文化與高級文化：摧毀還是創造？Culture and high culture: destruction or creation?

 

文：靈能主義者 Scroll down for English Version

1923年，俄國革命後不久，托洛茨基便寫下了《文學與革命》這部作品，他影響了魯迅的文藝觀，同時啟發了西方馬克思主義在文化領域的探索。裡面有一句話是這樣的：

「每一個統治階級都創造自己的文化，因而也創造自己的藝術。歷史上出現過東方的和古希臘羅馬的奴隸制文化、歐洲中世紀的封建文化以及現在統治著世界的資產階級文化。」

《文學與革命》托洛茨基 (2005)

然而，文化又是什麼？究竟當前的社會是否存在一種資產階級文化？資產階級文化又是否一種「高級文化」？這一連串的問題並不容易解答，畢竟「文化(Culture)」一字在英文世界裡其中一個有著最為複雜概念的文字了。葛蘭西 (2007) 在《獄中札記》曾寫道：「哲學同哲學史不可分割，文化同文化史同樣不可分割。人們如果沒有歷史觀的歷史性，沒有意識到這種世界觀所代表的發展階段以及它同其他世界觀或其要素矛盾的這一事實，那麼在最直接和本質的意義上，就不能成為哲學家。」那麼要解答這一系列的問題，成為哲學家，我們便應先從「文化(Culture)」一字的發展歷史來理解文化。

「文化」的歷史

正如社會學其他的概念一般，文化概念的歷史是從啟蒙年代開始的。這個歷史我們可以從雷蒙．威廉 (2015) 的《關鍵字：文化與社會的詞彙》中得以一窺：從最初「（文化） (Cultura)是一個表示『過程』(Process) 的名詞，意指對某物的照料。」直接到16世紀初「照料動植物」被衍生到「人類的發展過程」。18世紀伊始，「文化」開始演變成兩種概念（一）「civilized （有禮貌） 與 cultivated（有教養）的」和（二）啟蒙時代的歷史學家中提出的一種普遍的歷史觀(Universal Histories)——文明(civilization) 在法國大革命的浪潮下，這兩者之間有著巨大的張力，一個是屬於封建貴族的「教養」，一個是屬於「整個文明」的歷史精神。同時在這段浪漫主義時代，約翰·戈特弗里德·赫爾德(1791)中提出「文化」一字應是複數單位，相較於「文明（civilisation）」，「文化」用來強調國家的文化以及傳統文化，包括「庶民文化(Folk Culture)」（其包含著對新興工業文明 (Mechanical) 無人情味 (inhumanity) 的批判）。直到19世紀，文化 (Culture) 被認為是物質 (Material) 的，而文明 (Civilisation) 則是精神 (Spirit) 的。而在當代，文化 (Culture) 在社會科學中，特別是文化研究、社會學、人類學和考古學中的意義均有不同，考古學和人類學說到文化時，往往強調的是「（文化）物質的生產」而社會學和文化研究則更為強調文化作為「表意的(Signifying)」和「象徵的(Symbolic)」體系。

整理一次文化的歷史發展，我們可以發現，「定義文化的方法」的大體有三大類：

• 獨立、抽象的名詞：這個用法自封建貴族階層而來，用來描述十八世紀以來思想、精神與美學發展的一般過程(Process)。

• 獨立的名詞：這個用法自浪漫主義浪潮而來，用來表示一種獨特的生活方式，這種生活方式可以是關於一個民族、一個時期、一個群體、或全體人類的生活方式。

• 獨立抽象的名詞：用來描述有關知性(Intellectual)的作品和活動，尤指藝術方面的，例如音樂、文學、繪畫、與雕刻、戲劇、電影等等。

第三類的用法是自第一類而來，按照威廉(2013)的說法：「第三類的用法，在時間上較晚出現，我們很難知道確實的時間，因為他是由第一類衍生而來：這種涉思想、精神和美學發展的一般過程概念，被有效地運用且延伸到作品與活動之中：『過程、歷程(Process)』變成了『進步文化的藝術』。」語言是既定觀念和概念之總體，他包含著一套的世界觀(Gramsci, 2005)。在當代，三種說法是被反复挪用的，而耐人尋味的是：何以文化一字有著如此繁複的意義，這代表一種什麼樣的世界觀，又有著什麼樣的用途？

「文化」的用途

社會的管治階層(Ruling Class)面對著如何「保持整個社會聯合體的意識形態統一的難題。」(Gramsci, 2005)這種難題的來源是：「在獲得世界觀時，人們總是術語一個特定的社會集團，這個社會集團是和他採取相同思維方式和行為方式之一切社會分子之集團」葛蘭西先從天主教的形式說明在神權政治下的有機社會聯合體的意識形態：「他們非常感受到，全部信教的群眾都要求統一學說並竭力防止智力較高的階層同較低的分割開來」，葛蘭西認為這種矛盾地統合社會關係的便是意識形態：「『政治』保證常識和高層次哲學之間的關係。正如政治保證知識分子的天主教和普通人的天主教之間的關係一樣。」他進一步點出天主教的神權文化形式：「天主教之間信徒團體存在，且這種裂縫是不能通過把普通人提高到知識分子的水平（教會甚至沒有想像過這一任務，因為無論在意識形態上還是在經濟上都是超出其能力的）解決的…他們只有通過給予知識分子（這裡指的是神職人員）規定鐵一般的紀律，使他們不致超過一定界線，從而不把裂縫擴大…教會透過群眾運動的手段（其中總會創建出強而有力的人物，例如聖多米尼克，聖芳濟為中心的新的宗教社團）加以統合。」於是，這便形成了封建社會的神權文化。

然而，在資本主義逐漸萌芽的階段下，神權文化就不能在以過往的形式維繫著統治了「知識分子和普通人之間建立起一種一致的意識形態」失效了。這可在「羅馬教會在文藝復興後面對宗教改革迅速瓦解」以及後來的「三十年戰爭」中新教和舊教之爭中得以一窺。而三十年戰爭直接驅使了荷蘭作為獨立民族國家的誕生（也就是說，「文化」首次在排他性中，以「民族」的身影誕生在人類文明之中）。三種「文化」的用法經常交織著使用則表現了「各種用法的含糊以及其中的張力實際是對於一個處在激進而痛苦的劇變之中的社會，構成了一個意味深長的反響的焦點。」(Eagleton, 2000)也就是說，在14世紀資本主義在歐洲開始萌芽到19世紀的這個階段裡，「文化」作為對「神權」的挑戰被提出，當神權不再能有主導的意識形態的時候，人本主義、浪漫主義萌芽——即民權、配以「文化、文明」等現代詞語開始呈現。不能再簡單以葛蘭西意義上的「知識分子」——即當時的教士階級（這個階級在當時把宗教意識形態：即哲學與科學，以及學校、教育、道德、司法、慈善事業、社會救濟都壟斷了）——統合整個社會的時候，社會中的各階級便開始爭奪社會上的「領導權(Hegemony)」。 而這段日子中「文化」正式成形在漫長的19世紀，在這段時期不論在生產模式還是社會文化方面社會都面臨極大的張力，革命、政變層出不窮，各種新興的社會歷史集團(Social History Bloc)正在形成，而依照葛蘭西(2007)的說法：「統治階級的歷史統一是在國家中實現的，而他們的歷史實質上就是國家的歷史和國家集團的歷史。」換言之，統治階級的文化即是統治著社會的文化，亦即是社會上的「主流文化」，我們可以用布迪厄 (Bourdieu， 1993) 的場域理論 (Field Theory) 來理解這一情況：不同的社會集團同在一個場域裡爭奪資本，而特定的、主流的社會集團——資本主義下是資產階級文化——在此一文化場域 (Field) 中總有比較強的場域力量(Field Power)來達到再生產的效果。然而這個場域並不是固定不變的，而是「相對(Relational)」的。在馬克思主義社會學的理解中，這個場域同時也是「矛盾(Contradictory)」的：歷史社會集團在形成的過程中，也「預先假定了其他的集團，它們的統一是辯證的(Servo della Ieba)，即是：因有人是奴隸的意義上，才會有貴族。」(Gramsci, 2005) 這就導致了「文化」一字的符號場域(Symbolic Field)在誕生的一刻便是充滿矛盾的：他是一個矛盾、複雜、衝突(Conflict)和互不協調的語言符號，即是：惟有在「高級文化(High Culture)」存在的意義層面上，才會有「大眾文化(Popular Culture)」；有「資產階級」的出現，才會有「工人階級」。惟有在這個層面上，我們才能理解「文化」的三種意義的歷史由來：三種「文化」實際上屬於三個（現存或曾經存在的）歷史社會集團(Bloc)：

• 封建貴族階級
• 資產階級
• 工人階級

在歷史上，三個階級的形成時間各有不同：

（一）封建貴族階級是中世紀的統治階級——「教士階級可以視作是與有土地的貴族結合的有機結合的知識分子」；

（二）資產階級則自啟蒙運動後逐漸成型——第一個資產階級政黨輝格黨於1678年成立，並與十年後對英國封建貴族階級發動了「光榮革命」，用安德森的說法：「英國絕對主義被其邊陲的貴族地方主義和氏族動亂引入危機：它們本是支持它的歷史性因素。而商業化的鄉紳，資本主義化的城市，平民化的手工業者和自耕農則在中心致它於死地。」

（三）工人階級的成型時間是三者之中最遲：直到布朗基主義萌芽，巴黎公社的出現才使工人階級正式有零零星星的「成型」，這種零星的情況持續到當代社會。

而在上述三個階級中，封建貴族和資產階級文化上的過度是這樣的：

「資產階級文化的發展，在資產階級通過一系列革命把國家政權攫取到自己手中以前幾百年就開始了。當資產階級還是一個半無權的第三等級的時候，它就在文化建設的一切領域起著重大的、日益增長的作用。」（《文學與革命》 托洛斯基, 2005）

