再評新高中通識教育科

哪一種政治主體？
——評新高中通識教育科的意識形態實踐

"Ideology 'acts' or 'functions' in such a way that it 'recruits' subjects among the individuals (it recruits them all), or ‘transforms’ the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) by that very precise operation which I have called interpellation or hailing, and which can be imagined along the lines of the most commonplace everyday police (or other) hailing: 'Hey, you there!'"

Louis Althusser

　　新高中學制最大的亮點莫過於將通識教育科列為必修科，課程發展議會與香港考試及評核局（2007:2）更把通識科視為扣連其他各個學科的中心，而事實上，大眾傳媒對新高中學制的議題中最為關心的亦是通識教育科的實行，例如早幾年有線新聞就找來陶傑試答考評局通識模擬試題；因此，我們基本上可以簡單地把新高中教育改革與通識科畫上等號。

　　通識科的課程目的自言「幫助」學生「成為獨立思考者」，加深對世界上不同議題的理解（ibid. 4）；然而，筆者在上次的文章中已經指出，通識科的教學中缺乏與社會現實中團體的真誠交往，脫離社會真實，無助培養學生對社會確實的理解，反倒淪為社會偏見的再生產場所。本文嘗試從另一個角度出發，針對課程宗旨中所謂的讓學生「成為獨立思考者」，考察學生在新高中通識教育中將會被形塑為哪一種政治主體。

替他者思考的客體
　　筆者一位當通識教學助理的朋友曾與我分享一則軼事，他有日閱覽學生回答學校通識試卷中一條問及「家庭應否接受子女參加社會運動」的題目時，發現大多回答「不應」的學生均以「青少年心智未成熟，容易被其他利益持份者操縱」作理據。筆者相信思考邏輯不錯的讀者應該一眼就看出問題——沒錯，學生的答案本身就是一個悖論（paradox），或自相矛盾：要是青年人真的「心智未成熟」，那同樣是青年人的學生的答題也應該是「心智未成熟」的表現；反之，要是學生具「成熟心智」，那他們的作答就是錯誤。若我們在精神分析（psychoanalysis）的理論背景下加以思考，所謂的悖論實質上是言說主體（subject of enunciation）與陳述主體（subject of enunciated）間的分裂。言說主體可粗淺理解為真實地說話的「我」（the "I" who speaks），而陳述主體就是句子中的「我」（the grammatical "I"）；這種主體分裂最經典的例子可謂眾所周知的說謊者悖論。誠然，這樣的分裂在日常生活的言談中實屬罕見；然而，正如Sigmund Freud所言，「口誤」正正是作為他者話語的無意識在言語中的突現——不是學生在思，而是學生為他者而思，甚至他者替學生在思。

　　一向講求新潮的通識教育科，追求形形種種的教學方法——例如小組討論、角色扮演、合/協作學習（cooperative learning）——的「方法崇拜」（fetish of method），力圖改革課堂氣氛，鼓勵學生們自主學習；可惜，上述例子證明，在通識教育科中學生的思考毫無自主性可言，亦即，通識教育科依然逃不了Paulo Freire（1993）所指責傳統灌輸教育（banking education）將學生物化的戀死癖傾向。Freire（1993:72）稱在灌輸教育中，「講解把學生變成『容器』，變成了可任由老師『灌輸』的『存儲器』」。學生將教師所持有的價值內化，把世界當作為既然的實體來接受，在這樣的教學關係中，真正在思的不是學生，而是教師——教師是思想的主體，學生只是純粹的客體。當然，教師本身都面對著官僚體制、官方教育制度、其所身處的社會位置等等所制約，也就是說，教師是否權力的所有者值得商榷（王慧蘭 2005:100）；但，學生在學校教育中被物化的事實卻是無容置疑。通識教育科中單元一「個人成長與人際關係」極力將青少年描述為一幫問題群體，把他們視為不完整的、有缺憾的，學生將這一論述內化，並視為既定事實來接受，最終答出這些「以自己的存在否定自己的存在」的答題，上演了一場自我分裂的鬧劇。

考試制度：虛無主義的勝利
　　另一方面，通識教育科的考試強調無既定答案，言之成理即可，這導致很多坊間的教科書的練習試題的建議答案均具備正反立場兩個版本。在這樣一個制度下，真理、價值仿佛完全空了位，虛無主義可謂大獲全勝。就以10月27日刊登於《星島日報》教育版一有關「佔領華爾街」的模擬試題為例，當中一條分題問「『佔領中環』行動有多大程度是與全球化有關」。事實上，「佔領中環」行動與所謂的全球化的關係可說是不言而喻——「佔領中環」行動本身就是為了響應「佔領華爾街」運動於10月15日發起的「全球佔領」（Occupy Together）而展開的；然而，出題的老師為了遵從列出正反建議答案的規範，搞出一個反方的建議答案來，結果在反方的答案中，硬將「全球在地化」（Glocalization）當成與「全球化」無關的過程，使得答案不倫不類。可是，無論何等的不倫不類，它終將成為反方立場的典範答案為其他作答「無甚關係」的學生予以評分。在這種「正又得，反又得」的幻象下，學生根本難以建立倫理道德價值觀，在考試中的取態只是純粹「邊個立場可以寫多啲points」的工具理性考量。

「平庸之惡」的犬儒服從主體
　　正如Freire所言，世上並沒有所謂「中立」的教育，它本身就是政治的，要麼「作為一種統整年輕一代進入現存體系並且使他們能順應體系的工具」，要麼就是「成為自由的實踐，藉著教育，人們可以批判的或是有創造力的去面對自己的現實，並發現如何去參與改變這個世界的歷程」（黃聿芝 2008:7）；因此，作為教育工作者——尤其是那些教授社會人文科的——應時刻檢視教育制度中的權力運作，並對隱藏在所傳遞的「知識」背後的意識形態加以警惕。

　　縱觀上述有關通識科學生的答題以及考試制度的虛無主義邏輯，我們不難發現現今通識教育科所培育的其實是一班價值虛空的服從主體。在真理空位的考試制度下，學生墮進虛無主義的深淵；在灌輸教育的操弄下，他者替學生思考——學生唯一剩下的就是「無思考」的服從主體，他唯一的責任就是探求上級——不論是老師還是評卷員——所喜歡的答案。事實上，這樣的一種「無思考」的服從主體，正正就是政治哲學家Hannah Arendt所形容的「平庸之惡」（banality of evil）的生成條件。

　　Arendt在上世紀六十年代到耶路撒冷旁聽納粹屠殺猶太人的重要執行者Adolf Eichmann的審判，發覺「被世人視為冷血殺手的Eichmann並不是什麼十惡不赦的妖魔鬼怪，他不過是個普通的、平凡的、和你我長相相差無幾的人。他之所以簽下『最後處置』（final solution）屠殺猶太人的命令，是出自一個再平常也不過的動機，那就是服從，他之所以犯下瀰天大罪，是因為他根本『不思考』，他只是像機器一般順從、麻木和不負責任。『平庸』是指一種『無思性』（thoughtless）和『無判斷』（disoriented），是一種深植於人性中對道德的輕率、逃避和扭曲的『反人性惡性』」（宋國誠 2007b）。確實，與筆者上一篇關注通識教育科對社會偏見的再生產一樣，「無思考」的服從主體、「平庸之惡」也是極權主義的恆久泉源——當人民放棄自主的思考，對政治事務抱虛無、犬儒的態度，對國家行使的暴力隻眼開隻眼閉，那實質上就是對極權主義的默默支持。

參考文獻
Freire, Paulo. 1993. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum。
王慧蘭。2005。〈批判教育學：權力抗爭、文本政治和教育實踐〉。《臺灣教育社會學研究》，5:2，85-112。
宋國誠。2007a。〈重建公共性：行動與冥想——漢娜．阿倫特的「反平庸」革命論（上）〉。最後瀏覽於2011年11月27日。（http://pots.tw/node/628）。
_____。2007b。〈重建公共性：行動與冥想——漢娜．阿倫特的「反平庸」革命論（下）〉。最後瀏覽於2011年11月27日。（http://pots.tw/node/664）。
黃聿芝。2008。〈P. Freire批判教育學對於教師角色的啟示〉。《東海教育評論》，1，1-16。
課程發展議會與香港考試及評核局。2007。《通識教育：課程及評估指引》。最後瀏覽於2011年11月27日。
（http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_5999/ls_final_c_070326a.pdf）。

