世足賽特輯之一：Soccer is a religion?

常常聽到很多人說，意識形態的時代已經結束了，而我們現在活在一個「後意識形態」的時代裡。這究竟是什麼意思呢？

舉例來說，在世足賽期間，我的Facebook好友們大多都對世足賽抱著一個有些矛盾的態度：他們一方面相當關心從世足賽所衍生出來的種種政經社會問題，並且積極思考、批判、或轉貼與其相關的跨國資本主義剝削或國家暴力等議題及報導; 然而在另一方面，同樣的這一批人每到了半夜卻也依然興高采烈地（即使可能略帶罪惡感）熬夜關注每一場球賽，為自己支持的球員或球隊由衷地喝彩或歎息。換句話說，即使在心底深處其實大家都非常清楚世足賽這個東西根本是非常有問題的（FIFA是一個很恐怖的跨國營利組織、光鮮亮麗的球賽外表下是對巴西底層人民的迫害、是龐大資本和慾望的流動 etc.），然而到了最後，這些知識卻也改變不了任何事情：某種莫名的慾望還是逼著大家想看球賽得不得了而毫無抵抗之力. . .

而這正是我們剛剛所謂「後意識形態」時代特徵的一種體現：公共政策的的施行和人們的行為舉止皆逐漸與思想的意識形態脫節。簡單來說，如同後現代理論裡所謂上帝、信仰、與真理的死亡，現在再也沒有人真正相信他們所講的東西; 而每當面對意識形態時，我們早已不像Marx講的那樣可以完全陷入其中而不自覺（"Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es" ["they do not know it, but they are doing it"]）。相對地，Žižek 所說的"fetish disavowal"（或Peter Sloterdijk所講的"cynical reason"）似乎是更貼切的描述: 'They know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it!"

以最近廣為流傳的 "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: FIFA and the World Cup" 為例，影片中John Oliver的立場（例如他真正開場的第一句話："The Wolrd Cup starts this week, and I'm both excited and extremely conflicted about it"）不就是一個fetish disavowal的最好例子嗎？也因此我們就不意外為什麼經過影片中種種對FIFA和世足精闢又幽默地批判後，他最後依然只能得到一個虎頭蛇尾的結論: 我當然知道FIFA和世界杯很糟，但我以及世界上許多人們還是愛足球愛得不得了，因為足球就是一種宗教，而這是誰也無可奈何也實在沒有任何解決方法的！而假使我們再認真想ㄧ想的話，事實上不只發生在世足，其實日常生活中的每分每秒我們都不斷地在複製類似的fetish disavowal的行為模式：我當然知道吃太多麥當勞會死人，但我仍然離不開它; 我當然知道下載歌曲是偷竊，但我還是繼續在載歌; 我當然知道全球暖化即將毀滅地球，但我仍然還在吹冷氣; 我當然知道死刑理論上沒有嚇阻效果也更花錢，但我還是不覺得它應該被廢除; 我當然知道各種廣告和男性雜誌就是對女體的商品化和剝削，但我還是持續消費它們; 我當然知道以色列根本上就是霸佔領土的殖民者，但我好像還是覺得以巴之間的紛爭就是很複雜沒有任何解決之道; 我當然知道資本主義已經失去控制，但我仍然必須生活在這個體制裡. . .

到這裡我們應該可以看到fetish disavowal幾乎就是當代各種社會抗爭與奮鬥最後碰到的死胡同所在。那麼面對它我們究竟應該抱持著甚麼樣的態度？有沒有任何改變或超克的可能呢（即使機會再怎麼微乎其微）？回到John Oliver的影片來看，我真正想要質疑的是，難道我們的分析一定得停留在「FIFA」（這個販賣而敗壞足球的邪惡組織）和「足球本身」（這個單純、神聖、宗教般的運動）這樣的二分法，因此依然困在fetish disavowal這個死胡同裡嗎？我的意思是，有沒有可能我們再進一步地去質疑說，其實所謂資本主義的剝削和暴力從來就不僅僅只屬於FIFA這個組織，而是根本就內在於足球這個運動以及我們對它的慾望本身，而所有我們對於其球隊、球員、甚或球賽的熱愛本身根本上就是一個不自然的、被建構出來的現象（特別是台灣的球迷：如果說世足參賽國的人民被激起的民族主義尚可勉強稱得上是一種純樸的情感，則很遺憾的我必須說台灣球迷的熱情背後除了資本、imago、和慾望的共舞外，我實在很難再找到太多其他的東西. . .）？

