“The Scar of Democracy”: Critical Theory’s Critical Response to the New Right

As early as 1997, the renowned German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf predicted that the 21st century might become the century of authoritarianism. He recognized that “the stagnation or even decline in the income of low- and middle-income earners has made it impossible to achieve the widely anticipated real income growth over many years, while the income of high-income earners, and even the top 10% of earners, has increased substantially.” This outcome has led to the exclusion of a large number of people, including “an increasingly fragile middle class,” from society, “unable to enter the labor market, unable to participate in related social activities (such as supermarket shopping, attending football matches, etc.), and unable to participate in political activities.”

早在1997年，德国著名社会学家拉尔夫·达伦多夫就曾预测21世纪可能成为威权主义的世纪。他意识到，“中低收入者的收入停滞、甚至下降已经无法实现多年来被广泛期待的实际收入增长，与此同时，高收入者、甚至收入排名前10%的人的收入却在大幅增长”，这一结果导致了包括“日益脆弱的中产阶级”在内的大量人群被排斥在社会之外，“无法进入劳动力市场，无法参与相关的社会活动（例如超市购物、足球场观赛等），也无法参与政治活动”。

Dahrendorf’s prediction from over 20 years ago now appears to be coming true in the contemporary Western world. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed the rise of new-right populist parties in Europe, and this phenomenon is not limited to Europe but has now spread globally. Their electoral successes and growing influence indicate that this is by no means a transient phenomenon. To more clearly explore this phenomenon and its challenge to the global political order, it is necessary to delve into the basic questions of the origins, dynamics, and appeal of the contemporary New Right. By analyzing the history and propositions of the New Right, this article argues that the critical theory of the Frankfurt School can provide important intellectual resources for answering these fundamental questions.

伦多夫在20多年前的这一预测在当今西方世界似乎正在应验。在过去的20多年里，我们见证了新右翼民粹主义政党在欧洲的崛起，而且这种现象并非仅限于欧洲，现已蔓延到全球，其在选举中的成功和日益增长的影响力表明，这绝非一时现象。为了更清晰地探讨这一现象及其对全球政治秩序的挑战，有必要深入了解当代新右翼的起源、动力和吸引力等基本问题。通过分析新右翼的历史和主张，本文认为，法兰克福学派的批判理论在回答这些基本问题方面能够提供重要的思想资源。

I. The Historical Evolution and Propositions of the New Right in the United States and Europe

一、美欧新右翼的历史演变及其主张

The term “New Right” was initially primarily used to describe a strand of extreme conservative forces that split off from social conservatives in Western countries. Depending on the moderation or radicalism of their ideological propositions, the New Right encompasses a range of views from non-radical to far-right. The 2008 economic recession was one of the key turning points for the emergence of the New Right as a global phenomenon. Thereafter, the New Right rose rapidly, demonstrating vigorous momentum on the political stage in Europe, the United States, and parts of the Global South. Given space constraints, this article primarily analyzes the evolution of the New Right in European and American countries.

“新右翼”最初主要用于描述西方国家从社会保守派中分化出来的一股极端保守势力。根据其思想主张的温和与激进程度，新右翼涵盖了从非激进到极右翼的一系列观点。2008年的经济衰退是新右翼作为全球现象出现的关键转折点之一。此后，新右翼迅速崛起，在欧美以及部分全球南方国家的政治舞台上展现出蓬勃发展的势头。鉴于篇幅限制，本文主要分析欧美国家新右翼的演变。

(I) The Origins, Evolution, and Propositions of the American New Right

（一）美国新右翼的缘起、演变和主张

In the United States, the New Right is also defined as “a grassroots coalition of American conservatives,” and its currents and movements can be traced back to 1964, with its main forces coming from the Republican Party. At that time, Republican Barry Goldwater, known as “Mr. Conservative” in the United States, declared during his presidential campaign that big government posed the greatest threat to American freedom, that government regulations restricted economic growth and individual freedom, and that social spending and welfare should be cut to reduce the tax burden on individuals and families. Goldwater’s campaign marked the revival of the right-wing conservative movement in the United States.

在美国，新右翼也被定义为“美国保守派的草根联盟”，其思潮和运动可以追溯到1964年，主要势力来自共和党。当时，被称为美国的“保守派先生”的共和党人巴里·戈德华特在竞选总统期间宣称，大政府对美国自由构成了最大威胁，政府法规限制了经济增长和个人自由的发展，应削减社会支出和福利，减轻个人和家庭的税收负担。戈德华特的竞选活动标志着美国右翼保守主义运动的复苏。

From the 1960s to the 1970s, as the fragmentation of American society intensified, the New Right movement gradually expanded, taking on a distinctly populist character and shared demographic traits, including white, middle-class, Protestant, and suburban residents who were frustrated by the perceived decline in moral standards in American society, and it was often closely associated with the religious right. Their concerns encompassed a range of controversial social issues, such as abortion, drug abuse, public displays of sexuality, rising crime rates, racial riots, the civil rights movement, and anti-Vietnam War protests. New Right conservatives attributed these problems to liberalism, arguing that liberalism had fostered mismanagement and corruption in the federal government.

1960—1970年代，随着美国社会的撕裂不断加剧，新右翼运动逐渐扩大，开始具有明显的民粹主义色彩和共同的人口特征，包括对美国社会的道德水准下降感到沮丧的白人、中产阶级、新教徒和郊区居民，并且通常与宗教右派密切相关。他们的关注点涵盖了一些争议性社会问题，比如堕胎、药物滥用、公开的性行为、犯罪率上升、种族骚乱、民权运动和反越战抗议。新右翼保守派将这些问题归咎于自由主义，认为正是自由主义助长了联邦政府的管理不善和腐败。

In 1968, the policies implemented after Richard Nixon was elected U.S. president continued to drive the development of the New Right movement, giving it three characteristics: its supporters were mainly concentrated in the southern or midwestern regions of the United States; its core members, driven by firm convictions, were willing to confront the leadership within the Republican Party; and in promoting the conservative movement, it emphasized strategic planning, established a broad network of grassroots organizations, and created coordination mechanisms among different New Right groups. The Christian right was an important component of the New Right movement during this period. It criticized the liberal media for corrupting American youth, accused the courts of excluding religion from public schools, and supported private Christian colleges and homeschooling as alternatives. Recognizing the potential of mass media, it also established Christian broadcasting networks to disseminate its information and ideas. Like most movements, the New Right movement also contained extremist elements, such as racial hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.

1968年，理查德·尼克松当选美国总统后推行的政策继续推动了新右翼运动的发展，并使其呈现出三个特征：其支持者主要分布在美国南部或中西部地区；其中坚力量出于坚定的信念而不惜与共和党内的领导层对抗；在推动保守主义运动时注重战略策划，建立了广泛的基层网络组织，并在不同的新右翼组织之间建立了协调机制。基督教右翼是这一时期新右翼运动的重要组成部分。它批评自由派媒体对美国青年的腐蚀，指责法院将宗教排除在公立学校之外，支持以私立基督教学院和家庭教育作为替代方案。由于认识到大众传媒的潜力，它还成立了基督教广播网络来传播其信息和理念。像大多数运动一样，新右翼运动中也存在极端主义因素，如三K党和美国纳粹党等种族仇恨团体。

In the late 1980s, the American New Right developed into a new phase. During this period, the New Right leaned toward economic liberalism, advocated interventionism in foreign policy, became more conservative on religious principles, and gradually became one of the most influential factions within the Republican Party. The election of Republican Ronald Reagan as U.S. president played a significant role in the direction of the New Right during this period. Reagan accepted donations from the New Right and gained its support during his campaign. In his inaugural address, he declared: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” However, after taking office, Reagan shifted his emphasis on economic issues to redirecting government to serve new goals; in foreign policy, he advocated “peace through strength” and used Latin America as a stage to showcase America’s new policies.

