“The Disappearance of the Other” and the “Dialectic of Violence”——On the “Other” in Byung-Chul Han’s Perspective and Its Critical Dimension

The “other” (das Andere) is an important philosophical category, whose problematic can be traced back to ancient Greece. As a conceptualized, theoretical form of the “other,” from Hegel’s “other” as the various mediations in the self-movement of absolute spirit, to Husserl’s “other” as the “first object in itself” within the horizon of genetic phenomenology, Heidegger’s “other” that “encounters from the surrounding world” and shares the world with me, to Gadamer’s “otherness” of the text within the horizon of philosophical hermeneutics, Sartre’s “other” as the precondition of the “self,” Levinas’s ethics oriented toward the “other,” Adorno’s “other” subsumed under “non-identity,” Lyotard’s “other” leading to opposition and heterogeneity, and so on—this fully demonstrates that the interpretive paths of the “other” are multidimensional, spanning dialectics, existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism. In comparison, Byung-Chul Han’s interpretation of the “other” both draws on traditional theoretical resources and endows the “other” with new characteristics of the times. In Han’s view, the “other” is not a product of refined theorization but opens onto multidimensional real-life predicaments. By means of the category of the “other,” Han reinterprets the intellectual task of dialectics. The author believes that Han’s interpretation of “the disappearance of the other” and the “dialectic of violence” opens up a highly insightful critical path for digital capitalism. Within this path, both the “other” and “dialectics” are not only reconceptualized theoretically but also introduced into a new critical practice, thereby providing, both theoretically and practically, an intellectual resource for re-examining digital capitalism, presenting a new “critical force” with a dimension of social pathology.

“他者”（das Andere）是一个重要的哲学范畴，其问题域可溯源至古希腊。作为一种概念化的、理论形态的“他者”，从黑格尔的作为绝对理念自我运动诸中介的“他者”，到胡塞尔发生现象学视阈中的作为“自在的第一客体”的“他者”，海德格尔的“从周围世界来照面的”、与我共同分有世界的“他者”，再到伽达默尔哲学解释学视野中的文本的“他者性”，萨特的作为“自我”先决条件的“他者”，列维纳斯的面向“他者”的伦理学，阿多诺的“非同一性”统摄下的“他者”，利奥塔的通向对立与异质的“他者”等等，充分体现出对“他者”的阐释路径是多向度的，包括从辩证法、存在主义、现象学、解释学、批判理论到后现代主义。相比之下，韩炳哲对“他者”的阐释既汲取了传统的理论资源，同时又赋予“他者”以新的时代特征。在韩炳哲看来，“他者”不是一种被精致理论化的产物，而是通向多维的现实困境。借助“他者”范畴，韩炳哲重新阐释了辩证法的思想任务。笔者认为，韩炳哲关于“他者的消失”与“暴力辩证法”的阐释，开启了一种很有洞见的数字资本主义的批判路径，在其中，无论是“他者”，还是“辩证法”，不仅在理论上被重新概念化了，更被导入一种新的批判实践，从而不仅在理论上，而且在实践上提供了一种重新审视数字资本主义的思想资源，呈现出一种具有社会病理学维度的新的“批判力”。

I. The “Other” as the “Authentic Object” and the “Dialectic of Violence”

一、作为“本真客体”的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”

The critical dimension of the “other” is first embodied in the “other” as the “authentic object” and the “dialectic of violence.” The “other” in Byung-Chul Han’s perspective first possesses a dimension of the object (Objekt). He distinguishes between “authentic objectification” and “inauthentic objectification.” In “authentic objectification,” the object is the “other” opposed to the subject; the object refers to a negativity, a heterogeneous entity with an anti-subject dimension. This means that the “other” as the “authentic object” exists as an “adversary,” possessing a “wholly otherness” that cannot be subsumed by the subject. Here, the “authentic object” is a phenomenological “pre-object,” a “‘relative’ ‘presence’” (das Anwesende). What is meant by “relative”? Han argues that the “authentic object” can only be given in a “relative” sense; it is not some “present thing” that appears in the subject’s representation, where the “otherness” of the object is suppressed. The object is not an object in itself but a “consciousness-only” object, “invaded” by the subject and constructed by it. “Relativity,” on the other hand, opens up an authentic subject-object relationship. In this subject-object relationship, what encounters the subject is a “wholly other,” which possesses the attribute of an “enigma.” As the “negation” of the subject, it is always in a tension of confrontation with the subject, carrying the various “othernesses” of the object as object. Here, “otherness” represents a negativity that cannot be dissolved by the subject—this is precisely the intrinsic determination of the object as object.

“他者”的批判向度首先体现在作为“本真客体”的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”。韩炳哲视野中的“他者”首先具有一种客体（Objekt）的向度，他区分了 “本真的对象化”与“非本真的对象化”。在“本真的对象化”中，客体是与主体对立的“他者”，客体指涉一种否定性，是具有反主体向度的异质物。这就意味着作为“本真客体”的“他者”是作为“对抗物”而存在的，它具有不能被主体统摄的“全然他性”。在这里，“本真客体”是一种现象学意义上的“前客体”，是“‘相对’的‘在场物’”（das Anwesende）。何谓“相对”？韩炳哲认为，“本真客体”只能是在“相对”的意义上被给予的，它不是在主体的表象中呈现的某种“在场之物”，客体的“他性”在其中被压制了，客体不是自在的对象，而是一种“唯意识”的对象，它被主体所“侵袭”，并被主体构建出来。而“相对”开启的是一种本真的主客体关系，在这种主客体关系中，与主体相遇的是一个“全然他者”，后者具有“谜题”属性。作为主体的“否定物”始终处于与主体对抗的张力中，它带着客体之为客体的诸种“他性”，这里的“他性”代表一种无法被主体消解的否定性——这才是客体之为客体的内在规定性。

First, the contemporary situation of the “authentic object” is prominently manifested in the disappearance of the “authentic object” and the negative dimension it contains. Specifically, the experience of the object under contemporary capitalism is an alienated experience of the object. In this alienated experience of the object, the “object” as the “wholly other” essentially degenerates into a “consumer object,” i.e., a commodity. It does not exist as a resistant and limiting entity for the subject but is a thing dominated by capital, a tamed thing that satisfies the subject’s desires everywhere and at all times in form. “As a consumer object, the commodity completely lacks the negativity of obicere. It does not accuse me, indict me, nor confront me head-on. On the contrary, it snuggles up to please me, tempting me to like it.” “The absence of opposition and relativity is precisely the cognitive characteristic of contemporary society.” Therefore, although the commodity in the era of capital possesses the form of an object, it essentially exhibits an anti-object dimension. In this sense, the commodity cannot serve as the “authentic object” in Han’s perspective. The disappearance of the “authentic object” leads to a profound paradox: the “object” loses its “wholly otherness,” which not only signifies a crisis of the object but also a crisis of the subject. For the absence of “opposition” and “relativity” means that the subject loses the true path to reaching itself and will be eroded by the infinite expansion of the self—this is the most unignorable socio-historical effect of the disappearance of the “authentic object.”

首先，“本真客体”的当代境遇突出地体现为“本真客体”及其内含的否定向度的消失。具体来说，当代资本主义条件下的客体经验是一种异化的客体经验，在这种异化的客体经验中，作为“全然他者”的“客体”本质上沦为“消费的客体”即商品，它不是作为主体的抵抗物和限定物而存在，而是被资本宰制之物，是一种在形式上处处和时时满足主体欲求的被驯服之物。“作为消费的客体，商品完全缺乏obicere的否定性。它不会指责我、控诉我，也不会与我针锋相对。与此恰恰相反，它依偎过来讨好我，诱我喜欢上它。”“对立和相对的缺席正是当今社会的认知特征。”因此，商品在资本时代虽然具有客体的形式，但在本质上呈现出一种反客体的向度，在这个意义上，商品不能作为韩炳哲视野中的“本真客体”。“本真客体”的消失导致的一个深刻悖论在于：“对象”丧失了“全然他性”，不仅意味着客体的危机，同时意味着主体的危机，因为缺失了“对立”和“相对”，就意味着主体迷失了真正抵达自我的路径，会被自我的无限膨胀所侵蚀——这是“本真客体”的消失最不容忽视的社会—历史效应。

Second, digital technology accelerates the disappearance of the “authentic object.” Digital technology establishes a new subject-object order. As a combination of consumerism and digital technology, the rise of the “digital object” initiates a process of “de-substantialization” of the object and continuously eliminates the “enigma” attribute of the “authentic object.” The rise of digital space signals the disappearance of geographical spatial distance. When all things in the world surge forward and lie fully exposed before me, it means that humanity no longer has any place that can serve as a final safe barrier of space. Digital technology in fact constructs the “panopticon” that Bentham spoke of, a “transparent society” without blind spots, and we are all objects under comprehensive scrutiny within this “prison.” “There is no so-called ‘outside the prison’; the entire earth is a prison. There are no walls separating inside from outside. Google and social networks, which construct themselves as spaces of freedom, are in fact also panoptic.” In this process, the world is being comprehensively and three-dimensionally penetrated and reconstructed by digital technology, and the space of the “authentic object” is continuously expelled by digital technology. Moreover, in various digital image technologies, the object can be arbitrarily cropped according to the subject’s needs. In this process, the object continuously loses its own qualitative determinations, including its own temporality. “Universal de-temporalization leads to the following: the various meaning-constituting phases of time—end, beginning, and turning point—all disappear.” The universal “acceleration” driven by digital technology also leads to the deconstruction of real objects. Before us, all things rush past swiftly, leaving no meaning behind. In the continuous process of “de-materialization” and “de-temporalization,” on the one hand, all “things” acquire a virtual identity, losing the weight of resistant entities, and the world unprecedentedly exhibits a “de-objectification” characteristic; on the other hand, the object itself, due to the dissipation of time, cannot coalesce into a holistic organic picture. Both of the above aspects cause the object to degenerate into an alienated “smooth object,” continuously losing the negativity of an “authentic object.”