從這個觀點看來，"Soccer is a religion" 這句話不但不應該像在John Oliver的分析裡ㄧ樣，是一個可以解釋一切終點; 相對地，這件事情本身就是一個需要被質疑、挑戰、批判、和詮釋的東西。更精確一點來說，如果我們（憤世嫉俗一點）說宗教其實就是一種意識形態 par excellence，那麼"Soccer is a religion"這句話豈不恰恰揭露了我們今天的足球賽（或繼續延伸下去：當代資本主義）正是一種完全的意識形態的表達與展現？所以意識形態的時代真的結束了嗎？我的答案恐怕是否定的。唯一不同的只是它對我們的宰制早已從知識層面轉移到無意識的慾望所推動的行為層面上去了。而單單只因為我們自己對這樣子的意識形態反抗的無能實在不代表意識形態本身的終結; 事實上，我們幫自己所處的世界取個「後意識形態時代」這個動作本身正是一個全面宰制而無所不包的資本主義意識形態到來的最好表徵。而這也正是為什麼要越過fetish disavowal、超克這無意義、無意識、卻無所不包的意識形態這麼困難的原因：我們真的唯有從自己的慾望本身開始著手起。就像Kafka在«審判»裡所寫的，所謂的法律之門從來就只是為了每個存有「法的真理」的幻想的人們建構和設計的，我們也必須發現自己感覺再自然、再真實也不過的慾望也是一整個綿密的系統（媒體、資本、語言 etc.）專為我們建築出來的。而到頭來在慾望客體的背後往往沒有其他，就只是我們自己投射出來的空乏和虛無罷了。

"Experiment" by Fredric Brown

"THE FIRST time machine, gentlemen," Professor Johnson proudly informed his two colleagues. "True, it is a small-scale experimental model. It will operate only on objects weighing less than three pounds, five ounces and for distances into the past and future of twelve minutes or less. But it works."

The small-scale model looked like a small scale—a postage scale—except for two dials in the part under the platform.

Professor Johnson held up a small metal cube. "Our experimental object," he said, "is a brass cube weighing one pound, two point three ounces. First, I shall send it five minutes into the future."

He leaned forward and set one of the dials on the time machine. "Look at your watches," he said.

They looked at their watches. Professor Johnson placed the cube gently on the machine's platform. It vanished.

Five minutes later, to the second, it reappeared.

Professor Johnson picked it up. "Now five minutes into the past." He set the other dial. Holding the cube in his hand he looked at his watch. "It is six minutes before three o'clock. I shall now activate the mechanism—by placing the cube on the platform—at exactly three o'clock. Therefore, the cube should, at five minutes before three, vanish from my hand and appear on the platform, five minutes before I place it there."

"How can you place it there, then?" asked one of his colleagues.

"It will, as my hand approaches, vanish from the platform and appear in my hand to be placed there. Three o'clock. Notice, please."

The cube vanished from his hand.

It appeared on the platform of the time machine.

"See? Five minutes before I shall place it there, it is there!"

His other colleague frowned at the cube. "But," he said, "what if, now that it has already appeared five minutes before you place it there, you should change your mind about doing so and not place it there at three o'clock? Wouldn't there be a paradox of some sort involved?"

"An interesting idea," Professor Johnson said. "I had not thought of it, and it will be interesting to try. Very well, I shall not …"

There was no paradox at all. The cube remained.

