雖然齊澤克可以說是最為重要的歐洲思想家，但就對多數人的相關性來說, Lewis R Gordon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr，汪暉和 Enrique Dussel等人的作品卻更為重要。

　　扎巴拉與達巴什在Al Jazeera上的爭論引發了21世紀至為關鍵的一個議題：不斷加劇的再西方化(表現為不斷接受西方思維方式的改造，從基督教到自由主義和馬克思主義)，在生活，政治，經濟，宗教，美學，知識和主體性等所有領域的去西方化與去殖民化。

　　爭論只要集中在知識和主體性兩個領域。爭論源于扎巴拉討論哲學家角色的一篇文章,其中齊澤克受到贊許。在回應中,達巴什區分了西方思想家和那些供職在歐美學院的非歐洲思想家,認為這兩個群體的意義有所不同。

　　扎巴拉對達巴什的回應強調齊澤克對共產主義概念的創新。我將自己的論述集中在他們的爭論范圍內。畢竟,我是一個研究邊界與去殖民化的思想家。

　　對等級制的信仰

　　達巴什對扎巴拉關于哲學家角色的回應文章,致使原本不會被某些群體注意的扎巴拉文章進入了公共領域的視野。達巴什的回應首先從后者文章的開頭一段入手:

　　今天有很多重要且活躍的哲學家：如美國的朱迪絲·巴特勒，英國的克里奇利(Simon Critchley)，西班牙的坎普斯(Victoria Camps)，法國的讓-呂克·南希，比利時的墨菲;意大利的瓦特莫(Gianni Vattimo)，德國的斯洛特迪克(Peter Sloterdijk)以及斯洛文尼亞的齊澤克，更不要說其他在巴西、澳大利亞和中國的哲學家了。

　　達巴什并沒有提及那些哲學家的名字。這種沉默反倒將名字的意義問題推向了前臺。他的回應說，在這個星球上，我們的生活就是變化，而非生活在變化的時代中。在知識領域中，時代的變化就體現在與殖民主義、帝國主義認識論的區分結構所造成的長遠影響相脫鉤的過程中。

　　根據這個框架，美洲土著擁有智慧，而美洲白人擁有科學;非洲人擁有歷史，歐洲人擁有哲學;第三世界擁有文化，第一世界擁有社會科學，其中包括研究第三世界文化的人類學;中國人與印度人擁有傳統，但歐洲人擁有現代性;穆斯林生活在宗教中，而歐洲人則是世俗化的。

　　非歐洲思想家在想什么?

　　我閱讀了扎巴拉關于哲學家角色的文章，并非因為我對齊澤克感興趣(其實我毫無興趣)，而是因為這是扎巴拉所寫。在過去的三年中，我們在很多會議上都有所交流，建立了電子郵件聯系，就彼此的文章進行交流。

　　我閱讀歐陸哲學，并非想以之作為指路明燈，去處理非歐洲國家的歷史，而是對"他們"所想，"他們的"關懷以及"他們"的志向頗感興趣。

　　我的大部分時間都用來與非歐洲思想家打交道。當我與歐洲哲學家打交道時，我往往從非歐洲思想家那里得到啟發和指導。其中一個例子就是《對"歐洲中心主義"的左派辯護》(1998)。

　　我閱讀這篇文章，并非因為這是出于齊澤克之手，而是因為其歐洲中心主義的主題。對這個問題我非常關注，其次，對那些論述這一問題的人，我也非常感興趣。作為非歐洲思想家，我對該文章的第一句話有所異議：

　　當有人說到歐洲中心主義時，每一個自重的后現代左派知識分子都會避而不及，就像戈培爾對待文化那樣--趕緊去找槍，控訴這是有法西斯主義色彩的歐洲中心主義的文化帝國主義。但，左派是否有可能去繼承這一歐洲政治遺產?

