Raymond attlams Edited by Monika Seidl, Roman Horak, Lawrence Grosshery 雷蒙德·威廉斯 由莫妮卡·赛德尔、罗曼·霍拉克与劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格合编
ээсョานกоч 俄文乱码文本
University of Nottingham Hallward Library 诺丁汉大学霍尔沃德图书馆
SLC OUT km 斯莱克输出公里 29*6*1329 \cdot 6 \cdot 13
About Raymond Williams I BRARY 关于雷蒙德·威廉姆斯图书馆
About Raymond Williams represents the overdue critical acclaim of Williams’ lasting influence and unbroken repercussions in critical thought. His writings have effectively shaped the ways in which people understand the complexity of the notion of ‘culture’ and many of the ways it has been taken up in scholarly practice. 《关于雷蒙德·威廉姆斯》标志着对威廉姆斯持久影响力及其在批判思想中持续回响的迟来认可。他的著作深刻塑造了人们对"文化"概念复杂性的理解方式，以及该概念被运用于学术实践的多种路径。
This international collection of contemporary revisitings and new applications of the work of Raymond Williams both historicizes and contextualizes his theories. Essays combine biographical information, from his roots in the 1960s Leftist movement to his democratic pedagogical commitment, with explorations of the development of some of his major concepts and theories, while others consider current phenomena and questions by means of Williams’ analytical tools. Exploring and making his concepts applicable in the most diverse areas and localities, the contributors testify to the impressive breadth of his influence even twenty years after his death. 这部国际论文集通过当代重审与新应用，既历史化又语境化地呈现了雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的理论。部分文章结合传纪元素——从他 1960 年代左翼运动的根源到其民主教学承诺，探究其重要概念与理论的发展脉络；另一些则运用威廉姆斯的分析工具审视当下现象与问题。撰稿者们通过在最多元领域与地域中探索并应用其概念，印证了这位思想家逝世二十年后仍令人惊叹的广泛影响力。
Contributions from a variety of countries, disciplines, generations and traditions, including essays from: Georgiana Banita, Ana Clara Birrento, Hywel Rowland Dix, Udo Göttlich, Lawrence Grossberg, John Higgins, Roman Horak, H. Gustav Klaus, Clara Masnatta, Gilbert B. Rodman, Monika Seidl, John Storey, Christopher Joseph Westgate, Rainer Winter, Stephen Woodhams. 来自多个国家、学科、世代和传统的贡献者，包括以下作者的论文：乔治亚娜·巴尼塔、安娜·克拉拉·比伦托、海威尔·罗兰·迪克斯、乌多·格特利希、劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格、约翰·希金斯、罗曼·霍拉克、H·古斯塔夫·克劳斯、克拉拉·马斯纳塔、吉尔伯特·B·罗德曼、莫妮卡·赛德尔、约翰·斯托里、克里斯托弗·约瑟夫·韦斯特盖特、雷纳·温特、斯蒂芬·伍德汉姆斯。
In times of change and transformation the reassessment of his political vision provides a useful resource and presents a unique and valuable picture of both the state of cultural studies and of the important contributions of Raymond Williams. 在变革与转型的时代，对其政治愿景的重新评估提供了宝贵的资源，并呈现出文化研究现状与雷蒙德·威廉斯重要贡献的独特图景。
Monika Seidl is Professor of Cultural Studies and Director of Studies at the English Department of Vienna University, Austria. 莫妮卡·赛德尔是奥地利维也纳大学英语系文化研究教授兼学术主任。
Roman Horak is Head of Sociology of Art and Cultural Sociology at the Institute of Aesthetics and Cultural Studies/Art Pedagogy, University of Applied Arts Vienna, Austria. 罗曼·霍拉克是奥地利维也纳应用艺术大学美学与文化研究/艺术教育学系艺术社会学与文化社会学学科负责人。
Lawrence Grossberg is Morris Davis Professor of Communication Studies, Chair of the Executive Committee of the University Program in Cultural Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. Grossberg is co-editor (with Della Pollock) of the journal Cultural Studies. 劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格是美国北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校传播学莫里斯·戴维斯教授，兼任该校文化研究大学项目执行委员会主席。格罗斯伯格与德拉·波洛克共同担任《文化研究》期刊的联合主编。
(a)
[CH]
qquad\qquad ◻\square qquad\qquad r. ++ qquad\qquad qquad\qquad qquad\qquad qquad\qquad
About Raymond Williams 关于雷蒙德·威廉斯
Edited by Monika Seidl, Roman Horak, and Lawrence Grossberg 莫妮卡·赛德尔、罗曼·霍拉克与劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格 合编
University of Nottingham Hallward Library 诺丁汉大学霍尔沃德图书馆
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2024 由互联网档案馆于 2024 年数字化
Contents 目录
Preface ix MONIKA SEIDL AND ROMAN HORAK 序言 ix 莫妮卡·赛德尔与罗曼·霍拉克
Raymond Williams - towards cultural materialism: an introduction … 1 雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化唯物主义导论…1
ROMAN HORAK AND MONIKA SEIDL 罗曼·霍拉克与莫妮卡·赛德尔
Raymond Williams and the absent modernity … 18 雷蒙德·威廉斯与缺席的现代性…18
LAWRENCE GROSSBERG 劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格
‘All forms of signification’ … 34 "一切表意形式"……34
JOHN STOREY 约翰·斯托里
The perspectives of radical democracy: Raymond Williams’ work and its significance for a critical social theory … 45 激进民主的视角：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的著作及其对批判社会理论的意义……45
RAINER WINTER 雷纳·温特
The 1968 May Day Manifesto … 57 1968 年五一宣言…57
STEPHEN WOODHAMS 斯蒂芬·伍德汉姆斯
Fellow-travellers at the conjunction: Williams and educational communicators68CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH WESTGATE 交汇处的同路人：威廉斯与教育传播者 68 克里斯托弗·约瑟夫·韦斯特盖特
The pedagogy of cultural materialism: Paulo Freire and Raymond Williams … 81 文化唯物主义教育学：保罗·弗莱雷与雷蒙德·威廉斯…81
HYWEL ROWLAND DIX 海威尔·罗兰·迪克斯
Raymond Williams and online video: the tragedy of technology … 94 雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与在线视频：技术的悲剧……94
Cultural studies and common culture: Raymond Williams’ approach towards media cultural studies … 106 文化研究与共同文化：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯对媒介文化研究的进路……106
UDO GÖTTLICH 乌多·格特利希
‘Even the dead will not be safe’: on dis(re)membering Williams … 117 JOHN HIGGINS "即使逝者亦难安息"：论威廉姆斯的肢解与重构……117 约翰·希金斯
Raymond Williams in the South Atlantic … 129 南大西洋语境中的雷蒙德·威廉姆斯……129
CLARA MASNATTA 克拉拉·马斯纳塔
Williams and ecology … 141 威廉姆斯与生态学……141
H. GUSTAV KLAUS H·古斯塔夫·克劳斯
Cultural studies is ordinary … 153 文化研究是寻常的……153
GILBERT B. RODMAN 吉尔伯特·B·罗德曼
Raymond Williams: reading novels as knowable communities … 165 雷蒙德·威廉斯：将小说作为可知社区来解读……165
ANA CLARA BIRRENTO 安娜·克拉拉·比伦托
Bibliography … 177 参考文献 … 177
Index … 190 索引 … 190
Preface 前言
Monika Seidl and Roman Horak 莫妮卡·赛德尔 与 罗曼·霍拉克
