学术抄袭背后的思想争鸣——列斐伏尔与德波之争及其思想史意蕴  

Thought Contention behind Academic Plagiarism: Disputes between Lefebvre and Debord and Its Theoretical Meanings

作　　者：刘冰菁 Liu Bingjing

机构地区：[1]南京大学马克思主义学院

出　　处：《江海学刊》2020年第2期68-75,254,共9页Jianghai Academic Journal

基　　金：江苏省社科基金项目“基于最新文献的居伊·德波哲学思想研究”(项目号:19ZXC002);中国博士后科学基金资助项目“西方马克思主义理论嬗变中的德波哲学思想研究”(项目号:2018M640476)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：列斐伏尔与德波的学术关系如何、两人是否由于抄袭问题而决裂,一直是研究列斐伏尔、德波的学者难以分辨的思想史难题。列斐伏尔与德波能够超越个人的巨大差异、成为紧密合作的学术创作和革命行动的同伴,是因为两人同属于法国战后日常生活批判的思想潮流。列斐伏尔将德波视为乌托邦的日常生活革命的现实化身,德波也将列斐伏尔看作是将艺术活动转变为政治行动的思想同路人和革命指引者。而两人最终走向陌路,表面上是由于德波发难列斐伏尔抄袭,但实则根源自两人在行动主体和组织策略上的分歧。最终,他们的分道扬镳,象征着法国马克思主义特别是日常生活批判潮流,无法兑现对资本主义的总体超越,透露出了反生产叙事的后马克思思潮症候而走向了逻辑终结。The personal and academic relations between Lefebvre and Debord have always been a core difficult problem in the intellectual history. That Lefebvre and Debord have once transcended the great individual differences and yet become close cooperating partners in academic creation and revolutionary action, was because they all devoted themselves to the critique of everyday life in post-war France. Lefebvre regarded Debord as the real embodiment of revolution, and Debord also regarded Lefebvre as a theoretical and revolutionary guide who first called for the transformation from artistic activities into political actions. But eventually they became stranger. On the surface, it was because Debord’s Situational International accused Lefebvre of plagiarism, but in fact it was rooted in their different conceptions of action subject and organizational strategy. Eventually, their end-up symbolizes that the French Marxism, could not realize its overall transcendence of capitalist, and revealed that the symptoms of post-marxist thought which was anti-production narrative finally moved towards its end.

关 键 词：列斐伏尔 德波 日常生活批判 日常生活革命 法国马克思主义 

分 类 号：B565.59[哲学宗教—外国哲学]