就高中通識科的社會學分析

拒絕偏見，在教學中實現激進民主！
——就新高中通識教育科的社會學分析

"There is no abstract truth; truth is always concrete."
Vladimir Lenin

　　新高中的通識教育科希望培養學生「尊重多元文化和觀點，並成為能夠批判、反思和獨立思考的人」（課程發展議會與香港考試及評核局 2007:2）；然而，高中通識科無論在教學內容還是教學方法都可謂千瘡百孔。本文試就通識科裡「今日香港」單元當中有關「生活素質優次」及「社會訴求」的內容，談論其範式問題以及超越它的可行進路。

馬斯洛模型的貧乏
　　不知為何，香港的中學教育很喜歡教授馬斯洛（Abraham Maslow）的「需求層次論」，在筆者的時代有中國語文及文化科殷海光（1966）的〈人生的意義〉，現在就有新高中的通識教育科——它們兩者也是在不同時代下的高中必修科。關於馬斯洛的需求層次論，其理論內容——至少中學教科書內所描述的——可謂相當簡單，即粗疏地將人的需求分為幾大層次，分別為物理層、生物邏輯層、生物文化層、自我實現層；而它們各層的關係就是：上層的需求乃以下層需求的滿足為基礎的，亦即，人的生物需求——比方溫飽、健康——得到滿足後，才會追求文化素質，「就這樣，慢慢的發展，擴充我們的界域，由單純的物理層，進為生物邏輯層，再由此發展到生物文化界，繼續發展」（殷海光 1966）。將這樣的模型套落通識科有關「生活素質優次」的討論中，我們便很容易得出這樣的結論：低下階層因收入低微，會比較多關注經濟方面的問題，例如失業、住屋等；相反，那些已滿足了衣食住行需求的中產階級，則會更關注所謂的道德價值追求，例如民主、自由、社會公義等等。

　　然而，這樣的論述完全經不起事實的考驗。早前香港《蘋果日報》（2011年8月22日，A1）報導，有一名中學英文教師為人母親，教曉了她那僅兩歲半的女兒逾千個英文單字，被報章形容為「虎媽」。表面上，此「虎媽」例子，好像代表了中產階層、專業群體對其下一代文化素質的重視；事實上恰恰相反，她希望自己的女兒「贏在起跑線上」，為女兒籌備文化資本，「為她升國際學校鋪路」（ibid.），簡言之，此就是傳統「三歲定八十」思想的現代版——小時所就讀的幼稚園決定將來就讀的小學，小學又再決定中學，繼而大學，最終決定未來成人所從事的職業工作，若果以一個邏輯跳躍來描敘，就是幼稚園決定將來就業。故此，這是以文化來包裝的對經濟素質的追求。至於低下階層也不是單單追求經濟利益。以利東街重建抗爭一事為例，那些舊區居民、商戶超脫了政府以金錢作為賠償的處理範式，強調舊區的社區網絡的寶貴，認為舊區內的居民守望相助，有著緊密、融洽鄰里之情，這些在現今疏離和冷漠的商業社會所缺乏的人際關係正是舊區的可貴之處，需予以保育（H15關注組 2010:7）。他們超越經濟利益需求的固有框框，追求和洽人際關係的社會文化價值。潘毅（2007:162-5）在其作《中國女工》中的經典「收音機抗爭」更表明，工廠工人不只總是圍繞經濟利益展開抗爭，也會為工作中的「快樂與滿足」反抗管理層的命令。

角色扮演：偏見的再生產
　　另一方面，在通識科的教學中，老師們很喜歡運用角色扮演，指令學生扮演不同的角色，就某個社會議題發表意見，以建立學生的同理心。香港教育學院通識計劃研究組馮育珊（2009）表示，「角色扮演的教學模式，教師可利用不同角色所持的不同觀點與立場，配合具爭議性的課題，讓學生進行『議題探究』，這可以達致訓練學生批判思考的學習目的，從求真的理念中，探究事實的真理」。可是，筆者認為，這種角色扮演只會深化學生對個別群體的偏見。學生往往對他們所扮演的角色缺乏理解，靠老師所派發的簡單資料來認識他們將要扮演的角色，與這些角色在社會中的真實群體毫無確實的交流。以研究東方主義（Orientalism）著稱的薩伊德（Edward Said）指出，西方在其學術論著中建構了他們想像的東方，然而，隨後東方往往會依照西方對東方的描述來建構自己的東方價值。現今通識教育科內的角色扮演正正是這種東方主義邏輯的日常版——學生依照社會固有的對某些社群的刻板印象（Stereotype）代入他們所要扮演的角色。實際上，這無助建立什麼「同理心」，只會強化、再生產（Reproduction）出社會偏見，加強「YYY就一定是XXX」的庸俗之見。毋庸置疑，我們必須警惕這些社群刻板印象的再生産，因爲它們從來都是極權主義的永久泉源，上世紀的德國納粹排猶主義就是明顯的歷史證據。

超越意識形態幻象　實現教學中的激進民主
　　以上種種問題，一句話，就是學生缺乏對現實中的社會真實的接觸。無可否認，社會科學不斷將社會上不同的人群進行分類，而這些對現實的分類往往是我們建構理論模型的基礎，正如人類學家李維斯托（Claude Lévi-Strauss）形容，人類思維的基礎就是簡單的二元對立。然而，我們應該緊記韋伯（Max Weber）的教誨，社會科學的研究不是單單建構概括性、抽象的理想類型（Ideal Type），更要重視這些理想類型與現實社會的種種差異，這樣社會科學才能擺脫自圓自說的循環論證，這種真正直視社會現實的因素，為無止境的自我批判與質疑過程打開了可能性。確實，沒有與社會經驗事實作對照的Ideal Type，最終只會淪爲Stereotype。

　　所謂「對現實中的社會真實的接觸」，就是與社會不同的個人、群體、社團作面對面真實的交流、交往（Communication），比方說，若果我們想了解外傭對居港權的看法，就應該星期日親身到大會堂、愛丁堡廣場問問外傭的意見；若果想了解基層的需要，最理想的方法是親身接觸他們，但如力有不遞，至少也應該訪問一下中大基關組的成員。

　　事實上，在這個經濟高度分工的社會，我們很喜歡將事情外判（Subcontract）於他人，例如，我們所穿的衣服不是我們自己親手縫製的，我們所吃的蔬菜不是我們親自栽種的——甚至乎連我們的情感也通過他者來實現。政治哲學家齊澤克（Slavoj Žižek 1989:35）曾考察過電視娛樂節目中的「罐頭笑聲」（Canned Laughter）的功能。電視中的罐頭笑聲的其中一個功能或許是提醒觀衆節目内的有趣點；然而，齊澤克認爲，這把隱身於電視機背後的笑聲的真正作用是，它「正在解除我們笑的義務，正在替我們笑」（ibid.）！同理，我們的政治生活也同樣轉移、轉包給他人，外判給那些所謂在代議政制中代表著我們的尊貴議員；我們對時事的觀察是通過大衆傳媒實現的，也就是說，我們把雙眼交托給了他人！在這樣的一個時代，我們更需要回到古希臘對「政治」的理解——「政治」的字根「城邦」（Polis），它「傳達了一種積極行使公民權的含義，即參與以社群為主體的民主化自治過程」（科爾曼 2006:前言8），而在左翼的立場下，所謂的「城邦」的疆界當然意指整個地球，而「公民」的界限亦包含了全體人類；簡言之，政治就是公民生活的一部分，這就是亞里士多德將人定義為「政治動物」的基本意思。筆者認爲，在通識科的教育中，必須加強這種「直接民主」——或者其在左翼論述中新興的説法「激進民主」（Radical Democracy）——的向度，讓學生真切地與社區發生聯繫，這樣才能夠破除社會的種種迷思（Myths）。

　　最後，有一點必須注意，筆者在此並不是簡單地重申「讀萬卷書不如行萬里路」的陳腔濫調，並不是看輕書本、理論的重要性，而是強調理論與經驗事實、實踐的辯證關係，為思想的拓新開啓大門。

參考資料
H15關注組。2010。《市區重建策略檢討民間諮詢文件意見書》，立法會CB(1)2441/09-10(08)號文件。最後瀏覽於2011年5月15日。
（http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/chinese/panels/dev/papers/dev0710cb1-2441-8-c.pdf）。
Žižek, Slavoj. 1989. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.
科爾曼，丹尼爾。2006。《生態政治：建設一個綠色社會》。上海：上海譯文出版社。
殷海光。1966。〈人生的意義〉。最後瀏覽於2011年10月24日。
（http://www.douban.com/group/topic/1297231/）。
馮育珊。2009。〈通識教育科的批判思考〉。最後瀏覽於2011年10月24日。
（http://edblog.hkedcity.net/elshkied/2009/06/08/singtao14/）。
潘毅。2007。《中國女工——新興打工階級的呼喚》。香港：明報出版社。
課程發展議會與香港考試及評核局。2007。《通識教育：課程及評估指引》。最後瀏覽於2011年10月24日。
（http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_5999/ls_final_c_070326a.pdf）。

