多维视角看德里达与阶级政治学的关系

The Relation of Derrida and Class Politics from a Multidimensional View

正当苏东剧变导致社会主义阵营发生重大变化而西方学者高调宣告西方自由主义民主制度是人类意识形态终结者之际,德里达呼请我们继承马克思的批判精神,深思当今世界相较于以往更为惨重的理论和政治的失败,并倡导建立一种旨在解决国际法危机、从根本上对国际法实施变革的“新国际”。针对德里达“新国际”没有“共属的阶级”这个说法以及在阶级的重要性、阶级与性别、种族的关系等问题上的看法,伊格尔顿、斯皮瓦克、阿玛德等人与德里达进行了理论上的较量。解构主义与马克思主义、女权主义和后殖民主义批判理论之间的这场互动为我们提供了多维视界融合中的德里达“阶级政治学”的全貌。由此来看,一方面,马克思主义不可能像西方自由主义者所说的那样被“去政治化”,因而也就不存在“被重新政治化”的必要性;另一方面,德里达设法摆脱东西方传统政治哲学框架而诉诸于“新国际”这一友谊式的非政治性联盟来应对“国际新秩序”下错综复杂的新国际法问题,但这是力不从心的。德里达的“新国际”肯定不是“共济会”,但其具有的友谊式的非政治的联盟性质并不能有效解决复杂的新国际法问题。可以说,作为解构主义者,德里达既非马克思主义者,也非后现代主义者。

At a time when the socialist camp in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is undergoing major changes and Western scholars are loudly proclaiming Western liberal democracy as the end of human ideology, Derrida calls on us to inherit Marx’s critical spirit, to reflect deeply on the more tragic theoretical and political failures in the world today compared to the past, and to advocate the establishment of a “new international” aimed at solving the crisis of international law and implementing fundamental changes to international law. In response to Derrida’s “New International” without common belonging to a class and his views on the importance of class and its relationship to gender and race, Eagleton, Spivak, Ahmad, and others engaged in a theoretical battle with Derrida. This interaction between deconstructionism and Marxist, feminist, and postcolonial critical theories provides a multidimensional view of Derrida’s “class politics.” The paper argues that, on the one hand, Marxism cannot be “depoliticized” as Western liberals claim, and therefore there is no need to “repoliticize” it, while, on the other hand, Derrida manages to escape from the traditional political philosophical framework of East and West and to resort to a “new international.” On the other hand, Derrida’s attempt to break away from the traditional political philosophical framework of East and West and to resort to the “New International” as a friendly and non-political alliance to deal with the complex new international law problems of the “New International Order” is incompetent. Derrida’s “New International” is definitely not “Freemasonry, ” but its friendly, non-political nature of alliance does not effectively address the complex issues of new international law. The author concludes that Derrida, as a deconstructionist, is neither a Marxist nor a postmodernist.