The Internal Structure of Young Marx’s Theory of Alienation

Young Marx’s theory of alienation is the intersection of political economy, Hegelian philosophy, and Feuerbachian humanism. The complexity of its theoretical sources directly leads to the infinity of its interpretive space. However, how were so many theoretical sources constructed and transformed in Marx’s mind at that time? And in what structure did they exist? These are the foundational questions that must be answered before we can undertake an original interpretation of them.

青年马克思的异化理论是政治经济学、黑格尔哲学、费尔巴哈人本主义的交汇点，理论来源的复杂性直接导致了其阐释空间的无限性。但是，如此众多的理论来源在此时马克思的头脑中是如何建构和变化的？它们又是以怎样的结构存在的？这是我们对其进行原创性阐释之前，首先要回答的基础性问题。

Professor Sun Bokui [1]1 Sun Bokui (1930–2003) was a prominent Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Nanjing University, known for his textual and historical studies of Marx’s early works., basing himself on texts and the history of thought, first proposed “two logics” to explain the complexity of young Marx’s thought. He believed that in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *1844 Manuscripts*), there exist two diametrically opposed logics: a speculative logic that takes abstract human essence as its starting point (represented by the concept of alienated labor) and a scientific logic that takes real economic facts as its starting point (represented by objectified labor). Historical materialism could only gradually emerge on the basis of the latter logic. Professor Zhang Yibing [2]2 Zhang Yibing (b. 1956) is a Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Nanjing University, noted for his extensive studies of Marx’s economic manuscripts and the history of Marxist philosophy. deepened the two logics of young Marx in the context of economics, arguing that the two logics are, respectively, a humanist logic of the alienated conception of history (what *ought to be*) proceeding from a transcendental subject, and an objective logic (what *is*) observing social history from the perspective of real material production (practice and industry). He maintains that the humanist logic of alienation and the objective logic of reality began to germinate in the *Paris Notebooks* and became prominent in the *1844 Manuscripts*, embodying a theoretical dialogue among three discourses: the critique of the capitalist system and of classical political economy, the socialism of Proudhon and the young Engels, and the critique of philosophical humanism (which also includes a premise of natural materialism). Professor Tang Zhengdong [3]3 Tang Zhengdong (b. 1967) is a Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Nanjing University, specializing in the history of Marxist philosophy and the interpretation of Marx’s early texts. creatively analyzed the changing relationship of forces between the two logics. In his view, at this point Marx no longer treated objectified labor and alienated labor as two parallel threads but instead intertwined them, placing the supersession of alienated labor on the thread of objectified labor, i.e., practice. This is concentratedly manifested in Notebook III of the *1844 Manuscripts*.

孙伯鍨教授以文本和思想史为基础，首次提出“两条逻辑”来阐释青年马克思思想的复杂性。他认为，《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《1844年手稿》）中存在着两种截然相反的逻辑，分别是以抽象的人的本质为出发点的思辨逻辑（以异化劳动概念为代表）和以现实的经济事实为出发点的科学逻辑（以对象化劳动为代表），历史唯物主义只有在后一种逻辑的基础上才能逐渐产生出来。张一兵教授在经济学语境中对青年马克思的两条逻辑进行了深化，认为两条逻辑分别是从先验主体出发的人本主义异化史观的（应该）人学现象学逻辑和从现实物质生产（实践和工业）出发去观察社会历史的（是）客观逻辑，主张人本主义的异化逻辑和客观的现实逻辑是从《巴黎笔记》开始萌芽，并在《1844年手稿》中凸显，体现了资本主义制度及国民经济学、普鲁东—青年恩格斯社会主义、哲学人本主义批判（又包含自然唯物主义前提）三种话语的理论对话。唐正东教授创造性地剖析了两条逻辑之间的力量变化关系，在他看来，此时马克思已经不再把对象化劳动和异化劳动当作两条并列的线索，而是把它们交合在了一起，把异化劳动的扬弃放在了对象化劳动即实践的线索之上，这集中体现在《1844年手稿》笔记本III中。

From a methodological perspective, interpreting the characteristic of young Marx’s thought as “two logics” is in fact a “polyphonic” mode of interpretation. This method originated in musicology and was later applied to fields such as literature and philosophy. In musicology, “polyphonic music” is opposed to “homophonic music”; both are forms of multi-voice music. From the perspective of the interrelationship among multiple voices, homophonic music is characterized by one voice serving as the dominant melody, while the other voices serve as accompaniment and support to the main melody. This mode emphasizes a distinct main melody and was most common in the solemn religious music of the Western classical period. Polyphonic music, by contrast, consists of two or more simultaneously progressing melodies, using counterpoint as its main technique; each voice is independent, yet they form harmonic relations with one another. In this mode, the different voices have their own independence in terms of rhythm, accent, dynamics, and melodic contour, while also being interrelated, together forming a harmonious whole. By the 20th century, modern music further innovated on this basis with Schoenberg’s “atonality,” whose main feature is the rebellion against the tonality between notes in classical music; Adorno’s philosophy is precisely a theoretical innovation in this sense. In literature, the Soviet literary scholar Bakhtin borrowed the compositional method of polyphonic music for literary interpretation, proposing his famous “theory of dialogue.” In his view, whether in communication or conversation, interpersonal relations in reality are a dialogic relationship, but traditional novels are generally constructed in the monologic mode of the protagonist. Although there are multiple characters intertwined, they are merely supporting roles that coordinate with the protagonist’s activity. In Dostoevsky’s novels, however, multiple thematic plots run in parallel, independent of yet interwoven with each other; multiple threads are organically combined to depict a holistic picture. Bakhtin named this the “polyphonic novel.”

