“French Theory” and the Philosophy of the Future: The Construction of a New Philosophical Paradigm

Since the second half of the 20th century, against the intellectual backdrop of the “postmodern turn,” the theoretical innovation of contemporary French philosophy has been uniquely prominent, becoming the vanguard and leader of change in contemporary Western philosophy. It is precisely on the basis of this theoretical innovation and its associated conceptual production that contemporary French philosophy has almost entirely lost the appearance that philosophy once had. The philosophical theories proposed by French philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida do not at all resemble authentic, orthodox philosophy; they look more like historical research, social critique, literary criticism, cultural studies, psychoanalysis, or some theory that cannot be clearly defined. The theoretical pursuit of these French philosophers is no longer a “system of critique” but has become a kind of “critique of systems”; no longer a “grand narrative” woven together by reason, but a “micro-perspective” focused on the tyranny of reason; no longer content with “philosophy of consciousness,” but turning toward “cultural studies.” The fundamental philosophical questions they address have deviated from the intellectual trajectory of traditional metaphysics, and the philosophical methods they employ are mostly borrowed from non-philosophical analytical tools such as linguistics and psychology, to the extent that it is difficult for people to grasp contemporary French philosophy using established philosophical frameworks. Thus, Americans coined the label “French Theory” to specifically refer to the theoretical endeavors of contemporary French philosophy. The term “French Theory” does not originate from French but from English, indicating that “French Theory” is a label imposed by an outsider perspective. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the label “French Theory” precisely reflects a certain developmental character and indeterminacy in contemporary French philosophy.

自20世纪下半叶以来，在“后现代转向”的思想背景下，当代法国哲学的理论创新可谓独领风骚，成为当代西方哲学变革的急先锋和领头羊。正是基于这种理论创新及其相关的概念制造，使得当代法国哲学几乎没有了以往哲学应有的样子。米歇尔·福柯和雅克·德里达等法国哲学家提出的哲学理论完全不像是原味正宗的哲学，更像是历史研究、社会批判、文学批评、文化研究、精神分析，或者是说不清楚的什么理论。这些法国哲学家的理论追求不再是“批判的体系”，而是变成了某种“体系的批判”；不再是理性编织起来的“宏大叙事”，而是专注于理性专横的“微观透视”；不再满足于“意识哲学”，而是转向了“文化研究”。他们所关注的哲学基本问题偏离了传统形而上学的思想轨道，所采用的哲学方法也大多来自语言学和心理学等非哲学的分析工具，以至于人们很难用既有的哲学套路去把握当代法国哲学。于是，美国人发明了“法国理论”（French Theory）这样一个标签，用来特指当代法国哲学的理论所为。“法国理论”这一用词不是来自法语，而是来自英语，说明了“法国理论”是旁观者带来的标签。尽管如此，“法国理论”这个标签的含混性却正好体现了当代法国哲学的某种成长性和不确定性。

As soon as we open Foucault’s published works such as *History of Madness in the Classical Age*, *Discipline and Punish*, and *The History of Sexuality*, we are prompted to question whether they belong to the category of philosophical theory. Faced with Derrida’s highly polemical deconstructionist works, readers also encounter a philosophy that is unrecognizable. If we still try to read the theoretical works of French philosophers such as Gilles Deleuze, François Lyotard, Alain Badiou, Bruno Latour, Jean Baudrillard, Pierre Bourdieu, Julia Kristeva, and others according to the original form of the philosophical discipline, we likewise find it difficult to grasp the philosophical substance within them. The intellectual label “French Theory” that Americans have affixed to contemporary French philosophy actually indicates that an important change has taken place in contemporary French philosophy. So what will the philosophy of the future look like? Although the content to which “French Theory” refers is like a hodgepodge of ideas, the theoretical deformation revealed within it nonetheless heralds a possible form of future philosophy. “French Theory” does not merely announce “the end of philosophy”; it also attempts to put an end to “the end of philosophy,” that is, to construct a new philosophical paradigm for the great transformations of the era. Contemporary French philosophy has transformed itself into various forms such as critical theory, cultural theory, social theory, political theory, discourse theory, and life theory, thereby inaugurating an entirely new philosophical paradigm.

我们只要翻开福柯公开出版的《古典时代疯狂史》《规训与惩罚》《性经验史》等著述，就会对其是否属于哲学理论范畴提出疑问。面对德里达的那些充满火药味的解构主义作品，读者得到的也是面目全非的哲学。如果我们还是按照哲学学科的原有样子去读吉尔·德勒兹、弗朗索瓦·利奥塔、阿兰·巴迪欧、布鲁诺·拉图尔、让·鲍德里亚、皮埃尔·布尔迪厄、朱莉娅·克里斯蒂娃等法国哲学家的理论作品，同样也会感觉到难以把握其中的哲学底蕴。美国人为当代法国哲学贴上“法国理论”的思想标签，其实是在表明当代法国哲学发生了重要的变化。那么未来哲学会是什么样子呢？尽管“法国理论”的指向内容如同一个思想大拼盘，但是其中所显露出来的理论变形却预示着一种未来哲学的可能样式。“法国理论”并不只是宣告“哲学的终结”，同时也是在试图终结“哲学的终结”，即为时代的巨变构建起一种新哲学范式。当代法国哲学摇身变为各种批判理论、文化理论、社会理论、政治理论、话语理论、生命理论等样式，从而开启了一种完全崭新的新哲学范式。

I. From “System of Critique” to “Critique of Systems”

一、从“批判的体系”到“体系的批判”

Beginning with the philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle, traditional philosophy or metaphysics has generally taken the construction of a “system of critique” as its mission, the most typical examples being Kant’s “three Critiques” and Hegel’s system of speculative philosophy. In other words, the purpose of philosophical critique is to overthrow old and erroneous “absolute truths” and replace them with a “truth” that is self-proclaimed as absolutely correct. “Destruction” is for the sake of “construction”; the end point of critique is to achieve a final system of truth. Every great philosopher has his own uniquely created theoretical system, such as the Aristotelian system, the Cartesian system, the Spinozist system, the Kantian system, the Hegelian system, and so on. According to Jürgen Habermas, “Despite the profound contradictions between Plato and Aristotle, metaphysical thought that emerged with Parmenides generally took the question of the being of beings as its starting point—hence, this is a metaphysics in the ontological sense. True knowledge always pursues universality, eternity, and necessity. Whether taking mathematics as its model and understanding true knowledge as intuition and recollection, or taking logic as its model and understanding true knowledge as contemplation and discourse, cognition always grasps the structure of beings themselves.” Since ancient times, philosophy has seemed to be the embodiment of true knowledge, always revolving around universality, eternity, and necessity to construct its critical metaphysical system. However, after Hegel, this “system of critique” gradually disintegrated. The philosophical movement of “rejecting metaphysics,” which began early on with positivism and pragmatism, later continued within analytic philosophy and phenomenology, and finally veered to extremes in the structuralist, post-structuralist, and postmodernist currents staged by contemporary French philosophy, precisely in an attempt to transform philosophy into an activity of intellectual critique. Philosophy is by no means systematic for the sake of system; philosophical critique consists in identifying problems and analyzing problems. This critique also seeks certain possible answers, but it does not pursue ultimate answers, nor does it construct an absolutely perfect system.

