire.” Lefebvre disagreed with the Freudian school’s theory of the unconscious, which fragments the human body into parts—such as the eyes, mouth, anus, penis, etc.—ignoring the body’s wholeness, and which reduces the physical and psychological problems arising under modern conditions to a mere pathological imagination; this is not entirely correct, and is even erroneous. He believed that “rhythm analysis” could replace psychoanalysis because it is more concrete, more effective, and closer to the pedagogical method of use (the appropriation of the body, i.e., appropriation as spatial practice).

这可能与列斐伏尔对雅克 · 拉康（Jacques Lacan）代表的精神分析的警觉与批判有关。列斐伏尔试图以节奏分析取代精神分析进而使前者成为“一门科学，一个知识的新领域”。列斐伏尔认为心理学家、精神分析学家和精神病学家，倾向于把资本主义的异化“归结为单一的性痛苦，从而忽视了它和国家之间的关系”，他们把无意识和性学说逐渐变成了“标准的意识形态和欲望神话学”。列斐伏尔不苟同弗洛伊德学派的无意识学说，后者把人的身体分割为碎片，比如眼睛、口唇、肛门、阴茎等等，忽略了身体的整体性，并且把现代条件下出现的身体和心理问题仅仅归结为一种病理学的想象，是不完全对的，甚至是错误的。他认为“节奏分析”能够取代精神心理分析，因为它更具体、更有效，更接近于使用的教学方法（对身体的取用，即作为空间实践的取用）。

Overall, for Lefebvre, rhythm analysis is a theoretical tool for studying the waxing and waning and harmonious coexistence of cyclical and linear rhythms in everyday life. This theory holds that the deep mechanism of control lies in the technical shaping and abstract domination of the rhythm of labor production time and the rhythm of everyday life, thereby achieving the goal of micro-physical governance over life and the body. Capitalism, in its pursuit of maximum speed and efficiency, causes rationalized calculation to gradually invade everyday life, leading to the splitting of time into life time and social labor time. The industrial mechanical rhythm of modernity strips the natural cyclical rhythm from the lifeworld; the capitalist production process controls the rhythm of the body, and through the organized management of the rhythm of people’s everyday life and the reproduction of labor power, it realizes surplus value, homogenizing space and time into calculable units, fragmenting them, and segregating them hierarchically, thereby ultimately reproducing the capitalist social relations of domination. Rhythm analysis is a mediating means of understanding time and resisting time through time itself. Lefebvre believed that capitalism disciplines the rhythm of everyday life; it is not only the reproduction of class but also the reproduction of an abstract system founded on the body and its life time. The rhythm of capital replaces basic historical rhythms; modernity produces all things on an almost planetary scale, only to destroy them through war, progress, and speculation. As Lefebvre states in *The Right to the City*, as time becomes increasingly abstractly divided, measured, and delimited, any political agenda must reassess time.

总体而言，在列斐伏尔那里，节奏分析是研究日常生活中循环节奏与线性节奏此消彼长、和谐共生的理论工具。该理论认为那种控制的深层机制在于通过劳动生产时间节奏与日常生命节奏的技术化塑形与抽象化统治，从而达到对生命、身体进行微观权力治理之目的。资本主义为追求速度和效率最大化，使得理性化计算逐渐侵入日常生活，导致时间分裂为生命时间和社会劳动时间。现代性的工业机械节奏将自然循环节奏从生活世界剥离出去，资本主义生产过程控制了身体的节奏，并且通过对人们日常生活节奏的组织化管理与劳动力的再生产实现剩余价值，将空间与时间进行同质化计算、碎片化分割和等级化隔离从而最终再生产出资本主义的社会统治关系。节奏分析是理解时间并通过时间反抗时间本身的一种中介手段。列斐伏尔认为资本主义对日常生活节奏进行规训，它不仅是阶级的再生产，而且是再生产一个建立于身体及其生命时间之上的抽象体系。资本的节奏取代了基本的历史节奏，现代性几乎以星球化（planetarization）的尺度去生产所有事物而又通过战争、进步与投机去摧毁它。正如列斐伏尔在《进入城市的权利》中所说，随着时间越来越被抽象分割、测量和限定，任何政治议程都必须对时间进行重估。

II. The Politics of Time: From Premodern Time to the Time of Modern Capital Accumulation

二、时间的政治学：从前现代时间到现代资本积累时间

Reassessing time is an impossible task. Here we merely attempt to examine, from a political perspective, the transformation in the nature of time during the historical transition from premodernity and the Middle Ages to modernity. Without understanding this transformation, one cannot comprehend the social time structure of modernity, nor can one truly identify the secret of the rule of the capital logic of modernity. In premodern societies, human life time was primarily shaped by natural rhythms, characterized mainly by cyclical natural time. Since the birth of Christianity, and especially as Protestant moral ethics and their rationalizing logic took deep root in the lifeworld and leisure culture, “the individual’s sense of self-time, controlled both by the festival cycle of the Christian calendar and by the labor rhythm demanded by social customs and agricultural production, at that time fully determined the universally valid social time.” [2]2 The quotation is from the German sociologist Norbert Elias’s work on time, though the source is not specified in the original text. However, entering modern society, as Lefebvre, Lewis Mumford, Pierre Bourdieu, and Anthony Giddens have all commonly noted: time itself increasingly splits into labor time and leisure time, and the linear time of the industrial era gradually replaces the cyclical time of pre-capitalist agricultural eras. The transformation from premodern time to modern time—that is, to abstract, quantifiably calculable, homogeneous exchange time—manifests the politicization of the nature of time itself, as well as the routinization of the accelerated social time rhythm of industrial labor production into everyday life. Yet this transformation in the nature of time did not occur overnight.

对时间进行重估是一个不可能完成的课题。这里我们仅仅试图从政治学的角度审视前现代、中世纪到现代性历史转型中时间性质的变化。不理解这一转变就不能理解现代性的社会时间结构，也难以真正识别现代性资本逻辑统治的秘密。在前现代社会，人类的生活时间主要由自然节奏来塑造，以循环的自然时间为主要特征。基督教诞生以来，尤其是随着新教道德伦理及其理性化逻辑在生活世界和休闲文化中扎下深深的根基，“个人的自我时间感，既受到基督教年历中的节日循环的控制，也受到社会习惯和农业生产所要求的劳动节奏的制约，这种自我时间感在当时充分决定着普遍有效的社会时间。”然而进入现代社会以来，正如列斐伏尔、刘易斯 · 芒福德（Lewis Mumford）、皮埃尔 · 布迪厄（Pierre Bourdieu）以及吉登斯所共同注意到的那样 ：时间本身日益分离为劳动时间与闲暇时间，工业时代线性时间逐渐实现对前资本主义农业时代的循环时间的替代。从前现代的时间向现代时间——即抽象的、可以量化计算的、同质化交换时间的转变体现了时间性质本身的政治化，也体现了社会时间节奏加速的工业化劳动生产过程的日常化。然而，这种时间性质的转变并不是一蹴而就的。

(1) The Industrial Clock: From the Time of Religious Grace to the Time of Industrial Labor

（一）工业时钟 ：从宗教神恩时间到工业劳动时间的转变

The French Annales School historian Jacques Le Goff points out that with the increase in monetary economy, international trade, and merchant activity between the 12th and 13th centuries, time was organized like currency; bookkeeping systems, bills of exchange, and the management of monetary transactions demanded increasingly precise and standardized measurement of time. With the monastic regulation of time and the appearance of town clocks, a usable, visible frame of reference was created. In terms of reliability and precision, the calculation of time reached new heights. Of course, Le Goff is not a technological determinist. He states plainly that the fundamental cause of the transformation from medieval to modern conceptions of time is not the invention of the clock technology, but should be understood from the perspectives of social history, economic history, and the history of life and culture.

