The End of the Political and “Post-Democracy” — Rancière’s Philosophical Critique of Contemporary Western Politics

Jacques Rancière is one of the most famous contemporary radical left-wing scholars in the West. Born in 1940, Rancière was once an important member of the famous research group on *Capital* led by Althusser and participated in writing *Reading Capital*. After the 1980s, Rancière turned to the study of political philosophy. While Western academia rapidly shifted to the right, Rancière still adhered to his radical egalitarian ideas. Faced with the mood of “political secularization” that pervaded the Western world after the end of the Cold War, Rancière, on the basis of distinguishing between “politics” and “police,” pointed out that contemporary Western society exhibits a depoliticizing tendency to replace “politics” with “police.” Under this tendency, Western society has formed a “consensus democracy” or “consensus system” that erases the political, entering a “post-democratic” era in which democracy has lost its substantive content and become entirely formalized. This “consensus democracy” has not brought about the universally free world it promised. On the contrary, where so-called “totalitarian states” have collapsed, “ethnicism and ethnic wars have broken out.” The concepts of “the end of the political” and “post-democracy” proposed by Rancière are of significant reference value for our understanding of the universal political crisis currently facing the West and the rise of new political forces such as populism.

雅克·朗西埃（Jacques Rancière）是当代西方最著名的激进左翼学者之一。出生于1940年的朗西埃，曾经是阿尔都塞领导的著名的《资本论》研究小组的重要成员，并参与写作了《阅读资本论》。在20世纪80年代之后，朗西埃开始涉足政治哲学研究。在西方学术界迅速右转的同时，朗西埃仍然坚持着他的激进平等理念。面对冷战结束后在西方世界弥漫的“政治世俗化”情绪，朗西埃在区分“政治”与“治安”的基础上，指出当代西方社会存在着一种以“治安”来取代“政治”的非政治化倾向。在这种倾向之下，西方社会形成了一种抹杀政治性的“共识民主”或“共识系统”，进入了一种民主丧失实质性内容而完全形式化的“后民主”时代。这种“共识民主”并没有带来其所承诺的普遍自由的世界。相反，在所谓的“极权国家”崩溃的地方，“族群主义与族群战争爆发了”。朗西埃所提出的“政治的终结”“后民主”等概念，对于我们理解当下西方所面临的普遍性政治危机及民粹主义等新兴政治势力的崛起，具有重要的参考意义。

I. Disagreement and the Part of No Part

一、话语歧义与无分之分

After the failure of the May 1968 movement [1]1 The part of those who have no part (无分者之分): A key concept in Rancière’s political philosophy, referring to those who are excluded from the existing social order and have no recognized share in the community, yet whose very exclusion constitutes a political subject., many radical intellectuals who had participated in the radical social movements of the 1960s fell into disillusionment. They betrayed their left-wing egalitarian ideas, and some even became important figures in the official establishment of the Fifth French Republic, but Rancière’s thought never wavered. Rancière has always adhered to radical egalitarian ideas — it was precisely this adherence to radical egalitarianism that ultimately led to his disappointment with Althusser and even his break with him. In 1974, Rancière published *Althusser’s Lesson*, formally breaking with Althusser. Behind the binary division of “science” and “ideology” proposed by Althusser, Rancière discovered the traditional logic of domination lurking within it. In Rancière’s view, this theory negates the intrinsic value of the spontaneous expression and action of the working class, turning the working class into a passive mass that must obey the guidance of the Party and theoreticians. “In Althusser’s construction, because the working class is the victim of ideological confusion, they cannot see through their actual circumstances. They need the leadership of the Party, and they need to trust that the Party’s intellectuals will take note of their situation and be able to liberate them from oppression through appropriate political action.” Rancière believes that this logic transforms the order established through the division of labor (i.e., the division between manual and mental labor) into a symbolic order. In this order, only the group engaged in mental labor has the right to express valuable and authoritative views and ideas, while the common people at the bottom are deprived of the right to express themselves, and their spontaneous expressions are considered meaningless.

1968年“五月风暴”失败后，曾经参与过20世纪60年代激进社会运动的很多激进知识分子走向幻灭。他们背叛了自己的左翼平等理念，有的甚至成为法兰西第五共和国官方的重要人物，但是朗西埃的思想从未动摇。朗西埃一直坚持激进平等理念——正是这种对激进平等主义理念的坚持，最终导致他对阿尔都塞的失望乃至与其决裂。1974年，朗西埃出版了《阿尔都塞的教训》，正式与阿尔都塞决裂。在阿尔都塞所提出的“科学”与“意识形态”二元划分的背后，朗西埃发现了潜藏其中的传统统治逻辑。在朗西埃看来，这种理论否定了工人阶级的自发表达和行动的内在价值，把工人阶级变成了要听从党和理论家指导的消极大众，“在阿尔都塞的建构中，由于工人阶级是意识形态混淆作用的受害者，他们不能看破他们所处的现实环境。他们需要党的领导，而且需要信任党的知识分子会注意到他们的处境，并且能够通过合适的政治行动将他们从压迫中解放出来”。朗西埃认为，这种逻辑将通过劳动分工（即体力劳动与脑力劳动的划分）建立的秩序转换成了象征秩序。在这种秩序中，只有从事脑力劳动的群体才有权利表达有价值和有话语权的观点和思想，底层的平民则被剥夺了表达的权利，其自发的表达被认为是毫无意义的。

Rancière combines the critique of unequal social domination with the discursive power of different social groups. In his radical egalitarian ideas, the plight of the governed lies not in their failure to understand and master the correct views and ideology imparted by intellectuals, but in the erasure of their discourse and expression by a specific unequal system. The inequality of modern society as understood by Rancière is not the class inequality based on specific relations of production as described by Marx, but the concealment and disappearance of specific groups who are deprived of discursive power and unrecognized by society. After the 1970s, Rancière devoted himself entirely to archival research on the lower classes and established a “Workers’ History Research Group” at the University of Paris VIII. Inspired by the British historian Edward Palmer Thompson’s *The Making of the English Working Class*, he sought to uncover “thought from below” and “history from below” through the analysis and excavation of labor archives. In Rancière’s view, all experts, scholars, and intellectuals concerned with the condition of the working class should not dictate opinions arrogantly, but should believe that workers have the ability to directly express their own desires and needs. Guided by this idea, Rancière devoted himself to studying “the dreams of the 19th-century French working class,” attempting to let workers speak for themselves, allowing workers to reconstruct their own expression and organization.