The title of this book is somewhat different from other books on eminent scholars. We called the book About Raymond Williams rather than On Raymond Williams - which might have been the more appropriate choice for a collection of academic papers - because we wanted to add a personal touch. This is so because the genesis of the book was a personal story of friendship between Monika, one of the three editors of this volume, and her colleague Patricia Häusler-Greenfield, both academics working for the English department at the University of Vienna. 本书标题与同类知名学者研究著作略有不同。我们将其命名为《关于雷蒙德·威廉斯》而非更符合学术论文集惯例的《论雷蒙德·威廉斯》，旨在增添个人情感色彩。这一选择源于本书特殊的诞生背景——三位编者之一的莫妮卡与其维也纳大学英语系同事帕特里夏·霍斯勒-格林菲尔德之间的学术友谊故事。
Pat started working in Austria as a London-appointed Education and English Language Officer for the British Council. She got married here, raised two daughters and for a total of 35 years put most of her imaginative power, her vigour, vitality and force into her departmental duties. Apart from teaching EFL, Pat regularly gave a British civilization lecture, always on Fridays, at eight o’clock in the morning, always packed. There were also her extremely popular Friday afternoon classes, where Pat taught cultural studies. These Friday sessions needed to be smuggled into the regular curriculum via innocent titles such as ‘Study skills and composition’ because of curricular constraints. 帕特最初以英国文化协会伦敦总部任命的"教育与英语语言官员"身份在奥地利工作。她在此成家立业，养育了两个女儿，并将 35 年职业生涯中的大部分创造力、精力与热情都倾注于部门职责。除教授英语作为外语课程外，帕特每周五早八点固定开设的英国文明讲座总是座无虚席。她周五下午的文化研究课程同样极受欢迎，这些课程因教学大纲限制，不得不以"学习技巧与写作"等看似平常的标题被巧妙纳入常规课程体系。
Pat had first-hand experience about her chosen academic field of cultural studies as she started her university life as a prize-winning scholarship student at Girton College, Cambridge, where she graduated with a First Class Degree in modern and medieval languages. The English component of her course took her to Raymond Williams at Jesus College. One of the graduate supervisors was Terry Eagleton, and Stephen Greenblatt was a fellow (postgraduate) student. 帕特在文化研究这一学术领域有着深厚的专业积淀——她以奖学金优等生身份进入剑桥大学格顿学院开启大学生涯，并以现代与中世纪语言专业一等荣誉学位毕业。在耶稣学院求学期间，她曾师从雷蒙德·威廉姆斯修读英语课程，研究生阶段的导师包括特里·伊格尔顿，与斯蒂芬·格林布拉特同为研究生同窗。
Pat retired from teaching at university after the summer term of 2005. In 2006, Monika, as the then president of the Austrian Association of University Teachers of English, organized a series of lectures on Raymond Williams to honour Pat and her endeavour to carry the torch of cultural studies under the dismal conditions of a traditionalist department. This is the point where the personal story goes public. 帕特于 2005 年夏季学期结束后从大学教学岗位退休。2006 年，时任奥地利大学英语教师协会主席的莫妮卡组织了一系列关于雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的讲座，以表彰帕特及其在传统主义院系的不利条件下传承文化研究火炬的努力。这正是个人故事走向公共领域的转折点。
All the speakers invited in 2006 base their academic work on positions developed by Williams or have adapted Williams’ work for their purposes. 2006 年受邀的所有演讲者，其学术研究均建立在威廉姆斯提出的立场基础上，或为自身研究目的对威廉姆斯的成果进行了适应性改造。
Monika managed to persuade Roman Horak to act as a co-organizer. He was a natural choice, as he not only did groundbreaking work on youth cultures inspired by the methodologies of the Birmingham School in the early 1980s, he also wrote the only obituary that appeared in the Austrian press in 1988 after Raymond Williams’ death. The 2006 conference was the first international conference in a German-speaking country dedicated to the work of Raymond Williams. 莫妮卡成功说服罗曼·霍拉克担任联合组织者。他是当之无愧的人选——不仅因他在 1980 年代初受伯明翰学派方法论启发开创了青年文化研究先河，更因他撰写了 1988 年雷蒙德·威廉姆斯逝世后奥地利媒体刊发的唯一讣告。这场 2006 年会议成为德语国家首个以雷蒙德·威廉姆斯学术成果为主题的国际会议。
At this stage Larry Grossberg joined the project and supported us all the way through from the initial to the final stages of this book. It so happened that this volume collects some of the papers given in \ienna and adds to the core contributions from a variety of academic traditions, thus reflecting the far-reaching dimensions of a Raymond W’illiams’ tradition. So the book, as it is now, transcends the conference, and serves more as a ‘documentary record’ - in Raymond Williams’ own words - of the place of Williams’ work in some of the major formations of cultural studies in the UK, the United States and South Africa, as well as here in Vienna, Austria and elsewhere in Europe. ^(1){ }^{1} 在此阶段，拉里·格罗斯伯格加入项目，从本书的初始阶段直至最终阶段全程给予我们支持。恰逢本卷文集收录了部分维也纳会议论文，并汇集了来自多元学术传统的核心研究成果，由此展现了雷蒙德·威廉姆斯传统的深远影响维度。因此，正如雷蒙德·威廉姆斯本人所言，本书现已超越会议范畴，更成为一部"文献记录"——见证威廉姆斯著作在英国、美国、南非以及奥地利维也纳等欧洲地区文化研究主要流派中的重要地位。 ^(1){ }^{1}
Notes 注释
1 We are indebted to Steffi Sandberger and Roland Mückstein, Monika’s research assistants, who provided crucial support and whose insight and intelligence saved us from potentially embarrassing mistakes. 1 特别感谢莫妮卡的研究助理史蒂菲·桑德伯格与罗兰·米克斯坦，他们提供了关键支持，其真知灼见使我们避免了可能出现的尴尬错误。
Raymond Williams - towards cultural materialism: an introduction 雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化唯物主义导论
Roman Horak and Monika Seidl 罗曼·霍拉克与莫妮卡·赛德尔
Raymond Williams is recognized as one of the founding fathers of cultural studies, on which he has had a profound influence in Britain and globally, and, even more broadly, on cultural criticism and theory around the world. Williams’ writings have effectively shaped the ways people understand the complexity of the notion of ‘culture’ and many of the ways it has been taken up in scholarly practice. 雷蒙德·威廉斯被公认为文化研究的奠基人之一，他对英国乃至全球文化研究领域产生了深远影响，更广泛地说，对世界范围内的文化批评与理论建设具有开创性意义。威廉斯的著作深刻重塑了人们对"文化"概念复杂性的理解，并影响了该概念在学术实践中的多种应用方式。
The present collection endeavours to give evidence of some of the enormous breadth and originality of contemporary thinking on Raymond Williams and, at the same time, to mark the important influence of this scholar and critic. It brings together contributions from a variety of countries, disciplines, generations and traditions. Starting from Williams’ most wellknown ideas and notions, the book will take the reader to the fringes of his work and to approaches that relate his concepts to ongoing debates. 本论文集旨在展现当代学界对雷蒙德·威廉斯思想的广阔解读与原创思考，同时彰显这位学者兼批评家的重大影响力。书中汇集了来自不同国家、学科领域、世代背景和学术传统的多元视角。从威廉斯最广为人知的理论观点出发，本书将引领读者探索其学术研究的边缘地带，并将他的核心概念与当代学术论争进行创造性关联。