1980年代后期，美国新右翼发展到一个新阶段。这一时期的新右翼在经济上偏向自由主义，在外交上倡导干涉主义，在宗教原则上更加保守，并逐渐成为共和党内最具影响力的派别之一。而共和党人罗纳德·里根当选总统对这一时期新右翼的走向起到了重要作用。里根接受了新右翼的捐款，并在竞选过程中获得了其支持。他在就职演说中曾经宣称：“政府不是解决问题的办法，政府本身就是问题所在。”然而在当选后，里根在经济议题上转而强调重新引导政府服务于新的目标；在外交政策上主张“通过实力实现和平”，并以拉丁美洲作为展示美国新政策的舞台。

After the end of the Cold War, the New Right further evolved against the backdrop of dual changes in domestic and international circumstances, exhibiting characteristics different from those of the Cold War era. In the history of modern conservatism, the most fundamental concept is known as “fusionism,” namely the alliance of social conservatism, economic liberalism, and foreign interventionism, which were united in the second half of the 20th century by a common hostility to communism. However, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the alliance of these three ideas began to lose its meaning. Particularly during the presidency of George W. Bush, the disaster brought about by the Iraq War called into question the interventionist foreign policy within “fusionism.” Subsequently, the advent of the global financial crisis and economic recession further shook economic liberals and their free-market doctrines. The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president marked the formal abandonment of economic liberalism and internationalism. While continuing to cater to a portion of the social conservatives within the old alliance, Trump unhesitatingly shattered the conservative doctrines of free trade and international relations.

冷战结束后，新右翼在国内外形势双重变迁的背景下进一步演变，呈现出与冷战时期不同的特征。在现代保守主义的历史中，最基本的理念被称为“融合主义”，即社会保守主义、经济自由主义和对外干涉主义的联盟，三者在20世纪下半叶因对共产主义的共同敌意而团结在一起。然而，随着柏林墙倒塌和苏联解体，这三种理念的联盟开始失去意义。特别是在乔治·W.布什执政期间，伊拉克战争带来的灾难使“融合主义”中的对外干涉理念遭到质疑。随后，全球金融危机和经济衰退的来临进一步动摇了经济自由主义者及其自由市场教义。而唐纳德·特朗普当选美国总统，标志着经济自由主义和国际主义遭到正式抛弃，在继续迎合旧联盟中的一部分社会保守派人士的同时，特朗普毫不犹豫地击破了自由贸易和国际关系的保守教义。

After experiencing the Iraq War and the global financial crisis, the current American New Right forces have undergone a transformation in their economic ideas and foreign policy, but they still adhere to a conservative stance, primarily focusing on various issues that lead to social division. Specifically, in terms of economic ideas, the New Right explicitly supports government economic intervention in tariffs and industrial policy, arguing that such intervention can revitalize the heartland and ensure the dignity of the working class; in social policy, the New Right places the family in the primary position and advocates for a full-scale fight against the influence of “Wokeness” in school boards, state legislatures, corporate boardrooms, and university campuses; in the fields of science, education, and culture, the New Right distrusts capitalism, is skeptical of technology companies, believes that America’s corporate class has subverted American culture and betrayed the American people, and advocates for regulating large technology companies such as Twitter and Amazon through state power until these companies fully accept the principle of free speech; on immigration issues, the New Right advocates building a border wall, completely blocking illegal immigration, reducing the entry of foreign workers into the United States, and protecting domestic jobs and wage levels; in foreign policy, the New Right moves toward realism, emphasizing “America First,” arguing that the geopolitics of the past 30 years have been a disaster, believing that America’s wars abroad are the product of liberal internationalism, which itself is the evil consequence of the dominant liberal ideology at home—an ideology that poses a dual threat to the American people and the nation.

在经历了伊拉克战争和全球金融危机后，当前美国的新右翼力量在经济理念和对外政策上发生了转变，但依然坚持保守主义立场，主要关注各种导致社会分裂的议题。具体来讲，在经济理念上，新右翼明确表示支持政府在关税和产业政策方面实施经济干预，认为这种干预能够振兴中心地带并确保工人阶级的尊严；在社会政策上，新右翼将家庭置于首要地位，主张全力对抗“觉醒主义”（Wokeness）在学校董事会、州议会、企业董事会和大学校园内的影响；在科教文化领域，新右翼不信任资本主义，对科技企业持怀疑态度，认为美国的企业阶层颠覆了美国文化，背叛了美国人民，主张通过国家权力机构监管推特、亚马逊等大型科技企业，直到这些企业完全接受言论自由的原则；在移民问题上，新右翼主张修建边境墙，彻底阻挡非法移民，减少外国工人进入美国，保护本国的就业岗位和工资水平；在外交政策上，新右翼走向现实主义，强调“美国优先”，认为过去30年的地缘政治是一场灾难，认为美国在域外发动的战争是自由国际主义的产物，而自由国际主义本身就是国内占主导地位的自由主义意识形态的恶果，这种意识形态是对美国人民和国家的双重威胁。

(II) The Origins, Evolution, and Propositions of the European New Right

（二）欧洲新右翼的缘起、演变和主张

The European New Right originated in the context of the May 1968 protests in France, with the establishment of the “Groupement de recherche et d’étude pour la civilisation européenne” (Research and Study Group for European Civilization) by Alain de Benoist and others. Its core concept is what de Benoist calls “meta-politics.” “Meta-politics” emphasizes conquering the political domain by controlling the discursive fields of philosophy, culture, and identity. Theoretically, the European New Right inherits the legacy of European right-wing thinkers such as Martin Heidegger, Ernst Jünger, Julius Evola, and Carl Schmitt, blending elements of social activism with conservative thought. It also draws on the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, distinguishing between direct political domination and the concept of “hegemony,” which refers to the control a regime exercises over the people by winning their free consent. In action, the European New Right has abandoned fascist modes of behavior such as paramilitary marches, street violence, and direct parliamentary politics, and has rejected the Nazi anti-Semitic racial policies based on pseudoscientific biological theories. After the 2008 global financial crisis and the European debt crisis, the European New Right experienced a new wave of development, characterized by the sudden rise of far-right forces and their breakthroughs in elections across European countries through political parties.

欧洲的新右翼缘起于1968年法国五月风暴背景下由阿兰·德伯努瓦等人成立的“欧洲文明研究学习小组”（Groupement de recherche et d'étude pour la civilisation européenne），其核心理念是德伯努瓦所谓的“元政治”（meta-politics）。“元政治”强调通过控制哲学、文化和身份认同的话语领域来征服政治领域。在理论上，欧洲新右翼继承了马丁·海德格尔、恩斯特·荣格尔、尤利乌斯·埃弗拉、卡尔·施密特等欧洲右翼思想家的遗产，融合了社会行动主义与保守思想家的部分理念，并借鉴了意大利马克思主义者安东尼奥·葛兰西的文化霸权理论，区分了直接政治统治与“霸权”的概念，认为霸权是指政权通过赢得人民的自由同意而对人民施加的控制。在行动上，欧洲新右翼放弃了准军事游行、街头暴力和直接的议会政治等法西斯主义的行为方式，否定了纳粹基于伪科学的生物学理论的反犹太主义种族政策。2008年全球金融危机和欧债危机后，欧洲新右翼迎来了新的发展浪潮，其特点是极右翼势力异军突起，并通过政党在欧洲各国的选举中取得突破。

The theoretical propositions of the European New Right mainly include the following aspects. First, regarding the economy, the European New Right opposes various forms of liberal economics, including free markets, and holds a deep antagonistic relationship with the economic internationalism advocated by Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others. It argues that unregulated free markets ignore or oppose local traditions, religions, communities, nations, and even the natural environment. Unlike the American New Right, the European New Right draws on Marxist cultural theory, emphasizing that the commodification of culture under late capitalism devalues everything, undermines family and solidarity, and widens differences between countries and regions. Second, the European New Right opposes universal values and advocates for the “right to difference.” De Benoist and other European New Right thinkers strongly criticize the human rights ideology that advocates for the equality of all people and downplays cultural and racial differences, claiming that so-called “human rights” are merely “a non-organic, foreign, abstract, and intolerant religion.” They accuse the universalism of postmodern leftism, humanism, and the Christian tradition of symbolizing the “destruction of difference.” To this end, the European New Right proposes the concept of the “right to difference,” opposing the gathering of irreconcilable cultures in a multicultural melting pot. Finally, the European New Right opposes globalization and immigration, is skeptical of the European Union and the dilution of national identity, and advocates for nationalism and identity.

