知识的诗学：人人在共同语言之前的平等和创造故事、对象和论据的能力的平等
发布时间：2009-11-28 10:54
分类名称：默认分类
分类名称：默认分类
各个学科之间的界限是人为的，各学科都在以不同的方式讲故事，是各种宣称身体可以做什么的学说之间、各种关于为什么要有平等和为什么不要平等的理由之间的战争，知识的诗学是要回到一种共同的语言面前，是要强调查每一个人创造故事、对象和论据的能力的平等上。
There is no assured boundary separating the territory of sociology from that of
philosophy or that of the historians from literature. No well-defined boundary separates
the discourse of the woodworker who is the object of science from the discourse of
science itself. After all is said and done, to trace these boundaries is to trace the boundary
between those who have thought through this question and those who have not. This
boundary is never traced other than in the form of a story. Only the language of stories
can trace the boundary, forcing the aporia of the absence of final reason from the reasons
of the disciplines.
I once proposed the concept of a ‘poetics of knowledges [savoirs]’. A poetics of
knowledges is not a simple way of saying that there is always literature in attempts at
rigorous argumentation. Such a demonstration still belongs to the idle logic of
demystification. The poetics of knowledges does not claim that the disciplines are false
knowledges. It claims that they are disciplines, ways of intervening in the interminable
war between ways of declaring what a body can do, in the interminable war between the
reasons of equality and those of inequality. It does not claim that they are invalid because
they tell stories. It claims that they must borrow their presentations of objects, their
procedures for interaction and their forms of argument from language and common
thought. A poetics of knowledge is first a discourse which reinscribes the force of
descriptions and arguments in the equality of common language and the common
capacity to invent objects, stories and arguments. In this sense it can be called a method
of equality.
哲学必须是一种非学科、无学科的话语，是要去创造一个平等的释义和文本空间，一种反柏拉图神话、反命运式的空间。语言面前的人人平等，由语言的约定俗成性决定的话语等级，必须拉倒：
I have taken a different path: these
phrases do not describe a lived situation. They reinvent the relation between a situation
and the forms of visibility and capacities of thought which are attached to it. Put
differently, this narrative [récit] is a myth in the Platonic sense: it is an anti-Platonic
myth, a counter-story of destiny. The Platonic myth prescribes a relationship of reciprocal
confirmation between a condition and a thought. The counter-myth of the joiner breaks
the circle. The indisciplinary procedure must thus create the textual and signifying space
in which this relation of myth to myth is visible and thinkable.
This supposes the creation of a space without boundaries which is also a space of
equality, in which the narrative of the joiner’s life enters into a dialogue with the
philosophical narrative of the organised distribution of competencies and destinies. This
implies another practice – an indisciplinary practice – of philosophy, of its relation to the
human sciences. Classically, philosophy has been considered a sort of super-discipline
which reflects on the methods of the human and social sciences, or which provides them
with their foundation. Thus a hierarchical order is established in the universe of
discourse. Of course these sciences can object to this status, treat it as an illusion and
pose itself as the true knowledge of philosophical illusion. This is another hierarchy,
another way of putting discourses in their place. But there is a third way of proceeding,
which seizes the moment in which the philosophical pretension to found the order of
discourse is reversed, becoming the declaration, in the egalitarian language of the
narrative, of the arbitrary nature of this order.
社会学是一种共和国的学科，它强调了保护差异而忘记了捍卫平等。布迪厄的社会学说，工人阶级有自己的审美，左派知识分子应该用文化研究去捍卫他们的审美趣味的合法性，但这么做后，朗西埃指出，就等于间接承认工人阶级的审美趣味与高于他们的阶级有不同，就否决了工人阶级与高级阶级之间的审美异议、冲突和斗争。这是典型的一种学科思维，它维护了资本主义装置在我们的社会内制造的各种隔离。
This is what is meant by a discipline. A discipline is always something other than an
exploitation of this territory, and therefore a demonstration of an idea of knowledge
[savoir]. And an idea of knowledge [savoir] should be understood as a regulation of the
rapport between the two knowledges [savoir] and two ignorances. It is a way of defining
an idea of the thinkable, an idea of what the objects of knowledge themselves can think
and know. It is therefore always a certain regulation of dissensus, of its dehiscence
[écart] in relation to the ethical order, according to which a certain type of condition
implies a certain type of thought.
It is this context of the thinkable which is at work when Bourdieu constructs the dispositif
of phrases and photographies, attesting that the distinguished and popular classes each
JACQUES RANCIERE
adopt, whatever Kant says, the tastes which correspond to their place. We know that the
questionnaires used for this purpose are made notably to avoid the phenomena of
‘allodoxy’. For example, the following opinion is proposed to the popular public: ‘I love
classical music, for example the waltzes of Strauss’. The formulation of the opinion is
conceived as a snare for the workers who will lie, saying that they love classical music,
but are betrayed, being ignorant of the fact that Strauss does not deserve to be considered
a composer of classical music.