But the entire rest of the Universe, professors and all, vanished.

(Copied from the Project Gutenberg Ebook of Two Timer, by Fredric Brown)

暴力作為病徵：2014北捷隨機殺人事件為例

從捷運隨機殺人事件後，大眾媒體和許多民眾的反應不外乎以下兩者：

第一，拚命為兇手尋找犯案動機並賦予整件事情一個解釋（犯案是因為打太多電玩、家裡缺乏溫暖和愛、反社會情節 etc.)。這樣子的反應其實並不難理解。當災禍發生，人們很自然地會為其尋找意義，這是一種防衛機制：因為真正絕對的恐懼往往就是體現在那些無法被賦予意義、無法被解釋的東西身上; 它們無法被捉摸或臆測，並且不須任何理由地隨時隨地都有可能出現，也因此就像猶太教的上帝一樣：幾乎是一種無限卻恐怖而盲目的存有。

第二種觀點則傾向說鄭捷完全是一個太極端而特例的個案：他出生到死的目的可能只是為了要破壞和殺人，因此難以被詮釋，更不需被納入死刑存廢與否的討論。乍看之下，這兩種反應似乎是南轅北轍：一個積極地為案件尋找意義，將其納入社會體制的詮釋運作; 而另一則宣布兇手作為一個體是完全只是某種突變，因此可以直接被排除在社會之外。但在這裡我想指出以上兩種反應所分享的一個共通點：某種程度上來說它們都致力於迅速消解鄭捷及其行為在這社會上的某種特殊性(particularity)甚至是代表性：前者利用詮釋運作將其內包以成為體制內定義的一部份，因此將其固定而不至於動搖整個社會的組織及信仰; 而後者則直接將其與社會切割，乾脆地將它拋擲於社會此ㄧ想像空間之外--彷彿我們一心想趕緊將他處理掉，深怕他所代表著的某種深層意義會揭露我們所不願面對的真相似的。於是在這裡我想問的是，是不是我們可以提出一個類似折衷但有別於以上兩者的第三條路：也就是說，我們肯定鄭捷此ㄧ案例的特殊性，但並不將他割除於社會之外，而是仍將其置於社會脈絡的某個節點上; 更精確一點來說，將其視為這社會的一個「病徵」(symptom)。

所謂「病徵」，我引用的是Žižek在The Sublime Object of Ideology一書中試圖解釋反猶太情節為什麼在納粹德國造成如此大迴響和力量的理論。以Žižek的觀點看來，我們當然都知道納粹的法西斯主義在意識形態的意義層面是如何運作的：利用一連串的移置(displacement)與凝縮(condensation)將佔據經濟上優勢地位的猶太人塑造成為造就整個社會在經濟（猶太人作為既得利益者）、政治（猶太人作為權力幕後的黑手）、道德宗教（猶太人作為腐敗的反基督者）等種種層面上矛盾及分裂的根源。然而他所提出的問題是，單單如此我們依然無法完滿解釋反猶太主義如何激起如此巨大的慾望和情緒：因此我們其實更需要去考慮這些意義是如何進入我們幻想(fantasy)和慾望的深層結構裏而取得無意識的情感支持的。

某種角度來說，其實「社會」本身從來就是一個充滿種種根本矛盾的集合：充滿異質性、剝削、權力切割、慾望橫流. . .而無法被單純的階級、種族等狹隘概念來概括解釋。直截了當地說，「社會」根本上就必然是矛盾而分裂的--其作為一個同質性的完滿整體從來就是一個幻想。然而這種社會集體性的幻想對一戰後一蹶不振的納粹德國來說卻是至關緊要的。那麼，法西斯作為一意識形態究竟該當如何維持此一幻想，並化解社會集體慾望與現實間的差距呢？在這個情況下，外來又佔據重要政經地位的猶太人正好可以作為替罪羔羊了。所以以這個角度來說，猶太人不但不是造成社會分裂動蕩的根本原因，他們反而是社會本身種種根本矛盾正面體現的節點。猶太人，簡單來說，是一個病徵，是法西斯極權體制的集體社會幻想之「不可能」的一種實現，也因此必須被切除。