法国年鉴学派历史学家雅克 · 勒高夫（Jacques Le Goff）指出：随着 12 至 13 世纪货币经济、国际贸易以及商人活动的增多，时间与货币一样被组织起来，簿记制度、汇票以及对货币交易的管理，要求对时间进行越来越精确的规范化的计量。随着修道院对时间的安排与城镇时钟的出现，可供使用的、看得见的参照系被创造了出来。在可靠性与精确性上，时间的计算达到了新的高度。当然，勒高夫并非技术决定论者。他直言从中世纪时间向现代时间观念的转变，其根本原因并非时钟技术的发明，而应该从社会史、经济史、生活文化史的角度去理解这种转变的原因。

With the emergence of urban society in the 14th century, the method of measuring time itself was fundamentally altered to meet the needs of urban economic development and the necessities of urban labor conditions. The worker’s labor time, or the length of the working day, became the central content of the class struggle between the working class and the urban merchant class. Consequently, the time marked by the town clock was not an accidental or marginal time, but a regular standard time more reliable than the church bell. It was only in the 17th century, after Huygens invented the pendulum, that the mechanical clock became a reliable measuring tool, and the concept of abstract mathematical time was openly constructed. “This is not the time of disaster or festival, but the time of everyday life, the temporal network that frames and restricts urban life.” [1]1 Taylorism: A system of scientific management developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, aimed at maximising labour efficiency through the detailed division and standardisation of work tasks. It provided a better method of measuring the workload of workers’ labor, a major marker of the process of secularization. Traditional conceptions of time gradually disintegrated, replaced by a notion that “the idler who wastes time and does not measure it is no different from a beast, unworthy of being regarded as a human: he almost falls into this state, more base than a beast. Hence arose a humanism based on precisely calculated time.” [2]2 The quotation is from the German sociologist Norbert Elias’s work on time, though the source is not specified in the original text. Time was no longer a gift from God, no longer the time of sin and grace, no longer something that could not be sold. On the contrary, in the dawn of the Renaissance at the end of the Middle Ages, this traditional taboo was broken. The divine time that belonged only to God henceforth became human property, and temperance became the primary human virtue. Only with the arrival of capitalism, and the fierce impetus given by the Industrial Revolution to the invention of social mechanical technology, could time not only be precisely calculated by the mechanized industrial clock down to twentieths of a second. Time could be converted into money; only then did the typical time structure and mental attitude of industrial society emerge. The process of dismantling life time and labor time then began, and the length of life time became, according to the needs of the bourgeoisie, labor time and profit time that could be precisely calculated. Moreover, in Le Goff’s view, this universalization of time was driven not only by technological and economic development, but also by its connection to the honor and symbols of power of urban lords and monarchs. Thus urban time became national time, and the everyday life time of individuals came under the domination of a “time economy,” with the machine becoming the baton of labor time in the machine age.

随着 14 世纪城市社会的出现，为了适应城市经济发展以及城市劳动条件的必要性，时间本身的计量方式被彻底改变了。工人的劳动时间或者工作日长度成为了工人阶级与城市商人阶级斗争的中心内容。那么，城镇时钟标识的时间就并非一种偶然性的、边缘性的时间，而是比教堂的钟声更加可靠的有规则的标准时间。只是到了 17 世纪，惠更斯发明了钟摆之后，机械时钟才成为一种可靠的度量工具，抽象数学时间的概念才被公开构造出来。“这并非是灾难或者节日的时间，而是日常的时间，是框定和限制城市生活的时序网络。”对工人劳动的工作量提出了更好的计量方式，这是世俗化进程的一个主要标志。传统的时间观念逐渐瓦解，代之而起的是这样一种观念 ：“浪费时间、不计量时间的无所事事者与禽兽无异，不值得作为人来看重 ：他几乎陷入这种境地，比禽兽更卑贱。因而产生了一种以精确计算的时间为基础的人文主义。”时间不再是上帝的恩赐，不再是罪过和恩典的时间，不再是不能出售的东西。相反，在中世纪末期文艺复兴运动的曙光之中，这种传统的禁忌被打破了。只属于上帝的神恩时间从今以后变成了人类的财产，节制成为人类的首要美德。只有资本主义的到来，随着工业革命对于社会机械技术发明的猛烈推动，时间不仅仅能够被机械化的工业时钟精确地以二十分之一的方式计算。时间能够转化为金钱，此刻典型的工业社会的时间结构与精神态度才出现。对生命时间以及劳动时间的拆解过程才开始，生命时间的长度于是按照资产阶级的需要成为可以精确计算的劳动时间以及盈利时间。不仅如此，在勒高夫看来，这种时间的普遍化不仅仅是技术与经济的发展促成的，而且也与城市领主和君主们的荣誉与权力象征有关系。于是城市时间成为了国家时间，个人的日常生活时间都处于“时间经济学”的支配之下，机器就是机器时代劳动时间的指挥棒。

(2) The Tyranny of Abstract Time: The Birth of Capital Accumulation and the Disciplinary Society

（二）抽象时间的暴政 ：资本积累与现代纪律社会的诞生

As Marx stated in *Capital* and his manuscripts, the working class could only be bound to the machine as an accessory of it, without safeguards, and their rest time was also stripped away. In the late 19th century, productivity continued to rise, mainly due to technological improvements and the improved organization of the entire production process, as well as the gradual adaptation and submission of the working class to the rhythm of machine production. In this socialized process full of conflict and struggle, “industrial society established the temporal norms regulating labor time in a dangerous balance between the internalization of labor habits and the external necessity of social survival.” [3]3 Jacques Le Goff, *Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages*, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 48. Marx was the first to analyze and dissect the commodification and organization of labor time. Socially necessary labor time creates the value of commodities, which means that time becomes a commodity. The capitalist manipulation, division, regulation, and appropriation of workers’ labor time thus becomes the secret of capitalist modernity. The socially necessary labor time spent producing a particular commodity is the result of abstracting all particular concrete labors and labor times. The Canadian Marxist philosopher Moishe Postone argues that the origin of abstract time is closely related to the social reality constructed by the spread of commodity-based social relational forms. That is, abstract temporal discipline is not merely due to the spread of quantitative clock systems, but must be understood within the historical process of “new social relations of production practice.” [4]4 Moishe Postone, *Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 201. The struggle over labor time and the length of the working day is a universal expression of capitalist wage-labor struggle, which promotes the social construction of abstract time for human activity. This abstract time is not a subjective construction, but emerges with the development of bourgeois rule and serves bourgeois interests. In other words, this abstract time is objective, a real coercion and an abstract oppression. The rhythm of the worker’s labor has already been dominated by the rhythm of machine-based mass production, that is, the rhythm of producing commodities, which is the rhythm of the movement of the machine system. Just as labor is transformed from individual action into an alienated universal structure, the expenditure of time is also transformed from a result of action into a normative measure of action.

