後現代狂歡之後：攝理機器、倖存者與純粹生命 | NCCU Academic Hub

Publications-NSC Projects

Article View/Open

html(878)

Publication Export

Google Scholar^TM

NCCU Library

Discovery System

Citation Infomation

No doi shows Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

Simple Record
Full Record

題名	後現代狂歡之後：攝理機器、倖存者與純粹生命
其他題名	After the Postmodern Frenzy: The Providential Machine, Remnants and Pure Life
作者	邱彥彬
貢獻者	英國語文學系
關鍵詞	阿岡本 ; 班雅民 ; 傅科 ; 那博可夫 ; 攝理機器 ; 倖存者 ; 聲音 ; 神聖暴力 ; 純粹生命 Giorgio Agamben ; Walter Benjamin ; Michel Foucault ; Vladimir Nabokov ; the Providential machine ; remnants ; voice ; divine violence ; pure life
日期	2014
上傳時間	5-Aug-2015 11:11:46 (UTC+8)
摘要	在後現代的狂歡當中，任何宣稱代表真理的概念或是迫切改變現狀的企圖，很容易就會變成了眾矢之的。追求真理，會被認為犯了本質主義的幼稚病，而革命者的存在更會被認為是企圖以暴力打破多元包容的社會現狀，看在後現代主義者的眼中，這絕對是期期以為不可的事。後現代理論之所以可以獨領風騷，我認為部份的原因在於後現代不斷宣揚的攙搭概念，與「免疫」這個生命政治的治理邏輯之間存在者彼此支援、相互背書的關係。跟後現代的觀念一致，免疫邏輯同樣是以差異的關係來界定生命，將生命定義為死亡的延緩，甚至否定。因此，為了搗毀生命政治的治理機器，首要之務便是終結後現代安於現狀的普遍心態。有鑑於此，本三年期計劃主要的目的，便是透過調動所謂後─後現代的思想資源（譬如阿岡本、班雅民與晚期傅科），試圖讓生命從差異與延異這個既是後現代又是生命政治的結構中脫出，切斷存在於生命跟死亡之間的臍帶，希望可以以直接、肯定的方式來構造一個純粹生命的概念。在第一年的計劃當中，我將以Nabokov 的Lolita 為主要的文本參照，試圖證明生命政治治理與後現代虛無主義之間的親屬關係。在這一點上，阿岡本對於三位一體的攝理機器的考掘幫助很大，可以幫助我們理解為何Humbert 會成為這個親屬關係的隱喻。但雖然Humbert 的心態充滿後現代、也是生命政治對於生命安全的執念，但在文本中還是不乏一些殘存的跡象，指向Humbert 暴戾與災難性的慾望。在第二年的計劃中，研究的焦點會放置在小說文本一開頭就提到的一個頓錯三連音也是頌讚詞─Lo. Lee. Ta.我將從阿岡本的角度，將這樣的頌讚音視為從生命政治的身體治理中脫出的倖存者。也正是因為聲音是如此的倖存者，它同時也可能成為抵拒後現代虛無主義的殘餘存有。這個飄盪在外的殘餘聲音，將會不斷回訪，以神聖暴力的形式開啟一個永不止息的主體化過程。換句話說，這樣的聲音內含的是一種創制的權力，一旦我們可以調動這樣的權力，我們就可以以絕對肯定的態度面對生命。在第三年的計劃中，我將引用晚期傅科的說法，主張作為倖存者的聲音其實就是自由「說真話」時所發出的聲音，兩者同樣暴戾、也同樣屬於具備創制力的讚頌詞。因此，晚期傅科念茲在茲的「照料自身」，其實就是一個以驅動主體化、鍛造純粹生命的美學計劃，一個將生命從生死辯證的差異結構中解放出來的倫理嘗試。 Amid the postmodern frenzy, any truth claim or the desperate attempt to revolutionize the status quo easily become an unarmored target. A truth monger will scandalize the sophisticated postmodernist for his/her unsavory naivety, which will in turn be shrugged off in no time by a prompt charge of essentialism. A revolutionary is definitely another no-no to the postmodernist, for those whose mission is to rock the boat is nothing less than the public enemy of a postmodern society which is supposedly more tolerant, pluralist, and pacifist than ever. The popularity of the postmodern theory strikes deep, partly because the exuberant hybridity it promulgates is in great measure concurrent with the biopolitical logic of immunization, which, to put it simply, is congruent with the postmodern idea of relationality and defines life differentially as the postponement, even the negation of death. With a view to destroying the biopolitical machine, the Luddite attempt that this three-year research project seeks to make, first of all, is to neutralize the postmodern complacency. Mobilizing the various intellectual resources of all post-postmodern stripes, so to speak, this project seeks to drag life out of the differential structure, which is at once postmodern and biopolitical, and break the ties between life and death in the hope of making possible an affirmative conception of pure life. During the first year, I will establish the kinship link between the biopolitical governmentality and postmodern nihilism with substantial references to Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. The Trinitarian Providential machine that Giorgio Agamben unearths sheds light on this correlation, and Humbert, a well-mannered pedophile who cannot live without postmodern eclecticism, does exactly act like the God who “reign, but not govern.” For all the postmodern obsession with life’s “safety,” there is actually no lack of residual traces in the novel that point to his catastrophic desire. During the second year, the research will be focused on the syncopated enunciation and acclamation—Lo. Lee. Ta—that starts off this nefarious memoir. I will argue, with the help of Agamben again, that the voice in question is the remnant that disarticulates itself from the biopolitical regimentation of the human body and, precisely for this reason, can be mobilized to keep the postmodern nihilism at bay. Unanchored, the voice will necessarily keep coming back, imposing divine violence to initiate the never-ending process of subjectivation. Inherent in the voice, in other words, is the constituent power the mobilization of which will hopefully enable one to affirm life with least reservation. During the third year, I will invoke the late Foucault to establish that what we hear in parrhēsia (speaking the truth freely) is the same voice, the same tumultuous and constituent acclamation. Care of the self is hence the aesthetic project of incessant subjectivation, which has as its goal the cultivation of pure life, the life unmoored from its differential correlation with death and ready to break the Providential machine.
關聯	NSC101-2628-H004-005-MY3 PE10301-0352
資料類型	report

