When Utopia is re-discussed in the contemporary era, it is no longer just a question about the continued writing of a romantic poem, but a revolutionary political question. As it is the ＂presence＂ of ＂absence＂, th...When Utopia is re-discussed in the contemporary era, it is no longer just a question about the continued writing of a romantic poem, but a revolutionary political question. As it is the ＂presence＂ of ＂absence＂, the charm of Utopia lies in that it is not only distant otherness, but a kind of existence always touching the undercurrent of reality. In contemporary era, Utopia exists in the paradoxical form of dystopia. It is just in the review on Utopia that the political potential of art enables aesthetic Utopia re-enter its promising holy land as a new configuration of contemporary Utopia. However, the practice of aesthetic Utopia is not entirely poetic; on the contrary, there are always many fields which intertwine around and fight against each other between reality and expectations. Therefore, the aesthetic revolution chooses a more prudent way after the passionate release.展开更多
With the advent of the era of aesthetic capitalism in the late 20th century, aesthetics and art exude enormous political potential. In contemporary aesthetic field, Utopia is breaking through the existing model and di...With the advent of the era of aesthetic capitalism in the late 20th century, aesthetics and art exude enormous political potential. In contemporary aesthetic field, Utopia is breaking through the existing model and disintegrating into the paradoxical ＂Heterotopia＂ or ＂Dystopia （anti-utopia）＂ with its revolutionary and negative power. It engages in politics, society and life with its reflexivity and anew assesses and activates aesthetical language and perceptive experience, The popularity of the engagement of aesthetics and art is the new modeling road of Utopia aiter its contemporary disintegration.展开更多
In this paper, the author intends to parallelize Mark Twain＇s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur＇s Court with Foucault＇s theorizations about heterotopia, or heterotopology. For Foucault, heterotopia is a paradox b...In this paper, the author intends to parallelize Mark Twain＇s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur＇s Court with Foucault＇s theorizations about heterotopia, or heterotopology. For Foucault, heterotopia is a paradox because it is paces that are both real and placeless. Twain＇s novel is a time travel story, which juxtaposes the temporalities of the 6th and 19th centuries. In the story, Hank, the hero, is allowed access to Camelot, King Arthur＇s court. Above all, he has introduced to it quite a few elements of modem technology and civilization. So far Twain seems to have complied with Foucault＇s heterotopology. That is, there is a textual heterotopia created in his novel. However, the last principle of Foucault＇s heterotopology states that a heterotopia can be comparable to a utopia because of its contrastive function. A typical time travel story has the same contrastive function as well. That is, in either case there should be a utopia, a dystopia, or a mixture of them. However, Twain＇s novel fails to contrast the 6th century with the 19th century simply because the heterotopia Hank has created leaps from a utopia to a dystopia. It is at this point where Twain has deviated from heterotopology. The shifting nature of this heterotopia not only disables its contrastive mechanism but also jeopardizes its thematic clarity. Most of all, it indicates that Twain has a considerably ambivalent attitude towards the industrial civilization, and that as a consequence, he is indecisive about the direction of this novel.展开更多
In the last three decades, the rise of a populist challenge to the liberal political mainstream exposed how shallow the supposed victory of global liberalism was, even in its heartlands in Europe and North America. Ex...In the last three decades, the rise of a populist challenge to the liberal political mainstream exposed how shallow the supposed victory of global liberalism was, even in its heartlands in Europe and North America. Exclusive nationalism and nativism, identity politics, critiques of globaiisation and internationalism, and calls for democratic re-empowerment of the demos have converged politically on a new locus of inflated territorial, indeed ＇border＇ sovereignty, aligning the caU of ＇taking back control＇ on behalf of a radically re-defined community （＇we＇） with a defensive re-territorialisation of power along existing fault lines of nation-statism. In this paper, I argue that the very same call has become the new common political denominator for all populist platforms and parties across Europe. I argue that populists across the conventional left-fight divide have deployed a rigidly territo- rialised concept of popular sovereignty in order to bestow intellectual coherence and communicative power to the otherwise disparate strands of their anti-utopian cri- tiques of globalisation. In spite of significant ideological differences between so- called fight- and left-wing populism, in the short-term the two populist projects have sought to stage their performances of sovereigntism on, behind or inside the borders of the existing nation-states.展开更多
文摘When Utopia is re-discussed in the contemporary era, it is no longer just a question about the continued writing of a romantic poem, but a revolutionary political question. As it is the ＂presence＂ of ＂absence＂, the charm of Utopia lies in that it is not only distant otherness, but a kind of existence always touching the undercurrent of reality. In contemporary era, Utopia exists in the paradoxical form of dystopia. It is just in the review on Utopia that the political potential of art enables aesthetic Utopia re-enter its promising holy land as a new configuration of contemporary Utopia. However, the practice of aesthetic Utopia is not entirely poetic; on the contrary, there are always many fields which intertwine around and fight against each other between reality and expectations. Therefore, the aesthetic revolution chooses a more prudent way after the passionate release.
