Monday, August 31, 2015

阅读小报|3600页的《我的奋斗》,在挪威卖了50万册

阅读小报|3600页的《我的奋斗》,在挪威卖了50万册

陈以侃

2015-08-31 09:41

"所有经典的故事结构都围绕着死亡,就如同听众围着烘手的那堆篝火。"
《小说机杼》(How Fiction Works)国内读者已经可以买到了,要说欢愉之辞难工,"阅读"这么不好达诂的快乐,詹姆斯·伍德老师能让它在纸面上跳舞。他出了本新书叫《最接近生命的东西》(The Nearest Thing to Life),题中之义还是伍德常引的托马斯·曼,小说是"不完全是(not quite)"的艺术,明明是假的,所谓文学就发生在你允许自己信以为真的那一纵身中。
篝 火那句是伍德引了阿多诺。约翰·多恩在布道时,说我们的整个生命不过一个插入语,上帝赋予又收回灵魂才是构成"完美句子"的关键语法单位。伍德想讲的一个 道理是小说的力量或许就来自于它能同时扩展又压缩这个插入语。在俗世的层面上,柏拉图所谓人事皆小事,但凑近了端详细节,用目光照亮无关紧要,是延长生 命;而在宗教的层面上,封面封底之间,"我们虽然在叙事中推进,但一切都已经发生了,它就在我们手中",于是我们有了神的幻觉,仿佛可以从头至尾地掌握某 个生命。
挪威作家克瑙斯果德(Karl Ove Knausgaard)
"我觉得无聊时,依然感到有趣。"
近 两年英美小说界每个人都在聊挪威作家克瑙斯果德(Karl Ove Knausgaard)三千六百页的六卷巨著《我的奋斗》(My Struggle),很大一部分原因是没有人知道该说什么。挪威寥寥五百万人口,福利好到只能买书,六本加起来居然耸人听闻地卖了五十万册。这书有两点特 别,一是他的自传体"小说"完全真名真姓真事,外扬家丑,被亲戚告上法庭,二是它用一种近乎自暴自弃的流水笔调写自己的庸常生活,比如喝茶就花半页写怎么 等水开,开车从A到B能写出百度地图路线详情的效果,同时描绘见到的每个行人,终于把某读者逼到去书店烧书。
译 成英文后(今年出到第四卷),扎迪·史密斯说她第一卷还没读一半,就像嗑药般去预备好了第二卷。从来和懒惰句子不共戴天的伍德居然也喜欢,书评里有上面那 句话;而且更难得的是,因为阅读克瑙斯果德的体验太过怪异,以至于连伍德费尽力气的百般解释也没有让我的体验本身更为丰沛。反而在读《最接近生命的东西》 时我想到,所有小说中的人生,都是从终点回望的人生,只有在《我的奋斗》里,因为自虐般的真实和琐碎,作者失去了这种控制,读者被抛回到那个时刻里,和那 个记忆中的克瑙斯果德一同挣扎和煎熬(可惜中文书名里少了这层意思),没有尽头感就是悬念。
——"只靠自我认知是没有用的。"
——"唔,但至少能让你痛苦得更清醒。"
像 我们这些持证的哈英族(Anglophile),当年结业时都要举拳头宣誓终生热爱女王和斯蒂芬·弗莱(Stephen Fry)。弗莱曾说他的文字师承是3W,王尔德、沃、伍德豪斯,也毫不勉强一直是我的审美上限。所以当看到扎迪·史密斯评论爱德华·圣奥宾(Edward St Aubyn)兼具"王尔德的机锋、伍德豪斯的轻盈和沃的刻毒"时,我猜想Picador出版社的营销部门一定绑架了她的家人。最近把"帕特里克·梅尔罗斯 五部曲"的最后一本也读完了,总觉得这是英国当代小说的最高成就。
和六本《我的奋 斗》一样,梅尔罗斯系列也是驱魔式的写作,与克瑙斯果德那些莫名的幽怨相比,梅尔罗斯要面对的事情发生在第一卷《算了》(Never Mind):他被父亲性侵。这也是圣奥宾的真实经历。暴行之后,另起一章,父亲的心理活动他这样写:"吃午饭的时候,大卫·梅尔罗斯意识到,或许他对中产 阶级故作正经的蔑视似乎贯彻得有些过了头。"圣奥宾说他写"梅尔罗斯"大多时候身上只裹一条浴巾,因为汗如雨下,衣服换不过来。所引句子出自第三卷,他第 一次向别人透露父亲的所作所为。之后梅尔罗斯还回了一句,"那当然,人生得意莫过于此(Oh, ya, I wouldn't miss that for the world)。"

"在某种意义上犯罪小说很无聊,无非开头有人犯罪了,而你知道最后总会破案的。"
一 是终究不能无休无止地读克瑙斯果德写他怎么吃麦片,二是对北欧男子存留一个哭哭啼啼的印象还是有愧,于是找了两本乔·内斯博(Jo Nesbo)来读。很过瘾。几乎是当下口碑最好的犯罪小说家,他曾在访谈中如上评论他的体裁。弗洛伊德早就说,我们向往生前和死后的安详状态,他称为 Thanatos(死神萨纳托斯),指自我毁灭的冲动,但我们又有一种本能机制想要掌控这种向死而生的过程。体现在文学上(在悬疑叙事中尤为明显),就是 虽然我们渴望水落石出、寰宇太平的结局,但同时追求和享受这种延宕结局的沮丧和困惑。
上 礼拜收到一本多年未见的诺斯罗普·弗莱(Northrop Frye)的笔记、日记选。正巧翻到他说喜欢读侦探小说,但他"从来都是被牵着鼻子走","从来发现不了前后矛盾之处","从来不知道警探看一眼手表,大 喊'或许还来得及!'时发生了什么",他只是喜欢那些弦外之音,喜欢每个句子都有两层意思,一层是推动剧情的表面功能,一层是构成最后真相的潜在内涵。多 年前读到保罗·奥斯特《玻璃之城》中的一个句子,之后每篇书评都先看能否把它用上:"一个好的悬疑故事的每句话、每个词都重要,或者说它们都有变得重要的 可能——那也是一样。"这不仅触及阅读的本质,即文字的分量要靠读者施加,同时也印证了上文反复搬弄的想法:故事中字词的意思,是结尾赋予的;不单单是意 思,它们定格前那种摇摆的生命力,也正是因为知道结尾在那里等着才有。陈以侃
Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

裘锡圭:古典学的重建

裘锡圭:古典学的重建

原创 2015-08-31 戴 燕 书城杂志
点击上方"书城杂志"可以订阅哦!


裘锡圭先生 吴 湛(摄)

  

  跟裘锡圭先生约了好几年的访问,终于在今年五月中旬完成。裘先生的严谨认真是出了名的,访问前,我先给他看过一个提纲,他看完后表示同意接受访问,却又强调他是主张"重建古典学",不能把"重建"误会成"建立"。就这样,在书馨公寓他的住所,根据提纲,我们谈了三个多小时。谈话录音经过吴湛博士的整理,印成大字本,送给他过目,他在文稿上改了又改,吴湛说"光看字迹都很感动"。而我没有想到的是,就在筹备、召开《马王堆简帛集成》修订会议的这一段时间,裘先生还抽空一字一句地修改了这篇访问稿。八十岁的裘先生做起事情来,依然不拖泥带水。

  这里发表的就是裘先生审定过的文字。


戴 燕二〇一五年七月十三日于巴黎



一、为什么提出"古典学"重建


戴 燕:这些年,您多次谈到"古典学"的重建,我们首先想要了解的是,您为什么有这样一个想法?您提出的"古典学"的宗旨又是什么?

裘锡圭:"古典学"这个名称,中国学术界以前不太用,我用这个名称也很偶然。二〇〇〇年,日本学者池田知久在东京主持一个公开研讨会,题目叫"文明与古典",是不是他打过招呼说要讲讲古典学方面的问题,我记不清了。我想"文明"这种大的问题,我也不会讲,那还是讲古典学的问题吧,就写了一篇《中国古典学重建中应该注意的问题》。这是我用这个名称的开始。

  为什么提"古典学"重建?因为从一九七〇年代以来,地下出了好多简帛古书,有西汉早期的,也有战国时代的,内容很重要。当然在此之前出的那些汉简等等,对于我们研读先秦、秦汉的古书也有帮助,有时候可以纠正错字,有时候可以把没有弄清楚的问题弄清楚,我也写过这方面的文章。二十世纪七十年代以来,首先发现了马王堆帛书、银雀山竹简,后来又发现了战国竹书,这些对研读先秦、秦汉古书起的作用更大。大家知道比较多的,就是《荀子·非十二子》讲的子思、孟轲"案往旧造说,谓之五行",子思他们提出的"五行"到底是什么东西,马王堆帛书一出来,就彻底解决了。又因为出土的《老子》比较多,对于《老子》的一些错误,尤其重要的是像战国时候人的窜改,庄子后学对《老子》的窜改,以前不知道,现在都知道了,有些地方甚至跟原来的意思完全相反。我在这方面写过文章,在《长沙马王堆汉墓简帛集成》中,我作《老子》甲本的注,也有说明。还有关于孔子跟六经的关系、早期儒家的思想、所谓"黄老思想"(我称为"道法家")的源流等等,大家谈得很多了。在这些方面,都有新的认识。

  这些资料出来以后,学界还普遍认识到,"古史辨"派在辨古书上有很多不对的地方。他们在辨古史方面功劳很大,但在辨古书方面错误太多。辨伪其实也不是从他们开始的,古代人对古书年代也有考辨,他们是集其大成。集其大成,又走过了头,好多古书,"古史辨"派认为是假的,现在出土的文献可以证明它们是真的,至少是先秦的书。但是现在不少人,否定"古史辨"派也走过了头。有些人甚至于认为传统旧说都是可信的,连伪古文《尚书》《列子》这样的伪书,都信以为真,简直是走回头路,比清代人、宋代人都不如了,回到"信古"去了。我感到不能因为"古史辨"派走过头,就一概否定他们,那是更错了。我们应该在充分吸取前人成果的基础上,根据新资料、新的研究,重建"古典学"。

  "古典学"的名称,虽然古代没有,但是古典研究从孔子跟他的学生就开始了,后来一直有人继续这方面的工作。可以认为宋人对古典学有一次重建,应该说力度比较小。上世纪二三十年代,"古史辨"派否定很多传统的东西,也是一种重建。他们在西方思潮的影响下,强调要根据理性来看问题。现在看他们是走过了头。我们也应该重建,但不是回到信古, 是要比前人更进一步,把古书里的问题,大大小小的问题,尽可能弄清楚。一方面对于"古史辨"派的错误意见应该批判;一方面我感到很重要的,重要性一点不在批判"古史辨"派之下的,是不能够像有些人那样盲目否定"古史辨"派,这个倾向更要不得。我提出"古典学"重建,有这么个背景。

  这里有个很明显的例子,就是禹的问题。"古史辨"派说,传统旧说认为夏人祖先、商人祖先、周人祖先都在尧舜的朝廷上当官,这不是事实,是古人虚构的,在较早的传说中,禹是从天上派下来的。上世纪末有一件重要的西周时代铜器出土,就是豳公盨,上面写着"天命禹"如何如何,那上面根本没有提尧、舜,这不证明"古史辨"派讲的基本是对的吗?但有人说西周铜器上有禹,说明他是个历史人物,"古史辨"派讲禹不是历史人物,是错了。古代到底有没有禹这个人先不讲,在西周人心目中,他显然就是天即上帝派下来的,并不是尧、舜朝廷上的一个大臣。这明明是支持"古史辨"派的资料嘛,但是他们却那么讲,简直是不讲道理了,那怎么行呢?



二、"古典学"研究的是作为我们

古代文明源头的上古典籍


戴 燕:"古典学"的提法得来偶然,但您的想法是早已有的。那么您提倡的"古典学",与西方的古典学有没有关系?主要有哪些内容?

