重思國際關係：「政治性」的觀點

「政治性」（the political）的意義在政治、社會、與文化的理論中，一直是後結構主義、解構主義、女性主義、後殖民主義與精神分析等思想所關注的對象。然而在國際關係領域中，這些思想對於政治性意義的重探卻仍舊處於高度爭議的狀態。此文旨在介紹這些重新思考政治性的思想基礎，以及論說這些基礎對於「政治」（politics）與「政治性」分析的重要性，並檢視其在國際關係所造成的影響以及其所蘊含的啟發。對於當代理論中政治性意義的重思，將牽涉到對於既有政治「主體」觀點的反思。主體的概念在諸多領域中一向被視為個體的、至高無上的、與預先存在於社會事實之中的。然而這樣的的主體概念已逐漸為一些思想家所解構與去中心化，主體概念所仰賴的存在與時間性的觀念也遭致質疑。這種對於主體概念的消解，則意在解放遭到禁錮的主體本身，同時也將對於侷限主體的各種疆界與範圍重新予以檢視。國際關係的挑戰並不僅僅來自對於國家主權這種主體性的反思與重組，也來自於對於「政治性」概念的重新評估與重新詮釋。這種對於政治性意義的重思，一方面將涉及到對於「政治」與「政治性」概念的區分；另一方面則將關注語言、論述、或意識形態對於政治性分析的重要性。此處所提到的「政治」概念，將指涉一個被去政治化或技術化的空間，意即從原本充滿政治變遷可能的場域變為一個由專家技術與官僚統治的場域。在此文中將引進傅柯、德里達、拉康、與齊澤克的思想作為重思政治性意義的途徑。這些思想將有助於我們瞭解去政治化或技術化的過程如何發生，並提供我們一個重思政治性與重新協商政治疆界之後的可能景象。傅柯卻認為知識份子主要關切的政治性問題應該在於真理生產的政治、經濟、制度體制，從當前主導的社會、經濟、文化霸權中拆解其中真理的權力，而不應當是嘗試在任何權力體系的基礎上去解放真理，因為真理總是權力的再現。因此，政治性的問題並不在於關注錯誤、幻覺、與意識形態所導致的異化意識，而是真理本身。對於德里達而言，延異作為一種批判形式，其目的不在於檢視理論文本的缺失與不完善，而是在探索文本的可能性基礎。延異關注的問題不是文本的意義為何，而是文本的預設為何、問題意識為何：對於那些被視為是自然、明顯、不證自明、與普世的事物重新進行閱讀，以揭露出這些事物其實是有歷史性的、揭露出它們之所以如此的理由、揭露出這些事物所產生的效應、以及揭露出它們的起始點並非（自然）給定的，而經常是被掩飾的（文化）建構。齊澤克指出意識形態批判的任務就是在任何時刻都能提供懷疑的態度，而批判性知識份子的責任，就是隨時居據於社會秩序過渡時期所產生的一個「空洞」（hole）位置。易言之，知識份子必須與每一個處於統治地位的主導能指維持一定的距離，即使新秩序已穩定下來並再一次遮蔽這個空洞的存在。這樣做的目的則是在揭露每個主導能指在生產過程中所隱含的人為性、偶然性特徵。如同我們已經提及的，所有的社會現實都必須依靠某種組織性的主導能指或意識形態幻象，而意識形態批判的目的即在於防止其遮掩創傷性的內核、防止其自然化、或是防止其將社會結構去政治化。同樣地，國際關係理論學家的任務也並不在於維護我們（無論是什麼「我群」的共同體建構）遠離任何危險，而是要去挑戰那些生產所謂安全的權力關係或象徵秩序霸權，揭示其偶然性與權宜性的本質。本文主張的是一種持續性的政治介入，這種政治介入必須是不間斷的、隨時保持警戒的、與回應事件的行動主義。我們必須重複地標幟出創傷並避免遺忘。