This introduction follows the course of Williams’ renowned and recognized arguments and achievements, which range from a literary critique of culture to cultural materialism. We interrupt our journey where our contributors took inspiration from Williams’ work. At these nodal points we insert summaries of their contributions, which present, in brief close-ups, snap-shot-like, some details of the many international perspectives on Williams’ work presented in this collection. 本导论循着威廉斯那些广受认可的重要论点与学术成就展开论述，其研究范畴涵盖从文学文化批评到文化唯物主义的广阔领域。我们在撰稿人受威廉斯思想启发的关键节点暂停叙述，以插入对其贡献的概要说明——这些精要的评述如同特写镜头般，集中呈现了本论文集中来自国际学界关于威廉斯研究的多元视角。
Our journey begins in the early summer of 1970 when a remarkable meeting took place in Cambridge. Rudi Dutschke, tragic hero of the German anti-authoritarian movement, who had been living in England for a while to recover from the effects of the assassination attempt made on him on Easter Monday 1968, presented Raymond Williams, Fellow of Jesus College, with a research proposal on Georg Lukács’ History and Class Consciousness. Dutschke, a former student leader, wanted to study for a doctorate in Cambridge under the renowned economist Joan Robinson, and had to undergo the usual tedious admissions ritual - such as the presentation of references and reports and talking to representatives of the University’s governing body and important professors - before he was eventually accepted by the university that same summer. ^(1){ }^{1} His meeting with 我们的故事始于 1970 年初夏剑桥大学的一次非凡会面。鲁迪·杜契克——德国反权威主义运动的悲剧英雄，为从 1968 年复活节刺杀事件中康复而旅居英国——向耶稣学院院士雷蒙德·威廉斯提交了关于乔治·卢卡奇《历史与阶级意识》的研究计划。这位前学生领袖原计划在著名经济学家琼·罗宾逊指导下攻读博士学位，为此不得不经历繁琐的录取程序：提交推荐信与研究报告，与校务委员会代表及资深教授面谈，最终才在那年夏天获得入学资格。 ^(1){ }^{1} 他与威廉斯的
Williams would probably have passed completely unnoticed had he not been expelled from the country at the beginning of 1971 on the grounds of supposedly subversive political activities, following a lengthy period of uncertainty during which figures such as Leo Löwenthal and Michael Foot intervened in his favour. ^(2){ }^{2} 会面本可能湮没无闻，若非 1971 年初英国政府以涉嫌颠覆活动为由将其驱逐出境。此前长达数月的僵局中，利奥·洛文塔尔与迈克尔·富特等人士曾为其多方斡旋。 ^(2){ }^{2}
Raymond Williams became passionately involved in the ‘Dutschke Case’ as well, as the Cambridge Review shows. Acting both as political activist and political commentator, he made a speech during a public meeting of the National Council for Civil Liberties in Westminster, and published excerpts from it in the university’s journal (Williams 1971h: 94-5). Even more pointed and insightful was the article published two weeks later in the left-wing American weekly The Nation. Here, Williams analysed the ways in which the English political system was changing, taking the Dutschke case as his point of departure (see Williams 1971a: 210 12). With a well-developed sensitivity to nuances of style, he concluded that the new Tory government had abandoned the polite, upper-class approach of an earlier age. ‘We know whom they represent, in real economic terms, hut in stryle they’ are the angry petit bourgeoisie - all the old theatrical Toryism gone and replaced by the sharp accents of economic, political and social revenge’ (ibid.: 211). 雷蒙德·威廉斯也深度卷入了"杜契克事件"，正如《剑桥评论》所载。他同时以政治活动家和政治评论员的双重身份，在全国公民自由委员会于威斯敏斯特举行的公开会议上发表演讲，并将演讲节选发表于大学期刊（Williams 1971h: 94-5）。两周后他在美国左翼周刊《民族》上发表的文章则更为犀利深刻。威廉斯以杜契克事件为切入点，剖析了英国政治体系的嬗变轨迹（参见 Williams 1971a: 210-12）。凭借对文体微妙之处的敏锐把握，他断言新上台的保守党政府已摒弃了旧时代彬彬有礼的上流阶级做派。"我们清楚他们在现实经济层面代表谁，但在风格上——他们就是愤怒的小资产阶级，所有传统的戏剧性保守主义都已消失，取而代之的是经济、政治和社会报复的尖锐腔调"（同上：211）。
What we have here in this brief quotation is a sketch of Thatcherism avant la lettre. Barely a decade later, this new right-wing politics would not only have found a name but also definitively attained a hegemonic position. It was to bring about fundamental change in the l nited Kingdom. Raymond Williams, as we shall see, was one of the most committed opponents of this development; he also sought to understand it from a theoretical point of view, its genesis, major turning points and basic structures. 这段简短的引述勾勒出了撒切尔主义的雏形。不出十年，这种新兴右翼政治不仅获得了正式命名，更彻底确立了霸权地位。它将在英国引发根本性变革。正如我们即将看到的，雷蒙德·威廉斯始终是这一发展的坚定反对者；同时他也致力于从理论层面解析其生成逻辑、重大转折与基本结构。
Williams’ practical and participatory side in this development is brought to light in Stephen Woodhams’ contribution to this collection, ‘The 1908 May Day Manifesto’ (p. 57), as Williams’ concrete political activities in the May Day Manifesto are generally unknown today. The movement around the Manifesto was addressing the pressing needs of the late 1900s. Woothams argues, as it was trying to integrate local issues and international interests in their publications and concrete activities. Williams’ brainchild, the May Doy Manifesto, was intended to unite people from the nuclear disarmament movement, feminists and anti-Vietnam organizations, as well as other dispersed left formations, against the ‘machine’ of traditional organizations and eventually also in opposition to the Labour government. Woodhams’ analysis leads up to this vital point in Williams’ career when a clear opposition to Labour policies was stated and a new unified organization called for. 威廉斯在这一发展过程中务实且参与性的一面，在斯蒂芬·伍德汉姆斯为本文集撰写的《1908 年五一宣言》（第 57 页）一文中得以揭示，因为威廉斯在五一宣言中的具体政治活动如今已鲜为人知。围绕该宣言展开的运动直指 19 世纪末期的紧迫需求。伍德汉姆斯指出，该运动试图在其出版物和具体活动中整合地方议题与国际关切。威廉斯构想的"五一宣言"旨在联合核裁军运动、女权主义者、反越战组织以及其他分散的左翼力量，共同对抗传统组织的"机器"，并最终反对工党政府。伍德汉姆斯的分析揭示了威廉斯职业生涯中这一关键节点——当时他明确反对工党政策，并呼吁建立新的统一组织。
This political development was supplemented by a demand for a theoretical reorientation among British intellectuals. In the early 1970s, encounters with continental ‘Western’ Marxism were fundamental to this reorientation. Early in 1970, probably some time before his meeting with Rudi Dutschke, 这一政治发展伴随着英国知识分子对理论重新定位的需求。20 世纪 70 年代初，与欧陆"西方"马克思主义的接触成为这一重新定位的关键。1970 年初，很可能在他与鲁迪·杜契克会面之前，
Williams had met Lucien Goldmann. The French literary scholar Goldmann gave two lectures in Cambridge and was not only interesting to Williams as a representative of this school of thought, but also as an expert on the work of Georg Lukács. He offered opportunities for fascinating and challenging debate. For Williams at this moment the Lukács of History and Class Consciousness, Antonio Gramsci and the Sartre of the 1950s and 1960s were the most important representatives of an ‘alternative Marxist’ tradition (see Williams 2001:159). We can well imagine the interest with which Williams would have followed the progress of Dutschke’s work. 威廉斯就已结识了吕西安·戈德曼。这位法国文学学者在剑桥举办了两场讲座，对威廉斯而言，戈德曼不仅是这一思想流派的代表人物，更是乔治·卢卡茨著作的研究专家。他提供了引人入胜且富有挑战性的辩论机会。对此时的威廉斯来说，《历史与阶级意识》的作者卢卡茨、安东尼奥·葛兰西以及 1950-1960 年代的萨特，构成了"另类马克思主义"传统最重要的代表人物（参见 Williams 2001:159）。我们完全可以想见威廉斯会以怎样的热忱关注杜契克的研究进展。