从柏拉图和亚里士多德的哲学体系起始，一般来说，传统哲学或形而上学都是以构建一种“批判的体系”为己任的，最为典型的例证莫过于康德所建构的“三大批判”和黑格尔的思辨哲学体系。换言之，哲学展开批判的目的是为了推翻旧有的和错误的“绝对真理”，重新用一种自以为绝对正确的“真理”取而代之。“破”是为了“立”，批判的归宿是达成终极性的真理体系。每一位伟大的哲学家都有一套自己独创的理论体系，比如亚里士多德体系、笛卡尔体系、斯宾诺莎体系、康德体系、黑格尔体系等等。按照于尔根·哈贝马斯的说法，“尽管柏拉图和亚里士多德之间矛盾重重，但是，随着巴门尼德而产生的形而上学思想一般都把存在者的存在问题作为出发点——因此，这是一种本体论意义上的形而上学思想。真知追求的永远都是普遍性、永恒性和必然性。无论是以数学为摹本，把真知理解为直观和回忆，还是以逻辑学为摹本，把真知看作沉思和话语，认识所把握的都是存在者自身的结构”。自古以来，哲学似乎就是真知的化身，它始终围绕着普遍性、永恒性和必然性来构建其批判的形而上学体系。但是，在黑格尔之后，这种“批判的体系”逐渐土崩瓦解。早期开启于实证主义和实用主义的“拒斥形而上学”的哲学运动，后来在分析哲学和现象学运动中延续下来，直至在当代法国哲学所上演的结构主义、后结构主义以及后现代主义思潮中剑走偏锋，就是企图将哲学改造成为一种思想批判活动。哲学决不是为了体系而体系，哲学的批判就是找出问题和分析问题，这种批判也在寻找某些可能的答案，但是不会去追求终极性的答案，不会去建构一个绝对完美的体系。

Viewed from the intellectual evolution of contemporary Western philosophy, “rejecting metaphysics” and transforming traditional philosophy has always been the theoretical direction in which philosophy seeks its own breakthrough. In fact, the theoretical slogan of “the end of philosophy” has echoed throughout many theoretical currents of modern and contemporary philosophy. It either means completely abandoning philosophy’s original pursuit of system and willingly becoming a simple intellectual tool, deeming linguistic analysis and logical analysis sufficient; or it attempts to move toward a new philosophy that thoroughly deviates from traditional metaphysics. As one researcher has stated: “A striking phenomenon of our century is that philosophers have engaged in extensive critique of philosophy, to the point that creating anti-philosophy has become a new philosophical school. There are, of course, varying degrees of comprehensiveness. Philosophers always criticize each other. But if the critique of a philosophical school goes so far as to deny the legitimacy of the entire field of philosophy, it becomes an attack on philosophy itself. This has become commonplace in the 20th century. Yet anti-philosophy goes further than this; in Richard Rorty’s words, it calls for a ‘post-philosophical culture.’”

从当代西方哲学的思想演进来看，“拒斥形而上学”并改造传统哲学一直就是哲学寻求自身突破的理论方向。事实上，“哲学的终结”这一理论口号始终回响在现当代哲学的诸多理论思潮之中。它要么意味着彻底放弃哲学原本的体系追求而甘愿成为简单的思想工具，认为语言分析和逻辑分析足矣；要么企图走向一种彻底背离传统形而上学的新哲学。正如一位研究者所说：“我们这个世纪引人注目的现象是，哲学家对哲学作了大量的批判，因此创立反哲学竟成了一种新的哲学流派。在全面性上当然有程度的不同。哲学家总是相互批判。但是，如果对一个哲学流派的批判走得如此之远，以至于否定了全部哲学领域的合法性，它也就变成对哲学本身的攻击了。这已成为20世纪的家常便饭。不过反哲学走得比这还远，用理查德·罗蒂的话说，它是在呼唤一种‘后哲学文化’。”

The American neopragmatist philosopher Rorty’s “post-philosophical culture” is a new philosophical appeal against systematic philosophy: “The pragmatist thinks that the Platonic tradition is very old and no longer of any use. But that is not to say that they can provide a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions, but rather that we should no longer ask such questions.” [4]4 Richard Rorty, *Consequences of Pragmatism* (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), p. xiv. The original English reads: “The pragmatist thinks that the Platonic tradition is very old and no longer any use. That is not to say that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that we should not ask those questions anymore.” As Rorty describes it, the so-called “post-philosophical culture” is in fact a non-systematic “philosophy with a small p,” no longer a universally systematic “philosophy with a capital P.” Contemporary French philosophy is precisely the “philosophy with a small p” in Rorty’s eyes; this is the dazzling intellectual array of “French Theory.” This “philosophy with a small p” takes on pluralistic intellectual forms in France, leading the German philosopher Habermas to remark with some emotion: “If we consider the description of the symptoms of the age in social theory, in the past one or two decades, Paris has produced more original and productive theories than any other place in the world.” The French themselves have also become aware of and take pride in this pluralistic intellectual array of contemporary French philosophy. The renowned French philosopher Badiou, in evaluating the theoretical status of contemporary French philosophy, holds that there have been three theoretical peaks in the history of philosophy so far: ancient Greek philosophy, classical German philosophy, and contemporary French philosophy. In the great chorus of contemporary Western philosophy as a whole, French philosophy, distinctive and fruitful, indeed plays the leading role. Whether on the intellectual map of Continental philosophy or in the theoretical evolution of Anglo-American philosophy, French philosophy has played the role of vanguard and guide. As one feminist researcher puts it: “Many of us have for years allowed ourselves to be drawn to something both fascinating and dangerous, which lacks a proper name; I will call it French Theory.” It could even be said that “French Theory” has become a cultural paradigm.

美国新实用主义哲学家罗蒂提出的“后哲学文化”就是一种反体系哲学的新哲学诉求：“实用主义者认为，柏拉图主义传统已经非常古老，不再有任何用处了。但这并不是说，他们可以对柏拉图主义的问题提供一套新的、非柏拉图主义的回答，而是说，我们不应当再问这样的问题。”按罗蒂的描述，所谓的“后哲学文化”其实就是一种非体系化的“小写的哲学”，而不再是普遍体系化的“大写的哲学”。当代法国哲学就是罗蒂眼中的“小写的哲学”，这是令人炫目的“法国理论”的思想阵势。这种“小写的哲学”在法国有着多元化的思想形态，让德国哲学家哈贝马斯也不由得感慨道：“如果我们考虑对社会理论的时代症候的描述，在过去一二十年中，巴黎产生的具有原创性和生产性的理论比世界上其他任何地方都更多。”对于当代法国哲学的这种多元思想阵势，法国人自己也已经意识到并且为之自豪。法国著名哲学家巴迪欧在评价当代法国哲学的理论地位时就认为，迄今在哲学史上出现过三个理论高峰，它们分别是古希腊哲学、德国古典哲学和当代法国哲学。在今天整个当代西方哲学的大合唱中，独树一帜且硕果累累的法国哲学确实扮演了领唱的角色。无论是在欧陆哲学的思想版图上，还是在英美哲学的理论演进中，法国哲学都发挥了急先锋和引领者的作用。正如一位女性主义研究者所言：“我们中许多人几年来一直任由自己被某些既充满魅力的、同时又危险的东西所吸引，它缺乏一个恰当的名字，我将称之为法国理论。”甚至可以说，“法国理论”成为了一种文化的范式。

From “critique of system” to “systematic critique,” this transformation is fully embodied in the many theoretical attempts of contemporary French philosophy. In simple terms, it means abandoning the pursuit of a universal and eternal system, turning instead to focus on particular and contingent events; its fundamental intellectual logic is to thoroughly break free from the systematizing mode of traditional metaphysics. In the intellectual logic of “French Theory,” traditional metaphysics is a mode of totalizing thought that, by virtue of its reductionism, constructs an absolute system of truth that dominates nature and society. The ultimate goal of this theoretical system is to seek “substance” or “origin,” thereby turning philosophy into a philosophy of identity that negates difference and contingency. “French Theory” is labeled with hats such as “post-metaphysics,” “postmodernism,” and “postmodern philosophy” precisely because it exhibits a “post-” posture. This so-called “post-” not only carries the meaning of temporal succession but also implies transcendence and rebellion. Since the 1980s, the rise of postmodernist thought has pushed “French Theory” to the center of the intellectual stage. Contemporary French philosophy, or “French Theory,” has become synonymous with postmodernist thought; numerous French philosophers such as Georges Bataille, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, Baudrillard, and Kristeva are regarded as postmodern philosophers. It can also be said that “French Theory” and the “postmodern turn” mutually reinforce each other, leading a new philosophical fashion. If contemporary philosophy has a certain “Frenchness,” it is precisely this postmodern orientation of anti-systematic philosophy. Although postmodernism is not a clear concept, and its hodgepodge of intellectual appeals is difficult to grasp, its basic theoretical thrust is relatively clear: humanity has paid a painful price in the past to achieve universal unity in thought, so now it is necessary to strive to establish a principle of pluralistic coexistence in thought and a corresponding social form.