欧洲新右翼的理论主张主要包括以下方面。首先，就经济而言，欧洲新右翼对包括自由市场在内的各种自由主义经济形式持反对态度，与弗里德里希·哈耶克、米尔顿·弗里德曼等人所倡导的经济国际主义存在深刻的敌对关系，认为无监管的自由市场会忽视或对抗当地的传统、宗教、社群、国家甚至自然环境。不同于美国新右翼的是，欧洲新右翼借鉴了马克思主义的文化理论，强调晚期资本主义的文化商品化导致一切贬值，破坏了家庭和团结，加大了各国、各地区之间的差异。其次，欧洲新右翼反对普世价值观，主张“差异权”（right to difference）。德伯努瓦等欧洲新右翼强烈批评主张人人平等、淡化文化和种族差异的人权意识形态，认为所谓的“人权”不过是“非有机的、外来的、抽象的和不容忍的宗教”，指责后现代左翼、人文主义和基督教传统的普世主义象征着“破坏差异”。为此，欧洲新右翼提出了“差异权”的概念，反对将不可调和的文化集结在多元文化的熔炉中。最后，欧洲新右翼反对全球化和移民，对欧盟和民族身份的稀释持怀疑态度，主张民族主义和身份认同。

In recent years, although the influence of the European New Right varies across countries, it has still gained widespread support in elections throughout Europe. Notable examples include: in Central and Eastern Europe, right-wing nationalist parties have made significant progress in countries such as Hungary and Poland. The Fidesz party, led by Viktor Orbán, has repeatedly won Hungarian general elections and has pursued a nationalist agenda while in power, emphasizing national sovereignty and the protection of national culture. In Western Europe, the German right-wing nationalist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the largest opposition party in the Bundestag, and Vox, representing far-right forces in Spain, has become the third-largest force in the Spanish parliament. In Northern Europe, Sweden’s most extreme right-wing party, the Sweden Democrats, jumped to become the second-largest party in parliament last year, and the right-wing nationalist Danish People’s Party has also gained some influence. In Southern Europe, the Northern League (Lega Nord) is Italy’s most well-known right-wing populist political force, playing an important role in Italian politics and forming coalitions with other right-wing parties. Overall, right-wing nationalists have gained political influence in many parts of Europe. In the European Parliament, nine far-right parties have formed a new group called “Identity and Democracy.”

近年来，尽管欧洲新右翼的影响力在不同国家之间存在差异，但仍在欧洲各国的选举中获得了广泛支持。一些显著的例子包括：在中欧和东欧，右翼民族主义政党在匈牙利和波兰等国取得了重大进展，由维克托·欧尔班领导的青年民主主义者联盟（Fidesz）屡次在匈牙利大选中获胜，并在执政期间推行民族主义议程，强调国家主权和保护本国文化；在西欧，德国右翼民族主义政党另类选择党（AfD）成为联邦议院最大的反对党，代表西班牙极右翼势力的呼声党（Vox）成为西班牙议会的第三大力量；在北欧，瑞典最极端的右翼政党瑞典民主党（Sweden Democrats）去年一举跃升为议会第二大党，右翼民族主义政党丹麦人民党（Danish People’s Party）也获得了一定的影响力；在南欧，北方联盟（Lega Nord）是意大利最知名的右翼民粹主义政治力量，在意大利政治中扮演着重要角色，并与其他右翼政党组成联盟。总的来说，右翼民族主义者在欧洲许多地方都取得了政治上的影响力。在欧洲议会中，九个极右翼政党组成了一个名为“认同与民主”（Identity and Democracy）的新集团。

Overall, as a force resisting neoliberalism, the New Right emerged in Europe and the United States in the 1960s. The early European New Right shared some similarities with the American New Right in terms of ideas, such as both emphasizing socially conservative values; however, there were also differences, particularly regarding the role of government in the economy. Subsequently, the New Right in Europe and the United States experienced several waves of development, taking on new characteristics after the 2008 global financial crisis: first, the ideas of the European and American New Right gradually converged; for example, the American New Right gradually abandoned economic liberalism and emphasized promoting economic development through state regulation and industrial policy. Second, far-right forces rose within the New Right, entering the political stage through parties and elections, exerting a significant impact on the domestic and foreign policies of European and American countries. Third, the New Right ideology began to spread globally, influencing other countries, especially Global South nations such as Brazil, India, the Philippines, and South Africa, leading to a political phenomenon of a turn toward the far right in these countries.

总体来看，作为反抗新自由主义的力量，新右翼兴起于1960年代的欧美，早期的欧洲新右翼与美国新右翼在理念有相似之处，如都强调社会保守的价值观；但也存在差异，尤其是对政府在经济领域中扮演的角色看法不同。此后，欧美新右翼经历了几波发展，在2008年全球金融危机后呈现出新的特征：一是欧美新右翼在理念上逐渐趋同，例如，美国新右翼逐渐抛弃了经济自由主义，强调通过国家监管和产业政策促进经济发展；二是极右翼势力在新右翼中崛起，通过政党和选举进入政治舞台，对欧美国家的内政外交产生了重要影响；三是欧美新右翼思潮开始扩散至全球，影响到其他国家，尤其是巴西、印度、菲律宾和南非等全球南方国家，导致这些国家出现了向极右翼转向的政治现象。

II. Intellectual Resources of Early Critical Theory: State Capitalism and the Authoritarian Personality

二、早期批判理论的思想资源：国家资本主义与威权人格

Early critical theory refers to the period from the early 1930s to the late 1960s, when Max Horkheimer, as director of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, promoted the formation and development of critical theory. Besides Horkheimer, its main representatives include Friedrich Pollock, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Löwenthal, Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin, and others. Guided by Horkheimer’s vision of interdisciplinary social-philosophical research, the early critical theorists produced a wealth of theoretical results. Horkheimer’s basic idea was to “carry out a continuous dialectical penetration of philosophical theory and concrete scientific practice” around the relationship between “socioeconomic life, individual psychological development, and changes in the strictly cultural sphere.” [2]2 Max Horkheimer, “The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research,” in *Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings*, trans. G. Frederick Hunter, Matthew S. Kramer, and John Torpey (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), 11. In terms of specific topic selection, influenced by the great historical upheavals of the time, the critical theorists shifted from studying why socialist revolution or liberation movements failed in the West to studying why fascism was able to sweep across Europe. Although the research direction changed, the object of empirical research did not change significantly, still focusing on the working class (including both blue-collar and white-collar workers) in society.