In what follows we discuss Williams as a cultural theoretician in the stricter sense. On the one hand, we consider his role as a precursor and pioneer of cultural studies (which means concentrating on the relevant writings from the 1950s and early 1960s), while, on the other hand, looking more closely at his concept of ‘cultural materialism’ (developed above all in publications of the 1970s). Several recent studies have identified what they consider a more or less unbroken ‘Marxist’ continuity in Williams’ work on the concept of culture. ^(3){ }^{3} In contrast, although we agree with this interpretation of Raymond Williams’ basic stance (see Higgins 1999), our point of departure will be the idea that his approach to and methods of theorizing underwent several shifts in the late 1960s, conditioned by external events and the changing political context. Rather than seeking to establish a fixed category of ‘Western’ or ‘alternative’ Marxism that underlies all his work, however this may be defined, our thesis is that, as he grew older, Williams’ theoretical work (and not just that which deals specifically with ‘culture’) can be seen to move closer to Marxist thought and to resist the tide of post-structuralism that was rising to dominance in the 1970s and 1980s. 下文我们将严格从文化理论家的角度探讨威廉斯。一方面，我们考察他作为文化研究先驱与开拓者的角色（这意味着聚焦于 1950 年代至 1960 年代初的相关著作）；另一方面，则更细致地审视其"文化唯物主义"概念（该理论主要形成于 1970 年代的出版物中）。近期若干研究指出，威廉斯关于文化概念的著述中存在着某种一以贯之的"马克思主义"连续性。 ^(3){ }^{3} 与此相对，尽管我们认同对雷蒙德·威廉斯基本立场的这种解读（参见 Higgins 1999），但我们的出发点在于：受外部事件与政治语境变迁的影响，他在 1960 年代末的理论路径与方法论经历了数次转向。 然而，我们的论文并非试图将威廉姆斯的全部作品归入"西方马克思主义"或"另类马克思主义"这类固定范畴（无论这些概念如何界定），而是认为随着年岁增长，威廉姆斯的理论著作（不仅限于专门探讨"文化"的文本）愈发贴近马克思主义思想，并抵制了 20 世纪 70 至 80 年代逐渐占据主导地位的后结构主义浪潮。
Raymond Williams and the beginnings of cultural studies 雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与文化研究的发轫
There are many clichés surrounding the origins of cultural studies, including the oft-repeated stories of its ‘founding fathers’ and the mythical aura that surrounds the now closed Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) in Birmingham. ^(4){ }^{4} It has become common practice to refer to Richard Hoggart’s The Uses of Literacy (1957), Raymond Williams’ Culture and Society (1958), and Edward P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class from 1963 as the founding texts of Cultural Studies. ^(5){ }^{5} 关于文化研究的起源存在诸多陈词滥调，包括那些被反复传颂的"奠基之父"故事，以及围绕现已关闭的伯明翰当代文化研究中心(CCCS)的神秘光环。 ^(4){ }^{4} 学界通常将理查德·霍加特的《识字的用途》(1957)、雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的《文化与社会》(1958)以及爱德华·P·汤普森 1963 年出版的《英国工人阶级的形成》视为文化研究的奠基文本。 ^(5){ }^{5}
All three authors can without a doubt be described as influential within the early New Left. In addition, all three shared an active experience of adult education and all three were concerned with reformulating the way in which culture is understood - above and beyond either traditional, conservative cultural critique or limited, party political, communist terms. ^(6){ }^{6} Nevertheless, when stressing these shared features, their different theoretical approaches should not be forgotten. To borrow Davies’ apt descriptions, 毫无疑问，这三位作者都可被视作早期新左派中的关键人物。此外，他们都积极参与过成人教育实践，且都致力于重构文化认知范式——既超越传统保守主义文化批判，也突破狭隘的政党政治与共产主义术语框架。 ^(6){ }^{6} 然而在强调这些共同特征时，不应忽视他们迥异的理论路径。借用戴维斯的精准概括：
Thompson’s stance can most accurately be termed Marxist, whereas Hoggart’s starting point was liberal humanism and Williams’ was ‘socialist Leavisism’ (see Davies 1995:8). 汤普森的立场最贴切的说法是马克思主义者，霍加特的出发点属于自由主义人文传统，而威廉斯则秉持着"社会主义利维斯主义"（参见 Davies 1995:8）。
It is certainly true that Culture and Society, Williams’ first important book, is at first sight a work of literary or intellectual history. It grew out of a course on the term ‘culture’ in T. S. Eliot, M. Arnold and F. R. Leavis, and debates the historical genesis of the modern concept of culture from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the middle of the twentieth century. However, it also makes reference to the political and economic processes that in part explain the development of this concept. Although Culture and Society is still indehted to classical literary criticism and the methods of ‘close reading’, it goes beyond them. Williams established ‘culture’ as a central category, but saw it in relation to other developing 'keywords’7 of the modern era: industry, democracy, class and art. 威廉斯的第一部重要著作《文化与社会》乍看确实是一部文学或思想史作品。该书源于一门关于 T.S.艾略特、马修·阿诺德和 F.R.利维斯笔下"文化"概念的课程，探讨了从工业革命初期到二十世纪中叶现代文化观念的历史生成。然而，该书同时也论及了部分解释这一概念发展的政治经济进程。尽管《文化与社会》仍沿袭了古典文学批评和"细读"方法，但已有所超越。威廉斯将"文化"确立为核心范畴，并将其与现代社会的其他关键概念——工业、民主、阶级和艺术——联系起来加以考察。
Here, ‘culture’ is not taken to mean solely a particular intellectual attitude, nor is it limited to the arts. With the formulation ‘a whole way of life’, culture is understood as a process and the entiretr of cultural practices and experience is foregrounded. This way of reasoning led Williams to differentiate between middle-class and proletarian culture, situating the differences between them - as we have already suggested - at the level of a whole way of life, as H. Gustav Klaus comments: 此处，“文化”并非仅指某种特定的智识态度，也不局限于艺术领域。通过“整体生活方式”这一表述，文化被理解为一个过程，而文化实践与经验的整体性得以凸显。这种思考方式使威廉姆斯区分了中产阶级文化与无产阶级文化——正如我们已指出的——将二者差异定位于整体生活方式的层面。正如 H·古斯塔夫·克劳斯所言：
Summed up in one word, the middle-class way of life is individualist; it is based on a notion of society as a neutral area, in which every individual is able to follow their own interests (the ‘pursuit of happiness’, an idea that is enshrined in documents such as the American constitution, for example). In contrast, the proletarian way of life is distinguished by a ‘fundamental notion of collectivity’ and the institutions, habits of thought and intentions which arise from this. 用一句话概括，中产阶级的生活方式本质上是个人主义的；它建立在将社会视为中立领域的概念基础上，每个个体都能在此追求自身利益（例如“追求幸福”这一被载入美国宪法等文件的思想）。与之相对，无产阶级生活方式的特征则在于“根本的集体性观念”，以及由此产生的制度、思维习惯和行为意图。