正如马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中所说，工人阶级只能作为机器的附件与机器绑在一起，没有保障措施，而且休息时间也被剥夺殆尽。在 19 世纪末期，生产率持续提高，这主要得益于技术的改良和整个生产过程组织形式的改善，也得益于工人阶级逐渐适应顺从了机器生产的节奏。在这个充满冲突和斗争的社会化过程中，“工业社会才在劳动习惯的内在化和社会生存的外在必要性之间的危险的平衡中确立了调节劳动时间的时间规范。”马克思最先对于劳动时间的商品化和组织化进行了分析和解剖，社会必要劳动时间创造了商品的价值，也就说明时间成为了商品，资本主义对于工人劳动时间的操纵、分割调节、占有就成了资本主义现代性的秘密。生产一件特殊商品所花费的社会必要劳动时间是将所有特殊的具体劳动以及劳动时间抽象化的结果。加拿大马克思主义哲学家莫伊舍 · 普殊同（Moishe Postone）认为，抽象时间的起源与商品性社会关系形式的传播建构的社会现实有密切关系，也就是说，抽象的时间纪律并非仅仅由于定量钟点体系的传播，而且必须将它放在“新的社会关系生产实践”历史过程中来理解。围绕劳动时间与工作日长短的斗争是资本主义雇佣劳动斗争的普遍化表现，它促使人类活动的抽象时间的社会建构。这种抽象时间并非主观性的建构，而是随着资产阶级统治的发展而出现，并为资产阶级利益服务。换而言之，这种抽象时间是客观的，是一种真实的强制和抽象的压迫。工人劳动的节奏已经被机器大生产的节奏，即生产商品的节奏所主导，就是机器系统运动的节奏。正如劳动从个体的行动被转化为整体性的异化普遍结构，时间的耗费也从行动的结果被转化为一种对行动的规范性尺度。

Regarding the formation of temporal disciplinary norms, the renowned British Marxist historian Edward Thompson, in his 1967 article “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” used rich ethnographic materials to demonstrate: “The division of labor, supervision of labor, fines, bells and clocks, monetary incentives, preaching and formal schooling, suppression of regular fairs and amusements, new labor habits were formed, and a new time discipline was implemented.” [5]5 E. P. Thompson, “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” *Past & Present*, no. 38 (1967): 90. This new time discipline was both a precondition for the formation of industrial capitalism and a result of it. The time discipline in the factory is an abstract time, so-called abstract time being continuous, uniform, homogenized, and equally divisible time. Coincidentally, time is also the main tool Foucault used to analyze modern disciplinary society. Foucault believed that the bourgeoisie’s domination and control of life time was achieved through “prescribing rhythms, compelling fixed routines, and regulating repetitive cycles.” [6]6 Michel Foucault, *Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison*, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 149. Foucault pointed out that time in bourgeois society is minutely divided and planned, presenting a rhythm and regularity of movement. The body adapts to high-efficiency and high-speed special labor postures with high precision, concentration, and orderliness, ultimately forming a trained “disciplinary object” cultivated through the temporal rhythm of labor itself, internal operational steps, and shaping structures within the capitalist labor production process. This ensures, through the effective division and regulation of the relationship between time and the body, “the accumulation of time, dedicated to the continuous growth of profit.” [7]7 Foucault, *Discipline and Punish*, 157. This is a microphysics of power, an invisible and silent tyranny. Later, Deleuze renamed this disciplinary society the “society of control.” In the society of control, the institutionalized control of individuals and social life is continuous, without boundaries, and essentially around the clock. Command mechanisms and normalizing effects infiltrate every gap, functioning at all times, and enter the human psyche in an even more microscopic way, far exceeding the disciplinary power of the 19th century and most of the early 20th century.

针对时间规范纪律的形成，英国著名马克思主义历史学家爱德华 · 汤普逊（Edward Thompson）在《时间、工作纪律与工业资本主义》（1967）一文中运用丰富的民俗材料证明 ：“劳动分工、劳动的监督、罚款、铃和时钟、金钱的刺激、说教和正规学校教育、压制定期集市和娱乐、新的劳动习惯形成了，一种新的时间纪律得到了实行。”这种新的时间纪律既是工业资本主义形成的前提也是其形成的结果。在工厂中的时间纪律是一种抽象时间，所谓抽象时间即连续的、均一的、同质化的、可以等量分割的时间。无独有偶，时间也正是福柯分析现代纪律社会的主要工具。福柯认为，资产阶级对生命时间的支配和控制是通过“规定节奏、强制确定日常事务、调节重复周期”实现的。福柯指出了资产阶级社会的时间被十分精细地划分和规划，呈现出运动的节奏和规律，肉体以高度精确、专注以及秩序井然地适应高效率和高速度的特殊劳动姿势，最终形成了资本主义在劳动生产过程中通过劳动本身的时间节奏、内在操作步骤以及塑形的结构而培养出来训练有素的“规训客体”，从而通过有效地分割、调节时间与肉体的关系，保证“时间的积累，致力于利润的持续增长”。这是微观权力物理学，是一种看不见的无声的暴政。后来，德勒兹将这种纪律社会重新命名为“控制社会”。在控制社会里，对个人和社会生活的体制化控制持续不断、没有界限，且基本上是全天候的。命令机制和规范化的效果见缝插针，无时无刻不在发挥作用，而且以更加微观的方式进入到人的内心，远甚于 19 世纪和 20 世纪初大部分时候的规训权力。

(3) The Commodification of Time-Space: The Colonization of Modern Everyday Life

（三）时间—空间的商品化 ：现代日常生活的殖民化

The temporal domination constructed by the forms of commodity and capital is not confined to the production process; it has gradually extended into all spheres of daily life. In Marx’s era, capitalist modernity was on the rise, and labor time in production occupied the center of people’s lives. Although rationalized calculation and organization had begun to permeate daily life, daily life time did not attract much attention. At that time, the control, brutal suppression and exploitation of workers by machinery and the commodity production of capital were merely a violent and overt form of rhythm domination, still confined to labor production and the factory. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, this industrial, rationalized, modern monotony and repetitive linear time and rhythm began to infiltrate and enter daily life. Both Lukács and Lefebvre later emphasized this point. In *History and Class Consciousness*, Lukács pointed out that, due to the intensifying rationalization of capitalist labor production, “time loses its qualitative, variable, fluid character: it congeals into a precisely delimited, quantifiable continuum filled with quantifiable ‘things’ (the reified, mechanically objectified ‘results’ of the worker, completely separated from his whole personality), i.e., it congeals into a space.” This mechanized labor became an inescapable daily reality, to the point where people could only act as spectators of a reified system, thereby becoming isolated atoms governed by abstract temporal laws. Postone noted: “The equality and divisibility of quantitative time units, abstracted from the sensory reality of day, night and the seasons, became a characteristic of urban daily life.” According to Lefebvre, alienation existed not only in the sphere of labor production but had begun to comprehensively cover the entire daily life, including politics, economy, culture and society. Daily life became monotonous, banal and tedious, because daily life had undergone a transformation from an era of relative material impoverishment to a bureaucratic society where daily life was fully colonized, organized and controlled by consumption. This rule of linear time rhythm then became an ideological machine for the workers’ self-understanding and self-discipline; people were ruled by a hidden rhythm of mechanical repetition in alienated daily life, a micro-biopolitics. Revealing this transformation was a major theoretical contribution of Lefebvre’s life. The gradual commodification of time and space “brought about the most profound transformation of daily social life that came with the advent of capitalism. The two combined constituted both the core phenomenon of the organization of the production process and the workplace, and the core phenomenon of the background of intimate relationships in how daily life was experienced.”