早期批判理论是指马克斯·霍克海默担任法兰克福社会研究所所长之后推动批判理论形成和发展的阶段，大致的时间跨度从1930年代初到1960年代末，主要代表人物除霍克海默外，还包括弗里德里希·波洛克、西奥多·阿多诺、赫伯特·马尔库塞、列奥·洛文塔尔、埃里希·弗洛姆、瓦尔特·本雅明等。以霍克海默跨学科的社会哲学研究设想为指引，早期的批判理论家们产出了丰富的理论成果。霍克海默的基本设想是，围绕“社会经济生活、个体心理发展与严格意义上的文化领域变化之间的关系‘展开’哲学理论和具体科学实践的持续辩证渗透”。在具体议题选择上，受当时历史巨变的影响，批判理论家们从研究社会主义革命或解放运动在西方为何没能成功转向研究法西斯主义为何能够席卷欧洲。尽管研究方向发生了变化，但实证研究的对象并未发生大的改变，仍然集中于社会中的工人群体（包括蓝领和白领）。

As John Abromeit points out, the rise of the contemporary New Right bears similarities to the crisis caused by the development of liberal capitalism in the 1920s–1930s, a crisis then regarded as a “systemic crisis” brought about by neoliberal economic policies. He argues that early critical theory’s research on working-class families and social psychology, as well as its studies of the propaganda strategies of fascist agitators, can be fully applied to analyze the rise of the American New Right (e.g., the Tea Party) and Trump’s electoral victory. Similarly, the German sociologist Ferdinand Sutterlüty explicitly states that early critical theory, through detailed empirical research on the relationship between social structure and social psychology, recognized at a very early stage that Germany was inevitably heading toward the path of fascism. He believes this remains a very important research program, and that the tradition of critical theory can offer many valuable results, especially for understanding the emergence of right-wing populism and extremism. These results include both collective research reports, such as the early *Studies in Authority and the Family* and the five-volume *Studies in Prejudice* (the latter including Adorno et al.’s *The Authoritarian Personality*, Lowenthal et al.’s *Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator*, etc.), which still receive academic attention and discussion today; and individual theoretical reflections, such as Horkheimer’s “Egoism and the Freedom Movement” and “The Jews and Europe,” Franz Neumann’s *Behemoth*, Adorno’s “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda” and *Aspects of the New Right-Wing Extremism*, and Adorno and Horkheimer’s co-authored *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, among others. Combining this with the contemporary academic re-excavation of early critical theory’s empirical research, we can clarify the heuristic significance of its theoretical propositions for analyzing the contemporary New Right from three aspects.

正如约翰·阿布罗梅特所指出的，当代新右翼的兴起与1920—1930年代自由资本主义经济发展造成的危机有相似之处，而当时的危机被认为是新自由主义经济政策带来的“系统性危机”。他认为，早期批判理论对工人阶级家庭和社会心理的研究，以及对法西斯煽动者宣传策略的研究，完全可以用来分析美国新右翼（如茶党）的兴起和特朗普的胜选。同样，德国社会学家费迪南德·苏特吕蒂也明确指出，早期批判理论通过对社会结构与社会心理之间关系的详细实证研究，在很早的时候就已经认识到德国必将通往法西斯主义的道路。他相信这仍然是一个非常重要的研究计划，特别是对于理解右翼民粹主义和极端主义的出现，批判理论的传统可以提供很多有价值的成果。这些成果既有集体的调研报告，如早期的《权威与家庭研究》以及五卷本的《偏见研究》（后者包括阿多诺等人的《威权人格》、洛文塔尔等人的《欺骗的先知：美国煽动者的煽动手段研究》等）至今仍然受到学界的关注与讨论；也有个人的理论反思，如霍克海默的《利己主义与自由运动》和《犹太人与欧洲》、弗朗茨·诺伊曼的《巨兽》、阿多诺的《弗洛伊德的理论与法西斯主义的宣传模式》和《新右翼极端主义的诸方面》、阿多诺和霍克海默合著的《启蒙辩证法》，等等。结合当今学界对早期批判理论实证研究的重新挖掘，可以从三个方面澄清其理论主张对于分析当代新右翼的启发意义。

First, at the level of social integration, early critical theory provides a macro-social explanatory framework for understanding the rise of the far right, viewing it as a product nurtured by the breeding ground of capitalist society. Horkheimer once explicitly stated: “Whoever is not willing to talk about capitalism should also keep quiet about fascism.” In his view, fascism is not the opposite of liberal capitalism but “the truth of modern society,” the manifestation of its latent irrationality after intensification. Adorno, years later, held the same view when analyzing the resurgence of far-right forces in post-war Germany, arguing that the social breeding ground for fascism still existed. This type of view is easily misread as implying that early critical theorists believed fascism was not an essentially different form of political organization but merely a new form serving financial monopoly capitalism. This misunderstood view has been regarded by contemporary commentators as “risky, excessive, and even quite crazy,” because “the market economy was ultimately not devoured by Nazism. Moreover, all successful Western societies after 1945 were more or less influenced by liberalism.” Lowenthal explicitly opposed such an interpretation: “Horkheimer, Fromm, and I never believed or indicated that fascism was merely a new political strategy of monopoly capitalism.” Therefore, a more accurate reading should be: “Advanced capitalist societies produced the socio-economic conditions under which fascism could develop. But when the political institutions of a society organized by capital fell into the hands of fascists, the system acquired a new quality, no longer compatible with the interests of finance capital.” Adorno believed that these socio-economic conditions mainly included the tendency toward capital concentration and the resulting “declassification” (*Deklassierung*) of the bourgeoisie, the threat of technological unemployment, and the diminished status of nation-states after joining global super-blocs.

首先，在社会整合层面，早期批判理论提供了理解极右翼兴起的宏观社会解释框架，其兴起被视为资本主义社会温床孕育的结果。霍克海默曾明确指出：“不愿意谈论资本主义的人，也应该对法西斯主义保持沉默。”在他看来，法西斯主义并非自由资本主义的对立面，而是“现代社会的真理”，是其潜在的非理性激化后的表现。阿多诺在多年之后分析战后德国极右翼势力再度崛起时也持有同样的观点，并认为培育法西斯主义的社会温床仍然存在。这类观点容易被误读为早期的批判理论家们主张法西斯主义并不是本质上不同的政治组织形式，而只是为金融垄断资本主义服务的新形式。他们这种被误解的观点被当代评论者视为“冒险的、过度的，甚至可以说是相当疯狂的”，因为“市场经济最终并没有被纳粹主义吞噬。而且所有成功的西方社会在1945年之后都或多或少地受到自由主义的影响”。对于这种解读，洛文塔尔曾明确表示反对：“霍克海默、弗洛姆和我从来没有相信或表明法西斯主义仅仅是垄断资本主义的一种新的政治策略。”因此，更为准确的解读应该是：“发达的资本主义社会产生了法西斯主义可以发展的社会经济条件。但当由资本组织起来的社会的政治机构落入法西斯主义者手中时，该体系就具有了一种新的性质，不再与金融资本的利益相容。”阿多诺认为，这种经济社会条件主要包括资本的集中趋势及其所造成的资产阶级的“降级”（Deklassierung）、技术性的失业威胁、民族国家加入世界超级集团后的地位降低。

Second, at the level of individual socialization, early critical theory provides a micro-level explanatory path for the rise of the far right. Influenced by Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, especially Wilhelm Reich’s concept of the “sadomasochistic character” and his arguments on the relationship between the family and fascism—namely, that the family is the primary cell of authoritarianism—early critical theorists believed that the family plays an important role in individual socialization within socio-historical change and acts as a social adhesive. The first collective research achievement of the Frankfurt School’s base, the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, *Studies in Authority and the Family*, was guided by this idea. This study argued that the patriarchal structure of the family is itself both a product of the social authoritarian system and an important institution for maintaining its existence; the patriarchal family cultivates individuals with what Adorno called the “authoritarian personality” trait. The authoritarian personality is a summary of a series of behavioral traits and value preferences, including a preference for the powerful, hostility toward minority groups and out-groups used as scapegoats, rigid traditional beliefs, and advocacy for severe punishment of those who do not comply with these norms, among others. During World War II, the Institute for Social Research, exiled in the United States, also organized extensive interviews with American workers (later published as *The Authoritarian Personality*), which empirically verified this view again. Based on empirical research, early critical theory argued that there was a danger of fascism in American society in the 1940s. Adorno provided a relatively detailed summary of these findings, pointing out that “the instinctual pattern of fascism and the entire technique of the fascist agitator are authoritarian.”