裘锡圭:用了"古典学"这个名称,后来感到也很需要。在西方学术界一般说"古典研究"。这个古典研究的范围很广,包括古希腊、罗马的语言、典籍,也包括古典时代的历史、思想史、科技史以至文艺、美术等等方面。当然,是以读古希腊、古拉丁文献为基础。

  古希腊语、古拉丁语早已不用了。虽然不少从事古典研究的西方学者,他们的语言与古希腊或古拉丁语有程度不等的相当密切联系,他们的历史、文化与古希腊、罗马的历史文化也有密切关系,古希腊、罗马文化是他们的文化的重要源头,但这种关系毕竟是比较间接的。

  我们中国的情况呢,虽然上古汉语跟现代汉语差别很大,上古汉字跟现代汉字也差别很大,但毕竟是一脉传承下来的。那些传世的先秦的书,其文字现在还能认。当然其内容一般人已经不大懂了,但毕竟跟西方一般人看古希腊、古拉丁原文不一样。所以我们的"古典学"虽然借鉴了他们的"古典研究",但不必像他们范围那么广。你要把先秦的思想文化研究、社会历史研究都包括在我们的古典学里,一般的人文学者不会同意,我感到也没有必要。

  我们这个"古典学"是比较名副其实一点,主要就是研究作为我们文明源头的那些上古典籍。主要是先秦的,但也不能讲得那么死,秦汉时候有一些书跟先秦的书关系非常密切。譬如传世的最早医书《黄帝内经》,有些人说是东汉才写的,它成书可能是在东汉,但现在根据出土的文献一看,它好多内容是先秦的。马王堆以及其他一些西汉早期的墓出土了好些医书,那些医书肯定是先秦的,因为西汉早年不可能写出那么多,《黄帝内经》的不少内容,就是因袭它们的。还有《淮南子》、刘向编的《新序》和《说苑》,有很多内容来自先秦古书。科技方面的算术,现存最早的《九章算术》肯定是东汉时编成的,但从出土文献看,秦代、西汉的算术书,跟它关系非常密切,其内容肯定大部分来自先秦。我们的"古典学"就是以这些书的研究为基础,牵涉到的方面很广,如这些书的形成过程、资料来源、体例、真伪年代、作者、流传过程,流传过程里的变化、地域性等等,都应该研究。这些书的校勘、解读,当然也是古典学的重要任务。古典学不用把上古思想史、社会史、历史研究等等包括进去,但要是没有这些方面的知识,你能读懂这些古书吗?研究的时候,还是需要这些方面的很多知识的,实际上关系非常密切,不能割断。

  现在我们研究先秦、秦汉的古典,可以说如果没有出土文献研究的基础,那肯定是不可能深入的,而要真正掌握出土文献,古文字又是基础。这方面跟西方的"古典研究"又有相似之处,他们必须有古希腊语、古拉丁语这个基础,我们也要有古汉字、古汉语的基础。当然,最根本的基础,还是汉语言文字和古代典籍方面的一般基础,没有这种基础,古汉字、古汉语和出土文献都无法掌握。


三、要努力提高我们对古代

文化的研究水平


戴 燕:您讲的"古典学",还是以古典典籍为核心的研究。

裘锡圭:我们这个"古典学"啊,比较符合字面的意思,不是范围那么广。

戴 燕:那么,现在流行"国学",还有人要恢复儒家,这些跟您讲的先秦、秦汉时代我们文明的源头,有没有关系?

裘锡圭:从内容上讲当然有关系,但是我讲的范围比较窄,没有他们那么广。我是不太愿意用"国学"这个名称的,范围不清楚,而且现在起用"国学"这个旧名称,不一定很合适。现在不是清末民初。那时,"西学"第一次大量涌入,我们传统的学问似乎要被淹没了,所以有人打出"国学"的旗号,与"西学"抗衡。现在我们研究传统文化(也可以说是古代文化)的人很多,他们在研究中并不排斥外来的好的研究方法。外国人以中国古代文化为对象的汉学研究,当然不属于我们的"国学",但是他们的研究如果出自纯正的学术立场,除了研究者国籍不同外,跟我们的"国学"研究又有什么本质不同呢?他们的好的研究成果,我们应该积极吸取,很多人也确实是这么做的。在这样的学术背景下,起用"国学"这个旧名称,似乎并不很合适。"国学"只能视为对中国人的中国古代文化研究的一个非正式的简称。

戴 燕:在中国,现在还有很多人也开始讲西方古典学,有人要读西方的经典。

裘锡圭:那当然很好,我们应该对别人的文化有更深入的了解。

戴 燕:现代人讲古典学,都希望古典的学问、古代的文化传统,跟今天能做一个对话。当然我们都知道您是一个只讲学术的人,可是我们也知道您并不是一个不关心时代的人,那么您提倡"古典学"的重建,跟今天这个时代会不会有所互动?

裘锡圭:当然,像社会主义核心价值观,跟我们古代的核心价值观有联系,这是不用说的,但是我不太同意现在有些提倡"国学"的人的做法。有些提倡"国学"的人喜欢强调"全球视野"。从有的人的话来看,他们认为外国人对我们的古代文化知道得太少,强调"全球视野",是急于把我们古代文化中好的东西推向世界,使他们能较好地认识我国古代文化的价值。其实,提倡"国学"的主要目的,应该是提高"国人"对自己的古代文化的认识。我国一般人对自己的古代文化,尤其是作为中华文明源头的先秦重要典籍,知道得太少,亟需提高在这方面的认识。这是关系到民族命运的大事。

  无论是为了提高我国一般人对自己的古代文化的认识,还是为了把我们古代文化中好的东西推向世界,最需要做的事,是努力提高我们对古代文化的研究水平,多出真正的精品,包括通俗读物的精品。有了足够的精品,才能切实提高一般人对古代文化的认识水平。我们有了真正的精品,国外的汉学家当然会加以注意,会吸取或参考其中有价值的东西。这种精品如能译成外语,或能将其内容介绍给国外对中国古代文化感兴趣的一般人,也比较容易为他们所接受。但是如果用大力气,花大本钱,把并非精品的东西推荐给"国人"或推向世界,有可能会起反作用,会使人产生对我国古代文化的错误认识,甚至产生反感。

  在我们的古代文化研究领域内,还有很多没有很好解决的问题。例如我们对先秦两位最重要的哲人老子和孔子的理解,跟他们的真实情况恐怕就有不太小的距离。尤其是对孔子,往往一贬就贬到九泉之下,一捧就捧到九天之上,态度极不客观。我们必须努力全面掌握跟所研究的问题有关的新旧资料,认真进行客观而深入的研究,才能使我们的认识接近真实。我重视古典学重建工作,也是由于考虑到了这种情况。


四、传世文献与出土文献要

很好地结合起来


戴 燕:您的意思,还是要老老实实去遵循学术的标准。那么,要做到您所倡导的"古典学"重建,需要什么样的基本训练?如果今天去研究早期的历史文化,是不是一定要看出土的东西,如甲骨、简帛等,如果没有摸过那些东西,是不是也没法做?

裘锡圭:最重要的还是古汉语、古文字以及文字、音韵、训诂的基础,也要有古典文献学的基础和出土文献整理方面的知识,对古代思想、历史、社会也要有一定了解。其实就是要求把出土文献和传世文献很好地结合起来进行研究。古文字和一般文字、音韵、训诂的知识都要有,而且还要多读多接触传世古书本身,不能够只是看一些什么学什么概论,对古书没有足够的感性认识。那样是很难做好研究的。

戴 燕:由于学者的提倡,出土的东西越来越多,还有文物的商业价值也被开发,我们感觉到差不多这十多年来,对于地下新出的东西的重视程度越来越高。不光是您长期研究的先秦、秦汉时代,基本上是在各个时段,大家都认为需要用到这些出土的东西,这已成风气。像中古时期,好像不用碑志不行,到了明清时代,不进村不找庙,也不行。

裘锡圭:现在刊物上常常有新发现的宋代以来的文书的研究。

戴 燕:近一二十年来,这成了一个学界的新常识,就是不讲新发现,都没办法做学问。这是一个潮流,特别年轻人都受这个影响很大。

裘锡圭:这实际上还是如何处理新资料和旧资料关系的问题。我以前就跟有些年轻人说过,如果一个人不懂新资料,旧资料搞得很好;另一个人,旧的基础没有,用新资料胡说八道,那么宁愿要前面那种人。如果对新资料不熟悉,但传统东西搞得很好,通常还是有他的用处的,那比传统东西的基础很缺乏,眼里只有新资料好得多。譬如考释古文字,如果没有应有的古汉语基础,没有文字、音韵、训诂的基础,看到一个不认得的古文字,就用"偏旁分析法",自认为分析出来了,就到《康熙字典》里去找,找到用同样偏旁组成的字,就认为把那个古文字考释出来了,这样考释,考释一百个字,恐怕有九十九个是不正确的。研究出土文献,如果对有关的旧文献很生疏,就会犯错误。我自己就犯过这种错误,我在《中国古典学重建中应该注意的问题》里提到过。

  这个问题其实很多人都讲过,陈寅恪啊,李学勤先生啊,我在文章里也引用过他们的话。陈寅恪的意见是很恰当的,他说必须对旧材料很熟悉,才能利用新材料,因为新材料是零星发现的,是片断的,旧材料熟,才能把新材料安置于适宜的地位,正像一幅已残破的古画,必须知道这幅画的大概轮廓,才能将其一山一树置于适当地位,以复旧观。譬如一个古代画的摹本,当然有人说是后来摹的靠不住,可是在发现不了完整的真本,只能发现真本的一些残片的情况下,如果没有摹本,就不知道这个、那个残片应该放在哪儿,更不用说完全复原了。


戴 燕(左)与裘锡圭先生在访谈中 吴 湛(摄)


戴 燕:但是现在的趋势,比如一枚新发现的简,或者像中古时期的研究读一个碑,杂志都很容易登这种文章,反而你不用新材料的文章很难发表,已经变成了一个潮流。

裘锡圭:那你们就应该多宣传陈寅恪他们的观点。陈寅恪是非常注意新资料的人,但他的意见很客观,我们应该重视。

戴 燕:就是过去人讲的,还是要从常见书里面做学问、找题目。

裘锡圭:对。过去有学者批评向达,说他重视新材料,但《资治通鉴》不好好读,其实向达在旧资料方面的基础已经比现在我们这些人好得多了。余嘉锡有个斋名,就叫"读已见书斋",就是强调要读常见书。

戴 燕:就在您研究的领域,出土文献有那么多,即便是这样,传世文献还是很重要,您还是觉得要依靠传世文献。

裘锡圭:传世文献很重要,有些出土文献不根据传世文献几乎一点也读不通,过去已经有很多人讲过了。譬如地下出土的尚有传本的古书,如果本子不好,在很大程度上得根据今本来读。最明显的例子就是马王堆《周易》,用字很乱,假借字很多;还有后来上海博物馆的战国竹简《周易》,要是没有今本《周易》,很多字的意思根本猜不出来。这是说直接可以跟传世古书对读的(当然其间也有不少出入),还有很多不能直接对上的东西,怎么念通,还得靠有关的传世文献,还有文字、音韵、训诂方面的知识。当然,我们也决不能轻视新资料,忽略新资料,一定要新旧结合,而且要尽力结合好。


五、郭沫若是个了不起的学者


戴 燕:除了"古史辨"派,您怎么评价还有一些前辈学者在古文字及上古史领域的成就,像一般人喜欢讲的郭沫若、罗振玉、王国维、董作宾这所谓"甲骨四堂",他们在学术史上的意义如何?

裘锡圭:他们对甲骨学是很有贡献的,那是一个客观事实。学问是不断进步的,从他们当时在学术界的水平讲,提"甲骨四堂"是完全有道理的。现在甲骨学的水平当然比那时高得多了。

戴 燕:在那个时代还是了不起的。

裘锡圭:的确是了不起的。

戴 燕:这里面,郭沫若是您接触过的。我们北大七七级古典文献这一班,都记得一九七八年《光明日报》有一篇文章报道您,那时候我们刚进学校,就知道您解释山西侯马盟书"麻夷非是",受到郭沫若的称赞。

裘锡圭:他也不是特别称赞我,因为文章是朱德熙先生跟我合写的,还讲到很多问题。当然,"麻夷非是"是我的意见,我在纪念朱先生的文章里也提到过。当时自己有什么发现,就想让朱先生马上知道。那一次看出来《公羊传》的"昧雉彼视"就是侯马盟书的"麻夷非是"的时候,天正在下雨,我就冒着雨跑到朱先生那儿跟他说。

戴 燕:报道的时候特别提到这一条。

裘锡圭:因为郭沫若的文章特别提到"麻夷非是"这一点,他写了个"至确"。那是"文化大革命"后,《考古学报》一九七二年刚复刊,我们的文章《战国文字研究(六种)》发在复刊后的第二期上。这篇文章是朱先生跟我一块写的,写了以后,朱先生把文章誊清,寄给郭老,郭老交给《考古学报》登出来。我在《我和古文字研究》里也讲了这件事。郭老收到我们的稿子后,还亲笔写了封回信。当时朱先生正好在北京下厂,信是我收的,后来交给了朱先生。朱先生和我看了信都很感动,可见郭老在那时候,虽然职务很忙,对学问还抱着非常大的兴趣。他在信里肯定了我们的文章,还说,你们的字写得太小了,看起来非常费劲。似乎是告诉我们,再要给他寄文章,可得把字写得大一点。所以这封信还是很有意思的,可惜朱先生后来找不到这封信了。

戴 燕:记得您以前说您年轻时见过郭沫若。

裘锡圭:我在一九五六年到了历史所,当时我是复旦历史系的研究生,因为导师调历史所工作,就跟着一起来了,还不算是历史所的人。见到郭老在一九五七年反右之前。那时候郭老还兼历史所所长,隔一段时间就会来所一次,来的时候,所里年老年轻的研究人员,他都要见一下,那时候见过一次。反右以后就没有那个事了。他对年轻人很热情,那是他的一个优点。

戴 燕:对他的上古时代研究,您怎么评价?