　　我在其他地方對這篇文章進行了詳細討論。這里我只集中關注一點。我對這段話的回應如下：

　　當有人說到歐洲中心主義，每個自重的去殖民主義的知識分子都不會像戈培爾對待文化那樣暴力，不會去找槍，也不會給對方帶上元法西斯主義的西方中心文化帝國主義的大帽子。

　　一個自重的反殖民主義知識分子不是去找槍，而是去找法儂："現在同志們，現在到了下定決心，改變立場的時候了。我們必須擺脫束縛我們的夜之斗篷，從而走向光明。當新的一天到來，拂曉之時，我們必須已然下定決心，真理在手，勇往直前。因此，我的兄弟，我們必須明白，除了對歐洲亦步亦趨之外，我們還有更好的選擇。"

　　有了這些評論，我不打算再去質疑扎巴拉對哲學家齊澤克的評價。我要說的是，反殖民主義知識分子而非哲學家，除了亦步亦趨于歐洲哲學家的議題之外，正如法儂所說，"還有更好的選擇"

　　相關性不是普遍的

　　達巴什提出的問題對我們--前第三世界國家的思想家(即便我們中的很多人都在美國)來說，并不新鮮。我并不是想說不新鮮意味著達巴什的回應已經過時了。我的意思是這些問題至少從20世紀5、60年代以來在非洲，加勒比，南美都討論過了。但這些問題是在"我們中間"討論的，而不是"與他們"。

　　現在這種區分的或者說知識論的力量開始在"我們"(歐洲以外的以及歐洲的哲學家)中受到討論。在外交界的例外是馬凱碩(Kishore Mahbubani )1999年出版的爭議書籍《亞洲人會思想嗎？》。

　　如果我們要用"philosophy" (哲學)這個概念來定義不管是歐洲還是非歐洲的思想者，我會認為齊澤克或許是今天最重要的歐洲哲學家，但他的工作對于很多人來說相關性不如牙買加哲學家 Lewis Ricardo Gordon，伊朗哲學家Seyyed Hossein Nasr，中國哲學家汪暉，埃及哲學家 Nawal El Saadawi和拉丁美洲哲學家Enrique Dussel.

　　而且，如果在齊澤克背后是德里達的大陸哲學傳統，那么gordon的背后是非洲哲學中的法儂，Nasr背后是穆斯林哲學中的Ali Shariati，汪暉背后是中國哲學傳統中的魯迅，El Sadawi背后是穆斯林的法爾薩法哲學傳統，Dussel背后是拉美哲學中的Rodolfo Kusch.

　　相關性不是普遍的，而是依賴于意義世界和決定了相關性的信仰系統。在將西方哲學的帝國主義傳統去西方化和去殖民化的過程中，我們擁有了構成一個多元世界的思想家和哲學家。歐洲以外世界的哲學一直是也仍然是一個惱人的問題。受過哲學訓練的非洲和拉美思想家在1970年代爭論過這個關鍵的問題："非洲/拉美哲學是否存在?"這個問題在同時的德國可以說是不可想象的。

　　羅伯特·貝馬斯科尼Robert Bemasconi 在闡述非洲裔美國哲學家盧修斯·奧特洛 Lucius T Outlaw的思想時，把兩難的處境做了如下總結：

　　"西方哲學把非洲哲學困在雙重束縛中：要么非洲哲學和西方哲學相似得沒有任何突出貢獻也因而實際上消失了，要么非洲哲學不同到了它成為真正哲學的資格總是會被懷疑。"(Bemasconi, 《后殖民非洲哲學：讀本》1998年出版，頁188)

　　這就是折磨著非洲、南美和加勒比地區受過哲學訓練的思想家的糾纏和疑惑。

　　共產主義是一個選擇

　　如上所述的一切問題讓我想到共產主義，這是扎巴拉的回應中的焦點，也就是說，根據齊澤克的觀點，四種強烈的反對力量將阻止資本主義的無限再生產：

　　1. "迫在眉睫的生態危機"