朗西埃将对不平等的社会统治的批判与不同社会群体的话语权力结合起来。在他的激进平等理念中，被统治者的困境并不在于他们没有理解和掌握知识分子告知他们的正确的观点和意识形态，而在于特定的不平等体制抹去了他们的话语和表达。朗西埃所理解的现代社会的不平等，并不是马克思所讲的建立在特定生产关系之上的阶级不平等，而是被剥夺了话语权力、不被社会所承认的特定群体的隐匿和消失。在20世纪70年代以后，朗西埃完全投身于有关底层的档案研究中，并在巴黎八大开设了一个“工人历史研究小组”。他受英国历史学家爱德华·帕尔默·汤普森《英国工人阶级的形成》的启发，力图通过分析和挖掘劳工档案来发掘“来自下层的思想”（thought from below）和“来自下层的历史”（history from below）。在朗西埃看来，所有关注工人阶级状况的专家、学者、知识分子都不应颐指气使地发表意见，而应当相信工人有直接表达自己的愿望和需求的能力。在这种思想指导下，朗西埃致力于研究“19世纪法国工人阶级的梦想”，试图要让工人为自己代言，让工人可以重建其自身的表达及组织。

In *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy*, published in 1995, Rancière reviews ancient Greek political texts and explores the relationship between the speaking animal and the political animal. Since ancient times, speech has been considered the main characteristic distinguishing humans from animals, as Aristotle said: “Of all animals, only humans have acquired the ability to speak.” Animals can only emit sounds, expressing the pleasure and pain common to all animals; while humans possess discourse and the ability to speak, and discourse can express the distinction between “useful and harmful,” and through this distinction, convey public justice and injustice. However, not all physiological humans possess the ability and qualification to speak. Rancière discovered that in ancient Greek political discussions, speakers needed specific qualifications. Based on whether one has the qualification to speak, people in a social community can be divided into discourse animals and voice animals. Those unqualified speakers, that is, the heterogeneous and nameless people called “the people,” are considered to be able only to “express the animal noise of pleasure and pain.” For example, a Greek magistrate, Menenius Agrippa, arrogantly said that the common people “possess only temporary speech, and this speech is an improvised voice, a lowing of cattle, a sign of need, not an expression of the intellect. They utterly lack eternal and unchanging speech.” That is to say, the speech of the people at the physical level is concealed and invisible at the social level, and can only be treated as meaningless animal noise. If the people were to break this concealment and forcibly issue their own discourse and speech, it would be considered to cause chaos in the political order.

在1995年出版的《歧义：政治与哲学》中，朗西埃回顾古希腊的政治学文献，探讨了言说动物与政治动物的关系。自古以来，言说一直被认为是人区别于动物的主要特征，就如亚里士多德所说：“所有的动物中，只有人类掌握了说话的能力。”动物能够发出的只是声音，只能表达所有动物所共有的愉悦与痛苦；而人类则拥有话语和言说的能力，话语能够表达“有用与有害”的区别，通过这种区别所传递的公共性的正义与不义，但并不是所有生理意义上的人都具有言说的能力和资格。朗西埃发现，在古希腊政治学的探讨中，言说者需要具备特定的资格。依据是否具有言说资格，一个社会共同体中的人可以被区分为话语动物与声音动物。那些不具备资格的言说者，也就是被称为“人民”的杂多无名的人，被认为只能“表达愉悦与痛苦的动物喧嚣”。比如希腊一名执政官曼尼厄斯傲慢地说，平民“仅仅拥有暂时性的言说，而此种言说是一种即兴的声音，一种牛哞声、一种需求的符号，而非知性的表达。他们根本不具备亘古不变的永恒言说”。也就是说，人民身体层面的言说在社会层面是被隐匿而不可见的，只能被当作一种无意义的动物噪声。如果人民要打破这种隐匿，强行发出自己的话语和言说，则被认为会引起政治秩序的混乱。

Therefore, discourse animals constitute the visible in a society, while voice animals are reduced to the invisible, thus forming a distribution of bodies within a sensory order. Rancière uses this division to replace the class opposition in the Marxist category, and this distinction between visible and invisible ultimately produces disagreement in discourse. The disagreement Rancière elaborates is not the mistaken understanding and mistaken interpretation we usually mean, but originates from a limited speech situation, namely, “one of the parties to the dialogue both understands and does not understand what the other says.” It is not a conflict where one side says white and the other says black, but rather “both sides say white, but what they understand is completely not the same thing, or they completely do not understand the same thing that the other says in the name of white.” Therefore, the emergence of disagreement reflects two fundamentally heterogeneous rational foundations on which the subject and object of discourse rely. Which side’s discourse can be universally accepted and adopted by society mainly depends on the power relations behind the subject.

因此，话语动物构成了一个社会中的可见者，而声音动物沦为不可见者，由此形成了一种感知秩序中的身体分配。朗西埃用这种划分，取代了马克思主义范畴中的阶级对立，这种可见与不可见的区分最终产生了话语的歧义。朗西埃所阐述的歧义，不是我们通常意义上所理解的错误认识和错误理解，而是根源于一种被限定的说话情境，即“对话之一方同时理解与不理解另一方所说的话”。它不是那种一方说白色而另一方说黑色的冲突，而是“双方都说白色，但是所理解的却完全不是同一件事，或是完全不理解另一方以白色之名所说的同一件事”。所以，歧义的产生反映了话语的主体和客体所依据的两种根本异质的理性基础。哪一方的话语能够被社会所普遍接受和接纳，主要取决于主体背后的权力关系。

For the common people at the bottom of a society, they not only have no right to speak or express themselves, but are usually placed in a position of being concealed. The common people who are concealed and invisible in society are called by Rancière the “part of those who have no part” (无分之分), that is, those who “have no share at all” in the social community, such as the poor of antiquity, the Third Estate, and the modern proletariat. Rancière traces the concept of the “part of those who have no part” back to Aristotle. In the *Politics*, Aristotle divides the people in a community into three categories and examines their “worth” as qualifications for the community: the wealth belonging to the oligarchs, the virtue belonging to the aristocrats, and the freedom belonging to the common people. But compared with the wealth of the oligarchs and the virtue of the aristocrats, the freedom possessed by the common people “is not a determinable attribute, but a pure invention,” which cannot be verified in reality. At the same time, freedom is not an attribute exclusive to the common people; that is, the common people are merely “the multitude without distinction and without definite qualification—without wealth, without virtue—who yet claim to possess the same freedom as others.” In other words, the common people in fact possess no specific characteristic (such as wealth or virtue), yet are imposed with the false characteristic of freedom, thereby manufacturing the common people’s identification with the community: “the multitude without attributes identifies with the community under this false name.” Or rather, it is precisely because of the existence of those who have no part, who “bear the empty name of freedom” and possess no characteristics, that the community exists as a political community.