裘锡圭:那要有历史观点,他写《中国古代社会研究》,写《青铜时代》《十批判书》,那个时候他的水平肯定是第一流的。

戴 燕:是一个了不起的学者。

裘锡圭:当然是了不起的。解放后他有些地方比较粗枝大叶,有些地方有所"迎合",写了一些学术质量不很高的文章,那是另一码事。但是总的来说,他解放以后仍对学术有真挚的兴趣,也写了不少有学术价值的文章,还是很不错的。解放后,他有了地位,可是对年轻人还很谦和、很热情。

  除了朱先生跟我合写的、登在《考古学报》上的《战国文字研究(六种)》,我还给他寄过文章。一九七〇年代陕西新出土一个西周青铜器,"师(此处为甲骨文字体,见文末图1)鼎",我为了解释铭文里的一句话,写了篇短文《说(此处为甲骨文字体,见文末图2)"白大師武"》,这篇文章寄给了郭老。

  为什么要寄呢?为了说明原因,需要讲到黄盛璋先生。黄先生这个人有点怪。他开始在语言所搞汉语语法,语言所编的《现代汉语语法讲话》里就有他写的部分。他搞语法的时候,对历史地理感兴趣,后来转到自然科学史研究室,专搞历史地理,这时他又对金文有浓厚兴趣了,最后他的编制大概是在地理所,但是他主要研究古文字,写了很多这方面的文章,很有贡献。他早已退休,现在大概已经九十岁了。他从上世纪五十年代开始就给郭老写信,讨论学术问题、提供金文新资料等等,他不受政治风向变化影响,"文化大革命"期间郭老不得意,他还是照旧写信,郭老大概也常给他回信。大概是"文化大革命"基本过去后不久,郭老情绪比较好一点的时候,有一次在给黄先生的信里说,我们好久没有见面了。其实黄先生虽然经常给郭老写信,却从没有跟郭老见过面,他就回信给郭老说您记错了,其实我们从来没有见过面。郭老就让他的秘书安排,请他去见了一次。

  那个鼎里有两个很奇怪的字(已见于我的文章篇题),我认为应该读作"范围",黄先生跟我说,郭老也认为应读作"范围",我想那我这篇小文章应该先寄给郭老,就给寄去了。郭老没有回信,但他让秘书还是什么人把这篇文章交给了《考古》,后来就在一九七八年五月那一期上登出来了。  

戴 燕:那时候你们就自己找个地址、贴个邮票就寄去了?

裘锡圭:科学院院长还能寄不到?寄给科学院就行了。

戴 燕:现在恐怕秘书就会给你挡了。

裘锡圭:这个事情郭老肯定是知道的,因为秘书不会自作主张把我的文章转给《考古》。后来在一九七七年较晚或一九七八年较早的时候,我写了一篇《马王堆〈老子〉甲乙本卷前后佚书与"道法家"》,有个副标题"兼论《心术上》《白心》为慎到田骈学派作品",文章写得很长(后来发表在《中国哲学》1980年第2辑上)。这篇文章我也给郭老寄了。为什么寄呢,因为他认为《心术上》《白心》的作者是宋钘,我的意见是慎到、田骈的学生。这个意见跟郭老不一样,所以我把文章寄给他。当时郭老的身体大概已经很不好(郭老是1978年6月去世的),这一次就没有回音了,秘书大概不会让他看这篇文章。

  郭老大概常常把别人寄给他的、他阅后认为有学术价值的文章推荐给刊物发表,我还知道两个例子。朱德熙先生说,他发表在《历史研究》一九五四年第一期的《寿县出土楚器铭文研究》,也是先寄给郭老,郭老推荐发表的。最近读汪宁生《八卦起源》一文,汪先生在文末"补记"中说:"这原是写给郭沫若先生的一封信,承他改成文章形式并推荐发表。"(汪宁生《古俗新研》,兰台网路出版商务股份有限公司2001,第25页。此文原载《考古》1976年第4期)郭老这种无私奖掖后进的好作风,是他对学术有真挚感情的一种表现。


六、对我影响大的是张政烺

先生和朱德熙先生


戴 燕:您这一行里面,大家熟悉的还有几位先生如唐兰、陈梦家、张政烺等。

裘锡圭:唐兰先生是非常聪明的人,在古文字学方面贡献很大。

戴 燕:您是跟朱德熙先生合作最多,但朱先生有一半学问属于现代,他是怎么兼通战国文字和现代汉语的?

裘锡圭:朱先生后来主要研究现代汉语,但他念大学的时候喜欢古文字,毕业论文也是做古文字的。解放后因为工作需要,他才主要搞现代汉语。现代汉语跟古代汉语当然有相通的地方,最好是研究现代汉语的人也懂古汉语,研究古汉语的人也懂现代汉语。

戴 燕:朱先生原来在西南联大,他的老师是谁?

裘锡圭:他听过唐先生的课,他的毕业论文导师是闻一多。

戴 燕:闻一多研究上古成就如何,应该怎么评价?因为他也做文学,我知道学界评价不一。

裘锡圭:他搞古代,文学我不管,他的古代文字研究,也还是有一定价值的,但是应该说不是什么大家。

戴 燕:这里头是不是有训练不同的问题?

裘锡圭:是精力花了多少的问题。闻一多古代的基础还是不错的,但古文字方面的工夫下得还不够。

戴 燕:学术上对您影响最大的学者有哪些?

裘锡圭:这很难说,因为在学术上,后人总是广泛吸收前人成果的。从跟我个人的关系上说,当然是张政烺先生、朱德熙先生对我的影响最大,好像没有能相提并论的第三个。当然,我的导师胡厚宣先生对我也有影响,就是我纪念胡先生的那篇文章讲的,胡先生领我进了学术之门,但是全面地看,我觉得还是跟前面两位先生不能比。

戴 燕:学术上的理念跟他们比较接近。

裘锡圭:对。

戴 燕:您跟朱先生这么多年除了古文字方面,还有其他合作吗?

裘锡圭:我的古文字方面的文章,牵涉到语法比较多的地方,朱先生有时亲自动笔改过。"文化大革命"后,我在《中国语文》一九七八年第三期上发表的《汉字形成问题的初步探索》那篇文章,朱先生也给我提过很多修改意见。当时我不大会写文章,初稿完成后就请朱先生看,朱先生看了说,你这文章不像一篇论文,就让我改,改了之后还是不行,又提出意见让我改,至少改过两次,也可能改过三次。最后一次再拿去,我能看出来朱先生也不是很满意,但是大概觉得按我的能力,也只能改成这个样子,就不再让我改了。我后来写《文字学概要》,有些问题也跟朱先生讨论过。"字符"(指构成汉字的符号)这个术语,就是朱先生提出来的。

戴 燕:《文字学概要》是一本非常好的入门书,既专门又通达。

裘锡圭:那里边还是有错的。现在是修订改版了,初版印刷超过二十次,修订以后也重印了一次。

戴 燕:您把那么专门的东西,写得那么清楚明白,大家都能用得上。

裘锡圭:实际上并没有很好地做到这一点,朱先生在这方面对我是有批评的。改版时我在书的前面加上了朱先生批评我的信,朱先生指出《文字学概要》行文好多地方不够明白通畅。改版是铅印的,有些字本来是对的,反而印错了。因为时间紧,出版社和作者都未能仔细校对,对不起读者。等有空的时候,要做一个勘误表,在网上公布。

戴 燕:朱先生的文章写得就跟说话一样,读起来很舒服。

裘锡圭:语法方面有些文章也不是随随便便就能真正读懂的。朱先生写文章十分认真,朱师母讲过一句很形象的话:"德熙写一篇文章,就像生一场大病。"他写文章总是改来改去,对自己要求很高。他跟我合写的那些文章,最后都由他亲自定稿,亲笔誊清(当时还不用电脑)。

戴 燕:因为有个美国人何伟写了一本《甲骨文》,里面讲到陈梦家的一些遭遇,最近不少人看到,于是又有人谈起陈梦家以及他在学术上的贡献。您过去已经写过评论,今天来看他的《殷墟卜辞综述》《汉简缀述》等书,应该怎么评价?

裘锡圭:陈梦家甲骨学的水平,我是肯定的,他的《殷墟卜辞综述》是通论性质的书,能讲得这么深入、全面,实在不容易。尽管书中的有些内容已经过时,现在还没有同类的著作能在总体上超过《殷墟卜辞综述》。陈梦家在西南联大就教过文字学,他在文字学方面也有很好的见解,我的《文字学概要》里面引用过他的说法。但是他文字、音韵、训诂的底子并不好,就是聪明,当然也很勤奋。《殷墟卜辞综述》里有一些常识性的错误,说明他文字音韵训诂的底子不好。尽管这样,在考释文字方面,他也还是有贡献的,不是很多,但还是有别人没有看出来而他看出来的例子。在汉简方面,大家也承认他很有贡献,就是有些粗枝大叶,我们把他引甲骨卜辞和汉简所注的出处核对一下,就能发现大量错误。在金文方面他也有贡献,这也是大家都承认的。总之,他是一个很聪明、很有贡献的学者,但不是一个很谨严的学者。他写文章也比较随便,有时候很浓缩,看的人要仔细看,有些地方初学的人很难看懂,或者认为自己看懂了其实没看懂,因为他写的时候,并不是一步步都交代得很清楚,那些他以为累赘的话就不说了。

戴 燕:您见过他吗?

裘锡圭:我看见过他两次。一次是我在历史所时,参加科学院(当时社会科学院还没有分出来)召开的一次批右派的会,车从历史所出发,到考古所停下来,陈梦家也是一个被批的对象,就看见他上了车。他当时还是不在乎的样子,看不出他非常沉重。到"文化大革命"他就受不了了。听传闻说,陈梦家被迫跪在地上,所里有人往他头顶上吐了一口痰,他回家后就自杀了。这种侮辱知识分子往往受不了。这里讲一件王力的事。"文化大革命"中,北大很多教授挨批斗,王力屡次受批斗,好像有点习惯了,不是很在乎了,但是有一次批斗会刚结束时,王力还在台上低头站着,我们中文系一个个儿较高的年轻教师出会场时走过他身旁,在他光秃秃的头顶上用手轻轻拍了一下,我看见王力的眼泪就流下来了。所以在反右时,我看到陈梦家还并不太在乎,在"文化大革命"中就受不了,自杀了;还有一次看到他,是在反右以后,可能在二十世纪六十年代初,去考古所,在一间屋里查书,他那时候大概做《考古》的编辑工作,也去查书。但我跟他没有交往,没有打过招呼,没有讲过话。

戴 燕:"文革"时,北大、清华都有教师加入"梁效",您和朱德熙先生都没有参加,是不是因为不够"入世"?

裘锡圭:当时哪里有资格参加。但是我还给"梁效"做过事情。当时毛主席眼睛已经不好了,找了人民大学中文系的卢荻给他念书,念得较多的大概是旧诗词,有一次交给"梁效"一部诗词选,要求注音释义,"梁效"就从中文系找了一些教师来做这件事,我也在里面。还有当时"四人帮"想批周总理,需要把《四书集注》中《论语》的《乡党篇》翻译成白话文,通过篇中所记生活上的一些规矩批周总理伪君子。这就需要把《乡党篇》跟朱熹的注一块翻译成白话文,当时找了中文系郭锡良等人去做这件事,我也去了。我现在还保存着当时印的一个薄薄的线装本子。

戴 燕:这个没收在您的文集里面吗?

裘锡圭:那是好多人一起做的,当然不会收在我的集子里。


七、关于文化人类学、芝大名誉博士、

《马王堆简帛集成》等等


戴 燕:您过去写《寒食与改火—介子推焚死传说研究》《杀首子》,这些文章影响都很大,以后还会不会写这一类的文章?

裘锡圭:我现在大概很难抽出完整的时间来写这种文章了。但是以后想写的古代思想方面的有些文章,恐怕还是要用到文化人类学方面的知识。譬如关于道家所说的"道",过去我讲过但没有讲透,早在上世纪三十年代,李玄伯(即李宗侗)还有后来一些人就已经讲过,中国古代的"道""德",原初跟文化人类学讲的原始巫术思想中的精气、马那之类东西相似。它是一种力量,吸收马那越多,人就特别聪明强壮。宝石也是包含较多精气的东西。

戴 燕:玉也是这样的?

裘锡圭:对,玉也是这样。好多人讲了。

戴 燕:其实这种文章最难做,既要有通观,又要知道边界在哪,不能胡说,不能没有根据。

裘锡圭:重要的是对中国自己的有关资料要真正钻进去,不能只有浮光掠影的印象。对于西方的,我们实在是知道得太少,但是西方有些书还是能给我们提供很有用的资料的。

戴 燕:您的方法,也就是文化人类学或者比较人类学的方法。

裘锡圭:上世纪三十年代前后的一些学者,就已经用这种方法来研究我国古代文化了。

戴 燕:您读的外国书里,我们知道有《金枝》,还有什么是您喜欢的?

裘锡圭:我过去对一本小书,苏联学者柯斯文的一本小书《原始文化史纲》很喜欢,读了以后感到真是言简意赅,深入浅出。

戴 燕:那是很早读的吗?

裘锡圭:应该是"文革"前。

戴 燕:您哪一年成为芝加哥大学名誉博士的?

裘锡圭:应该是二〇〇〇年。

戴 燕:中国人里,之前有胡适,然后就是裘先生吧?

裘锡圭:并不是他们仅仅把名誉博士授予这么少的中国人,这大概仅仅是指人文学科方面的。

戴 燕:您以后还跟他们有什么合作?

