英国伦敦大学哥德斯密学院斯科特·拉什（Scott Lash）教授“Economics, Politics, Imaginaries”系列讲座
2012年3月12日至4月1日，英国伦敦大学哥德斯密学院斯科特·拉什（Scott Lash）教授将在高研院做短期访学，并做主题为“Economics, Politics, Imaginaries”的系列讲座，访问期间，拉什教授还将开设相关专题的工作坊。
拉什教授是世界著名的社会学家和文化研究专家，曾任教于英国兰开斯特大学，1998年至今在伦敦大学哥德史密斯学院（Goldsmith College）执教。他的研究领域包括社会学、现代哲学、文化研究、身份认同、现代化等，著作有《组织化资本主义的终结》、《韦伯，理性和现代性》、《后现代主义社会学》、《现代性和身份》、《全球现代性》、《风险、环境和现代性》、《去传统化》、《时间与价值》、《另一种现代性，另一种理性》、《符号经济与空间经济》等。
拉什教授曾与2011年3月14日至4月13日期间来访高研院，并做主题为“新全球化、新理论”的系列演讲，与南大师生交流，并接受了《中华读书报》等媒体的采访，引起热烈的反响。
此次系列演讲共分三场，主题分别为：
Lecture 1. Adam Smith in Beijing 亚当斯密在北京
时间：2012年3月14日（周三）晚18:30—20:30
地点：逸夫馆9楼高研院报告厅
备注：英语演讲
Some analysts – e.g. David Harvey - argue that China today is a neo-liberal economy. Others argue that China may be a socialist market economy. Giovanni Arrighi implicitly puts a case for this in his Adam Smith in Beijing. In this, if Karl Marx is the theorist of capital, then Adam Smith is the economist of the market. Thus China of the Song Dynasty was a very highly developed markets society, without the domination of capital. Such markets are replaced by fully-fledged capitalism only with the emergence of capital-intensive means of production. This is what Marx called ‘die grobe Industrie’: this emerges only in England in the second half of the Eighteenth century. Michel Foucault in Birth of Bio-Politics also sets up his critique of neo-liberalism on the basis of a Smithian liberalism. Not liberalism but only neo- liberalism is a mode of bio-political governance. Marx wrote the critique of political economy. But Smith and classical political economy can itself be critique: first critique of neo-classical economics and second of neo-liberal domination. Smith, as a close associate of David Hume, was an empiricist. Neo-classical economics is, not empiricist, but instead rationalist. Smith wrote not just Wealth of Nations but also Theory of the Moral Sentiments. In this ethics is not based on rationalist Kantian rules. Smithian ethics are based instead on desire, feelings and sentiments. Here I can only perceive what I feel. I cannot perceive but only can imagine what you feel. This is an ethic of the imaginary: of the social imaginary. To what extent are Smithiam markets and indeed Smithian ethics (道德) ‘Chinese’?
有的分析家——例如大卫哈维或迈克戴维丝——认为当代中国是一个新自由主义的经济。其他人觉得中国可能是一个社会主义市场经济。在他的书《亚当斯密在北京》中，乔万尼阿里吉含蓄论证这个观点。 如果卡尔马克思是资本方面的理论家， 那么亚当斯密是市场方面的经济学家。比如说中国在宋代就是一个不由资本主导的高度发展的市场社会。只有当资本密集型的生产资料出现时，市场社会才会被资本主义取代。这是马克思所说的“大工业”。这种大工业在十八世纪下半页的英格兰第一次出现。 在《生物政治的诞生》一书中， 米歇尔福柯用斯密的自由主义来批判新自由主义。只有新自由主义而非自由主义才是生命政治治理。马克思对政治经济学进行了批判。但是斯密以及古典政治经济学本身就可以是一种批判：第一，新古典经济学的批评； 第二，新自由主义权利的批评。 斯密是大卫休谟的亲密朋友：因此斯密是经验主义学家。新古典经济学，不是经验主义的，而是理性主义的。 斯密写的不只是《国富论》， 还有“道德情操论”。在这里，伦理不是基于康德理性主义的规则的。 反之，斯密主义的伦理学是基于欲望、感觉、情操的。这儿我能感知的只有我的感觉。 我不能感知、只能想象你的感觉。 这是一个想象力的伦理学：一个社会想象力的伦理学。斯密主义的市场观念是有伦理内涵的 。他是不是很中国？
Lecture 2 Hegel’s Brain 黑格尔的智慧
时间：2012年3月21日（周三）晚18:30—20:30
地点：逸夫馆9楼高研院报告厅
备注：英语演讲
For Foucault, liberalism was linked to Smith’s political economy and Adam Ferguson’s concept of civil society. G.W.F. Hegel drew on both Smith and Ferguson for his notion of civil society. Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind was first and foremost, not about absolute spirit, but about the human subject as mind. Here the subject and mind consists of on the one hand perception and on the other the concepts of the understanding. For Kant the imagination mediates between perception and the understanding. Kant of course featured the reason of the understanding. Post-Kantian romantics - such as Fichte and Hegel’s close friend Schelling - focused instead on the imagination, on the productive imaginary as creating the world. For Kant the subject is more or less rigid. For Hegel the subject and mind is plastic. This plasticity is attained through this the imaginary, through the schema of this imaginary encountering the uncertainty of the future. This encounter is a process of constituting and transforming our identity itself. At stake so far is consciousness and (Freudian) unconscious mind. But any Hegelian dialectics must synthesize the ideality of mind and the materiality of the brain. Today cognitive neuroscience shows that biological evolution has led to the increased plasticity of the human brain. Our mind-brains encounter and ‘couple’ with objects, with technology and with other humans in a multiplicity of configurations. To the extent that we (and our relations) are rigid, they are driven by a functional mechanism of reproduction. To the extent that we are plastic, our self-organization and this productive coupling is driven by the (social) imaginary.
Lecture 3. Carl Schmitt’s Book of Politics. 卡尔·施密特的政治学著作
时间：2012年3月28日（周三）晚18:30—20:30
地点：逸夫馆9楼高研院报告厅
备注：英语演讲
For Foucault the age of Machiavelli and the questions of sovereignty is already a question of the pre-modern past. For Carl Schmitt – and for today for Giorgio Agamben – the question of sovereignty is also the question of the political. Schmitt’s political rejects the instrumentalism and proceduralism of everyday institutional politics. Its basis instead is a fundamental political ontology. What kind of political ontology is at stake here for Schmitt, Agamben and Hannah Arendt? In this humans differ from other animals in that we are political animals. And we humans for Schmitt are constituted as political by the decision of who is the friend and who is the enemy. For Arendt this has to do with who is in and who is outside of the polis. The sovereign is he who decides this question of friend and enemy. But how Western is Schmitt’s political? And by contrast what kind of political might be at stake in China? What sort of friend/enemy dichotomy - of who is included and who is excluded - is implied by the filial relations of Confucian thought? What kind of political critique is possible in the context of Daoist disintegration of the actual of political institutions into the flow and flux, the jianghu (江湖) of the dao. What kind of sovereignty is at stake when with Wang Hui, we think of the very non-Western overlap of nation and empire and Confucian space of civilization? International geo-politics has been based since 1648 and Westphalia on a contractual Hobbesian notion of treaty. The Chinese and Eastern tradition has instead featured not treaty but tribute. Treaty and tribute are in practice more or less unequal. Yet tribute is a question less of contract than of the gift and symbolic exchange. What are the implications of the rise of the East – of China and India – for international geo-politics? What kind sovereignty and what kind of political does thisentail?