Maid Trade between the Philippines and Hong Kong

Commodification and (Re-)nationalization:
Maid Trade between the Philippines and Hong Kong

      In the early 1970s, the golden age of capitalism in the Western world ended with a series of events happened, for examples, the rapid increase in unemployment and inflation rates in the States and Western Europe since the late 1960s, the sharp recession in 1973, the technical bankruptcy of New York City in 1975, etc. (Harvey 1990) However, it is not the case on the other side of the world. While the golden age came to an end in the Western world, especially in the States and Britain, the prelude to golden age has just played among the newly industrialized countries in Asian Pacific, i.e. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. These four Asian Tigers have experienced a distinct economic growth and structural change during the whole period between 1970s and 1980s. They kept the highest rate of growth of Gross National Product (GNP) in the world over these years. Along with the economic growth, there was also a great improvement of the living conditions for the population with a less unequal income distribution. (Castells 1992) Such development of the four Tigers was always perceived as a miracle since under some kind of traditional left-wing view, non-western countries could only become a site of exploitation for western advanced capitalistic countries when they’re forced to integrate into the world capitalistic system.
       Economic miracle did not merely bring wealth to the four Tigers, but also imposed several great impacts on their cultural practices. For instance, the traditional notion of “man as breadwinners; women as homemakers” has been challenged in these societies. Under fast industrialization, more and more job opportunities were provided for women. As Women were supposed to be more docile and attentive than men, they were regarded as ideal labors in light industries. Large amount of working class women were thus recruited as factory labors. Moreover, for the middle class women, they enjoyed the discourse of gender equality, and wanted to build up their career in workplace. Therefore, dual-income households have become the prevailing family model in these societies. Nonetheless, this created a high demand of caregivers or domestic helpers. In order to balance the demands of fulltime career and patriarchal ideologies of motherhood, housewifery and filial piety, women tended to outsource housework by employing foreign female domestic workers. (Lan 2006; Constable 1996, 1997, 2007)
      In this paper, I would try to use the sociological concept of “nationalization” to comprehend the maid trade among Southeast Asian countries, and mainly focus on the trade between Hong Kong (as immigrant domestic workers receiving state) and the Philippines (as sending state). I begin with a brief description of the history of the both receiving and sending states. Then I would examine the trading process of maids. Finally, I would use the concept “nationalization” to link up the previous parts.

Hong Kong: A Wealthy Immigrant Society
       After the Opium War in 1841, Hong Kong became one of the British colonies in Asia. Large amount of Chinese from Guangdong Province arrived to search for jobs. The Chinese immigrants were mainly males at that time. It is because Chinese parents did not allow their sons going to Hong Kong together with their children and wives, so as to ensure that their sons would remit money or return home. Some of these male immigrants were employed by the colonial European in some form of domestic service. (Constable 2007:22-3) During the early twentieth century, due to the Xinhai Revolution, the War of Resistance Against Japan, and the War of Liberation, Hong Kong experienced a substantial influx of immigrants from Mainland China. This caused a sharp increase in the number of female immigrants in Hong Kong. Some wealthy Chinese and European preferred to employ young girls, muijai (妹仔), as live-in servants. Hence, menservants were gradually replaced by womenservants. These female postwar refugees were the major labor pool for paid household workers in Hong Kong until 1970s. (Constable 2007:23-4) However, as mentioned above, owing to the rapid economic growth, women were encouraged to work in light industries. Therefore, “Chinese women domestic workers left their employers in favor of factory work.” (Constable 1997:541) Besides, the expansion in service-sector provided a large amount of job opportunities for middle class educated women. Thus, dual-income families have become a social norm in Hong Kong, and it’s also perceived as a strategy to cope with the rising house price and living expenses. (Constable 2007:26-8) According the Confucians custom, leaving parents at home and commanding them to do housework were considered as unfilial behaviors. Foreign domestic workers were viewed as an ideal solution to the growing shortage of labor in domestic work. “By the early 1980s, legislation was passed to allow Filipinos and other foreign workers to enter the colony on short-term contracts to work as full-time, live-in domestic workers.” (Constable 1996:455)

 The Philippines: An Excellent Example of the Dependency Theory
       The economic development of the Asian Tigers, as what Manuel Castells (1992:33-4) claimed, is a distinct contrary example of the dogmatic dependency theory; however, the history of the economic development of the Philippine is an excellent example of the theory. Before the independence in 1946, labor emigration in the Philippines has already flourished. For example, Filipino men were hired for sugar plantations in Hawaii even when she was a colony of the States. (Lan 2006:45) However, the feminization of contract labor emigration is quite recent. In 1980, women only accounted for 18 percent of the labor export, but the percentage increased sharply to 36 in 1987 and 69 in 2002. (Lan 2006:46) During the Vietnam War in 1960s, the president Ferdinand Marcos developed the Philippines into a military base for the States. When the war ended, the infrastructure was backward and not suitable for economic development. (Lan 2006:45; Constable 2007:31) During the period between 1970s and 1980s, the economic performance continued to worsen. By the 1980s, the high inflation and unemployment rates made about two-thirds of the Philippine population lived below the poverty line. (Constable 2007:31-2) Hence, the Philippines has a massive labor surplus. In 1974, Marcos imposed a “labor export policy” (the Labor Code of the Philippines) to solve the problems of labor surplus and massive outflow of capital. As Marcos said in 1982, “For us, overseas employment addresses two major problems: unemployment and the balance of payments position. If these problems are met or at least partially so by contract migration, we also expect an increase in national savings and investment levels.” (quoted from Cox 2006:21) Under such policy, overseas workers were enforced to remit money back to their motherland. Initially, such policy was announced as a “temporary measure”, nonetheless became “permanently temporary” over the last 40 years. (Constable 2007:33) Since Filipino migrant labors have a significant contribution to the economy of the nation – the remittances account for about 10% of Philippine GNP nowadays (Cox 2006:21), they were always heroized as the “new economic heroes”. (Constable 2007:33; Lan 2006:46; Barber 1997:43) As mentioned previously, since 1970s, Hong Kong (and also other Asian Tigers) has demanded for foreign domestic workers; Hong Kong has become one of the most popular destinations of the female Filipino migrant labors.

The Maid Trade between Hong Kong and the Philippines
       According to Pei-Chia Lan’s (2006:81) examination of the maid trade between Taiwan and Indonesia, there are mainly three stages involved in the transformation of women to domestic workers: recruitment, training, and presentation. I would adopt this frame to re-write Nicole Constable’s (2007) analysis of the maid trade between Hong Kong and the Philippines, and by comparing Lan (2006) and Constable’s (2007) researches, emphasize some unique characteristics of the maid trade between Hong Kong and the Philippines.
Recruitment
      The major difference between Indonesian and Filipino domestic workers is their difference in education level. Most of the Indonesia domestic workers are village women with little formal education, while those from the Philippines are well educated women with a high school education at least. (Lan 2006; Constable 2007) Hence, there is a role called sponsor in the trade of Indonesian maids. Sponsors are usually local figures respected in a community. The maid agency needs to rely on the social linkage between village women’s parents and the sponsors for maid recruitment. As the sponsor is a trusted person in certain villages, the parents would feel more comfortable sending their daughters with such a sponsor to an unknown outside world. (Lan 2006:82) However, there is no such a role involved in Filipino maid trade. Most of the well-educated Filipino women would approach to an agency company by their own. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all the applications would be accepted or welcomed by agencies. Philippine agency companies serve as partners of Hong Kong agencies, so they should deal with the demands of Hong Kong. As Hong Kong employers don’t want to hire maids with so dark skin or beautiful appearance, and those finish contract maids, these women’s applications would be bypassed or even rejected sometime; otherwise, the agencies may permit tricky effect on the autobiographies of these maids. (Constable 2007:63-89) This opens the gate to the other realms, presentation.
Training
      Before the presentation process, there is a process called training. The major work of the Philippine agencies is to transform women into docile domestic workers. “Whether manager of a marketing firm, a schoolteacher, a university degree holder, or a rural housewife who has not completed high school, whether married or unmarried, in her teens or forties, a woman undergoes virtually the same homogenizing process intended to produce a single product: a hardworking submissive, and obedient domestic helper.” (Constable 2007:69) For Indonesia women who want to be a maid in Taiwan, they need to stay in training center (like a “prison”) for about two to three mouth. The center would provide several classes to the applicants, for example, cooking class, ironing class, table manners learning class, etc., so as to re-orient the “technical backward” women toward the lifestyles of modern households. (Lan 2006:84-5) However, such trainings in Filipino maid trade are lesser, since Filipinos are always perceived as “the Westernized others” (Lan 2006:76; Constable 2007:40). The major thing they learnt in agency companies is manifesting deferential behaviors toward their employers. All the applicants should have a video interview with agency, and the video is then sent to Hong Kong counterpart. Before the interview, they would learn how to answer and response a number of interview questions. Although there are many questions that would be asked in an interview, the principle of answering question is only one – “the employer is always correct.” By doing this, a sense of inferiority would be internalized to the applicants. (Constable 2007:72-3) Nonetheless, the main work of Philippine agencies is “packing the product”, i.e. the presentation process in Lan’s (2006) term.
Presentation
      As mentioned above, an ideal Philippine domestic workers for Hong Kong employers whose appearance is fair (not so ugly and not so beautiful), especially rather dark (not so dark) in skin. Hong Kong employers would not hire those beautiful maids since female employers would treat them as a threat to the family, a seduction of her husband. (Constable 2007:75) But if the maids’ skin is too dark, the employers would think they would scare the children. Therefore, Filipino applicants try to look neat and tidy, for examples, wear comfortable shoes, little or no makeup, and to cut their hairs or tie it back; but not beautiful or well dressed. Also, the agency would not score the appearance of all the applicants more than a “good” rating in applicants’ files which would be read by Hong Kong employers. Besides appearance, other personal information, for instants, age, working experience, marriage status, of Filipino applicants can also be adjusted. Indeed, forgery is very common in the Philippines. (Constable 2006:72-6) Finally, applicants would be taken to test for various diseases in medical examination before they send to Hong Kong, if they are chosen by certain Hong Kong employers. (Constable 2007:76)
       Such “great transformation”, of course, costs a lot of money, and hence “most Filipinas go into debt to find job in Hong Kong”, and the debt would become an economic control over domestic workers, so as to ensure that they would not “run away”. (Constable 2007:77)