由商品和资本的形式所建构的时间统治并不限于生产过程，它逐渐延伸到了所有日常生活领域。在马克思那个时代，资本主义现代性正处于上升势头，生产劳动时间占据人们生活的中心，虽然理性化的计算和组织已经开始向日常生活渗透，但是日常生活时间并没有引起人们更多的注意。那时机器及资本商品生产对工人的控制、残酷压制和剥削，只是一种暴力性的显性的节奏统治，它仍旧局限于劳动生产和工厂之中。而到 19 世纪末期至 20 世纪初，这种工业化、合理化、现代性日常的单调和重复线性时间及节奏开始渗透并进入日常生活之中。这一点卢卡奇与列斐伏尔后来都有强调。卢卡奇在《历史与阶级意识》中指出，由于资本主义劳动生产的合理化过程不断加剧，“时间就失去了它的质的、可变的、流动性的性质 ：它凝固成一个精确划定界限的、在量上可测定的、由在量上可测定的一些‘物’（工人的物化的、机械地客体化的、同人的整个人格完全分离的‘成果’）充满的连续统一体，即凝固成一个空间。”这种机械化劳动变成了一种难以克服的日常现实，以至于人们只能作为物化的系统的旁观者，从而成为孤立的原子由抽象时间规律来支配。普殊同指出 ：“定量时间单位的均等性与可分性抽象于白昼、黑夜与四季的感官现实，成为都市日常生活的特质。”按照列斐伏尔的观点，异化不仅仅存在于劳动生产领域，且开始全面覆盖整个日常生活，包括政治、经济、文化和社会之中。日常生活变得单调、平庸和乏味，因为日常生活实现了从物质生活相对贫困化的时代向日常生活被全面殖民化组织化的消费被控的官僚社会的转变。这种线性时间节奏统治则变成了一种工人阶级自我理解自我规训的意识形态机器，人们被一种微观的生命政治即异化的日常生活之中机械重复的隐性节奏所统治，揭示这一转变是列斐伏尔一生的重大理论贡献。时间与空间逐渐商品化的过程，“给随着资本主义来临而形成的日常社会生活造成了最为深刻的转型。两者结合在一起既构成了生产过程组织、工作场所的核心现象，也构成了如何体验日常生活之亲密关系背景的核心现象。”

III. From Modern Society to Hypermodern Society: The Acceleration of Social Rhythm and Its Consequences

三、从现代性社会到超级现代性社会：社会节奏的加速及其后果

Modernity, with the continuous acceleration of the new technological revolution, has fundamentally reshaped daily life time, to the point where we must redefine the meaning of modernity. Redefining it is not about adding a more “fashionable” concept to the critical discourse jungle, but rather because the speed of modernity’s advance constantly breaks through the boundaries of human living space, causing modern history to rush forward in acceleration, so that people can only stay in place by running incessantly. This spatiotemporal rhythm has created a new life experience, giving rise to complex debates among theorists. The promise of modernity, which took economic growth and acceleration as the promise of freedom and liberation, has been replaced by an infinite anxiety over the “loss of control of the world.” Postmodernist discourse emerged precisely at this moment. People vied to define this enormous change with concepts such as post-industrial society, post-scarcity society, risk society, liquid society, network society, and so on.

现代性随着新兴科技革命的不断加速对日常生活时间从根本上进行了重塑，以至于我们要重新定义现代性的含义。重新定义它不是在批判话语丛林中增加一个更加“时髦”的概念，而毋宁说因为现代性前进的速度不断突破人类生存空间的边界，使得现代历史不断急匆匆踏步向前加速，人们只有不停狂奔才能停留在原地。这种时空节奏创造了一种新的生活体验，理论家们对此产生了复杂的争论。以经济增长和加速为自由解放承诺的现代性诺言被对“世界失控”的无限焦虑所替代。后现代主义话语正是在此时应运而生。人们争先恐后地以后工业社会、后匮乏社会、风险社会、流动社会、网络社会等等概念去界定这种巨大的变化。

The Austrian contemporary sociologist Helga Nowotny pointed out: “Acceleration no longer merely means the speeding up of all social processes. Acceleration also promotes the formation of a temporal norm of universally increased mobility, which is also the result of technological and economic progress in overcoming the barriers of spatiotemporal distance in the transmission of materials, human resources, and information. … Mobility has become the dominant temporal norm in society.” Harvey and Zygmunt Bauman made profound analyses of this issue with “time-space compression” and “liquid modernity” respectively, both arguing that the compression and “disappearance” of space are driven by the acceleration of time. However, because acceleration causes the “shrinking of the present,” time rhythm has become polarized in two directions. For Rosa, one of the important representatives of the fourth generation of the Frankfurt School and a famous contemporary German sociologist, on the one hand, daily life time, life time and historical time have all become ubiquitous “simultaneity” (the instant), to the point where society seems to have entered a state of “frenetic standstill.” On the other hand, the disorder, fragmentation and contingency manifested everywhere by modern time have completely exhausted the utopian imaginative energy and source of meaning of the modernist project itself. Therefore, the continuous acceleration of modernity has not escaped itself into a postmodern condition, but has merely brought modernity to an early completion, reaching a hyper-stage. We have moved from modern society to hypermodern society.

奥地利当代社会学家赫尔嘉 · 诺沃特尼（Helga Nowotny）指出 ：“加速不再仅仅意味着所有社会进程的提速。加速还促进了普遍提高的流动性的时间规范的形成，这种流动性同时也是物资、人力、资源、信息传送过程中要克服时空距离隔阂而产生的技术和经济进步的结果。……流动性已经成为社会上占据支配地位的时间规范。”哈维与齐格蒙特 · 鲍曼（Zygmunt Bauman）分别以“时空压缩”和“流动的现代性”对该问题作出了深刻的解析，二者都认为空间的压缩与“消失”都是由于时间的加速所驱动的。然而由于加速使“现在萎缩”，时间节奏在两个方向上极端化了。在德国当代著名社会学家法兰克福学派第四代的重要代表之一罗萨那里，一方面，日常生活的时间、生命时间以及历史时间都变成了无处不在的“同时性”（瞬间），以至于仿佛社会步入了“疾驰的静止”状态。另一方面现代性时间处处表现的无序化、碎片化、偶然性彻底耗尽了现代性规划本身的乌托邦想象的能量和意义之源。因此，现代性不断的加速并未摆脱自身而进入后现代性境况，而只不过是使现代性提早完成而达到了超级阶段。我们已经从现代性社会进入了超级现代性社会。

The French contemporary philosopher and sociologist Gilles Lipovetsky pointed out that hypermodern society has significantly different characteristics compared with classical modern social forms. “Hypermodern society modernizes modernity itself, rationalizes rationality, and universalizes, privatizes, and intensifies competition.” It is not the postmodern stage prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, but rather an entry into a higher, hypermodern stage; nor is it a replacement or sublation of modernity, but a redefinition of modernity as it has developed into an era of excess, surplus and perfection.

法国当代哲学家、社会学家吉尔 · 利波维茨基（Gilles Lipovetsky）指出超级现代性社会与经典现代性社会形式相比具有显著不同的特点。“超级现代社会将现代性本身现代化，将理性理性化，将竞争普遍化、私有化、白热化。”它并非 20 世纪 80—90 年代盛行的后现代阶段，而是进入到了一个更高级的超级现代性阶段，它也不是对现代性的替代和扬弃，而是对现代性发展到了过度、剩余与完美化时代的重新定义。

The rhythm pattern of hypermodern society is no longer the natural cyclical rhythm of pre-capitalist agricultural society, nor the purely mechanical linear rhythm of industrial capitalist society, but rather the “transformative rupture” of hypermodern society or accelerated society, or the rule of highly urgent abstract time. “Hypermodern society is a society where people’s experience of time increasingly becomes a serious anxiety, a society where ever-increasing time pressure is universalized.” In the final analysis, it means the acceleration of civilization. The urgent domination brought by this accelerated time rhythm is precisely the characteristic of “hypermodernity.” If modernity was constructed by capitalism through the continuous increase of labor time and the critique of this increase, then hypermodernity is an era where people universally feel that time is constantly decreasing. The internal mechanism of this transformation is complex, and its social consequences are so full of uncertainty that people have lost the direction of emancipatory politics, exhausted the meaning of spiritual culture, and even face the destruction of life.