　　2. "將知識產權定義為私有財產之觀念的不恰當性"

　　3. "新科學技術發展(尤其是生物基因研究)中的社會倫理問題"

　　4. "新形式的種族隔離，新的隔離墻和貧民窟"

　　在過去的二十年中，我常聽到很多不同的人提及以上這四點，這些人可能不是哲學家，但是嚴肅的思想者和行動者。我并不想暗示扎巴拉認為齊澤克最早思考這四個問題，我想說的是她認為齊澤克把這些問題帶入歐洲哲學論爭是非常重要的。因為如果認為這個世界，尤其是歐洲以外的世界，需要齊澤克來告訴我們有這些危險，那就是一種不必要的倨傲了。

　　對扎巴拉來說，"在2012年當一個共產主義者并不是一個政治選擇，而是一個關于存在的問題。由于資本主義的生產邏輯，全球政治、經濟和社會不平等將在今年上升到的程度不僅讓我們警惕，而且威脅著我們的生存。"

　　認識到這些問題并不意味著唯一的解決辦法就是成為共產主義者。正如我們可以從歷史得知的，對問題的界定不等于對問題的解決只有一個途徑。更妥當的想法是，在把和諧當成一個可慕的全球未來的視野中，我們可以合意。

　　解決的方法不可能只有一個，因為存在的方式是多種多樣的，這也就意味著思想和行動的方式是多種多樣的。共產主義是一個選擇而不是一個抽象的普遍。

　　同時，需要承認的是，共產主義在歐洲是一個有強烈可能的選擇。但它也許不是來自亞非的移民會選擇的(或許那些來自拉美而大多本是歐洲裔的移民會選擇它)，也不是歐洲的穆斯林哲學家Tariq Ramadan會推崇的。

　　不過當然，共產主義在歐洲是一個不可忽視的選擇：畢竟它發源于歐洲。

　　在歐洲以外的世界，共產主義是問題的一部分而不是解決方法的一部分。這并不意味著在歐洲以外，如果你不是一個共產主義者，就得是一個資本主義者。

　　這場爭論中的最終依據曾是并將繼續是蘇加諾于1955年召開的萬隆會議。萬隆會議的遺產既不是資本主義的，也不是共產主義的，而是去殖民化和去西方化(亦即，從資本主義以及共產主義的脫鉤)。

　　現今的一個例子是玻利維亞。玻利維亞政府的"社群社會主義"模式被CONAMAQ 拒斥，(CONAMAQ是玻利維亞印第安人最大的理事會，由Aymaras和Quechuas兩個部落主導，他們正在重新組織印加地區的 Ayllus 和 Markas兩個部落 )。這篇文章沒有空間來詮釋這個問題(它恰是一個關于歐洲中心主義占領了空間并讓那些不符合歐洲利益的、不管是左翼還是右翼的人都無法發聲的問題)，但它的基本意義是，有一種基于社區來生存的方式，一種基于安第斯地區不同文明的歷史--而不是歐洲歷史--產生的和諧來生存的方式。

　　因此，齊澤克和其他歐洲知識分子嚴肅地重新思考著共產主義這一事實意味著他們在許多選擇中著手思考了其中之一(左翼的重新定位)。今天，這許多可能的選擇正在向超越戰爭、超越制造腐敗和自私的成功與競爭概念、將生命的豐富性置于發展和死亡之上的和諧前進。

　　構建和諧未來

　　總之，在本刊物中扎巴拉和達巴什之間一些想法的交流推出了建構全球和諧未來的一個關鍵話題。對新自由主義在歐洲以外世界潰敗的堅信和對歐陸哲學的局限(及其價值)的堅信同時在增長。

　　薩特在給法儂1961年出版著作《全世界受苦的人》 (The Wretched of the Earth)所寫前言中向法國和歐洲讀者做出如下敘述時，已經對這一切做出了總結：