托洛茨基用建築學的角度來進一步辯證自己的論點：

「這一點在建築學上可以特別清楚地看出來。哥特式的教堂並不是在宗教靈感的衝擊下一下子建築起來的。科倫大教堂的結構、它的建築樣式和它的雕塑總結了人類從穴居的陳設開始所積累下來的建築經驗，把這種經驗的要素用於表現當代文化，即歸根到底表現當代社會結構和技術的新風格。舊行會和同業工會的資產階級前身是哥特式建築的實際建設者。有意識地和積極地採用過哥特式建築的資產階級，在發展壯大即發財致富以後，就不是為教堂而是為他們自己的宮殿式樓宇來創造自己的建築風格了。資產階級依靠哥特式建築的成就，面向古希臘羅馬的風格，主要是古羅馬的建築樣式，利用摩爾式的建築樣式，使所有這一切服從於新的城市社會生活的條件和需要，從而開創了文藝復興時代（義大利——十五世紀頭二十五年末期）。」

從古典的城市公社運動開始，資產階級便逐步佔據了哲學與科學、文化、學校、教育、道德、司法等各種領域的思想——在葛蘭西的意義上逐步建立起社會霸權(Hegemony) ：「即統治和知識與道德的領導權…….一個社會集團也必須在贏得政權前開始行使領導權（這就是贏得政權的首要條件之一）」而這個過程並不是單一而絕對的，是一種緩慢進化的過程：意即這些都是人類生活的「累積」，正如上文所提到的一樣資產階級實際上是借用了過往的統治歷史文化來建構的；換言之，我們日常所提及的文化，實際上是一種歷史無意識（或稱社會無意識）：他是與過往的經歷重疊且累積而來的一些「經驗」。而這些經驗實際上便在我們的日常生活中得到體現，同時這些經驗是動態且持續變換的，也因此和布迪厄對場域的想像不同：在政治批判學的角度，場域是一個辯證的概念、持續地推動著歷史前進的。正如佛洛姆（2013）提及到的，這些變換、推動歷史前進的動力來源來自於：

「人自覺地思考的那些東西大部分是虛假的意識，是意識形態和文飾，人的行為的真正動力是人所意識不到的。按照佛洛伊德，動力來自於人的性慾之中；按照馬克思，動力植根於人的整個社會組織之中，社會把人的意識引導到某些方向去，阻止他意識到某些事實和經驗。」

《馬克思主義關於人的概念》

而在資本主義下，我們稱之為「文化」的東西正正是這種模糊的虛假意識中難以確定是什麼的狀態而產生的，因此文化的定義總是十分模糊的：「用來表示一種獨特的生活方式，這種生活方式可以是關於一個民族、一個時期、一個群體、或全體人類的生活方式。」獨特是相對於其他事物而言的獨特，一個民族、時期、群體也是相對於其他民族、時期、群體而言的「一個」。因此文化本質上便是一個試圖包納眾多社會關係、可以因應情況而挪用的一個詞語。但是同時卻有著一定的物質基礎以及生活經驗(Lived experience)說構成的，正如馬克思(2009)所說：

「由此可見，事情是這樣的：以一定的方式進行生產活動的一定的個人，發生一定的社會關係和政治關係。經驗的觀察在任何情況下都應當根據經驗來揭示社會結構和政治結構同生產的聯繫，而不應當帶有任何神秘和思辨的色彩。社會結構和國家總是從一定的個人的生活過程中產生的。但是，這裡所說的個人不是他們自己或別人想像中的那種個人，而是現實中的個人，也就是說，這些個人是從事活動的，進行物質生產的，因而是在一定的物質的、不受他們任意支配的界限、前提和條件下活動著的。」

因而文化是生產性的，這也是為什麼資產階級文化「在資產階級通過一系列革命把國家政權攫取到自己手中以前幾百年就開始了。（托洛茨基，2005）」他必須透過對於生產基礎的爭奪和新的生產工具的創造工具來拓展自身的「領導權」來吸納、奪取社會的統治權。這也是從16世紀開始，「文化」一字被創造出來的原因：他必須強調社會的整體性（有時是局部的整體性）來確保（1）普世市場的一致性和（2）市場的一致性從而確保（1）世界資本主義市場的拓展和（2）確保局部市場實現資產階級之間的資本累積競爭。既然文化是統治階級用來維繫社會整體性和實現資本內部競爭的詞語（我們也因而可以明白到為何「文化」一字的定義為何如此的模糊：因為他本來就是用作掩蓋矛盾、希望達到社會統一性的詞語），我們便可以基於此推論出一個結論：「一切『文化』（在資本主義語境下）都是『資產階級文化』；而在資本主義下被塑造成『高級文化』的（相對地則形成了的則是「大眾文化(Popular Culture)」），則是能帶予以人『特別的體驗』的、在資本市場上具備更多資本的人所喜好的高雅文化（我們會在文章後面再仔細探討這個問題）」這種高級文化則明顯地繼承了封建貴族階級的文化；而能給予人「特別的異化(Alienation)體驗」這個功能，是資本主義社會中絕對不能提供的（因其運作目的是實現最大的資本累積，換言之，只要能從中謀取到最大的利潤便可）為了持續售賣這種「特別的體驗」、獲取最大的利潤，資本主義下於是乎便建立起了一套固定「文化」生產機制，而這套機制是專門為人而設的，因為只有「人」才能使文化得以產生：

「思想、觀念、意識的生產最初是直接與人們的物質活動，與人們的物質交往，與現實生活的語言交織在一起的。人們的想像、思維、精神交往在這裡還是人們物質行動的直接產物。表現在某一民族的政治、法律、道德、宗教、形而上學等的語言中的精神生產也是這樣。人們是自己的觀念、思想等等的生產者，但這裡所說的人們是現實的、從事活動的人們，他們受自己的生產力和與之相適應的交往的一定發展——直到交往的最遙遠的形態——所制約。意識［das Bewuβtsein］在任何時候都只能是被意識到了的存在［das bewuβte Sein］，而人們的存在就是他們的現實生活過程。如果在全部意識形態中，人們和他們的關係就像在照相機中一樣是倒立呈像的，那麼這種現象也是從人們生活的歷史過程中產生的，正如物體在視網膜上的倒影是直接從人們生活的生理過程中產生的一樣。」

《德意志意識形態》卡爾. 馬克思(1965)

也就是說，惟有當人認知到了這些「類意識形態」的時候，這些「意識形態」才正式地成為「意識形態」（我們亦可以稱之為歷史無意識，因為比起我們所意識到的，更多是為們尚未意識到的(Not-Yet-conscious)）而在社會中作為「文化」來存在，而這些「意識形態」是在社會上被反复試驗、推行、宣傳，讓其在社會上「被看見」和「被認知」才出現的。在這個意義上，物質世界和認知世界的關係就符合了葛蘭西意義上的「人人都是哲學家」的概念，也就是說意識形態是被自身所認知、肯定(Consent)的時候，才正式成為其將要成為的狀態。而接下來我們將來談談這套文化的生產機制是怎麼一回事。

意識形態國家機器

資本主義的文化生產基地在很早的時候便開始為他自身做準備了，這體現在他逐步地接管了許多社會上的機構：

「資產階級文化要素的積累及其固定為一種風格的基本過程，決定于資產階級作為一個有產的和剝削的階級的社會特性：它不僅在物質上是在封建社會的內部發展起來的，同封建社會錯綜複雜地交織在一起，並逐步把財富集中在自己手中，而且還把知識份子吸引到自己方面來，從而在領導第三等級公開控制國家以前好久就建立了自己的文化基地（中學、大學、研究院、報紙、雜誌）。」

（托洛斯基，2005）

阿圖塞（2014）在《論資本主義的再生產：意識形態與意識形態國家機器》中拓展了葛蘭西對於意識形態陣地戰概念：他把國家機器分成「鎮壓型國家機器」以及「意識形態國家機器」，前者是針對街頭運動的暴力鎮壓，這部分的國家機器組成部分由軍警和警察及各種執法部隊負責，是物質層面上對任何有奪取政權嘗試的直接鎮壓，後者是一種日常散播在大氣之間的，無處不在的存在，這部分的國家機器則由宗教機構、學校、傳媒報社和電台電視等「散播知識的專業媒介」負責。在葛蘭西的層面上來看，這就是對於領導權的爭奪與維繫的競爭場域。而上述的引文則進一步提醒，這種情況不是在當代資本主義才出現的，而是遠在我們發現之前，即資產階級還未正式開始變成政權持有者之前便開始了：他開始逐漸把我們身邊的事物都拉進同一個資本主義邏輯裡，在這個邏輯下人與人是「平等」的，大家均可以享用「同一種文化」，但是前提是，你必須有足夠的資本，才能獲得在文化機制下生產出來的、足夠「特別的體驗」——這便是意識形態國家機器，一個和社會市場深度融合了的邏輯機制。

文化工廠：人作為客體和主體的區別

在這種邏輯下，文化生產逐漸變得工業化、集中化，「大眾文化」變成了「文化工業」：一個是大眾自發所創造的文化（這當然是「文化」的理想狀態），另外一種則是資本主義所生產的標準化、集中化的文化「產品」而大眾只能作為個體來接受，阿多諾（1975）如此形容文化工業的情況：

「我們之所以用『文化工業』替換了『大眾文化(Popular Culture)』，為的是從一開始就排除與大眾文化的鼓吹者相一致的解釋：它是一種大眾自發產生的文化，是通俗藝術的當代形式。我們必須最大限度地把文化工業與通俗藝術區別開來。… 在文化工業的所有部門中，那些特意為大眾的消費而度身定做、並在很大程度上決定了那種消費的性質的產品，或多或少是按照計畫加工出來的。各個部門的結構是類似的，或者說至少是彼此配合的，從而使自身構成了一個天衣無縫的制度系統。」

阿多諾(1975)對繼而這種文化工業的狀態提出了猛烈的批評：

「文化工業想要讓我們相信消費者是上帝，但事實並非如此，消費者不是文化工業的主體，而是它的客體。『大眾媒介』這個詞語是為文化工業特別打造出來的，它已經把問題的要害轉移到了無害的領域。而問題的要害既不是優先關注大眾的問題，也不是一個大眾傳播的技術的問題，而是向大眾灌輸的精神的問題，是他們的主宰者的聲音的問題。文化工業假設大眾的心智是既定的、不可改變的，並錯誤地把它對大眾的關注用於複製、鞏固、強化他們的這種心智。」

換言之，文化工業是有著強烈目的的：他的目的便是以其創造出來的產品來對消費進行有目的的改造；消費者作為客體並無法參與到生產過程之中，在當代這種文化工業持續進化：消費者參與到了社交媒體的大數據創作之中，但是文化工業的本質並無大改變，他仍然是保有工業骨架，只容許人們在有限度的、流水線的生產：