It is clear that the sociological method here presupposes the result that it was supposed to
establish. In other words, science – before being a method to study the phenomena of
orthodoxy and allodoxy – is an orthodoxy, a war machine against allodoxy. But what it
calls allodoxy is in fact aesthetic dissensus, the dehiscence between the arms and the gaze
of the carpenter, the sensible rupture of the relation between a body and what it knows –
in the double sense of knowing. The settling of scores between the sociologist and Kant is
first of all the settling of scores with our woodworker. Sociology, before being a
discipline taught in the university is first of all, in another sense, a war machine invented
in the age of the aesthetic which is also the age of democratic revolutions, as a response
to the troubles of this age.
Before being the ‘science of society’, sociology was first historically the project of a
reorganisation of society. It wanted to remake a body for this society supposedly divided
by philosophical abstraction, protestant individualism and revolutionary formalism. It
wanted to reconstitute the social fabric such that individuals and groups at a given place
would have the ethos, the ways of feeling and thinking, which corresponded at once to
their place and to a collective harmony. Sociology today has certainly distanced itself
from this organicist vision of society. But it continues, for the benefit of science, to want
what science wants for the good of society, to understand [savoir] the rule of
correspondence between social conditions and the attitudes and judgements of those who
belong to it. The scientific war against the allodoxy of judgements continues the political
war against ‘anomie’ of behaviour, the war against the aesthetic and democratic unrest of
the division of the body politic within itself.
Thus sociology enters into a polemical complicity with the Platonic ethical project. What
it refuses, and what the philosopher declares, is that inequality is an artifice, a story which
is imposed. It wants to claim that inequality is an incorporated reality in social behaviour
and misrecognised in the judgements that this behaviour implies. It wants to claim that
what science knows is precisely what its objects do not.
无知的老师所以也是忽视的老师，ignorance既是无知，但也可以去主动无知，去忽视被专家学者视为神圣的学科思维，那种也只不过是在用某种局限的语言来讲故事的学科思维，用我们的共同语言以解放和平等的心态来讲出我们的故事，使我们的研究、思考、理论和写作像是出于儿童动用自己的母语时那样地清纯和有力。劳动、生产、学习在那样的状态下本身就是对我们自己的智力解放：不要任何人来解放我们，我们可以自己宣布我们的解放。
There is no assured boundary separating the territory of sociology from that of
philosophy or that of the historians from literature. No well-defined boundary separates
the discourse of the woodworker who is the object of science from the discourse of
science itself. After all is said and done, to trace these boundaries is to trace the boundary
between those who have thought through this question and those who have not. This
boundary is never traced other than in the form of a story. Only the language of stories
can trace the boundary, forcing the aporia of the absence of final reason from the reasons
of the disciplines.
I once proposed the concept of a ‘poetics of knowledges [savoirs]’. A poetics of
knowledges is not a simple way of saying that there is always literature in attempts at
rigorous argumentation. Such a demonstration still belongs to the idle logic of
demystification. The poetics of knowledges does not claim that the disciplines are false
knowledges. It claims that they are disciplines, ways of intervening in the interminable
war between ways of declaring what a body can do, in the interminable war between the
reasons of equality and those of inequality. It does not claim that they are invalid because
they tell stories. It claims that they must borrow their presentations of objects, their
procedures for interaction and their forms of argument from language and common
thought. A poetics of knowledge is first a discourse which reinscribes the force of
descriptions and arguments in the equality of common language and the common
capacity to invent objects, stories and arguments. In this sense it can be called a method
of equality.
哲学必须是一种非学科、无学科的话语，是要去创造一个平等的释义和文本空间，一种反柏拉图神话、反命运式的空间。语言面前的人人平等，由语言的约定俗成性决定的话语等级，必须拉倒：
I have taken a different path: these
phrases do not describe a lived situation. They reinvent the relation between a situation
and the forms of visibility and capacities of thought which are attached to it. Put
differently, this narrative [récit] is a myth in the Platonic sense: it is an anti-Platonic
myth, a counter-story of destiny. The Platonic myth prescribes a relationship of reciprocal
confirmation between a condition and a thought. The counter-myth of the joiner breaks
the circle. The indisciplinary procedure must thus create the textual and signifying space
in which this relation of myth to myth is visible and thinkable.