(Klaus 1983; 205) （克劳斯 1983: 205）
Williams’ category of ‘workers’ culture’ developed out of his first-hand experience and went begond an uncritical celebration of proletarian culture in a turn against what he understood as England’s official culture. In an interview with Francis Mulhern, Anthony Barnett and Perry Anderson from the New Left Review, he commented in retrospect on the book’s intentions from the perspective of the late 1970s as follows: ‘It was oppositional to counter the appropriation of a long line of thinking about culture to what were hy now decisively reactionary positions’ (Williams 1979d). 威廉斯提出的"工人文化"范畴源于其亲身经历，并超越了那种对无产阶级文化不加批判的颂扬，转而反对他所理解的英国官方文化。在《新左派评论》与弗朗西斯·穆尔赫恩、安东尼·巴尼特及佩里·安德森的访谈中，他从 1970 年代末的视角回顾了该书的创作意图："它具有对抗性，旨在抵制将一脉相承的文化思想挪用至当时已明显沦为反动立场的做法"（威廉斯 1979d）。
Williams criticized such limitations of the concept of culture. He not only wrote against its elitist limitation by bourgeois ideologues, thus distancing himself from Leavis, hut also against the disdainful attitude of (popular) Marxism, which was only able to understand cultural practices and phenomena as aspects of the superstructure. 威廉斯批判了这种文化概念的局限性。他既反对资产阶级理论家赋予文化的精英主义桎梏——由此与利维斯主义划清界限，也反对（庸俗）马克思主义的轻蔑态度，后者仅能将文化实践与现象理解为上层建筑的组成部分。
In a similarly positive vein, in ‘The perspectives of radical democracy: Raymond Williams’ work and its significance for a critical social theory’ (p. 45), Rainer Winter shows that Williams’ interventionist conception of scholarship and academia was continually focused on opportunities of empowerment and social transformation, emphasizing the potential agency of every individual in the production and transformation of culture, and the fact that this ‘culture’ is a material practice (rather than a secondary process of representation). Because of this, Winter claims, Williams’ body of work can be understood as a 'reservoir of “resources of hope”, which can be (and, in part, is being) connected to contemporary critical theory and political movements. 同样积极的是，雷纳·温特在《激进民主的视角：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的著作及其对批判社会理论的意义》（第 45 页）中指出，威廉姆斯关于学术与学界的干预主义理念始终聚焦于赋权与社会变革的可能性，强调每个个体在文化生产与变革中的潜在能动性，以及这种"文化"本质上是一种物质实践（而非次要的表征过程）。正因如此，温特认为，威廉姆斯的全部著作可被视为一座"希望资源库"，这些思想资源能够（且部分正在）与当代批判理论及政治运动产生深刻共鸣。
In Williams’ view education is one of the most powerful ‘resources of hope’. He insisted that the commodities of high culture should not be denied to the workers, in a way that is not dissimilar to traditions of the German and Austrian culture of workers’ education. The scholarship boy alternates between Oxbridge and the Black Mountains, as it were. On the one hand, he emphasized the cultural significance of first-hand (daily) experience of ‘ordinary people’; on the other, he wanted to save the best of (high) cultural tradition for them. In this spirit Williams’ writings on education tried to pursue a critical pedagogy that fairly optimistically centred on collaboration, interaction and the dialogue between teacher and students on an equal footing. 在威廉姆斯看来，教育是最强大的"希望资源"之一。他坚持认为，不应以任何方式剥夺工人接触高雅文化产品的权利，这与德奥工人教育传统如出一辙。所谓"奖学金男孩"就像穿梭于牛津剑桥与黑山之间。一方面，他强调"普通人"日常亲身体验的文化意义；另一方面，他又希望为他们保存（高雅）文化传统的精髓。怀着这种精神，威廉姆斯关于教育的著述试图推行一种批判教育学——这种教育理念以相当乐观的态度，将平等基础上的师生协作、互动与对话置于核心地位。
Williams’ conception of culture and society emphasized the agency of every individual in their shaping and development. Hywel Rowland Dix argues in ‘The pedagogy of cultural materialism: Paulo Freire and Raymond Williams’ (p.81) that Williams’ conception of culture had similar pedagogical consequences to Paulo Freire’s commitment to empowering the oppressed through education. Rather than settling for general comparisons between the worldviews of Freire and Williams, however, Dix tackles the question of the rootedness of both men’s thinking in their respective biographical experiences and presents the development of the educational aspect of their work in a way that Freire’s insights shed light on Williams’ theories and vice versa. Beyond that, Dix also finds arguments in Williams’ and Freire’s writing for the necessity of a dialogic teaching style, in which the hierarchy between teachers and students is broken down and the experience of both is equally valued. 威廉斯对文化与社会概念的核心在于强调每个个体在形塑与发展过程中的能动性。海威尔·罗兰·迪克斯在《文化唯物主义的教学法：保罗·弗莱雷与雷蒙德·威廉斯》（第 81 页）中指出，威廉斯的文化观与保罗·弗莱雷通过教育赋权受压迫者的理念具有相似的教学意义。但迪克斯并未止步于对二人世界观的一般性比较，而是深入探讨了两位思想家各自生平经历对其思维方式的根源性影响，并呈现了他们著作中教育维度的发展脉络——使弗莱雷的洞见能照亮威廉斯的理论，反之亦然。此外，迪克斯还从威廉斯与弗莱雷的著述中提炼出关于对话式教学必要性的论证，这种教学模式将打破师生间的等级结构，使双方的经验获得同等重视。
In order to do justice to the extent of Williams’ thinking about education, Christopher John Westgate in ‘Fellow-travellers at the conjunction: Williams and educational communicators’ ( p . 68) employs a broad view of education to include ‘the educational force of our whole social and cultural experience’ (Williams 1962: 14). Through charting Williams’ own methods of classroom education in their development over time as well as his political thought on social education, the relevance of this conception for both classroom teaching (in the narrow sense) and educational politics (in the 为了充分展现威廉斯教育思想的广度，克里斯托弗·约翰·韦斯特盖特在《交汇处的同行者：威廉斯与教育传播者》（第 68 页）中采用了广义的教育观，将"我们整个社会文化经验的教育力量"（威廉斯，1962：14）纳入其中。通过梳理威廉斯课堂教学方法的历史演变及其社会教育的政治思想，该研究论证了这一概念对狭义课堂教学与广义教育政治的双重意义。
broadest sense) is demonstrated. The article shows that both Williams’ teaching and his political position were directed towards these goals, and thus recovers Williams’ contributions to critical pedagogy, practical criticism and the political project. Endorsing Williams’ efforts to educate the working classes, Westgate stresses the missionary vision that moved Williams. Williams’ belief in the emancipatory force of education in developing political consciousness led to a concept of education which went far beyond professional training and promoted the idea of education as a motor of change. 文章表明，威廉斯的教学实践与政治立场均指向这些目标，由此重新发掘了威廉斯对批判教育学、实用批评和政治项目的贡献。韦斯特盖特认同威廉斯对工人阶级的教育努力，强调驱动威廉斯的传教士式愿景。威廉斯坚信教育在培养政治意识方面具有解放力量，由此形成的教育理念远超越职业培训范畴，将教育塑造成社会变革的引擎。