「文化工業中的技術概念和藝術作品中的技術概念，只是字面上相同。對於後者，技術與物件本身的內在組織有關，與它的內在邏輯有關。與此相反，文化工業的技術從一開始就是流通的技術和機械複製的技術，所以總是外在於它的物件。文化工業尋找意識形態的支撐，正是為了小心翼翼地抵禦著其產品中包含的技術的全部潛力。它寄生于外在於藝術的、商品的物質生產技術之中，而不考慮其客觀性所寓示的它對內在的藝術整體的義務，也不考慮審美自律所要求的形式法則。文化工業的面相學造成的結果，實質上就是兩方面的混合物：一方面是流水線型的、攝影術般的嚴格精准，另一方面是個性的剩餘物、多愁善感、已經被理性處理並改編過了的浪漫主義。本雅明通過靈韻這個概念表達了對於傳統藝術品的看法，如果採用他的思路，那麼可以這樣定義文化工業：它並不提出一個原則與靈韻的原則針鋒相對，而是保持著一層已經消逝的靈韻的薄霧。文化工業由此洩漏了其意識形態的天機。」

在資本社會下，藝術品的價值在於其交換價值：換言之，是在市場上值多少錢的問題，但在古典的封建社會中，藝術品之所以有價值是在於其內在原因的，本雅明 (1935) 在《機械複製時代的藝術作品》如此形容道：「藝術品的即時即地性，即它在問世地點的獨一無二性。但唯有借助於這種獨一無二性才構成了歷史，藝術品的存在過程就受制於歷史。這裡面不僅包含了由於時間演替使藝術品在其物理構造方面發生的變化，而且也包含了藝術品可能所處的不同佔有關係的變化。這種物理構造以及佔有關係的變化是來自歷史原因，「藝術作品在傳統聯繫中的存在方式最初體現在膜拜中…最早的藝術品起源於某種禮儀——起初是巫術禮儀，後來是宗教禮儀。在此，具有決定意義的是藝術作品那種具有光韻的存在方式從未完全與它的禮儀功能分開，換言之，『原真』的藝術作品所具有的獨一無二的價值植根於神學，藝術作品在禮儀中獲得了其原始的、最初的使用價值。」但是在當代，由於工業化的形式，藝術品的膜拜價值漸漸在同一化的過程中受到磨損，阿多諾用電影來比喻這種資本主義工業時代的盛況：

「不能過分地從字面上去理解『工業』一語。它指事物本身的標準化（如每一個電影迷都熟知的西部片的標準化）以及流通技術的理性化，而不是嚴格限定在生產過程的標準化上。在電影這一文化工業的核心部門中，儘管生產過程在廣泛的分工、機器的使用、勞動力和生產工具的分離（表現在活躍在文化工業中的藝術家與文化工業的掌管者之間的恒久衝突之中）等方面非常類似於技術的操作模式，但仍舊保持著個性化的生產方式 … 每一產品都裝作很有個性的樣子；這種個性本身是為強化意識形態服務的，而既然幻象是魔法般召喚出來的，那麼完全物化了和仲介化了的東西就是直接性和現實生活的避難所。」

藝術品的本質是異化的，但是在資本主義下的世界卻連這種個體獨立的異化都無法接受——極度異化的人無法從事生產性的工作、達成不了資本的累積。本雅明如此道形容這種極度異化的狀態——法西斯主義政治生活審美化：「『祟尚藝術——摧毀世界』……. 從前，在荷馬那裡屬於奧林匹克神的觀照物件的人類，現在成了為自己本身而存在的人，他的自我異化達到了這樣的地步，以致人們把自我否定作為第一流的審美享受去體驗。」換言之，法西斯美學——自我摧毀——是一種在破壞的藝術，是一種在極度異化下產生的、極度特別的體驗。當代資本主義帶來異化，同時也在強迫透過意識形態——「文化」的方式來使我們壓制我們日常因勞動而產生的異化。以標準化、流通技術的理性化生產的工業社會同樣地只能通過標準化、流通技術的理性化生產意識形態（文化）的方式來消除人們的異化，這也就造就了馬庫色所提及的：《單向度的人》(One-Dimensional Man)。

高級文化——異化的體驗

綜合文章之前所提及過的論點，我們可以明白到「文化」本質上便是一個異化的過程，「主體」和「客體」都在我們構建（文化culture作為動詞(Process)的狀態、即文章開頭所提及的、文化的第一種用法）、也可以成為是異化的過程，而產生，其結果便是文化作為名詞產生的、浪漫主義性質的一種生活方式。而所謂的高級文化(High Culture)也不例外，高級文化之所以高級不只是因為其歷史因素——作為封建貴族階級生活方式的殘存，更是因為這種生活方式本來不屬於這個時代：

「西方的高級文化——工業社會仍然承認它的道德、美學和思想的價值——在功能以及年代的意義上說，是前技術的文化。它的效力來自對一個不復存在而且不能重新得到的世界的體驗，因為在嚴格意義上說，技術社會會使它失去效力。而且，甚至在資產階級時代給了它某些最持久的配方時，它在很大程度上依然是一種封建的文化。它之所以是封建的，不僅是因為它限於少數特權者，不僅是因為它具有內在浪漫的因素，而且還因為它的典型作品在方法上表現出自覺疏遠整個商業和工業領域，疏遠其斤斤計較和注重贏利的秩序。」

《單向度的人：發達工業社會的意識型態研究》赫伯特·馬庫色(2013)

在資本主義的時代裡，任何事物都應是跟著資本主義的邏輯來運行的。任何的文化，在文化之前，他必須是一種可被售賣的商品才得以被允許創造出來，這本是資本主義下不可侵犯的邏輯——資本主義之前的文化例外（也就是曾經在資產階級正式征服世界之前的文化）。資本主義不可能抹除封建貴族階級的文化，正如馬克思在《1844經濟學手稿》中所提及的：「私有財產的統治一般是從土地佔有開始的；土地佔有是私有財產的基礎。但是，在封建的土地佔有制下，領主至少在表面上看來是領地的君主。同時，在封建領地上，領土和土地之間還存在著比單純物質財富更為密切的關係的假像。地塊隨他的主人一起個性化，有他的爵位，即男爵或伯爵的封號；有它的特權、它的審判權、它的政治地位等等。土地彷佛是它的主人的無機的身體。」換言之，資本主義的邏輯的基礎是封建主義的邏輯，資本主義秩序是不能獨立於封建主義存在的。但同時，封建主義的元素卻又是資本主義邏輯所容不下的，這些元素無時無刻都在向資本主義邏輯發出控訴：

「這另一向度的代表人物，不是宗教、精神和道德的英雄（他們經常支持既定秩序），而是象藝術家、妓女、姦婦、大罪犯和流浪漢、武士、造反詩人、惡魔、蠢漢這樣的破壞性人物——他們不靠掙工資生活，至少不按有秩序的規範方式生活。

誠然，這些人物並沒有從發達工業社會的文學中消失，但他們的殘存有了根本的改變。勒索金錢的蕩婦、民族英雄、垮了的一代、神經過敏的家庭主婦、匪徒、明星、有超凡魅力的巨頭，起了一種和他們的文化前輩非常不同乃至相反的作用。他們不再是另一種生活方式的形象，而是同一種生活的畸形者或典型，與其說是對既定秩序的否定，毋寧說是肯定。肯定，他們前輩的世界是以前的一個前技術世界，一個對不平等和勞苦狀況懷有良心的世界，在這個世界裡勞動仍然是命中註定的不幸；但是，在這個世界裡，人和自然還沒有被當作物和工具組織起來。這個過去的文化，以它的形式和方式的準則，以它的文學和哲學的風格與詞彙，表現了一個宇宙的旋律和內容，在這個宇宙中，山谷和森林、村莊和客店、貴族和惡棍、沙龍和宮廷都是所體驗到的現實的一部分。在這種前技術文化的詩歌和散文中，其旋律表現的是那些漫遊或乘馬車的人，那些有冥想、沉思、感覺和敘述的時間和快樂的人。」

《單向度的人：發達工業社會的意識型態研究》赫伯特·馬庫色(2013)

透過表現出完全與當前世界觀不同的、曾經存在過的世界觀，封建貴族階級為此表現出了另外一種的異化狀態來否定現存的世界觀邏輯：「… 在它的某些決定性因素上，這種文化也是一種後技術文化。它最先進的形象和立場似乎倖免於被同化進管理的舒適和刺激中；它們繼續意識到在技術進步的完善中它們再生的可能性。它們表現了同既定生活方式的自由和自覺的疏遠，文學藝術甚至在它們裝飾這些既定生活方式的地方，也以這種疏遠來反對這些既定生活方式。」這種文化於是乎被放在一種比較「高級」的位置，因為他「既不擾亂商業秩序」也「無法擾亂商業秩序」，於是乎，「文化」在出現的最初，是以與資產階級對抗的形式出現的：資產階級根本沒有封建階級般、持續建立了許久的生活方式。然而在資產階級獲得根本的經濟權力的時候，這些對抗便變得無力了，他們只能成為對資本主義而言的控訴，資本主義試圖運用市場邏輯來吸納這些原本是他敵人的文化（儘管這種同化只是本質上的侵蝕）、在資本主義發展的前半時期：

「這種同化在歷史上是不成熟的；它建立了文化上的平等，同時卻保留了統治。社會正在排除封建貴族文化的特權和專權，連同它的內容。美術的先驗真理性、生活和思想的美學，過去只是極少數有教養的富人才能得到的，這一單向度的社會事實是過去的壓抑性社會的過失。但這一過失不是靠平裝本、普及教育、慢轉密紋唱片和在劇院及音樂廳裡不規定禮儀服裝新能糾正的。文化特權表現了不公平的自由、意識形態同現實的矛盾、精神生產力同物質生產力的脫離；但它們也提供了一個受保護的領域，使得被禁忌的真理能以抽象的完整性倖存下來——疏遠壓制這些真理的社會。」

《單向度的人：發達工業社會的意識型態研究》赫伯特·馬庫色(2013)