Maid as Commodity: Partial Citizenship and (Re-)nationalization
       From the above description, we can see that Hong Kong people just perceive foreign maid as a thing, object, or commodity, which is freely disposable. Hong Kong imports foreign domestic labors since she confronts a problem of labor shortage in domestic work. However, due to the economic downturn in 1997, the Labour Department started to view domestic work as a potential source of income for unskilled unemployed local women. A large number of women had attained the government-sponsored “retraining programs” so as to become local domestic helpers. They thought foreign domestic workers are those “stealing their bowls”. In order to respond to this growing complaint, “the government mandated that foreign domestic workers must live with their employer, widely publicized the illegality of working part-time for more than one employer, and mounted a media campaign against illegal work.” (Constable 2007:36) Besides, the government reduced the minimum wage of foreign domestic workers from HK$3,860 per month to $3,670 in 1999, and further lowered it to HK$3,270 in 2003 (although the government raised the wage to HK$3,480 by 2007). (Constable 2007:37) These measurements make the living of Filipino domestic workers in Hong Kong becomes harsher and harsher.
       We can see that, foreign domestic workers are not perceived as citizens and thus do not have citizenship rights as other Hong Kong people, only enjoying partial citizenship. They have no political right in Hong Kong, so they cannot vote in any political election. Indeed, their status may be much lower than other foreign labors. For example, they cannot choose their own living house as other foreign labors do. In addition, the Hong Kong Government requires foreign domestic workers to leave Hong Kong within two week after they finish their contract, unless they find another new employment; however, there is no such regulation for other foreign labors. We may feel that such differential policy is unproblematic since Filipinos are distinctly not Hong Kong people. However, it is not the case in other countries. “In Spain and Canada, migrant Filipina domestic workers are eligible for full citizenship after two years of legal settlement.” (Parreáas 2001:1135) Although there may be a risk of naïve optimism on the cases of Spain and Canada – the Canadian government still treats domestic workers differently from other foreign workers since other foreign workers are allowed to become landed migrants with full citizenship on arrival (without the buffer period of two years) (Cox 2006:27; Parreáas 2001:1135), the establishment of policy of Hong Kong must be much worse than these two countries.
      Admittedly, partial citizenship has a significant contribution in the process of nationalization. Nation, which is defined by Benedict Anderson (1991) as “imagined community”, is not natural, but politico-cultural constructed. In Anderson’s (1991) great thesis Imagines Communities, he asked how so many colonies in the past became different nations during the past two centuries. One of the causes is the different career paths for the government officers in the empire and its colonies. The top of the career ladders of those officers employed in colonies was ended within the realm of the colonies, i.e. they could not promote to the positions inside the empire. (Anderson 1991) Hence, we can see that there were different rights between the people in the empire and colonies – people in colonies are considered as “others” by the people in the empire. By applying this perspective to the maid trade between Hong Kong and the Philippines, we – Hong Kong people – depict the Filipino domestic helpers as others, an out-group. Lan (2006) had similar observation in her analysis of the maid trade among Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia, and adopted the term “racialization” to describe such phenomenon. However, race is not a major issue in Hong Kong since Hong Kong is an immigrant society at all time. Therefore, I prefer to use the Anderson’s notion of “nationalization”, since it is more flexible and suitable to Hong Kong situation. It is because Hong Kong is always an immigrant society that people’s sense of belonging to Hong Kong is built on the construction of otherness, for example, aa’caan (阿燦). The otherness of foreign domestic workers may reinforce our sense of belonging to Hong Kong, a process of (re-)nationalization. Besides, the commitment of foreign domestic helpers to their motherland would also be enhanced, as their nation-state sees them as “heroes of the economy”, making them will to remit money back.
      Nevertheless, if we would never recognize foreign domestic workers as an in-group in the foreseeable future, the only reason why we allow them enter Hong Kong, even our private “home”, is the economic benefits they brought. Unfortunately, they are treated differently from those enters Hong Kong through Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, because the skill they possessed – domestic work – is not considered as valued scare skill. In addition, although the Philippine government acknowledges that overseas contract workers are “heroes”, they are worthy only because of their economic value – the massive amount of remittance to the Philippines. Therefore, they become disposable objects or commodities which can be shaped into any form, just like clay, in the trading process.
 
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition. London: Verso.
Castells, Manuel. 1992. “Four Asian Tigers with a Dragon Head.” Pp.33-70 in States and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim, ed. By R.P. Appelbaum and J. Henderson. London: Sage.
Constable, Nicole. 1996. “Jealousy, Chastity, and Abuse: Chinese Maids and Foreign Helpers in Hong Kong.” Pp.448-79 in Modern China, Vol. 22, No. 4.
______. 1997 . “Sexuality and Discipline among Filipina Domestic Workers in Hong Kong.” Pp.539-58 in American Ethnologist, Vol. 24, No. 3.
______. 2007. Maid to Order in Hong Kong: Stories of Migrant Workers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Cox, Rosie. 2006. The Servant Problem: The Home Life of a Global Economy. London: I. B. Tauris.
Harvey, David. 1990. “Chapter 9: From Fordism to flexible accumulation.” Pp.141-72 in The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lan, Pei-Chia. 2006. Global Cinderellas: Migrant Domestics and Newly Rich Employers in Taiwan. Durham: Duke University Press.
Parreáas, Rhacel Salazar. 2001. “Transgressing the Nation-State: The Partial Citizenship and ‘Imagined (Global) Community’ of Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers.” Pp.1129-52 in Source: Signs, Vol. 26, No. 4.