从“批判的体系”到“体系的批判”，这个转变充分地体现在当代法国哲学的诸多理论尝试之中。简单地说，就是放弃了对普遍永恒体系的追求，转而去关注那些特定的和偶然的事件，其根本的思想逻辑就是彻底摆脱传统形而上学的体系化模式。在“法国理论”的思想逻辑中，传统形而上学就是一种总体化的思维模式，这种模式凭借其还原论构造出支配自然和社会的绝对真理体系。这种理论体系的终极目标是寻找“本体”或“本原”，因此将哲学变成了一种否定差异性和偶然性的同一性哲学。“法国理论”之所以被戴上“后形而上学”“后现代主义”“后现代哲学”等帽子，正是因为它表现出“后”（post）的姿态。这个所谓的“后”不仅具有时间前后之意，而且更具有超越和反叛的意涵。自1980年代以来，后现代主义思潮兴起，并将“法国理论”推到了思想舞台的中央。当代法国哲学或“法国理论”成为后现代主义思想的代名词，乔治·巴塔耶、福柯、德里达、利奥塔、德勒兹、鲍德里亚、克里斯蒂娃等诸多法国哲学家被视为后现代哲学家。也可以说，“法国理论”与“后现代转向”相互成就，引领了一种哲学新时尚。如果说当代哲学有一种“法国性”的话，其实就是这种反体系哲学的后现代取向。尽管后现代主义不是一个清晰的概念，其大杂烩式的思想诉求也让人难以把握，但是其中的基本理论旨趣是比较清楚的，即人类过去为了达成思想上的普遍统一而付出了惨痛的代价，那么现在就需要努力确立一种多元共生的思想原则和社会形态。

In *Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960*, Gary Gutting proposes that since the 1960s, the face of French philosophy has changed; philosophers “have rejected all forms of humanism—religious, scientific, existentialist. But they have not given up hope of finding some way of philosophizing that might provide some guidance for human needs. Since the 1960s, French philosophy has been searching for such ways of thinking.” For Foucault, searching for such a way of thinking is essentially recovering the critical temperament of philosophy. In the post-metaphysical age, we should choose a critical philosophy directed at our own ontology. “We see that the result is that critique is not carried out in the form of seeking universally valid forms, but rather becomes a historical investigation by making us construct ourselves and recognize ourselves as subjects of what we do, think, and say, through various events. In this sense, this critique is not something that can be surpassed; its aim is not to make metaphysics possible.” [5]5 Michel Foucault, “What is Critique?” in *The Politics of Truth*, ed. Sylvère Lotringer (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), p. 59. The original English reads: “We see that the result is that critique is not carried out in the form of seeking universally valid forms, but rather as a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we do, think, say. In this sense, critique is not something that can be surpassed; its aim is not to make metaphysics possible.” The critical philosophy Foucault speaks of here is a critique in a broad sense: philosophy must question all phenomena of domination and operations of power, regardless of the extent and form these phenomena and operations have reached in the political, economic, organizational, and other domains. In Foucault’s view, although it can be said that traditional philosophy no longer exists, this does not mean that philosophy has completely disappeared. In fact, philosophy has dispersed into many different activities; the activities of mathematicians, linguists, ethnologists, historians, revolutionary activists, and political scientists may all be forms of philosophical activity. Today, any activity that explores new goals for knowledge and practice is a philosophical activity, whether it comes from mathematics, linguistics, ethnology, or history. Thus, the theme of philosophy has shifted from eternal being to present events, the method of philosophy from speculative logic to factual investigation, and the content of philosophy from systematic construction to critical advancement.

加里·古廷在《思考不可能：1960年代以来的法国哲学》一书中提出，自1960年代以来，法国哲学的面貌已经发生了变化，哲学家们“拒绝了所有形式的人道主义，如宗教的、科学的、存在主义的。但是，他们并没有放弃希望去寻找某种哲学思想方式，意在为人的需要提供某些指导。从1960年代起，法国哲学就一直在寻找这样一些思想方式”。对于福柯而言，寻找这样的思想方式其实就是找回哲学的批判气质。在后形而上学时代，我们应该选择一种针对我们自身存在论的批判哲学。“我们看到，这样导致的结果是，批判不是以寻求具有普遍价值的形式来进行的，而是通过使我们建构我们自身并承认我们自己是我们所做、所想、所说的主体的各种事件而成为一种历史性的调查。从这个意义上说，这种批判不是可被超越的，其目的并不是使形而上学成为可能。”福柯这里所说的批判哲学乃是一种广义的批判，即哲学要去质疑所有的统治现象和权力运作，无论这些统治现象和权力运作在政治、经济、组织等领域达到了什么程度和采取了什么形式。在福柯眼里，尽管可以说传统哲学已经不存在，但这并不意味着哲学完全消失了。事实上，哲学已经分散在许多不同的活动中，诸如数学家、语言学家、人种学家、历史学家、革命活动家、政治学家的活动，都可能是哲学的活动形式。今天，任何探寻认识和实践的新目标的活动都是哲学的活动，无论这种活动是来自数学、语言学、人种学还是历史学。于是，哲学的主题从永恒的存在变成了当下的事件，哲学的方法从思辨的逻辑变成了事实的调查，哲学的内涵从体系性的构造变成了批判性的推进。

“French Theory,” represented by Foucault, is a typical “systematic critique.” In the view of philosophers like Foucault, the system represents universality and normativity, while also embodying power and repression. The construction of a system is inseparable from universal rationalism; in other words, system and reason are interrelated. The establishment of a universal system depends on the support of universal reason, and conversely, the establishment of universal reason depends on the completion of a universal system. Thus, in Foucault, “systematic critique” is transformed into a critique of reason. To reveal the repression of the universal system, Foucault conducts a dual investigation of “rational torture” through “archaeology” and “genealogy.” [6]6 Foucault’s “archaeology” and “genealogy” are two interrelated methods he developed: archaeology analyzes the historical conditions of possibility for knowledge and discourse, while genealogy traces the descent and emergence of power-knowledge formations, exposing their contingent and conflictual origins. In short, under the banner of the critique of reason (i.e., the critique of modernity), the strategy of contemporary French philosophy in dealing with the “end of philosophy” is to reshape a new philosophical paradigm, much like performing a major surgical operation on philosophy—replacing the heart, liver, kidneys, and face of the theoretical organism of philosophy—with the intention of transforming philosophy from a “unified” thought into a “nomadic” thought. Contemporary French philosophy strives to escape the trap of the former “philosophy of substance,” calling for and vigorously promoting a new type of “philosophy of relation.” Driven by “systematic critique” and its postmodern turn, “French Theory” exhibits its characteristic intellectual orientation: turning from big questions to small questions, from “grand narrative” to “micro-perspective.”

