The “Non-Identity” Dimension of Marx’s Empirical Research Method

Marx’s empirical research method differs both from the speculative tradition of the Young Hegelians and from the empiricist philosophy of England and France. In Marx’s view, the Young Hegelians took self-consciousness as the objective basis of the perceptual world and regarded history as the fabricated activity of an imagined subject. This mode of thinking, which moves from concept to concept, indulges in the “heavenly kingdom” of ideas while ignoring empirical facts, is nothing but the hollow, contentless babble of idealists. Abstract empiricists, by contrast, treat history merely as a collection of dead facts, failing to grasp the inner connections behind experience, blindly gathering materials without knowing how to process them. Marx not only drew on the beneficial elements of empiricism but also devoted himself to digesting and absorbing the large quantity of empirical facts he encountered, revealing the essence hidden within the objects of study. It is precisely because Marx grasped the logical interaction between subject and object, abstract and concrete, experience and theory, that historical materialism displays its solid scientific character. From a methodological perspective, Marx emphasizes the rejection of metaphysical thinking based on “identity” and highlights the positive significance of “non-identity.” This is concentrated in Marx’s emphasis on matter, the individual, and difference.

马克思的经验研究方法既区别于青年黑格尔派的思辨传统，也与英法的经验主义哲学截然不同。在马克思看来，青年黑格尔派把自我意识作为感性世界的客观基础，将历史视为想象的主体的臆造式活动，这种从概念到概念、沉醉于观念的“天国”而忽视经验事实的思维方式不过是唯心主义者空洞的、无实质内容的呓语而已；而抽象的经验主义者只是把历史当作一些僵死的事实的汇集，未能抓住经验背后的内在联系，只知盲目收集材料而不懂得加工。马克思既注重汲取经验主义的有益成分，又致力于对接触到的大量经验事实进行消化吸收，揭示研究对象隐含的本质。正因为马克思把握住了主观与客观、抽象与具体、经验与理论的逻辑互动，才使得唯物史观显现出坚实的科学性。从方法论的角度而言，马克思强调对“同一性”的形而上学思维进行拒斥，凸显“非同一性”的积极意义。这集中体现在马克思对质料、个别和差异的强调。

Matter: Facing the Facts of Social Life

质料：面向社会生活事实

From ancient Greece to classical German philosophy, the Western philosophical tradition’s pursuit of the “One” symbolizing ultimate knowledge never ceased. As Dewey said in *The Quest for Certainty*, “Philosophy’s predisposition toward the universal, the unchanging, and the eternal was thus fixed. It has remained the common property of the entire classical philosophical tradition.” [1]1 John Dewey, *The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action* (1929). Marx recognized the illusory and deceptive nature of abstract “identity.” In the preface to *The German Ideology*, he clearly states, “Hitherto men have constantly formed false conceptions about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be. They have arranged their relationships according to their ideas of God, of the normal man, etc.” [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–46), Preface. As a result, the human subject, under the yoke of various a priori and mystical illusions, ideas, dogmas, and imagined entities, degenerates into a mere tool and means, moving toward closure and uniformity.

从古希腊到德国古典哲学，西方哲学思想对象征终极知识的“一”的追求从未中断。正如杜威在《确定性的寻求》中所说，“哲学对普遍的、不变的、永恒的东西的既有倾向便被固定下来了。它始终成为全部古典哲学传统的共有财富”。马克思意识到抽象“同一性”的虚幻性和欺骗性，他在《德意志意识形态》序言中明确指出，“迄今为止人们总是为自己造出关于自己本身、关于自己是何物或应当成为何物的种种虚假观念。他们按照自己关于神、关于标准人等等观念来建立自己的关系”。由此导致，作为主体的人在各种先验的和神秘的幻象、观念、教条与臆想的存在物的枷锁下蜕化为纯粹的工具和手段，走向封闭和单一。

Marx points out that to break the usurpation and constraint of human life by “pure formalism” or “essentialism,” one must start from matter, the bearer of the movement and change of things. For Marx, matter holds an unquestionably foundational and primary status relative to form. This is because the bond that unites nature, society, and humanity itself is matter with objective reality. Marx states, “These are real individuals, their activity and the material conditions of their life, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.” [3]3 Ibid., Part I, “Feuerbach.” Thus, Marx turns the “inverted” worldview right side up again, clarifying the reality and necessity of “standing on the ground.” The “old philosophy,” which seeks to explain the world in the name of ultimate causes or absolute truth and to regulate human thought and action, should be criticized. This “old philosophy” causes living, flesh-and-blood individuals to be dominated and controlled by impersonal, abstract forces. In fact, “it is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness.” [4]4 Ibid. Thought, spirit, institutions, and the like are merely sublimates of the material life process connected to people’s needs for food, drink, shelter, and clothing; they are socio-historical, not eternal and unchanging.