超级现代社会的节奏模式，不再是前资本主义时代农业社会的自然循环节奏，也不再是工业资本主义社会的纯粹机械线性节奏，而是超级现代社会或者加速社会的“变革式的断裂”或者高度紧迫性抽象时间的统治。“超级现代社会就是这样一个人们对时间的体验越来越变成为一种严重忧虑、不断加强的时间压力得到普及的社会。”归根结底来说，它意味着文明的加速。这种加速的时间节奏带来的紧迫性支配统治正是“超级现代性”的特征。如果说现代性是资本主义通过不断增加劳动时间以及对这种增加的批评建构起来的，那么超级现代性则是人们普遍感觉到时间不断减少的时代。发生这种转型的内在机制是复杂的，而其社会后果则是充满不确定性的以至于人们失去了解放政治的方向，耗尽了精神文化的意义，甚至将要面临生命的毁灭。

(1) The Closed Internal Circulation System: The Three-Dimensional Acceleration of Technology, Social Change, and Daily Life Rhythm

（一）封闭性的内循环系统 ：技术、社会变迁与日常生活节奏的三维加速

Contrary to the common view, technological acceleration is not the originating cause of the acceleration of social rhythm. Modernity is drawn into a complex process of acceleration through a multi-dimensional dynamic mechanism. The first dimension is technological acceleration, as proposed by the French urban theorist Paul Virilio; the second dimension is the acceleration of social change, as revealed by the German phenomenologist Hermann Lübbe and the political scientist Matthias Eberling; the third dimension is the acceleration of the rhythm of everyday life, as grasped by the sociologist Georg Simmel and the everyday-life critical theorist Henri Lefebvre. These three dimensions are not isolated, fragmented pieces but a whole with internal connections. Technological acceleration, the acceleration of the pace of life, and the acceleration of social change form a closed inner loop, a self-driving system that fundamentally transforms our forms of practical life, social structure, and modes of communication and interaction.

与一般的观点相反，科技加速并非社会节奏加速的肇始原因。现代性如何卷入复杂的加速过程当中有着多重维度的动力机制。第一个维度是法国都市理论家维利里奥提出的技术加速 ；第二个维度是德国现象学家赫尔曼 · 吕伯（Hermann Lübbe）与政治学家马提亚斯 · 艾柏林（Matthias Eberling）揭示的社会变迁的加速 ；第三个维度是社会学家格奥尔格 · 齐美尔（Georg Simmel）以及日常生活批判理论家列斐伏尔所把握的日常生活节奏的加速。这三重维度并非孤立分离的碎片，而是一个具有内在关联的整体。科技加速、生活步调加速与社会变迁加速形成了一个封闭的内循环、自我驱动的系统，根本改变了我们的生活实践形式、社会结构与沟通交流模式。

First, the acceleration of technology means a technological leap from pre-modern societies of walking and horse-drawn carriages, through the industrial transport revolution, to the information-transmission revolution and today’s artificial-intelligence revolution. Yet the acceleration of technology is expressed not only in Virilio’s sense of the increased speed of movement of people, goods, information, and military weaponry, but also in the acceleration of the speed of social reproduction. The constant shortening of necessary labor time in capitalist society is a direct means for capital to gain competitive advantage and extract surplus value and surplus profit. Besides speeding up the pace of labor production, this must also be ultimately realized in the cycles of exchange and consumption; the bourgeoisie ceaselessly shortens the turnover time of capital circulation. This effort to reduce turnover time must be achieved through the continuous acceleration of innovation in production methods, in science and technology, and in organizational management. This innovation has already overflowed the economic sphere and penetrated into everyday life. In the hypermodern society, the logic of the acceleration of time is directly embodied at the core of modernity’s mode of distribution; success is defined as being faster, stronger, more efficient at work, and more competitive for resources. Therefore, Virilio’s “dromological” [10]10 From the Greek *dromos* (race, course); Virilio’s “dromology” is the study of speed as a fundamental category of social and political power. revolution is first and foremost a revolution in the speed of production, a revolution that has crossed over into the “digital revolution” and “intelligent revolution” of the twenty-first century today.

第一，技术的加速意味着社会从前现代社会的徒步行走、马车行走到工业运输革命再到信息传输革命以及今天的人工智能革命的技术跃迁。然而技术的加速不仅表现为维利里奥所谓的人员、货物、信息和军事上的武器运输速度加快，而且包括社会再生产速度的加快。资本主义社会必要劳动时间的不断缩短是资本获得竞争优势榨取剩余价值与超额利润的直接手段，除了加快劳动生产速度，还需要在交换与消费循环当中得到最终实现，资产阶级会不停地缩短资本流通周转的时间。这种减少周转时间的努力必须通过不断加速生产方式的创新、科技创新、组织管理创新来实现。这种创新已经溢出了经济领域而渗透到了日常生活当中。在超级现代社会，时间的加速逻辑直接体现在现代性的分配模式的核心位置，成功被定义为更快、更强、更有工作效率和竞争资源。因此，维利里奥提出的“竞速学”革命首先也是生产速度的革命，这场革命跨向了 21 世纪今天的“数字革命”与“智能革命”。

Second, the acceleration of social change refers not only to the reorganization of work processes within ever-shorter time spans, but also to the fact that practical activities, respectively in the functional, value, and behavioral domains, define a certain time period as a “shrinking of the present”; consequently, attitudes and values, fashions and lifestyles, social relations and class groupings, social environments and habitual forms are all changing at a continuously increasing rate. The main cultural logic of Western modernity is the pursuit of the sum and depth of experiences of material abundance, desire satisfaction, wealth, fame, ambition, and so on. Within the brief span of a human life, the world offers far more than we can experience; world time and life time come into contradiction. Therefore, the acceleration of the pace of life naturally becomes a strategy for resolving the desiring-machine.

第二，社会变化加速不仅仅指工作流程在越来越短的时间内得到重组，而且是指实践活动分别在功能领域、价值领域和行为领域将某个时间阶段确定为“现在的萎缩”，那么态度与价值、时尚和生活方式、社会关系与阶级团体、社会环境与惯习的形式都在以持续增加的速率发生改变。西方现代性的主要文化逻辑就是追求生活富裕、欲望满足、财富、名望、抱负等的体验的总和与深度。在人的短暂的生命时间当中，世界所提供的东西远远比我们能够体验到的要多，世界时间与生命时间产生了矛盾。因此，生活节奏的加速自然就成为解决欲望机器的策略。

Third, the acceleration of the pace of life is expressed in both objective and subjective aspects: the objective aspect refers to the shortening or compression of behavioral events — for example, the increase in the number or density of everyday activities such as eating, sleeping, walking, recreation, and family gatherings per unit of time. The subjective aspect refers to the intensifying sense of time scarcity, time pressure, and the oppressive feeling of acceleration that causes anxiety. This is in fact the modern predicament that Heidegger posed for humans as “those who are mortal” in the face of the infinite world.

第三，生活节奏的加速体现为主观和客观两个方面：客观方面指行为事件的缩短或者紧凑，例如吃饭、睡眠、散步、娱乐、家庭聚会等日常生活的单位时间数量或者密度的增加。主观方面是指不断增强的时间匮乏感、时间压力以及令人感到紧张的加速压迫感。这其实也是海德格尔提出的作为“终有一死者”的人类在面对无限的世界之时面临的现代性困境。

(2) The continuously accelerating social rhythm has a huge and complex impact on human everyday life and the spiritual world.

