鄙民的政治：從文化解殖到陳界仁的感性生產

Abstract

本論文旨在提出陳界仁「被剝奪者的感性生產」，有著比當代泛文化主義知識生產更為素樸和明確的言說位置：其所指向的，並非僅僅是立基於單一場域的文化解殖和知識解殖，換言之，並非是作為總體的文化和知識主體，而是指向在新自由主義治理技術以及當代交雜的權力網絡下的「鄙民」/「被剝奪者」的言說位置和話語權力；而其「感性生產」的方法，正是通過抵抗路徑與其背後權力機制的「特定性」生成，而非脫離脈絡的激進象徵和解放擬像。

論文首先將探討傅柯提出的新自由主義治理技術，以及其「關係性」/「特定性」的本體論基礎，進而提出所謂「鄙民」，恰恰差異於新自由主義機制自我生產的「諸眾」；換言之，「鄙民」不是一種躍升於權力關係之上的解放擬像，而是緊貼著現實權力的特定性抵抗和自我賦權的路徑。接下來，我將通過當代諸多解殖論述的脈絡，提陳何謂單一場域的文化解殖。從Dipesh Chakrabarty的文化主義和知識解殖，Ashis Nandy的文明想像和二元關係，以及孫歌的區域主義與現實政治，通過這些論述，我將提陳在文化解殖的主語，和當代資本主義生產機制下的被支配者，也就是現實的鄙民之間，仍然存在著一種難以共量的話語的間差。

通過以上理論問題，我將正式開展陳界仁的藝術生產脈絡。我將提出，唯有通過陳界仁所述之「被剝奪者的感性生產」，而非單一的文化和知識生產，才能真正指向在當代複雜權力機制下被宰制的個體。且此「感性生產」，並非是洪席耶「無產階級之夜」所意指的勞動以外的閒暇餘裕，而是在今天全面生產化的現實況狀下的發聲。此外，所謂「感性生產」正是在當代治理模式下，釐清「鄙民」真正的言說和抵抗位置，使其難以再作為回歸帝國治理技術的解放擬像之再生產。我將以《變文書》一作為例，討論其對於全球化文化和知識物流學的批判。接著，我將進一步通過今天當代藝術生產的「敘事轉向」與「檔案轉向」為例，論述陳界仁的「感性生產」，超越了此知識律令式的轉向，而是與當代現實性的關聯與辯證關係。

The purpose of this thesis is to mainly differentiate Chen Chieh-Jen’s artistic production from the pan-culturalism of today’s East-Asian knowledge production. I will argue that Chen’s naming of the term “sensible production of the deprived,” refers less a cultural decolonization or the subjectivity of culture, than a realistic meaning speaking from and toward the “plebs” under contemporary neoliberal governmentality and cross-boundary global network. In brief, Chen’s artistic production gives the standpoint and the power of speech made by the “plebs,” rather than the cultural subject; and Chen’s method is formed by a mechanism of resistance founded on the ontology of “specificity,” rather than an “immanence” providing images of emancipation.

This thesis will begin with Michel Foucault’s concept of neoliberal governmentality, followed by an analysis of the “specific” ontology through which Foucault’s discourse is formulated. I will argue that, Foucault’s concept of the “plebs,” founded on the ontology of “specific,” is different from the concept of the “multitude” which is a self-reproduction of neoliberal system. In other words, the “plebs” is not contributing to the images of emancipation, but specific to its context of reality. In the following chapter, I will define the meaning of “cultural decolonization” through multiple contemporary thinkers, including Dipesh Chakrabarty’s culturalism and its decolonization of knowledge, Ashis Nandy’s civilizational imagination and its binary power relation, and Sun Ge’s regionalism and East-Asian politics. I will argue that, there is still indeed an incommensurable and impassable gap between the subject of cultural decolonization and the contemporary “plebs” under global capitalism.

Through the above theoretical definitions, I will formally begin the analysis of Chen’s films and works. I will propose that only through Chen’s “sensible production of the deprived,” rather than the subject of cultural production in the elitist’s institutionalized sense, that we can truly speak from the position of the “plebs” under contemporary global capitalism. Besides, I will discuss that this “sensible production of the deprived,” is no longer what Jacques Rancière describes as the “proletarian nights,” which means having real freedom after work; on the contrary, Chen’s works speak about having no real free time to spare under today’s globalism production. Second, I will describe how the artist’s works are not made to be reproduced as images of emancipation produced by the governmentality of freedom. I will use Chen’s “The Bianwen Book” as an example, to demonstrate how it is a precise critique on the global logistics of culture and knowledge. Followed by the above, I will further state that Chen’s “sensible production” can not be fully grasped by the “narrative turn” and the “archival turn” in today’s East-Asia art world, in other words, Chen’s works are not initiated by any “turn” summoned by the imperative of institutionalized knowledge, but rather it is a specific relation to our contemporary living reality.