{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5","title":"帝国：全球化的政治秩序","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787214049100","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5","id":"6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5","uuid":"6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5","title":"帝国：全球化的政治秩序","normalized_title":"帝国全球化的政治秩序","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787214049100","isbns":["9787214049100"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":416,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E5%B8%9D%E5%9B%BD%EF%BC%9A%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8C%96%E7%9A%84%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E7%A7%A9%E5%BA%8F","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/6501a938-d72c-455e-aee4-85513a77faa5/search"},"page":{"printed_page":30,"pdf_page":48,"physical_index":48,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"087a1b8be90fac30ef088670668e0ae3536e267aaced2495e2657e2136afad93"},"chapter":"第二章 生态政治生产","content":"与福柯不同，德勒兹和瓜塔里则向我们展示了对生态权力的严格意义上的后结构主义式理解，这种理解更新了唯物主义思想，将自身坚实地建立在社会存在的生产这一问题上。他们的著述使得结构主义以及一切哲学、社会学、政治学概念不再神秘，这些概念使得认识论框架的稳定性成为了不可避免的参照点。他们把我们的关注清晰地聚焦到社会生产的本体内容之上—机器生产。各种社会机器以各种各样的机构和各种各样的组合，一刻不停地完成它们的职能，生产出世界，同时也生产出构成了这个世界的主体与客体。然而，德勒兹和瓜塔里似乎只能肯定地构想出不停运动和绝对流动的趋向，因此在他们的思想之中，社会生产的创造性成分和激进本体论依旧无足轻重、软弱无力。德勒兹和瓜塔里发现了社会再生产的生产能力(创造性生产、价值的生产以及社会关系、社会情感、社会未来发展的生产)，但他们的表述仅仅触及了现象的表面，把这种能力描绘成一个混乱的、充满不确定性，由不可把握的事件标出的疆界。①\n\n政治学前沿系列·帝国\n\n①参阅 Henri Lefebvre 的专著L'ideologie structuraliste(Paris: Anthropos, 1971), Gilles De-leuze 的文章“A quoi reconnait-on le structuralisme?”，该文收录在 François Châtelet 主编的八卷本 Historie de la philosophie(Paris:Hachette,1972)中。读者也可参阅 Fredric Jameson的专著 The Prison-House of Language(Princeton:Princeton University Press,1972)。\n\n②1977年，在一封私人信件中，Deleuze正式阐述了他同Foucault的不同，而两人的根本分歧点最终也正是归结到这样一个生产问题上。Deleuze更喜欢用“欲望”这个词，而不是Fou-cault所用的“快乐”。他解释说，因为“欲望”一词抓住了社会现实生产的实在的、主动的动力，而“快乐”则是惰性的、被动的。\n\n30","previous_page":29,"next_page":31}