馬克思主義和極權主義

馬克思主義、霸權和極權主義
——論後馬克思主義的社會主義戰略

「做電台之前我有個信念，就係呢個世界無論乜嘢都好，講係冇用嘅，做先至有用嘅。即係唔使講乜『愛就係喇』，唔好同我講愛——做啦！[…] 呢個世界得一樣嘢係講好過做嘅姐，就係馬克思主義喇。馬克思主義提倡一種人人平等嘅烏托邦，係好好咖——講。[…] 即係馬克思主義係一種理論嚟咖姐，俾人喺大學裡面讀咖咋，姐係你唔好太緊張呀真係——咁當然除非你讀嗰科就唔同啦。所以你，如果你去搵阿馬克思，你同佢講：『喂！阿馬生呀，因為你呢種主義呢，單單我地中國都唔知死左幾多百萬人呀。』馬克思會話：『吓！讀書都會死咁多人咖咩？你地中國日日大考咖？』」

黃子華(2000)

　　當然，這只不過是黃子華在他棟篤笑中的戲言，如果我們真的認真地在馬克思(Karl Marx)的著作中尋找馬克思主義與極權主義(Totalitarianism)箇中關係的答案，結論會相當不同。本文試圖綜合不同學者——尤其是被譽為後馬克思主義(Post-Marxism)旗手的齊澤克(Slavoj Žižek)及拉克勞(Ernesto Laclau)——的見解，以釐清它們兩者的區別，同時重申共產主義(Communism)或英特納雄耐爾(Internationale)乃我們必須追求的慾望對象成因(objet petit a)。

馬克思，作為第一個後結構主義者
　　首先，略懂馬克思生平的都知道，馬克思從沒有把自己對資本主義的思考看作純粹的理論，而是在其一生不斷將之付諸實行。例如，在他早年，他因在《萊茵報》(Rheinische Zeitung)及《前進周刊》(Vorwärts!) 發表了一些觸動沙皇及普魯士政府神經的文章，而先後被德法兩國驅逐出境；而在布魯塞爾期間，馬克思與其好友恩格斯(Friedrich Engels)參與了共產主義者同盟(Communist League)，並被邀請起草同盟的綱領文件，亦即著名的《共產黨宣言》(Communist Manifesto)；最後，在晚年，他就算面對嚴重的經濟和債務問題，仍積極參與政治運動，參加了第一國際(International Workingmen's Association)成立大會(Ritzer and Goodman 2004:134-5)。正如奧羅姆(Anthony Orum)所言，「他可能是第一個今天社會學家所謂的公共知識分子的例子。」(Orum 2008:12)

　　從馬克思這一理論與實踐合一的品格，我們必然拒絕一種將馬克思主義視為技術決定論(technological determinism)的解讀。依拉克勞(Laclau and Mouffe 1981)的分析，這種技術決定論的解讀主要來自第二國際(Second International)。技術決定論者簡單地將馬克思主義理解為「生產力(productive force)決定生產關係(relation of production)，從而再決定生產方式(mode of production)及整個上層建築(superstructure)」的理論，他們最經典的引言當然是馬克思(1958b:144)的「手工磨產生的是封建主為首的社會，蒸氣磨產生的是工業資本家為首的社會」。在他們眼中，社會的變革的原因在於某一社會的生產關係成了生產力的障礙，例如，當「資本主義制度不適合生產力發展要求時，其必然結果就是社會主義取代資本主義」(陳炳輝 2004:261)。加上，由於資本主義將使農民、工人，甚至小資產階級無產化，社會最終會出現資產階級及無產階級這兩大截然不同的以客觀利益為基礎的階級，引發他們之間的鬥爭(曾枝盛 2002:79-80)。然而，這一技術決定論的說法，最大的理論問題就是——生產力的發展受甚麼因素所影響呢？它不受任何因素所影響。依他們的觀點，生產力是一個外在於社會總體(totality)的一個因素，它有其不受人的社會為轉移的發展方向，始終決定著社會的歷史發展。事實上，這種技術決定論的馬克思主義根本與黑格爾(Georg W. Hegel)的絕對唯心主義(absolute idealism)沒有兩樣！阿爾都塞(Louis Althusser)表示，「對黑格爾的顛倒」(inversion of Hegel)這一說法對費爾巴哈(Ludwig Feuerbach)來說完全合適，可惜與馬克思並沒有半點干係(Althusser 2005)。在黑格爾的角度來看，民間社會(civil society)（以馬克思的字眼，那就是「經濟基礎」）是現象(phenomena)，而實質(essence)的是國家(state)（即馬克思主義的「上層建築」）。根據技術決定論的觀點，馬克思所做的只是僅僅將這種關係反轉過來，將黑格爾的實質換成現象，將現象化為本質，而黑格爾的「絕對精神」(Absolute Spirit)則由馬克思的「生產力」所取代。然而，這樣的闡述根本沒有對黑格爾辯證法的結構作過絲毫的改變，歷史的發展依然不以人的意識為轉移，歷史終會朝向某種絕對精神或生產力而自我完足。

　　拉克勞認為，這種技術決定論的政活蘊含是可怕的。既然人的歷史總體上的發展不以人的意識、行為為轉移，沒有任何事件可以對歷史進程作出挑戰，那麼我們絕對可以負擔得起對事實的疏忽。「農民的特異性可以放心地忽略，因為他們這一個行業注定在資本主義發展過程中消失；一些與既定權力的妥協是可以接受的，因為歷史的進程、方向還是對這種權力的分解；精確的戰略形式過渡到社會主義可以忽略不計，因為馬克思主義科學為我們提供了與這個過渡的保證。」(Laclau el al 1981:18)由此可見，從這種技術決定論出發，我們根本不能理解馬克思本人的實踐面向——既然他已發現了歷史「必然」的發展規律，他幹嗎還這麼積極地搞工人運動？同樣，技術決定論也不可能理解馬克思(1958a:6)在〈關於費爾巴哈的提綱〉(Theses On Feuerbach)中的最後一句——「哲學家們只是用不同的方式解釋世界，而問題在於改變世界」。在此，我們終於可以大膽地宣稱，馬克思確是第一個後結構主義者(Post-structuralist)。如果我們將後結構主義簡單理解為一種對索緒爾(Ferdinand de Saussure)能指(signifier)與所指(signified)之間同一性的一種批判，即反對存在著一種外在於能指鏈(chain of signifiers)而終究穩定地決定著能指意義的所指結構，那麼馬克思一定是一個後結構主義者。正正因為馬克思並沒有把自己的理論視為外在於社會總體的某物，他才會如此積極參與運動，促進社會革命的進程。這不禁令人想起齊澤克(2002:89-90)的一個經典笑話：

「在本世紀之初，一個波蘭人和一個猶大人坐在同一列火車上，面面相覷。波蘭人緊張地晃動著身子，一直目不斜視瞪著猶太人。不知道是甚麼東西激怒了他，最後，他再也抑制不住地爆發了：『告訴我，你們猶太人是怎樣成功地從人們身上榨取了最後一個硬幣，使自己腰纏萬貫的？』猶太人回答說：『好吧，我會告訴你，但不能分文不取，你先付我5個波蘭幣。』收到錢後，猶太人開始講了：『首先，你拿一條死魚，割下牠的頭來，將其內臟裝在一個玻璃瓶裡。然後，大約月圓的時候，在半夜時分，你一定要把這瓶子埋進墓地……』『那麼，』波蘭人貪婪地打斷了他，『如果我做了這一切，我會成為富人嗎？』『不要操之過急，』猶太人回答說，『這還不是你必須要做的全部事情；如果你想聽剩下的內容，你必須再付我5個波蘭幣。』收下錢後，猶太人繼續講他的故事。不久，他又伸手要錢，沒完沒了。最後波蘭人在憤怒中爆發了：『你這個骯髒的無賴，你真的認為我沒有注意到你想幹甚麼？根本沒有任何秘密可言，你簡直要從我身上榨取最後一個硬幣！』猶太人平靜而溫順地回答他說：『好吧，現在你已經明白，我們這些猶太人…』」

　　故事的笑點在於，故事中的波蘭人自以為自己是一個能排除在社會總體之外的人，以「外人」的身分了解猶太人的秘密；然而，他從來也是整個遊戲的一部分。馬克思的實踐就是拒絕成為這樣一種波蘭人，他完全明白到世上根本沒有能超出社會總體的事物，歷史本身就是人的不同實踐的總和，我們從來都負擔不起對任何事件的疏忽。

馬克思主義與極權主義的區別
　　然而，馬克思主義這種理論與實踐合一的話語(discourse)，與極權主義是十分相像。根據拉克勞的分析，話語並不是一個語言學的概念，相反，它總是包含著語言性與行為性的因素(Laclau 1989:71)。例如，我正在把衣物放進洗衣機準備洗衣，然後我叫某人「拿洗衣粉給我」，隨後我將適量的洗衣粉倒進洗衣機。很明顯，整個過程包含著一個語言性因素（「拿洗衣粉給我」）及一個行為性因素（我將適量的洗衣粉倒進洗衣機）；但是，它們必須連接成一個整體行動——洗衣——的一部分，才能被理解。可是，有些人認為，若我們在政治上追求這種言行的同一性，我們往往會墮進極權主義的陷阱。例如，埃科(Umberto Eco)在他的《玫瑰的名字》(Name of the Rose)——依齊澤克(2002:37)的理解——認為，極權主義的來源是一種對官方字詞的教條式依戀，對善過多的承諾本身可能成為最大的惡：真正的邪惡是任何一種狂熱——特別是盡力以至善的名稱包裝的——教條主義。拉克勞的同事墨非(Chantal Mouffe)亦有共同的憂慮。她認為，若果如所有社群主義者般主張，國家應完全地建立在共同善(common good)的基礎上，強調共同善為基礎的政治共同體的觀念，最終只會導致國家以其權威去宣揚某種生活方式而禁止另一種，這是多元的民主主義所不容的(陳炳輝 2004:258-282)。