对于一个社会中处于底层的平民来说，他们不仅没有言说和表达的权利，而且通常处于被隐匿的位置。在社会中被隐匿而不可见的平民，被朗西埃称为“无分之分”，即在社会共同体中“根本不拥有任何份额的人”，比如古代的穷人、第三等级、现代的无产者。朗西埃将“无份之人”的概念追溯到亚里士多德。在《政治学》中，亚里士多德将共同体中的人分为三类，并检视了他们作为共同体资格的“价值”，即属于寡头的财富、属于贵族的德行以及属于平民的自由。但是与寡头的财富和贵族的德行相比，平民所拥有的自由“并不是一个可确定的属性，而纯粹是人为发明”，无法在现实中被证实。同时，自由也不是平民所专有的属性，即平民只不过是“无区分而没有明确资格的大众——没有财富、没有美德——却自认为拥有与其他人同样的自由”。也就是说，平民事实上不具有任何的特性（比如财富或美德），却被强加了自由这一虚假的特性，由此制造出了平民对于共同体的认同，“没有属性的大众以此错误之名与共同体同一”。或者说，正是由于“承担了自由之空名”而没有任何特性的无分者的存在，共同体才以一种政治性共同体存在。

The proletariat as understood by Rancière is precisely the “part of those who have no part” excluded from the mainstream social system in capitalist society. During the trial of Blanqui by the French government in 1832, when the prosecutor asked about his occupation, Blanqui replied “proletarian,” and the prosecutor said, “That is not an occupation.” Blanqui retorted, “It is precisely the occupation of the majority of our people, because they are deprived of political power.” Rancière comments on this that although from the logic of the police the prosecutor was right, from the political point of view Blanqui was justified, because “the proletarian is not the name of a sociologically definable social group. It is the name of an ‘outcast,’ of those who are cast out.” In modern capitalist society, although the proletariat ostensibly possesses the same legal rights as the bourgeoisie, they in fact have no power or wealth in the bourgeois kingdom; they are the concealed, excluded, and cast-out persons without identity in capitalist society.

朗西埃所理解的无产阶级，正是资本主义社会中被排除在主流社会体系之外的“无分之分”。在1832年法国政府审判布朗基的过程中，当检察长询问其职业的时候，布朗基回答说“无产者”，检察长说“这不是一个职业”。布朗基反驳说，“这正是我们大多数人民的职业，因为他们被剥夺了政治权力”。朗西埃据此评论说，尽管从治安的逻辑来看，检察官的说法是对的，但从政治的观点来看，布朗基是有道理的，因为“无产者不是一个从社会学上可以界定的社会群体的名称。它是一种‘被排斥者（outcast）’，一种被驱赶者的名称”。在现代资本主义社会，尽管无产阶级在表面上拥有同资产阶级同等的法律权利，但他们实质上没有资产阶级王国中的任何权力和财富，是资本主义社会中处于隐匿状态的被排斥和驱赶的无身份者。

II. Politics and Police: Two Logics of Social Operation

二、政治与治安：两种社会运行逻辑

Through the “original conflict of the community over justice and injustice” deduced from the capacity of speaking beings, Rancière distinguishes two different logics of social operation: the police (治安) and the political (政治). Although the public context often confuses police with politics, in essence these are two completely different logics.

在通过对言说者的能力所推演出的“正义与不正义的共同体原初冲突”中，朗西埃分辨出了两种不同的社会运行的逻辑，即治安(police)与政治（political）。尽管公共语境中经常将治安与政治混为一谈，但从本质上来说这是两种完全不同的逻辑。

(I) Police: The Control and Distribution of Bodies

（一）治安：对身体的管控与分配

Rancière’s understanding of the police is deeply influenced by Foucault. Foucault defines the science of police as “the form of governmental technology governed by the principle of reason of state,” a technology that concerns all affairs related to “man” and his “happiness.” This science of police originated in 18th-century Germany, where the “narrow territorial divisions” Germany faced allowed it to enter “local zones that were extremely convenient to observe.” The logic of this science of police can be summarized in one point: the government “governs too little,” i.e., “not enough attention; too many things escape control; too many places lack regulation and supervision; insufficient order and management.” Under this science of police, all factors concerning human health and life, such as health, birth rates, and hygiene, are brought within the scope of state governance. Rancière further develops Foucault’s concept of the police. What he understands as “police” is a governing technology and distribution system that arranges social operation according to a certain consensus, a system that determines the division and distribution of the various parts composing the social whole, whose main function is to “define the part of those who have a part or have no part.”

朗西埃对于治安的理解，深受福柯的影响。福柯把治安科学定义为“国家理性原则所主导的治理技术形式”，这种技术涉及关于“人”及其“幸福”的所有事务。这种治安科学起源于18世纪的德国，当时德国所面临的“狭隘的领土分割”，使他们能够进入“极其方便观察到的局部地带”。这种治安科学的逻辑可以概括为一点：政府“管得太少”，即“关注不够；太多的东西失去了控制；太多的地方没有调节和监督；没有充分的秩序和管理”。在这种治安科学之下，健康、出生率、卫生等涉及人类健康和生活的所有因素，都被纳入国家的治理范畴中。朗西埃进一步发展了福柯的治安概念。他所理解的“治安”，是一种按照一定的共识来安排社会运行的治理技术和分配体系，这种体系决定着组成社会整体的各个部分的划分和分配，其主要职能是“定义组成部分的有分或无分”。

First, the police order determines the position of each group in society and also determines whether each social group has the qualification to speak. In *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy*, Rancière points out: “The police is thus first an order of bodies that defines the allocation of ways of doing, ways of being, and ways of saying, and sees that those bodies are assigned by name to a particular place and task; it is an order of the visible and the sayable that sees that a particular activity is visible and another is not, that this speech is understood as discourse and another as noise.” Under the police order, each social member is assigned an identity and position, and behavior and speech inconsistent with that identity are prohibited. Therefore, the police is not the “disciplining” of bodies, but the control of the rules for the appearance of bodies, the forms of occupations, and the nature of the spaces to which these occupations are assigned. In this way, the police implicitly distributes social members in an orderly fashion; this distribution includes two modes: sharing and exclusion. It makes some people the sayable and visible ones, incorporated into the social community and gaining the qualification to participate in social public affairs; others become the invisible and unsayable ones excluded from society, deprived of the qualification to participate in public affairs. For example, in the police order, the workplace of workers is defined as a private space not subject to the norms of the so-called public sphere. And if workers want to participate in affairs of the public sphere, they are restricted by their work treatment and the nature of their work.