Williams’ tendency to rethink well-worn notions such as education in a radical and rather optimistic way can also be traced in his comments on the concept of the masses. These passages from Culture and Society, we believe, can still be considered among the most important sections of the book. Williams historical semantic derivation of the concept led him, via the observation that the ‘masses’ are never us, but always the others, to the following formulation, which has since become famous: ‘There are in fact no masses; there are only ways of seeing people as masses’ (W’illiams 1990a: 300). 威廉斯倾向于以激进且相当乐观的方式重新思考诸如教育等陈腐观念，这一特点同样体现在他对"大众"概念的论述中。我们认为，《文化与社会》中的这些段落至今仍可被视为该书最重要的章节之一。通过对"大众"一词的历史语义学溯源，威廉斯观察到"'大众'从来不是我们，而总是他者"，由此得出后来广为人知的论断："事实上并不存在大众；存在的只是将人们视为大众的观察方式"（威廉斯 1990a: 300）。
One of these ways of seeing can be found in the term ‘mass culture’. This did not originally emerge from the working class. What is called ‘mass culture’ is a capitalist product and is not consumed solely by the working classes. But, as Williams had to concede, members of the working class enjoy it, and, through their consumption of it, it became popular culture. Although he finds it very difficult to accept that the ‘working class’, whose way of life is so precious to him, can be content with cultural products of inferior quality, he implicitly recognized the limitations of a purely textual analysis and pointed out the necessity of considering people’s experiences of mass culture. ‘This analysis included the recovery of mass cultural consumption from the point of view of the consumers and studying it in the context of changing social relations and institutions’ (Dworkin 1997: 92). “大众文化”这一术语体现了上述视角之一。该概念最初并非源自工人阶级。所谓“大众文化”实为资本主义产物，其消费者也绝非仅限于工人阶级。但正如威廉斯不得不承认的那样，工人阶级成员确实乐在其中，正是通过他们的消费实践，这种文化形态才转化为流行文化。尽管他难以接受——对他而言生活方式如此珍贵的——工人阶级竟会满足于劣质文化产品，但他仍隐晦地认识到纯文本分析的局限性，并指出必须考量人们对大众文化的真实体验。“这种分析包含从消费者视角重新审视大众文化消费，并将其置于不断变迁的社会关系与制度框架中进行研究”（Dworkin 1997: 92）。
This was an important step in the development of Cultural Studies. Similar arguments that link textual with material practices in the context of mass and popular culture are taken up by two contributions to this volume. Udo Göttlich argues in ‘Cultural studies and common culture: Raymond Williams’ approach towards media cultural studies’ (p. 106) that content, form and the formation of media within culture as well as power relations must be the object of research in order to work towards the goal of a ‘common culture’. In this sense Görtlich’s article proves the usefulness of Williams’ concepts of a ‘common culture’ and of ‘knowable communities’ for meeting some of the main challenges of contemporary media theory. Göttlich argues that the term ‘media culture’ must not be understood as similar to ‘mass culture’ before Williams’ revision of the concept, but that media theory must focus on the interconnection between the social constitution of media and their role as channels of communication. Instead of perpetuating metaphors of media as mediators between individuals and 这是文化研究发展中的重要一步。本卷中两篇论文同样探讨了将文本实践与物质实践在大众文化和流行文化背景下相联系的类似论点。乌多·格特利希在《文化研究与共同文化：雷蒙德·威廉斯的媒介文化研究路径》（第 106 页）中主张，要实现"共同文化"的目标，必须将文化中的媒介内容、形式与阵型，以及权力关系作为研究对象。就此而言，格特利希的论文验证了威廉斯"共同文化"和"可知共同体"概念对于应对当代媒介理论主要挑战的适用性。格特利希强调，在威廉斯对该概念进行修正之前，"媒介文化"这一术语不应被简单等同于"大众文化"，媒介理论必须聚焦于媒介的社会构成与其作为传播渠道功能之间的内在关联，而非延续将媒介视作个体与[社会]中间人的隐喻。
‘reality’ (and thus excluding any notion of ‘culture’), media can be described as ‘passageways of social practice’. 将“现实”（从而排除任何“文化”概念）视为核心时，媒体可被描述为“社会实践的通道”。
The focus on media is continued in Georgiana Banita’s piece ‘Raymond Williams and online video: the tragedy of technology’ (p. 94), which applies in a playful manner Williams’ literary critique of culture to the YouTube phenomenon. Banita combines two apparently unrelated perspectives provided by Williams, namely his work on communications technology and his reflections on the nature of tragedy. Technology is seen as contingent on social, political and cultural configurations, connecting reality and technology in a double dependence. The impact of new configurations of public and private spaces makes YouTube, the user-generated online video database, a social institution in its own right. The current structure of feeling promoting self-fashioning and authenticity is partly shaped by the psychological climate of a traumatic mass experience, namely 9/11. At the junction of self-expression and inflationary exposure in what Williams called a ‘dramatized world’, the individual is at the same time faced with intensified visual and social control. 乔治亚娜·巴尼塔在《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与在线视频：技术的悲剧》（第 94 页）中延续了对媒体的关注，她以戏谑的方式将威廉姆斯对文化的文学批评应用于 YouTube 现象。巴尼塔整合了威廉姆斯提供的两个看似无关的视角：其关于传播技术的研究与对悲剧本质的思考。技术被视为取决于社会、政治和文化形态，在双重依存中将现实与技术相连。公共与私人空间新形态的影响，使得这个用户生成内容的在线视频数据库 YouTube 本身成为一种社会制度。当前推动自我塑造与真实性的情感结构，部分源自集体创伤体验（即 9/11 事件）的心理氛围。在威廉姆斯所称的“戏剧化世界”中，自我表达与泛滥曝光的交汇处，个体同时面临着强化的视觉与社会控制。
Banita’s argument combines textual analysis rooted in literary criticism with a sharp awareness for social selections and institutions. In this sense her methodological approach is very close to Williams’ thinking in Culture and Society. Williams’ next book, The Long Revolution (1961e), looked to the future. Its publication was, as Stuart Hall notes, ‘a seminal event in English post-war intellectual life’ (Hall et al. 1980: 19). Conceived and written as a continuation of the work begun in Culture and Society (cf. Williams 1961e: 9 ), it shifted the basis of the debate from a literary, moral definition of ‘culture’ to a social one. Williams’ point of departure was the claim that British society had undergone a transformation that was both conditioned and distinguished by industrialization, democratization and cultural change. According to Williams, the first two factors had already been sufficiently studied: his main aim was to establish and analyse the central significance of cultural change as equally important. To be able to do this, he began to expand on his concept of culture. The existing definitions of culture, or so he claimed at that point, could be divided into three categories. The first is an ‘ideal’ designation, ‘in which culture is a state or process of human perfection, in terms of certain absolute or universal values’. The second is ‘documentary’, and understands culture as ‘the body of intellectual and imaginative work, in which, in a detailed way, human thought and experience are variously recorded’. The final definition is a ‘social’ one, ‘in which culture is a description of a particular way of life, which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and learning but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour’. 