其次，在个体的社会化层面，早期批判理论提供了极右翼兴起的微观解释路径。受西格蒙德·弗洛伊德精神分析学说的影响，特别是受威尔海姆·赖希的“施虐受虐性格”（sadomasochistic character）概念以及他关于家庭与法西斯主义之间关系的论述——即家庭是威权主义的主要细胞——的影响，早期批判理论家们认为，家庭在社会历史变迁中具有重要的个体教化功能，并起到了社会粘合剂的作用。法兰克福学派大本营法兰克福社会研究所的第一项集体研究成果《权威与家庭研究》就是以此理念为指导的产物。该项研究认为，家庭的家长式结构本身既是社会威权体系的产物，同时也是维持其存在的重要机构，家长式家庭会培育出阿多诺所说的具有“威权人格”特征的个体。威权人格是对一系列行为特质和价值偏好的概述，包括对强权者的偏好，对被作为替罪羊的少数群体和外部群体的敌意，以及僵化的传统信念，并主张对不遵守这些规范的个体进行严厉的惩罚，等等。二战期间流亡美国的法兰克福社会研究所还组织了对美国工人的大量访谈（后以《威权人格》为书名出版），使这种观点再次得到了经验验证。基于实证研究，早期批判理论认为，1940年代的美国社会中存在法西斯主义的危险。对于这些成果，阿多诺曾做了较为详细的概述，指出“法西斯主义的本能模式和整个法西斯煽动者的技术都是威权主义的”。

Unlike Gustave Le Bon’s *The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind* on mass psychology, early critical theorists, especially Horkheimer and Adorno, did not adopt an essentialist stance. They believed that the authoritarian personality is neither innate nor an inevitable product of group aggregation, but rather a product of the historical conditions of contemporary capitalist society. Therefore, their critique was not directed at individuals or specific groups, but at social structures. In their view, even if democratic institutions exist in capitalist societies that prevent the formation of the authoritarian personality, as long as the basic social structure remains capitalist, this personality type will continue to breed and spread. After the Institute for Social Research returned to Germany in the post-war period, its members conducted a study in the winter of 1950–1951 aimed at exploring Germans’ attitudes toward the collapse of Nazism and the Allied occupation. They called this study the “Group Experiment.” As with their earlier empirical research in the United States, they collected a large amount of interview data, with recorded content totaling nearly 6,400 pages. The study found that “anti-democratic” attitudes, a lack of guilt, and an unwillingness to take responsibility were still widespread. In a qualitative analysis report titled “Guilt and Defense,” Adorno pessimistically concluded that the authoritarian system had penetrated deeply into individual psychology through sociological, technological, and economic developmental trends, and still persisted. Today, this micro-level explanatory path from the perspective of individual socialization offered by early critical theory remains heuristically significant for the academic dissection of New Right movements from the angle of the authoritarian personality.

不同于古斯塔夫·勒庞的《乌合之众》对大众心理的论述，早期批判理论家们、尤其是霍克海默和阿多诺并未采取本质主义的态度，他们认为威权人格并非与生俱来，也不是群体聚集后的必然产物，而是当代资本主义社会历史条件的产物。因此，他们的批判并不针对个人或特定群体，而是指向社会结构。在他们看来，资本主义社会中即使存在着防止威权人格形成的民主制度，但只要基本的社会结构仍然是资本主义，这种人格类型就会不断滋生和蔓延。在战后法兰克福社会研究所回迁德国之后，该机构的成员于1950年至1951年冬季进行了一项研究，旨在探究德国人对纳粹的覆灭和盟军占领的态度。他们将这项研究称为“群体实验”。与之前在美国的实证研究一样，他们收集了大量的访谈数据，记录的内容近6400页。研究发现，“反民主”的态度、缺乏内疚感以及不愿承担责任的现象仍然普遍存在。阿多诺在题为《罪恶与防御》的定性分析报告中悲观地认为，威权主义体制通过社会学、技术和经济发展趋势深入到个体的心理之中，并且至今仍然存在。今天，早期批判理论的这种从个体社会化角度提出的微观解释路径，对于学界从威权人格的角度解剖新右翼运动仍然具有启发意义。

Finally, in the study of far-right propaganda strategies, early critical theory, combining research on social psychology and mass culture, pointed out that such propaganda “aims to win people’s support by exploiting their subconscious mechanisms, rather than by presenting ideas and arguments.” Adorno, in an article titled “Anti-Semitism and Fascist Propaganda,” summarized the Frankfurt School’s research findings on propaganda strategies. From a psychological perspective, the characteristics of fascist propaganda include: personalized propaganda, meaning that the content of propaganda is not primarily directed at the development of objective events but focuses on the relationship between the agitator and the audience; substituting propaganda means for propaganda goals, constantly repeating the greatness of the movement itself without addressing the movement’s specific objectives or the organization’s concrete role; propaganda itself becoming a mechanism for wish-fulfillment, where the public’s desire for voyeurism is both encouraged and satisfied by the “revelations” of propaganda. In Adorno’s view, “cynical soberness” may be more in line with the fascist mentality; “if it is to be called irrational, then it is more like applied irrationality, a psychological technique of calculated effects similar to those evident in today’s mass culture, such as in films and radio programs.”

最后，在对极右翼宣传策略的研究方面，早期批判理论结合对社会心理和大众文化的研究指出，这些宣传“旨在通过利用人们的潜意识机制，而不是通过提出思想和论据，来赢得他们的支持”。阿多诺在一篇题为《反犹主义和法西斯主义宣传》的文章中总结了法兰克福学派在宣传策略方面的研究成果。从心理学的视角来看，法西斯主义宣传的特征有：个人化宣传，即宣传内容主要不是针对客观事态的发展，而是注重煽动者个人与听众；用宣传手段替代宣传目标，不断重复运动本身的伟大，却不涉及运动的具体目标或组织的具体作用；宣传本身成为达成心愿的机制，大众对窥探的渴望在宣传的“揭秘”中既被鼓励又被满足。在阿多诺看来，“愤世嫉俗的清醒”（cynical soberness）可能更符合法西斯主义心态，“如果要称之为非理性，那么它更像是应用性的非理性，一种类似于当今大众文化中明显存在的计算效果的心理技术，比如电影和广播节目”。

Adorno emphasized that the agitator does not intend to convey any new ideas or emotions to the audience but seeks to establish a harmonious emotional resonance. Drawing on analyses of radio advertising sales and rituals, he pointed out that the establishment of this harmonious emotion relies on: (1) the stereotypical nature of propaganda materials, “not only does each speaker repeat the same pattern over and over again, but different speakers also use the same clichés. Most importantly, of course, is the dichotomy of black and white, friend and foe. This stereotypical nature applies not only to political ideas such as slanders against Jews, condemnations of communism or bank capital, but also to things and attitudes that seem very distant.” (2) Creating an impression of a widely recognized ritual repeatedly performed by some “community” through religious language and religious forms. (3) Worshipping something inherent, such as an existing culture or custom. (4) Attacking nonexistent things through insinuation.