其次，数字技术加速了“本真客体”的消失。数字技术确立了一种新的主客体秩序，作为消费主义和数字技术的结合体，“数字客体”的崛起开启了客体的“去实体化”进程，也在不断消除“本真客体”的“谜题”属性。数字空间的崛起昭示着地理空间距离的消失，当世间万物汹涌而来，在我面前一览无余时，也就意味着人类再也没有一个地方可以作为最后的安全屏障的空间。数字技术事实上构建了边沁所说的“全景式监狱”，一种无死角的“透明社会”，而我们都是这个“监狱”中被全方位审视的对象物，“没有所谓的‘监狱之外’，整个地球都是监狱。没有围墙将里外分隔开来。把自己营造为自由空间的谷歌和社交网络，实则也是全景式的”。在这个过程中，世界正在被数字技术全方位、立体式地穿透和重构，“本真客体”的空间不断被数字技术所驱逐。不仅如此，在各种数码图像技术中，客体可以按照主体的需要被随意裁剪。在这个过程中，客体不断丧失本己的质的规定性，包括本己的时间性。“普遍的去时间化导致如下这一点：诸多时间上的构成着意义的阶段：终了、开端以及转折，都消失掉了。”数字技术推动的普遍“加速”也导致了对真实对象的解构，在我们面前，万物飞快流逝，没有留下任何意义。在持续的“去物化”和“去时间化”进程中，一方面，所有的“物”都获得了一种虚拟的身份，丧失了作为抵抗物的重量，世界空前地呈现“去客体化”特征；另一方面，客体本身也由于时间的消散而无法聚合为一种整体的有机图景。上述两个方面都使客体沦为异化的“平滑的客体”，不断丧失作为一种“本真客体”的否定性。

Finally, the disappearance of the “authentic object” leads to deep “self-alienation.” “Self-alienation” is a new form of alienation distinct from traditional alienation, engendered by neoliberalism; in this alienation, the subject takes the “self” as an “object” to be transformed, directing the spear of resistance against the “self.” “The pathological hallmark of the present age is not repression, but depression. The destructive pressure comes not from others, but from within.” [2]2 Byung-Chul Han, *The Burnout Society*, trans. Wang Yili (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 7. [This is a reference to the Chinese translation of Han’s work; the original German title is *Müdigkeitsgesellschaft*.] The insidiousness of this new form of alienation lies in the fact that it is not an external, manifest alienation, “but rather dons the cloak of freedom, self-realization, and self-perfection,” [3]3 Byung-Chul Han, *The Agony of Eros*, trans. Guan Yuwei (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 11. [Original German: *Agonie des Eros*.] accomplishing the suppression and destruction of the “self” in a seemingly non-alienating manner. Here, the “authentic object” is absent; “people willingly dedicate themselves to exploitation, all the while fantasizing that they are achieving self-realization. What maximizes productivity and efficiency is not the suppression of freedom, but the full utilization of freedom.” [4]4 Byung-Chul Han, *The Burnout Society*, p. 11. The repressive force of this new alienation does not come from outside the subject, but from the subject itself; it concerns not an external deprivation, but a self-deprivation. “In the neoliberal regime, exploitation no longer proceeds in the mode of alienation and de-realization, but becomes freedom and self-realization (Sich-Verwirklichung).” [5]5 Byung-Chul Han, *Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and the New Technologies of Power*, trans. Guan Yuwei (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 11. [Original German: *Psychopolitik: Neoliberalismus und die neuen Machttechniken*.] Here, the “self” has a dual role: it is both the subject of exploitation and the object of exploitation. As the “object of exploitation,” the “self” is a “functional object” awaiting transformation. Byung-Chul Han emphasizes that compared with traditional alienation, this alienation is greater in intensity and more insidious in form. When the formal freedom and equality of digital capitalism dissolve the compulsion of external oppression, the question of how to resist becomes a problem. When external resistance becomes disoriented, this resistance turns into an internal self-attack; this is the deep mechanism of self-alienation under the conditions of digital capitalism.

最后，“本真客体”的消失导致深度的“自我异化”。“自我异化”是新自由主义催生的一种区别于传统异化的新异化形态，这种异化是主体将“自身”作为“客体”加以改造，将反抗的矛头指向了“自我”。“如今的病态时代标志不是压制，而是抑郁。具有毁灭性的压力并非来自他人，而是来自内心。”这一新的异化形态的隐蔽性在于它不是一种外在的显性的异化，“而是披上了自由、自我实现和自我完善的外衣”，是以看似非异化的方式完成的对“自我”的压制和毁灭。在这里，“本真客体”是不在场的，“人们心甘情愿地奉献自己、供人剥削，还幻想着是在自我实现。使生产率与效率达到最大化的不是对自由的压制，而是对自由的充分利用”。这种新的异化的压制性力量不是来自主体之外，而是来自主体自身，其关涉的不是一种外在剥夺，而是一种自我剥夺。“在新自由主义政权中，剥削不再是以异化和去现实化的方式进行，而变成了自由和自我实现（Sich-Verwirklichung）。”这里的“自我”具有双重角色：它既是剥削的主体，又是剥削的客体。作为“剥削的客体”，“自我”是一个待改造的“功能客体”。韩炳哲强调，比起传统的异化，这种异化在力度上更大，在形式上也更加隐蔽，当数字资本主义形式上的自由与平等消解了外在压迫的强制性时，何以反抗就成为一个问题，当外在反抗变得无所适从时，这种反抗就转向一种内在的自我攻击，这便是数字资本主义条件下自我异化的深层机理。

II. The “Other” as the Antithesis of the “Same” and the “Dialectic of Violence”

二、作为“同者”对立物的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”

The second critical dimension of the “other” is manifested in the “other” as the antithesis of the “same” (der Gleiche) and the “dialectic of violence.” Byung-Chul Han distinguishes between the “same” (der Gleiche) and the “identical” (das Identische). The “identical” always exists in opposition to the “other,” whereas “the same lacks the dialectical opposite that could delimit and shape it.” [6]6 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of the Other*, trans. Wu Qiong (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 1. [Original German: *Die Austreibung des Anderen*.] Han points out that in authentic dialectics, “aggregation” and “differentiation” are intrinsically unified. If the “identical” signifies “aggregation,” then the role of the “other” lies in “differentiation.” The two are interdependent; without the “other,” the “identical” degenerates into an abstract “identity.” The “other” is indispensable here precisely because it enables the “identical” to be confirmed. Similarly, without the “identical,” the “other” leads to an external negativity. The “same” that Han speaks of is essentially the de-differentiated absolute identity resulting from the absence of the “other.” It is precisely the lack of a dialectical antithesis that prevents the “same” from generating internal self-difference. “The negativity of the other gives the identical its contour and measure. Without this negativity, homogenization proliferates.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 1. The proliferation of the “same” is a rebellion against authentic dialectics, presenting a dimension of the “dialectic of violence.” On this basis, Han critiques the proliferation of the “same” and the disappearance of the “other” brought about by digital technology.