以福柯为代表的“法国理论”就是一种典型的“体系的批判”。在福柯等哲学家看来，体系代表着普遍和规范，同时也体现为权力和压制。体系的建构又与普遍理性主义密不可分，换言之，体系与理性是相互关联的。普遍体系的建立有赖于普遍理性的支撑，反之，普遍理性的确立取决于普遍体系的完成。于是，在福柯这里，“体系的批判”转换为理性的批判。为了揭示普遍体系的压制，福柯对于“理性酷刑”展开了“考古学”和“谱系学”的双向考察。总之，在理性批判（即现代性批判）的旗帜下，当代法国哲学对待“哲学的终结”的策略就是重塑新哲学范式，恰如为哲学做一次外科大手术，为哲学这个理论生命体进行换心、换肝、换肾、换容，意在使哲学从“大一统”思想变成“游牧式”思想。当代法国哲学力求跳出过往“实体哲学”的陷阱，呼唤和力推新型的“关系哲学”。在“体系的批判”及其后现代转向的推动下，“法国理论”展现出其特有的思想取向：从大问题转向了小问题，从“宏大叙事”走向了“微观透视”。

II. From “Grand Narrative” to “Micro-Perspective”

二、从“宏大叙事”到“微观透视”

From the perspective of theoretical themes and system construction, why does “French Theory” not resemble existing philosophy at all? This is because, in the process of moving toward postmodern philosophy, contemporary French philosophy has been completely deformed and transformed. On the one hand, philosophy has shifted its perspective on problems; what were originally major problems, such as the problem of origins, are now regarded as meaningless, while what were originally not problems have become problems—for example, the problem of language has not only become an epistemological problem but even a fundamental ontological problem. On the other hand, philosophy has renewed its methods of thought, from phenomenological description to structural analysis, and then to psychoanalysis; analytical tools such as linguistics, semiotics, psychology, and hermeneutics have continuously invaded the territory of philosophical method, making philosophical critique appear more like textual study, symbolic interpretation, unconscious analysis, social investigation, or historical research. In fact, philosophy no longer values the world as ultimate existence but instead pays special attention to the constructive meaning of human knowledge. What the object of cognition is matters little; what matters is the mode of cognition. Under the critical scrutiny of “French Theory,” from ancient Greek philosophy all the way to today’s phenomenology and analytic philosophy, all have been labeled with the theoretical caps of “totalizing knowledge” or “grand narrative.” After listing numerous theoretical symptoms, essentialism, foundationalism, universalism, representationalism, logocentrism, anthropocentrism, and so on have all been rejected. As a theoretical cap, “grand narrative” is regarded as the very foundation of traditional metaphysics. Thus, in order to thoroughly eliminate the various ideological harms caused by “grand narrative,” “French Theory” has unhesitatingly turned to the philosophical stance of “micro-perspective.”

从理论主题和体系建构来看，为何“法国理论”完全不像已有哲学？这是因为在走向后现代哲学的过程中，当代法国哲学完全变形走样。一方面，哲学变换了问题的视角，本来作为大问题的本原问题被看作是毫无意义的问题，本来不是问题的问题竟然变成了问题，比如，语言问题不仅成为认识论问题，甚至还成为基础性的本体论问题。另一方面，哲学更新了思想的方法，从现象学描述到结构分析，再到精神分析，语言学、符号学、心理学、解释学等分析工具不断地侵入哲学方法的领地，使哲学批判看起来更像是文本研读、符号解释、无意识分析、社会调查或历史研究。事实上，哲学不再看重作为终极存在的世界，而是特别关注人类知识的建构意义。认识的对象是什么不重要，重要的是人们的认识方式。在“法国理论”的批判审度之下，从古希腊哲学一直到今日的现象学和分析哲学，都被戴上了“总体性知识”或“宏大叙事”的理论帽子，在被罗列出来诸多的理论症候之后，本质主义、基础主义、普遍主义、表象主义、逻各斯中心主义、人类中心主义等均遭到拒斥。作为一顶理论帽子，“宏大叙事”被视为传统形而上学的根本所在。于是，为了彻底清除“宏大叙事”所造成的诸多思想危害，“法国理论”义无反顾地转向了“微观透视”的哲学立场。

As the construction of a new philosophical paradigm, “French Theory” has completely abandoned the obsession with striving to be the “first science” or “encyclopedia.” So what exactly does it want to turn philosophy into? Deleuze answers: “Is there some progress in philosophy? To this question, one should answer as Robbe-Grillet answered the question about the novel: there is no reason to do philosophy as Plato once did, not because we have surpassed Plato, but on the contrary, because Plato is unsurpassable, and repeating the work Plato has already completed is meaningless. We can only choose one: either the history of philosophy, or a Platonic transplantation for problems that are no longer Platonic. In other words, it presupposes a micro-analysis (Foucault calls it the microphysics of power, Guattari calls it the micropolitics of desire)… splitting things from the middle, splitting words from the middle. Not seeking eternity, but seeking new forms.” What Deleuze says here about “presupposing a micro-analysis” indicates the shift in perspective of “French Theory.” Whether it is Foucault’s “microphysics of power” or Deleuze and Guattari’s “micropolitics of desire,” whether it is Lyotard’s “libidinal economy” or Baudrillard’s “critique of the political economy of the sign,” almost all are fleeing from and rejecting those grand narratives of liberation. In their view, “traditional rationalist macropolitics turns a blind eye to the fields of desire, culture, and everyday life, unaware that these very fields are where the subject is produced and controlled, and also the birthplace of fascist movements. Capitalism not only exploits labor power, but also penetrates into the desire economy of each subject to function.” Searching for diffuse mechanisms of power operation in everyday and localized sites has become the basic approach of “French Theory” in exploring micropolitics. In Habermas’s words, the remaining task of philosophy today is to mediate between expert knowledge and the everyday practices that need to be explored, to promote the self-understanding of the human lifeworld through theoretical interpretation, and to strive to overcome the excessive alienation of the lifeworld.

作为一种新哲学范式的构建，“法国理论”彻底放弃了争当“第一科学”或“百科全书”的执念，那么它究竟要将哲学变成什么呢？德勒兹回答道：“哲学存在着某种进步吗？对此问题，应该像罗布·格里耶回答关于小说的问题时那样回答：没有任何理由像柏拉图曾做过的那样去搞哲学，这并不是因为我们超越了柏拉图，而是相反，因为柏拉图是不可超越的，重复柏拉图已经完成了的工作是毫无意义的。我们只能选择其一：或者是哲学史，或者是为已非柏拉图式的问题而做的柏拉图式的移植。换句话说，它以一种微观分析（福柯称之为权力的微观物理学，加达里称之为欲望的微观政治学）为前提……将事物从中间劈开，将字词从中间劈开。不是寻找永恒，而是寻找新的形式。”德勒兹在这里所说的“以一种微观分析为前提”表明了“法国理论”的视角转换，无论是福柯的“权力的微观物理学”还是德勒兹和加达利的“欲望的微观政治学”，无论是利奥塔的“力比多经济学”还是鲍德里亚的“符号政治经济学批判”，几乎都在逃离和排斥那些宏大的解放叙事。在他们看来，“传统理性主义宏观政治对欲望、文化以及日常生活领域熟视无睹，岂不知这些领域恰恰是主体被生产和被控制的地方，也是法西斯运动的发源地。资本主义不仅剥削劳动力，它还渗透到每个主体的欲望经济当中发挥作用”。在日常化和局部化的场所寻找弥散性的权力运作机制，已经成为“法国理论”探讨微观政治的基本思路。用哈贝马斯的话说，哲学在今天剩下的任务就是将专家知识与需要探讨的日常实践沟通起来，通过理论阐释来促进人类生活世界的自我理解，力求克服生活世界的过度异化。