阿多诺强调，煽动者并非想要传达给观众任何新的思想或情感，而是试图建立一种和谐的情感共鸣。借助于对电台广告销售以及对仪式的分析，他指出这种和谐情感的建立依赖于：（1）宣传材料的刻板性，“不仅每位演讲者一遍又一遍地重复相同的模式，而且不同的演讲者也使用相同的陈词滥调。当然，最重要的是黑与白、敌与友的二分法。这种刻板性不仅适用于对犹太人的诽谤、对共产主义或银行资本的谴责等政治观念，也适用于看似非常遥远的事物和态度”。（2）通过宗教语言和宗教形式营造一种被广泛认可的、由某种“共同体”反复执行的仪式印象。（3）崇拜某种固有的东西，如某种现存的文化或风俗习惯。（4）以含沙射影的方式攻击子虚乌有的事情。

These views of early critical theory were later endorsed by many other theorists. For example, Dahrendorf, when evaluating the characteristics of populism, once summarized: “Populism is simple, democracy is complex.” This concise summary is clearly a borrowing of the ritualistic features of propaganda that Adorno elaborated. Contemporary populism researchers such as Jan-Werner Müller, Bernd Stegemann, and Philip Manow also basically agree with Adorno’s claims. Müller points out that, besides opposing establishment elites, the core claim of right-wing populists is an either-or moral demand, namely: “Only populists represent the true people; all other so-called citizen representatives are, in some sense, illegitimate.”

早期批判理论的这些观点后来也得到了很多其他理论家的认同。例如，达伦多夫曾在评价民粹主义的特征时总结道：“民粹主义很简单，民主很复杂。”这句简明扼要的概括显然是对阿多诺所阐述的宣传所具有的仪式特征的借用。扬·维尔纳·米勒（Jan Werner Müller）、贝恩德·斯特格曼（Bernd Stegemann）和菲利普·马诺（Philip Manow）等当今民粹主义的研究者们也基本认同阿多诺的主张。米勒就指出，除了反对建制派精英，右翼民粹主义者最为核心的主张是一种非此即彼的道德要求，即：“只有民粹主义者才代表真正的人民，所有其他所谓的公民代表在某种程度上都是非法的。”

In summary, the extensive and profound research of early critical theorists on the social institutional level, individual psychological level, and propaganda strategy level of the origins of the far right has provided intellectual resources for contemporary research on the New Right, helping to analyze the rise and spread of the contemporary New Right and to understand its nature and dangers. At the social level, the rise of the New Right is related to the contemporary capitalist system, especially the basic framework of neoliberalism; at the individual psychological level, the authoritarian personality still existing in Western democratic societies provides nourishment for the rise of the New Right; in terms of propaganda methods, propaganda that substitutes means for ends aims to satisfy the subconscious authoritarian character demands of the masses, a phenomenon that still exists widely. Therefore, as Adorno argued back then, one of the propaganda strategies to counter the New Right today remains to expose its falsity and be vigilant against its potentially self-destructive consequences.

总之，早期批判理论家在极右翼起源的社会制度层面、个体心理层面以及宣传策略方面的大量精深研究，为当代新右翼研究提供了思想资源，有助于分析当代新右翼的崛起与蔓延，认识新右翼的本质与危害。在社会层面，新右翼的兴起与当代资本主义制度、尤其是新自由主义的基本架构相关；在个体心理层面，西方民主社会中仍然存在的威权人格为新右翼的崛起提供了养料；在宣传手段方面，用手段代替目的的宣传旨在满足大众的潜意识威权性格要求，这种现象仍然广泛存在。因此，就如阿多诺当年所主张的，当今对抗新右翼的宣传策略之一依然是揭露其虚假性，警惕其可能导致的自我毁灭后果。

III. Intellectual Resources of Contemporary Critical Theory: Systemic Crisis and Solutions Beyond the Nation-State

三、当代批判理论的思想资源:系统性危机与超民族国家的解决方案

Some conclusions and propositions of early critical theory based on the historical context of the 1930s–1940s may not necessarily apply to explaining the New Right trends that have emerged since the 1960s. A new generation of critical theorists, such as Jürgen Habermas and Claus Offe, have provided important supplementary explanations in this regard, and their macro-social theories can partially respond to the challenges of the contemporary New Right. As early as the 1970s, Habermas noted that Western high-welfare capitalism still faced a “legitimation crisis,” which he elaborated in detail in his 1973 book *Legitimation Crisis*. Subsequently, he revised and refined his basic analytical approach in his classic work *The Theory of Communicative Action*. In several articles published recently, he still adheres to his early basic theoretical propositions and attempts to provide a theoretical response to the development of the contemporary New Right. Habermas’s analytical approach has long dominated the interpretive paradigm of contemporary critical theorists, influencing figures such as Axel Honneth, Rainer Forst, Nancy Fraser, and Stefan Lessenich. The basic idea of this interpretation is to view the development of New Right trends as a crisis of contemporary capitalist democratic politics, and then to see this crisis as a product of the development of inherent contradictions within the capitalist system. Therefore, the emergence and development of the New Right is not entirely the antithesis of capitalist democracy; rather, borrowing Adorno’s classic expression, it can be seen as a “scar of democracy” (Narbe der Demokratie).

早期批判理论基于1930—1940年代的历史背景得出的一些结论与主张，不一定适用于解释1960年代以来出现的新右翼思潮。于尔根·哈贝马斯和克劳斯·奥菲等新一代批判理论家在此方面提供了重要的补充性解释，其宏观的社会理论也能够部分回应当代新右翼的挑战。早在1970年代，哈贝马斯就关注到西方高福利的资本主义仍然存在“合法化危机”，并在1973年出版的《合法化危机》一书中对此进行了详细论述。随后，他又在其经典著作《交往行为理论》中对其基本的分析思路进行了修正和完善。在最近发表的几篇文章中，他仍然坚持早年的基本理论主张，并试图对当代新右翼的发展做出理论回应。哈贝马斯的分析思路长期主导了当代批判理论家的解读范式，阿克塞尔·霍耐特、莱纳·弗斯特、南茜·弗雷泽、斯特凡·莱塞尼希等人都受到了哈贝马斯的影响。这种解读的基本思路是把新右翼思潮的发展视为当代资本主义民主政治的危机，然后再把这种危机视为资本主义制度中内在矛盾发展的产物。因此，新右翼的出现与发展并非完全是资本主义民主制的对立物，而是可以借用阿多诺的经典表述，视其为“民主的伤疤”（Narbender Demokratie）。

First, Habermas continues the totalizing analytical perspective of early critical theory. Although he opposes the concept of totality proposed by early critical theory based on the philosophy of consciousness, he still insists on viewing the capitalist crisis from a totalizing perspective at the level of social theory. In this perspective, the crisis of capitalism is not merely a product of the internal logic of the economic sphere, such as the falling rate of profit, but the result of conflicts between the economic system as a subsystem and other social subsystems. In Habermas’s view, post-war high-welfare capitalist countries in Europe and America successfully coped with capitalist economic crises through state intervention and assumed additional crisis management functions. As Fraser points out, although Habermas’s optimistic judgment has been negated by subsequent historical development, his main argument still holds: although the inherent economic crisis of capitalism has been temporarily overcome, the inherent contradictions of capitalism have not been resolved but have been transferred to the political sphere. Habermas distinguishes between different forms of crisis presented at the “output” and “input” ends of the political system. On the one hand, the political system needs to “input” as much mass loyalty as possible; when the legitimate political system “fails to fulfill the control requirements imposed by the economic system and cannot maintain the required level of mass loyalty,” a “legitimation crisis” (Legitimationskrise) arises as an input crisis. On the other hand, when the administrative system “cannot fulfill the control commands received from the economic system and make them compatible,” a “rationality crisis” (Rationalitätskrise) arises as an output crisis. The legitimation crisis can arise in two ways: one is that the rationality crisis of the administrative system may “transform into the withdrawal of legitimacy through the dysfunction of state institutions,” thus becoming a legitimation crisis; the other is that state intervention may shake citizens’ existing identity, for example, by questioning the structure of the depoliticized public sphere and the formal democratic system that guarantees the private ownership of the means of production.