“他者”的第二重批判向度体现在作为“同者”对立物的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”。韩炳哲区分了“同者”(der Gleiche)与“同一者”，“同一者”总是与“他者”相对立而存在，而“同者则缺少能限定它、塑造它的辩证的对立面”。韩炳哲指出，在本真的辩证法中，“聚合”与“区分”是内在统一的，如果说“同一者”意味着“聚合”，那么“他者”的角色在于“区分”。两者相互依存，没有“他者”，“同一者”就沦为一种抽象的“同一性”，“他者”在这里之所以不可或缺，恰恰在于它使“同一者”得以确证；同样，没有“同一者”，“他者”便导向一种外在的否定性。韩炳哲所说的“同者”本质上就是“他者”的缺失导致的去差别化的绝对同一性，正是由于缺失辩证法意义上的对立，才使“同者”无法产生内在的自我差异。“他者的否定性给同一者以轮廓和尺度。没有了这一否定性，同质化便会滋长。”“同者”的蔓延是对本真辩证法的反叛，呈现一种“暴力辩证法”的向度。在此基础上，韩炳哲批判了数字技术导致的“同者”的蔓延和“他者”的消失。

First, digitalization and the computational rationality it represents inevitably breed the supremacy of the “same.” Under the domination of various digital technologies, “the negativity of the other gives way to the positivity of the same.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 12. Everything is quantified, thereby becoming exchangeable and comparable. From social production to daily life, from social organizations to individuals, all are placed within a vast “digital concentration camp.” [9]9 “Digital concentration camp” is a metaphor used by Han to describe the totalizing and controlling nature of digital environments. Digital technology here serves not only as a medium of communication but also realistically shapes the form of communication, to the extent that we can hardly imagine or experience a pre-digital life. In this process, the heterogeneity of multiple meanings submits to a universal computability. “The digital makes everything countable and comparable. This perpetuates the same.” [10]10 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of the Other*, p. 12. “Comparability” turns different things into the same thing; the proliferation of the “same” it brings about is a process of expelling the “wholly other,” a process of excluding all kinds of heterogeneity, whether this heterogeneity manifests as a specific “meaning,” “cultural attribute,” or “way of life.” This inevitably leads to the decline of value rationality and the atrophy of the space of meaning. Han emphasizes that, driven by digital technology, the proliferation of the “same” has become a key feature of our era, penetrating fields from globalization to our bodily space, and bringing a series of political, economic, and cultural effects. The proliferation of the “same” and its symptoms have also become an important dimension for understanding the experience of our times.

首先，数字化及其代表的计算理性必然滋生“同者”的至上性。在各种数字技术的统治下，“他者的否定性让位于同者的肯定性”，一切都被量化，从而具有可交换性和可比较性。从社会生产到日常生活、从社会组织到个体都被置于一个巨大的“数字集中营”中，数字技术在其中不仅作为交往的媒介，而且现实地塑造着交往的形态，以至于我们已经很难想象和体验一种前数字化的生活。在这个过程中，多重意义的异质性服从于一种普遍的可计算性，“数字化的东西使一切都变成可数的、可比较的。这就使‘同者’得以延续”。“可比较”把不同的东西变为相同的东西，它所导致的“同者”的蔓延是一个驱逐“全然他者”的过程，是排斥诸种异质性的过程，无论这种异质性呈现为一种特定的“意义”“文化属性”还是“生活方式”，由此必然带来价值理性的式微和意义空间的衰落。韩炳哲强调，在数字技术的推动下，“同者”的蔓延已经成为我们这个时代的重要特征，渗透到从全球化到我们的身体空间等诸多领域，并带来一系列政治、经济和文化效应，“同者”的蔓延及其症候也成为理解我们的时代经验的重要向度。

Second, the proliferation of the “same” renders digital communication and the consensus built upon it feeble. Formally, digital technology expands the boundaries of our communication, but “it produces not relationships, but merely connections.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 13. Digital space is filled with imaginings of the “other,” yet it is difficult for us to encounter a genuine “other” in digital space. The objects we regard as the “other” are essentially different forms of the “same.” What we do is essentially constant self-repetition; our authentic experience is not expanded within it. In the homogenized space constructed by digital technology, the negative dimension of the “other” vanishes. Amid the revelry of the “same,” the bond between the subject’s liberation and the “other” is severed. Digital technology not only constructs the power of the “same” but also continuously expands this power, giving rise to the violence of the “same.” In this sense, Han is pessimistic about digital communication and the consensus built upon it, because this consensus is essentially a consensus of the “same,” built on the basis of “likes,” [12]12 “Likes” refers to the “like” button or similar positive feedback mechanisms on social media platforms. in which “listening” is absent. “Listening” is not merely a perceptual act; it leads to a creative new system of experience. Digital communication, however, is essentially anti-“listening.” Digital space is a space that has lost its hearing; the subjects in this space are essentially atomized “lonely individuals.” Because people cannot engage in genuine dialogue, it is difficult to produce a genuine “listening community,” and a genuine “listening community” is the prerequisite for constructing an authentic public space. Digital technology constructs a field in which the “other” can essentially no longer exist. “The ‘difference’ of human beings is increasingly devoured by the greedy expansion of capitalism’s ‘artificial space.’ A philosophical anthropology associated with socialism must pay close attention to the question of how to preserve human difference.” [13]13 This is a quotation from the author’s own summary or a related source; the original text is not specified in the provided material.

其次，“同者”的蔓延使数字交往及建构其上的共识变得孱弱。从形式上看，数字技术扩大了我们的交往边界，但“它造就的不是关系，而仅仅是连接而已”。数字空间里充斥着对“他者”的想象，但我们很难在数字空间中遭遇真正的“他者”，被我们视为“他者”的对象物本质上都只是不同形态的“同者”，我们所做的本质上是不断的自我重复，我们的本真经验在其中并没有扩大。在数字技术建构的同质化空间中，“他者”的否定向度消逝了，在“同者”的狂欢中，主体的解放与“他者”之间的纽带被切断了。数字技术不仅建构了“同者”的权力，还使这种权力不断扩张，并催生出“同者”的暴力。在这个意义上，韩炳哲对数字交往及建构其上的共识持悲观态度，因为这种共识本质上是“同者”的共识，它建立在“点赞”的基础上，“倾听”在其中是缺失的。“倾听”不仅是一种感知行为，它通向一种富有创造力的新的经验体系。而数字交往本质上是反“倾听”的，数字空间是一个听力尽失的空间，这一空间中的主体本质上是原子化的“孤独个体”。因为人们无法进行真正意义上的对话，也就很难产生真正的“倾听共同体”，而真正的“倾听共同体”是建构本真的公共空间的前提。数字技术建构了一个本质上使“他者”无法存续的场阈，“人类的‘差异性’日益为资本主义‘人造空间’的贪婪扩张所吞噬，一种与社会主义相关联的哲学人类学必须高度关注如何保留人类差异性的问题”。

Finally, the spread of the “same” brings about an epistemological dilemma. This dilemma is prominently manifested in the fact that the spread of the “same” is dismantling our system of experience, because “experience” itself first of all means an encounter with the “other”; “experience” presents an “event-ness” with a negative dimension, and this “event-ness” is being constantly reconstructed by digital technology. In digital space, the “wholly other” is obscured; what we do is essentially a constant self-circulation. When information and numbers invade various fields of social life in various forms, we increasingly become beings swept along by various information and numbers. Because “calculability” implies the repetition of the “same,” information based on “calculability” cannot produce genuine knowledge. In digital space, thinking is suppressed; various big data and digital models increasingly degrade our cognitive abilities. Although a deluge of information sweeps in, genuine insight is hard to obtain. If “authentic cognition” is linked to a new form of conscious activity, then this conscious activity is oriented toward the “wholly other.” We actually encounter resistance from the “other”; while we change the “other,” the “other” also completes its shaping of us. It is this process of bidirectional change that helps us penetrate the differentiated appearances of things and ultimately reach the essence of things. The spread of the “same” makes this state of consciousness impossible. In this process, we increasingly find it difficult to obtain “authentic experience.” This is the most noteworthy epistemological effect brought about by the spread of the “same.”

最后，“同者”的蔓延带来一种认识论困境。这一困境突出地体现在“同者”的蔓延正在瓦解我们的经验体系，因为“经验”本身首先意味着与“他者”的相遇，“经验”呈现的是具有否定向度的“事件性”，而这种“事件性”正在不断地被数字技术所重构。在数字空间中，“全然他者”是被遮蔽的，我们所做的本质上只是不断地自我循环。当信息和数字以各种形态侵袭社会生活诸领域时，我们也日益成为被各种信息和数字裹挟的存在物。由于“可计算性”意味着“同者”的重复，所以建立在“可计算性”基础上的信息无法产生真正的知识。在数字空间中，思考是被抑制的，各种大数据和数字模型使我们的认知能力越来越退化，虽然海量的信息席卷而来，但真正的洞见很难获得。如果说“本真的认识”关联着一种新的意识活动，那么这种意识活动是通向“全然他者”的。我们现实地遭遇来自“他者”的抵抗，我们在改变“他者”的同时，“他者”也完成了对我们的塑造，正是这种双向改变的过程帮助我们透过事物的差异化表象，最终抵达事物的本质。“同者”的蔓延使这种意识状态变得不可能，在这个过程中，我们越来越难以获得“本真的经验”，这是“同者”的蔓延带来的最值得关注的认识论效应。

III. The “Other” as a Relational Object of the “Authentic Self” and the “Dialectic of Violence”

三、作为“本真自我”关系物的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”

The third critical dimension of the “other” is embodied in the “other” as a relational object of the “authentic self” and the “dialectic of violence.” In Byung-Chul Han’s perspective, the “authentic self” is not Descartes’ “self” as the precondition for the presentation of the “object,” nor Kant’s transcendental subject as the “legislator” of nature, nor Husserl’s “transcendental ego” after phenomenological reduction. The “authentic self” is full of dialectical tension.