马克思指出，要破除“纯形式主义”或者说“本质主义”对人类生活的僭越和束缚，须从作为事物运动变化的负载者，也即质料或者说物质入手。在马克思那里，质料相对于形式具有毋庸置疑的基础性和前提性地位。因为自然、社会和人类自身相统一的纽带就是具有客观实在性的物质。马克思指出，“这是一些现实的个人，是他们的活动和他们的物质生活条件，包括他们已有的和由他们自己的活动创造出来的物质生活条件。因此，这些前提可以用纯粹经验的方法来确认”。由此，马克思把“头足倒置”的颠倒世界观再颠倒过来，明确“用脚立地”的现实性和必要性。而那种力图以终极原因或绝对真理的名义解释世界，并规范人的思想与行动的“旧哲学”应受到批判。这种“旧哲学”使得有血有肉的生命个体被非人身的抽象力量所支配和宰制。事实上，“不是意识决定生活，而是生活决定意识”。思维、精神、制度等不过是与人们的吃喝住穿等物质需求相联系的物质生活过程的升华物而已，具有社会历史性，而非永恒不变、始终如一。

In capitalist society, “identity” manifests as the logic of capital becoming an absolute existence, trumpeting the social state under its control as the only rational reality, dominating and manipulating the trajectory of human life. Starting from material empirical facts, Marx explains the transitory nature of capitalist relations of production from the perspective of historical materialism and dialectical materialism, refuting the stale fallacies of vulgar economists. He argues that with the development of large-scale socialized production, the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products can no longer be compatible with society, thereby demonstrating that “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), Chapter I.

在资本主义社会，“同一性”表现为资本逻辑成为绝对存在，并把其控制下的社会状态鼓吹为拥有唯一合理性的现实存在，支配和操纵着人的生命轨迹。马克思从质料性的经验事实出发，从历史唯物主义和辩证唯物主义的视角阐释了资本主义生产关系的暂时性，驳斥庸俗经济学家的陈腐谬论，认为随着社会化大生产的发展，资产阶级赖以生产和占有产品的基础本身再也无法同社会相容，以此论证“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”。

The Individual: Focusing on Empirical Individuals

个别：关注经验的个人

Marx believes that metaphysics, which emphasizes the “universal” or “the common,” “everywhere takes the idea as the subject, while the real subject in the proper sense… is turned into a predicate.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *The Holy Family* (1845), Chapter IV. Rich, diverse perceptual reality is submerged by pure, self-existing spirit and supersensible logical categories. Non-identity, individuality, and multi-dimensionality are engulfed, subsumed, and obliterated by an “identity” that emphasizes absolutism, finality, ahistoricity, and the exclusion of all difference, leading to the estrangement and split between idea and substance, thought and being, and man and the world. Pure identity leaves no room for heterogeneity. Marx points out, “Empirical observation must in each instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production.” [7]7 *The German Ideology*, Part I. The secret of metaphysics must be sought in real life; mere theoretical critique is ineffective. “All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Theses on Feuerbach* (1845), Thesis VIII. The fundamental way to dissolve the specter of metaphysics lies in transforming the secular basis of life from which it arises. More specifically, it lies in reforming and renewing the mode of human existence, returning the human world and human relations to humanity itself, and restoring the full sensuousness of the human being.

马克思认为，强调“一般”或“共相”的形而上学，“在任何地方都把观念当作主体，而把本来意义上的现实的主体……变成谓语”。丰富多样的感性现实被纯粹自在的精神、超感性的逻辑范畴所淹没，非同一性、个别性和多向度被强调绝对主义、终极性、非历史性、排斥一切差别的“同一性”所裹挟、统摄和抹杀，导致观念与实体、思维与存在、人与世界的疏离和分裂。纯粹的同一性使异质性无立足之地。马克思指出，“经验的观察在任何情况下都应当根据经验来揭示社会结构和政治结构同生产的联系，而不应当带有任何神秘和思辨的色彩”。形而上学的秘密要从现实生活中寻找，单纯的理论批判是无效的。“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的。凡是把理论引向神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这种实践的理解中得到合理的解决。”消解形而上学怪影的根本出路在于变革其产生的世俗生活基础。更具体地说，就在于改造和更新人的生存方式，把人的世界和人的关系还给人自己，恢复人的感性的全面性。

Marx explicitly emphasizes, “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals.” [9]9 *The German Ideology*, Part I. It is precisely through the examination of “individuals who are active under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will” [10]10 Ibid. that Marx realizes that under capitalist conditions of production, “the devaluation of the human world increases in direct relation with the increase in value of the world of things,” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “Estranged Labour.” and that “capital has independence and individuality, while the living individual has neither independence nor individuality.” [12]12 *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter II. The “conspiracy” of capital and metaphysics causes individuals to be completely ruled and reduced by abstract forces. People become uniformly the servants of capital, prostrating themselves before it in worship. Marx advocates understanding perceptual life activity as a “free, conscious activity” with multiple dimensions, openness, and dynamic practice; it is living, not ossified, and it opens toward the future. Any attempt to define the “identical essence” of life through divinity or materiality will eliminate life’s polysemy, incompleteness, and dialectical character, thereby suffocating the subject’s characteristics, creative spirit, and intrinsic value. The theoretical endpoint of Marx’s use of the empirical research method to analyze the ills of capitalism lies in exploring the path to self-emancipation for free, concrete, and rich living individuals, making “the free development of each the condition for the free development of all” [13]13 Ibid. a reality.