Why does “French Theory” mostly suffer from a “phobia of the macro”? This is because traditional philosophy of identity aims to eliminate difference, ultimately evolving into various forms of “totalitarian tyranny” in the pursuit of uniformity in ideas and behavior. The “postmodern turn” manifested in “French Theory” is essentially the transcendence of monistic thought by pluralistic thought. The dominant consciousness of contemporary French philosophy is no longer to believe in the blueprint of modernity sketched out by universal rationalism, nor to believe in the utopian prospects envisioned by various “grand narratives.” The critiques of philosophers are all waged under the banner of plurality and diversity, rejecting the identity and uniformity that have long held overwhelming dominance. In fact, the theoretical crisis faced by traditional metaphysics and its speculative philosophy is precisely the legitimacy crisis encountered by “grand narrative.” In *The Postmodern Condition*, Lyotard defines the “postmodern” as incredulity toward “grand narratives,” because it is precisely within the logic of totality and universality that various forms of repressive terror arise: “You must be operable, you must be commensurable, or disappear.” But in his view, after entering the postmodern age of knowledge, “the coming society will not basically belong to Newtonian anthropology (such as structuralism or systems theory); it will belong more to the pragmatics of language particles. There are many different kinds of language games—this is the heterogeneity of elements. Language games only establish institutions in fragmentary ways—this is local determinism… Invention always arises from dissensus. Postmodern knowledge is not merely a tool of authority. It can heighten our sensitivity to differences and strengthen our tolerance of the incommensurable.” Amid the clamor of postmodernism, any theoretical system that unilaterally pursues identity or totality has been rejected, while theories that focus on and aspire to difference and plurality have been embraced. “French Theory” clearly defends heterogeneity and difference.

为何“法国理论”大多患有“恐巨症”（phobia of the macro）？这是因为传统的同一性哲学是以消除差异为目标的，最终为了追求观念和行为上的整齐划一而演变成种种“总体性暴政”。“法国理论”所表现出来的“后现代转向”，其实就是多元性思想对一元性思想的超越。当代法国哲学的主导意识是不再相信普遍理性主义所勾画出来的现代性蓝图，不再相信各种“宏大叙事”所设想的乌托邦远景。哲学家的各种批判都是打着多元性和多样性的旗帜，拒斥一直占据压倒性优势的同一性和单一性。事实上，传统形而上学及其思辨哲学面对的理论危机也正是“宏大叙事”所遭遇的合法性危机。利奥塔在《后现代状态》一书中将“后现代”定义为对“宏大叙事”的质疑，因为正是在整体性和普遍性的逻辑之中，才会产生各种各样的压制性恐怖：“你们应该成为可操作的，成为可通约的，否则就消失吧。”但是，在他看来，进入后现代的知识时代之后，“正在到来的社会基本上不属于牛顿的人类学（如结构主义或系统理论），它更属于语言粒子的语用学。语言游戏有许多不同的种类，这便是元素异质性。语言游戏只以片段的方式建立体制，这便是局部决定论……发明总是产生在分歧中。后现代知识并不仅仅是政权的工具。它可以提高我们对差异的敏感性，增强我们对不可通约的承受力”。在后现代主义的喧哗声中，凡是一味追求同一性或总体性的理论体系均遭到唾弃，那些关注和向往差异性、多元性的理论则受到追捧。“法国理论”明显地在为异质性和差异性进行辩护。

From the theoretical explorations of Foucault, Deleuze, and others, their historical research and analysis of desire are entirely a micro-level rational critique. Foucault’s critique of micro-power unfolds as a capillary-like examination starting from mental hospitals and modern prisons. Traditional universal rationalism has such an eye: “In philosophical reflection, the eye comes from a capacity to observe that which becomes increasingly immanent to the self, the capacity of power; behind every surveillance eye, there is a more discerning eye, an eye so cautious and so flexible that it can be said its all-powerful glance can devour the white around it; behind this particular eye, there is another eye, and behind it, another, each more subtle, until we reach an eye entirely composed of the pure transparency of insight.” If we compare traditional systematic philosophy to a telescope of thought, then “French Theory” is attempting to forge a more penetrating microscope of thought. The telescope of thought can see infinitely distant things, thus striving to conceive some ultimate, perfect narrative; conversely, the microscope of thought can see infinitely small things, thus grasping the complexity and mutability of existence. The telescope of thought sees beautiful things that do not yet exist, desirable smooth things, often unreal rational utopias; conversely, the microscope of thought discovers everyday things that already exist, unpleasant rough things, often the truly real state of contradiction. “Behind the micro-strategies advocated by thinkers such as Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, and Lyotard, lies this view: since power is dispersed and plural, the forms of political struggle must necessarily also be dispersed and plural. Therefore, Foucault-style postmodern politics attempts to break with unified, totalizing strategies, cultivate diverse forms of resistance, destroy accepted cages of identity and exclusionary discourses, and encourage the proliferation of all kinds of differences.”

从福柯和德勒兹等人的理论探究来看，他们的历史研究和欲望分析完全是一种微观化的理性批判。福柯的微观权力批判就是从精神病院和现代监狱展开的毛细血管式的审视。传统的普遍理性主义长着这样一只眼睛：“在哲学反思中，眼睛来自于这样一种能力，即观察那变得越来越内在于自我的力量的能力，在每个监视的眼睛背后，都有一只更加明察秋毫的眼睛，这是一只如此谨慎、又如此灵活的眼睛，以至于可以说，它全能的一瞥能痛快吃掉它周围的眼白，在这只特别的眼睛后面，还有一只眼睛，在它后面，还有一只，每个都更加微妙，直至我们到达一只完全由一个洞见的纯粹透明度所构成的眼睛。”如果我们将传统的体系哲学比喻为思想望远镜，那么“法国理论”则是在尝试打造出更具穿透力的思想显微镜。思想的望远镜可以看到无限远的东西，因而会去努力构想某种终极性的十全十美之叙事；反之，思想的显微镜可以看到无限小的东西，因而才会抓住存在的复杂性和多变性。思想的望远镜看到的是尚未存在的美好之物，是令人向往的光滑之物，往往是不那么真实的理性乌托邦；反之，思想的显微镜发现的是已经存在的日常之物，是让人不悦的粗糙之物，往往是如此真实的矛盾状态。“在福柯、德勒兹与加塔利以及利奥塔等思想家所提倡的微观策略后面，隐藏着这样一种观点：既然权力是分散且多元的，那么政治斗争的形式也就必然应当是分散和多元的。因此，福柯式的后现代政治试图决裂于统一的、整体化的策略，培育形式多样的抵抗，摧毁已接受的认同牢笼以及排外性的话语，鼓励所有种类差异的扩散。”

As a typical method of “micro-perspective,” Foucault’s archaeology of knowledge and genealogy of power adopt a bottom-up micro-investigation rather than a top-down macro-examination, aiming to discover the mechanism of combination between knowledge and power and its process of subjectivization. In Foucault’s own words: “My problem is not to study the history of thought in its evolution, but to study, from beneath thought, how such and such a thing becomes an object possible for knowledge—for example, how madness came to be, at a given period, an object of knowledge corresponding to a certain type of knowledge. Thus there exists a dislocation between thought about madness and the construction of madness as an object; I once used the word ‘archaeology’ rather than ‘history’ to express the study of this dislocation.”

作为一种“微观透视”的典型方法，福柯的知识考古学和权力谱系学采用了一种自下而上的微观考察，而非一种自上而下的宏观审视，旨在发现知识与权力之间的结合机制及其主体化的塑造过程。用福柯自己的话说：“我的问题不是在演变中研究思想史，而是从思想的底下研究这样那样的物怎样成为认识之可能的对象，例如，研究疯狂何以在某个特定时期成为与某种知识类型相应的知识对象。这样就存在着在关于疯狂的思想与把疯狂作为对象进行建构之间的错位，我曾经用‘考古学’而不是‘史学’这个词来表达对这种错位的研究。”

To study thought beneath thought, to study desire behind desire, to study words in the interstices of words—this is almost the theoretical analysis at which structuralism and post-structuralism excel, and it is also the reason why “French theory” can stand aloof from the crowd of intellectual contenders. Grand history and the absolute subject have been thoroughly dethroned; through “micro-perspective,” those realities that have always been suppressed and concealed are brought to light. If “grand narrative” pursues the “categorical imperative” of universalization and homogenization and eliminates difference on the basis of “consensus,” then “micro-perspective” stands on the side of ambiguity and heterogeneity, because genuine knowledge arises from dissensus, from the invention and creation of new paradigms, not from absolute assent to universal consensus.