資本主義尋求市場拓展的邏輯卻使這些從前受保護的領域也面對被市場同一化的文化問題，資本主義下的高級文化變成可供售賣的、「只要有資本便可以購買的工業化產品」：

「現在這種疏遠已被克服——連同超越和控訴。樂譜和樂音仍然存在，但使它們成為另一個行星的空氣的那段距離已被克服。藝術的異化，像它在其中演出的新劇院和音樂廳的建築一樣，成了從實用角度來設計的。毫無疑問，這種新建築比維多利亞時代的古怪建築更好，即更美更實用。但它也是更『一體化的』——文化中心正在成為銷售中心、市政中心或管理中心的一個合適部分。統治有自己的美學，而且民主統治也有自己的民主美學。不錯，幾乎每一個人旋開他的音響組合旋鈕或跨入他的樂房，隨時都可以得到優美藝術。然而，在這種普及中，優美藝術成了一架翻新優美藝術內容的文化機器上的齒牙。

藝術的異化，連同其它的否定方式，都屈從於技術合理性的進程。如果把這一變化視作技術進步結果的話，便可以看出它的不可逆轉性的深度和廣度。現階段按其可利用的新的實現手段，重新確定了人和自然的可能性，據此看來，這些前技術的形象正在喪失它們的力量了。」

《單向度的人：發達工業社會的意識型態研究》赫伯特·馬庫色(2013)

換言之，高級文化連他作為後技術文化的功能也在資本主義邏輯下被侵蝕和同化、資本主義下的文化被逐漸的吞噬——西方傳統意義上的文化（不論高級文化還是大眾文化意義上的）均成為了文化工業的一部分。在這個層面上，資本主義底下沒有文化——只有資本主義邏輯(Logic of Capitalistic culture)，在資本主義下的人，也因著其作為文化工業的「客體」的原因，變成了被馬庫色稱作「單向度的人(One Dimensional Man)」。然而值得一提的是馬庫色是以一種悲觀的態度、配以本雅明的「因為那些不報希望的人的緣故，希望才賜予了我們」來完成對《單向度的人》的讀者的質問的。然而這種悲觀的態度是值得批判的，正如我們辯證地批判地看待文化，我們亦應辯證地批判地看待文化的創造者——「人」的本身：

「現實表明，既是物(thing)又是人(Man)、既是客體(object)又是主體(subject)的無產階級具有雙重性質(Dual character)：既是本質(Essence)又是表象(Appearance)，既是內在的本質形式(Inner,  essential form)，又是表面(surface)。無產階級對這種境遇的經驗，使他能夠從已達到的物化形式(Form of rectification)出發，了解作為本質和表象的整個社會現實(social reality)。自我異化在無產階級中達到了頂峰。通過成為客體(object)、事物(object)，人同時成為知識的主體(subject)和客體(object)。這就是辯證唯物主義意義上的『對現實的自我認識(self-knowledge of reality)』的意思。在人成為物的過程中，現實的物化結構消解，成為人的、社會的。人與物合而為一，而人不再自覺地成為人，這一事實揭示了事物之間關係的人性。」(Jakubowski, 1976)    

既然我們肯定人作為人能創造出自身屬於「客體」的狀態（即文化工業的受體），我們便不能否認人作為人能化自身為「主體」（作為文化創造者的潛在可能性）的能力。

文化作為抵抗的意念

「文化」這一詞語在本質上（在封建階級最開始使用它的時候）便是反抗的，如同阿多諾(1975) 說道：「作為苦難和矛盾的一種表達，可以當之無愧地被稱為文化的東西總是試圖理解美好生活的理念。文化既不可能表達那些僅僅存在著的東西，也不可能表達那些習以為常的、不再有約束力的秩序範疇——而文化工業利用這些東西遮蔽了關於美好生活的理念，仿佛現存的現實世界就是美好生活了，仿佛那些範疇就是衡量美好生活的真實標準了。如果文化工業的代表們回答說，它根本就沒在傳播藝術，那麼它本身就是一種意識形態，借此逃避社會責任而只做它的生意。這樣的解釋從來沒有改正過任何罪惡。」

正如曼德爾(Ernest Mandel)(2009)哲學家布洛赫(Ernest Bloch)所言：「世界有某種傾向，其特徵就是人類正努力朝著一個沒有剝削和痛苦的世界，朝著烏托邦前進。『尚未』是對這個目標的一種期待，並以不同形式表現出來；『總體而言』，『尚未』『意識』是一個時代及其世界中尚未轉變（Not-Yet-Become）的心理表現。」文化作為動詞(Culture as verb)，是一種具備潛力的東西，它「就像加工存在的意識一般，這個限定意識的存在也只有『從何而來』、『向何而去』的追問以及一句什麼的追問才能得到最終的理解。本質並非過去存在過的東西，恰恰相反，世界的本質本身位於前線。」（Bloch, 1986）至此，文化的意義得到了完滿的詮釋和重現：並非一種單純以一種靜態的方式被工業化的文化塑造的過程，而是作為一個人而有潛力發揮的素養，正如哲學家黑格爾所說：「只要人不摧毀世界的那種死氣沉沉的客觀性，不認識到處在事物和規律固定的形式『背後』的他自身以及他自己的生命，那麼這個世界就是個疏遠的和不真實的世界。一旦他終於達到自我意識，那麼他就不僅踏上了通向他本身的真理的征途，而且也踏上了通向他的世界的真理的征途，並且隨著這一認識，也就會有行動。他力圖將這種真理變為行動，從而使世界成為一個本真的世界，也就是實現人的自我意識。」由此葛蘭西提出了創造一個更為超前的、以改造世界使世界能復歸到其「本真」的「高級文化」，這種文化是全新且具批判性的：

「創造一種新文化，不僅僅意味著個人的『原創性』發現。它同時——這一點尤為重要——意味著以一種批判的方式去傳播已經發現的真理，可以說是這些真理的『社會化』。甚至使它們成為重大活動的基礎，成為一個共同使命、智力與道德秩序的要素。因為引導大眾進行融貫一致的思想，並以同樣融貫一致的方式去思考真實的當今世界，這遠比作為某一位哲學天才的個人發現還是知識分子集團的財富的真理更重要，也具備『原創性』得多。」

《獄中札記》安東尼奧. 葛蘭西(2007)

既然目前的文化是以一種意識形態的方式「虛假意識(False Consciousness)」的形式存在在這個世界上，那麼這就與實際上的物質情況不完全相符，這也就構成了物質世界和認知世界的矛盾性質，在某種意義上，馬庫色是對的：「社會批判理論並不擁有能彌合現在與未來之間裂縫的概念，不作任何許諾，不顯示任何成功，它只是否定。」但是他卻沒把接下來的東西說下去：批判理論對現有情況的批判只是第一步，按照葛蘭西的說法，批判理論的精粹在於其判定如何實踐的能力，並把這種能力提升到社會共有的、在平等的共同的世界觀基礎上，懷有同一個目的而團結在一起的能力，為此：

「實踐哲學在開始時，不得不呈現出一副論戰和批判的樣子，把自己表現現存的思維方式和現存的具體思想（即現時的文化世界）的替代。所以，他首先是對『常識』的批判，儘管，在最初它把自身建立在『常識』之上，以便證明人人都是哲學家，因而，也就不是把科學的思維方式引進到每個人的個人生活中來的問題，而是對現存的活動加以革新地，使之成為『批判的』問題。」

《獄中札記》安東尼奧. 葛蘭西(2007)

而這種矛盾性質必在物質世界和認知世界同一化的時候才能被消解，即：「環境的改變和人的活動一致，只能被看作是並合理地理解為革命的實踐。」而這些過程，與資本主義的文化概念一樣，是建基在「環境是由人來改變的，而教育者本人一定是受教育的。」，正如葛蘭西所提及的：

「實踐哲學的前提是以下這一切過去的文化：文藝復興和宗教改革，德國哲學和法國大革命，加爾文教和英國古典經濟學，世俗的自由主義以及植根于整個現代生活觀的歷史主義。實踐哲學則是以上整個精神和道德改革運動得以圓滿成功的頂點，成為大眾文化與高級文化對立中的辯證法。實踐哲學符合由新教改革加上法國大革命而成的結合：它既是一種政治的哲學，也是一種哲學的政治。實踐哲學仍處於民眾階段：造就一批獨立的知識份子可不是一件易事；需要有一個長期的過程，其中包含著行動與反行動，聚合和分裂，以及許許多多複雜的新結構的產生。... 實踐哲學（即馬克思主義）通過自己的創始人更生了黑格爾主義、費爾巴哈主義以及法國唯物主義的整個這一套經驗，以便恢復辯證統一的綜合，即把它『倒過來』。黑格爾主義被割裂的遭遇，如今也在實踐哲學身上重演，也就是說，一方面產生了從辯證統一向哲學的唯物主義複歸…」

 

《獄中札記》安東尼奧. 葛蘭西(2007)

換言之，正如馬克思和恩格斯作為小資產階級，他們的思想自然也是小資產的。但是在他們的思想具體地被民眾實踐的過程中，這種「高級文化」將一步步透過具體的實踐成為真正意義上的更為優秀、且符合社會真實狀態的「文化」而在一個「文化」發展到極致的社會時，那個社會將不再存在「文化」的這一概念，因資產階級下的文化概念將不再存在，人們將真正認知到自身的異化的狀況，進化了的藝術品得以真正地展現在人類文明的眼前，既然馬庫色以「因為那些不報希望的人的緣故，希望才賜予了我們」來向讀者提出質問，那麼我們便以本雅明的《機械複製時代的藝術作品》對他的「不報希望論」作出回應：「法西斯主義謀求的是（自我毀滅的）政治審美化，那馬克思主義則用藝術的政治化對做法作出了回應。」——我們必須為了「創造文化」而奪取「領導權」：

——「成為一個特定的掌握領導權力量的組成部分的意識（也就是政治意識），是走向更進一步的自我意識的第一步，在這種自我意識中，理論和實踐最終將合二為一……直到達到一種真正融貫一致的世界觀為止。」

《獄中札記》安東尼奧. 葛蘭西(2007)