巴尼塔的论证将植根于文学批评的文本分析与社会选择及制度机制的敏锐洞察相结合。就此而言，她的方法论路径与威廉斯在《文化与社会》中的思想高度契合。威廉斯的下一部著作《漫长的革命》（1961e）则将目光投向了未来。正如斯图亚特·霍尔所言，该书的出版"堪称英国战后思想界的重大事件"（Hall et al. 1980: 19）。作为《文化与社会》研究工作的延续（参见 Williams 1961e: 9），该书将辩论基础从文学的、道德的"文化"定义转向了社会性定义。威廉斯的立论起点是：英国社会经历了一场由工业化、民主化和文化变革共同塑造与界定的转型。他认为前两个因素已得到充分研究，其主要目标是确立并分析文化变革作为同等重要因素的核心意义。为此，他开始拓展其文化概念的阐释维度。 他当时声称，现有文化定义可分为三类。第一类是"理想型"定义，认为"文化是人类臻于完善的状态或过程，体现某些绝对或普遍的价值观"；第二类是"文献型"定义，将文化理解为"思想性与想象性作品的集合，以详实方式记录人类思想与经验的多元呈现"；第三类则是"社会型"定义，主张"文化是对特定生活方式的描述，不仅通过艺术与学术表达某些意义与价值，也体现在制度与日常行为之中"。
It is this definition that led Williams to rethink ‘culture’ in three different ways. These include not only the ‘anthropological’ or ‘ethnological’ approach (‘culture as a whole way of life’), but also the claim that ‘culture’ 正是这一定义促使威廉姆斯从三个维度重新思考"文化"。这不仅包括"人类学"或"民族志"路径（"文化作为整体生活方式"），还涉及"文化"这一概念
can express meanings and values, and finally the claims of cultural analysis. The aims of cultural analysis are described by Williams as follows, in what could be termed a return to classical definitions: ‘The analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit and explicit in a particular way of life, a particular culture’ (Williams 1961e: 57). 能够表达意义与价值，最终指向文化分析的诉求。威廉斯将文化分析的目标描述为对古典定义的回归："根据这一定义，文化分析旨在阐明某种特定生活方式、特定文化中隐含或外显的意义与价值"（威廉斯 1961e: 57）。
Taken all together, these three ways of rethinking culture constitute a ‘social’ definition - culture as a particular way of life, culture as the expression of a particular way of life, and cultural analysis as a method of reconstituting a particular way of life’. Williams’ approach here is generalized and particular at one and the same time. His focus may have been culture’s ‘social’ function, but he does not leave the other definitions of culture out of the equation: 'there is a significant reference in each of the three main kinds of definition, and, if this is so, it is the relations between them that should claim our attention. ^(8){ }^{8} 这三种重新思考文化的方式共同构成了"社会性"定义——文化作为特定生活方式，文化作为特定生活方式的表达，以及文化分析作为重构特定生活方式的方法。威廉斯的进路既具普遍性又具特殊性。尽管其关注焦点在于文化的"社会"功能，但并未排斥其他文化定义："三种主要定义类型各自包含重要指涉，正因如此，它们之间的关联性才更值得我们关注。" ^(8){ }^{8}
This relation between culture as an ideal, as documentary record and as a whole way of life is explored in H. Gustav Klaus’s contribution ‘Williams and ecology’ (p. 141). Klaus begins by commenting on the apparent absence of ecological considerations in W’illiams’ work and goes on to extract a wealth of ecological insights from Williams’ writings. He then proceeds by tracing ecological motives in W’illiams’ novels, in which the interactions between humans and the environment over long stretches of time are thoroughly depicted; and he makes fine-spun points about W’illiams’ literary treatment of nature in its own right and the function of naming places as a means both of assimilation and of recording and preservation. The reconciliation of social and ecological concerns testities to Williams’ interdisciplinary and integrative understanding of culture as a whole way of a life and a set of signifying practices. H. 古斯塔夫·克劳斯在《威廉姆斯与生态学》（第 141 页）的论述中探讨了文化作为理想、作为文献记录与作为整体生活方式之间的关联。克劳斯首先指出威廉姆斯作品中看似缺乏生态考量的现象，继而从其著作中提炼出丰富的生态洞见。随后，他通过追溯威廉姆斯小说中的生态主题展开分析——这些作品深刻描绘了人类与环境在漫长岁月中的互动关系；并就威廉姆斯对自然本体的文学处理，以及地名命名作为同化手段与记录保存方式的双重功能，作出了精微阐释。这种对社会关切与生态关怀的调和，印证了威廉姆斯将文化视为整体生活方式与意义实践体系的跨学科整合理解。
Similar to Klaus one can argue that, for the Williams of The Lome Reqolution, it is not enough to see culture solely as the ‘ideal’ development of humanity in opposition to its ‘animal’ nature, just as it is not enough to limit the concept to the ‘documentation’ of valuable artefacts (seen in separation from the rest of our social life), or indeed to negate it as an exclusively social function, "which treats … the general process of the body of art and learning as a mere by-product, a passive reflection of the real interests of the society’ (W’illiams 1961e: (0)). It was Williams’ aim 'to see the process as a whole, and therefore studies of individual phenomena should refer ‘if not explicitly at least by ultimate reference, to the actual and complex organization’ (ibid.). 与克劳斯的观点相似，我们可以认为，对《洛美革命》时期的威廉斯而言，仅将文化视为人类"理想"发展（与"动物"本性相对立）是不够的，正如将这一概念局限于"记录"珍贵文物（与社会生活的其他部分割裂开来）同样不足，更遑论将其否定为纯粹的社会功能——这种观点"将艺术与学习的整体过程视为副产品，仅仅是社会真实利益的被动反映"（威廉斯，1961e：(0)）。威廉斯的宗旨在于"将这一过程视为整体，因此对个别现象的研究应当——若非明确至少通过最终参照——指向那个真实而复杂的组织体系"（同上）。
The references to the relationship between the different functions of culture and the emphasis on culture as a process are particularly important to us here. Williams tried to sum up his theorising in the term ‘structure of feeling’. This concept runs through his work from its very beginnings right up to Marrism and Literature (1977). Although he would later slightly modify and update its utility, as Grossherg documents in his 此处对我们尤为重要的是，关于文化不同功能间关系的论述以及将文化视为过程的强调。威廉斯试图用"情感结构"这一术语来总结他的理论思考。这一概念从其早期著作一直贯穿至《马克思主义与文学》（1977），尽管如格罗斯伯格所述，他后来对其适用性进行了细微调整和更新。
contribution, it finds its clearest formulation in The Long Revolution (Higgins 1999: 37). 该概念在《漫长的革命》中得到了最清晰的阐述（Higgins 1999: 37）。