第一，治安秩序确定了每一个群体在社会中所处的位置，而且也决定了每个社会群体是否具有言说的资格。在《歧义：政治与哲学》中，朗西埃指出：“治安首先便是界定行动方式、存在方式与说话方式分配的身体秩序，并且确认那些身体依其名称被指派到某些位置或任务上。这是一种可见与可说的秩序，用来认定某个特定的行动可见，而另外一个行动不可见；某一言说可被当成论述来理解，而另一言说则被当成噪声。”在治安秩序之下，每个社会成员都被规定了身份与位置，禁止出现与其身份不符的行为与话语。因此治安并不是身体的“规训化”，而是管控身体出现的规则、职业的形态以及这些职业所分配到的空间的性质。这样，治安就隐晦地将社会成员进行了有序的分配，这种分配包含分享与排除两种模式，它使得一部分人成为社会的可说者、可见者而被纳入社会共同体之中，获得了参与社会公共事务的资格；另一部分人则成为被排斥于社会之外的不可见者、不可说者，被剥夺了参与公共事务的资格。比如在治安秩序中，工人工作的场所被定义为不受所谓公共领域规范的私人空间。而如果工人要参与公共领域的事务，则会受到工作待遇和工作性质的限制。

Second, the police is an invisible law distinct from “police in the sense of law enforcement.” The “police” defined by Rancière does not merely mean what we usually understand as “police in the sense of law enforcement,” not “the truncheon blows of the forces of law and order and the interrogations of the secret police.” On the contrary, in the police order as he understands it, scenes of maintaining social order through violent means rarely appear. Only in states where governance fails does an order form that makes grassroots police responsible for all police functions, while mature modern Western societies are precisely states where the function of “police in the sense of law enforcement” has been greatly weakened. In these states, what determines the police system includes not only the harsh laws and punishments of the state apparatus, but also so-called spontaneous social relations. The police no longer contains violent elements but has become “an element in the social deployment of medicine, welfare, and culture,” designated to play the role of “counselor, organizer, and agent of public law and order.” That is to say, the police order is a hidden form of social domination.

第二，治安是一种区别于“警务治安”的无形的法律。朗西埃所定义的“治安”并不仅仅意味着我们通常所理解的“警务治安”，并不是“维护法律和秩序的警棍攻击与秘密警察的审问”。恰恰相反，在他所理解的治安秩序中，很少出现通过暴力手段来维持社会秩序的景象。只有在治理失效的国家，才会形成一种让基层警察负责所有治安功能的秩序，而成熟的现代西方社会，恰恰是“警务治安”职能受到了极大弱化的国家。在这些国家中，决定治安体系的不仅有来自国家机器的严刑峻法，也包括所谓自发的社会关系。治安不再具有暴力因素，而成为了连接“医药、福利与文化的社会部署中的一个元素”，被指定扮演“咨询者、组织者及公共法律与秩序的代理人角色”。也就是说，治安秩序是一种隐蔽的社会统治。

Third, the logic of the police transforms the rules of government into the natural laws of society. Rancière points out: “To present itself as the realization of the essence of the community, and to transform the rules of government into the natural laws of society—this is the principle of the police.” The consensus system formed under the logic of the police asserts that human beings can “only do what is possible” under any circumstances. This so-called “possible” thing is precisely what does not transcend the existing ruling order; “possibility” becomes a conceptual exchange for “reality” and “necessity.” Under this logic, the real inequality of rule becomes an unassailable and unsurpassable historical necessity. The theory of technocracy (专家治国论) prevalent in contemporary society is regarded by Rancière as the best contemporary model of the logic of the police. This logic transforms political problems that could be chosen into natural laws with no alternative, thereby naturalizing and eternalizing social inequality.

第三，治安逻辑把政府的统治规则转化为社会的自然法则。朗西埃指出：“自我表现为共同体的本质的实现、并把政府的规则转化为社会的自然法则，这就是治安的原则。”在治安逻辑下所形成的共识系统，断言人类在任何情况下都“只能做那些有可能做的事”。这种所谓“可能”的事情，也就是不超越现有统治秩序的事情，“可能性”成为了“现实性”和“必然性”的概念交换器。在这种逻辑之下，现实的不平等统治成为了一种无法挑战和超越的历史的必然。在当代社会中流行的专家治国论，被朗西埃视为治安逻辑在当代的最好范本。这种逻辑把可选择的政治问题变为别无选择的自然法则，从而把社会不平等自然化和永恒化了。

(II) Politics: A Practice of Equality and Emancipation

（二）政治：一种平等和解放的实践

Unlike the usual understanding of politics, for Rancière politics is not the so-called “bureaucratic administrative system and economic management,” but rather a heterogeneous activity in relation to the police order, whose purpose is to resolve the problem of social inequality that the police order maintains and reinforces. In his view, politics occurs when “the part of those who have no part” [1]1 The part of those who have no part (无分者之分): A key concept in Rancière’s political philosophy, referring to those who are excluded from the existing social order and have no recognized share in the community, yet whose very exclusion constitutes a political subject. truly begins to act as a political subject. Once those who have nothing but who identify with a community “in the name of a wrong” protest against those who possess status and property, the original order is interrupted, the original community is split, and at that moment politics begins. Hence, the starting point of politics lies “where the calculation of the parts and parties of society is disturbed by the counting of the part of those who have no part.”