繞了這麼大一圈回過頭來看，難道我們沒有在這次的捷運隨機殺人事件發現類似的意識形態幻想的運作嗎？當然我這麼說的意思絕不是說猶太人和鄭捷及其行為可以從任何方面等量齊觀; 我的重點是，難道不正是因為整個台灣社會作為一個安寧和平的整體之假象在此一事件中被徹底揭露（注意捷運此一地點不僅在每個人的日常生活中具有切身性，其在意識形態運作中的也有深沉的象徵意義：整個所謂「捷客文化」的安全、有序、關懷、禮讓、「台北最美的風景」之建構的摧毀），所以才造成如此大的憤怒、恐懼與不安？難道不正是我們社會的賴以生存的「正義」、「民主法治」等意識形態的幻想在此一事件中被無情地戳破，所以人們才下意識地迅速試圖消解此一事件作為病徵的獨特性及代表性？

要超克意識形態的幻想，我們首先必須鼓起勇氣肯認「病徵」正是整個社會深層結構問題浮上台面的表現。就像Foucault必須從監獄看見規訓社會及權力-知識結構逐漸形成的過程，或者Freud和Lacan必須從精神病患者們身上解開人們在社會及形象界形成意識主體及慾望發展的過程，鄭捷的捷運隨機殺人事件也必須被放回社會的脈絡，作為一個「病徵」來處理。能做到這點，我們才能體認到也許國家機器的殺人比捷運上的殺人更隨機、更殘忍; 我們才開始質疑以「正義」、「法治」之名執行的死刑作為ㄧ解決問題之道是否不過雙重意識形態幻想的自我欺瞞; 我們才能看見大眾文化及媒體中性別的霸凌其實比肉體上的霸凌更暴力而絕對; 然後我們才赫然發現跨國資本主義的合法偷竊也可能是社會上無數的犯罪和動亂之根源。

Quotes from Sleeper (1973)

— Miles: "What do you mean destroyed? By desetr— What do you mean destroyed?"

Dr. Aragon: "Your brain will be electronically simplified."

Miles: "My brain? That's my second favourite organ!"

— Luna: "What's it feel like to be dead for 200 years?"

Miles: "It's like spending a weekend in Beverly Hills."

— Miles: "Do I believe in God? I am what you call a teleological existential atheist. I believe that there is an intelligence in the universe, with the exception of certain parts of New Jersey."

— Luna: "Do you wanna perform sex with me?"

Miles: "Perform sex? Uh, uh, I don't think I'm up to a performance, but I'll rehearse with you, if you like."

Luna: "Okay. I just thought you might want to; they have a machine here."

Miles: "Machine? I'm not getting into that thing. I, I'm strictly a hand operator, you know; I . . . I don't like anything with moving parts that are not my own."

Luna: "It's hard to believe that you haven't had sex for two hundred years."

Miles: "Two hundred and four, if you count my marriage."

— Luna: "But Miles, don't you see? Meaningful relationships between men and women don't last-- that was proven by science. You see, there's a chemical in our bodies that makes it so that we all get on each other's nerves sooner or later."

Miles: "Hey, that's science. I don't believe in science. I'm . . . I'm . . . you know, science is an intellectual dead end, you know. It's a number of guys in tweed suits cutting up frogs on foundation grants and—"

Luna: "Oh I see. You don't believe in science, and you also don't believe that political systems work, and, you don't believe in God, huh?"

Miles: "Right."

Luna: "So then, what do you believe in?

Miles: "Sex and death-- two things that come once in my lifetime . . . but at least after death, you're not nauseous."

— Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman, Sleeper (1973)

〈浪費〉

在鮮血汩汩流出的瞬間
你突然發現一種美：
那是火焰，燃燒衛生紙以成詩篇
比藍更憂鬱，比黑更絕對。

然而你慢慢開始感到恐懼：
你發覺自己正大量大量地失去
於是明白我們真正害怕的從來不是血液—
而是給予。

就像曾貪婪爬滿日記網誌的空洞誓言
就像激烈運動後漫佈床邊的衛生紙屑
就像無數在深夜為愛人偷偷流下的眼淚
那些永遠百無聊賴的星期六下午流逝的時間—

「多麼浪費，」你說
「又多美。」

"The Black Sheep" by Italo Calvino

There was a country where they were all thieves.

At night everybody would leave home with skeleton keys and shaded lanterns and go and burgle a neighbour’s house. They’d get back at dawn, loaded, to find their their own house had been robbed.

So everybody lived happily together, nobody lost out, since each stole from the other, and that other from another again, and so on and on until you got to a last person who stole from the first. Trade in the country inevitably involved cheating on the parts both from the buyer and the seller. The government is a criminal organization that stole from its subjects, and the subjects for the part were only interested in defrauding the government. Thus life went on smoothly, nobody was rich and nobody was poor.

One day, how we don’t know, it so happened that an honest man came to live in the place. At night, instead of going out with his sack and his lantern, he stayed home to smoke and read novels.

The thieves came, saw the light on and didn’t go in.

This went on for a while: then they were obliged to explain to him that even he wanted to live without doing anything, it was not reason to stop others from doing things. Every night he spent at home meant a family would have nothing to eat the following day.

The honest man could hardly object to such reasoning. He took to going out in the evening and coming back the following morning like they did, but he didn’t steal. He was honest, there was nothing you could do about it. He went as far as the bridge and watched the water flow by beneath. When he got home he found he had been robbed.

In less than a week the honest man found himself penniless, he had nothing to eat and his house was empty. But this was hardly a problem, since it was his own fault; no, the problem was that his behaviour upset everyone else. Because he let the others steal everything he had without stealing anything from anybody; so there was always someone who got home at dawn to found their house untouched: the house he should have robbed. In any event after a while the ones who weren’t being robbed found themselves richer than the others and didn’t want to steal any more. To make matters worse, the ones who came to steal from the honest man’s house found it was always empty; so they became poor.

Meanwhile, the ones who had become rich got into the honest man’s habit of going to the bridge at night to watch the water flow by beneath. This increased the confusion because it meant lots of others became rich and lots of others became poor.

Now, the rich people saw that if they went to the bridge every night they’d soon be poor. And they thought: ‘Let’s pay some of the poor to go and rob for us.’ They made contracts, fixed salaries, personages: they were still thieves of course, and they still try to swindle each other. But, as tends to happen, the rich got richer and richer and the poor got poorer and poorer.

Some of the rich people got so rich that they didn’t need to steal or have others steal for them so as to stay rich. But if they stopped stealing they would get poor because the poor stole from them. So they paid the very poorest of the poor to defend the property from the other poor, and that meant setting up a police force and building prisons.

So it was that only a few years after the appearance of the honest man, people no longer spoke of robbing and being robbed, but only of the rich and of the poor; but they were still all thieves.

The only honest man had been the one at the beginning, and he died in very short order, of hunger.

(Copied from Tim Parks' translation of Numbers in the Dark [1996])

I can almost see you.

一根煙的死亡換來你的重生

一瓶酒的乾涸止了你的渴

一條路的盡頭開展向兩側

而我就快看不見你了

一首歌的時間也許讓你懺悔

一本書的封面仍沾滿了灰

一句話再怎麼溫柔而絕對

而我就快看不見你了

消失在黑暗裡面的也許從沒有實體

它是一種過度思念過度的自我催眠

莫非我愛著的你讓我純粹，讓我

自戀自悲自練自卑自鍊自背-

自我陶醉（自尊心作祟？）

但我就快看不見你了...