dc.contributor	英國語文學系
dc.creator (作者)	邱彥彬	zh_TW
dc.date (日期)	2014
dc.date.accessioned	5-Aug-2015 11:11:46 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.available	5-Aug-2015 11:11:46 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間)	5-Aug-2015 11:11:46 (UTC+8)	-
dc.identifier.uri (URI)	http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/77368	-
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	在後現代的狂歡當中，任何宣稱代表真理的概念或是迫切改變現狀的企圖，很容易就會變成了眾矢之的。追求真理，會被認為犯了本質主義的幼稚病，而革命者的存在更會被認為是企圖以暴力打破多元包容的社會現狀，看在後現代主義者的眼中，這絕對是期期以為不可的事。後現代理論之所以可以獨領風騷，我認為部份的原因在於後現代不斷宣揚的攙搭概念，與「免疫」這個生命政治的治理邏輯之間存在者彼此支援、相互背書的關係。跟後現代的觀念一致，免疫邏輯同樣是以差異的關係來界定生命，將生命定義為死亡的延緩，甚至否定。因此，為了搗毀生命政治的治理機器，首要之務便是終結後現代安於現狀的普遍心態。有鑑於此，本三年期計劃主要的目的，便是透過調動所謂後─後現代的思想資源（譬如阿岡本、班雅民與晚期傅科），試圖讓生命從差異與延異這個既是後現代又是生命政治的結構中脫出，切斷存在於生命跟死亡之間的臍帶，希望可以以直接、肯定的方式來構造一個純粹生命的概念。在第一年的計劃當中，我將以Nabokov 的Lolita 為主要的文本參照，試圖證明生命政治治理與後現代虛無主義之間的親屬關係。在這一點上，阿岡本對於三位一體的攝理機器的考掘幫助很大，可以幫助我們理解為何Humbert 會成為這個親屬關係的隱喻。但雖然Humbert 的心態充滿後現代、也是生命政治對於生命安全的執念，但在文本中還是不乏一些殘存的跡象，指向Humbert 暴戾與災難性的慾望。在第二年的計劃中，研究的焦點會放置在小說文本一開頭就提到的一個頓錯三連音也是頌讚詞─Lo. Lee. Ta.我將從阿岡本的角度，將這樣的頌讚音視為從生命政治的身體治理中脫出的倖存者。也正是因為聲音是如此的倖存者，它同時也可能成為抵拒後現代虛無主義的殘餘存有。這個飄盪在外的殘餘聲音，將會不斷回訪，以神聖暴力的形式開啟一個永不止息的主體化過程。換句話說，這樣的聲音內含的是一種創制的權力，一旦我們可以調動這樣的權力，我們就可以以絕對肯定的態度面對生命。在第三年的計劃中，我將引用晚期傅科的說法，主張作為倖存者的聲音其實就是自由「說真話」時所發出的聲音，兩者同樣暴戾、也同樣屬於具備創制力的讚頌詞。因此，晚期傅科念茲在茲的「照料自身」，其實就是一個以驅動主體化、鍛造純粹生命的美學計劃，一個將生命從生死辯證的差異結構中解放出來的倫理嘗試。
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	Amid the postmodern frenzy, any truth claim or the desperate attempt to revolutionize the status quo easily become an unarmored target. A truth monger will scandalize the sophisticated postmodernist for his/her unsavory naivety, which will in turn be shrugged off in no time by a prompt charge of essentialism. A revolutionary is definitely another no-no to the postmodernist, for those whose mission is to rock the boat is nothing less than the public enemy of a postmodern society which is supposedly more tolerant, pluralist, and pacifist than ever. The popularity of the postmodern theory strikes deep, partly because the exuberant hybridity it promulgates is in great measure concurrent with the biopolitical logic of immunization, which, to put it simply, is congruent with the postmodern idea of relationality and defines life differentially as the postponement, even the negation of death. With a view to destroying the biopolitical machine, the Luddite attempt that this three-year research project seeks to make, first of all, is to neutralize the postmodern complacency. Mobilizing the various intellectual resources of all post-postmodern