裘锡圭:合作嘛,就是跟芝加哥大学东方语言文化学系的夏含夷教授有些合作,名誉博士也是他推荐的,因为他的研究领域与我相近,比较了解我。当然,他推荐以后还要征求这方面不少同行的意见,才能评定。

戴 燕:是很不容易的。

裘锡圭:要看什么大学,芝加哥大学授予名誉博士还是比较认真的。

戴 燕:您这个领域比较特殊,海外研究的大体水准怎么样?

裘锡圭:研究中国古代的人越来越少,那是个客观事实,因为有出土文献还好一点,如果没有出土文献,研究的人大概会更少。水平嘛,在中国古代文化,包括出土文献的研究方面,我们没看出来的问题他们看出来了,这样的情况还是不少的,当然也有一些没有价值的东西。其实,我们自己的研究也有不少是没有价值的。

戴 燕:海外学者有时候会抱怨看到东西太晚,他们不容易做。

裘锡圭:有好多东西,我们这儿也是看不到的,没发表的话也没办法。

戴 燕:现在新出来的简这么多、新出土的东西这么多,您以为未来最值得期待或者说我们最应该关注的有哪些?

裘锡圭:这个东西是可遇而不可求的。清华简出来以前,谁也想不到有这么一批东西,它对研究古代的经书用处很大。

戴 燕:还有北大的、岳麓书院的等等。

裘锡圭:从时代和内容来讲,清华简最重要。以后还能不能出这样的资料,还能不能出更重要的资料,这都很难说。地下资料的出土有偶然性,有时候很短的时间里,出现好几批重要的,有时候好多年都没有重要的。要说期待,我最期待什么时候挖出来一个古代的图书馆,那就好了。

戴 燕:这次把马王堆的东西重新做了一个集成,有哪些部分是我们应该注意的?

裘锡圭:里面的东西都应该注意。拼上了好多帛书碎片,释文改正了好多,注释里也有点新的意见,所以还是应该注意的。遗憾的是,一方面是催得太紧,博物馆、出版社都在催;另一方面我们不能够集中精力单打一搞这个东西,很遗憾不能把工作做得比较完满。我们六月份就要开《马王堆简帛集成》修订讨论会,希望大家多提意见,现在自己就感到里面有好多错误,好多没有互相照应的地方。有些部分出书前已经认识到需要做很大的修改,但来不及改了。《马王堆简帛集成》的价值是应该肯定的。一是把过去没有发表的资料都发表出来了,二是整理水平在过去已有的基础上有较大提高,但是在出版前就已感到要修改,而且修改的地方还很多,这也是很遗憾的。


八、京沪生活及读书爱好


戴 燕:您说过中学时对清史有兴趣,大学时对古代社会性质的讨论也有兴趣,这些对您的历史观也就是您对中国历史的整体判断有没有影响?

裘锡圭:我很少考虑到中国史整体性的问题。我后来考虑的问题主要是先秦秦汉史方面的。我很少去考虑古代历史跟现代社会的关系,很少考虑中国人为什么是现在这个样子,中国人的思维方式跟外国人有什么不一样等问题。

戴 燕:您在北大待了四十几年,十年前回到复旦。您觉得过去讲海派、京派的学风,比如鲁迅有一个讲法就说京派的学风近官,有官气,海派的学风近商,有商人气,还有没有道理?

裘锡圭:我从一九六〇年底进入到二〇〇五年离开,在北大共四十五年。海派京派的事情很难讲,尤其不能完全从地理上来讲。这个东西是有的,京派其实也不是近于官,我们现在理解的所谓京派,应该是比较谨严的、比较注重使用史料的正确性、讲话比较有根据的那种学风。但是像郭沫若算海派还是京派,就很难说。所以过分强调京派、海派没有意义,主要是要看这个人谨严不谨严,瞎说不瞎说。过去在上海,瞎说的人多一点,这是个事实,现在北京瞎说的人也不少了。还是要看一个人做学问实在不实在。

戴 燕:如果您自己给在北京的四十五年做一个总结的话,会怎么说?

裘锡圭:总结这个话太笼统了,总结什么东西?

戴 燕:比如您生活或者工作方面,习惯不习惯,始终习惯上海还是习惯北京?

裘锡圭:我回上海也没有感到不习惯,那时从上海到北京也没有不习惯。我倒是感到因为现在学术交流、资讯传播都比较发达,如果是以前,到了上海肯定会感到学术环境不如北京,现在即使有这个感觉,也不严重。当然有些新资料我看不到,但我在北京也不见得看得到,我也不是一个很活跃的人,也不是别人都会来找的那种人。

戴 燕:您的朋友是在北京的多还是在其他地方的多?

裘锡圭:哪儿都不多。

戴 燕:您有时间读闲书吗?

裘锡圭:现在应该是很少了。

戴 燕:以前呢?

裘锡圭:以前我看侦探小说,看雨果、狄更斯、巴尔扎克、契诃夫、托尔斯泰,很喜欢看,后来就没时间看了。

戴 燕:您以前还是喜欢文学的。我还记得我们上学时候您还唱戏,您是正经学过、登过场的?

裘锡圭:并没有,就是自己喜欢,跟着唱片、录音自己学的。

戴 燕:您喜欢什么剧目?

裘锡圭:我主要还是喜欢老生。

戴 燕:耽误您好多时间,今天就到这儿,谢谢裘先生。


文中有两处甲骨文字体,详见下图:


(图1)


(图2)

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Let’s Abolish Social Science

Let's Abolish Social Science

A proposal for the new university

By

The mascot for New University: the science/humanities Pushmi-Pullyu

In my old age, I hope to found a new university, called rather unimaginatively the New University, with funding from one or another imprudent billionaire (a prudent billionaire would turn me down). In contemporary universities and colleges there is often a division among the natural sciences, social science and humanities. In my New University, there would be only two faculties: natural sciences and the humanities. The social sciences would be abolished.

Social science was — it is best to speak in the past tense — a mistake. The dream of a comprehensive science of society, which would elucidate "laws of history" or "social laws" comparable to the physical determinants or "laws" of nature, was one of the great delusions of the 19th century. Auguste Comte formulated a Religion of Humanity based on "the positive philosophy" or Positivism. Karl Marx went to his grave convinced that his discovery of laws of history had made him the Darwin or Newton of social science.

Positivism mercifully had little political influence, except in 19th-century Brazil, to which it contributed the national motto "Order and Progress." In the 20th century Marxism split between a revisionist branch which became indistinguishable from welfare-state capitalism and communist totalitarianism, which survives in pure form today only in North Korea, and from the devastating effects of which Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam and other countries are slowly recovering.

By the mid-20th century, the utopian fervor that had inspired earlier attempts at comprehensive sciences of society had burned out. But within post-1945 Anglo-American academic culture, more than in continental Europe, the ambition to emulate the methods of the physical sciences in the study of human beings persisted.

Economics, for example, grew ever more pseudoscientific in the course of the 20th century. Before World War II, economics — the field which had replaced the older "political economy" — was contested between neoclassical economics, which sought to model the economy with the methods of physics, and the much more sensible and empirically-oriented school of institutional economics. Another name for institutional economics was the Historical School. After 1945, the institutional economics associated in the U.S. with John Kenneth Galbraith was purged from American economics faculties, in favor of the "freshwater" (Chicago) and "saltwater" (MIT) versions of mathematical economics, which focused on trying to model the economy using equations as though it were a fluid or a gas.

While "physics envy" has been most pronounced and destructive in economics, pseudoscience has infected other disciplines that study human behavior as well. The very term "political science" betrays an ambition to create a study of politics and government and world politics that will be a genuine science like physics, chemistry or biology.

In the late 20th century, an approach called "Rational Choice" spread through American political science departments like oak blight through a forest. The method (or, to use the ugly word preferred by pseudoscientists, the "methodology") of Rat Choice, as this school is known to its detractors, was borrowed from pseudoscientific neoclassical economics. Culture and institutions were downplayed, in favor of attempts to explain political outcomes in terms of the strategic self-interest of rational individuals.

While studies of domestic politics have been damaged by Rat Choice, the field of political science I know best, International Relations, has been warped by a different kind of pseudoscience. Much of the discipline has adopted the approach to the scientific method of the late Imre Lakatos, a Hungarian émigré who sought to provide an approach to scientific reasoning that would be an alternative to the explanations of the scientific method by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, among others. Lakatos, who died in 1974, was a mathematician and physicist, and might have been surprised and dismayed by some of the uses to which his thinking has been put. Stilted and ritualized language about "Lakatosian scientific research programs" mars the published work of many otherwise thoughtful and insightful IR scholars.

I once asked a leading American IR theorist who had become a major figure in a presidential administration if any IR theories — including those of the sub-school that he led — had ever come up in discussions within the government about foreign policy. "Not once," he said.

You might think that the ancient humanist discipline of law would be more resistant than others to pseudoscience — and you would be right. Still, legal theorists afflicted with physics envy and economics envy have made attempts to turn law into a social science. The most important was the late 20th century "law and economics" movement.

Within the academy, a growing number of scholars are speaking out against the degeneration of social science disciplines into pseudoscience and scholasticism. In a recent essay, "Breaking Discipline and Closing Gaps? — the State of International Relations Education," Francis J. Gavin of the MIT Political Science department laments the state of his discipline and adds: "It is important to recognize that these concerns are not limited to any one discipline: Sociology, for example, has struggled with these issues, while my own discipline, diplomatic history, has almost completely abandoned any effort to contribute to serious discussion of national and international security. Nor is it clear what constitutes success. Economics graduate training is plagued by (and arguably responsible for) many similar pathologies, yet it has, albeit controversially, much influence in the policy world." Gavin notes the trend toward reorienting IR scholarship toward policy relevance and accessibility to policymakers, manifested by efforts such as American University's Bridging the Gap project and interdisciplinary studies programs at many campuses.

In 2000, students in France disgusted with otherworldly equation-building rebelled and established the Post-Autistic Economics (PAE) movement. The movement spread across the Atlantic and its name was changed to the Real-World Economics movement, because comparing them to neoclassical economists was insulting to autistic people.

In economics, there is a growing reaction against what Noah Smith calls "mathiness." New organizations, like the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and Erik Reinert's Other Canon foundation, and new publications, like the Real-World Economics Review, are enlivening the dismal science with heterodoxy and a renewed interest in the world beyond the blackboard. Ha-Jon Chang among others has revived economic history, a discipline that declined during the decades when economics became fake physics.

In my New University economics, political science and law will be part of the humanities, studied by humanist methods, supplemented, when it is appropriate, by statistics and other useful mathematical tools.

The difference between the natural sciences and the humanities is the difference between motion and motive. Laws of motion can explain the trajectories of asteroids and atoms. The trajectories of human beings, like those of any animals with some degree of sentience, are explained by motives. Asteroids and atoms go where they have to go. Human beings go where they want to go.

Asteroids and atoms go where they have to go. Human beings go where they want to go.

If you want to stimulate the economy, you can cut taxes and hope that individuals will spend the money on consumption. But they may hoard it instead. Such uncertainty does not exist in the case of inanimate nature. If you drop a rock from a tall building, there is no chance that the rock will change its mind and go sideways, or retreat back to the top, instead of hitting the sidewalk.

All human studies are fundamentally branches of psychology. That is why the great German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey distinguished the Geisteswissenschaften — the spiritual or psychological sciences — from the Naturwissenschaften — the natural sciences.

Dilthey argued that the essential method in the human sciences or studies is Verstehen, "understanding" in the sense of insight based on imaginative identification with another person. If you want to understand why Napoleon invaded Russia, you have to put yourself in Napoleon's place. You have to imagine that you are Napoleon and look at the world from his perspective at the moment of his decision. The skills that this exercise requires of the historian or political scientist are more akin to those of the novelist or dramatist than those of the mathematician or physicist. Hermeneutics — the interpretation of the words and deeds of human beings by other human beings on the basis of a shared human psychology — is the method of all human studies, not the scientific method, which is relevant only for the natural sciences.

"Macro effects" can also be explained without the need to posit pseudoscientific things like "social forces" comparable to physical forces like gravity or electricity. Unintended consequences — like depressions that are prolonged when everybody hoards money at the same time, or elections in which the division of the vote among many candidates ends up electing a politician whom most voters don't want — are still the result of individual decisions, albeit individual decisions that interact in an unforeseen and counterproductive way. In most of these cases, the unintended results must be explained in terms of institutions — economic or electoral — that interact with individual motives in a way that cannot be explained if the institutions are ignored.

In my New University, the worthwhile scholarship found in modern-day economics, political science, law, anthropology, sociology, psychology and other contemporary social sciences will be separated from pseudoscience and incorporated into the new humanist disciplines. The faux-physics will be tossed out.

The distinction between the reorganized humanities and the traditional natural sciences will be strictly enforced. Any professor who explains anything in domestic politics or international affairs as the result of a Social Force will be summarily dismissed. The same fate will await any natural scientist who attributes motives to inanimate objects — for example, a geologist who explains that a volcano erupted because its long-simmering resentment finally boiled over into public anger.

Architectural styles and dress codes will be enlisted to further accentuate the distinction between the humanities and natural sciences. All human studies are historical sciences. To acknowledge this, the buildings of the Humanities departments on the campus of the New University will be constructed in an eclectic and somewhat repulsive mixture of historical styles — Greco-Roman classicism, traditional Chinese, Muslim, Gothic and Tiki Bar. The buildings that house the natural sciences will be ultra-modern glass and steel boxes. Humanists will be required to wear togas, scientists white lab coats.