与对政治的通常理解不同，朗西埃所理解的政治，并不是所谓的“官僚制的行政体系以及经济管理”，而是相对于治安而言的一种异质性活动，其目的在于解决治安秩序所维护和强化的社会不平等问题。在他看来，政治发生于“无分者之分”作为政治主体真正开始行动的时候。一旦一无所有却以“错误之名”（le nom du tort）认同一个共同体的“无分者”，向那些拥有地位和财产的人提出抗议的时候，原有的秩序就发生了中断、原有的共同体就发生了分裂，这个时候政治就开始了。所以，政治的起点在于“社会的部分（parts）与组成分子（parties）的计算被那些无分者之分（une part des sans-part）的算入打乱的地方”。

First, politics is an activity that disrupts the distribution of the sensible [2]2 Distribution of the sensible (感知分配): A term from Rancière’s aesthetics and politics, denoting the system of self-evident facts of sense perception that simultaneously discloses the existence of something in common and the delimitations that define the respective parts and positions within it. of the police order. Rancière’s understanding of politics differs from the class struggle elaborated by traditional Marxism. He points out that viewing the class struggle between the poor and the rich as the basis of politics is not a concept that emerged only after entering modern society; such an idea already existed in ancient societies. But this struggle is not the problem that politics is meant to handle; rather, it is the starting point at which politics is instituted. The struggle between the rich and the poor does not in itself constitute politics; politics is formed only when the rule of the rich is interrupted by the emergence of the part of those who have no part. Therefore, politics is “any activity that moves a body from the place originally assigned to it or changes the purpose of that place.” This activity makes invisible bodies that had no place in the police order become visible, and turns noises that were regarded as animal sounds into comprehensible discourse. Rancière gives the example that formal political activities such as elections, strikes, and demonstrations may or may not be political; they are political only when they “reconfigure the relationship that defines the workplace and the community.”

第一，政治是一种破坏治安秩序的感知分配。朗西埃所理解的政治，并不同于传统马克思主义所阐述的阶级斗争。他指出，把穷人与富人之间的阶级斗争视为政治的基础并不是进入现代社会之后才有的观念，在古代社会就产生了这种观念。但这种斗争并不是政治所要处理的问题，而是政治被设立的起点。富人与穷人的斗争本身并不构成政治，而只有当富人的统治被无分者之分的出现而打断的时候，才形成了政治。因此，政治是“将一个身体从原先被给定的场所中移动或改变该场所目的的任何活动”。这种活动使原本在治安秩序中没有位置的不可见的身体变为可见的身体，让原本被视为动物声音的噪声成为可以被理解的论述。朗西埃举例说，选举、罢工、示威等形式上的政治活动可能具有政治性，也可能不具有政治性，只有当其“重新配置界定工作场所与共同体的关系时，才具有政治性”。

Second, politics is a break with consensus. Unlike the police order, which emphasizes consensus and order, politics emphasizes dissensus and conflict. But this conflict is not a struggle or disagreement between different interests or ideas; it is a fundamental dispute concerning the police order itself. It interrupts the social consensus and bodily distribution set by the police order and attempts to construct a new order of distribution. While criticizing consensus, Rancière also critiques the community constructed on the basis of so-called universal consensus. In his view, so-called consensus is achieved by eliminating dissensus; such a consensus necessarily follows a unified standard, thereby erasing ambiguity and diversity. Such a community then reduces politics back to the police order, and equality back to inequality.

第二，政治是对共识的打破。与强调共识与秩序的治安不同，政治强调的是异议与冲突。但这种冲突并不是不同利益或观念的斗争或分歧，而是关涉治安秩序本身的根本性纷争。它中断了治安秩序所设定的社会共识和身体分配，试图重新建构新的分配秩序。在批判共识的同时，朗西埃也对以所谓普遍性共识为基础所建构的共同体展开了批判。在他看来，所谓共识的达成是通过消除歧见而完成的，这样的共识必然会遵从一个统一的标准，从而消弭歧义性和多样性。这样的共同体便会把政治再次还原为治安，把平等还原为不平等。

Third, politics is a practice of equality and emancipation. Rancière states: “The only principle of politics is equality.” Of course, equality is not unique to politics, nor is equality itself necessarily political; what politics seeks to achieve is “to inscribe the verification of equality in the form of a dispute at the heart of the police order.” This “equality” is not an equality that can be manifested through political operations or legal systems, nor is it a goal to be attained. Equality can only be understood in the practice of the “hypothesis of equality,” and politics occurs where the “logic of governance” and the “logic of equality” encounter each other, or rather in the gap that necessarily exists between them. Politics is actually a process of emancipation, a specific process of subjectivation in which those deemed unqualified to exercise power detach themselves from their given social roles, positions, and modes of perception, thereby manifesting their own strength.

第三，政治是一种平等和解放的实践。朗西埃指出：“政治的唯一原则就是平等”。当然，平等并非政治所独有，平等本身也不一定就具有政治性，政治所要实现的是“以争议的形式在治安秩序的核心中铭刻平等的验证”。这种“平等”并不是一种可以透过政治运作或法律体系体现的平等，也不是一种应当达成的目标。平等只能在“平等的假设”的实践中被理解，而政治就发生在“治理逻辑”和“平等逻辑”相遭遇之处，或者说两者之间必然存在的空隙当中。政治实际上是一种解放的过程，是被视为没有资格行使权力的人脱离被给定的社会角色、位置与感知模式，进而展现自身力量的特定主体化过程。

III. Two Forms of the “End of Politics”

三、“政治终结”的两种形式

Facing the global wave of de-ideologization after the end of the Cold War, Rancière, based on his understanding of politics, proposed the concept of the “end of politics,” pointing out that “the end of politics” is the ultimate form of the depoliticization of politics. In such an era, “politics” has been reduced to a routine administrative task guided by the principle of “realism,” and the logic of the police order has replaced the logic of politics. He distinguishes two asynchronous forms of this end: the “end of promises,” which declares that the new era no longer has promises, and the “end of divisions,” which emphasizes a new consensus.