stripes, so to speak, this project seeks to drag life out of the differential structure, which is at once postmodern and biopolitical, and break the ties between life and death in the hope of making possible an affirmative conception of pure life. During the first year, I will establish the kinship link between the biopolitical governmentality and postmodern nihilism with substantial references to Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. The Trinitarian Providential machine that Giorgio Agamben unearths sheds light on this correlation, and Humbert, a well-mannered pedophile who cannot live without postmodern eclecticism, does exactly act like the God who “reign, but not govern.” For all the postmodern obsession with life’s “safety,” there is actually no lack of residual traces in the novel that point to his catastrophic desire. During the second year, the research will be focused on the syncopated enunciation and acclamation—Lo. Lee. Ta—that starts off this nefarious memoir. I will argue, with the help of Agamben again, that the voice in question is the remnant that disarticulates itself from the biopolitical regimentation of the human body and, precisely for this reason, can be mobilized to keep the postmodern nihilism at bay. Unanchored, the voice will necessarily keep coming back, imposing divine violence to initiate the never-ending process of subjectivation. Inherent in the voice, in other words, is the constituent power the mobilization of which will hopefully enable one to affirm life with least reservation. During the third year, I will invoke the late Foucault to establish that what we hear in parrhēsia (speaking the truth freely) is the same voice, the same tumultuous and constituent acclamation. Care of the self is hence the aesthetic project of incessant subjectivation, which has as its goal the cultivation of pure life, the life unmoored from its differential correlation with death and ready to break the Providential machine.
dc.format.extent	144 bytes	-
dc.format.mimetype	text/html	-
dc.relation (關聯)	NSC101-2628-H004-005-MY3
dc.relation (關聯)	PE10301-0352
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	阿岡本 ; 班雅民 ; 傅科 ; 那博可夫 ; 攝理機器 ; 倖存者 ; 聲音 ; 神聖暴力 ; 純粹生命
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	Giorgio Agamben ; Walter Benjamin ; Michel Foucault ; Vladimir Nabokov ; the Providential machine ; remnants ; voice ; divine violence ; pure life
dc.title (題名)	後現代狂歡之後：攝理機器、倖存者與純粹生命	zh_TW
dc.title.alternative (其他題名)	After the Postmodern Frenzy: The Providential Machine, Remnants and Pure Life
dc.type (資料類型)	report	en