As on a traditional campus, at the New University a spacious quad will divide the buildings of the humanists on one side from those of the natural scientists on the other. But the buildings in each row will turn their backs to the buildings of the faculty on the other side. To enter either row of faculty buildings, you will have to go around to the outward-facing facades. To symbolize the absence of methodological contamination, the interior quad will take the form of a moat, with a spiked palisade on each side. A few crocodiles might add some scenic interest.

I haven't settled on a mascot for the New University yet. Obviously it would need to have two heads. •

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Iron-collared and corseted

Iron-collared and corseted

MIKA ROSS-SOUTHALL

Denis Bruna, editor
FASHIONING THE BODY
An intimate history of the silhouette
272pp. Yale University Press. £35 (US $50).
978 0 300 20427 8

Kimberly Chrisman-Campbell
FASHION VICTIMS
Dress at the Court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette
352pp. Yale University Press. £35 (US $60).
978 0 300 15438 2

Published: 19 August 2015
An American corset, c.1865; from Fashioning the Body

We hope you enjoy this piece from the TLS, which is available every Thursday in print and via the TLS app. Also in this week's issue: Greek economic miracles; Marilynne Robinson's longings; the Charlie Hebdo movement; Lisa Appignanesi draws lines between mad and bad; Joseph Cornell gets wanderlust – and much more.

There's nothing natural about clothes. Some people like to think that what they wear is free from artifice. But it never is. Clothes shape, reshape, highlight, squeeze, falsify, constrain our bodies; they signal ideals of beauty, social etiquette or morality. Those shoulder pads, little plastic stiffeners in shirt collars, push-up bras and contouring underwear in our wardrobes today are the successors of starched neck ruffs, padded codpieces, hoop petticoats, girdles and stomach belts – structuring mechanisms, that work on our body's silhouette to bring it into line with what we think we ought to look like.

How and why fashionable, often irrational, concepts of what we should wear and what is and is not beautiful are questions that Fashioning the Body, a collection of essays published in conjunction with an exhibition in New York earlier this year, attempts to answer. Undergarments, or "scaffolds", and how they construct a body's silhouette, are the focus here. "When these articles are removed from the person wearing them, they look like carcasses, like bodies foreign to the body they dressed", Denis Bruna writes in his introduction. "Without a body, the garment has no reason to exist; it is merely a lifeless mass of fabric, a soulless hide." Several pages of abstract, close-up photographs of, for instance, beehive-shaped wire frames and rattan hoops suspended on white or black backgrounds prove Bruna's point: pictured in isolation these shapes have little meaning. "In short, fashion makes the body", he says: "there is no natural body, only a cultural body. The body is a reflection of the society that presided over its creation".

It is not uncommon to read that fashion was invented in the Middle Ages, Bruna writes, though he warns that this consensus may stem as much from the increase in written and pictorial evidence as from any genuine change. These materials suggest that from the fourteenth century a new awareness of clothing, as a way to sculpt the body, developed. Where both men and women, Bruna shows, had worn a voluminous garment like a monastic habit – the surcoat – women now dressed in a long robe (the bliaut) often with a low neckline (sometimes provocatively bare down to the nipples), fitted tightly at the waist with laces tied at the front or back to support, compress and lift the breasts and exaggerate the hips. Although the binding of breasts was nothing new (women in ancient Rome wore bands of fabric called mamillare), this impulse was noticeably documented in the medieval period. Men, meanwhile, wore doublets – so called because the garment was made from doubled-up material, between which cotton padding or silk cocoon scraps were stitched – at first as cushioning underneath armour, and then as a way of enhancing the chest and broadening the shoulders under everyday clothing, covering the whole torso to just below the waist, or not: one of Bruna's rich examples comes from the Parson in The Canterbury Tales, who denounces the shortness of men's doublets that "show the boss and the shape of the horrible swollen members that seem like to the malady of hernia . . . and eke the buttocks that fare as it were the hinder part of a she-ape in the full of the moon". An exquisite frontispiece from an illuminated Bible given to King Charles V of France by his adviser, Jean de Vaudetar, in 1372, is reproduced here, showing the King on the left sitting in an outdated surcoat and de Vaudetar kneeling on the right in a doublet that strikingly contorts his body: a swollen chest and tiny waist, like a greyhound. Still, these male and female silhouettes have both played a decisive role in Western fashion.

from the fourteenth century a new awareness of clothing, as a way to sculpt the body, developed

Shoulders were further broadened in the fifteenth century, as men added a cylindrical roll around the armholes to which ballooning fabric was attached. But by the sixteenth century, they were no longer the star attraction. The doublet was modified to become the peascod, or goose-bellied doublet, which was padded to a point at the waist like a breastplate, while more padding swelled with supports around the abdomen, sculpting a hanging paunch. This all centred on the codpiece, and Bruna dedicates an entire chapter to it. Besides being a functional opening at the crotch – indeed, earlier codpieces were a piece of cloth partly attached with buttons or eyelets at the groin – these pouches were stuffed or layered with stiff fabric to highlight and stimulate the penis. Puffed up, or trying to puff themselves up, with rank and virility, men of all social classes adopted this new-fangled appendage. Giovanni Battista Moroni's entertaining portrait of Antonio Navagero (1565), for example, depicts the Venetian bureaucrat with a bulging red-velvet codpiece protruding from his fur-lined robe, like his shiny, ruddy nose poking out from his beard above. As Philip Stubbes pointed out in his pamphlet The Anatomie of Abuses (1583), men were "so stuffed, wadded, and sewn that they can't even bend down to the ground".

Women fared little better. In the sixteenth century, beauty among the elite was concentrated around the face. Women's figures were elongated, flared and padded at the hips with the help of farthingales (a series of connected hoops made from whalebone, rattan, reeds or cord under the skirt) to hide the "carnal" parts of the body, and the head, the "noble" part of the body, was emphasized at the top with a high, stand-up collar. Later, in the seventeenth century, the same effect was achieved with a stiff white linen ruff ("the platter upon which the head was served", Bruna tells us), also worn by men and children.

One of the most shocking items from this time, though, is the iron corset. A fascinating chapter by Bruna and Sophie Vesin focuses on the ten or so that survive in various museum collections: "more closely related to metalwork than textiles" and "at times compared to instruments of torture", they are the oldest versions of a corset, some of which have been dated to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; they open and close with hinges, and are pierced, not just for decoration but to reduce their weight (those still in existence each weigh between 800 grams and a kilo). Some of the sharp ridges still have traces of velvet edging. (Just imagine the pain when caught on skin!) No visual evidence survives of their being worn, but it seems likely that some were. What we do have are written records: Eleonora of Toledo ordered two from her family's armourer in 1549. The authors perhaps don't make it clear enough, however, that another of their examples, the "marquise-marquis de Banneville", is a fictional one, from the tale ascribed to the Abbé de Choisy (1695): a mother, fearing her son will be lost in battle, puts him in a metal corset to reshape his body, creating feminine hips and a bust.

The surgeon Ambroise Paré, in 1575, recommended iron corsets for "flaccid" girls who had hunchbacks. To Bruna and Vesin, fashion and orthopaedics are not always in opposition: "orthopedics, which are today exclusively a branch of medicine, were principally a social art in former times. Holding oneself erect, and staying that way, was a preoccupation of the upper classes, and iron corsets furthered this aim". The preoccupation persists over centuries. We repeatedly come across undergarments in this book that offer the body "support", help with "fat-busting", toning, moisturizing and so on. A French poster from the 1950s promotes stomach bands for toddlers for their "delicate frame", a custom that was standard between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries when girls and boys wore the same clothes as adults, including corsets and skirts. Only after the age of six did boys abandon severe body-binding undergarments to wear pants or breeches like men. Anti-obesity belts became a popular way for men in the 1900s to compress their flab – a symbol of softness and indulgence not admired as it was in the previous century. An advert from 1928 proclaims: "Obesity makes you ridiculous. Big-bellied men, give up the figure that makes you ugly and start wearing the Franck-Braun belt". The second half of the twentieth century gave us Issey Miyake's plastic-moulded bustiers, and plaster corsets by Alexander McQueen, as well as a skin-tight brown leather corset, with large diagonal stitches across the chest and abdomen as if closing up a wound.

Puffed up, or trying to puff themselves up, with rank and virility, men of all social classes adopted codpieces

Certainly, hindering the body's movement was deliberate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was a way of showing off one's wealth: the less you could do physically, the more servants you needed to do things for you. Petticoat breeches, laden with ribbons and lace, worn by men at the court of Louis XIV were described by Molière as "folly" in L'École des maris: "large rolls wherin the legs are put every morning, as it were into the stocks", making the wearer "straddle about with their legs as wide apart as if they were the beams of a mill". Added to this were silk stockings to slim the legs (calves were sometimes subtly padded with material to amplify lacking muscles) and precarious heels (also worn by women), often up to three or four inches high, altering one's gait.

A few decades on in Versailles, whalebone corsets, known as stays, unforgivingly squeezed women's shoulder blades together one on top of the other to such an extent that you could put two fingers into the hollow created down the spine. The farthingale had developed into ever-widening panniers that extended sideways from the hips. Walking with ease was a skill you had to learn. Before she was seven, the Comtesse de Genlis remembered: "I was quite surprised when I was told that I was to be given a master to teach me what I thought I knew perfectly well – how to walk . . . and to rid me of my provincial airs, I was given an iron collar". It was also fashionable to wear shoe buckles so enormous that they could deliver glancing blows to the opposite ankle as you walked. And, of course, to wear wigs: during the reign of Louis XVI – a significant moment in European fashion history, according to Kimberly Chrisman-Campbell's absorbing and well-illustrated survey, Fashion Victims – some men wore wigs fitted with metal, face-lifting armatures to stretch out wrinkles on the forehead, while women stiffened and enhanced the height of their own hair with pomade and false attachments. In a letter of March 5, 1775, Marie-Antoinette's mother chastised her daughter: "They say your hair is 36 inches high from the roots, and with so many feathers and ribbons that it rises even higher! . . . A pretty young queen, full of attractions, has no need of all these follies".

What Chrisman-Campbell does so well in this book is to explain how a new global fashion system, established in France during the eighteenth century, became political. "The sartorial restlessness . . . was symptomatic of – and, ultimately, responsible for – the gradual, inexorable unraveling of France's social fabric that would culminate in revolution." Three archetypes provoked and personified the country's changes: the queen; the petite-maîtresse, a label given to urban women lower down the social scale, who were occupied in keeping up with the latest fads despite how unflattering, expensive or frivolous they were; and the marchande de modes, similar to what we would now call a designer, who perpetuated the fashion cycle by relentlessly introducing new garment constructions.

An influential individual could single-handedly garner support for current causes, and sustain or bankrupt whole branches of the country's commerce. When Louis XVI was inoculated from smallpox in 1774, the marchandes de modes commemorated the event with the pouf à l'inoculation, a headdress representing a rising sun and the serpent of Asclepius. Hats adorned with miniature ships celebrated French naval victories, as well as showcasing the wearer's patriotism and political engagement. Clothing was a way of telling others which plays, composers and ideas you liked. If it hadn't been for fashion, the Enlightenment might not have spread through Europe, Chrisman-Campbell suggests.

whalebone corsets, known as stays, unforgivingly squeezed women's shoulder blades together one on top of the other to such an extent that you could put two fingers into the hollow created down the spine

Marie-Antoinette, however, had an inappropriate interest in clothes. Her decision to use Paris's most fashionable marchandes de modes to dress her, rather than those officially appointed at Versailles, deviated from court protocol. She spent 258,002 livres on clothes and accessories in 1785 (more than twice her annual budget). A third of this went to her favourite marchande, Rose Bertin, whose career was made (and with time, destroyed) by the royal association: "wildly rich without being even remotely wellborn, Bertin was a walking threat to the entire social order". Anything Marie-Antoinette wore would quickly appear in fashion plates and magazines as "à la reine" and be copied by the public. Without sumptuary laws, luxury was suddenly within reach for anyone. In the 1780s, for example, the Queen's preference for imported muslins and gauzes over the silks produced in Lyon helped put France's textile industry out of business. This was part of her move towards a more natural aesthetic and to fend off critics of her extravagance, but the catastrophic economic impact of her chemise à la reine – a plain, white muslin gown with a gathered neckline and sleeves, a wide sash tied at the waist and no hoop under the skirt – meant that she was never more criticized for her wardrobe. With the throne's reputation at stake, Bertin and the Queen's portraitist, Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, were called on to perform "sartorial damage control". The result, a portrait, here given a full page, shows Marie-Antoinette posing in a suitably regal red velvet dress, trimmed with sable and Alençon lace (a pointed endorsement of the French lace industry), surrounded by her children. It was exhibited at the Salon in August 1787, and almost immediately withdrawn because of a public outcry. The empty frame remained on the wall of the Louvre with a note pinned to it reading, "Behold the Deficit!"

In some ways, France never escaped the potency of fashion. Looking beyond the sans-culottes, Chrisman-Campbell argues that the red, white and blue cockade became a symbol of enforced conformity to the principles of the French Revolution. By 1792, it was mandatory for both sexes, even foreign visitors to France, to wear it. "Absolute monarchy was replaced by an equally despotic form of mob rule." The Revolution had transformed "la mode" to "le mode", she says, acknowledging that fashions in dress were inseparable from fashions in ideas.