在思想的底下研究思想，在欲望的后面研究欲望，在文字的中间研究文字，这几乎就是结构主义和后结构主义最擅长的理论分析，也是“法国理论”之所以能够傲视思想群雄的原因。宏大的历史和绝对的主体被彻底废黜，通过“微观透视”，那些一直被压制的和隐蔽的现实被揭示出来。如果说“宏大叙事”是在追求普遍化和同质化的“绝对命令”，并且基于“共识”来清除差异，那么“微观透视”则是要站在歧义和异质一边，因为真实的认识产生于歧见，产生于新范式的发明创造，而不是来自于对普遍共识的绝对赞同。

III. From “Philosophy of Consciousness” to “Cultural Studies”

三、从“意识哲学”到“文化研究”

We can see that one obvious turn in contemporary philosophy is the shift from “philosophy of consciousness” to “cultural studies.” The discussion centered on the human being and its subjectivity has moved from the previous pure description of acts of consciousness to today’s complex study of cultural structures. The problem of the existence of consciousness is no longer an isolated and abstract self-derived entity, but a deep cultural phenomenon occurring within the lifeworld. When we say that “French theory” is constructing a new philosophical paradigm, the most powerful proof is that “cultural studies” seems to have become a synonym for “French theory.” In the figures of many recognized representatives of “French theory,” we can clearly see the cultural logic present in their thought. When they discuss themes such as language, discourse, sign, symbol, text, and the body, they are in fact exploring various forms of cultural expression. Under the inducement of psychoanalysis and linguistics, especially under the influence of Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics, French theorists have almost reached a consensus: the human being and its subjectivity are produced by signs, or rather, the human being grows up in an environment of linguistic institutions; therefore, social life and its mechanisms of operation can only be clearly understood through the system of signs and symbols. Badiou believes that the problem of the subject is the core issue of contemporary French philosophy. Although contemporary French philosophy contains many theoretical viewpoints with different intellectual positions and different analytical methods, they all share a distinct common feature: attention to cultural issues. It can be said that “French theory” has already shifted from the former pure “description of consciousness” to the present complex “cultural studies”; the theoretical theme has moved from the thin pure conscious subject to the more realistic social and cultural structure, integrating historical research, social research, psychological research, and linguistic research into one.

我们可以看到，当代哲学发生的一个明显转向就是从“意识哲学”到“文化研究”的变化。围绕着人及其主体性问题的讨论，已经从既往单纯的意识行为描述转变为今天复杂的文化结构研究。意识存在问题不再是孤立和抽象的自我衍生之物，而是发生在生活世界之中的深层文化现象。我们说“法国理论”是在构建一种新哲学范式，最有力的证明就是“文化研究”似乎成为了“法国理论”的代名词。在诸多公认的“法国理论”的代表人物身上，我们可以明显地看到其思想中存在的文化逻辑。当他们讨论语言、话语、符号、象征、文本、身体等主题时，实际上就是在探究文化的各种表现形式。在精神分析学和语言学的诱导下，尤其是在弗迪南·德·索绪尔的结构语言学的左右下，法国理论家们几乎达成了一致：人及其主体性是符号制造出来的，或者说人是在语言制度的环境中成长起来的，因此社会生活及其运作机制只能通过符号象征系统才能认识清楚。巴迪欧认为，主体问题是当代法国哲学的核心议题。尽管当代法国哲学存在诸多不同思想立场和不同分析方法的理论观点，但是其中都有一个鲜明的共同点，那就是对于文化问题的关注。可以说，“法国理论”已经从以往纯粹的“意识描述”转向了当下繁杂的“文化研究”，理论主题从单薄的纯粹意识主体转向了更为现实的社会文化结构，将历史研究、社会研究、心理研究、语言研究等融为一炉。

Why has “cultural studies” become the top priority and signature skill of “French theory”? From the most direct intellectual motive, perhaps “French theory” opened the door to cultural studies precisely out of dissatisfaction with the phenomenological theory of the subject. Before phenomenology and psychoanalysis entered the French intellectual world, René Descartes’ philosophy constituted the backbone of French philosophy, revolving around the “cogito” to explore the problem of the subjectivity of consciousness, thus forming a face of the philosophy of consciousness. Later, Henri Bergson’s philosophy of life further enriched this philosophy of consciousness and opened the door for the introduction of phenomenology and psychoanalysis. With the introduction of German-language intellectual resources such as phenomenology and psychoanalysis—including, of course, the critical absorption of Hegel’s philosophy, Nietzsche’s philosophy, and Marx’s philosophy—the philosophy of consciousness in the French philosophical context made further progress. Jean-Paul Sartre’s phenomenology of freedom is the most representative theoretical achievement, because he fully combined Descartes’ “cogito” with phenomenology’s “intentionality,” creating a distinctive existentialist philosophy of consciousness. “French phenomenology is first of all Sartrean; it emphasizes that consciousness can know itself. Maurice Merleau-Ponty took up Husserl’s project again, but pointed out two different kinds of meaning: one is meaning conferred from without; the other is meaning that appears in things themselves. This led him into a dialogue that was increasingly approaching the social sciences.” The “dialogue” mentioned here prompts us to note the difference between Merleau-Ponty and Sartre; clearly, Merleau-Ponty had already seen the problem with the idealist pure conception of consciousness, namely, the absence of important dimensions such as the body and the sign. As he pointed out: “Our task is to extend our reason so that it can understand what, in us and in others, precedes and exceeds reason.” In fact, in the shift from “philosophy of consciousness” to “cultural studies,” Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception and his theory of signs played an extremely important role.

为何“文化研究”会成为“法国理论”的重中之重和看家本领？从最直接的思想动机来看，或许“法国理论”正是出于对现象学主体理论的不满而开启了文化研究之门。在现象学和精神分析学进入法国思想世界之前，勒内·笛卡尔哲学构成了法国哲学的主心骨，并且围绕着“我思”来探究意识的主体性问题，因而形成了一种意识哲学的面相。之后，亨利·柏格森的生命哲学进一步丰富了这种意识哲学，并为现象学和精神分析学的引入打开了方便之门。伴随着现象学和精神分析学等德语思想资源的引进，当然其中还包括对黑格尔哲学、尼采哲学和马克思哲学的批判性吸收，使得法国哲学语境中的意识哲学有了更为深入的进展。让-保罗·萨特的自由现象学是最具代表性的理论成果，因为他把笛卡尔的“我思”与现象学的“意向性”充分地结合起来，创立了独具特色的存在主义意识哲学。“法国现象学首先是萨特式的，它强调，意识能够了解自身。莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂重新拾起了胡塞尔的方案，但指出了两种不同的意义：一种是外赋意义；另一种是事物中显现出来的意义。这使他进入一场对话，而对话正在日益接近社会科学。”这里提到的“一场对话”提示我们注意梅洛-庞蒂与萨特的不同，显然梅洛-庞蒂已经看到观念论的纯粹意识观存在的问题，即缺失了身体和符号等重要维度的探讨。正如他所指出的：“我们的任务是拓展我们的理性，以便能够使它理解，在我们或别人身上，先于理性和胜过理性的，究竟是什么东西。”事实上，在从“意识哲学”到“文化研究”的转变之中，梅洛-庞蒂的知觉现象学及其符号理论扮演了极为重要的角色。

