從局限經濟到普遍經濟：鴉片消費的東方語藝？

本文從德希達(J. Derrida)〈毒品的語藝〉一文出發，探討鴉片（第一個毒品）如何成為一個現代的問題意識；也從比較文化史的角度探究何以在十九世紀歐洲和晚清中國各發展出兩種不同的鴉片消費文化：鴉片文學以及精緻的鴉片物質文化，並試圖解釋其間差異的文化意義。本文借用Georges Bataille 局限經濟與普遍經濟的區分，說明同樣做為消費／消耗文化邏輯的經濟思惟。十九世紀歐洲的鴉片消費文化，符合布爾喬亞的工作倫理的有意義的生產或意義之生產，亦即局限經濟的原則；相對於在晚清中國的鴉片消費則是毫無保留的耗費，毫無意義生產的消費形成普遍經濟。後者與情色、賭博一樣原本都只是傳統身份社會之下，透過無意義消耗達到象徵性競賽的舊（惡）習，都在以貯存、積累為未來保留之小布喬爾政治經濟學下，以戒毒為手段建國的現代國家認為是「該被詛咒的部分」。本文論證在1880左右以前的中國的鴉片消費是延續著傳統文人藉著養癖之變形。文人透過癖嗜的培養，展示其文化資本的炫耀性消費／消耗。這種變味的品味，原本屬於上流社會做為社會區判的物質消費，卻在清末民初文明崩解時，突然成為「不文明」、「落後」、「醜陋」舊社會的象徵。於是，新興民族主義健康新中國身體集體渴望，將原本已經被挪用為癖好文化的「煙霞癖」、「芙蓉癖」轉化成公開譴責的「鴉片癮」。最後，本文亦論證十九世紀歐洲文人或藝術家以逾越毒品戒命的方式文化在生產裡將鴉片消費視為一種「出柙」的創作主體，但其文學或藝術產品卻依屈服於文化商品市場，並非Bataille 意義下的至高主權生命。相較於此，晚清中國的鴉片消費從普遍經濟的角度來看，更接近至高主權的生命，毫無保留，非生產性的絕對消耗，甚至不屈服於任何意義的生產或有意義的生產。

關鍵字

鴉片消費；鴉片文學；癖癮；普遍經濟；局限經濟；至高主權生命

並列摘要

This article begins with J. Derrida's ”The Rhetoric of Drugs”, discuss how Opium consumption became a problematic in the modern world. By a comparative perspective of cultural history, we try to explain the cultural meanings of the difference of two consumption of opium in the 19th century Europe and in the late imperial China: Opium literature for one and the material culture of opium smoking for the other. G. Bataille's distinction of ”restraint economy” and ”general economy” help us to understand this difference of two opium consumption cultures. Opium literature in the 19th century Europe could be a product of the cultural production which obeys to the bourgeoisie's work ethic, i.e. under the principle of restraint economy. On the contrary, the Chinese opium smoking is a pure expenditure without reserve, consumption without meanings production, and non-meaningful production. This is why the later was regarded as the ”accused shares” by the modern China which follows the petit bourgeois's political economy thinking, to reserve itself in order to develop in the future. Like gambling and prostitution, opium consumption were a part of symbolic competition of expenditure in the traditional status society, it became suddenly a symbol of ”evil” of the ancient society. This article argues finally that for the 19th century European writers and artists, opium consumption is a way of transgressing the interdiction to constitute their creative subject in the cultural production. And their creative products summit to the cultural commodity market, therefore, this subject is not Bataille's sense of sovereign life. Inversely, the Opium Smoking in China could be more near to this sovereign life, without reserve even the health and life, until and over the death.