The history of the Revolution is dynamically told in Fashion Victims, and where Kimberly Chrisman-Campbell tries to gauge the cultural significance of clothes, art, personal memoirs and other assorted and well-chosen sources, she avoids jargon. The book is thoroughly researched (the translations from the French texts are her own) and inflected with energy. Marie-Antoinette is condemned, again; but we can see more clearly than ever why it happened.



Mika Ross-Southall is an editor at the TLS. She is also a freelance artist and the co-editor of Oxford Poetry.

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

The Reinvention of Black

The Reinvention of Black

As the means of creating the color black have changed, so have the subjects it represents.

By Mark Peplow Artwork by Frederik de Wilde
Photo by Robin Reeve August 13, 2015

Suddenly, black was everywhere. It caked the flesh of miners and ironworkers; it streaked the walls and windows of industrial towns; it thickened the smoky air above. Proprietors donned black clothing to indicate their status and respectability. New black dyes and pigments created in factories and chemical laboratories entered painters' studios, enabling a new expression for the new themes of the industrial age: factory work and revolt, technology and warfare, urbanity and pollution, and a rejection of the old status quo. A new class of citizen, later to be dubbed the "proletariat," began to appear in illustrations under darkened smokestacks. The industrial revolution had found its color.

Black is technically an absence: the visual experience of a lack of light. A perfect black dye absorbs all of the light that impinges on it, leaving nothing behind. This ideal is remarkably difficult to manufacture. The industrialization of the 18th and 19th centuries made it easier, providing chemists and paint-makers with a growing palette of black—and altering the subjects that the color would come to represent. "These things are intimately connected," says science writer Philip Ball, author of Bright Earth: The Invention of Color. The reinvention of black, in other words, went far beyond the color.


Bideford black is an extraordinary material," says Onya McCausland, a doctoral candidate in fine art at University College London. She is talking about a black pigment found in the Carboniferous formation that runs from Wales to Devon in England. Mined from the 18th to the 20th centuries, it was considered one of the best coal-based black pigments available. "Its texture is soft and velvety," McCausland says. "It produces a very dense, bluish-black. If I want the black to be really immersive and dense, I'd use Bideford black."

Bideford black was one of many carbon-based black pigments used from the 16th through the 19th centuries in Europe. Charcoal was the inexpensive mainstay, though it produced a gritty paint that was difficult to apply. Bone black (ground from burnt bones) gave a warm brownish black, while lamp black (burnt vegetable oils) and vine black (charred grapevines or other vegetable products) gave cooler shades. Black derived from ground ivory was perhaps the richest of the lot.

This dark arsenal of dyes supported an evolving but particular set of subjects and themes. For centuries, black was a color of death and evil. The Egyptian jackal-headed god Anubis, who guided souls to the afterlife, almost always appeared as a black figure, his skin matching the blackened flesh of mummified bodies. When the devil began to appear in European art, in the 11th century, he too was usually a nightmarish black.

Black also developed a second identity around this time representing the asceticism favored by monks, as noted by the French historian Michel Pastoureau. By the 15th century, black garb had become a fixture of regal courts in Europe, connoting power and privilege. Soon after, the growing middle class also adopted black garments to represent their growing wealth, as well as their piety.

Seeking to reflect the wealth around them, 16th- and 17th-century artists used this broad palette of blacks to distinguish the different tones and textures of their sitters' sumptuous clothes. "In the late Middle Ages, black became the color of distinction," says Ball.

The arrival of the industrial revolution in the 18th century sparked advances in mining technology that boosted the output of coal-based pigments including Bideford black, while simultaneously driving up demand. Bideford black was ideal for polishing up the cast iron stoves that swept into kitchens during the period, for example, and it also fuelled local lime kilns.

Black, which seemed to obscure and remove color and life, invited a new inner life.

Coal could also be baked in hot, airless ovens to drive off water and gasses to make coke, a high-carbon fuel useful for cooking, heating, and smelting ores. By the early 19th century, the purified coal-gas generated in this process—containing hydrogen and hydrocarbons—was being burned to light factories and streets. And when chemists began to investigate the sticky black waste left behind after coking or gasification, they found a rich source of organic molecules that would come to overshadow coal itself as a direct source of pigment.

In the 1840s, August Hofmann extracted aniline (a benzene ring connected to a nitrogen-containing amine group) from coal tar. Then in 1856, William Perkin, a student of Hofmann's, oxidized aniline to create a deep purple dye, subsequently called mauve. This marked the birth of a completely new industry: synthetic dyes. By 1860, other researchers had found that oxidizing aniline under different conditions, using sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate, created a new black pigment: aniline black. The reaction fuses together 11 aniline molecules to make a complex chain of benzene rings connected by nitrogen atoms. Mixed in paint or ink, it produces a neutral, matte black also known as Pigment Black 1.

This compound—and many other synthetic organic blacks—would be produced on an enormous scale for printing and dying cloth. They also opened up new possibilities for black ink, which had traditionally been made with lamp black or iron gall. Soluble synthetic organic dyes were much more versatile, and could be mixed with different solvents to create just the right consistency of ink for applications as diverse as ballpoint pens, felt-tip pens, and spray paints.

Around the middle of the century, paint-makers began to offer a synthetic inorganic black pigment known as Mars black. It was made by reacting iron sulfate with an alkali such as lime or caustic soda—all chemicals that were in widespread use at the time— to make iron oxide. Mars black had a much smaller particle size than its natural equivalent. This made it handle well on the brush, and gave better coverage on the canvas. And it had a greater tinting strength than even ivory black, making it probably the most opaque black available at the time.

Mars black also dried much faster than carbon blacks. That is because linseed oil, the favored medium in oil painting, dries not by losing water, but through a series of chemical transformations. Its fatty acids react with oxygen from the air and then join together to form polymers. In most colored oil paints, metal salts in the pigments catalyzed this reaction. Sometimes drying agents, such as lead white, were added to speed up the process. But that was not possible with black, as it would wash out the dark hue—and since most black pigments were made of carbon, rather than metal salts, that meant that the black areas of oil paintings dried slowly and unevenly. The result is that blacks are often the most cracked areas of old paintings.

Spanish surrealist Salvador Dali used Mars black, and said of Jacques Blockx, who developed one of the earliest commercial Mars black oil paints, "This man, who never painted, will contribute more to the painters of tomorrow than what we will have accomplished, all the modern painters together."

FROM ABOVE: Michelangelo Merisi
da Caravaggio used ivory black to convey asceticism, piety, and inspiration in his 1605-6 painting, St Jerome Writing.Wikipedia


In the 20th century, a flood of new black paints would inspire a new set of artistic styles that took on modern subjects and themes. "Black was increasingly connected with industry, technology, and the urban environment," says Erma Hermens, who leads the Technical Art History Group at the University of Glasgow. "Black becomes a statement." Black also helped artists to delineate a new period in the history of art. "It was saying that the time of classical painting was past," says Ball, "that we're using modern materials in a modern way."

The starting pistol for this movement was Black Square by Polish-Russian artist Kazimir Malevich, first exhibited in 1915. A very early example of abstract painting, it is simply a square of canvas covered in black paint. Malevich called his style "Suprematist." Relying on simple shapes and a limited palette, it marked an absolute rejection of the depiction of objects in favor of pure expression. Tellingly, the painting was mounted high in the corner of the room, where Russian Orthodox icons would traditionally have been placed—a rejection of religion in favor of the secular. "It symbolized the collapse of traditional values and social structure," says Belgian artist Frederik De Wilde—processes that had been hastened by the industrial revolution and its creation of new socioeconomic classes.

Malevich grew up in Tsarist Russia, and trained in a series of art schools in Kiev and Moscow. In 1913 he designed the set and costumes for Victory over the Sun, an avant-garde opera that saw "futurist strongmen" rip the sun from the sky, ending its decadent reign and freeing the future from time itself.

These themes—decrying the status quo, and looking ahead to a new world—were common in the Russian avant-garde of the time, and they fed into the growing demands for societal change that resulted in the Russian revolutions of 1917. Malevich would join the People's Commissariat for Enlightenment in 1918, but by the 1930s his work had been labeled anti-Soviet and degenerate. After he died in 1935, his coffin was adorned with a black square.

Malevich's work inspired abstract artists such as Robert Motherwell, Ad Reinhardt, Jackson Pollock, and Mark Rothko, who all made heavy use of black in their work. Whereas Malevich used a spectrum of carbon blacks in his paintings, from ivory black to lamp black, his successors wanted to reflect the rapid technological changes in society through the materials they used, and went looking for new black paints. As Pollock said in 1951: "It seems to me that the modern painter cannot express his age, the airplane, the atom bomb, the radio, in the old forms of the Renaissance or any other past culture. Each age finds its own technique."

Black opens up a mental field all of its own.

Pollock repurposed enamel paints that were intended for painting cars or interior decorating for his art. Developed in the 1930s, enamel paints typically used synthetic iron oxide or mass-produced carbon black pigments suspended in polyesters known as alkyds, which readily cross-polymerize in air and dry to a hard, glossy finish. They gave Pollock's "drip paintings" a sheen that emphasized their explosive power, and a durability that continues to please conservators. His liberation from the materials of the past was echoed by the physical freedom he enjoyed while creating his paintings, striding around canvases laid on the floor like a sculptor working around a lump of stone. He rarely planned what his paintings would represent—instead, it was an act of instinctual expression. The results evoke moods that range from joy to chaos.

In the early 1950s Pollock created a series of works that relied almost entirely on black, often pouring globs of thick enamel paint onto the canvas. The paintings were a reaction against his earlier, more colorful abstracts. Seemingly stung by some critics' claims that these earlier pictures were merely decorative, Pollock set out to produce determinedly difficult works: This would disabuse "the kids who think it's simple to splash a Pollock out," he explained in a 1951 letter.

This stance was shared by Ad Reinhardt, who produced a series of all-black paintings that were first exhibited in 1963. One, called Abstract Painting, is a huge black square composed of nine smaller squares, each of subtly different blacks: The squares at the corners have a red tinge, while the others have a hint of blue or green. Reinhardt described it as "a free, unmanipulated, unmanipulatable, useless, unmarketable, irreducible, unphotographable, unreproducible, inexplicable icon."

Pollock's and Reinhardt's rejection of the usual literal forms of representational painting was, in a sense, strengthened by the rejection of color itself. Black enabled a pure abstraction, and amplified the turning away from the aesthetic values of the Renaissance and Enlightenment that had been displaced by the same industrial technologies creating the new pigments of the modern era.

The displacement of literal representation opened room for a new meaning of the color: negation, contemplation, and spirituality. In the words of the French artist Pierre Soulages, black "opens up a mental field all of its own." He began his epic journey into blackness in 1947, when he started creating abstract expressionist works using a dark walnut stain to make bold slashes across canvas. By the 1950s he was working in oils, thickly smeared onto surfaces using a palette knife. And in 1979, he began a new series of works in a style he dubbed "Outrenoir"—roughly translated as "beyond black"—with canvases completely saturated in black.

Transcendence and negation also inspired the American painter Mark Rothko, who produced a series of black paintings in the 1960s. For Rothko, the negation of color and light represented "doorways to the unknown," and invited spiritual contemplation. In the words of the Tate Gallery, the paintings introduce "an element of duration and physical self-awareness into the process of perception." Black, which seems to obscure and remove color and life, invited a new inner life. Some of Rothko's black paintings were commissioned for a Catholic church in Houston, today known as the Rothko Chapel, making their spiritual dimension explicit.

The new industrial black pigments had another attractive feature that was altogether more prosaic: They were cheap. This was a key factor for abstract artists who wanted to cover large canvases. Industrial quantities of mass-produced paint let them work on an industrial scale. "They painted as though they were painting industrial structures," says Ball.

Motherwell, for example, painted more than 100 paintings in his series Elegies to the Spanish Republic, many of which measured more than 9 feet across. Featuring large black ovals on a pale background, he called the series a "funeral song" inspired by the Spanish Civil War. This war was, itself, a conflict only conceivable in the industrial age, taking the lives of 700,000 people in three years and sparking the first-ever air-raid bombings of civilians. For Motherwell, the contrast between the dark ovals (rendered in black acrylic paints, which blended pigment with polymers of acrylic esters) and their background represented a contrast between life and death, while the ovals were reminiscent of the testicles of dead bulls displayed after a bullfight.

INTO NOTHING: Black acrylic paints form deep ridges in Pierre Soulages' Painting 2009. The effect recalls ripples on a moonlit lake—or the enormous gear-wheels of an infernal machine.© 2015 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ADAGP, Paris. Image © Lyon MBA/ Photo Alain Basset


To describe NanoBlck-Sqr #1 as a black square seems not only obvious, but a gross understatement. Created by De Wilde, this meter-wide artwork is an all-encompassing void of utter black. As Spinal Tap's lead guitarist Nigel Tufnel once said: "It's like, how much more black could this be? The answer is none. None more black."