面对冷战结束后全球的去意识形态浪潮，朗西埃基于其对于政治的理解，提出了“政治的终结”的概念，他指出“政治的终结”是政治的非政治化的终极形式。在这样的时代中，“政治”已经下降为一种以“现实主义”原则指导的日常性的管理任务，治安的逻辑取代了政治的逻辑。他把这种终结区分为两种非同步的终结：宣称新时代不再有承诺的“承诺的终结”和强调新共识的“分化的终结”。

First, the end of promises: the presentification and secularization of politics. The promise of a better future or utopia has been a typical feature of modern politics since the 19th century. Rancière keenly realized that in the 1980s, French politics underwent an obvious change, namely the “end of promises.” In the 1981 French presidential election, the Socialist Party candidate François Mitterrand proposed 110 political promises, but when he was re-elected president in 1988, “no one questioned how many of those promises he had actually kept.” Rancière regards this change as a sign of the end of the utopian tradition that had existed since the 19th century. Rancière remarks sarcastically: “The 19th century was the century of ideal peoples, the century of the promise of community and the utopian island,” but the future vision conceived by the politics of that century “actually turned into an abyss into which our century nearly fell.” Precisely because of this, the presidential candidate of the time chose a new stance: he no longer made promises—the promise, as a link between the present and the future, was regarded as “the principle that causes disaster: it presupposes a ‘goal’ for the development of a community, and the fragments of its collapse become deadly stones.” Under these conditions, politics became “secularized.” Politics was no longer a plan to realize the promise of happiness and emancipation, “no longer a secret voyage toward the utopian island,” but rather “the art of steering and navigating, the natural and peaceful development of economic growth and ‘production.’” That is to say, politics was no longer the pursuit of an alternative, better society, but had become an art of “steering” centered on “production” and “economic growth”—the logic of the police order replaced the logic of politics. This practice of political secularization is a political practice of “thorough presentification,” giving rise to an era of thorough homogenization. The future time that once served as the vehicle for utopia was dissolved; the so-called future was nothing more than “the extension of the present moment.” Thus a new temporality was formed, namely “a temporality freed from the dual domination of the past and the future.”

第一，承诺的终结：政治的当下化与世俗化。对更美好的未来或乌托邦的承诺，是19世纪以来的现代政治的典型特征。朗西埃敏锐地意识到，20世纪80年代的法国政坛发生了一个明显的变化，即“承诺的终结”。在1981年的法国大选中，社会党的总统候选人密特朗提出了110条政治承诺，但是在1988年他再次当选总统的时候，却“没人质询在那些承诺中他到底信守了多少”。朗西埃将这个变化，视为19世纪以来的乌托邦传统走向终结的标志。朗西埃讽刺地说：“19世纪是一个理想民族的世纪，是共同体的承诺和乌托邦岛的世纪”，但是这个世纪的政治所构想的未来图景“实际上演变成了一个我们的世纪险些坠入其中的深渊”。正因为如此，当时的总统候选人选择了一种新立场，他不再做出承诺——作为连接现实与未来的承诺，被视为“造成灾祸的原则：它预先提出了一个共同体发展的‘目的’，而其崩塌的碎片却变成了致命的石子。”在这种状况下，政治变得“世俗化”了。政治不再是实现幸福和解放承诺的计划，“不再作为驶向乌托邦岛的隐秘航行”，而是“将作为掌舵和弄潮的艺术，作为经济增长和‘生产’(production) 的自然的与平和的发展”。也就是说，政治不再是对一个可替代的更美好社会的追求，而变为了一种围绕着“生产”和“经济增长”而进行的“掌舵”的艺术,即治安的逻辑取代了政治的逻辑。这种政治世俗化的实践是一种“彻底当下化”的政治实践，催生出一个彻底同质化的时代。曾经作为乌托邦载体的未来时间被消解了，所谓的未来无非是“当下时刻的拓展”。由此形成了一种新的时间性，即“一个摆脱了过去和未来的双重统治的时间性”。

Second, the end of differentiation: the return of classical “authority” and the proliferation of racism. Alongside the homogenization of time (i.e., the “end of history”), the differentiation of space is also eliminated, namely, “consistent with an era that no longer differentiates through promises, there ought to exist a space that is no longer differentiated.” The intense class contradictions existing within capitalist society (i.e., what Rancière calls “the contradiction between the poor and the rich”) are obscured, replaced by an external racist hatred. To this end, Rancière proposes the concept of “political reduction” and traces this concept back to the classical era. He argues that political power has two origins: one is “what people affirm as our future productive capacity, ‘potentia’,” and the other is the classical “authority (auctoritas) of the sage.” “Authority” originates from the fear of division and turmoil; if a society faces the threat of division, then “power” very naturally receives affirmation from “authority.” Rancière takes French President François Mitterrand as an example, pointing out that Mitterrand’s election precisely exploited people’s fear. In his “Letter to All French People,” Mitterrand made stabilizing society the task of politics. To avoid internal social division, the modern bourgeoisie adopts measures to create new racism and xenophobia to end this internal “differentiation”—this is a passion for an exclusionary “One.” Rancière points out that the essence of racism is hatred of the other; it is also a means of regulating affairs within the political sphere. As politics approaches its end, it increasingly moves to the center of the political stage: “the current reappearance of racism and xenophobia heralds a collapse of politics, a regression from a politics that corrects wrongs to a primitive hatred.” Political art thus forms a more extreme division; it no longer leads to differences between rich and poor, nor to conflict and opposition, but produces a totalizing passion, sustained by “a gathering force derived from hatred.”

第二，分化的终结：古典“威权”的回归与种族主义的泛滥。在时间同质化（即“历史终结”）的同时，空间的分化也被消弭了，即“与这个不再通过承诺来进行分化的时代相一致，理应存在着一个不再有分化的空间”。在资本主义社会内部存在的激烈的阶级矛盾（即朗西埃所说的“穷人与富人之间的矛盾”）被掩盖了，代之以对外的种族主义仇恨。为此，朗西埃提出了“政治缩减”概念，并把这个概念追溯到古典时代。他提出，政治权力拥有两种起源，一种是“人们所肯定的那种作为我们未来的生产性能力的‘潜能’（potentia）”，另一种则是古典时代的“圣贤的‘威权’（auctoritas）”。“威权”来源于对分裂和动荡的恐惧，如果在一个社会中产生了分裂的威胁，那么“权力”会非常自然地从“威权”那里得到肯定。朗西埃以法国总统密特朗为例，指出密特朗的当选正是利用了人们的这种恐惧。在“致全体法国民众的信”中，密特朗把安定社会作为政治的任务。为了避免社会内部的分裂，现代资产阶级所采取的措施是制造出新的种族主义和排外主义以终结这种内部“分化”，这是一种排斥性的“一”的激情。朗西埃指出，种族主义的本质是对他者的仇恨，它也同样是一种对政治范围内的事务进行调节的手段，它在政治走向终结之际越来越走向政治舞台的中心，“种族主义和排外主义在当前的重新出现预示着一种政治的崩溃，从对错误进行纠正的政治向原始仇恨的倒退”。政治艺术因此形成了一种更为极端的分裂，它不再导致贫富之间的差异，也不再导致冲突和对立，而是产生了一种总体性的激情，这种激情被“源自仇恨的聚集性的力量”所维系。