“他者”的第三重批判向度体现在作为“本真自我”关系物的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”。在韩炳哲的视野中，“本真自我”不是笛卡尔作为“对象”得以呈现的前提的“自我”，不是康德作为自然的“立法者”的先验主体，也不是胡塞尔经过现象学还原后的“先验自我”。“本真自我”充满辩证的张力。

On the one hand, the “authentic self” completes its self-confirmation in its relationship with the “other.” The “authentic self” is possible only when it is incorporated into a relationship with the “other.” Here, the “other” and the “authentic self” mediate each other. If the “authentic self” is interpreted as an “affirmation,” then the “other” refers to a “negation”; this “negation” arises from the “affirmation.” In other words, the negation as the “other” is an immanent negation. Without the “other” and its dimension of rebellion against the self, the “authentic self” would lose its ground of existence. In this sense, Byung-Chul Han’s “other” is not an “other” severed from the self, nor is “otherness” an “otherness” severed from “subjectivity”; rather, it is a medium that leads to “subjectivity.” When the “authentic self” relates to the “other,” it means that the “authentic self” does not relate to an other thing but purely relates to itself. Byung-Chul Han repeatedly emphasizes that the “other” as a relational object of the “authentic self” is the medium that leads to the “authentic self”; it is precisely through the “other” that we can truly reach ourselves. If we inquire into how a stable “self” is possible, we find that this “self” cannot be realized if confined to the horizon of the pure self; it is possible only by crossing the boundary of the self and establishing a connection with the “other.” Byung-Chul Han cites both Hegel and Heidegger to阐释 the meaning dimension of the “other” as a relational object of the “authentic self.” For Hegel, “negation” is immanent in the essence of spirit; the realization of “spirit” is a process of continuously reaching essence through negation. “Spirit is only this power when it looks the negative in the face and dwells with it. This dwelling with the negative is the magical power that converts the negative into being.” [14]14 G. W. F. Hegel, *Phenomenology of Spirit*, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), §32, p. 19. Translation slightly modified. Here, the activity of “spirit” preserves and confirms its own immanent determinations in division; “spirit” precisely must encounter and face the “negator”; once it becomes the “affirmer,” “spirit” loses its essence. Similarly, for Heidegger, “anxiety” awakens only when facing the negativity of the “wholly other”; the “wholly otherness of beings,” i.e., “nothing,” is the precondition of “anxiety.” “That about which anxiety is anxious is being-in-the-world itself. In anxiety, what is ready-to-hand in the surrounding world, beings within the world in general, sink away. The ‘world’ can no longer present anything, and neither can the Dasein-with of others.” [15]15 Martin Heidegger, *Being and Time*, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 231 (H. 187). And death points precisely to this “wholly otherness.”

一方面，“本真自我”是在与“他者”的关系中完成自我确证的。“本真自我”只有被纳入与“他者”的关系中才是可能的。在这里，“他者”与“本真自我”互为中介，如果将“本真自我”阐释为一种“肯定”，那么“他者”指涉的就是一种“否定”，这种“否定”是从“肯定”中产生出来的，换言之，作为“他者”的否定是一种内在的否定。如果没有“他者”及其呈现的反叛自我的向度，那么“本真自我”也就丧失了存在的根据。在这个意义上，韩炳哲的“他者”不是与自我断裂的“他者”，“他性”也不是与“主体性”断裂的“他性”，而是通达“主体性”的中介。当“本真自我”与“他者”相关时，就意味着“本真自我”并不是与一个他物相关，而是纯粹与自我相关。韩炳哲反复强调作为“本真自我”关系物的“他者”是通达“本真自我”的中介，正是借助于“他者”，我们才能真正抵达自身。如果我们探寻一种稳固的“自我”是何以可能的，就会发现这种“自我”如果囿于纯粹自我的视阈是无法实现的，只有跨越自我的边界，通过与“他者”建立关联才是可能的。韩炳哲分别引用黑格尔和海德格尔来阐释作为“本真自我”关系物的“他者”的意义向度。在黑格尔那里，“否定”内在于精神的本质中，“精神”的实现是一个在否定中不断抵达本质的过程，“精神性只当它在绝对的支离破碎中能保全其自身时才赢得它的真实性。……精神所以是这种力量，乃是因为它敢于面对面地正视否定的东西并停留在那里。精神在否定的东西那里停留，这就是一种魔力，这种魔力就把否定的东西转化为存在”。在这里，“精神”的活动在分裂中保存和确证自身的内在规定性，“精神”恰恰要遭遇和直面“否定者”，一旦成为“肯定者”，“精神”就会丧失其本质。同样，在海德格尔那里，“畏”在面对“全然他者”的否定性时才会苏醒，“存在者的全然他性”即“无”是“畏”的前提，“畏所为而畏者，就是在世本身。在畏中，周围世界上手的东西、一般世内存在者，都沉沦了。‘世界’已不能呈现任何东西，他人的共同此在也不能”。而死亡指向的正是这种“全然他性”。

On the other hand, the “disappearance of the other” is linked to a crisis of self-production. The “disappearance of the other” means an infinite circulation of the homogenized self, thereby constructing an affirmative violence. In Byung-Chul Han’s view, the problem of the “other” is a major issue of our time. When the “otherness” immanent in the “authentic self” becomes hidden, the subject can no longer find its relational object, and life itself inevitably manifests the dimension of the “dialectic of violence.” Byung-Chul Han pays particular attention to the dual effects of technological development on the “authentic self.” In the natural sphere, the technological transformation of nature simultaneously means the “disenchantment” of “nature.” In this process, “nature” no longer presents a mysterious “otherness”; the sensuous nature, the aesthetic nature, the nature as the “place of refuge” for the human spirit disappears, replaced by a nature dominated by technology and ruled by capital. Thus nature is alienated into an abstract “functional object.” The same situation occurs in the social sphere. The global flow of capital and the immediacy and convenience of information exchange formally dismantle traditional communication barriers, giving digital space enormous communicative potential. But this is only an “illusion” produced by digital technology. The transparency and hyper-communication of digital networks correspond to the “lowest level of sociality.” In digital space, genuine communication is scarce. “People accumulate friends and fans, yet do not encounter a single other.” [16]16 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of Rituals: A Topology of the Present*, trans. Daniel Steuer (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020), p. 2. Therefore, whether in the natural sphere or the social sphere, the “other” as a relational object of the “authentic self” is increasingly scarce, leading to a pervasive fear. This fear is a “vertical” fear, a fear detached from the “other” and “otherness,” a fear that eliminates negativity. In this sense, reconstructing the “authentic self” means not only the opening of a new subjective experience but also the salvation of the “other”; it means bridging the rupture between the “authentic self” and the “other” and reaffirming their essential internal connection.

另一方面，“他者的消失”关联着自我生产的危机。“他者的消失”意味着同质化的自我的无限循环，并由此建构一种肯定的暴力。在韩炳哲看来，“他者”的问题是我们这个时代的重大问题，当内在于“本真自我”的“他性”隐匿后，主体就会找不到自身的关系物，生命本身便不可避免地呈现出“暴力辩证法”的向度。韩炳哲尤其关注科技的发展对“本真自我”的双重效应。在自然场阈中，科技对自然的改造同时意味着“自然”的“祛魅”，在这个过程中，“自然”不再呈现神秘的“他性”，那个感性的自然、审美的自然、作为人类精神之“皈依处”的自然消逝了，取而代之的是被科技宰制的自然、被资本统治的自然，由此自然异化为一种抽象的“功能客体”。同样的情形也发生在社会场阈中，资本的全球流动和信息交互的即时性和便捷性在形式上瓦解了传统的交往壁垒，使数字空间孕育着巨大的交往潜力，但这只是数字技术产生的“幻象”。数字化网络的透明化和超交际对应的是“最低级别的社交”，在数字空间里，真正的交往是稀缺的，“人们积累着朋友和粉丝，却连一个他者都未曾遭遇”。因此，无论在自然场阈中，还是在社会场阈中，作为“本真自我”关系物的“他者”都日益稀缺，由此导致一种迷漫的恐惧，这种恐惧是一种“纵向”的恐惧，是一种脱离了“他者”及“他性”的、消弭了否定性的恐惧。在这个意义上，重建“本真自我”不仅意味着新的主体经验的开启，而且意味着对“他者”的拯救，意味着要弥合“本真自我”与“他者”的断裂，并重申二者本质上的内在关联。

IV. The “Other” as “Authentic Eros” and the “Dialectic of Violence”

四、作为“本真爱欲”的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”

The fourth critical dimension of the “other” is embodied in the “other” as “authentic eros” and the “dialectic of violence.” Under conditions of digital capitalism, “authentic eros” is invaded by the power of capital and dominated by consumerism; that is, “authentic eros” is suppressed, and the disappearance of “authentic eros” corresponds to a “pathological self.”