（二）不断加速的社会节奏对人类日常生活以及精神世界产生了巨大的复杂影响

The continuously accelerating pace of life, together with the ever-accelerating application of science and technology in intelligent urban spaces, leads to a constant weakening of the individual’s inner capacity to resist risk. “Speed replaces interpersonal relations, efficiency replaces quality of life, frenzy replaces leisurely enjoyment.” Because we worship presentism, “this excessive rhythm is implemented in many fields; this rhythm dominates the corporate life chain under global competition and the oligarchic politics of financial logic. Forever pursuing more short-term benefits, doing the most in the least time, working without interruption. Therefore, this competitive race makes urgency superior to importance, immediate action superior to reflection, the partial superior to the whole. It also creates an atmosphere of dramatized, persistent fatigue and a series of psychosomatic disorders.” For example, the growing sense of physical and mental exhaustion, the intensification of obsessive-compulsive disorders, depression, anxiety, and the widespread existence of suicidal attempts are the negative manifestations of the subjective psychological experience of humans in this accelerated society. At the same time, fields such as organic food, physical health care, hygiene and epidemic prevention, leisure consumption, spiritual therapy, psychological treatment, and emotional-game education are rapidly proliferating and growing, becoming emerging “private customization” service sectors. They push the consumer society of which Lefebvre and Baudrillard spoke into a hyper-consumer society; what people crave is no longer material commodities, nor even symbolic sign-values, but the re-commodification of life itself, psychological security, emotional memory, cultural heritage, and identity. “It is both the misfortune of existence and the pleasure of change, a desire to constantly intensify and re-intensify everyday life; it is this desire that sustains the gradual escalation of protective consumerism. This is perhaps the basic desire of the hypermodern consumer: to reawaken one’s own experience of time, to relive that temporal experience as if it were an adventure. Hyper-consumption should be thought of as an infinite repetition of the therapy of emotional youth.”

不断加速的生活节奏，以及不断提速的科学技术在城市智能化空间的运用，导致了个体内在抵御风险的力量不断减弱。“速度替代了人际关系，效率替代了生活质量，狂热替代了悠闲享受。”由于我们崇尚现在至上主义，“许多领域都在实行这种过度节奏，这种节奏支配着全球化竞争和金融逻辑寡头政治下的企业生活链。永远追求短期的更多效益，用最少的时间做最多的事，不间断地工作。因此，这种竞争竞赛使得紧迫性优于重要性，立即行动优于思考，局部优于整体。它还会制造一出戏剧化的、持久疲倦的和一连串身心混乱症的气氛。”例如，人们日益感觉到身心疲倦、强迫症加剧、抑郁、焦虑与自杀企图的大量存在就是这种加速社会的人类主观心理体验的消极性表现。与此同时，从有机食品、身体保健、卫生防疫、休闲消费到精神疗法、心理治疗以及情感游戏教育等领域迅速繁殖增长，成为新兴的“私人订制”服务领域。它们促使列斐伏尔与鲍德里亚所言的消费社会进入超级消费社会，人们奢求的不再是物质商品，也不再是象征的符号价值，而是对于生命本身、心理安全、情感记忆、文化遗产、身份认同的重新商品化。“它既是生存的不幸，也是变化的愉悦，是不断强化再强化日常生活的欲望，正是这种欲望支撑着保护消费主义的逐步升级。这或许就是超级现代消费者的基本欲望 ：重新唤起自己的时间体验，像体验奇遇那样来重温这种时间体验。应该把超级消费作为一种无限重复的感情青春疗法来思考。”

(3) The end of sleep accelerates the destruction of human life.

（三）睡眠的终结加速了人类生命的毁灭

Today, sleep is no longer a natural biological and physiological experience of human beings; it has become a variable function manipulated by capitalism, performing a dual function of instrumental rationality and physiology. Marx already elaborated in detail in *Capital* on the oppression of the worker’s body and spirit by the capitalist application of machinery. The machine in the hands of capital breaks the temporal and moral limits of day and night in work, and the limits of the natural rhythm of the worker’s body: “It encroaches upon the time required for the growth, development, and maintenance of health. It robs the worker of the time needed to breathe fresh air and be exposed to sunlight. It cuts into meal times, incorporating eating time into the production process itself as much as possible,” causing “the unlimited extension of the working day, which threatens the life sources of society.” Regarding the causes and consequences of the deprivation and disruption of people’s sleep, the contemporary American art historian Jonathan Crary puts forward the most radical view:

如今睡眠不再是人类生物生理的自然经验，它变成了一种被资本主义操控的可变的功能，发挥着工具理性和生理性的双重功能。马克思在《资本论》中已经详细地阐明了机器的资本主义应用对工人身体和精神的压迫，资本手中的机器打破了工作的白天黑夜的时间限制和道德限制、工人身体自然节奏的限制，“它侵占人体的成长、发育和维持健康所需要的时间。它掠夺工人呼吸新鲜空气和接触阳光所需要的时间。它克扣吃饭时间，尽量把吃饭时间并入生产过程本身”，造成了“工作日的无限度的延长，使社会的生命根源受到威胁”。针对人们的睡眠被剥夺和破坏的原因以及后果，美国当代著名艺术史家乔纳森 · 克拉里（Jonathan Crary）提出了最为激进的观点 ：

A row of searchlights suddenly flares up in the middle of the night, but never again goes out, fixed into an eternal state. The planet is reimagined as a never-stopping workplace or a never-closing shopping mall, with an endless supply of commodities for you to pick and choose, giving you the illusion of a temporary deviation. In the sleepless state, production, consumption, and waste never pause for a moment, accelerating the consumption of life and the depletion of resources.

一排探照灯突然在半夜亮起，但从此不再熄灭，被定格成了一种永恒的状态。这个星球被重新想象成了一个永不停歇的工作场所或一个永不打烊的购物商场，里面有无穷无尽的商品供你精挑细选，给你暂时的偏离的幻觉。在无眠的状态里，生产、消费和废弃没有片刻停歇，加速了生命的消耗和资源的枯竭。

Crary’s theory of 24/7 late capitalism explains to us how the timelessness of increasingly accelerated consumption — its rhythms, speeds, and patterns — shapes human experience and perception. The disappearance of modern sleep and the acceleration of the rhythm of daily life are simultaneous manifestations of the birth of capitalist modernity. Capitalist enterprises, thoroughly transformed by network information technology and smart technology, have also brought about a more flexible, capillary mode of control. People’s domestic spaces are occupied by various wireless networks and smart electronic products, so that time for rest in the bedroom and in bed is completely devoured. The light of electronic screens and the information pushed by various platforms bombard the brain’s nerves, so that the nervous system, exhausted all day, remains in a state of high excitement; the biological clock is disrupted, and insomnia follows. The fact that falling asleep requires buying globally popular sleeping pills is clear proof. “Hundreds of millions of people take drugs to combat depression, mania, ADHD, or perhaps other diseases; more and more people’s nervous systems are being molded into roughly the same shape.” In Crary’s view, sleep is the everyday surplus that cannot be conquered; what concerns him is not “the end of capital” but “the end of the human.” Because the human biological clock is a rhythm and pattern by which life itself resists external risks and diseases; if the biological clock is disrupted, it will inevitably bring about insomnia, fatigue, depression, low immune function, and even various diseases. “Capital has become a ‘runaway behemoth’ that not only murders the body, time, the city, and social wealth,” “murders human creative capacity,” “but also murders the very foundation that nurtures humanity: nature.” The movement, change, and becoming that are the essence of life are replaced by the simulated, false spectacles created by capital; the acceleration of capital’s rhythm brings about the destruction of life as a whole.