IV. “Post-Democracy” and the Discursive Trap of Populism

四、“后民主”与民粹主义的话语陷阱

In the course of analyzing the negative consequences of the expansion of bourgeois formal democracy, Rancière puts forward his own understanding of the concept of democracy. The democracy that Rancière understands is not a specific political system or mode of life, but a mode of political subjectivation, a mode that interrupts “the order of distribution of bodies in the community.” [n6] That is to say, democracy is a specific rupture and interruption of the police order. Therefore, the relationship between democracy and politics is not some kind of external relation, but rather each is the precondition for the other’s existence. Democracy is the form on which “politics itself is based,” the yardstick for measuring whether people in a society possess the equal right to speak. Proceeding from this understanding, Rancière questions the currently popular liberal democratic theory. He points out that the democracy liberalism speaks of presupposes two enemies: one is a clearly identifiable enemy (i.e., autocratic government or totalitarianism), and the other is a hidden enemy (i.e., “democratic life”). In the liberal context, “democratic life” is an excessive, redundant, and out-of-control form of democracy; it is precisely this form of democracy that led to the turmoil Western societies experienced in the 1960s and 1970s, which was, on the one hand, “continuous antagonistic struggle in all areas of state affairs,” and on the other hand, “the destruction of the principles of good governance, the weakening of the dignity of public authority, and contempt for professional knowledge and practical skills.” [n7] To correct this “democratic life,” it is necessary to steer the public’s enthusiasm for public affairs in another direction, namely, “to weaken excess political energy and stimulate the pursuit of personal happiness and social relations.” [n8] However, this leads to another unfavorable outcome: citizens become indifferent to social and public affairs. At the same time, it also weakens the authority of the government, which is forced to continuously respond to the rising personal demands of the people. Therefore, the “good democracy” that liberalism identifies must control a double “excess”: excessive democratic vitality and excessive private life.

在剖析资产阶级形式民主的扩张所造成的消极后果的过程中，朗西埃提出了他自己对于民主概念的理解。朗西埃所理解的民主不是某种具体的政治制度或生活模式，而是政治的主体化模式，这种模式中断了“共同体中诸多身体的分配秩序”。也就是说，民主是对治安秩序的特异性断裂和中断。因此，民主与政治之间并不是某种外在的关系，而是互为存在的前提。民主是“政治本身得以立足”的形式，是衡量社会中的人们是否拥有平等言说权利的标尺。从这种理解出发，朗西埃对当代流行的自由主义民主理论提出了质疑。他指出，自由主义所谓的民主预设了两个敌人，一个是可以清晰辨别的敌人（即专制政府或极权主义），另一个则是隐蔽的敌人（即“民主生活”）。在自由主义语境中，“民主生活”是一种过度的、过剩的、失控的民主形式，正是这种民主形式导致了西方社会在20世纪60—70年代所经历的动荡，即一方面是“在国家事务的所有领域内持续不断的对抗斗争”，另一方面是“对善的治理原则的破坏，对公共权威尊严的削弱，以及对专业知识和实用技能的蔑视”。为了矫正这种“民主生活”，就需要把民众对于公共事务的热情引向另外的方向，即“削弱过剩的政治能量，激发对个人幸福与社会关系的追求”。但是这又会导向另外一种不利的结果，即公民对社会公共事务漠不关心。同时也削弱了政府的权威性，政府被迫不断回应民众不断攀升的个人需求。因此，自由主义所认定的“好的民主”，必须要控制双重“过度”，即过度的民主活力和过度的私人生活。

Therefore, the deprivation and prevention of genuine people’s democracy is the inherent essence of liberal “representative” democracy. Although contemporary Western representative democracy grants the people equal voting rights, the people do not enjoy substantive democratic rights. Rancière understands the essence of representative government as a form of oligarchy—a political form manipulated by a minority of elites who control public affairs. Through this form, the ruling class manufactures the hypocritical democratic consent they need, and the political autocracy of the ruling elite over the people is obscured: “the founders of the United States, and their French followers, accurately saw that (representative government) actually means elite rule; representative government, in the name of the people, is forced to acknowledge the people’s power.” On this basis, Rancière calls contemporary Western hypocritical representative democracy a “post-democracy,” that is, a “consensus democracy.” “Consensus democracy,” in the name of “democracy,” essentially abolishes “democracy” and “politics.” This democracy eliminates the controversies triggered by people’s democracy, reducing it to “a fundamental rule among state deployments, social energies, and interest combinations.” Genuine political issues are excluded from this form of democracy: “democratic life becomes a life about indifferent commodity consumers, minority rights, the culture industry, and test-tube babies—a life unrelated to politics.”

因此，对真正的人民民主的剥夺和防范，是自由主义“代议制”民主的内在本质。当代西方代议制民主虽然赋予了人民以平等投票权，但是人民并不享有实质性的民主权利。朗西埃把代议制的本质理解为一种寡头政治形式，即被少数掌控公共事务的精英操控的政治形式。通过这种形式，统治阶级制造出他们所需要的虚伪的民主认同，统治精英对人民的政治专制就被遮蔽了，“美国的建国者们，以及他们的法国追随者们，都准确地看到（代议制）实际上意味着精英掌权，代议制在人民的名义下被迫承认人民的权力”。在此基础上，朗西埃把当代西方虚伪的代议制民主称为一种“后民主”，即一种“共识性民主”。“共识性民主”以“民主”之名，实质上取消了“民主”与“政治”。这种民主清除了人民民主所引发的争议，简化为“一种国家部署、社会能量以及利益组合之间的根本规则”。真正的政治性问题在这种民主形式中被排除了，“民主生活成为一种关于冷漠的商品消费者、少数族裔权利、文化工业以及试管婴儿的——无关于政治的生活”。