从方法论上来看，将青年马克思的思想特质解读为“两条逻辑”，其实是一种“复调”的阐释方式。这一方法最初在音乐学中产生，后被运用到文学和哲学等领域。在音乐学中，“复调音乐”（polyphony music）是与“主调音乐”（homophony music）相对的，它们都是多声部音乐的一种形式。从多声部间的相互关系来看，主调音乐的特点是以一个声部为主导性旋律，其余声部则作为附属和烘托来配合主旋律。这种调式强调鲜明的主旋律，在西方古典时期的庄严宗教音乐中最为普遍。而复调音乐由两组及以上同时进行的旋律组成，以对位法为主要技法，各声部各自独立，但又彼此形成和声关系，这种调式的不同声部既在节奏、重音、力度及曲调起伏等方面具有自己的独立性，又彼此相互关联，共同构成一个和谐整体。到了20世纪，现代音乐还在此基础上创新出了勋伯格的“无调音乐”（atonality music），其以反叛古典音乐中音与音之间的调性为主要特征，阿多诺的哲学正是在此意义上进行的理论创新。而在文学中，苏联文艺学家巴赫金将复调音乐的创作方式借鉴到文学阐释之中，提出了著名的“对白理论”。在他看来，无论是交往还是对话，人与人之间在现实中都是一种对白关系，但是传统小说却普遍是以主人翁独白的方式建构的，尽管有多个人物交织的关系，但是他们不过是为了配合主人翁活动的配角。而在陀思妥耶夫斯基的小说中，出现了多个主题性情节并行的情况，它们之间相互独立又彼此交织，多条线索在有机结合中共同描绘了一幅整体性图景，巴赫金将其命名为“复调小说”。

From this perspective, the coexistence of the “two logics” in young Marx’s mind seems to bear a certain resemblance to this polyphony; the two logics constitute Marx’s holistic thinking through contradiction and connection. More importantly, Bakhtin pointed out that, just as the infinity of dialogue between people in life, the result of polyphonic theory is necessarily an “unfinalizability.” In other words, the narration and interpretation of such novels are open to all readers. The “two voices” proposed by Maurice Blanchot, a thinker of great influence on contemporary continental philosophy, in his literary interpretation, is precisely a continuation of this polyphonic theory. To a certain extent, the infinite interpretations and original interpretations of young Marx’s thought in contemporary academia also proceed from this characteristic. The unfinalizability of this polyphonic thought leaves endless imaginative space for later generations, giving rise to the phenomenon of “the Six Classics annotating me, and I annotating the Six Classics.” [4]4 “The Six Classics annotating me, and I annotating the Six Classics” is a classical Chinese expression referring to the reciprocal interpretive relationship between a canonical text and its reader, often used to describe the open-ended process of textual interpretation.

从这个角度来看，青年马克思头脑中的“两条逻辑”并行不悖似乎与这种复调有着一定的相似性，两条逻辑在矛盾与联系中构成马克思的整体性思考。更重要的是，巴赫金指出，正如生活中人与人之间对白的无限性一样，复调理论的结果必然是一种“未完成性”。换言之，这种小说的叙述与阐释向所有读者敞开。对当代欧陆哲学影响巨大的思想家布朗肖（Maurice Blanchot）在文学阐释中提出的“两种声音”正是在这一复调理论基础上的继续言说。在某种程度上，当代学术界对青年马克思思想的无限性解读与原创性阐释恰恰也是从这一特征出发的，这种复调思想的未完成性给后人留下了无尽的想象空间，形成了“六经注我，我注六经”的现象。

If Marx’s thought at this time exhibits polyphonic characteristics, we cannot help but ask: In what way do these two logics coexist in Marx’s mind? In other words, what roles do each of them play? I believe that merely using polyphonic theory cannot fully reveal the contestation of different logical forces in young Marx’s mind; they present a complex relationship of a field of thought. Bourdieu’s field theory will help us better understand their mode of existence. In Bourdieu’s view, a field can be defined as a configuration of objective relations among various positions, where each position has objective relations of force with other positions, i.e., relations of domination, subordination, structural correspondence, etc. As long as one is within this field, one faces invisible ongoing/potential struggles for power. This dynamism means that the key to field theory lies neither in A nor in B, but in the invisible relationship between A and B. If we combine polyphonic theory with field theory to examine young Marx’s intellectual space, we can more finely observe the contestation of forces among different logics and their potential relations of change.