克拉里以 24/7 式的晚期资本主义理论为我们解释了无时间性日益加速强化的消费的节奏、速度与模式是如何塑造人类经验与感知的。现代睡眠的消失与日常生活节奏的加速化是资本主义现代性诞生的同时性表征，资本主义企业因为网络信息技术与智能技术的发展而彻底变革，也带来了更加灵活的毛细血管式的控制模式。人们的家庭空间被各种无线网络与智能电子产品占领，使卧室与床上休息的时间被彻底吞噬。电子屏幕的光亮和各种平台推送来的信息对大脑神经狂轰滥炸，以至于疲劳了整天的神经系统始终停留在高度的亢奋状态，生物钟被破坏，失眠症随之而来。入睡必须购买风靡全球的安眠药就是明证。“数十亿人在服用抵抗抑郁症、躁狂症、多动症或许其他疾病的药物，越来越多的人的神经系统被模塑得差不多。”在克拉里看来，睡眠就是日常生活无法征服的剩余物，他更加关心的不是“资本的终结”而是“人类的终结”。因为人体的生物钟是生命本身抵御外在风险和疾病的一种规律和节奏形式，如果生物钟紊乱，那么势必会带来人体的失眠、体乏、抑郁、免疫功能低下甚至各种疾病。“资本变成了‘失控的巨兽’，不仅谋杀身体、时间、城市、社会财富”，“谋杀了人类的创造性的能力”，“而且谋杀了养育人类的根本 ：自然。”生命本质的运动、变化、生成，被资本创造的模拟的虚假景观替代，资本节奏的加速带来的是整个生命的毁灭。

IV. Rhythmic Harmony and Coexistence: The Possible Future of a Decelerated Civilization

四、节奏的和合共生：减速文明的可能性未来

In summary, rhythmanalysis, as a new domain of social critical theory, first deepens and develops Marxist theory. It not only possesses the critical spirit of Marx’s social theory but also exhibits the characteristics of an existential phenomenology of time. At the same time, taking the change in the political structure of time as its core horizon, it critically analyzes from the perspective of everyday life the new contradictions and forms of alienation emerging in hypermodern capitalist society. Yet this alienation manifests itself through the seemingly purely natural law of “time,” forming an abstract “time fetishism.” “Acceleration” theory focuses on criticizing the alienation of the temporal dimension, while rhythmanalysis concerns itself with the structural alienation of the entirety of human life-time and space. Thus, contemporary social critical analyses of “acceleration” can be incorporated into the problem-field of rhythmanalysis as a critical theory. Rhythmanalysis attempts to uncover the hidden clues of hypermodern society and, from within those alienated contradictions, to develop our expectations and emancipatory ideals for new social forms. The continuous acceleration of social rhythm brings not only the destruction of nature, the overloading of bodily vitality, and the disorderly state of society, but also unfair temporal competition, distribution, and the moral-ethical predicament of injustice. In short, social acceleration does not lead people into the infinite growth and sharing of productive forces or the equalization of relations of production; the promise of a good life in modernity has not been fulfilled. Instead, it has destroyed the promise of human reflexivity and autonomy that has existed since the Enlightenment. The emancipatory potential of acceleration has been exhausted, turning into a new force of enslavement.

综上所述，节奏分析作为一种社会批判理论的新论域，它首先是对马克思主义理论的发展深化，不仅具有马克思社会理论的批判精神，而且亦表现出存在论时间现象学之特征。同时它以时间的政治结构变化为核心视域，从日常生活角度批判分析资本主义超级现代社会出现的新的矛盾与异化状况。但是这种异化却以“时间”这种看似纯粹自然的法则表现出来，形成了抽象的“时间拜物教”。“加速”理论侧重于批判时间维度的异化，而节奏分析关心人类生命时间与空间的整体性结构异化，于是可以将当代有关“加速”的社会批判分析纳入节奏分析的批判理论问题域中。节奏分析试图揭示超级现代社会的隐秘线索，并从那种异化矛盾中发展出我们对新的社会形式的期待与解放理想。社会节奏的不断加速带来的不仅是自然的毁灭、身体生命力的超载以及社会的无序化状态，而且也带来了不公平的时间竞争、分配以及非正义的道德伦理困境。简而言之，社会加速并非将人们带入生产力的无限增长、共享以及生产关系的平等化，现代性美好生活的承诺并未兑现，反而破坏了启蒙以来人类自身的反思性与自主性承诺。加速解放的潜能已经耗尽，变成了一种新的奴役的力量。

In the hypermodern stage of society, it seems that no country can escape the collective frenzy for speed; this frenzied notion of acceleration has almost become a “totalitarian force” in modern society. First, the frenzied demand for acceleration not only “disembeds” people from their immediate, local spaces but also distorts and alienates the relationship between the human self and the world. In Virilio’s words, human beings have changed from beings of presence to beings of non-present “telepresence”; the closeness of social relations has become disconnected from the proximity of geographical space, so that people have lost their local identity. Second, the automated process of acceleration has caused us to lose cultural knowledge and practical knowledge. Bernard Stiegler even claims in exaggerated terms that generalized automation has led to massive unemployment and the devaluation of the human brain, thus producing systematic stupidity. All work knowledge, life knowledge, and theoretical knowledge have been transformed into the automated operation of machines without subject participation in decision-making, giving rise to an even more severe identity crisis. Third, the acceleration of social rhythm causes human experience itself to detach from the life course and become instantaneous; human memory is also constantly extracted from concrete living environments, becoming momentary short-term memory, and thus leading to self-alienation.

在超级现代社会阶段，貌似没有一个国家能够逃脱对速度的集体狂热，这种狂热的加速观念几乎变成了一种现代社会的“集权主义式的力量”。第一，狂热的加速需求不仅使得人从切身性、地方性的空间当中“脱嵌”，而且造成人类自我与世界的关系扭曲异化。按照维利里奥的说法，人类本身由在场性存在变成了非在场性的“远程在场”，社会关系的亲近性与地理空间的邻近性之间脱节了，以至于人们丧失了地方性的身份认同感。第二，加速的自动化进程使得我们已经丧失了文化知识和实践知识。贝尔纳 · 斯蒂格勒（Bernard Stiegler）甚至以夸张的言辞声称 ：普遍的自动化导致了大量的失业以及人类大脑的去价值化，于是产生了系统化愚蠢（systematic stupidity）。一切的工作知识、生活知识与理论知识都被转变成没有主体参与决策的机器的自动化运转，发生了更加严重的身份危机。第三，社会节奏的加速导致人类本身的体验脱离生命历程变成瞬时性的，人类的记忆也从具体生存环境中不断抽离，变成瞬间短暂记忆，进而导致自我异化。

Faced with the various alienating consequences of temporal acceleration, accelerationism is, to some extent, the theoretical expression of the dynamic of hypermodernity. The strategy it proposes is questionable: its proponents believe that only by continuously liberating and accelerating the productive potential of science and technology can capitalism be transcended. They presuppose that the future of the acceleration process is benign and orderly — this is a new variant of technological determinism. Accelerationism does not think from the perspective of a revolutionary replacement of the structure of capitalist relations of production: what matters is no longer developing more and faster productive forces, but seeking social relations that ensure the fair sharing of the fruits of productive forces.

面对时间加速带来的诸种异化后果，加速主义（Accelerationism)某种程度上正是超级现代性动力的理论表征，前者提出的策略是令人怀疑的，他们认为只有不断地解放并促进科学技术的生产潜力的加速，才能超越资本主义。他们预设了加速过程的未来是良性有序的，这是一种技术决定论的新变体。加速主义并没有从资本主义生产关系结构的革命替代视角进行思考：重要的不再是发展更多更快的生产力，而是要寻求生产力成果的公平共享的社会关系。

In other words, what is needed is not acceleration but deceleration. Some believe that the strategy of slowing down is both pitiable and impossible. That is because their understanding of “deceleration” is narrow. “Deceleration” is relative; it is not a return to a primitive past, nor is it making society stagnate. Because every reasonably balanced social machine needs a well-functioning “braking device,” and human life has its natural rhythmic limits; once social speed exceeds these limits, serious consequences result. So-called “deceleration” aims to achieve the harmonious synchronization of science and technology, social institutions, and the rhythm of life. Thus, “deceleration” is ultimately offset by continuous acceleration; acceleration relativizes and balances itself through “deceleration.”