“他者”的第四重批判向度体现在作为“本真爱欲”的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”。在数字资本主义条件下，“本真爱欲”被资本权力所侵袭，被消费主义所宰制，即“本真爱欲”被贬抑，而“本真爱欲”的消失对应的是一种“病态自我”。

The decline of “authentic Eros” is first manifested in the alienation of visual and auditory experience. Byung-Chul Han points out that under the conditions of digital capitalism, “vision” has unprecedentedly become a dominant discourse; various “visual” economies have risen, and people’s visual experience is increasingly shaped by diverse forms of consumerism, degenerating into a mere “compulsive viewing” and “blank staring.” If the visual experience corresponding to the “authentic self” is “gazing,” which presents a new ontological experience associated with a “negativity,” and the subject and object connected by “gazing” constitute both a cognitive and a practical relationship, then both “compulsive viewing” and “blank staring” are the abolition of “gazing.” Both are essentially “anti-gazing,” manifesting as a “violence of positivity,” ultimately leading to a poverty of sensibility. The same applies to hearing. In the contemporary era, amid the roar of various digital information, hearing has become a gradually vanishing perception; at every moment, sounds come from all directions, yet we seem to hear nothing—“the noisy burnout society is completely deaf.” [17]17 Byung-Chul Han, *The Burnout Society*, trans. Wang Yili (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 60. Digital space dissolves listening; it is essentially a resonant space constructed by “isolated individuals.”

“本真爱欲”的式微首先体现为视觉经验和听觉经验的异化。韩炳哲指出，在数字资本主义条件下，“视觉”空前地成为一种显性的话语，各种“视觉”经济崛起，人们的视觉经验被各种形态的消费主义所塑造，视觉经验日益退化为一种“狂看”和“呆视”。如果说与“本真自我”对应的视觉经验是“注视”，“注视”呈现的是一种新的存在论经验，它关联着一种“否定性”，由“注视”所连接起来的主体与客体既是一种认识关系，也是一种实践关系，那么无论是“狂看”还是“呆视”都是对“注视”的取消，二者本质上都是“反注视”的，都呈现为一种“肯定性的暴力”，最终导致感性的匮乏。同样的情形也适用于听觉。在当代，在各种数字化信息的轰鸣中，听觉已经成为一种日渐消逝的感知，每时每刻各种声音从四面八方传来，而我们似乎又听不到任何声音，“喧闹的倦怠社会听力全无”。数字空间是消解倾听的，它本质上是“孤独个体”建构的一种共振空间。

On the basis of exploring visual and auditory experience, Han further moves toward the bodily alienation caused by the disappearance of the “other.” Under the conditions of digital capitalism, the “body” no longer relates to multidimensional ontological narratives but is reduced to a mere “thing” or “flesh.” In the contemporary era, differences in the “body” are degenerating into differences in “flesh.” “Today, the flesh is in a crisis; it is not only decomposed into erotic body parts but also into digitized computer data.” [18]18 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of Rituals*, trans. Ren Yi (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2023), p. 33. The “otherness” of the “body” is being lost; “‘quantified self’ turns the flesh into a surveillance screen,” [19]19 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of Rituals*, p. 33. and the “body” increasingly becomes a space of the “same.” The “body” as a dimension of spatial utopia has disappeared; the “body” increasingly becomes a “naked body,” a “reified space” shaped by capital. Correspondingly, the language of the “body” grows ever poorer, and the imagination of the “body” ever more impoverished. When the “body” increasingly presents itself as a “functional” existence, and the “social-historical body” increasingly gives way to the “natural-physiological body” (in fact, this “giving way” is itself social-historical), the “body” increasingly becomes a repressive force. People are burdened by the “body,” not only by its appearance but also by its language and strategies. From the reified bodily narratives in contemporary film and television to various commercialized fitness activities, all signify that the sensuous “body,” originally possessing multidimensional differences, is becoming a “scarce commodity.”

在探讨视觉经验和听觉经验的基础上，韩炳哲进一步走向“他者”的消失所导致的身体异化。在数字资本主义条件下，“身体”不再关联多维的存在论叙事，而是降低为一种纯粹的“物”或“肉身”。在当代，“身体”的差异正在退化为一种“肉身”的差异。“今天，肉体处于一种危机中，它不仅被分解成色情的身体部位，而且还被分解成数字化的电脑数据。”“身体”的“他性”在丧失，“‘量化自我’将肉体变成了一个监控大屏幕”，“身体”日渐沦为一个“同者”的空间。作为空间乌托邦向度的“身体”已经消失，“身体”越来越成为一种“赤裸身体”，一种被资本形塑的“物化的空间”。相应地，“身体”的语言越来越贫瘠，关于“身体”的想象越来越匮乏。当“身体”越来越呈现为一种“功能性”的存在，“社会—历史的身体”越来越让位于“自然—生理的身体”（事实上，这种“让位”本身就是社会—历史的）时，“身体”也就越来越成为一种压制性的力量。人被“身体”所累，不仅被“身体”的外观所累，更被“身体”的语言和“身体”的策略所累。从当代影视作品中物化的身体叙事，到当代各种商业化的健身活动，都表征着原本具有多维差异性的感性“身体”正在成为一种“稀缺品”。

Whether the alienation of vision, hearing, or the body, all point to the fundamental predicament of “authentic Eros”—the production of the “pathological self.” If “authentic Eros” points to the intrinsic connection between “Eros” and the “self,” then in the “pathological self,” the desire for “Eros” is suppressed; this suppressed “self” is a “pathological self,” a “depressive self.” Specifically, the “self” no longer acts as an “agent”; it cannot essentially externalize itself in the object; the “complicity” of capital and technology suppresses this objectifying activity. In this process, the “self” no longer encounters negativity, the result being the complete victory of the “pure self”; the “self” becomes a homogenized space constructed by “absolute positivity,” which in the contemporary era is prominently manifested in the spreading “narcissism” and the production of a vast representational system of “narcissism.” Here, Han distinguishes between “need” and “desire”: “need” is directed toward the “self,” associated with the Eros of the “same,” while “desire” is directed toward the “other”; “desire” is precisely the fundamental orientation of “authentic Eros.” If the “pathological self” connects “smooth Eros,” “smooth communication,” “smooth pain,” and “smooth need,” then the “authentic self” connects “authentic Eros,” “authentic communication,” “authentic pain,” and “authentic desire.” “Eros is closely linked to beauty and the appearance of truth. This distinguishes Eros from liking (Gefalle). Heidegger might say that the era dominated by liking and liking-clicks is an era that has abandoned Eros and lost beauty.” [20]20 Byung-Chul Han, *The Agony of Eros*, trans. Guan Yuhong (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 33. In this sense, the salvation of “authentic Eros” is an important path out of the “pathological self.”

无论是视觉、听觉还是身体的异化，都指向“本真爱欲”的根本性困境——“病态自我”的生产。如果说“本真爱欲”指向“爱欲”与“自我”的内在关联，那么在“病态自我”中对“爱欲”的渴望被抑制了，这种被抑制的“自我”就是一种“病态自我”“抑郁自我”。具体来说，“自我”在其中不再作为某种“活动者”，它无法在本质上将自身外化于对象，资本和科技的“共谋”抑制了这一对象化活动。在这个过程中，“自我”不再遭遇否定性，其结果是“纯粹自我”的全然胜利，“自我”成为一种由“绝对的肯定”建构的同质化空间，这种同质化在当代突出表现为不断蔓延的“自恋”和一个庞大的“自恋”的表征体系的生产。在这里，韩炳哲区分了“需求”与“渴望”：“需求”是指向“自我”的，“需求”关联着“同者”的爱欲，而“渴望”是指向“他者”的，“渴望”正是“本真爱欲”的根本指向。如果说“病态自我”联结的是“平滑的爱欲”“平滑的交往”“平滑的痛苦”和“平滑的需求”，那么“本真的自我”联结的则是“本真的爱欲”“本真的交往”“本真的痛苦”和“本真的渴望”。“爱欲是与美、与真理的表象紧密相连的。这将爱欲与喜欢（Gefalle）区别开来。海德格尔或许会说，被喜欢、点赞所主导的时代是抛弃了爱欲、失去了美的时代。”在这个意义上，对“本真爱欲”的拯救是走出“病态自我”的重要路径。

V. The “Other” as a “Rebellion” against the Logic of Capital and the “Dialectic of Violence”

五、作为“反叛”资本逻辑的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”

The fifth critical dimension of the “other” is embodied in the “other” as a rebellion against the logic of capital and the “dialectic of violence.” Within the logic of capital and the consumerist “imperative” it constructs, “otherness” is reduced to a “consumable otherness (die Andersheit).” The “other” as a rebellion against the logic of capital is centrally manifested in its rebellion against neoliberalism and the performance system it constructs.