結語

文化從最開始便是一種異化的產物：正正是因為神權文化無法再統合到社會中的人們，才會有人開始提及文化。在封建貴族階級和資產階級的激烈鬥爭下，文化被賦予了全新的、不同的歷史意義，為了抵抗新興的資產階級，封建貴族把自身的歷史形容為文化，而這被極力反對，自由主義資產階級把文化的概念進一步拓展至普世以及群體的文化意含——而在晚期資本主義的狀態下，連最初的文化意含都把納入資本主義的市場邏輯之中。連資產階級積極學習的封建階級的文化也被捲入其中，為了避免陷入法西斯的美學之下——即走向毀滅的異化——資本主義積極拓展其市場，甚至將所有文化吸納至資本市場，變成了單一文化，馬庫色如此形容這種社會：

「當個人同強加於他們的生活相同一，並在其中尋求他們的發展和滿足時，異化概念似乎成了可懷疑的。這種同一不是幻想，而是現實。然而，這一現實構成了異化的一個更進一步的階段。後者已成了完全客觀的；異化了的主體被它的異化了的存在所吞沒。只存在一個向度，它以各種形式無所不在。進步的成就公然蔑視意識形態的控告和辯護；在它們的法庭面前，它們的合理性的『虛假意識』成了真實意識。

然而，這種意識形態被現實同化，並不意味著『意識形態的終結』。恰恰相反，在一種特定意義上，由於今天的意識形態就在生產過程本身中，所以發達工業社會比起它的前輩來更是意識形態的。這個命題以挑釁的形式揭示了盛行的技術合理性的政治方面。生產設備和它產生的商品和服務，『出賣』或欺騙著整個社會體系。大眾運輸和傳播手段，住房、食物和衣物等商品，娛樂和資訊工業不可抵抗的輸出，都帶有規定了的態度和習慣，都帶有某些思想和情感的反應，這些反應或多或少愉快地把消費者同生產者，並通過生產者同整體結合起來。產品有灌輸和操縱作用；它們助長了一種虛假意識，而這種虛假意識又回避自己的虛假性。隨著這些有益的產品在更多的社會階級中為更多的個人所使用，它們所具有的灌輸作用就不再是宣傳，而成了一種生活方式。它是一種好的生活方式——比以前的要好得多，而且作為一種好的生活方式，它阻礙著質變。因此，出現了一種單向度的思想和行為型式，在這種型式中，那些在內容上超出了既定言論和行動領域的觀念、渴望和目標，或被排斥，或被歸結為這一領域的幾項內容。它們被既定體系及其量的擴張的合理性所重新定義。」

《單向度的人：發達工業社會的意識型態研究》赫伯特·馬庫色(2013)

在用「文化」掩蓋「異化」（即意識形態掩飾意識形態）的這些時候，唯一可以獨立於「文化」的「高級文化」將會是對資本主義進行批判的批判理論。他自資本主義社會而生，往「尚未意識」的社會而去，這種社會將只有實踐而沒有文化（也可以是充滿文化），人的許多限度將會在市場邏輯的缺席下重生。正如恩斯特·布洛赫寫道：「這樣，馬克思主義的辯證的和歷史的未來趨勢學乃是仲介了現實的未來科學和現實中的客觀的和現實的可能性；〔這種可能性目的只是行動。〕……惟當涉及馬克思主義時，未來的視域才同作為前室的過去一道賦予現實以自身真正的向度。」唯有如此在一個人能迅速察覺自身異化的社會，人的許多向度才能逐漸地，一步步地被重新發掘出來。人類的文明才得以進化到一個前所未有的高度——重構、發展、再重構。

——惟有能使「文化」向貼近真實的「文化」進發的，才是真正的「高級文化」。

Culture and high culture: destruction or creation?

by Psychic

Shortly after the Russian Revolution in 1923, Trotsky wrote "Literature and Revolution," which influenced Lu Xun's views on literature and also inspired Marxist cultural exploration in the West. One sentence from the book reads, "Every ruling class creates its own culture, and thus creates its own art. There have been Eastern and Greco-Roman slave cultures in history, feudal culture in medieval Europe, and now the bourgeois culture that rules the world."

However, what is culture? Does the current society have a bourgeois culture? Is bourgeois culture a "high culture"? These questions are not easily answered, as "culture" is one of the most complex concepts in English. Gramsci (2007) wrote in "Prison Notes," "Philosophy is inseparable from the history of philosophy, and culture is similarly inseparable from the history of culture. If people do not have a historical perspective, do not recognize the development stages represented by this worldview and the fact that it contradicts other worldviews or their elements, then they cannot become philosophers in the most direct and essential sense." To answer this series of questions and become a philosopher, we should first understand the historical development of the word "culture."

The History of "Culture"

Like other concepts in sociology, the history of the concept of culture began in the Enlightenment era. We can glimpse this history from Raymond Williams' (2015) book "Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society," which traces the evolution of the term from its earliest meaning as a noun indicating a "process" of caring for something, to its derivation from "caring for plants and animals" to "the development of human beings" in the early 16th century. In the 18th century, "culture" began to evolve into two concepts: (1) "civilized and cultivated" and (2) a universal historical view of the Enlightenment period - civilization. During the French Revolution, these two concepts were in tension - one belonging to the feudal aristocracy as "education" and the other as the "spirit of the entire civilization." At the same time, during the Romantic era, Johann Gottfried Herder (1791) suggested that "culture" should be a plural unit, emphasizing national and traditional cultures, including "folk culture" (which includes criticism of the inhumanity of emerging industrial civilization). Until the 19th century, "culture" was considered material, while "civilization" was considered spiritual. In contemporary social science, especially in cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, and archaeology, the meaning of "culture" varies. Archaeology and anthropology often emphasize the "production of cultural material," while sociology and cultural studies emphasize culture as a "signifying" and "symbolic" system.

We can categorize the "methods of defining culture" into three main types:

1. Independent and abstract nouns: This usage originated from the feudal aristocracy and is used to describe the general process of intellectual, spiritual, and aesthetic development since the 18th century.
2. Independent nouns: This usage originated from the Romantic era and is used to describe a unique way of life that can be about a nation, a period, a group, or the entire human population.
3. Independent abstract nouns: Used to describe intellectual works and activities, especially in the arts such as music, literature, painting, sculpture, drama, film, etc.

The third category of usage originates from the first category, according to Williams (2013): "The third usage category appeared later in time, and we cannot be sure of the exact time because it is derived from the concept of a general process involving intellectual, spiritual, and aesthetic development that has been effectively used and extended to works and activities. 'Process' has become 'artistic progress of culture.'" Language is a set of established concepts and ideas, which includes a worldview (Gramsci, 2005). In contemporary times, these three types of definitions are repeatedly used, begging the question: What kind of worldview does the complex meaning of "culture" represent and what is its purpose?

The Use of "Culture"

The ruling class of society faces the difficult problem of "maintaining ideological unity of the entire social entity" (Gramsci, 2005). The source of this problem is that "when people acquire a worldview, they always adopt the terminology of a particular social group, which is a group of all social members who adopt the same way of thinking and behavior." Gramsci first explained the ideology of an organic social entity under theocracy based on Catholicism: "They strongly feel that all the faithful demand a unified doctrine and strive to prevent the division of the higher intellectual class from the lower one." Gramsci believes that this contradictory integration of social relations is ideology: "'Politics' guarantees the relationship between common sense and high-level philosophy. Just as politics guarantees the relationship between the Catholicism of intellectuals and that of ordinary people." He further pointed out the theocratic cultural form of Catholicism: "There are existing groups of believers between Catholics, and this rift cannot be solved by raising ordinary people to the level of intellectuals (the church has never imagined this task because it is beyond its capability, both ideologically and economically)... They can only give clerics (here referring to priests) strict discipline to prevent them from crossing a certain line and enlarging the rift... The church integrates through mass movements (among which powerful figures will always be created, such as new religious groups centered on Saint Dominic and Saint Francis)." Thus, this forms the theocratic culture of feudal society.

However, during the gradual emergence of capitalism, the culture of divine power could no longer maintain its rule in the form of the past, as the "consensus ideology established between intellectuals and ordinary people" became ineffective. This can be seen in the "rapid collapse of the Roman Church in the face of the religious reform after the Renaissance" and later in the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism in the "Thirty Years' War". The Thirty Years' War directly led to the birth of the Netherlands as an independent nation (that is, "culture" was born as an exclusive identity, in the form of a "nation", in human civilization for the first time). The frequent use of the three meanings of "culture" shows that "the ambiguity of various uses and the tension among them actually constitute a meaningful reflection on a society undergoing radical and painful changes". (Eagleton, 2000) In other words, from the 14th century, when capitalism began to emerge in Europe, to the 19th century, "culture" was proposed as a challenge to "divine power". When divine power no longer had a dominant ideology, humanism and romanticism emerged - that is, civil rights, combined with modern terms such as "culture" and "civilization". It is no longer possible to simply integrate the entire society with the meaning of the French term "intellectual" - that is, the clergy at that time (this class monopolized religious ideology: philosophy and science, as well as schools, education, morality, justice, charity, and social relief). The various classes in society began to compete for "hegemony" in society. During this period, "culture" officially took shape in the long 19th century. During this period, society faced great tension, both in terms of production modes and social culture. Revolutions and coups emerged endlessly, and various emerging social historical groups (Social History Bloc) were forming. According to Gramsci (2007), "the historical unity of the ruling class is achieved in the state, and their history is essentially the history of the state and the national group." In other words, the culture of the ruling class is the culture that rules society, that is, the "mainstream culture" in society. We can use Bourdieu's (1993) field theory to understand this situation: different social groups compete for capital in the same field, and specific, mainstream social groups - under capitalism, it is the culture of the bourgeoisie - always have stronger field power in this cultural field (Field) to achieve reproduction. However, this field is not fixed, but "relational". In the understanding of Marxist sociology, this field is also "contradictory": In the process of forming historical social groups, other groups are also "assumed in advance, and their unity is dialectical (Servo della Ieba), that is, because there are people in the sense of slaves, there will be nobles." (Gramsci, 2005) This leads to the birth of the symbolic field of the word "culture" being full of contradictions: it is a language symbol that is contradictory, complex, conflicting (Conflict) and uncoordinated, that is, only in the sense of the existence of "high culture" will there be "popular culture"; only with the appearance of the "bourgeoisie" will there be a "working class". Only at this level can we understand the historical origins of the three meanings of "culture": the three "cultures" actually belong to three (existing or once existed) historical social groups (Bloc):

1. Feudal aristocracy
2. Bourgeoisie
3. Working class

In history, the formation time of the three classes is different:

(1) Feudal aristocracy is the ruling class of the Middle Ages - "the clergy can be regarded as an organic combination of knowledge and the nobility with land".