　　在此，我們終於都回到起初的問題。難道我們真的要如黃子華所言，不要對馬克思主義過份認真嗎？不然的話，過份的執著只會導致「因為你呢種主義呢，單單我地中國都唔知死左幾多百萬人呀」。這真是事實的全部嗎？然而，事情恰恰相反。齊澤克(2002)指出，現今極權主義泉源是我們對至善的不認真，誤將現實、經驗的某一對象(object)推到康德(Immanuel Kant)的崇高(sublime)的邏輯高度。「崇高客體(sublime object)是『被抬高到（不能真實）的原質(Thing)的層面上的客體』。」(齊澤克 2002:277)依據齊澤克的分析，史大林主義(Stalinism)與毛澤東思想之所以是極權主義，是因為它們把現今的社會等同於社會主義甚至共產主義，將現實當作一個能充分地呈現崇高的一個對象。曼德爾(Ernest Mandel)(1989)在分析「史大林主義現象」時亦有相似的見解。若果我們要確切地理解「史大林主義現象」在蘇聯產生的原因，曼德爾(1989)認為我們就得先承認，在蘇聯，社會主義還根本沒有實現。在史大林式「社會主義」下，它所消滅的僅僅是生產資料私有制，而並非創立了一個無階級(classless)社會。在當時的蘇聯，市場、貨幣、作為鎮壓機器的國家、工廠中的等級制以「不可避免」的理由仍舊被保存，「與其相反的馬克思的觀點卻被當作『空想』被拋到九霄雲外」(曼德爾 1989:82)。因此，當時對史大林主義的容忍乃出於誤認——人們把史大林的極權主義當作社會主義，誤以為社會主義確實可以在一國勝利。除了這種誤認，極權主義力量的恆久泉源還有作為意識形態的犬儒主義(cynicism)。或許，在極權統治下的人們真的深明理想與現實的距離，但他們仍然維持著一面嘗試淹蓋這一距離的面具，而這就是齊澤克(2004:41)為犬儒主義下的定義：「它承認，它考慮到，存在於意識形態普遍性背後的特定的利益，以及意識形態面具和現實之間的距離；但它總是找到保持面具的理由。」然而，無論是何種情況也與「對馬克思主義過份認真」完全答不上嘴。一個很簡單的問題，就足以推翻「極權主義來自對至善的過度認真」的論調。試想想，若果我們真的認真對待馬克思主義所提倡的作為自由人的聯合體的共產主義，對之著緊萬分，我們能容忍「單單我地中國都唔知死左幾多百萬人呀」這一事實而不作反抗嗎？根本不能。我們對這些悲劇的容忍——不論是出自誤認還是犬儒——就是極權主義能量的恆久泉源。我們必須視共產主義為一種永遠也達成不到的目標，同時永遠也承認它與現實社會的距離；這樣，馬克思主義才能真正與極權主義作嚴格的區分。

　　然而，若果我們將共產主義視為永不可觸及的事物，我們不就已經離棄了馬克思主義嗎？齊澤克指出，承認它的不可觸及性正正是我們不斷幹共產主義革命、社會主義運動的絕對條件，「就像交往的最終失敗是迫使我們一直不停地言說的條件（如果我們能夠說出那些我們想直接言說的東西，那麼我們將很快停止言說並永遠閉口）」(齊澤克 2004:92)。拉克勞也有類似的觀點。他認為對共產主義終會實現的許諾的歷史進程的瓦解，並不會使我們墮進虛無主義(Nihilism)的深淵。假設我們正行軍打仗，正在思量敵人會在陸路還是水路進擊，可是我們根本沒有任何確切的情報，但這種不確定性根本不會把我們變得消極被動，它帶來的爭論將會使可能性無限敞開(Laclau 1989:79)。當然，我們在墨非的理論中亦能察覺到相近的見解。墨非雖然反對共同善為基礎的政治共同體的觀念，但她並非完全否定共同善在社會的確立：她「所主張的共同善，在一個國家中並非是實質的，而只是政治共同體的潛在聚焦點。政治共同體的公民在行動時必須不停地回溯到這個點，但是卻永遠不能達到這個點，達到完全一致的實質性的共同善是不可能的。」(陳炳輝 2004:268)在馬克思主義的語境中，這個共同善當然就是共產主義、英特納雄耐爾、或社會主義。承認社會主義、共產主義與現實社會永遠的不可一致性，我們才能釐清它們兩者與極權主義及社群主義的「倫理國家」之間的分野。而共產主義作為這樣一個永遠不能觸及的慾望對象，在齊澤克眼中，它當然就是拉康(Jacques Lacan)所謂的慾望對象成因(objet petit a)。

葛蘭西霸權的再興
　　我們來到了最後的理論問題，即我們如何確立這一共同善的問題。齊澤克認為，墨非所希望在一個多元的、激進的民主社會建立這一個共同善，它只可能是拉康所謂的「縫合點」(point de caption)。「例如，如果我們通過『共產主義』來『縫合』漂浮的能指，『階級鬥爭』就會把一個精確和固定的意義授予所有其他因素：如授予民主（所謂的『真正的民主』，它與作為合法的剝削形式的『資產階級形式民主』截然相對）；如授予女權主義（對於女性的盤剝，是階級條件下的勞動分工的結果）；如授予生態主義（對自然資源的破壞，是以利潤為主導的資本主義生產的邏輯結果）；如授予和平運動（和平的主要危險是冒險主義的帝國主義），等等。」(齊澤克 2002:122)作為縫合點的共產主義，為不同的社會運動——不論生態環保運動、勞工運動、女權性別運動——授予了意義，亦即所有這些社會運動也是我們為著朝向共同的不可能的共產主義的積極嘗試，對於它們我們都必須認真看待。這就是拉克勞與墨非對葛蘭西(Antonio Gramsci)「霸權」(Hegemony)概念的新闡述！若我們將之與第二國際的技術決定論作比較，它的爆炸性會更為突出。在技術決定論者眼中，馬克思主義保證了歷史朝向共產主義理想的發展方向，而只有工人對資本家的階級鬥爭才是真正的鬥爭，它的勝利保證、提供了我們在其他領域的勝利——故此，作為馬克思主義者根本不用理會女權運動、環保運動，因為它們統統只是現象，還應該指責當中的參與者，怒斥他們搞錯了抗爭對象。拉克勞與墨非的爆炸性就在於，他們為所有的馬克思主義者找到他們在多元不同的社會運動中應有的角色，肯定他們在這些運動中的地位，同時亦在多元的民主社會中找到某種總體性(totality)。

　　有那些能指能夠成為多元不同社會運動的縫合點呢？當然是空洞能指(empty signifier)！「當能指與特定的所指脫離時，它經歷的是一種被挖空的過程（即意義的空無化過程），此時，它開始象徵著一個長長的等同的所指鏈條。」(Lacalu 1989:81)「共產主義」、「馬克思主義」就是這樣的空洞能指；然而，辯證地，正正是它們的空洞為所有不同的社會運動授予意義。或許，在這裡，我們會不禁想起許寶強(2009)在《告別犬儒》中對民粹主義(Populism)的批判。依許寶強(2009:xii)的觀點，所謂民粹主義，就是一種通過空洞能指為中介的「接合邏輯」(logic of articulation)，把社會多元的異樣的社會訴求，打造成擁有同一敵人，建立清晰二分的敵我界線。這種敵我區分最典型的例子可謂馬克思的資產階級與無產階級的二分。然而，拉克勞認為所有的政治運動都是或多或少的民粹運動，我們不該區辨一個運動是否民粹，而應該提問：這運動是否意圖讓自身不留下批判與變動的空間(吳昭憲 2006:5)？經後馬克思主義者重新闡釋的馬克思主義很明顯已包含這種自我批判的元素，因為它是一種永遠也認真地執著於理想與現實間距離的政治主張及實踐。