马克思明确强调，“全部人类历史的第一个前提无疑是有生命的个人的存在”。正是通过对“处在现实的、可以通过经验观察到的、在一定条件下进行的发展过程中的人”的考察，马克思意识到，在资本主义生产条件下，“物的世界的增值同人的世界的贬值成正比”，以及“资本具有独立性和个性，而活动着的个人却没有独立性和个性”。资本和形而上学的“合谋”使得个人完全被抽象力量所统治和化约。人“整齐划一”式地沦为资本的奴仆，对资本顶礼膜拜，卑躬屈膝。马克思主张把感性生命活动理解为具有多维度、开放性、动态实践的“自由自觉的活动”，它是生动的而非固化的，它向着未来敞开。任何以神性或物性规定生命“同一本质”的意图，都将消除生命的多义性、未完成性和辩证性，从而窒息人的主体特性、创造精神和内在价值。马克思以经验研究方法剖析资本主义病症的理论落脚点在于为自由的、具体的、丰富的生命个体探寻实现自我解放的道路，使“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”成为现实。

Difference: Concrete Analysis of Concrete Conditions

差异：具体问题具体分析

Marx valued experience, but he was not confined to experience, still less did he superstitiously believe in it; rather, he emphasized conducting concrete analysis of concrete problems on the basis of applying empirical facts. This is mainly reflected in Marx’s research on Russia’s path of development in his later years. In order to accurately grasp Russia’s socio-economic conditions, Marx taught himself Russian and delved deeply into relevant documentary materials, recognizing the particularity of the Russian rural commune and holding that Russia’s development prospects depended on its specific historical circumstances. In his letter to the editorial board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*, Marx criticized the practice of “universalizing” and “theoremizing” his theory: “He (Mikhailovsky — translator’s note) feels he must metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development prescribed by fate to all nations, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves… But I must ask his pardon. It would be both too flattering and too insulting to me.” [14]14 Marx, “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*” (November 1877). In his letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx held that Russia “may avoid the torments of the capitalist system by seizing all the positive achievements of the capitalist system without passing through the Caudine Forks of capitalism.” [15]15 Marx, “Drafts of the Letter to Vera Zasulich” (February–March 1881). The “Caudine Forks” refers to a Roman military defeat in 321 BCE, used here as a metaphor for a humiliating ordeal or a necessary passage through a destructive system. In Marx’s view, general historico-philosophical theories are not a templated, prescriptive uniform standard, nor are they universally applicable. Because different countries differ in historical background, level of development, cultural traditions, and other respects, the choice of path cannot be “identical”; rather, it is a diverse and varied “non-identity.”

马克思重视经验，但他并不局限于经验，更反对迷信经验，而是强调在运用经验事实的基础上对具体问题展开具体分析。这主要体现在马克思晚年对俄国发展道路的研究。为了准确把握俄国的社会经济状况，马克思自学俄文，并深入研究相关文献资料，认识到俄国农村公社的特殊性，认为俄国的发展前景取决于它所处的历史环境。在给《祖国纪事》杂志编辑部的信中，马克思批评把他的理论进行“普遍化”和“定理化”的做法，“他（米海洛夫斯基——引者注）一定要把我关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论，一切民族，不管它们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路……但是我要请他原谅。他这样做，会给我过多的荣誉，同时也会给我过多的侮辱”。在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》中，马克思认为，俄国“可以不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”。在马克思看来，一般历史哲学理论并非模板化、规定性的统一标准，不是放之四海而皆准的。由于各个国家在历史背景、发展水平、文化传统等方面存在着差异，因而道路选择不可能是“同一性”的，而是参差多态的“非同一性”。

Hegel pointed out in *The Phenomenology of Spirit*: “This dialectical movement which consciousness exercises on itself — on its knowledge as well as on its object — is precisely what is called experience, insofar as the new, true object arises out of it for consciousness.” [16]16 G.W.F. Hegel, *Phenomenology of Spirit*, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), §86, p. 55. Experience is not static and unchanging; rather, it is constantly expanded and extended as time, place, and conditions change. Grasping a changing object of study cannot rely on fixed conceptual thinking; instead, one must open up new dimensions of thought based on the unique circumstances of social history. Marx keenly captured the consciousness of difference inherent in experience, abandoned the “identity” obsession of theoretical construction, actively adjusted the direction of his thought, clarified premises, delineated boundaries, and carried out a critical understanding with principled height according to the true face and inner essence of things.

黑格尔在《精神现象学》中指出，“意识对它自身—既对它的知识又对它的对象—所实行的这种辩证的运动，就其替意识产生出新的真实对象这一点而言，恰恰就是人们称之为经验的那种东西”。经验并非静态不变的，而是随着时间、地点和条件的变化不断得到扩展和延伸。对变化着的研究对象的把握不能依赖于固定的概念性思维，而是要立足社会历史的独特境遇开启新的思索维度。马克思敏锐地捕捉到经验所内蕴的差异意识，摒弃理论建构的“同一性”偏执，积极调整思想向度，澄清前提，划定界限，根据事物的真实面目和内在本质进行有原则高度的批判性理解。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