　　"聽，注意，法儂已經不在對我們講話。"

　　--

　　Walter D Mignolo是杜克大學全球研究與人文學科中心主任William H Wannamaker杰出教授。他最近出版的新書《西方現代性的黑暗面：全球未來，去殖民選擇》(杜克大學出版社2011)是包括了 《文藝復興的黑暗面：識字，領地與殖民》（密歇根大學出版社1995）和《本地歷史/全球設計：殖民性，庶民知識與邊界思維》（普林斯頓大學出版社2000） 的三部曲之第三部。

　　Walter D Mignolo

　　Walter D Mignolo is William H Wannamaker Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Global Studies and the Humanities, Duke University.

　　Yes, we can: Non-European thinkers and philosophers

　　Walter Mignolo weighs in on the debate on the relative strength's of Eurocentric and non-Eurocentric philosophy.Last Modified: 19 Feb 2013 11:34

　　While Zizek may be the most important European philosopher today, his work is less relevant for many people than the work of other philosophers like Lewis R Gordon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Wang Hui and Enrique Dussel [Getty]

　　The exchanges between Santiago Zabala and Hamid Dabashi published in Al Jazeera brings about one of the crucial issues of the 21st century: the increasing process of re-westernisation (the revamping of Western ways of thinking, from Christianity to Liberalism and Marxism), de-westernisation and decoloniality in all sphere of life, politics, economy, religions, aesthetics, knowledge and subjectivity.

　　The exchange focuses mainly in the last two. The exchange was prompted by Zabala's article on the role of the philosopher celebrating Slavov Zizek. In his response, Dabashi took up on the meaning differential between the names of Western philosophers and the countries where non-European philosophers are supposed to dwell or "come from" to Euro-US academy.

　　Zabala's responses to Dabashi opted to emphasise Zizek's refreshing Communism. I will focus on the issues that emerge in the borders of the exchange. I am, after all, a border and decolonial thinker.

　　Beliefs in hierarchies

　　The response by Hamid Dabashi to Zabala's article on the role of the philosopher, contributed to the circulation of the piece in areas of the public domain where it would not have otherwise been circulated. Dabashi's response was a reflection on the initial paragraph of said article on Zizek written by Santiago Zabala.

　　There are many important and active philosophers today: Judith Butler in the United States, Simon Critchley in England, Victoria Camps in Spain, Jean-Luc Nancy in France, Chantal Mouffe in Belgium, Gianni Vattimo in Italy, Peter Sloterdijk in Germany and in Slovenia, Slavoj Zizek, not to mention others working in Brazil, Australia and China.

　　Dabashi's strategy parallels his argument: he doesn't mention the name of the article's authors. Dabashi's silence brings to the foreground the meaning of naming. His response is a sign among many that we, on the planet, are living a change of epoch rather than in an epoch of changes. The change of epoch is announced, in the sphere of knowledge, in the process of delinking from long lasting effects of epistemic colonial and imperial differences.

　　According to this frame, Native Americans have wisdom and Anglo-Americans science; Africans have experience and Europeans philosophy; the Third World has culture and the First World social sciences, including anthropology who study the cultures of the Third World; Chinese and Indians have traditions, Europeans modernity; Islam dwells in religion, Europeans in secularism.

　　Those beliefs in such hierarchies are gone among a growing number of non-European scholars, intellectuals, thinkers, activists. This is for me the implicit call made by Dabashi.

　　What non-European thinkers think

　　I read Zabala's article on the role of the philosopher not because I am interested in Zizek (I am not), but because it was Santiago's article. We coincided in several conferences over the past three years, listened to each other, talked to each other and established an email correspondence and exchange of articles.

　　My readings of continental philosophy are not in search of guiding lights to deal with issues of non-European histories, but an interest in what are "they" thinking, what are "their" concerns, what are "they" up to.

