## *The Moment of Radical Critique* 五月风暴的提供理论温床 ## Centre d’études sociologiques CES学社时间线 1946 Georges Gurvitch 1956 Jean Stoetzel 1958 creation of a degree in sociology ## *From revolutionary Romanticism to the Situationists* 1950年,Lefebvre成立田园社会学研究组,“原始社会主义”‘primitive communism’ > the political break was obviously fundamental in allowing Lefebvre to develop his thinking in total freedom, there was no real theoretical discontinuity in his desire to construct a living Marxism, freed from dogmatism and committed to the analysis of contemporary phenomena. Certainly, he responded to his exclusion by publishing an initial analysis, ‘L’exclu s’inclut’, in Les Temps modernes as early as July 1958. Above all, as if it represented a veritable liberation for him, he threw himself into the composition of La Somme et le reste – that strange narrative of a ‘philosophical adventure’ which remains for many his major work. 1958年,Levebvre与共产主义党派割裂,名副其实的自由,开始了不受教条限制的研究,完全投身于对当时的社会现状研究 > 1959,abandonment of rural sociology (replaced by Henri Mendras) > 1) ‘Research on needs in the framework of the family (How mothers see the needs of children. Sociology of everyday life. Theory of needs. Research into needs in the family framework). > 2) The birth of a city (Lacq and Mourenx). > 3) Monographs on villages’. > pivotal point of an evolution that was going to lead towards urban sociology and, more broadly, a sociology of daily life 1959年,Levebvre抛弃田园社会学,在1959年发表了包含以下研究点的论文: 1.家庭框架下的需求研究(如母亲如何看待孩子的需求、日常生活中的社会学、需求理论) 2.城市的诞生 3.关于城镇的专著 1960年,Levebvre 成立Research group on everyday life(正是写日常生活批判vol. Ⅱ时,也是那时去了Strasbourg大学任教,随着 社会学 学位的诞生他在Strasbourg中产阶级的名气越来越大,他的课程尤其吸引了广大希望反抗的学生参加) 1962年 levebvre第一次提出“激进批判”(radical critique)一词 > Lefebvre revived the 1925 ideal of a revolution that set out – hence the notion of revolutionary Romanticism – from the critique of modernity which was for him at the heart of nineteenth-century Romanticism Levebvre重新提出了1925年的理想改革——批判现代性世界(即具有革命性意义的浪漫主义Romanticism) **Levebvre和境遇主义者(situationist)的复杂微妙的关系** they were not of the order of filiation or affiliation 起初Levebvre是境遇主义者的攻击对象,后来事实证明,许多Levebvre的观点后来都成为了境遇主义者灵感的汲取的来源,他们都认为: > everyday life is governed in the modern world by the reign of scarcity, not by the wealth of the consumer society that everyday life has become disconnected from historicity amidst industrialization and accumulation; that it has been debased into uniform, repetitive everydayness by its separation from the great cosmic, natural and vital cycles; that the individual is herself divided (this is Deleuze’s ‘capitalism and schizophrenia’), separated from herself and the world in the modern world. Such alienation can be expressed in terms of poverty. > colonization of the everyday(Guy Debord) 现代世界的日常生活被“匮乏”(scarcity)统治,而不是被消费者世界中的“财富”统治;在工业化进程中日常生活已经失去和历史性(historicity)的联系;日常生活由于脱离大环境(great cosmic)、自然和生命周期而被降级为统一的重复的日常;个体被分裂,个体脱离于自己并脱离于现代世界,这种异化可以被表述为贫穷。 > ‘constructed situations’ are said to supersede moments as so many procedures for rupture, acceleration, subversion with respect to daily life – particularly the Situationist dérive, close to the Surrealist promenade, which consists in passing so rapidly from one district to another that an effect of acceleration and fluidity, breaking with the everyday, is created. 因为许多日常生活的决裂、激变、颠覆过程境遇主义者提出了“建造境遇”(constructed situation),特别地,境遇主义者的“漂流”dérive,十分接近于超现实主义者的“漫步”promenade——这个过程包含了在不同地点之间如此快速地转移以至于打破日常生活的“加速”(acceleration)与“流动性”(fluidity)的效应被创造。 > The main site of experimentation is the city, but also as an object of experimental town planning, an anti-Le Corbusier city, constructed to counter uniformity, based on an architecture of the labyrinth, of complexity, which makes it possible not to take reality for such. 他们理论的主要试验田是城市(城镇规划也是实验对象),致力于创造一种反柯布西耶城市,在迷宫型城市基础上建造反制度化同一化的城市 > But there is a divergence between Lefebvre and the Situationists over what utopia consists in: abstract utopia or concrete utopia. Is experimenting with a different kind of city a concrete utopia that already forms part of the revolution? Or does it remain at the level of architectural designs? > Levebvre和境遇主义者的分歧产生于对乌托邦的理解:建造一种新型城市是否已经实现了部分改革建立了现实乌托邦(concrete Utopia)?还是说它依旧停留在建筑设计层面(虚拟乌托邦Abstract Utopia)。 境遇主义者一直被一个先锋困境——即清晰表述文化革命或政治革命的困难——所困扰。境遇主义者认为Levebvre和Godmann只是独立改革空想的代表“representatives of independent revolutionary thinking”而没有对政治力量的组织提出任何东西。而Levebvre与境遇主义者的完全割裂是由于Levebvre与“新左派”(“new left”)的关系。尤其是Levebvre曾将境遇主义与浪漫主义关联并将其贬低为青年运动。