佛洛伊德、巴禮巴與「文明性」的悖論：政治拓撲學的難題

Freud, Balibar and the Paradox of Civility: The Aporia of the Political Topology

本文從巴禮巴與佛洛伊德對於「文明性」（civility）以及「文明」（civilization）的詮釋，討論巴禮巴如何透過佛洛伊德而分析具有內在悖論的「文明性」（civility）問題，以及如何透過佛洛伊德的死亡欲力概念達到他所提出的「共居－公民」（co-citizenship）與「公民化過程」（civil process）的構想。本文要處理的基本難題是，文明本身同時帶來了創造與毀滅的暴力，我們要如何思考「文明」的問題？或者，換一種問法，「文明」如何隱藏並合理化自身暴力的問題，以至於我們必須認真思考「文明性」的悖論？論證過程如下：第一，從佛洛伊德關於內在於文明的創造與毀滅之暴力的分析，說明死亡欲力的外顯模式。第二，從巴禮巴的路徑，說明他長年對於殘酷地形學以及邊界政治的論點，以便解釋文明與暴力的密切連結，並指出「文明性政治」作為「政治之政治」所發展的分歧點，正是我們必須仔細檢驗與分析的歷史發展悖論之軌跡。第三，本文討論「公民」的難題以及政治拓撲學「負面空間」的不斷演化。第四，說明為什麼佛洛伊德在《文明及其不滿》以及《超越快樂原則》等著作中，並沒有僅僅提出以藝術創作而達到昇華來解決難題，而強調了死亡欲力所透露的自我雙重性，從而根本地挑戰法律所制定的劃分機制與神聖性。這個挑戰動力的根基，在於佛洛伊德所提出的認同與去認同的曖昧並存，以及巴禮巴所提出的負向運動的「普世性」以及「公民化」概念。第五，本文在結語處，納入中文脈絡下的辯證思維以及政治拓撲學，思考巴禮巴所提出的負向運動之「公民化」過程如何可以將我們帶到「公民」概念的重新定義。

This article delves into the interpretations of“civilization”and“civility”by Freud and Balibar, examining how Balibar, through Freud’s lens, dissects the inherent paradoxes within“civility”and introduces the concepts of“co-citizenship”and“civil process”through the movement triggered by Freud’s concept of the death drive. Central to the discussion is the recognition that civilization engenders both creative and destructive violence, prompting reflection on how we address the complexities of“civilization”. Specifically, how does civilization veil and justify its own violence? The paper’s argument unfolds in several stages: Firstly, by elucidating Freud’s analysis of the violence intrinsic to civilization’s formation and demise, it exposes the discernible patterns of the death drive. Secondly, it explores Balibar’s perspective, elucidating his enduring arguments on the topography of cruelty and border politics to underscore the intimate link between civilization and violence. Additionally, it highlights the divergence inherent in the politics of civility as“the politics of politics”, demanding a careful examination of historical contradictions. Thirdly, the paper examines the conundrums surrounding“citizenship”and the evolving nature of the“negative space”in political topology. Fourthly, it clarifies why Freud, in seminal works like Civilization and Its Discontents and Beyond the Pleasure Principle, did not simply advocate artistic sublimation as a resolution but underscored the duality revealed by the death drive, fundamentally challenging established mechanisms of division and sanctity. This challenge is rooted in Freud’s proposition of ambiguous identification and dis-identification, as well as Balibar’s notions of“negative universality”and“co-citizenship”. Finally, the conclusion integrates dialectical thinking and political topology within the Chinese context, reflecting on how Balibar’s proposed negative movement towards“citizenship”could prompt a redefinition of the concept itself.