　　I spend most of my time engaged with non-European thinkers. It is from the light and guidance I've found in non-European thinkers that, when necessary, I engage with European philosophers. One example is "A Leftist Plea for 'Eurocentrism'" (1998).

　　I read this article not because it was written by Zizek, but because it was on Eurocentrism. I am always first and foremost interested in the problem, and secondly, in what people confronting the problem have to say about it. As a non-European thinker, my senses reacted to the first sentence of Zizek's article:

　　When one says Eurocentrism, every self-respecting postmodern leftist intellectual has as violent a reaction as Joseph Goebbels had to culture - to reach for a gun, hurling accusations of proto-fascist Eurocentrist cultural imperialism. However, is it possible to imagine a leftist appropriation of the European political legacy?

　　I discussed this article in more detail elsewhere. Here I am just interested in underlying one point. My response to that paragraph, published in a couple of places, is the following:

　　When one says Eurocentrism, every self-respecting decolonial intellectual has not as violent a reaction as Joseph Goebbels had to culture - to reach for a gun, hurling accusations of proto-fascist Eurocentrist cultural imperialism.

　　A self-respecting decolonial intellectual will reach instead to Frantz Fanon: "Now, comrades, now is the time to decide to change sides. We must shake off the great mantle of night, which has enveloped us, and reach, for the light. The new day, which is dawning, must find us determined, enlightened and resolute. So, my brothers, how could we fail to understand that we have better things to do than follow that Europe's footstep."

　　With these comments, I do not intend to dispute Zabala's evaluation of Zizek as a philosopher. What I am saying is that we, decolonial intellectuals, if not philosophers, "have better things to do" as Fanon would say, than being engaged with issues debated by European philosophers.

　　Relevance is not universal

　　The question raised by Dabashi is not new among us, thinkers of the ex-Third World (even if some or many of us are based in the US). Saying that it is not new, I am not implying that Dabashi's response is outdated. I mean that the issues at hand were debated in Africa, the Caribbean and South America at least since the late 50s and 60s. But they were debated "among us" and not "with them".

　　Now the differential of epistemic power has begun to be debated among "us" both, non-European thinkers and European philosophers. The exception in the domain of diplomacy was Kishore Mahbubani who raised the issue in his polemical book Can Asians Think? (1999).

　　Now, if we want to use the term "philosophy" to identify thinkers whether European and non-European, I would say that while Zizek may be the most important European philosopher today, his work is less relevant for many people than the work of Jamaican philosopher Lewis Ricardo Gordon; Iranian philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr; Chinese philosopher Wang Hui; Egyptian Nawal El Saadawi; and Latin American philosopher Enrique Dussel.

　　And if behind Zizek there is Derrida in continental philosophy, behind Gordon is Fanon in Africana philosophy; behind Seyyed Hossein Nasr is Ali Shariati in Muslim philosophy, behind Wang Hui there is Lu Xun in Chinese philosophy, behind El Sadawi the legacies of Muslim falsafa and behind Dussel is Rodolfo Kusch in Latin American philosophy.

　　Relevance is not universal, but depends on the universe of meaning and the belief system under which relevance is determined. We have here a pluriversal world of thinkers and philosophers in the process of de-westernising and decolonising the imperial legacies of Western philosophy.

　　The question of philosophy in the non-European world has been and is a vexing one. African and Latin American thinkers trained in philosophy debated, around the 1970s, this crucial question: "Is there an African/Latin American philosophy?" This question would have been unthinkable in Germany during the same years.

　　Robert Bernasconi, elaborating on African-American philosopher Lucius T Outlaw, summarised the dilemma as follows:

　　Western philosophy traps African philosophy in a double bind: either African philosophy is so similar to Western philosophy that it makes no distinctive contribution and effectively disappears; or it is so different that its credentials to be genuine philosophy will always be in doubt. (Bernasconi 1998, 188;Postcolonial African Philosophy: A Critical Reader).