Beginning with the rise of structuralism and post-structuralism, the study of the problem of consciousness or the subject carried out by contemporary French philosophy within the trend of postmodern philosophy has changed from the original pure philosophy of consciousness into the present multi-dimensional study of cultural structures, endowing the postmodern philosophical writing of “French theory” with a distinct attribute of cultural critique. We can at least summarize five paradigms of cultural studies among them: the first is the critique of reason represented by Foucault, which uses the analytical methods of the archaeology of knowledge, the genealogy of power, and the hermeneutics of the subject to conduct a micro-perspective on abnormal culture, punitive culture, and the culture of the self, in order to reveal the power effects of reason; the second is the deconstruction represented by Derrida, which, through playful textual interpretive activities, breaks the obsession with the “metaphysics of presence,” i.e., the certainty and identity of the meaning of words; the third is the schizoanalytic analysis of desire politics represented by Deleuze, displaying a new form of thought and a new form of subjectivity; the fourth is the critique of the political economy of the sign represented by Baudrillard, which attempts to combine Marxism with semiotics, emphasizing the semiotic character of the postmodern consumer society; the fifth is the “constructivist structuralism” represented by Bourdieu, which tries to dissolve the binary oppositional logic between subject and structure. This summary may not fully reflect the scope of cultural studies in “French theory” and its dominant problems, but it shows the critical consciousness and political orientation shared by these French philosophers. From “philosophy of consciousness” to “cultural studies,” the critical nature of “French theory” has increasingly intensified, and they all, without exception, form some kind of intellectual connection with Marxism. As Derrida said: “In rereading the *Communist Manifesto* and certain other great works of Marx, I told myself that, to my knowledge, few texts in the entire philosophical tradition, perhaps none, are more urgently needed by our time than his.” In a certain sense, “French theory,” by virtue of the theoretical progress of its cultural studies, presents some new trends in the evolution of contemporary French Marxism.

从结构主义和后结构主义的兴起开始，当代法国哲学在后现代哲学的思潮中所开展的意识问题或主体问题研究，从原来纯粹的意识哲学研究变成了当下多维的文化结构研究，使得“法国理论”这种后现代哲学书写具有了鲜明的文化批判属性。我们至少可以概括出其中的五种文化研究范式：第一种是以福柯为代表的理性批判，采用知识考古学、权力谱系学和主体解释学的分析方法，对反常文化、惩罚文化和自我文化进行微观透视，以揭示理性统治的权力效应；第二种是以德里达为代表的解构主义，通过游戏式的文本阐释活动来破解“在场的形而上学”的执念，即语词意义的确定性和同一性；第三种是以德勒兹为代表的精神分裂式的欲望政治分析，展示了一种新的思维形式和主体性形式；第四种是以鲍德里亚为代表的符号政治经济学批判，尝试将马克思主义与符号学结合起来，强调后现代消费社会的符号化特征；第五种是以布尔迪厄为代表的“建构主义的结构主义”，试图化解主体与结构之间的二元对立逻辑。这里的概括不一定能够全面反映“法国理论”的文化研究范围及其主导问题，但是可以看到这些法国哲学家所共有的批判意识和政治取向。从“意识哲学”到“文化研究”，“法国理论”的批判性日益增强，它们无一例外地与马克思主义形成了某种思想联系。正如德里达所说：“在重读《共产党宣言》和马克思的其他一些伟大作品时，我跟自己说，据我所知，在整个哲学传统中没有多少甚至没有任何一个文本比它的教益更为我们时代所急需。”从某种意义上说，“法国理论”凭借其文化研究的理论进展而呈现出当代法国马克思主义演进的一些新趋向。

For “French Theory” as a whole, “cultural studies,” as the construction of a new philosophical paradigm, exhibits the following three distinctive features. First, it is a combination of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research. Within the existing disciplinary divisions of specialized fields today, “cultural studies” is a theoretical type whose disciplinary identity is difficult to determine. For example, when one reads the theoretical works of Foucault, a question arises: is he a philosopher and historian, or a sociologist and political scientist? In *History of Madness* [12]12 *History of Madness* (1961) is Michel Foucault’s first major work, originally published in French as *Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique*; it examines the social and institutional treatment of madness from the Renaissance through the classical age., he examines the evolution of psychiatry and the psychiatric hospital; from the title and content, this appears to be a historical study of mental illness and the asylum. However, when he argues that madness is a product of culture rather than nature, and when he contends that it is the hegemony of reason that has relegated madness to a condition of silence, we see that madness is no longer a medical fact but a cultural fact. Medical knowledge is not as objective and natural as we might think; in fact, it is constructed by power. Knowledge produces power, and power produces knowledge; the establishment of psychiatry is the best proof of this. In this study involving the history of psychiatric medicine, Foucault intermingles medicine, psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, and history, initiating his cultural studies of the critique of reason. Second, “cultural studies” is oriented toward the present and belongs to practice. How have we become what we are now? This is the research question of theorists like Foucault. France is the main birthplace of the modern Enlightenment and the ideological stronghold of the philosophy of subjectivity. So, did humanity become mature after the Enlightenment? Did humanity truly break free from external constraints? The French theorists’ critique of modernity begins with cultural studies, that is, by questioning how modern culture has become a new oppressive force. After the Enlightenment, a society of “discipline and punish” replaced the society of monarchical power. Today, a well-governed society has in turn replaced the society of “discipline and punish.” Therefore, the task of “cultural studies” is to expose the crisis of modernity and its various symptomatic problems, and to propose corresponding micro-political strategies. Finally, “cultural studies” also attempts to overcome the binary logic of subjectivism and objectivism, conducting comprehensive explorations around the relationship between the subject and structure. This is most typically embodied in Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus” and his theory of practice. By means of concepts such as “habitus” and “field,” Bourdieu expands “habitus” from an individual behavioral concept into a social and cultural category, constructing his theory of cultural practice through “the structured being structured, the mutual transformation of subject and object.” The reason Bourdieu has become one of the most cited French theorists is also because he has relatively successfully overcome the limitations of the philosophy of consciousness, resolving the conflict between subject and structure into a problem of practical logic. Like Foucault and others, Bourdieu also belongs to the unclassifiable category of French theorists; his theory of cultural practice completely breaks down the boundaries between philosophy, sociology, economics, anthropology, semiotics, and psychology, which also reflects the fundamental nature of “French Theory.”

对于整个“法国理论”而言，作为新哲学范式建构的“文化研究”展示出以下三个方面的鲜明特征。首先，它是一个跨学科和交叉学科的研究组合。在今天既有的学科专业划分中，“文化研究”是一个难以确定学科身份归属的理论类型。例如，当人们去阅读福柯的理论作品时，就会遇到一个问题：他究竟是哲学家和历史学家，还是社会学家和政治学家？他在《古典时代疯狂史》中考察了精神病学和精神病院的演变过程，从书名和内容看，这是一部关于精神病和精神病院的历史研究著作。然而，当他提出疯癫只是文化的产物而不是自然的产物时，当他认为是理性的霸权将疯癫置于沉默的境遇时，我们看到，疯癫已经不是医学事实而是文化事实。医学知识并非我们想的那样客观自然，事实上是被权力建构起来的。知识生产权力，权力制造知识，精神病学的建立就是最好的证明。在这部涉及精神病医学史的研究中，福柯将医学、心理学、社会学、经济学、伦理学和历史学等杂糅在一起，开启了他理性批判的文化研究。其次，“文化研究”是面向当下和从属于实践的。我们是如何变成现在这个样子的？这是福柯等理论家的研究课题。法国是近代启蒙运动的主要发源地，是主体性哲学的思想主阵地。那么，人类经过启蒙运动之后变得成熟了吗？人类真正摆脱了外在束缚吗？法国理论家的现代性批判是从文化研究入手的，即追问现代文化如何成为新的压制性力量。启蒙运动之后，一个“规训与惩罚”的社会取代了君权制的社会。今天，一个治理完善的社会接着又代替了“规训与惩罚”的社会。因此，“文化研究”的任务是揭露现代性危机及其各种问题症候，并且提出相应的微观政治策略。最后，“文化研究”也试图克服主观主义与客观主义的二元对立逻辑，围绕主体与结构的关系问题展开综合性探讨，这最为典型地体现在布尔迪厄提出的“惯习”概念及其行为理论中。借助于“惯习”和“场域”等概念，布尔迪厄将“惯习”从个体行为概念扩展为社会文化范畴，通过“结构者被结构，主客观的相互转化”去构建他的文化实践理论。布尔迪厄之所以成为一位其著述被引用最多的法国理论家，也是因为他比较成功地克服了意识哲学的局限，将主体与结构的矛盾冲突化解为实践逻辑问题。同福柯等人一样，布尔迪厄也属于不可分类的法国理论家，他的文化实践理论完全打破了哲学、社会学、经济学、人类学、符号学、心理学之间的边界，这也体现了“法国理论”的基本性质。