The surface of NanoBlck-Sqr #1 is coated with a forest of carbon nanotubes that trap more than 99.99 percent of the light that falls on them. Exhibited in London earlier this year, its complete lack of discernable features produces a sense of limitless depth—viewers have an urge to reach right into the space it creates. "It's like a visible black hole—that's a very powerful effect," says Narayan Khandekar, the director of the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at the Harvard Art Museums in Massachusetts.

The artwork continues the intersection of science and aesthetics that has so characterized the history of the color black. As an art student, De Wilde was frustrated by the lack of innovation in painting and sculpture. He believed that using the most advanced materials in his art would offer a way to represent science and innovation's broader influence on society. De Wilde cites the French artist Yves Klein as a key inspiration. In 1955, Klein collaborated with a Parisian chemical manufacturer to create a new shade of blue—similar to ultramarine—dubbed International Klein Blue. The secret was not to invent a novel pigment, but to combine it with a polyvinyl acetate resin that gave full reign to the pigment's intense color.

In the mid-2000s, De Wilde realized that he might be able to control the behavior of reflected light by tailoring pigments at the nanoscale. So he started searching for scientific collaborators. "If you look at the history of nanotechnology, you arrive at Rice University in Texas," says De Wilde. Rice was home to Robert Curl and Richard Smalley, who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Harold Kroto of the University of Sussex for their discovery of nano-sized spherical shells of carbon atoms (C60).

In 2010, De Wilde began collaborating with chemist Pulickel Ajayan at Rice, and soon produced Hostage pt.1, a black square not much bigger than a postage stamp that was billed as the blackest painting ever made.

"With my black squares, I'm anticipating the creation of a new society," says De Wilde. "It's very related to the artworks of Malevich." But while De Wilde may have been inspired by Malevich, his techniques were beyond anything available during Malevich's time: He made his blacks by manipulating light on scales smaller than a single wavelength.

De Wilde created the work by first sputtering charged iron ions onto a silicon wafer. When the wafer was transferred to a chemical vapor deposition furnace, the iron acted as a catalyst that helped to knit together carbon atoms from a feedstock of acetylene gas into nanotubes. "It's a very delicate process, and it doesn't work every time," says De Wilde. "But when it does, you can see the material literally growing like a black forest."

De Wilde went on to apply a carbon nanotube-based optical coating technology developed at NASA to cover a set of 3-D printed titanium structures. The result is a series of objects collectively called M1Ne II, which look like futuristic birds' nests about 20 centimeters across. The structures hearken back to the birth of the industrial revolution by reflecting data about seven coal mines around Limburg in Belgium. This data includes the depths of the shafts, the amount of air pumped into them, the energy produced by their coal, and the relative locations of the mines. "In part it symbolizes the cohesion of the coal miners—they had to rely on each other to survive," says De Wilde.

The series neatly connects the various identities and histories of the color. But it also reflects a basic desire of the artist, says De Wilde: "Creating the blackest black is a reaction born out of necessity."


Mark Peplow is a science journalist based in Cambridge, U.K.

Lead artwork is by Frederik de Wilde: NanoBlck-Sqr # 1 (2014)/Carroll/Fletcher and the artist. CarrollFletcher.com. Photo by Robin Reeve.

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Life out loud

Life out loud

As a public intellectual, Gore Vidal was snobbish and hypersensitive, but so eloquent

Aug 22nd 2015 | From the print edition
Fine views

Empire of Self: A Life of Gore Vidal. By Jay Parini. Penguin Random House; 480 pages; $35. Published in the UK as "Every Time A Friend Succeeds Something Inside Me Dies: The Life of Gore Vidal". Little, Brown; £25.

"NEVER lose an opportunity to have sex or be on television" is a familiar Gore Vidal quip—and, as Jay Parini notes in a marvellous new biography, Vidal enthusiastically followed his own advice. The sex was almost always homosexual; invariably "on top"; and usually in the afternoon, to allow for disciplined writing in the morning and extravagant socialising in the evening. For Vidal, television meant a show of eloquent punditry projected on both sides of the Atlantic, but most memorably—as any trawl through YouTube will confirm—in the form of confrontations on American chat shows with William Buckley, editor of the conservative National Review, and with a pugnacious fellow writer, Norman Mailer.

In this section

Vidal died in 2012 at the age of 86. He wrote so many novels, screenplays, television shows, literary commentaries and essays that he ought to defy pigeonholing. Yet that prolific versatility is precisely the reason that often he is dismissed as a social-climbing, publicity-seeking gadfly when, in his own view, he was a groundbreaking novelist superior to contemporaries such as John Updike. Vidal was always ready to give criticism but loth to take it—and was especially angered by the New York Times, which primly refused to review "The City and the Pillar", his bestselling exploration of gay life in America that was published in 1948.

Given Vidal's sensitivity to any slight, real or imagined, Mr Parini wisely declined an offer that he write his story during his lifetime. The wait has allowed the author, whose friendship with Vidal began in the 1980s, to produce a portrait that is both affectionate and balanced. Vidal, knowing everyone who was anyone (from Princess Margaret to Rudolf Nureyev), was certainly a snob. He was also delighted to be rich, having as a young man not known "where the next bottle of champagne might come from," Mr Parini writes. It mattered immensely to Vidal that he could live well, whether in huge homes in America and Italy or in comfortable suites at the best hotels in London, Paris and Bangkok.

Yet Mr Parini's Gore Vidal is a man hiding his shyness with a mask of suave sophistication and with viper-like scorn for his enemies (he called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" in one TV clash, and said Truman Capote's death was "a wise career move"). Though Vidal accused Buckley of being a "closet queen", this was not the retort of a militant homosexual: Vidal, a "pansexual", always saw "homosexual" and "heterosexual" as adjectives, not nouns.

History, as Mr Parini points out, will give its verdict on Vidal the novelist. What is already beyond doubt, though, is Vidal's importance as a "public intellectual" with a wonderfully contrarian instinct. For Vidal, who failed twice to win elected office and follow in the footsteps of his politician grandfather, his country was "the United States of Amnesia" and there were no longer two political parties: Republicans and Democrats were wings of the "Property Party". Vidal's sympathy for Timothy McVeigh, responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, may be hard to accept, but far fewer eyebrows will today be raised by his opposition to the Vietnam war (hence the clashes with Buckley), his scorn for Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, his hostility to American policy in the Middle East, or even his view that America is an empire always in search of an enemy (following the demise of the Soviet Union, "one billion Muslims and the Arabs in particular" would, he said, "make a fine new evil empire to oppose").

The obvious parallel is with Noam Chomsky—and in September 1991 Mr Parini brought both Mr Chomsky and Vidal together for a television interview. Asked what motivated them, Mr Chomsky replied: "Looking in the mirror in the morning and not being appalled." Vidal, as so often with words, went one better: "For me, it's looking out of the window and not being appalled."

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Friday, August 14, 2015

L’héritage de la pensée de 68 est-il épuisé ?

L'héritage de la pensée de 68 est-il épuisé ?

Le Monde | 28.07.2015 à 11h53 • Mis à jour le 28.07.2015 à 15h55

Dans quelles conditions avez-vous rencontré ce que l'on appelle « la pensée 68 » ?

Elisabeth Roudinesco : En 1966 paraissaient simultanément Les Mots et les Choses de Michel Foucault et les Ecrits de Jacques Lacan, une avant-garde littéraire et théorique qui proposait une nouvelle lecture de l'histoire à partir des structures. Il y avait quelque chose de novateur et d'équivalent à ce qu'on avait connu en 1945 avec Jean-Paul Sartre : un nouvel engagement. Mais avant d'être politique, celui-ci a d'abord été universitaire, à travers une nouvelle manière d'enseigner. A l'époque, j'étais en licence de lettres à la Sorbonne, or ce secteur était épouvantablement figé dans son académisme. Les professeurs de lettres considéraient que la modernité s'arrêtait à la fin du 19ème siècle. Les étudiants qui, comme moi, lisaient le Nouveau roman et découvraient des approches inédites comme celle de Michel Foucault ou Roland Barthes, étaient en révolte contre ce type d'enseignement poussiéreux. Impossible de prononcer le mot de « Nouveau roman » en classe. Et nous n'étudions même pas Marcel Proust à l'université ! Dès l'année 1967-1968, à la Sorbonne, un sentiment de supériorité des élèves par rapport aux enseignants était né, surtout envers les professeurs de linguistique, qui méprisaient Roman Jakobson ou Claude Lévi-Strauss, alors que nous les admirions. Paradoxalement, nous cherchions de bons maîtres, de vrais maîtres, pas des professeurs à polycopiés qui répétaient sans arrêt le même cours.

Cela dit, la pensée 68 n'existe pas, il s'agit d'une construction après coup. Avec Les mots et les Choses de Michel Foucault, j'ai découvert un auteur à la fois philosophe, historien et écrivain. Il avait un style, quelque chose qui avait un sens. C'était magnifiquement écrit. A l'époque, je lisais également les hellénistes, comme Jean-Pierre Vernant et Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Mais j'avais parfaitement conscience que tous ces auteurs ne se ressemblaient pas, qu'ils avaient des conflits théoriques entre eux. C'était ce qui me plaisait, cette possibilité de faire naître le débat. Pour moi, Mai 68 a été avant tout l'occasion avant de destituer les mauvais professeurs.

Marcel Gauchet : Elisabeth Roudinesco a bien rappelé la dimension universitaire de Mai 68 qui fut aussi une révolte intellectuelle contre des universités complètement fossilisées et décalées par rapport à une scène intellectuelle d'une productivité prodigieuse. Quoique j'aie pu penser de cette galaxie d'auteurs par la suite, ils m'ont fait entrer dans la vie intellectuelle sous le signe de l'enthousiasme. 1966, c'est la date de la percée de la réflexion structuraliste. Elle avait été amorcée de longue date par Lévi-Strauss, mais elle prend à ce moment-là sa force de programme, avec la relance de la psychanalyse par Lacan et la reprise du modèle linguistique par la théorie littéraire, sans parler de l'éclatante nébuleuse philosophique qui gravite autour.

Comme beaucoup d'autres, j'ai eu le sentiment d'assister à l'émergence d'une théorie unifiée des sciences humaines. On avait l'impression que l'on pouvait réunir une théorie du sujet individuel renouvelée par la psychanalyse, une théorie renouvelée de la société à travers le structuralisme lévi-straussien, le tout appuyé sur une science de la production humaine la plus spécifique : le langage. Face à ce monde qui s'ouvrait, l'université officielle faisait figure d'institution sclérosée et dépassée. Mai 68 a été un mouvement placé sous le signe d'un extraordinaire appétit de savoir. Des relais de toutes espèces ont fonctionné pour donner à cet élan théorique une répercussion des plus larges, puisque le mouvement était animé par un esprit ultra-démocratique.

Mêmes éblouissements théoriques, mais importantes divergences politiques. Pour quelle raisons ?

Marcel Gauchet : Là où je me distingue d'Elisabeth Roudinesco, c'est sur le plan politique. Dans tous les auteurs qui ont été cités, il y en a un que j'ai d'abord lu avec intérêt pour vite constater ses limites, c'est Louis Althusser. La grande division politique de l'époque, parmi ceux qui se réclamaient de l'avant-garde intellectuelle, passait entre le communisme, majoritaire, et l'ultragauche, minoritaire. Le hasard des rencontres m'a fait bénéficier de l'héritage de Socialisme ou barbarie, le groupe de Cornelius Castoriadis et de Claude Lefort. De fait, il y a eu deux Mai 68. Un premier politiquement léniniste, qu'il soit communiste, trotskiste ou maoïste, et un second plus difficile à étiqueter mais qu'on peut dire libertaire, avec ses nuances spontanéistes, anarchiste ou ultragauchiste, aux côtés duquel je me situais.

Elisabeth Roudinesco : Quand j'entre au parti communiste, il est déja en voie de déstalinisation. Aragon, par exemple, avait déjà tout critiqué de l intérieur tout en restant membre du parti, tout comme Althusser. Le parti communiste, c'était pour moi l'héritage de la Révolution d'octobre et du Front populaire, de la Révolution française, de tout ce que j'aimais dans l'histoire. En plus, le parti s'ouvrait à des débats sur le structuralisme, à une critique de l'université, notamment avec les colloques de De la Revue La Nouvelle Critique a l'abbaye de Cluny où l on parlait de Jacques Derrida ou Michel Foucault. Le parti s'avançait progressivement vers la signature du programme commun. Paradoxalement, Althusser prônait un retour du léninisme, une nouvelle lecture du marxisme, mais défendait le contraire dans certains de ses écrits . Pourtant, politiquement, le parti était déjà social-démocrate et je pense que cela explique ensuite la rupture avec l'union de la gauche, qui est évidemment une reprise en main du parti. Cela dit, le mot « totalitarisme » n'existait pas dans notre vocabulaire, on parlait de l'échec du communiste. J'ai lu Hannah Arendt très tard, et c'est elle qui m'a fait comprendre ce qu'il était.