“他者”的第五重批判向度体现在作为反叛资本逻辑的“他者”与“暴力辩证法”。在资本逻辑及其建构的消费主义“律令”中，“他性”沦为一种“可消费的他性（die Andersheit）”，作为反叛资本逻辑的“他者”集中体现为对新自由主义及其建构的绩效体系的反叛。

First, neoliberalism and the globalization process it dominates contain a “violence of homogenization.” Han points out that globalization is essentially a process of the infinite spread of homogenization, a process in which the “other” and “otherness” continuously disappear. Specifically, globalization turns the world into a homogeneous space of commodities, a global-scale “department store”; “globalized communication only allows for the same other or other same.” [21]21 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of the Other*, trans. Wu Qiong (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 7. Every individual becomes the “they-self”; [22]22 “They-self” (*das Man*) is a term from Martin Heidegger’s *Being and Time*, referring to the inauthentic mode of existence in which individuals conform to the anonymous, average norms of society. “authentic existence” is forgotten under the dictatorship of the “they-self” and assimilated by it. Neoliberalism and the globalization process it dominates create a formal diversity, but this diversity does not point to “authentic existence.” In this formal diversity, “otherness” is confirmed through globalized “universal exchange”; all particularities that do not submit to this “universal exchange” are eliminated or marginalized. “The violence of globalization is the violence of homogenization; it destroys the negativity of the other, uniqueness, and the incomparable.” [23]23 Byung-Chul Han, *The Disappearance of the Other*, p. 7. In this sense, Han points out that besides religious factors, the generation of terrorism is also a resistance of “particularity” against homogenizing violence—that is, a systemic resistance has always been inherent in the globalization process. Han emphasizes that globalization essentially presents an encounter of the “same” with the “same,” not an encounter of the “identical” with the “other”; this stems from the fact that the encounter of the “identical” with the “other” is accompanied by a universal predicament of comparability, which contradicts the essential requirements of neoliberalism and its performance system. Amid the consumerist feast promised by neoliberalism, people are completely unaware of the systemic violence of globalization. Reconstructing the “other” means re-examining the “difference” within the neoliberal perspective, and identifying and resisting homogenizing violence.

第一，新自由主义及其主导的全球化进程蕴含一种“同质化的暴力”。韩炳哲指出，全球化本质上是一个同质化无限蔓延的进程，是“他者”及“他性”不断消失的进程。具体来说，全球化使世界成为一个同质化的商品的空间、一个全球规模的“百货商店”，“全球化交际只允许相同的他者或其他的同者存在”。每一个个体都成为“常人”，“本真的存在”在“常人”的独裁中被遗忘了，被“常人”所同化。新自由主义及其主导的全球化进程创造了一种形式上的多样性，但这种多样性并不指向“本真的存在”。在这种形式上的多样性中，“他性”是通过全球化的“通用交易”来确证的，所有不屈从于这一“通用交易”的特殊性都会被清除或被边缘化。“全球化的暴力也就是同质化的暴力，它摧毁他者、独特性以及不可比较之物的否定性。”在这个意义上，韩炳哲指出，恐怖主义的生成除了宗教因素外，也是“特殊性”对同质化暴力的反抗，即一种系统性的反抗一直内在于全球化进程中。韩炳哲强调，全球化本质上呈现的是“同者”与“同者”的相遇，而不是“同一者”与“他者”的相遇，这源于“同一者”与“他者”的相遇伴随着一种普遍的可比较性的困境，这与新自由主义及其绩效体系的本质要求相悖。在新自由主义承诺的消费主义盛宴中，人们对全球化的系统化暴力浑然不觉。重建“他者”意味着对新自由主义视阈中的“差异”的重新审视，意味着对同质性暴力的辨识及反抗。

Second, neoliberalism and its performance system dissolve time as the “other.” Byung-Chul Han points out that neoliberalism and its performance system correspond to a specific set of temporal strategies: on the one hand, in the spheres of social production and personal life, “acceleration” becomes the most salient temporal experience—both capital production and capital circulation rely on this “acceleration” to an unprecedented degree; on the other hand, time with multiple dimensions of meaning is reduced to a single dimension. Neoliberalism reconstructs the “legitimacy” of time, so that all time directly embodies capital’s logic of production, submits to the growth of performance, and marginalizes “heterogeneous time” that does not obey this temporal goal—for example, leisure time, festival time, and celebratory time. In this process, an “otherness” that naturally grows out of the temporal structure is suppressed; the individual’s life-time is swept along by neoliberalism’s performance time, and time becomes a means of exploiting people. People are deeply reified, treated like a machine system, and “production” becomes the dominant form of people’s “life-time.” On this basis, Han further points out that digital technology continuously reinforces neoliberalism’s temporal strategy. Digital technology has initiated a “time revolution”: it not only focuses our attention on the “present” but also breaks down the traditional temporal structure, producing a “spatial simultaneity.” “Digital indifference eliminates all forms of proximity and distance. Everything is equally near or equally far.” In the pre-digital era, people used clocks to distinguish work time from rest time, but digital technology constructs a “mobile labor camp” that breaks down temporal and geographical limits, creating the technical conditions for working anytime, anywhere. In this process, every moment of the individual’s life submits to the logic of capital, and the value of life is converted into the value of commodities. For the “authentic self,” time of this sort is time that is constantly alienated from the “authentic self”—an external, alien time. Reconstructing the “other” means reconstructing authentic, endogenous time, and means initiating a new temporal strategy.

第二，新自由主义及其绩效体系消解了作为“他者”的时间。韩炳哲指出，新自由主义及其绩效体系对应着一整套特定的时间策略：一方面，在社会生产和个人生活场阈中，“加速”成为最显著的时间体验，无论是资本生产，还是资本流通，都空前地依赖这种“加速”；另一方面，具有多重意义向度的时间被单向度化，新自由主义重构了时间的“合法性”，使所有的时间都直接体现资本的生产逻辑，服从绩效的增长，并将不屈从这一时间目标的“异质的时间”边缘化，例如休闲的时间、节日的时间和庆典的时间。在这个过程中，一种在时间结构中自然生长出来的“他性”被抑制了，个体的生命时间被新自由主义的绩效时间所裹挟，时间成为一种剥削人的方式。人被深度物化，人像机器体系那样被对待，“生产”成为人的“生命时间”的主导形态。在此基础上，韩炳哲进一步指出，数字技术使新自由主义的时间策略不断强化。数字技术开启了一场“时间革命”，它不仅使我们对时间的关注聚焦于“当下”，更打破了传统的时间结构，生产出一种“空间的并存性”。“数字化的无差别性消除了切近与疏远的所有表现形式。一切都是同等的近或同等的远。”在前数字技术时代，人们用时钟区分工作时间和休息时间，而数字技术建构了一个“移动的劳动营”，它打破了时间和地理的限制，创造了随时随地工作的技术条件。在这个过程中，个体生命的每时每刻都屈从于资本的逻辑，生命的价值转化为商品的价值。对于“本真自我”来说，如此这般的时间是与“本真自我”不断疏离的时间，是一种外在的、异己的时间。重建“他者”意味着重建本真的、内生的时间，意味着开启一种新的时间策略。

Third, neoliberalism’s marketing strategy concerning the “authentic self” accelerates the disappearance of the “other.” Byung-Chul Han points out that the “authentic self” wears the cloak of freedom and liberation whitewashed by neoliberalism, but in essence it is a production strategy of neoliberalism. “Neoliberalism is capitalism that ‘pleases me.’ It is fundamentally different from the capitalism of the 19th century, which operated through disciplinary coercion and command-and-obedience methods.” The neoliberal “authentic self” is essentially false; the “authentic” here is not the same as Heidegger’s “authenticity” (Eigentlichkeit). The “authentic self” is an “authenticity” saturated with commodity and consumption relations; the experience of the genuine “other” is obscured under the rule of capital. Correspondingly, the “authentic other” that corresponds to the “authentic self” is not a negation of the “authentic self” but a homogenized product of it. In this sense, the “authentic self” is anti-“other.” Han distinguishes between “difference” and “heterogeneity”: the “authentic self” concerns “difference” rather than “heterogeneity.” “Difference” within the neoliberal horizon is a diversity subsumed under the framework of capital; it is essentially a diversity of commodities and consumption, whereas “heterogeneity” is anti-comparative and cannot be subsumed by neoliberalism’s logic of identity. The contemporary myth of the “authentic self” is extraordinarily robust; it promises an imagination of the “other,” and individuals willingly perform various forms of self-display within this imagination. It is also in this process that individuals continuously accept the discipline of capital. The pathological consequence of excessive self-focus is the generation of a narcissistic subject; individuals, lost in boundless self-indulgence, can no longer recognize the “other,” thus falling into a deeper predicament of reification.