Is the philosophy of the future exactly like “French Theory”? This is, of course, a question we cannot yet determine today. However, it can be said with certainty that “French Theory” is indeed striving to forge a philosophy different from existing philosophies. When Foucault regards philosophical research as a kind of journalistic work, when Deleuze emphasizes that philosophical activity is the creation of concepts, and when Bourdieu turns philosophy into a kind of fieldwork, the embryonic form and hope of a future philosophy are already latent within them. “French Theory” may not seem like philosophy; its “critique of systems,” “microscopic perspective,” and “cultural studies” resemble a “four不像” [13]13 “Four不像” (literally “four not like”) is a Chinese idiom referring to something that resembles nothing in particular, often used to describe a hybrid or unclassifiable entity., yet it represents a certain possibility of philosophy. As Foucault said in his last interview before his death: “The philosophical research I conducted in *The Order of Things*, *History of Madness*, and even *Discipline and Punish* basically still employed a philosophical vocabulary, philosophical games, and philosophical experience, and I fully accepted that. But now, it is certain that I am trying to break free from this philosophical form; I do this in order to study, map, and organize philosophy as a field of experience. Therefore, in the eyes of some, I seem to be adopting a completely non-philosophical approach at this stage, but in fact, it is a way of thinking about philosophical experience more thoroughly.” “French Theory” appears non-philosophical, yet it is in fact engaging in philosophical thinking more thoroughly. Perhaps it can be said that the critique of reason and cultural critique by Foucault and other French theorists precisely represent a possible form of the philosophy of the future.

未来哲学是不是“法国理论”这副模样？这当然是一个我们今天还无法判定的问题。但是，可以肯定地说，“法国理论”确实是在极力打造一种不同于既有哲学的哲学。当福柯将哲学研究视为一种新闻工作时，当德勒兹强调哲学活动就是制造概念时，当布尔迪厄把哲学变成一种田野调查时，其中就已经潜伏着未来哲学的雏形和希望。“法国理论”看似不像哲学，其“体系批判”“微观透视”“文化研究”如同“四不像”，但却代表着某种哲学的可能。正如福柯在生前的最后一次访谈中所说：“我在《词与物》《古典时代疯狂史》、甚至《规训与惩罚》中所进行的哲学研究，基本上还是采用了一种哲学的词汇、哲学的游戏和哲学的经验，而且我是完全接受的。但是，现在可以肯定的是，我要试图摆脱这种哲学形式；我这样做就是为了将哲学当作一种经验场域去研究、去绘制、去组织，因此在一些人看来，我这个时期似乎在采用一种完全非哲学的做法，其实这是一种更加彻底地思考哲学经验的方式。”“法国理论”看似非哲学，实则却是在更加彻底地进行哲学思考。或许可以说，福柯等法国理论家的理性批判和文化批判正是代表了一种未来哲学的可能形态。

IV. Conclusion

四、结 语

As the construction of a new philosophical paradigm, the formation and evolution of “French Theory” at least illustrate two issues: the first is that today’s “world actually needs philosophy more than philosophy thinks it does”; the second is that it is impossible to do philosophy entirely as before; philosophy needs innovative modes of expression. It is precisely these two needs of the times that have stimulated the creativity of “French Theory” and its orientation toward a future philosophy, enabling “philosophy to have the function of forever maintaining actuality and forever creating concepts.” Or, “French Theory” fully embodies what Deleuze calls “philosophy is forever the creation of concepts.” As a prototype of a future philosophy, the debut of “French Theory” is the creation of many new concepts. For “French Theory,” “the style of philosophy is the movement of concepts.” Of course, “French Theory” does not create concepts for the sake of creating concepts, nor is it playing conceptual games; rather, it uses philosophy to respond to changes in the world.

作为一种新哲学范式的构建，“法国理论”的形成与演进至少说明了两个问题：第一个问题是当今的这个“世界其实比哲学所认为的更需要哲学”；第二个问题是不可能完全像以前那样做哲学，哲学需要创新表达方式。正是这两个时代之需激化了“法国理论”的创造性及其未来哲学取向，使得“哲学具有永远保持现实性、永远创造概念的功用”，或者说，“法国理论”充分体现了德勒兹所说的“哲学永远是创造概念的”。作为一种未来哲学的雏形，“法国理论”的亮相就是创造了许多新概念。对于“法国理论”而言，“哲学的风格，就是概念的运动”。当然，“法国理论”并不是为了创造概念而创造概念，也并不是在玩弄概念游戏，而是在用哲学去应对世界的变化。

In Badiou’s view, the world needs philosophy. There are four reasons why the world today questions philosophy: the first reason is that today’s prevalent opinion polls, epidemiological surveys, election forecasts, etc., have little to do with truth; average numbers cannot tell us what truth is. The second reason is that, faced with many inhuman conditions today, we cannot retreat indefinitely but must make our own decisions. The third reason is that, faced with various intense emotions such as cultural pluralism, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, and racism, we need to provide rational answers. The fourth reason is that we cannot conceal a world full of violence and fragility. This world does not develop in a straight line and thus remain calm, but is full of dramatic crises and contradictory events. Of course, the emergence of a new philosophy must have a new face, new methods, and new paths. From Foucault and Derrida to Deleuze and Badiou, their intention is to discover another philosophical style, to reaffirm the possibility of philosophy in its original sense. Thus, we see the peculiar style of “French Theory,” different from traditional philosophy, as Deleuze said: “We can imagine a Hegel with a beard at the philosophical level, a Marx with his beard shaved off at the philosophical level, like the Mona Lisa with a mustache added.”

在巴迪欧看来，世界是需要哲学的。当今世界存在着追问哲学的四个理由：第一个理由是，今天盛行的民意测验、流行病调查、竞选推测等与真理并没有什么关系，平均数字不能告诉我们什么是真理；第二个理由是，面对今天的许多非人状况，我们不能无穷后退，而是必须作出自己的决定；第三个理由是，面对文化多元主义、宗教原教旨主义、民族主义、种族主义等各种强烈情感，我们需要作出理性的回答；第四个理由是，我们不能掩盖一个充满了暴力和脆弱的世界。这个世界并不会按照直线发展并因此风平浪静，而是充满了戏剧性的危机和互相矛盾的事件。当然，新哲学的出场必须要有新面貌、新方法、新路径。从福柯和德里达到德勒兹和巴迪欧，他们的意图就是去发现另一种哲学风格，在哲学的原初意义上来重新肯定哲学的可能性。于是，我们看到了“法国理论”不同于传统哲学的奇异风格，正如德勒兹所说：“我们可以想象一个在哲学层面上留着大胡子的黑格尔，一个在哲学层面上剃光了胡子的马克思，就像被添上了小胡子的蒙娜丽莎那样。”

(Author’s bio: Ouyang Qian, School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China)

（作者简介：欧阳谦，中国人民大学哲学院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心