首先，哈贝马斯延续了早期批判理论的总体性分析视角。他虽然反对早期批判理论以意识哲学为基础提出的总体性概念，但是在社会理论层面仍然坚持从总体性的视角看待资本主义危机。在该视角中，资本主义的危机并非仅仅是经济领域内在逻辑如资本利润率下降的产物，而是作为子系统的经济系统与社会其他子系统产生冲突的结果。在哈贝马斯看来，战后的欧美高福利资本主义国家通过国家干预的方式成功地应对了资本主义经济危机，并承担了额外的危机管理职能。正如弗雷泽所指出的，尽管哈贝马斯的这种乐观判断已经被后来的历史发展所否定，但是他的主要论点依然成立，即虽然资本主义固有的经济危机得到了暂时的克服，但是资本主义固有的矛盾并未被解决，而是转移到了政治领域。哈贝马斯区分了政治系统“输出”端与“输入”端所呈现的不同危机形式。一方面，政治系统需要“输入”尽可能多的大众忠诚，当合法的政治系统“未能满足经济系统所承担的控制要求，无法维持所需的大众忠诚水平”时，就会产生作为输入危机的“合法化危机”（Legitimationskrise）；另一方面，当行政系统“无法满足从经济系统中接受到的控制命令并使之相兼容”时，就会产生作为输出危机的“合理性危机”（Rationalitätskrise）。合法化危机的产生有两种情况，一种是行政系统的合理性危机可能会通过“国家机构的紊乱转化为合法性撤销”，即成为合法化危机；另一种可能是国家的干预行为使得公民对已有的身份认同产生动摇，例如质疑去政治化的公共领域结构以及保障生产资料私人占有的形式民主制度。

Secondly, in the crisis theory of late capitalism, the rise and spread of New Right populism can be seen as a sign of a legitimation crisis in late capitalism. Habermas’s crisis theory can explain the New Right phenomenon in capitalist welfare states from two perspectives: one from the angle of a rationality crisis leading to a legitimation crisis, and the other from the angle of the state continuously “colonizing” the socio-cultural sphere in order to resolve the legitimation crisis. In the former explanatory framework, the New Right can be seen as a popular response to the state’s inability to cope with the various commands of the economic system, resulting in disorder; in the latter explanatory framework, the New Right can be seen as a conservative response to a shaken cultural identity. From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, Western societies experienced a comprehensive legitimation crisis, and the latter explanatory framework can explain this phenomenon. As Fraser said, what threatens the regime is not an economic crisis but a political crisis; not distributional conflicts but boundary struggles over the institutional structure of capitalist society. To escape the crisis, Western welfare states did not move toward socialism as left-wing scholars of the time had hoped, but instead implemented a finance-led globalization process to free the economy from the “political cage,” thereby changing the structural relationship and power balance between the market and the political-administrative system in Western welfare states. However, the development of global financial markets and global capital flows did not produce the so-called “trickle-down effect”; instead, it further exacerbated economic inequality within and between states. The rapid development of the contemporary New Right can be seen as a defensive reaction to the rationality crisis of the political-administrative system, and thus its rise can also be explained from the perspective of a rationality crisis leading to a legitimation crisis.

其次，在晚期资本主义的危机理论中，新右翼民粹主义的崛起与蔓延可以被视作晚期资本主义出现合法化危机的迹象。哈贝马斯的危机理论可以从两个方面解释资本主义福利国家出现的新右翼现象，一种是从合理性危机造成合法化危机的角度，另一种是从国家为了解决合法化危机不断“殖民”社会文化领域的角度。在前一种解释框架中，新右翼可以被视为民众对国家无法应付经济系统的各种命令而陷入紊乱的回应；在后一种解释框架中，新右翼可以被视为对被动摇的文化认同的保守性回应。1960年代末到1970年代初，西方社会经历了全面的合法化危机，后一种解释框架可以解释这一现象。就如弗雷泽所说，威胁政权的不是经济危机，而是政治危机；不是分配冲突，而是关于资本主义社会制度结构的边界斗争。为了摆脱危机，西方福利国家并未如当时左翼学者所期盼的那样走向社会主义，而是为了使经济摆脱“政治牢笼”推行金融主导的全球化过程，进而改变了西方福利国家市场与政治行政系统之间的结构关系和权力平衡。然而，全球金融市场和全球资本流动的发展并未产生所谓的“涓滴效应”，反而使得国家内部以及国家间的经济不平等进一步加剧。当代新右翼的快速发展可以被视作对政治行政系统合理性危机的一种防御性反应，因此也就可以从合理性危机造成合法化危机的角度去解释它的兴起。

Some scholars, using Habermas’s crisis theory, view the rapid development of the New Right after 2008 as the result of the superimposition of long-term structural factors and systemic shock factors. Long-term structural factors refer to “the globalization of capital, trade, and finance,” which represent the long-term structural transformation between the state and the market since the 1980s, namely the weakening of the welfare state’s control over economic life, while the systemic shock factor is the sudden outbreak of the financial crisis. “The current legitimation crisis can be seen as a perfect storm, where long-term structural transformations and short-term shocks superimpose, causing the political order of Western welfare states to lose legitimacy.” Habermas has emphasized this view in several recent articles, arguing that the rise of right-wing populism is a defensive reaction to today’s political impotence. In a 2018 speech that won the “German-French Journalists’ Prize” (Deutsch-Französischen Journalistenpreis), he clearly stated that the anti-immigrant prejudice and fear of modernization held by the middle class supporting right-wing populism are not the root cause but merely symptoms of the disease. Regarding the European Union, he argued that the root cause lies in the EU’s current lack of the necessary political power to curb the growing trend of social inequality within and between its member states. Therefore, the fundamental reason for political regression is people’s obvious disappointment with the political power of the EU. In an interview published in the first issue of the journal *Leviathan* in 2020, Habermas reiterated his view and explicitly opposed the cultural struggle explanatory path represented by German sociologist Andreas Reckwitz. Habermas believes that contemporary cultural conservatism and right-wing movements are essentially defensive reactions to disappointment with real politics. This disappointment is directed at the phenomenon where “consideration of repeatedly invoked international competitiveness limits the scope of public budgets, thereby restricting the state’s capacity for action.”