(2) The bourgeoisie gradually took shape after the Enlightenment movement - the first bourgeois party, the Whig Party, was established in 1678, and ten years later launched the "Glorious Revolution" against the feudal aristocracy in England. In Anderson's words: "British absolutism was brought into crisis by its peripheral aristocratic localism and clan turmoil: they were historical factors that supported it. Commercial rural gentry, capitalist cities, civilian handicraftsmen, and self-employed farmers brought it to a dead end."

(3) The working class has the latest formation time among the three: it was not until the emergence of the Brownist movement and the Paris Commune that the working class officially had sporadic "formation", which has continued to this day.

Among these three classes, the excessive dominance of feudal aristocracy and bourgeois culture is as follows:

"The development of bourgeois culture began several hundred years before the bourgeois class seized state power through a series of revolutions. When the bourgeois class was still a semi-powerless third estate, it played a significant and increasingly influential role in cultural construction in all fields. " (Literature and Revolution, Trotsky, 2005)

Trotsky further argues his point from an architectural perspective:

"This can be particularly clear in architecture. Gothic cathedrals were not built under the impact of religious inspiration. The structure, architectural style, and sculpture of Cologne Cathedral summed up the accumulated experience of human architecture from cave dwellings, and used the elements of this experience to express the new style of contemporary culture, which ultimately expressed the structure and technology of contemporary society. The bourgeois predecessors of guilds and trade unions were actual builders of Gothic architecture. The bourgeois, who consciously and actively adopted Gothic architecture, created their own architectural style not for churches but for their own palatial buildings after they grew rich and prosperous. The bourgeois relied on the achievements of Gothic architecture, turned to the style of ancient Greek and Roman architecture, mainly the architectural style of ancient Rome, and used Moorish architectural style to make all of this conform to the new conditions and needs of urban social life, thus opening the Renaissance era (Italy - the end of the first 25 years of the 15th century)."

Starting from the classical urban commune movement, the bourgeois gradually occupied various fields of thought such as philosophy and science, culture, schools, education, morals, and justice - gradually establishing social hegemony in the sense of Gramsci: "That is, the ruling and leadership of knowledge and morality... A social group must also exercise leadership before winning power (this is one of the primary conditions for winning power)." This process is not singular and absolute, but a slow evolutionary process: that is to say, these are the "accumulations" of human life, as mentioned above, the bourgeoisie actually borrowed the historical and cultural governance to construct; in other words, the culture we mention in daily life is actually a kind of "historical unconsciousness (or social unconsciousness)": it is a "experience" that overlaps and accumulates with the past. And these experiences are actually reflected in our daily lives, and at the same time, these experiences are dynamic and constantly changing, which is different from Bourdieu's imagination of the field: from the perspective of political criticism, the field is a dialectical concept that continues to promote historical progress. As Fromm (2013) mentioned, the source of these changes and driving forces for historical progress comes from:

"Most of the things that people consciously think about are false consciousness, ideology and decoration. The real driving force for human behavior is what people are not conscious of. According to Freud, the power comes from people's sexual desire; according to Marx, the power is rooted in the entire social organization of people, and society guides people's consciousness in certain directions, preventing them from realizing certain facts and experiences. "

"Marx's Concept of Man"

Under capitalism, what we call "culture" is precisely the state of indeterminate false consciousness that arises from this vague, uncertain state of affairs. As such, the definition of culture is always very vague: "used to represent a unique way of life, which can be about the way of life of a nation, a period, a group, or the way of life of all human beings." Uniqueness is relative to other things, and a nation, period, or group is also relative to other nations, periods, or groups. Therefore, culture is essentially a term that tries to encompass numerous social relations and can be appropriated according to circumstances. However, at the same time, it has a certain material basis and is constituted by lived experience, as Marx (2009) said:

"It can be seen that the matter is this: certain individuals who engage in production activities in a certain way are involved in certain social and political relationships. Observations of experience should always reveal the connection between social and political structures and production based on experience, without any mystical or speculative coloring. Social structures and states always arise from the life process of certain individuals engaged in production. However, the individuals referred to here are not the kind of individuals imagined by themselves or others, but the individuals in reality, that is, those who are engaged in activities, engaged in material production, and therefore active within certain material limits, premises, and conditions that are not arbitrarily subject to their control."

Therefore, culture is productive, which is why bourgeois culture "began hundreds of years before the bourgeoisie seized state power through a series of revolutions (Trotsky, 2005). He must expand his "leadership" by competing for the production base and creating new production tools to absorb and seize social domination. This is also why the word "culture" was created in the 16th century: it must emphasize the integrity of society (sometimes local integrity) to ensure (1) the consistency of the universal market and (2) the consistency of the market, thereby ensuring (1) the expansion of the world capitalist market and (2) Ensuring the accumulation and competition of capital between local markets. Since culture is a term used by the ruling class to maintain social integrity and achieve internal competition of capital (thus we can understand why the definition of the word "culture" is so vague: because it is originally used to cover contradictions and achieve social unity), we can infer a conclusion based on this: "All 'culture' (in the context of capitalism) is 'bourgeois culture'; and in capitalism, what is shaped as 'high culture' (relatively formed is 'popular culture') is the elegant culture favored by people who can bring 'special experiences' to others and have more capital in the capital market (we will explore this issue carefully later in the article)." This kind of high culture obviously inherits the culture of the feudal aristocracy; the function that can give people "special alienation experience" cannot be provided in capitalist society (because its operation purpose is to achieve the largest capital accumulation, in other words, as long as it can be obtained The maximum profit can be obtained from it). In order to continue selling this "special experience" and obtain the maximum profit, capitalism has established a fixed "cultural" production mechanism, which is specifically designed for people, because only "people" can enable culture to be produced:

"The production of ideas, concepts, and consciousness is initially directly intertwined with people's material activities, their material exchanges, and the language of real life. People's imagination, thinking, and spiritual communication are still here. The direct product of people's material actions. The spiritual production expressed in the language of politics, law, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc. of a certain nationality is also like this. "People are the producers of their own concepts, thoughts, etc.," but the people referred to here are real people engaged in activities, and they are subject to a certain development of their own productivity and the communication that adapts to it - until the farthest form of communication constrains it. "Consciousness [das Bewusstsein] can only be existence [das bewusste Sein] that has been realized at any time, and people's existence is their real life process." If in all ideological forms, people and their relationships are upside down in the camera, then this phenomenon is also from the historical process of people's life, just like the inverted reflection of objects on the retina is directly from the physiological process of people's life. "

"German Ideology" Karl Marx (1965)

That is to say, only when people are aware of these "ideologies" do these "ideologies" formally become "ideologies" (which we can also call historical unconsciousness, because more of it is not yet conscious to us) and exist as "culture" in society. These "ideologies" are repeatedly tested, implemented, and promoted in society, so that they can be "seen" and "recognized" in society. In this sense, the relationship between the material world and the world of cognition conforms to Gramsci's concept of "everyone is a philosopher", that is, ideologies become their intended state only when they are recognized and affirmed (consent) by themselves. Next, we will talk about how this cultural production mechanism works.

The Ideological State Apparatus

The cultural production base of capitalism began preparing itself early on, as it gradually took control of many social institutions:

"The accumulation of the elements of the bourgeois culture and their fixation as a basic process of creating a style depends on the social characteristics of the bourgeoisie as a productive, exploiting class: it not only developed within feudal society, intricately interwoven with it, and gradually concentrated wealth in its hands, but also attracted intellectuals to its side, having established its own cultural base (secondary schools, universities, research institutions, newspapers, and magazines) long before taking control of the state through the third estate."

(Trotsky, 2005)

In his book, "On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus," Althusser (2014) expands Gramsci's concept of the ideological battlefield. He divided the state apparatus into the "repressive state apparatus" and the "ideological state apparatus." The former is responsible for violent suppression of street movements, and is composed of military, police, and various law enforcement agencies that directly suppress any attempts to seize power. The latter is a ubiquitous daily presence that spreads throughout the atmosphere, and is responsible for "professional media that disseminate knowledge," such as religious institutions, schools, media outlets, and television networks. From Gramsci's perspective, this is the competition field for the struggle for leadership and maintenance. The above quote further reminds us that this situation did not just arise in contemporary capitalism, but began long before the bourgeoisie officially became holders of power: it gradually brought everything around us into the same logic of capitalism, where people are "equal," and everyone can enjoy the "same culture," but the premise is that you must have enough capital to obtain the "special experiences" produced under the cultural mechanism - this is the ideological state apparatus, a logical mechanism deeply integrated with the social market.

Cultural Industry: The Distinction between Object and Subject

Under this logic, cultural production has gradually become industrialized and centralized. "Popular culture" has become the "cultural industry": one is the culture created spontaneously by the public (which is, of course, the ideal state of "culture"), and the other is the standardized and centralized cultural "product" produced by capitalism, which the public can only accept as individuals. Adorno (1975) described the situation of the cultural industry as follows:

"We use 'cultural industry' instead of 'popular culture' to exclude from the very outset any connotations that might suggest it is a kind of culture spontaneously generated by the masses and is the contemporary form of folk art. We have to distinguish as clearly as possible between the cultural industry and popular art... In all the branches of the cultural industry, products are made to appeal to the consumer either singly or in terms of certain categories, and they are more or less systematically produced according to plan. The structure of the various branches of the industry is similar or even homologous, and their coordination is so close that they easily merge into a seamless system."

Adorno (1975) fiercely criticized the status of the cultural industry, stating that "the cultural industry wants to make us believe that the consumer is God, but in fact this is not the case. The consumer is not the subject of the cultural industry, but its object. The term 'mass media' was specially created for the cultural industry, which has shifted the focus of the problem to harmless territory. The crux of the problem is not a question of prioritizing the masses or a technical issue of mass communication, but rather a question of the spirit that is instilled in the masses, that of their rulers. The cultural industry assumes that the masses' minds are fixed and unchangeable, and mistakenly uses its attention to the masses to replicate, consolidate, and reinforce this mindset."