參考書目
吳昭憲。2006。《犬儒主義、主體形構與批判》碩士論文。臺北：東吳大學。最後瀏覽於2010年12月28日。(http://etd.library.scu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search-c/view_etd?URN=etd-0903106-223735)
馬克思。1958a。《馬克思恩格思全集》，第三卷。北京：人民出版社。
_____。1958b。《馬克思恩格思全集》，第四卷。北京：人民出版社。
曼德爾。1989。〈對斯大林主義的新認識〉。收於《從斯大林主義到歐共主義》，頁79-89。臺北：南方叢書。
許寶強。2009。《告別犬儒——香港自由主義的危機》。香港：牛津大學出版社。
陳炳輝。2004。《西方馬克思主義的國家理論》。北京：中央編譯出版社。
曾枝盛。2002。《後馬克思主義》。臺北：揚智文化。
齊澤克。2002。《意識形態的崇高客體》。北京：中央編譯出版社。
_____。2004。〈是階級鬥爭還是後現代主義？是的，請！〉。收於《偶然性、霸權和普遍性》，巴特勒、拉克勞及齊澤克合著，頁88-141。江蘇：江蘇人民出版社。
黃子華。2000。《娛樂圈血肉史》。香港：廣視有限公司。

Bibliography
Althusser, Louis. 2005. “Contradiction and Overdetermination.” Pp.87-128 in For Marx. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal. 1981. “Socialist Strategy, Where Next?” Pp.17-22 in Marxism Today, January.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1989. “Politics and the Limits of Modernity.” Pp.63-82 in Social Text No.21.
Orum, Anthony. 2008. Introduction to Political Sociology: Power and Participation in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, George and Goodman, Douglas J. 2004. Classical Sociological Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Sociology, as a Practice of Ideology

Sociology, as a Practice of Ideology

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Karl Marx (1997)

      The opposition of Ideology, obviously, is Science. Sociology, as an academic discipline which recognizes itself as science – at least, Auguste Comte, who is the inventor of the word "Sociology", defined it as a scientific study of society (Ritzer and Goodman 2004:15), seeking truth, dispelling myths, critique of ideology, of course, are all its academic goals. Nevertheless, what is the meaning of "truth" What does the big word "ideology" actually mean?
      Usually, ideology is defined as "false consciousness", as what Fredric Jameson (2001:275) claimed, "This classic formulation is often regarded as the basic form of Marxist theory of ideology." However, such an understanding would only see ideology merely as the problems of consciousness, or, some kinds of epistemological fallacy; that is, only "teaching" the mass and making them know what the real situation they suffer are sufficient to dispel ideological constraints, for examples, "if the electorate with proper education has the right information, they will automatically make the appropriate choice" (Jameson 2001:277), or, the proletariat would rise up in revolution as long as they know that they are the subject of history. In fact, this kind of understanding which conceptualizes ideology as equivalent to false consciousness is downright idealism. Louis Althusser (2005), who is always admired for his rigorous defense of Marx, asserted that ideology is an organic part of every social totality; from this point, let us return to the classic triangle image of Marx’s social model in some primers of Sociology. In general, in this type of diagram (refer to Macionis 2008:98) , the ideology is located at the highest position; while Althusser (2005) stressed that without this component, human societies cannot survive, the same as all the societies have its own economic infrastructure. "Human societies secrete ideology as the very element and atmosphere indispensable to their historical respiration and life. Only an ideological world outlook could have imagined societies without ideology and accepted the utopian idea of a world in which ideology (not just one of its historical forms) would disappear without trace, to be replaced by science." (Althusser 2005:232) Althusser (1971) insisted that the reproduction of relations of production (or, the Parsonian process of "socialization", which the author always perceives it as an ideological term) is ensured through the law-political and ideological superstructure. According to this definition, another Marxist scholar, Slavoj Žižek, depicted the three dimensions of ideology: ideology in itself, a series of ideas and values; ideology for itself, the ideological state apparatus; and finally, when its operation move into the real social practices, that is, ideology in and for itself. (García and Sánchez 2008) Thus, Žižek (1989) suggested adventurously that the place of ideological illusion is in the "doing" in the reality itself instead of in the "knowing" side, and cynicism is the most common form of ideology nowadays. Just think, since the function of ideology is the reproduction of social relations, when we notice one social relation is not in the right path, but without taking any action to change it, those ideological state apparatuses are still operating properly. Žižek has taken the case of a suffering mother as an example to illustrate the above argument: "[A]ll other members of the family – her husband, her children – exploit her mercilessly; she does all the domestic work and she is of course continually groaning, complaining of how her life is nothing but mute suffering, sacrifice without reward." (Žižek 1989:216) In the case, although the suffering mother realizes the problem of her position in family, and continually keeps on complaining, the ideology still operates normally, since there is no change in the social relations among her family members – she still does all domestic work all the days. "What the poor mother must do, if she wants to liberate herself effectively from this domestic enslavement, is to sacrifice the sacrifice itself – to stop accepting or even actively sustaining the social network (of the family) which confers on her the role of exploited victim." (Žižek 1989:216) Here, Žižek (1989:33) gave a possible definition of cynicism: "They know that, in their activity, they are following an illusion, but still, they are doing it." Now, we finally comprehend that the reason why the term "cynicism" is so hot in the academic field in recent years. For example, our Chief Executive Donald Tsang understand that Hong Kong economy cannot simply depend on the financial industry, but he’s still only proposing "the six economic areas", rarely directly to help disadvantaged groups in Hong Kong; this willful violation, this rupture between knowledge and action, in which the operation is as ideological form of cynicism.
      From this point of view, Sociology is really far away from science, but in the side of ideology. Perhaps, we should return to Comte in certain extent – of course not totally equivalent to Comte – to compare Sociology with natural science, in order to inspect the scientificity of Sociology. Natural science is always coupled with its practical dimension – technology. Technology penetrates into people's daily lives through the development of scientific progress, and thus there is be a great unity between theory and practice in natural science. For instance, the development of physics made a contribution to the invention of satellite, and satellite, in turn, to help physicists to study the space astronomy, finally people's cultural life has greatly changed by satellite. Nevertheless, how about Sociology? Indeed, this kind of intersection between the academic discipline and culture has become less and less, especially for those led by American Sociology. Ben Agger (2007) pointed out that Positivism and quantitative research method are the hegemonies in American Sociology. In his book Public Sociology, he referenced a large number of quantitative studies appeared in the American Sociological Review. These papers are absolute secret writings which are totally divorced from the mass or laypeople, since they are all too difficult, even for those people with a Bachelor’s degree in Sociology, to understand. On the other hand, with the tendency of being value free, scholars are rarely involved in social movements, or direct involvement of civil society (Agger 2007). Then, what about Critical Sociology, which is often regarded as the opposition of such Professional Sociology? Michael Burawoy (2005) described, since the 60s of the last century, the dominant movement of Sociology is towards the left, a marked critical drift (Burawoy 2005); however, the author thinks that this Critical Sociology itself is possibly the best example of cynicism. It is true that Critical Sociologists have their own values, which, in a nutshell, are some kind of social justice, or the stance of pursuit of equal rights; however, as what Burawoy (2005) said, the target audiences of these scholars’ words are mainly in the academic circles. They notice the injustice in society; nevertheless, they rarely directly participate in labor movements, neighborhood associations, human rights organizations, women's groups to promote social change – a cynical rupture between theory and practice.
      After illustrated the current trend in Sociology, let us go back to Comte and Émile Durkheim, who are always considered as the origins of Positivist Sociology. Many people think that Comte’s earlier theories are much more important than those of his later thoughts which are about his vision of the future, since they are just laughable and ridiculous ideas (Ritzer et al 2004:99); quite the contrary, the author sees his later thoughts make a much greater contribution to Sociology than his earlier. According to his later thoughts, we can see that Comte did not merely theorize but also systematized the practice of life in his utopian society of Positivism. In Comte’s eyes, Positivism should be combined with morality, "[t]hus Positivism becomes, in the true sense of the word, a Religion; the only religion which is real and complete; destines therefore to replace all imperfect and provisional systems resting on the primitive basis of Theology", and Comte saw himself as the pontiff of such Positive Religion (Ritzer et al 2004). On the other hand, we can also perceive a certain sort of emancipatory project in Durkheim’s theory. Durkheim suggested that, in order to deal with the problem of anomie, we need to build up a new integrative morality through occupational association (Orum 2008:69-70; Ritzer et al 2004:191). Hence, we should totally reject Jürgen Habermas’ typology of knowledge. First, we should bear in mind that this typology is just a categorization of knowledge into mainly three types: empirical-analytic, hermeneutic, and critical (Turner 2003:211-3); nevertheless, they’re all mere ideal types, which means, we cannot find any pure empirical-analytic or other types of knowledge in the real world. Indeed, as mentioned above, even in the tradition of Positivism, what Habermas classified as empirical-analytic knowledge, also has certain emancipatory characteristic, which should be only possessed by critical theory according to his typology. Second, the reason why Habermas opposed the domination of empirical-analytic knowledge is that, he thought the interest of this type of knowledge make us only see the world, even people, as an object which can be manipulated; while, by emphasis on communicative action, an intersubjectively shared life-world can be revived, because communicative action is possible only when participants see others as acting subjects (Turner 2003). However, the problem is not that we see the world as an object for us to manipulate, instead, we do not involve in manipulation of the world according to our social theories – we never take our own sociological theories seriously. In Habermas’ eyes, there is no cynicism in the world, since, as what Turner (2003:215) suggested, one of the features of his undistorted communication is that, expressions, actions, and gestures are noncontradictory.
      In fact, every behavior, even mere verbal argument, must have its performative dimension. Yet, what is nowadays Sociology actually practicing? The author believes that a certain vulgar sort of integration between Habermas and Micheal Foucault may help us to grasp the current practice of Sociology. In the post-modern context, truth is the most effective lie in affirming will to power, thus, universal truth should be replaced by a multitude of perspectives, or, of narratives, that means, truth is just what different people talk about their own stories, so the only ethical requirement is to ensure and guarantee a neutral space, in which different words, narratives can co-exist (Žižek 2002). Sociology is such a neutral space (although with the hegemony of Professional Positivism), a place for "communicative action", in which there is no truth. It is no wonder that many people replace the tail "y" of the word "Sociology" by "ies". It shows that Sociology is really a loyal sustainer of today Liberal Capitalism. Sociology, as one of the components of the capitalist system, by playing the role of being a space for the flourishing of words, has sufficiently proved that Capitalism is indeed very free – the system has a capacity to accommodate those remarked statements, which are against the current system, could be freely issued, but, do nothing further in changing the system. Perhaps we should review Vladimir Lenin famous motto, "There is no abstract truth; truth is always concrete", in order to grasp a (new) understanding of truth – truth can be only obtained in social practice; otherwise, Sociology would be mere ideology forever. However, we must make a strict distinction between what the author really demanded and the Pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping as the motto of "Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth". The former, same as the Organic Public Sociology described by Burawoy (2005), is a reflective knowledge, which always questions the present-day society and the premised value of Capitalism, and actively involves in the civil society at the same time.
      Now, let us re-stretch the moral nature of Sociology! Sociologists should actively engage in changing human society, "searching for order in the broken fragments of modernity, seeking to salvage the promise of progress". As Burawoy said, arousing Sociology, so that it can once again become Walter Benjamin’s "Angel of History" (Burawoy 2005)!
Bibliography
Agger, Ben. 2007. Public Sociology: From Social Facts to Literary Acts. 2nd Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Althusser, Louis. 1971. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Pp.127-86 in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
_____. 2005. "Marxism and Humanism." Pp.219-48 in For Marx. London: Verso.
Burawoy, Michael. 2005. "For Public Sociology." Pp.4-28 in American Sociological Review 70.1.
García, George I. et al. 2008. "Psychoanalysis and politics: the theory of ideology in Slavoj Žižek." International Journal of Žižek Studies 2.3.
Jameson, Fredric. 2001. Hou Xian Dai Zhu Yi Yu Wen Hua Li Lun (Postmodernism and Theories of Culture). Taipei: He Zhi Wen Hua.
Macionis, John J. 2008. Sociology. 12th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
Marx, Karl. 1997. "Theses on Feuerbach." Pp.104-6 in German socialist philosophy, edited by Wolfgang Schirmacher. New York: Continuum.
Orum, Anthony. 2008. Introduction to Political Sociology: Power and Participation in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, George et al. 2004. Classical Sociological Theory. 4th Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, Jonathan H. 2003. The Structure of Sociological Theory. 7th Edition. Belmont, California: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Žižek, Slavoj. 1989. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.
_____. 2002. "A Plea for Leninist Intolerance." Pp.542-66 in Critical Inquiry 28.2.