有学者运用哈贝马斯的危机理论，将2008年后新右翼的快速发展视为长期结构性因素与系统性冲击因素相互叠加的结果。长期结构性因素是指“资本、贸易和金融的全球化”，它们代表了1980年代以来国家与市场之间的长期结构性转变，即福利国家对经济生活控制力的削弱，而系统性冲击因素是突然爆发的金融危机，“目前的合法化危机可以被视为一场完美风暴，其中长期结构性转变与短期冲击相互叠加，导致西方福利国家的政治秩序失去了合法性”。哈贝马斯在最近的多篇文章中强调了这一观点，他认为右翼民粹主义的兴起是对当今政治无能的一种防御性反应。在2018年的一篇获得“德法新闻工作者奖”（Deutsch-Französischen Journalisten preis）的演讲中，他明确指出，支持右翼民粹主义的中产阶级所持有的反移民偏见以及他们对现代化的恐惧并非病根，而只不过是疾病的症状。就欧盟而言，他认为病根在于欧盟目前缺乏必要的政治力量来遏制其成员国内部以及成员国之间日益扩大的社会不平等趋势。因此，政治倒退的根本原因是人们对欧盟的政治力量明显感到失望。在《利维坦》杂志2020年第1期发表的一篇访谈中，哈贝马斯再次重申了自己的观点，并明确反对以德国社会学家安德雷亚斯·莱克维茨（Andreas Reckwitz）为代表的文化斗争解释路径。哈贝马斯认为，当代的文化保守主义以及右翼运动其实就是对现实政治失望的防御性反应，这种失望情绪所针对的是这样一种现象：“对反复呼吁的国际竞争力的考虑限制了公共预算的范围，从而限制了国家的行动能力。”

Finally, regarding how to respond to the development of the contemporary New Right, Habermas particularly emphasizes supranational solutions. Regarding the current methods of dealing with the New Right within European countries, he directly points out that these methods have been heading in the wrong direction from the start. Unlike politicians who cautiously treat right-wing forces, he advocates for fierce confrontation with right-wing populists, arguing that the correct anti-New Right strategy should be “dethematization” (Dethematisierung), rather than overemphasizing their demands and bargaining with them, as this only increases their visibility. To achieve dethematization, political debate must be pulled back to real issues. The most core and urgent political issue today is: “How can we regain political power to counter the destructive forces of unleashed capitalist globalization?” This question should become the theme of political debate concerning the current phenomenon of “democratic polarization.”

最后，在如何应对当代新右翼的发展时，哈贝马斯尤其强调超民族国家的解决方案。针对欧洲各国国内目前处理新右翼的方式，他直截了当地指出，这些方式从一开始就走错了方向。与政客们小心翼翼地对待右翼势力不同，他主张与右翼民粹主义者进行激烈的对抗，认为正确的反新右翼战略应该是“去主题化”（Dethematisierung），而不是过于重视他们的诉求并与之讨价还价，因为这只会增强他们的关注度。为了去主题化，就必须把政治论争重新拉回到真正的议题上。而当今最为核心和紧迫的政治议题是：“我们如何重新获得政治权力，以对抗释放出来的资本主义全球化的破坏性力量？”这个问题应当成为针对当今“民主两极分化”现象的政治争论的主题。

Habermas’s position in this debate is very clear: he advocates for further strengthening political power within the EU to counter the power of capital, thereby reshaping today’s unequal power structure. He states: “As a rational alternative, I see the only feasible option as supranational cooperation, which can both address the current state of barbaric financial market capitalism and escape the problem of ‘nationalism’ or left-wing nationalism returning to the already hollowed-out nation-state. The goal of supranational cooperation is to pursue a socially acceptable political shaping of economic globalization.” Although he is extremely dissatisfied with the current political opportunism practiced by most politicians, Habermas remains optimistic. Because he believes that, on the one hand, according to the latest research findings from the research group led by Jürgen Gerhards, there is not only a widespread European identity among EU member states but also a high level of support for EU policies on cross-border redistribution of wealth; on the other hand, normatively speaking, there is no reasonable alternative to the constitutional principles of Europe, nor does there appear to be a stable form of “illiberal democracy” that can be compatible with the functional requirements of modern society in the long term.

哈贝马斯在这一争论中的立场非常明确，他主张在欧盟内部继续加强政治力量，以对抗资本力量，进而重塑当今不对等的权力结构。他指出：“作为一个理性的替代方案，我认为唯一可行的选择是超国家合作，这既可以解决野蛮的金融市场资本主义的现状，也可以摆脱‘民族主义’或左翼民族主义回归到已经空洞化的民族国家的问题。而超国家合作的目标是追求对经济全球化进行社会可接受的政治塑造。”虽然对当前多数政客奉行政治投机主义的做法极为不满，但是哈贝马斯还是抱有乐观态度。因为他认为，一方面，根据以于尔根·格哈茨（Jürgen Gerhards）为首的研究小组的最新研究成果来看，在欧盟成员国中，不仅存在广泛的欧洲认同感，而且还存在着对跨国界重新分配财富的欧盟政策的高度支持态度；另一方面，在规范方面并不存在针对欧洲宪法原则的合理替代选项，也看不出有一种能够与现代社会功能要求长期兼容的、稳定的‘非自由主义民主’形式。

In summary, contemporary critical theorists represented by Habermas have partially inherited the theoretical achievements of early critical theorists in studying Nazism. They believe that the rise and development of the New Right should not be simply attributed to socio-psychological or socio-cultural struggles; at the macro level, it is a symptom of the systemic crisis of Western capitalism. Unlike early critical theory, which emphasized democratic education and aimed to expose the falsity of fascist propaganda, Habermas clearly points out that the way to confront the New Right is to shift the battlefield, moving the focus of political debate to whether to re-engage in political intervention in capitalism dominated by neoliberalism.

综上所述，以哈贝马斯为代表的当代批判理论家们部分继承了早期批判理论家研究纳粹主义的理论成果。他们认为，不应将新右翼的崛起和发展简单地归因于社会心理或社会文化的抗争，在宏观层面，它是西方资本主义系统性危机的症候。与早期批判理论强调民主教育并致力于戳破法西斯主义宣传的虚假性不同，哈贝马斯明确指出，与新右翼对抗的方式是转移战场，把政治争论的焦点转移到是否对新自由主义主导的资本主义重新进行政治干预上。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

In the nearly century-long history of the development of Frankfurt School critical theory, far-right ideologies and their organizations have always been one of its main objects of focus. Critical theory, by critically analyzing the social, political, and cultural phenomena of capitalism, provides us with a theoretical framework and method for deeply analyzing the rise and development of the far right. Although due to changes in the times, some specific ideas and conclusions of critical theory may no longer be directly applicable, the tradition of critical theory can still offer some valuable directions for thought in principle. When facing the challenge of the New Right, critical theory emphasizes that the danger of the New Right lies not only in its direct opposition to Western democracy but in that it always breeds within the Western democratic system itself. Therefore, opposing the New Right requires delving into the level of reflecting on the inherent contradictions of Western democratic politics. Critical theory emphasizes the need to deeply analyze the mechanisms of inequality, exploitation, and the exclusion of minority groups and immigrants within the capitalist system, while paying attention to values such as social justice, equality, and pluralism, and responding to the challenge of the New Right by promoting social change and democratic participation. Regarding the above viewpoints, we must critically absorb and transform them to respond to the changes in the international political landscape triggered by the rise of the Western New Right.

在法兰克福学派批判理论近百年的发展史中，极右翼思潮及其组织一直是其关注的主要对象之一。批判理论通过批判地分析资本主义的社会、政治和文化现象，为我们提供了深入剖析极右翼兴起与发展的理论框架和方法。虽然因时代变迁，批判理论的一些具体思路和结论可能不再直接适用，然而批判理论的传统仍然可以在原则上提供一些有价值的思考方向。在面对新右翼的挑战时，批判理论强调，新右翼的危险并非仅在于其与西方民主的直接对立，而在于它总是滋生于西方民主制度之中。因此，反对新右翼需要深入到反思西方民主政治的内在矛盾层面。批判理论强调，要深入分析资本主义制度内部的不平等、剥削以及排斥少数群体和移民的机制，同时关注社会正义、平等和多元价值观，通过推动社会变革和民主参与来应对新右翼的挑战。对于上述观点，我们要进行批判性的吸收与转化，以应对西方新右翼兴起后所引发的国际政治格局的变化。

(Authors: Li Li, Department of International Relations, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics; Zhou Aimin, School of Marxism, Tongji University)

（作者：李丽，上海对外经贸大学国际关系学系；周爱民，同济大学马克思主义学院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心