Marcel Gauchet : C'est sur ce terme que nous avons divergé existentiellement et intellectuellement, parce que le mot totalitarisme a été pour moi central. Ma question décisive a été celle de la nature des régimes nés du mouvement communiste léniniste. C'est autour de cela que tout mon itinéraire intellectuel a basculé. A l'époque, je ne voyais pas le Parti communiste en déstalinisation mais bien en déconstruction. Le problème qui m'a saisi et qui est devenu le moteur de mon parcours personnel, est celui de l'échec du marxisme à rendre compte des régimes qui se réclamaient d'une inspiration marxiste. J'en suis arrivé très vite à l'idée que la question essentielle était d'élaborer une pensée de l'histoire qui permettrait d'échapper aux impasses du marxisme, en particulier dans son appréciation de la démocratie dite « bourgeoise ». C'est cette question qui m'a séparé de la pensée 68, inutilisable pour ce faire.

A gauche, certains soutiennent que la pensée des sixties a finalement accompagné et justifié celle du néocapitalisme contemporain. Et à droite, on pense que mai 68 est la cause de la déconstruction de la hiérarchie, de l'autorité, de la famille et de l'école, en un mot de la destitution, voire de la destruction de la grandeur de la France. Qu'est-il arrivé à la société française pour qu'elle critique à ce point la pensée 68 ?

Marcel Gauchet : Mai 68 a été un échec politique qui n'a pas eu d'immédiates conséquences pratiques. Il faut rappeler que la gauche est écrasée aux élections de 1969, consécutives au départ du général de Gaulle. L'échec politique s'accompagne cependant d'une formidable réussite culturelle et sociétale. L'esprit de 68 a pénétré et transformé la société française. L'événement démultiplicateur a été la crise de 1974, consécutive au choc pétrolier de l'automne 1973. La mondialisation commence : changement de monde, changement de capitalisme, changement de la société sous le signe de l'individualisation. La politique révolutionnaire est balayée, mais en revanche, la sensibilité libérale-libertaire devient dominante. Ce n'est pas qu'une évolution française, c'est un mouvement général qui touche l'ensemble des sociétés occidentales. C'est ce que ne voit pas une critique de droite comme celle d'Eric Zemmour. Il fait comme si tout sortait de 1968 alors que la transformation est globale. Mai 68 n'a été finalement que la version française de l'entrée dans cette mutation qui a bouleversé à la fois l'économie, les rapports sociaux et les institutions, à commencer par la famille.

Il y a en ce moment un trouble intéressant et révélateur autour du fameux cours de 1979 de Michel Foucault sur la biopolitique. Il permet de saisir sur le vif comment un esprit particulièrement agile accompagne ces transformations. Même les disciples les plus zélés de Foucault sont amenés à le reconnaître, non sans embarras, il se sent en affinité avec le tournant néolibéral en train de se produire. Le cours est exactement contemporain, en effet, de l'élection de Margaret Thatcher en Grande-Bretagne qui précédera de peu celle de Ronald Reagan aux Etats-Unis. Le fait en lui-même ne me gêne pas. Ce que je lui reproche ainsi qu'à ses pairs, c'est de ne pas avoir saisi la portée de ce qui était en train de se produire dans ses aspects positifs et négatifs. C'est justement la grande infirmité de l'équipement intellectuel fourni par cette pensée 68 : elle ne permet pas d'affronter cette nouvelle réalité.

Elisabeth Roudinesco : Ce qu'apportait Foucault, Derrida et toute cette pensée dite 68, c'était l'idée que l'on pouvait critiquer le système communiste par des théories de la subjectivité. Pour moi, elles permettaient au contraire de penser le tournant de la mondialisation, en cherchant une subjectivité qui ne soit pas complice de la domination de l'Etat. Et puis j'étais mondialiste, je ne pouvais pas ne pas être l'être puisque j'étais internationaliste. Le communisme avait apporté l'idée de mondialité avec la révolution. C'était la fin des frontières, de l'Etat nation… J'étais profondément européenne, c'est pour cela que l'idée d'eurocommunisme m'a séduite. L'échec était évident. Jusqu'à Mikhaïl Gorbatchev, j'ai vraiment espéré que les partis communistes allaient se transformer en partis socio-démocrates avec des débats très vifs sur la pensée.

Mais cette pensée 68 n'est-elle pas devenue à son tour nouvel académisme ?

Elisabeth Roudinesco : Plus une pensée est forte, plus elle produit de dogmes et plus il faut les critiquer. Derrida disait que la meilleure façon d'être fidèle à un héritage c'est d'y être infidèle. Je me sentais une infidèle permanente, je ne pouvais pas admettre qu'on me transmette des dogmes, comme ceux du lacanisme notamment. Quand une pensée est si forte, elle produit des épigones, des répétiteurs, des imitateurs, mais cela ne me dérangeait pas. Il fallait les critiquer à partir de cet héritage, mais en étant infidèle.

Prenons deux auteurs dont la postérité politique et universitaire est manifeste, Michel Foucault et Pierre Bourdieu. Leurs pensées sont encore fécondes ou conduisent-elles à des impasses ?

Marcel Gauchet : Le succès des concepts de « rhizome », de « machines désirantes », de « réseaux », de « micropouvoir » ou de « biopouvoir » est très compréhensible. Ces notions et les pensées qui les portent épousent parfaitement le mouvement de nos sociétés. Mais est-ce qu'elles permettent de le comprendre et de l'analyser ? Je ne le crois pas. La pensée foucaldienne fournit une traduction théorique efficace de la sensibilité libertaire qui est le fond de l'air de nos sociétés individualistes. Mais est-ce que les micro-pouvoirs et la gouvernementalité rendent compte de ce qui se passe dans nos sociétés ? Je pense que non.

La sociologie de Bourdieu est considérable et solidement articulée, mais tout aussi peu en prise sur le fonctionnement effectif de notre monde. Sur le cas de l'école par exemple, sa philosophie de la reproduction propose une vision de la domination et de son incorporation au travers d'habitus qui passe à côté du rôle de l'école dans nos sociétés et des problèmes aigus que cette institution rencontre dans le contexte actuel. Le rôle de l'école se réduit-il à la reproduction ? Il y a lieu d'en douter. Ce n'est pas un débat académique : cette critique a fait des dégâts terribles.

Les Héritiers présentait un certain type de culture littéraire comme l'instrument d'une connivence de classe. Pour une fois, la critique a été entendue. Elle a conduit à la mise au pouvoir des mathématiques comme un instrument légitime de classement des esprits. Parce que les mathématiques font appel à la simple logique du raisonnement, elles sont supposées être neutres socialement et n'impliquer aucune connivence culturelle de classe. L'expérience nous a montré exactement le contraire. Les mathématiques sont un instrument de sélection sociale encore plus impitoyable que la culture humaniste. Les problèmes qu'affronte le système scolaire aujourd'hui sont essentiellement le fruit de l'individualisation de la société, celle des familles et celle des élèves, phénomène devant lequel la théorie de Bourdieu nous laisse désarmés. Bref, on est devant une grille d'analyse inopérante. Elle a eu des vertus, mais quand elle devient une manière de dogme, c'est un désastre et il faut reprendre les choses sur de nouvelles bases.

Elisabeth Roudinesco : J'aimais bien chez Pierre Bourdieu la contradiction permanente entre ce qu'il disait et ce qu'il était. Il avait des problèmes avec son origine sociale et la psychanalyse. Reconnaissons tout de même qu'il redécouvrait la « misère du monde », à l'heure où plus personne n'essayait de comprendre le peuple, au moment où une contre-révolution intellectuelle se produisait. En revanche, il n'a pas pensé les questions sociétales en termes d individualités ou de subjectivité, cela ne l'intéressait pas, alors que Foucault et Derrida s'en sont fortement préoccupés. Ma génération a été saisie par les questions d'émancipation individuelle, c'est notamment pour cela que la question de l'homosexualité était capitale. Elle permettait de penser la famille et ses évolutions. Les revendications individualistes me paraissaient être l'aboutissement de la théorie de la subjectivité, telle que Sigmund Freud l'avait apporté. La politique prenait la forme de l'émancipation individuelle. Il est évident que le féminisme s'effondrait parce qu'il devenait trop dogmatique, tout comme la majorité des idéaux des émancipations. Mais le droit des minorités était et demeure un combat.

Assistons-nous à un contre-mouvement de mai 68 dans la France contemporaine, notamment incarnée par la Manif pour tous ?

Elisabeth Roudinesco : On assiste à un mouvement de droitisation radicale. Avec la montée du populisme, le peuple va aujourd'hui davantage vers Marine Le Pen que vers l'extrême gauche. Quand aux manifestations de la Manif pour tous, elles ne ressemblent en rien à mai 68, elles ne reprennent en rien l'esthétisme de mai 68. Il y avait quelque chose d'extrêmement festif et d'esthétique dans les manifestations de mai 68, il a eu de grandes beautés de langage, que je n'ai absolument pas retrouvées dans la Manif pour tous avec ces espèces de monarchistes aux slogans ridicules, homophobes et parfois racistes. Je n'avais jamais vu auparavant des enfants en bas âge dans des poussettes agiter des drapeaux lors des manifestations. Je me demande ce que vont penser ces enfants lorsqu'ils verront qu'ils ont été objet de telles manipulations.

Marcel Gauchet : Mai 68 est devenu à droite un repoussoir absurde qui cache aux gens qui en font une cible les véritables ressorts de l'immense transformation dans laquelle nous sommes tous pris et dont ils participent malgré eux. Le grand problème de la gauche, face à ces évolutions, est qu'elle n'en a aucune analyse qui tienne. Du coup, elle accompagne le mouvement sans le comprendre, tantôt complice, tantôt hostile, en essayant de remédier à ses effets les plus destructeurs du côté de son aile réformiste, ou en se réfugiant dans une protestation incantatoire du côté de son aile radicale. Elle n'a plus de projet de transformation sociale. Le choix, aujourd'hui, est entre une indignation impuissante et la reconstruction d'une grille de lecture de l'histoire en train de se faire en mesure de nous redonner une prise sur la conduite de nos sociétés.

Elisabeth Roudinesco: Attention à l'excès de lucidité critique. Je pense que l'indignation gronde et finira par mener à quelque chose. Bien sûr, cela peut aussi mener au pire, cela peut déboucher sur du fascisme ou du néopopulisme, mais cela ne doit pas nous conduire à l'inaction. Faire de l'histoire rend raisonnable. Mais cette petite flamme qui existe en moi depuis mai 68 demeure. Et quand un mouvement se déclenche, je pense qu'il faut être dans l'événement. On vit dans une époque de capitalisme fou avec pour seul horizon des chiffres. Il faut repolitiser la vie politique et arrêter de parler de l'économie tous les matins, ce n'est pas le seul déterminant. Je ne supporte pas le vocabulaire des experts qui s'est installé partout. Les grands moments peuvent revenir ce qui ne doit pas nous empêcher d agir quotidiennement.

Marcel Gauchet : Je suis sensible à cette imprévisibilité dont vous parlez, mais je pense qu'on peut se donner les moyens de l'accueillir. Pour avoir suivi de près les évolutions de la famille et la libération homosexuelle depuis Mai 68, par exemple, il me semble qu'on pouvait anticiper une demande de redéfinition juridique des rapports dont la nature avait complètement changé sur un plan privé. Nous ne sommes probablement pas au bout de ce mouvement. Ce que l'on tenait pour des invariants anthropologiques pourrait ne pas résister. On peut envisager que l'inceste soit remis en question dans nos sociétés comme tabou absolu. A partir du moment où vous défendez une pure philosophie des individus de droit, la reconnaissance mutuelle sous le signe de l'amour échappe à toute régulation sociale. Je ne dis pas que cela se produira, je dis que c'est dans la logique du mouvement actuel.

Je ne m'indigne pas contre l'indignation. J'en constate les limites et je ne crois pas au surgissement spontané des solutions. Nous devons nous donner les moyens intellectuels de comprendre le mouvement de nos sociétés. Sans quoi nous sommes condamnés à le subir. Nous avons au moins appris qu'il n'y a pas de grand soir à attendre.

 

Elisabeth Roudinesco est historienne, enseignante associée au département d'histoire de Paris VII-Diderot, chargée d'un séminaire d'histoire de la psychanalyse (ENS-GHSS). Elle a notamment publié « Philosophes dans la tourmente » (Fayard, 2005), « La Part obscure de nous-mêmes. Une histoire des pervers » (Albin Michel, 2007) ; « Histoire de la psychanalyse en France », t. 1 et 2 (1982-86) ; « Jacques Lacan.Esquisse d'une vie, histoire d'un système de pensée » (1993) ; « Lacan envers et contre tout » (Seuil, 2011) et « Sigmund Freud en son temps et dans le nôtre » (Seuil, 2014)

 

Marcel Gauchet est historien et philosophe, directeur d'études à l'Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, au Centre de recherches politiques Raymond Aron et rédacteur en chef de la revue Le Débat (Gallimard), qu'il a fondée avec Pierre Nora en 1980. Il a notamment publié La Condition historique (Stock, 2003) ; Que faire ? Dialogue sur le communisme, le capitalisme et l'avenir de la démocratie, avec Alain Badiou (Philo, 2014) ; L'Avènement de la démocratie, t. 1, La Révolution moderne, t. 2, La Crise du libéralisme (Gallimard, 2007) ; L'Avènement de la démocratie, t. 3, A l'épreuve des totalitarismes, 1914-1974 (Gallimard, 2010).

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Why the novel matters

  Why the novel matters We read and write fiction because it asks impossible questions, and leads us boldly into the unknown. By  Deborah Le...