文摘With the advent of the era of aesthetic capitalism in the late 20th century, aesthetics and art exude enormous political potential. In contemporary aesthetic field, Utopia is breaking through the existing model and disintegrating into the paradoxical ＂Heterotopia＂ or ＂Dystopia （anti-utopia）＂ with its revolutionary and negative power. It engages in politics, society and life with its reflexivity and anew assesses and activates aesthetical language and perceptive experience, The popularity of the engagement of aesthetics and art is the new modeling road of Utopia aiter its contemporary disintegration.
文摘In this paper, the author intends to parallelize Mark Twain＇s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur＇s Court with Foucault＇s theorizations about heterotopia, or heterotopology. For Foucault, heterotopia is a paradox because it is paces that are both real and placeless. Twain＇s novel is a time travel story, which juxtaposes the temporalities of the 6th and 19th centuries. In the story, Hank, the hero, is allowed access to Camelot, King Arthur＇s court. Above all, he has introduced to it quite a few elements of modem technology and civilization. So far Twain seems to have complied with Foucault＇s heterotopology. That is, there is a textual heterotopia created in his novel. However, the last principle of Foucault＇s heterotopology states that a heterotopia can be comparable to a utopia because of its contrastive function. A typical time travel story has the same contrastive function as well. That is, in either case there should be a utopia, a dystopia, or a mixture of them. However, Twain＇s novel fails to contrast the 6th century with the 19th century simply because the heterotopia Hank has created leaps from a utopia to a dystopia. It is at this point where Twain has deviated from heterotopology. The shifting nature of this heterotopia not only disables its contrastive mechanism but also jeopardizes its thematic clarity. Most of all, it indicates that Twain has a considerably ambivalent attitude towards the industrial civilization, and that as a consequence, he is indecisive about the direction of this novel.
文摘In the last three decades, the rise of a populist challenge to the liberal political mainstream exposed how shallow the supposed victory of global liberalism was, even in its heartlands in Europe and North America. Exclusive nationalism and nativism, identity politics, critiques of globaiisation and internationalism, and calls for democratic re-empowerment of the demos have converged politically on a new locus of inflated territorial, indeed ＇border＇ sovereignty, aligning the caU of ＇taking back control＇ on behalf of a radically re-defined community （＇we＇） with a defensive re-territorialisation of power along existing fault lines of nation-statism. In this paper, I argue that the very same call has become the new common political denominator for all populist platforms and parties across Europe. I argue that populists across the conventional left-fight divide have deployed a rigidly territo- rialised concept of popular sovereignty in order to bestow intellectual coherence and communicative power to the otherwise disparate strands of their anti-utopian cri- tiques of globalisation. In spite of significant ideological differences between so- called fight- and left-wing populism, in the short-term the two populist projects have sought to stage their performances of sovereigntism on, behind or inside the borders of the existing nation-states.