Supplementary Note on "Sociology as a Practice of Ideology"

      After the discussion with my paper instructor, Dr. Day Wong, there are several points required to be further clarified.
      The author must admit that the theoretic backgrounds of Žižek, Althusser, Burawoy and Comte are different – actually, we cannot find any theorist whose theoretic background is almost equivalent to one another. However, there should be some kind of affinity among them; otherwise, the author cannot reference to them at the same time in order to support one single argument, i.e. Sociology is a practice of ideology. From the author’s point of view, Althusser can be perceived as a point de caption, i.e. nodal point, to link up all these theorists. In other words, we can "quilt" the floating signifiers – in that time, they are the names of these theorists – through "Althusser". (1)
      In the beginning of the paper, the author suggested a binary opposition between science and ideology. The author admits this statement is not a consensus in Western Marxism. For example, Marcuse treated science as ideology in his great thesis One-dimensional Man. However, such distinction between science and ideology is not mere an idea dreamed out by the author. Instead, we can trace this division back to Comte. According to Comte’s law of three stages, society would pass through three stages in the process of social evolution, namely, the Theological, the Metaphysical, and the Positive. The implication of this theory is that, we can categorize the evolution of society in to several stages, which are qualitatively distinct from each other. Therefore, Positivism is formed in a rupture with Metaphysics. From this point, Bachelard, who was a French scientific philosopher, suggested a notion of "epistemological break", "that is the thesis that all sciences are formed in a break with ideological knowledge." (Gane 2006:139) This concept was then adopted by Althusser to divide Marx’s academic career into two stages, namely Young Marx and Mature Marx. Althusser suggested that Marx created a new science after he thoroughly said good bye to Hegelian Idealism and other German ideologies. It is the reason why Althusser (2005:25) awarded Comte as the only French philosopher that was worthy of interest in 19th Century. (2)
      Although the form of opposition between science and ideology is come from Althusser, the content of, the definition of science asserted by the author is not equivalent to him. In Althusser’s point of view, science is mere a theoretical practice; while the author think that science should be a theoretical practice plus teleological or revolutionary practice. (3) First, we should elucidate the concept of "practice". As a Marxist, Althusser defined practice same as what Marx called "labor". Practice in general means "any process of transformation of determinate given raw material into a determinate product, a transformation effected by a determinate human labor, using determinate means (of ‘production’)". (Althusser 2005:166) The author agrees with this definition. For instances, in scientific theoretical practice, theorists transform some ideological notions (subject of labor, object of knowledge) into scientific knowledge (product) by using of dialectical materialism (means of labor); while social activists transform a certain kind of social relations to another in revolutionary practice. After compared Sociology with natural science, the author suggested that Sociology should combine theoretical (theory) and revolutionary (practice) practices together, so that it can become a science. The object of knowledge of natural science, simply speaking, is the nature, which is the same as object it wanted to manipulate. In Sociology, the object of knowledge of course is social relations. Then, what we must do is revolutionary practice, changing social relations.
      Now, we should understand why Žižek (1989) regarded cynicism is a form of ideology. Since ideology is defined as an organic part of every social totality and its function is guarantee of the reproduction of social relations, we should combine theoretical and revolutionary practice together in order to dispel ruling ideology.
      Finally, we must bear in mind that not all the transformation of social relations is revolutionary. For example, government officers also actively participate in such transformation. Nevertheless, Burawoy’s (2005) typology of sociology can help us to deal with this problem. For those Sociologists who work with the state are call Policy Sociologists. They are totally different from Organic Public Sociologists, who are actively engage in social movements. In Hong Kong, the former is Lau Siu-kai, while latter may be Chan Sze-chi – however, the official title of Chan Sze-chi is not Sociologist.
Annotation
(1) But this does not mean that the paper is just under the tradition of Althusserian Marxism.
(2) Obviously, the contribution of Comte should be more than that. Comte perceived just an "epistemological break" is not sufficient to ensure the advent of Positive Society, thus he insisted Positivism should be combine with morality to build up a Positive Religion. From this, the author notices Comte actually understood the importance of ideology as an indispensable component to society for social reproduction.
(3) It is true that Althusser (2005:171) saw some kind of relationship between theoretical and theological practices: "Theoretical practice produces knowledge which can then figure as means that will serve the ends of a technical practice." However, the term "science" is always only used to describe theoretical practice in his works. This would be a weakness in his theory. When he defined ideology as a mechanism which ensures social reproduction and science as a mere theoretical practice, science is not an opposition of ideology. It is because the categories of "ideology" and "science" are not mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
Bibliography
Althusser, L. 2005. For Marx. London: Verso.
Burawoy, M. 2005. "For Public Sociology." Pp.4-28 in American Sociological Review 70.1.
Gane, M. 2006. Auguste Comte. New York: Routledge.
Žižek, S. 1989. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.