　　This is simply the entanglement and the puzzle that tormented thinkers with an academic training in philosophy in Africa, South America and the Caribbean.

　　Communism is an option

　　All of the above take me to the question of communism, which is the focus of Zabala's response, the four powerful antagonisms that - according to Zizek - could prevent capitalism's indefinite reproduction:

　　1. "The looming threat of ecological catastrophe."

　　2. "The inappropriateness of the notion of private property for so-called 'intellectual property'."

　　3. "The socio-ethical implications of new techno-scientific developments (especially in biogenetics)."

　　4. "New forms of apartheid, new walls and slums.

　　In the past two decades, I have heard a lot about the four points mentioned by many different people, if not philosophers, serious thinkers and doers. I am not suggesting that Zabala is saying that Zizek is original in thinking about these issues, but that is it very important that Zizek is bringing these issues to the European philosophical debate. For it would be an unnecessary arrogance to think that the world, particularly the non-European world, needs Zizek to tell us that the world is on fire.

　　#FormatStrongID_21#, "Being a communist in 2012 is not a political choice, but rather an existential matter. The global levels of political, economic and social inequality we are going to reach this year because of capitalism's logics of production not only are alarming, but also threaten our existence."

　　Now, recognising the problems doesn't mean that the only way to go is to be communist. However, as we know from history, the identification of the problem doesn't mean that there is only one solution. Or better yet, we can coincide in the prospective of harmony as a desirable global future, but communism is only one way to move toward it.

　　There cannot be only one solution simply because there are many ways of being, which means of thinking and doing. Communism is an option and not an abstract universal.

　　At the same time, it is necessary to recognise that, in Europe, communism is one strong option. Perhaps not the option for immigrants from Asia and Africa (perhaps yes for migrants from Latin America, mostly of European descent) would choose or that Tariq Ramadan (European Muslim and Muslim philosopher) will promote.

　　But certainly, it is an unavoidable choice in Europe: it was in Europe, after all, that communism originated.

　　In the non-European World, communism is part of the problem rather than the solution. Which doesn't mean that if you are not communist, in the non-European world, you are capitalist.

　　The point of reference in this debate was and continues to be the Bandung Conference, convoked by Sukarno in 1955. The legacy of Bandung is neither capitalism nor communism but decoloniality and de-westernisation (which means, #FormatStrongID_22#.)

　　A case in point today would be Bolivia. The Bolivian State formula "Communitarian socialism" is rejected by CONAMAQ (Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu), an organisation led by Aymaras and Quechuas, who are working on the reorganisation of Ayllus and Markas of Tawantinsuyu.

　　I do not have space here to explain what all of this means (which is precisely a problem of Eurocentrism - occupying space and silencing whatever doesn't fit the interest of the European, from the right or from the left), but basically it means that there is a way of being #FormatStrongID_23#, on the prospect of harmony grounded in the history of Andean civilisations and not in European history.

　　So the fact that Zizek, and other European intellectuals, are seriously rethinking communism means that they are engaging in one option (the reorientation of the Left) among many, today, marching toward the prospect of harmony overcoming the necessity of war; overcoming success and competition which engender corruption and selfishness, and promoting the plenitude of life over development and death.

　　Building harmonious future

　　In sum, the exchanges of ideas - in this publication - between Santiago Zabala and Hamid Dabashi, brings to the foreground a fundamental issue in building global and harmonious futures. The growing convictions of the failure of neo-liberalism in the non-European world parallels the growing conviction of limits (at the same time the value) of continental philosophy.

　　Sartre summarised it all in his prologue to Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth (1961), when he states, addressing a French and European audience, "listen, pay attention, Fanon is no longer talking to us".

　　Walter D Mignolo is William H Wannamaker Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Global Studies and the Humanities, Duke University. His most recent book, The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options (2011, Duke UP) is the third of a trilogy that includes The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality and Colonization (1995, Michigan UP) and Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and Border Thinking (2000, Princeton UP).

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號