In other words, the cultural industry has a strong purpose: to transform consumption purposefully through the products it creates. As objects, consumers cannot participate in the production process. In contemporary times, consumers participate in the big data creation of social media, but the essence of the cultural industry remains unchanged. It still maintains an industrial framework, only allowing people to produce within limited, assembly-line parameters.

"The concept of technology in the cultural industry and in art is only superficially alike. For the latter, technology is related to the internal organization of the object itself and its internal logic. In contrast, the technology of the cultural industry is from the beginning a circulating and mechanically reproducible technology, and therefore always external to its object. The cultural industry seeks ideological support precisely in order to carefully resist the full potential of the technology contained in its products. It parasitizes the material production technology of art and commodities, without considering its obligation to the internal artistic whole implied in its objectivity, or the formal laws required by aesthetic self-discipline. The result of the cultural industry's physiognomy is essentially a mixture of two aspects: one is a strict precision like that of a production line or photography, and the other is the residue of personality, sentimentality, and the already rationalized and adapted romanticism. Benjamin expressed his view of traditional artworks through the concept of aura. If we adopt his thinking, we can define the cultural industry as not presenting a principle that is diametrically opposed to the principle of aura, but maintaining a thin mist of aura that has already disappeared. The cultural industry thus reveals the secret of its ideology."

In capitalist society, the value of artworks lies in their exchange value, that is, how much they are worth on the market. But in classical feudal society, the value of artworks was based on their intrinsic value. Benjamin (1935) described this in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction": "The instantaneously and simultaneously received uniqueness or aura which, as it were, is the obverse of the absolute remoteness or accessibility, is becoming ever rarer. But it is the latter which lends to the work its bearing on reality. It is the result of this historicity that the concept of authenticity is formulated." However, due to industrialization, the worship value of artworks is gradually eroded in the process of standardization. Adorno used film to describe the glory of the capitalist industrial age: "It is not too literal to understand the word 'industry'. It refers to the standardization of things themselves (such as the standardization of westerns that every movie fan knows) and the rationalization of circulating technology, rather than strict standardization in the production process. In the core sector of the cultural industry, such as film, although the production process is very similar to the operating mode of technology in terms of extensive division of labor, the use of machinery, separation of labor and production tools (as reflected in the permanent conflict between artists active in the cultural industry and the controllers of the cultural industry), it still maintains an individualized production method... Each product is packaged with a unique personality. This personality itself serves to strengthen the ideology. Since the illusion is magically summoned, completely objectified and intermediated things are shelters for immediacy and real life."

The essence of art is alienation, but in the capitalist world, even this individual alienation cannot be accepted - people who are extremely alienated cannot engage in productive work or accumulate capital. Benjamin describes this state of extreme alienation as the aestheticization of fascist political life: "Cult of art - destruction of the world...The human being who was once an object of contemplation for the Olympian gods has now become one for himself, his alienation has reached such a degree that he can experience his own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order." In other words, fascist aesthetics - self-destruction - is a kind of art that arises from extreme alienation and produces an extremely unique experience. Contemporary capitalism brings about alienation while at the same time forcing us to suppress the alienation that arises from our daily labor through ideology - "culture". The industrial society that produces through standardized and rationalized production techniques can only eliminate people's alienation through the ideology (culture) of standardized and rationalized production techniques, which also creates Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man".

High Culture - An Alienating Experience

Based on the points mentioned in the previous article, we can understand that "culture" is essentially a process of alienation, where both the "subject" and the "object" are constructed by us (culture as a verb (process), as mentioned at the beginning of the article, the first use of culture), and can also be a process of alienation which results in culture becoming a noun, a romantic way of life. The so-called High Culture is no exception. The reason why High Culture is considered high is not only because of its historical factors - as a remnant of the feudal aristocracy's way of life, but also because this way of life does not belong to this era originally:

"The high culture of the West - industrial society still acknowledges its moral, aesthetic, and intellectual values - is a pre-technical culture in terms of function and age. Its effectiveness comes from the experience of a world that no longer exists and cannot be regained, because in a strict sense, technological society will make it ineffective. Even when it gave it some of the most persistent formulas in the bourgeois era, it was still largely a feudal culture. It is feudal not only because it is limited to a few privileged people, not only because it has an inherent romantic element, but also because its typical works consciously alienate the entire commercial and industrial field, alienate its calculating and profit-oriented order."

"One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society" by Herbert Marcuse (2013)

In the capitalist era, everything should operate according to the logic of capitalism. Any culture, before it can be considered culture, must be a sellable commodity, which is an inviolable logic under capitalism - except for the culture before capitalism formally conquered the world. Capitalism cannot erase the culture of the feudal aristocracy, as Marx mentioned in "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844": "The general domination of private property starts from the ownership of land; land ownership is the basis of private property. But under the feudal system of land ownership, the lord is at least the apparent sovereign of the territory. At the same time, on feudal estates, there is an illusion of a closer relationship between the land and the territory than mere material wealth. The plot is personalized with its owner, with his title, i.e. the title of baron or earl; with its privileges, its jurisdiction, its political position, and so on. The land seems to be the inorganic body of its master." In other words, the logic of capitalism is based on the logic of feudalism, and the capitalist order cannot exist independently of feudalism. However, at the same time, the elements of feudalism are also unacceptable to the logic of capitalism, and these elements are constantly challenging the logic of capitalism:

"The representatives of this other dimension are not heroes of religion, spirit, and morality (they often support established orders), but destructive figures like artists, prostitutes, adulterers, major criminals, and vagabonds, warriors, rebellious poets, demons, and idiots - they do not make a living by earning wages, at least not in an orderly way.

Of course, these figures have not disappeared from the literature of developed industrial societies, but their remnants have fundamentally changed. Extortionate prostitutes, national heroes, the lost generation, neurotic housewives, gangsters, stars, charismatically successful giants, have a very different, even opposite role to their cultural predecessors. They are no longer images of another way of life, but rather the aberrations or archetypes of the same life, positive rather than negative towards established orders. Positive, their predecessors' world is a pre-technical world, a world that has a conscience about inequality and hard work, where labor is still a doomed misfortune; but in this world, people and nature have not yet been organized as objects and tools. This past culture, with its form and manner criteria, its literary and philosophical style and vocabulary, embodies a melody and content of the universe, in which valleys and forests, villages and inns, nobles and villains, salons and courts are all part of the reality experienced. In the poetry and prose of this pre-technical culture, the melody expresses those who wander or ride horses, those who have time and pleasure to meditate, reflect, feel, and describe."

"One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society" by Herbert Marcuse (2013)

Feudal aristocrats expressed their opposition to the existing worldview logic by presenting a worldview that was completely different and had existed in the past. They exhibited a different form of alienation to deny the existing worldview: "...in some of its decisive aspects, this culture is also a post-technological culture. Its most advanced images and positions seem to have escaped being assimilated into the comfort and stimulation of administration; they continue to be aware of the possibility of their regeneration in the perfection of technological progress. They express a freedom and conscious distancing from the established way of life, and even in literature and art, where they decorate that way of life, they oppose it with this distancing." This culture was therefore placed in a relatively "superior" position, as it "does not disturb the commercial order" nor "can it disturb the commercial order." Thus, "culture" initially appeared in the form of opposition to the bourgeoisie: the bourgeoisie did not have the lifestyle that the feudal class had established for a long time. However, when the bourgeoisie gained fundamental economic power, these oppositions became powerless; they could only become accusations against capitalism. Capitalism attempted to assimilate these cultures, which were originally its enemies, using market logic (even though this assimilation was only essentially erosion).

"In the history of this assimilation, there was immaturity; it established cultural equality while preserving domination. Society is excluding the privileges and monopolies of feudal aristocratic culture, along with its content. The a priori truthfulness of art, the aesthetics of life and thought, which only a few educated wealthy people could obtain in the past, was a one-dimensional social fact and the fault of the repressive society of the past. But this fault is not corrected by paperback books, popular education, slow vinyl records, or new etiquette dress codes in theaters and music halls. Cultural privileges express unfair freedom, the contradiction between ideology and reality, and the separation of spiritual productivity from material productivity; but they also provide a protected area that allows taboo truths to survive with abstract integrity - the distancing that suppresses these truths in society."

One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Herbert Marcuse (2013)

The logic of market expansion sought by capitalism has caused these formerly protected areas to face the problem of cultural homogenization by the market. High culture under capitalism has become an industrial product that can be sold and purchased as long as there is capital:

"The alienation of art, like the architecture of the new theaters and concert halls in which it is performed, has become designed from a utilitarian point of view. There is no doubt that this new architecture is better, that is, more beautiful and practical, than the grotesque architecture of the Victorian era. But it is also more 'integrated' - cultural centers are becoming a suitable part of sales centers, municipal centers, or management centers. Rule has its own aesthetics, and democratic rule also has its own democratic aesthetics. Yes, almost everyone can get beautiful art anytime they turn on their sound system or step into their music room. However, in this popularization, beautiful art has become a cog in the cultural machine that renovates beautiful art content."

The alienation of art, along with other negations, has succumbed to the process of technological rationality. "If this change is seen as a result of technological progress, then its irreversibility can be seen in its depth and breadth, as determined by its newly available means of realization. The images of pre-technological times are losing their power."

One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Herbert Marcuse (2013)

In other words, under the logic of capitalism, advanced culture, including its functions as a post-technological culture, has been eroded and assimilated, and culture under capitalism has gradually been consumed. Western traditional culture, whether in the sense of high culture or popular culture, has become part of the culture industry. At this level, there is no culture under capitalism, only the logic of capitalist culture. People under capitalism, due to their status as objects of the culture industry, have become what Marcuse calls "one-dimensional man." However, it is worth noting that Marcuse adopts a pessimistic attitude, coupled with Benjamin's "Hope is given to us precisely because of the hopeless. " to address the readers of "One-Dimensional Man". However, this pessimistic attitude is worth criticizing, just as we should dialectically criticize the culture itself, we should also dialectically criticize the creators of culture - human beings themselves:

"The reality shows that the proletariat, who is both a thing and a man, an object and a subject, has a dual character: both essence and appearance, both inner essential form and surface. The experience of the proletariat in this situation enables it to understand the whole social reality as essence and appearance, starting from the already achieved form of rectification. Self-alienation reaches its peak in the proletariat. By becoming an object, a thing, a person becomes the subject and object of knowledge at the same time. This is the meaning of "self-knowledge of reality" in dialectical materialism. In the process of becoming a thing, the material structure of reality dissolves and becomes human and social. The unity of man and thing reveals the humanity of the relationship between things." (Jakubowski, 1976)

Since we acknowledge that human beings as humans can create a state of being an object (i.e., the receiver of the culture industry), we cannot deny the ability of human beings as humans to transform themselves into subjects (i.e., the potential creators of culture).