第三，新自由主义关于“真实自我”的营销策略加快了“他者”的消失。韩炳哲指出，“真实自我”披着经过新自由主义粉饰的自由和解放的外衣，但它本质上是新自由主义的一种生产策略。“新自由主义就是‘讨我欢心’的资本主义。它本质上与19世纪那种依靠规训强制和令行禁止方式来运行的资本主义截然不同。”新自由主义的“真实自我”本质上是虚假的，这里的“真实”不同于海德格尔意义上的“本真”。“真实自我”是充斥商品和消费关系的“真实”，真正的“他者”的经验在资本的统治中被遮蔽了。相应地，与“真实自我”对应的“真实他者”不是对“真实自我”的否定，而是“真实自我”的同质化产物。在这个意义上，“真实自我”是反“他者”的。韩炳哲区分了“差异”和“异质”，“真实自我”关涉“差异”而非“异质”。新自由主义视阈中的“差异”是统摄于资本框架内的一种多样性，它本质上是一种商品和消费的多样性，而“异质”是反比较的，它不能被新自由主义的同一性逻辑所统摄。当代关于“真实自我”的神话异常坚固，它承诺了一种关于“他者”的想象，个体在这一想象中心甘情愿地完成各种自我展示，也是在这个过程中，个体不断接受资本的规训。过度的自我关注导致的病理性后果是自恋性主体的生成，个体在无边的自我沉溺中再也无法辨识出“他者”，从而陷入一种更深的物化困境。

VI. Theoretical Insights and Limitations of Byung-Chul Han’s “Disappearance of the Other”

六、韩炳哲“他者的消失”的理论启示与局限性

In summary, Byung-Chul Han’s exploration of the “disappearance of the other,” like other Western social critical theories since the 20th century, presents a dimension of social pathology. In terms of specific intellectual pathways, Han constructs a unique conceptual system, including “performance society,” “the same,” “the authentic self,” and “the dialectic of violence.” Through these categories, Han sketches for us a contemporary picture of the “disappearance of the other” under digital capitalism, in which the “disappearance of the other” leads to multiple forms of alienation. Different from traditional forms of alienation, this alienation is a “plural” alienation, an alienation that develops in depth. In this sense, the “disappearance of the other” presents not only a political-economic crisis but also a cultural crisis. In Han’s relevant discussion, this crisis has not been alleviated under digital capitalism but has instead developed in depth in a more concealed and deceptive way. Specifically, Han’s relevant discussion offers us the following important theoretical insights:

综上所述，韩炳哲关于“他者的消失”的探讨与20世纪以来西方其他社会批判理论一样，呈现一种社会病理学的向度。在具体的致思路径上，韩炳哲建构了独特的概念体系，包括“绩效社会”“同者”“本真自我”“暴力辩证法”等。通过这些范畴，韩炳哲为我们勾画了一幅数字资本主义条件下“他者的消失”的当代图景，在其中，“他者的消失”导致多重异化。区别于传统的异化形态，这种异化是一种“复数”的异化，一种向纵深发展的异化。在这个意义上，“他者的消失”呈现的不仅是一种政治—经济危机，更是一种文化危机。在韩炳哲的相关探讨中，这种危机在数字资本主义条件下不是缓和了，而是以一种更为隐蔽和欺骗的方式向纵深发展了。具体来说，韩炳哲的相关探讨给予我们以下重要理论启示：

First, it presents a three-dimensional picture of the multi-dimensional critical implications of the category of the “other” in the contemporary horizon. In Han’s exposition, the category of the “other” is like a “reservoir,” integrating multiple intellectual resources from traditional philosophy of consciousness and German idealism to existentialism and phenomenology. Through his interpretation of the “disappearance of the other” and the “dialectic of violence,” Han reaffirms the epistemological status of the category of the “other.” The “other” has not only an epistemological dimension but also an ontological dimension. As a plural “other,” the “other” leads to the “object,” the “self,” and “eros.” It is also in this sense that the “disappearance of the other” in Han’s perspective leads not only to an epistemological crisis but also to an ontological crisis. On this point, Han’s relevant discussion is essentially connected with Marx’s method of thought. Although Marx never explicitly used the concepts of the “other” or “otherness,” Marx’s category of “practice” already contains the dimension of the “other.” In Marx’s context, the “other” is immanent in the subject’s objectifying activity; the “other” represents the field of the object, which can refer to nature or to actual social relations. The “other” has a practical orientation and is concretely linked to the subject’s self-affirmation. Therefore, in Marx’s perspective, the “other” is not only epistemological but also ontological.

第一，立体地呈现了当代视阈中“他者”范畴的多维批判意蕴。在韩炳哲的论述中，“他者”范畴像一个“蓄水池”，它融合了从传统意识哲学、德国观念论到存在主义、现象学等多种思想资源。韩炳哲通过对“他者的消失”与“暴力辩证法”的阐释，重申了“他者”范畴的知识论地位。“他者”不仅具有认识论向度，更具有本体论向度，作为一个复数的“他者”，“他者”通向“客体”“自我”与“爱欲”。也是在这个意义上，韩炳哲视野中的“他者的消失”不仅导致一种认识论的危机，更导致一种本体论的危机。在这一点上，韩炳哲的相关探讨与马克思的思想方法具有本质上的相通之处。马克思虽然没有明确使用过“他者”和“他性”概念，但马克思的“实践”范畴已经内含了“他者”的向度。在马克思的语境中，“他者”内在于主体的对象化活动中，“他者”代表客体的场域，既可以指涉自然，也可以指涉现实的社会关系。“他者”具有一种行动论指向，并现实地与主体的自我确证关联在一起。因此，在马克思的视野中，“他者”不仅是认识论意义上的，更是本体论意义上的。

Second, it rethinks and reaffirms the intellectual task of dialectics from a contemporary perspective. Byung-Chul Han explains in multiple dimensions the “dialectic of violence” caused by the “disappearance of the other.” Here, the “dialectic of violence” presents a rebellion against authentic dialectics, a rebellion that is concentrated in the cancellation of the negation inherent in authentic dialectics, whether this negation appears in the guise of the “authentic object,” the “authentic self,” or “authentic eros.” The “dialectic of violence” presents not only a crisis of dialectics but also relates to the multiple alienations of human beings under the conditions of digital capitalism. Through the exposition of the “dialectic of violence,” dialectics acquires a vivid contemporary form; it acts both as an “observer” of the era and as a “therapist” of the era, traversing various fields of digital capitalism, including the sphere of social production and the sphere of daily life, from globalization and digital interaction to bodily discipline. In this process, dialectics releases powerful socio-historical effects: it not only actively reflects reality but also actively critiques reality, and in a normative sense actively reconstructs “reality.” Thus, dialectics becomes not only an important path for criticizing neoliberalism and its performance system but also a breakthrough for our understanding of the experience of the era. For Byung-Chul Han, the critique of the “dialectic of violence” is simultaneously a rethinking of the intellectual task of authentic dialectics and a reconstruction of the real path out of contemporary multiple alienations. This is the most fundamental theoretical and practical purport of Han’s critique of the “dialectic of violence,” and it is also Han’s most noteworthy and affirmable theoretical contribution concerning the “disappearance of the other” and the “dialectic of violence.”