This supposes the creation of a space without boundaries which is also a space of
equality, in which the narrative of the joiner’s life enters into a dialogue with the
philosophical narrative of the organised distribution of competencies and destinies. This
implies another practice – an indisciplinary practice – of philosophy, of its relation to the
human sciences. Classically, philosophy has been considered a sort of super-discipline
which reflects on the methods of the human and social sciences, or which provides them
with their foundation. Thus a hierarchical order is established in the universe of
discourse. Of course these sciences can object to this status, treat it as an illusion and
pose itself as the true knowledge of philosophical illusion. This is another hierarchy,
another way of putting discourses in their place. But there is a third way of proceeding,
which seizes the moment in which the philosophical pretension to found the order of
discourse is reversed, becoming the declaration, in the egalitarian language of the
narrative, of the arbitrary nature of this order.
社会学是一种共和国的学科，它强调了保护差异而忘记了捍卫平等。布迪厄的社会学说，工人阶级有自己的审美，左派知识分子应该用文化研究去捍卫他们的审美趣味的合法性，但这么做后，朗西埃指出，就等于间接承认工人阶级的审美趣味与高于他们的阶级有不同，就否决了工人阶级与高级阶级之间的审美异议、冲突和斗争。这是典型的一种学科思维，它维护了资本主义装置在我们的社会内制造的各种隔离。
This is what is meant by a discipline. A discipline is always something other than an
exploitation of this territory, and therefore a demonstration of an idea of knowledge
[savoir]. And an idea of knowledge [savoir] should be understood as a regulation of the
rapport between the two knowledges [savoir] and two ignorances. It is a way of defining
an idea of the thinkable, an idea of what the objects of knowledge themselves can think
and know. It is therefore always a certain regulation of dissensus, of its dehiscence
[écart] in relation to the ethical order, according to which a certain type of condition
implies a certain type of thought.
It is this context of the thinkable which is at work when Bourdieu constructs the dispositif
of phrases and photographies, attesting that the distinguished and popular classes each
JACQUES RANCIERE
adopt, whatever Kant says, the tastes which correspond to their place. We know that the
questionnaires used for this purpose are made notably to avoid the phenomena of
‘allodoxy’. For example, the following opinion is proposed to the popular public: ‘I love
classical music, for example the waltzes of Strauss’. The formulation of the opinion is
conceived as a snare for the workers who will lie, saying that they love classical music,
but are betrayed, being ignorant of the fact that Strauss does not deserve to be considered
a composer of classical music.
It is clear that the sociological method here presupposes the result that it was supposed to
establish. In other words, science – before being a method to study the phenomena of
orthodoxy and allodoxy – is an orthodoxy, a war machine against allodoxy. But what it
calls allodoxy is in fact aesthetic dissensus, the dehiscence between the arms and the gaze
of the carpenter, the sensible rupture of the relation between a body and what it knows –
in the double sense of knowing. The settling of scores between the sociologist and Kant is
first of all the settling of scores with our woodworker. Sociology, before being a
discipline taught in the university is first of all, in another sense, a war machine invented
in the age of the aesthetic which is also the age of democratic revolutions, as a response
to the troubles of this age.
Before being the ‘science of society’, sociology was first historically the project of a
reorganisation of society. It wanted to remake a body for this society supposedly divided
by philosophical abstraction, protestant individualism and revolutionary formalism. It
wanted to reconstitute the social fabric such that individuals and groups at a given place
would have the ethos, the ways of feeling and thinking, which corresponded at once to
their place and to a collective harmony. Sociology today has certainly distanced itself
from this organicist vision of society. But it continues, for the benefit of science, to want
what science wants for the good of society, to understand [savoir] the rule of
correspondence between social conditions and the attitudes and judgements of those who
belong to it. The scientific war against the allodoxy of judgements continues the political
war against ‘anomie’ of behaviour, the war against the aesthetic and democratic unrest of
the division of the body politic within itself.
Thus sociology enters into a polemical complicity with the Platonic ethical project. What
it refuses, and what the philosopher declares, is that inequality is an artifice, a story which
is imposed. It wants to claim that inequality is an incorporated reality in social behaviour
and misrecognised in the judgements that this behaviour implies. It wants to claim that
what science knows is precisely what its objects do not.
无知的老师所以也是忽视的老师，ignorance既是无知，但也可以去主动无知，去忽视被专家学者视为神圣的学科思维，那种也只不过是在用某种局限的语言来讲故事的学科思维，用我们的共同语言以解放和平等的心态来讲出我们的故事，使我们的研究、思考、理论和写作像是出于儿童动用自己的母语时那样地清纯和有力。劳动、生产、学习在那样的状态下本身就是对我们自己的智力解放：不要任何人来解放我们，我们可以自己宣布我们的解放。