關鍵字

政治性；政治；後結構主義；國際關係；意識形態；問題化

並列摘要

“The political” is being rethought through and is always the primary concern of poststructuralist, feminist, postcolonial and psychoanalytic thought. The essay attempt to introduce the theoretical basis for rethinking “the political” and to indicate how it is central to the distinction between “politics” and “the political”. In international relations, the reflection or the problematization of the political through above-mentioned approaches remains wildly contested. So the essay also attempt to open the possibility of refiguring and reimaging international relations through the analysis of “politics” and “the political”. The rethinking of the political in contemporary thought involve the interrogation of Cartesian view of “subject” of politics. In international relations, political subjects are still conceived as sovereign, independent, and preexisting entities. This notion of subject has been decentered by various thinkers and the conditions of existence and temporality on which it was founded problematized. As a matter of fact, the endeavor of destabilizing, unsettling, and decentering of the subject is trying to free the imprisoned subject and reexamine boundaries of various kind constructed around the subject. The challenge to international relations not only come from a realignment and reexamination of dominant subjectivity that leads to a rearticulation of fundamental political question, but also from the appraisal of the political. In the essay, the rethinking of the political will start out from the reassessment of the distinction between politics and the political, and this reassessment will pay further attention to the question of discourse, ideology, power relations, and disciplining practices. The notion of “politics” implies a depoliticized or technologized space: a room for constant political change has been displaced by a technology of expertise or the rule of bureaucracy. The insights of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Slavoj Žižek provide useful sources and perspectives for the reconsideration of the political. They do this, first, by indicate how “politics” become depoliticized and technologized and, second, by providing some preliminary images about what a rethinking of the political or a renegotiation of the boundaries of politics might look like. There is a battle “for truth”; or in Foucault's words: The essential political problem for the intellectual is the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth. It's not a matter of emancipating truth from every system of power (which would be a chimera, for truth is already power) but of detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social, economic and cultural, within which it operates at the present time. The political question is truth itself. For Derrida, différance is not a ‘concept’ or ‘idea’ that is ‘truer’ than presence. It can only be a process of textual work, a strategy of writing. The approach proceeds by the careful teasing out of the warring forces of signification within the text itself. It is a form of critique. It is not an examination of the flaws or imperfections of the theoretical text but an analysis that seeks to explore the grounds of possibility of the text. The critique reads back from what seems natural, obvious, self-evident or universal, in order to show that these things have their history, their reasons for being the way they are, their effects on what follows from them, and that the starting point is not a (natural) given but a (cultural) construct usually blind to itself. Accordingly, the crucial question is not “What does the text mean?” but “What does the text presuppose?” Žižek indicates that the duty of the critical intellectual is precisely to occupy all the time, even when the new order stabilizes itself and again renders invisible the hole as such, the place of the hole of transition from old social order to new social order, i.e., to maintain a distance toward every reigning Master-Signifier. The aim is to render visible its “produced,” artificial, contingent character. The construction of all social realities is made by an organizing Master-Signifier or ideological fantasy, and thus the purpose of critique of ideology is to prevent it from naturalizing and depoliticizing our social structure. It is not the task of the international relations theorist to secure us (whatever community “we” may be) against the danger but precisely the reverse: to challenge the hegemony of the power relations or symbolic order in whose name security is produced, to render visible its contingent, provisional nature of origin. This leads to a position that advocates a continual political involvement and a need for recurring, vigilant, and responsive activism. We should repeatedly mark the trauma and ensure that we are not lulled into forgetfulness.

並列關鍵字

the political ； politics ； poststructuralism ； paradigm of sovereignty ； ideology ； problematization

參考文獻

153. Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. “Carl Schmitt in the Age of Politics.” In The Challenge of Carl Schmitt, ed. Chantal Mouffe. London: Verso, pp. 18-37.

7. Ashley, Richard K. 1989. “Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism and War.” In Intemational/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, eds. James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, pp. 259-321.

124. Ricœur, Paul. 1965. “The Political Paradox.” In History and Truth, trans. Charles A. Kelbley. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, pp. 247-270.

83. Irigaray, Luce. 1985. This Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke. Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press.

58. Foucault, Michel. 1984. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 76-100.

國際替代計量

重思國際關係：「政治性」的觀點

全文下載

主題瀏覽