换言之，不是要加速，而是要减速。有人认为放慢速度的策略实际上是可悲的，也是不可能的。那是因为他们对“减速”的理解是狭隘的。“减速”是相对而言的，它不是回到原始的过去，也不是让社会停滞不前。因为所有合理平衡的社会机器都需要一个运转良好的“刹车装置”，而且人类生命存在都有其自然的节律极限，社会速度一旦超越了这种极限就会造成严重后果。所谓“减速”是为了实现科学技术、社会制度以及生活节奏的和谐同步化。于是“减速”最终被持续的加速所抵消，加速通过“减速”而使自己相对化平衡化。

Does doing so mean completely abandoning the linear, mechanical rhythm of modernity and returning to the cyclical rhythm of pre-modern agricultural society? The answer is no. In fact, in Lefebvre’s view, the eternal, repetitive, cyclical rhythm of everyday life can never be replaced by the linear process of historical progress, just as the qualitative, self-differentiating character of life cannot be completely dissolved into mere quantity, just as use value cannot be replaced by exchange value, and just as the “thing” cannot be replaced by pure “relations.” There are multiple relationships of both conflict and coordination between natural rhythm and social rhythm. Everyday life is the interweaving of the rhythms of the human body, cosmic time and space, culture, and society. Human beings are essentially the harmonious unity of the rhythm of everyday life and the rhythm of nature. Humans and their bodies must merge with the cyclical rhythm of the natural world, using the return of natural rhythm to resist the monotonous rhythm of society — that is, to break the opposition between the cyclical rhythm of the life-world and the repetitive rhythm of the mechanical world, and to construct an ideal social form of rhythmic harmony and coexistence. That is, to attempt to find a new balance between mechanized, homogenized linear time and the contingent nature of “life’s impermanence.” In other words, it not only aims to restore natural rhythm, but also does not completely discard linearity; rather, it seeks to break human routines and fixed patterns, establishing a new complementary relationship between the habitualization and coherence of everyday life on the one hand, and change and rupture on the other. This new complementary relationship “can liberate people from all mechanical necessity and rigid regularity, freeing people from the shackles of enclosed passivity.”

这样做是否是彻底摒弃现代性的线性机器节奏而重新回到前现代的农业社会的循环节奏呢？答案是否定的。事实上，在列斐伏尔看来，日常生活自在的永恒的重复循环节奏永远不可能被历史进步的线性过程所取代，正像生活的自在差异的质不可能完全被消解为单纯的量，亦如使用价值不可能被交换价值所取代、“物”不可能被纯粹的“关系”所取代一样。自然节奏与社会节奏之间具有既冲突又协调的多重关系，日常生活就是人体、宇宙时空、文化、社会的节奏的交错，人本质上是日常生活节奏与自然节奏的和谐一致。人及其身体是要和自然世界的循环节奏融为一体的，是用自然节奏的轮回来反抗社会的单调节奏，即打破生命世界的轮回节奏与机械世界的重复节奏之间的对立，建构一种节奏和合共生的理想社会形态。即试图努力在机械化的、均质化的线性时间与自然的“生命无常”这一意外性质之间寻求新的平衡。换言之，它不仅要恢复自然节律，同时也不是全盘抛弃线性，而是要打破人类的例行常规，打破固定不变的模式，在日常生活的习惯化、连贯性与变化性、断裂性之间确立一种崭新的互补关系。这种崭新的互补关系“可以从一切机械性的必然性、僵硬的规则性中解放人，将人从被封闭的被动性的枷锁中解放出来”。

This perspective can also find resonance in the wisdom of traditional Chinese philosophy. For example, the “Commentary on the Words of the Text” to the *Qian* Hexagram of the *Book of Changes* states: “The great man is one who unites his virtue with Heaven and Earth, his brightness with the Sun and Moon, his order with the four seasons, and his good and ill fortune with the spirits. He precedes Heaven, and Heaven does not oppose him; he follows Heaven, and he serves the timing of Heaven.” [14]14 The *Book of Changes* (*Zhou Yi*), one of the oldest Chinese classics, is a divination and philosophical text. The “Commentary on the Words of the Text” (*Wenyan*) is a traditional commentary on the hexagrams. Another saying goes: “Heaven and Earth were born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.” [15]15 This is a famous saying from the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi (c. 4th century BCE), expressing the idea of the unity of all things.

这种观点在中国传统哲学智慧中亦能够找到共鸣之处，例如，《周易 · 乾卦 · 文言》中所述“大人者与天地合其德，与日月合其明，与四时合其序，与鬼神合凶吉，先天而天弗违，后天而奉天时”“天地与我并生，而万物与我为一”等。

Unlike the above aesthetic future path, within the scientific horizon of Marx’s historical dialectics, the time of capital accumulation in capitalist society dominates life-time and steals the labor time of others. There is an irresolvable internal contradiction between socially necessary labor time and surplus labor time. Capital itself “strives to reduce labor time to a minimum, while on the other hand it posits labor time as the sole measure and source of wealth.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). Capital inevitably contains that tendency: on the one hand, it creates “disposable time,” and on the other, it turns this disposable time into surplus labor. The insurmountable spatio-temporal limits inherent in capital lead to an internal historical negation of capitalist society. This is Marx’s immanent critique of capitalist society: the growing, irresolvable contradiction between the potential of developed productive forces and the existing social form. Only when the value form of this private ownership of capital is exploded will “the measure of wealth no longer be labor time, but rather disposable time.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*. Once social relations are liberated, people will possess more free time. Science and technology, freed from the “capitalist system of application,” will promote the universal development of social combination and social intercourse. Human life-time will thus truly become the space for human development. Human society will realize the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. People will freely associate and share the means of subsistence and spiritual wealth, achieving the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, and thereby realizing the free and all-round development of each individual. This necessarily represents a new form of human civilization. (Notes omitted)

与以上具有审美特性的未来出路不同，在马克思历史辩证法的科学视域中，资本主义社会资本积累的时间统治着生命时间并盗窃他人的劳动时间，在社会必要劳动时间与剩余劳动时间之间有着无法解决的内在矛盾，资本本身“竭力把劳动时间缩减到最低限度，另一方面又使劳动时间成为财富的唯一尺度和源泉”，资本必然存在着那种趋势 ：即一方面创造“可以自由支配的时间”，一方面又把这些自由支配时间变为剩余劳动。资本内在不可克服的时间—空间界限引向了对资本社会内在的历史否定，这是马克思对资本社会的内在批判，发达的生产力潜能与其现存社会形式之间不断增长着无法解决的矛盾。只有炸毁这个资本私有制的价值形式的时候，“那时，财富的尺度决不再是劳动时间，而是可以自由支配的时间。”在社会关系获得解放后，人们将拥有更多的自由时间，摆脱“资本主义应用体系”的科学技术促进了社会结合与社会交往普遍发展，人类的生命时间由此真正成为人类的发展的空间。人类社会实现从必然王国向自由王国的飞跃，人们自由联合起来并共享生活资料与精神财富，实现人与自然的和谐共生，从而实现每个人的自由而全面的发展，这必然代表着一种人类文明新形态。（注释略）

(The author is a lecturer at the School of Marxism, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology.)

（作者系南京信息工程大学马克思主义学院讲师）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