Culture as the idea of resistance

The term "culture" is essentially rebellious, as Adorno (1975) pointed out, "Something that can rightfully be called culture as an expression of suffering and contradiction always strives to understand the idea of a good life. Culture cannot express things that only exist, nor can it express categories of order that are no longer binding - and the culture industry uses these things to obscure the idea of a good life, as if the existing world were a good life and those categories were the true standards for measuring a good life. If representatives of the culture industry claim that they are not spreading art, then they are themselves an ideology, avoiding social responsibility and only doing their business. This explanation has never corrected any wrongdoing."

As philosopher Ernest Bloch (2009) said, "The world has a tendency, the characteristics of which are that humanity is striving towards a world without exploitation and suffering, towards utopia. 'Not yet' is an expectation of this goal, expressed in various forms; 'overall', 'not yet' 'consciousness' is a psychological expression of a time and its world that has not yet become. "Culture as a verb is a potential thing, and it" like the limited consciousness of existence, can only be understood by asking where it comes from, where it is going, and what it is. It is not something that has existed in the past, but rather the essence of the world itself is at the forefront." (Bloch, 1986) Thus, the meaning of culture has been fully interpreted and reproduced: it is not a process of being shaped by industrialized culture in a simple, static way, but a potential talent that individuals possess, as philosopher Hegel said, "As long as people do not destroy the dead objectivity of the world, do not realize their own life and their own life behind the fixed form of things and laws, then the world is an alienated and unreal world. Once he finally reaches self-awareness, he not only embarks on the journey to his own truth, but also the journey to the truth of his world, and with this understanding, there will be action. He tries to turn this truth into action, thereby making the world a truly authentic world, that is, realizing self-awareness. "Thus, Gransci proposed to create a more advanced" high culture "to transform the world so that it can return to its" true "state. This kind of culture is new and critical:

"To create a new culture does not only mean the discovery of individual 'originality.' It also - this is particularly important - means spreading the truth that has already been discovered in a critical way, that is, 'socializing' these truths. Even making them the basis of major activities, elements of a common mission, intellectual and moral order. Because guiding the masses to think cohesively and thinking about the real world in the same cohesive way is far more important than the truth of a philosopher or the wealth of an intellectual group, and it is much more 'original.' "

"Prison Notebooks" Antonio Gramsci (2007)

Since the current culture exists in the form of "false consciousness," which is an ideology, it does not completely match the actual material conditions. This constitutes the contradictory nature of the material world and the cognitive world. In a sense, Marcuse is right: "Social critical theory does not have a concept that can bridge the gap between the present and the future, makes no promises, shows no successes, and only negates." But he didn’t say the next thing: the essence of critical theory lies in its ability to judge how to practice, and to raise this ability to a social, common world view based on equality, with the ability to unite for the same purpose. Therefore:

"At the beginning of practical philosophy, it had to present itself as a debate and criticism, presenting itself as a replacement for existing thinking and concrete ideas (that is, the current cultural world). Therefore, it is first a critique of 'common sense', although at the beginning, it builds itself on 'common sense' in order to prove that everyone is a philosopher. Therefore, it is not a question of introducing scientific thinking into everyone's personal life, but of reforming existing activities in a revolutionary way to make them 'critical' issues. "

"Prison Notebooks" Antonio Gramsci (2007)

This contradictory nature must be resolved when the material world and the cognitive world become unified. That is, "The change in the environment and human activities can only be seen as revolutionary practice." These processes, like the concept of cultural capitalism, are based on "the environment is changed by people, and educators themselves must be educated." As Gransci mentioned:

"The premise of practical philosophy is all past cultures: the Renaissance and the Reformation, German philosophy and the French Revolution, Calvinism, classical economics in England, secular liberalism, and historicism rooted in the entire modern worldview. Practical philosophy is the culmination of all these spiritual and moral reform movements, and it is the dialectic of mass culture and advanced culture. Practical philosophy conforms to the combination of Protestant reform and the French Revolution: it is both a political philosophy and a philosophical politics. Practical philosophy is still in the popular stage: it is not easy to cultivate a group of independent intellectuals; it needs a long process, including action and reaction, aggregation and division, and the emergence of many complex new structures... Practical philosophy (ie Marxism) has revived the entire set of experiences of Hegelianism, Feuerbachism, and French materialism in its founders, in order to restore the dialectical unity, which is to 'turn it upside down.' The fate of Hegelianism has been repeated in practical philosophy, that is, on the one hand, the return of philosophical materialism from dialectical unity... "

"Prison Notebooks" Antonio Gramsci (2007)

In other words, just as Marx and Engels were members of the petite bourgeoisie, their ideas were naturally petite bourgeois as well. However, as their ideas were practiced by the people, this "high culture" gradually became a truly excellent and more socially realistic "culture." In a society where culture has reached its peak, the concept of culture under the bourgeoisie will no longer exist, and people will truly recognize their alienation. Evolved works of art will be displayed in front of human civilization. As Marcuse asked readers "because hope was given to us for the sake of those who did not have hope," we respond to his "hopelessness" with Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction": "Fascism seeks political aestheticization (self-destruction), while Marxism responds with the politicization of art."

"We must seize the 'leadership' in order to 'create culture': to become a consciousness that is a specific part of the power to lead is the first step towards further self-awareness. In this self-awareness, theory and practice will eventually merge... until a truly unified worldview is reached." (Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, 2007)

Conclusion

Culture has always been a product of alienation: it was only because theocratic culture could no longer be integrated into society that people began to talk about culture. In the intense struggle between the feudal aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, culture was given a new and different historical significance. To resist the emerging bourgeoisie, the feudal aristocracy described their own history as culture, which was strongly opposed. The concept of culture was further expanded to include universal and collective cultural implications by the liberal bourgeoisie. Under late capitalism, even the original cultural implications were included in the logic of the capitalist market. The feudal culture that the bourgeoisie actively learned was also drawn into it. In order to avoid falling under fascist aesthetics - that is, towards the alienation of destruction - capitalism actively expanded its market and even absorbed all cultures into the capitalist market, becoming a single culture. Marcuse described such a society as:

"When individuals seek their development and satisfaction in the same way as their imposed life, the concept of alienation seems questionable. This unity is not a fantasy, but a reality. However, this reality constitutes a further stage of alienation. The alienated subject is engulfed by its alienated existence. There is only one dimension, which is ubiquitous in various forms. The achievements of progress openly defy the accusation and defense of ideology; in their court, the "false consciousness" of their rationality becomes real consciousness.

However, the adoption of this ideology by reality does not signify the 'end of ideology.' On the contrary, in a specific sense, today's ideology is more ideological than its predecessors because it is embedded in the production process itself. This proposition reveals the political aspect of prevalent technical rationality. The means of production and the goods and services they produce 'sell out' or deceive the entire social system. Industries such as transportation, communication, housing, food and clothing, entertainment, and information have an overwhelming influence on people's attitudes and habits, shaping certain ideas and emotional responses, which unite consumers with producers and, through producers, with society as a whole. Products have indoctrinating and manipulative effects, fostering a false consciousness that avoids its own falsity. As these useful products are used by more individuals in more social classes, their indoctrinating effects are no longer propaganda but become a way of life. It is a good way of life - much better than before - and as a good way of life, it obstructs qualitative change. Therefore, a one-dimensional pattern of thought and behavior emerges, in which concepts, aspirations, and goals that exceed the established domain of discourse and action are excluded or reduced to several contents of this field. They are redefined by the established system and its quantitative expansion." (Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, 2013)

In times when "culture" is used to mask "alienation" (that is, ideology concealing ideology), the only "high culture" that can be independent of "culture" will be critical theory that critiques capitalism. Such theory arises from capitalist society and moves towards a society that is not yet conscious. In such a society, there will only be practice and no culture (or it can be full of culture), and many of the limits of humanity will be rediscovered in the absence of market logic. As Ernst Bloch wrote: "Thus, the Marxist dialectical and historical tendency studies the realistic future science and the objective and realistic possibility in reality; [the purpose of this possibility is action.]... Only when Marxism is involved, will the future horizon be given the true dimension of reality along with the past that serves as the anteroom. Only then can many dimensions of human civilization be gradually rediscovered in a society where people can quickly detect their own alienation. Human civilization can evolve to an unprecedented height - reconstruction, development, and reconstruction again. The only thing that can make "culture" progress towards true "culture" will be the true "high culture", and with Marxism, the future horizon can be revealed in its true dimensions.

引用資料 Reference

Adorno, T. W., & Rabinbach, A. G. (1975). Culture industry reconsidered. New German Critique, (6), 12-19.

Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Verso Books.

Benjamin, W. (1935). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, 1936.

Bloch, E., Plaice, N., Plaice, S., & Knight, P. (1986). The principle of hope (Vol. 3, pp. 1938-47). Cambridge, MA: mit Press.

Bourdieu, Johnson, & Johnson, Randal. (1993). The field of cultural production : Essays on art and literature (European perspectives). New York: Columbia University Press.

Eagleton, T. (2000). The idea of culture (Blackwell manifestos). Oxford ; Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Fromm, E., & Marx, K. (2013). Marx's Concept of Man: Including'Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts'. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gramsci, A. (2007). Selections from the prison notebooks. In On Violence (pp. 159-179). Duke University Press.

Jakubowski, F. (1976). Ideology and superstructure in historical materialism (p. 103). London: Allison & Busby.

Mandel, E., & Jinshou, I. (2009). Antizipation und Hoffnung als Kategorien des historischen Materialismus. Modern Philosophy, 4.

Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Routledge.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1965). The German Ideology (1845).

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2009). The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist manifesto. Prometheus Books.

Trotsky, L. (2005). Literature and revolution. Haymarket Books.

Williams, R. (2015). Keywords : A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.