如果说此时马克思的思想呈现出复调的特征，那么我们不禁会疑问：这两条逻辑以何种方式共同存在于马克思的头脑之中？换言之，两者分别扮演着什么样的角色？笔者认为，仅仅用复调理论并不能完整展现青年马克思头脑中不同逻辑力量的角逐，它们呈现出一种复杂的思想场域关系。布尔迪厄的场域理论将更好地帮助我们理解它们的存在方式。在布尔迪厄看来，场域可以被定义为在各种位置之间存在的客观关系的一个构型，每个位置与其他位置之间存在着客观的力量关系，即支配关系、服从关系、结构对应关系等。只要在这个场域之中，就会面对看不见的正在发生/潜在的力量争夺活动，这种运动性意味着场域理论的关键，既不在于A，也不在于B，而在于A与B之间看不见的关系。如果将复调理论与场域理论结合起来透视青年马克思的思想空间，就能更细致地看到不同逻辑之间的力量角逐以及潜在性的变化关系。

From the perspective of mode of existence, there are explicit logic and implicit logic in young Marx’s intellectual space. The explicit logic is the objective logic proceeding from economic reality. Therefore, the terms, concepts, and expressions Marx used in the *Paris Notebooks* and the *1844 Manuscripts* are similar to those of the political economists. Even concepts from the discourse of historical materialism, such as production, practice, and communism, appear here. However, behind them lies an implicit logic, namely, the logic of alienation proceeding from humanism. Thus, although Marx had turned to materialism at this time, he still adhered to an implicit idealist conception of history.

从存在方式来看，青年马克思的思想空间中存在着显性逻辑和隐性逻辑。显性逻辑是从经济现实出发的客观逻辑，所以马克思在《巴黎笔记》和《1844年手稿》中使用的术语、概念、表述都是同政治经济学家相似的，甚至历史唯物主义话语中的生产、实践、共产主义等概念都在这里出现了。但是，它们的背后却存在着一条隐性逻辑，即从人本主义出发的异化逻辑，所以尽管此时马克思转向了唯物主义，却仍然是隐性唯心史观的。

From the perspective of determining function, the two logics can also be divided into dominant logic and subordinate logic. The explicit logic of objective reality is at this time only a subordinate logic, while the implicit humanist logic of alienation has, conversely, become the dominant logic. Therefore, although Marx used concepts similar to those of historical materialism, these concepts were still dominated by the romantic value presuppositions of humanism; the point of return for Marx’s supersession of alienation was still the species-being of man. However, the contestation of forces between these two logics brought about potential changes. It was only after Marx studied economics, technology, and socialist theories in the *Brussels Notebooks* and the *Manchester Notebooks* and experienced machine-based large-scale industry in reality that he thoroughly superseded the implicit, dominant humanist logic of alienation and moved toward historical materialism on the basis of the logic of reality.

从决定作用来看，两条逻辑又可以分为主导逻辑和附属逻辑。作为显性话语的现实客观逻辑此时只是附属逻辑，而隐性的人本主义异化逻辑反过来成为了主导逻辑，所以尽管马克思运用了近似历史唯物主义的概念，但这些概念仍被人本主义所主导的浪漫主义价值悬设，马克思扬弃异化的复归点还是人的类本质。然而，这两条逻辑的力量争夺带来了潜在变化，当马克思在《布鲁塞尔笔记》《曼彻斯特笔记》中研究过经济学、工艺学、社会主义学说并在现实中经历机器大工业生产之后，彻底扬弃隐性的、主导的人本主义异化逻辑，才在现实逻辑上走向历史唯物主义。

Going further, the sources of the two logics are not a monolithic bloc. The objective logic proceeding from reality includes not only the realistic factors from Smith to Ricardo but also the ideas of humanist economists such as Skarbek. Marx clearly held different attitudes toward economists of different positions. The logic of alienation proceeding from humanism includes not only the familiar humanism of Feuerbach but also Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, which provided fundamental logical support for Marx’s critique of alienation. It can be seen that the contest of so many theoretical sources within the same space caused Marx’s thought to undergo intense changes at this time. Attempting to “open up” this structural field is complex and arduous, but it is also open and interesting. To bear original fruit on this ground, one must continuously engage in deep cultivation of the texts.

进一步来讲，两条逻辑的来源也不是铁板一块，从现实出发的客观逻辑不仅包含从斯密到李嘉图的现实因素，还包含如斯卡尔培克这样的人本主义经济学家的思想，马克思在面对不同立场的经济学家时明显有着不一样的态度。而从人本主义出发的异化逻辑不仅包含我们熟知的费尔巴哈人本主义，黑格尔《精神现象学》也为马克思异化批判提供了根本性的逻辑支撑。可见，如此之多的理论来源在同一空间中的力量角逐，导致此时马克思的思想发生着激烈变化。试图“打开”这种结构性场域是复杂且艰涩的，但也是开放和有趣的。想要在这块土地上结出原创性花朵，就必须在文本上不断进行深耕。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