The “post-democratic” system formed in Western society after the end of the Cold War has, in fact, deprived the people of their democratic rights. Western people cannot find political parties representing their interests within the mainstream political system, thereby creating space for the rise of populist politics. In recent years, Western countries have all witnessed the decline of traditional parties and the rise of populist political forces. From the standpoint of liberal theory, Western scholars generally understand populist movements as products that manipulate popular sentiment in an irrational manner, betraying the Western representative democratic system, and commonly associate populism with authoritarianism and totalitarianism, viewing it as a “cancer” that Western democratic politics needs to eliminate. Within this context, criticism of populism is transformed into a defense of the existing capitalist ruling order, and the legitimate democratic and economic demands of the masses are stigmatized. Regarding this ideological trap hidden within the concept of populism, Rancière, from the perspective of “post-democracy,” has conducted a profound critique and exposure. In his view, the “post-democratic” consensus system formed after the “upheaval in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe”[n] is unsustainable; it inevitably leads to the crude invasion of “racism and xenophobia”: “the oligarchic alliance of wealth and knowledge claims to control all power and rejects the possibility of popular differentiation and diversification. But the differentiation of these two principles begins to return from all directions. This return is accompanied by the rise of far-right parties, and movements of identitarians and religious fundamentalists—they oppose the oligarchic consensus and appeal to old principles of birth and blood, and to a community rooted in land, blood, and the religion of their ancestors. In such an era, anti-democratic social elites are not only unwilling to reflect on the social roots of the rise of far-right forces and religious extremism, but also use the term ‘populism’ to continue rationalizing their oligarchic rule. Therefore, populism has become a ‘name convenient for covering up the contradiction between the legitimacy of universal suffrage and the authority of experts’; this name ‘simultaneously conceals and exposes the oligarchs’ strong desire—to rule without the people.’” Rancière sharply points out that liberal scholars and politicians, by means of the concept of populism, “bundle together all forms of dissent from the mainstream consensus, whether these forms contain democratic claims or religious and racial fanaticism.”

冷战结束后在西方社会形成的这种“后民主”体制，从事实上剥夺了民众的民主权利。西方民众无法在主流政治体制中寻找到代表自身利益的政党，从而为民粹主义政治的兴起创造了空间。近年来，西方各国都出现传统政党衰落、民粹主义政治力量上升的局面。西方学者从自由主义理论立场出发，普遍将民粹主义运动理解为以一种非理性的方式操纵民众情绪，背弃西方代议民主制度的产物，并普遍将民粹主义与威权主义、极权主义联系在一起，将其视为西方民主政治需要清除的“毒瘤”。这种语境之中，对民粹主义的批评被转换为对资本主义既有统治秩序的辩护，人民群众正当的民主诉求和经济诉求被污名化。对于民粹主义概念所隐藏的这种意识形态陷阱，朗西埃从“后民主”的视角出发进行了深刻的批判和揭露。在他看来，“苏东剧变”后形成的“后民主”共识体制是不可持续的，它必然会导致“种族主义与仇外心态”的粗暴入侵，“财富与知识所组成的寡头联盟声称要掌控所有权力，并且拒斥人民分化与多样化的可能。但这两种原则的分化开始从各个方向回归。这种回归伴随着极右翼政党的兴起，以及身份主义者与宗教原教旨主义者的运动——他们反对寡头共识，并诉诸旧有的出身与血缘原则，以及某种根植于土地、血缘和他们祖先宗教的社群。在这样的时代背景下，反民主的社会精英不仅不愿意反思极右翼势力、宗教极端主义兴起的社会根源，反而借着“民粹主义”一词来继续合理化他们的寡头统治，因此民粹主义成为了一个“便于掩盖普选合理性与专家合法性之间矛盾的名称”，这一名称“同时掩盖而又揭露了寡头的强烈愿望——摆脱人民而进行统治”。朗西埃尖锐地指出，自由主义学者和政客借助民粹主义的概念，“将所有对主流共识持异议的形式都打包到一起，无论这形式是包含了民主的主张还是宗教和种族的狂热”。

V. Conclusion

五、结 论

Rancière’s exposition of the end of politics and “post-democracy” reveals the hypocrisy of contemporary capitalist rule and shatters the illusion of “consensus politics” jointly manufactured by contemporary Western left- and right-wing parties. The concepts he proposes, such as “the end of politics” and “post-democracy,” have exerted an important influence on contemporary Western left-wing theorists such as Mouffe and Žižek, and have become the prototype of the concept of “post-politics.” Of course, because it lacks the perspective of historical materialism, Rancière’s view has great limitations. Rancière treats politics as a struggle centered on dissensus; this dissensus is not a conflict between different classes over economic interests, but a redistribution at the level of the sensible body. The class inequality elaborated by Marxism is transformed into an inequality of knowledge or discursive power. The revolutionary subject as Rancière understands it is no longer the proletariat, stripped of the means of production within unequal relations of production, but rather a kind of “excluded one” concealed within the community. These views of Rancière deviate from historical materialism to varying degrees. As one scholar has put it, Rancière’s critique of modern politics is not built on the foundation of a critique of political economy, and therefore he “is no longer a Marxist.” However, his critique of the end of politics and his call for the return of politics express the desire of Western people to break the existing order of capitalist rule and reactivate the political. These ideas have a certain referential significance for our understanding of the current political landscape in the West and for analyzing emerging political phenomena such as right-wing populism. (Notes and references omitted.)

朗西埃对于政治终结和“后民主”等问题的阐述，揭示了当代资本主义统治的虚伪性，打破了当代西方左右翼政党共同制造的“共识政治”的幻象。他所提出的“政治的终结”“后民主”等概念，对墨菲、齐泽克等当代西方左翼理论家产生了重要的影响，成为“后政治”概念的雏形。当然，由于缺乏历史唯物主义的视野，朗西埃的观点存在着很大的局限性。朗西埃把政治视为一个围绕着歧义的斗争，这种歧义不是不同阶级之间围绕着经济利益的冲突，而是一种在感性身体上的重新分配；马克思主义所阐述的阶级不平等，被转化为一种知识或话语权力的不平等。朗西埃所理解的革命主体，也不再是在不平等的生产关系中被剥夺生产资料的一无所有的无产阶级，而是一种在共同体中被隐匿的“被排斥者”。朗西埃的这些观点，在不同程度上背离了历史唯物主义。正如有学者所说，朗西埃的现代政治批判没有建立在政治经济学批判的基础上，因而他实际上“已经不是一个马克思主义者”。但是，他对政治终结的批判和对政治回归的呼唤，表达了西方民众要求打破资本主义既有统治秩序、重新激活政治性的愿望。这些思想对于我们认识西方当下的政治格局，分析右翼民粹主义等新兴政治现象有一定的借鉴意义。（注释、参考文献略）

(The author is an assistant researcher at the Academy of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)

（作者系中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院助理研究员）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