第二，重思和重申了当代视野下辩证法的思想任务。韩炳哲多向度地阐释了“他者的消失”导致的“暴力辩证法”，在这里，“暴力辩证法”呈现的是对本真的辩证法的一种反叛，这种“反叛”集中体现为对本真的辩证法内含的否定的取消，无论这种否定是以“本真客体”的面貌呈现，还是以“本真自我”抑或“本真爱欲”的面貌呈现。“暴力辩证法”呈现的不仅是辩证法的危机，更关联着数字资本主义条件下人的多重异化。通过对“暴力辩证法”的阐释，辩证法获得了一种鲜活的时代形态，它既像一个时代的“观察员”，又像一个时代的“诊疗师”，穿梭于数字资本主义诸领域，既包括社会生产领域，也包括日常生活领域，从全球化、数字交往到身体规训。在这个过程中，辩证法释放出强大的社会—历史效应，不仅能动地反映现实，而且能动地批判现实，并在一种“应然”的意义上能动地重构“现实”。由此，辩证法不仅成为批判新自由主义及其绩效体系的重要路径，而且成为我们理解时代经验的突破口。对于韩炳哲而言，对“暴力辩证法”的批判，同时也是对本真辩证法的思想任务的重思，是走出当代多重异化的现实路径的重建。这是韩炳哲批判“暴力辩证法”的最为根本的理论和实践旨趣，也是韩炳哲关于“他者的消失”与“暴力辩证法”的最值得关注和肯定的理论贡献。

Third, it deepens the critique of digital capitalism from the dimension of sensibility. Approaching the critique of digital capitalism from the crisis of sensibility is a basic feature of Byung-Chul Han’s critique of digital capitalism. The “other” in Han’s perspective leads to “authentic eros,” so the “disappearance of the other” simultaneously implies the suppression of sensibility. Byung-Chul Han presents the multiple crises under digital capitalism in a way that “opens a new path,” a path concentrated in his critique of digital capitalism. This critique is not a macroscopic total critique but a microscopic critique with sensibility as its core. In this critique, the various sensible dimensions of digital capitalism are opened up, and the socio-historical critique as grand narrative and the cultural critique permeating daily life are organically integrated. What is digital capitalism? It is not a supersensible thing; on the contrary, it is precisely what we hear, see, touch, and resist. It is not that digital capitalism is outside us; rather, we are situated within digital capitalism. With his characteristic keen observation of the features of the era and his essayistic writing style, Byung-Chul Han presents the evils of digital capitalism in all dimensions, which gives his critique of digital capitalism a certain theoretical “affinity” with Western critical social theory since the 20th century, including the Frankfurt School. Approaching the critique of capital from the perspective of sensibility, although not Han’s original creation, he has clearly enriched the content of this critique, raised its level, and made it more dynamic.

第三，从感性的向度深化了对数字资本主义的批判。从感性的危机切入数字资本主义批判，是韩炳哲数字资本主义批判的基本特征。韩炳哲视野中的“他者”通向“本真爱欲”，因而“他者的消失”同时意味着感性的贬抑。韩炳哲以“另辟蹊径”的方式呈现了数字资本主义条件下的多重危机，这种“另辟蹊径”集中体现为他对数字资本主义的批判，这种批判不是一种宏观的总体性批判，而是一种以感性为内核的微观视角的批判。在这种批判中，数字资本主义的诸种感性面向被打开，作为宏大叙事的社会—历史批判与渗透于日常生活中的文化批判有机融合在一起。何谓数字资本主义？它不是一个超感性之物，恰恰相反，它就是我们在听、在看、在触摸、在抵抗之物，不是数字资本主义在我们之外，而是我们就身处数字资本主义之中。韩炳哲以他特有的对时代特征的敏锐观察和散文化的写作方式，全方位地呈现了数字资本主义之恶，这使他的数字资本主义批判与20世纪以来包括法兰克福学派在内的西方社会批判理论表现出某种理论上的“亲缘性”。以感性的视角切入资本批判，虽然不是韩炳哲的原创，但他显然丰富了这一批判的内涵，提高了这一批判的层次，使这一批判更富有张力。

Nevertheless, Byung-Chul Han’s exposition of the “disappearance of the other” and the “dialectic of violence” also has its theoretical limitations, which are manifested in the following aspects:

尽管如此，韩炳哲关于“他者的消失”与“暴力辩证法”的阐释也有其理论的局限性，具体表现在以下几个方面：

First, the exposition of the root causes of the “disappearance of the other” is somewhat weak. Byung-Chul Han attributes the “disappearance of the other” to the evils of digital capital, but his presentation of the opposition between digital capital and labor is clearly insufficient. In Han’s discussion, the key category of “labor” appears only sporadically in his discussions of other categories; “labor” and its opposition to capital never acquire a foundational status. This gives his critique of digital capitalism a sense of scratching the surface. Because if one does not advance to the new forms of labor under digital capitalism and the new forms of its confrontation with capital, and if one does not penetrate into the essential dilemmas of contemporary capitalism, the root causes of the “disappearance of the other” can hardly be truly clarified. In this sense, although Marx’s critique of capital is an important intellectual resource for Byung-Chul Han, Han’s critique never reaches the historical depth of Marx’s critique of capital.

第一，关于“他者的消失”根源的阐释略显孱弱。韩炳哲将“他者的消失”归因于数字资本之恶，但对数字资本与劳动的对立的呈现显然不足。在韩炳哲的探讨中，“劳动”这一关键范畴只是散见于他关于其他范畴的探讨中，“劳动”及其与资本的对立从未获得一种基础性地位，这就使他对数字资本主义的批判有一种隔靴搔痒之感。因为如果不进展到数字资本主义条件下劳动的新形态及其与资本对抗的新形态，不深入到当代资本主义的本质性的困境中去，“他者的消失”的根源就很难真正被澄清。在这个意义上，虽然马克思的资本批判是韩炳哲重要的思想资源，但韩炳哲的批判始终没有抵达马克思资本批判的历史深度。

Second, insufficient attention is paid to the positive effects of digital technology. In Byung-Chul Han’s exposition, digital technology in the contemporary era presents a relationship of “complicity” with capital, becoming the real carrier of various new alienations under the rule of capital, constituting the “original sin” of digital technology. As a technological pessimist, Byung-Chul Han to some extent underestimates the self-correcting and self-upgrading capabilities of contemporary digital technology, including the fact that digital technology itself is an important path toward the real liberation of contemporary human beings. More importantly, an unprecedented era of digital technology has fully unfolded. Rather than hesitating before the castle of technological pessimism, it is better, on the basis of grasping the dual effects of digital technology, to fully utilize its positive effects and overcome the various negative effects it may bring. This is the truly dialectical attitude toward digital capital.

第二，对于数字技术的积极效应关注不够。在韩炳哲的阐释中，数字技术在当代呈现出与资本“共谋”的关系，成为资本统治下的诸种新的异化的现实载体，构成了数字技术的“原罪”。作为一个技术悲观论者，韩炳哲一定程度上低估了当代数字技术的自我纠错和自我升级能力，包括数字技术本身就是通向当代人的现实解放的重要路径。更为重要的是，一个空前的数字技术时代已经全面展开，与其在技术悲观主义的城堡前踯躅不前，不如在把握数字技术的双重效应的基础上，充分利用数字技术的积极效应，克服数字技术可能带来的各种负面效应，这才是对数字资本的真正辩证的态度。

Third, theoretical originality is insufficient, and the overall exposition tends toward fragmentation. Byung-Chul Han’s relevant discussions on the “disappearance of the other” not only draw on the philosophical theoretical resources of Hegel, Marx, Husserl, and Heidegger but also have explicit or implicit theoretical connections with many critical discourses in the West since the 20th century, including Simmel, Weber, Lukács, Horkheimer, Adorno, and Fromm. Although Han’s theory integrates the above different theoretical resources, it shows insufficient theoretical originality and lacks truly original concepts or categories. This to some extent weakens the critical force of Han’s “disappearance of the other.” His essayistic writing style both constitutes his strength and becomes a bottleneck restricting the in-depth development of his theory. Due to the lack of deep structural analysis and an overall grasp of the internal operating mechanisms, his critique of digital capitalism formally tends toward a nostalgia for aesthetic modernity, which is clearly not Han’s theoretical intention. (Notes and references omitted)

第三，理论原创性不足，整体阐释流于碎片化。韩炳哲关于“他者的消失”的相关探讨，不仅汲取了黑格尔、马克思、胡塞尔与海德格尔的哲学理论资源，而且与20世纪以来西方诸多的批判话语，包括西美尔、韦伯、卢卡奇、霍克海默、阿多诺、弗洛姆等都存在或显性或隐性的理论关联。韩炳哲的理论虽然融合了上述不同理论资源，但体现出的理论原创性不够，欠缺真正的原创性概念或范畴，这在一定程度上削弱了韩炳哲“他者的消失”的批判力。散文化的写作既成就了他的风格，也成为制约他的理论深入发展的瓶颈，由于欠缺深层的结构分析以及对内在运行机制的整体把握，导致他对数字资本主义的批判在形式上流于一种审美现代性的怀旧，但这显然不是韩炳哲的理论初衷。（注释、参考文献略）

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Tongji University)

（作者系同济大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