The main idea of the term ‘structure of feeling’ is that a shared set of ways of thinking and feeling demonstrating regular patterns forms and is formed by the whole way of life, the whole lived culture of an epoch, class or group. ‘Structure of feeling’ first becomes apparent in the arts of a period, in which Williams also included ‘characteristic approaches and tones in argument’ (Williams 1961e: 65). This is because they are ‘the only examples we have of recorded communication that outlives its bearers’, which naturally draw upon ‘the actual living sense, the deep community that makes the communication possible’ (ibid.). "情感结构"的核心要义在于：一套展现规律模式的共同思维与感知方式，既形塑又被整个生活方式、整个时代/阶级/群体的生活文化所形塑。这一结构最先显现于特定时期的艺术作品中——威廉斯将"论辩中的典型方法与基调"（Williams 1961e: 65）也纳入其中，因为艺术是"我们拥有的唯一超越创作者生命周期的记录性交流形式"，必然依托于"使交流成为可能的真实生活感知与深层共同体"（同上）。
The term ‘structure of feeling’ was of central, categorical importance in Williams’ cultural analysis, above all in his earlier works. His approach was to determine particular ‘structures of feeling’ in the investigation of phenomena that have been culturally documented - Williams named poems, buildings and dress-fashions as paradigmatic cultural documents (ibid.). "感觉结构"这一术语在威廉斯的文化分析中具有核心的范畴性意义，尤其体现在其早期著作中。他的研究方法是通过考察已有文化记录的现象来确定特定的"感觉结构"——威廉斯将诗歌、建筑和服饰潮流视为典型的文化文献（同上）。
In ‘Raymond Williams: reading novels as knowable communities’ (p. 165), Ana Clara Birrento employs the concepts of structure of feeling and knowable communities as Williams developed. If ‘structure of feeling’ initially referred to the general relations between collective experience and cultural expression, the concept was later refined to emphasize ‘the agency of the subject in the transformation of cultural practices’ (Birrento). This agency is realized through ‘knowable communities’, which are described as ‘space[s] of communication of experiences’. Birrento addresses some of the ramifications of these concepts, which can provide a model of literary communication, and then goes on to apply ‘structure of feeling’ and ‘knowable community’ as tools for literary analysis. 在《雷蒙德·威廉斯：作为可知社区的小说解读》（第 165 页）中，安娜·克拉拉·比尔伦托运用了威廉斯发展的感觉结构与可知社区概念。如果说"感觉结构"最初指向集体经验与文化表达之间的普遍关系，那么这一概念后来被精炼为强调"主体在文化实践转型中的能动性"（比尔伦托）。这种能动性通过"可知社区"得以实现，后者被描述为"经验交流的空间"。比尔伦托探讨了这些概念的部分衍生意义——它们能够提供文学交流的模型，进而将"感觉结构"和"可知社区"作为文学分析工具加以运用。
Birrento’s analysis is evidence of the fact that ‘structures of feeling’ are present in all societies and become effective via the dialectic of the known and the knowable. Not all the members of a society have the same degree of access to this structure of feeling, but it is there precisely because it is a precondition of communication. It is not something that is formally learned, and it is continually being transformed, whereby Williams understands the new version as a creative response to changing conditions. 比伦托的分析证明了"情感结构"存在于所有社会之中，并通过已知与可知的辩证法发挥作用。并非所有社会成员都能同等程度地接触这种情感结构，但它确实存在，因为它是交流的先决条件。这种结构并非通过正式学习获得，而是在不断转化——威廉斯将新版本理解为对变化条件的创造性回应。
While emphasizing the significance of the documentary in culture, he is nevertheless conscious of the fact that whatever has been documented has been subjected to a high degree of selection. The tension between the documentary and selection is taken up in John Higgins’s “'Even the dead will not be safe”: on dis(re)membering Williams’ (p. 117). Higgins presents a trend in scholarly references to Williams which stays on the level of sound-hite selection and does not go back to the level of documentary, namely the writings of Williams. Higgins discusses in his article one peculiar aspect of the reception of Williams’ work, namely the belittling or outright dismissal of the relevance of Williams’ contribution to scholarship. This ‘disremembering’, as Higgins 在强调纪录片文化意义的同时，他也清醒地意识到任何被记录的内容都经过了高度筛选。约翰·希金斯在《"即便死者亦难安息"：论威廉姆斯作品的肢解与重构》（第 117 页）中探讨了纪录片与筛选之间的张力。希金斯指出学术界引用威廉姆斯时存在一种趋势——停留在肤浅的"金句筛选"层面，却未回归到纪录片本质（即威廉姆斯的原始文本）。他在文中特别讨论了威廉姆斯作品接受史中的一个奇特现象：学界对威廉姆斯学术贡献的贬低或彻底否定。希金斯将这种现象称为"记忆抹除"——
calls it to distinguish it from accidental misremembering, is shown to employ strategies such as falsifying selection which have the effect of implying a consensus on Williams’ work as something that has already been dealt with and does not need to be considered - or read - anymore. Higgins advises us to break with this ‘selective tradition’ and demands an honest, faithful and respectful reception of Williams’ writings. Higgins thus identifies a tradition in the reception of Williams which via selection verges on falsification. This leads us back to Williams’ own belief that the effectiveness of cultural tradition depends on selection and interpretation. 这种被称为"选择性传统"的做法，与偶然的记忆错误相区别，被证明采用了诸如伪造选择等策略，其效果暗示着对威廉姆斯作品已形成共识——认为这些作品已被充分讨论而无需再被考量或阅读。希金斯建议我们打破这种"选择性传统"，要求以诚实、忠实且尊重的态度接受威廉姆斯的著作。因此，希金斯指认出威廉姆斯接受史中存在一种通过选择近乎篡改的传统。这使我们回到威廉姆斯自身的信念：文化传统的有效性取决于选择与阐释。
Disremembering Williams’ work as outlined by Higgins neglects the fact that The Long Revolution, alongside the entirety of Raymond Williams’ early works, was central to the formation of a cultural, political sociology, the likes of which had not previously existed in Great Britain. His theoretical practice, which was based on his own experiences and textual resources, and not on fixed theoretical assumptions, may have reached its own inherent limits, methodological and otherwise, but its basic dynamic remained one of openness nevertheless (see Davies 1995: 16). 希金斯对威廉斯著作的遗忘性描述忽略了一个事实：《漫长的革命》连同雷蒙德·威廉斯的全部早期作品，对于英国前所未有的文化政治社会学阵型的形成具有核心意义。他的理论实践植根于个人经验和文本资源而非固定理论假设，虽可能在方法论等方面存在自身局限，但其基本动力始终保持着开放性特质（参见 Davies 1995: 16）。
Williams’ approach foregrounds the everyday experiences and interpretative practices of ‘normal’ women and men (see Stores 1993: 56. Higgins 1999: 173). From this perspective, research no longer has far to go before it arrives at the point of asking which cultural and political acts are possible under particular circumstances and conditions. Such questions were to become extremely important, not only for Williams, but also for the newly emerging discipline of Cultural Studies. 威廉斯的研究方法凸显了"普通"男女的日常经验与阐释实践（参见 Stores 1993: 56；Higgins 1999: 173）。由此视角出发，研究只需再迈出一步就能追问：在特定环境条件下，哪些文化政治行动成为可能？这些问题不仅对威廉斯本人，而且对新兴的文化研究学科都产生了极其重要的影响。
A focus on local specifity was thus always inherent in this new project. Clara Masnatta’s article ‘Raymond Williams in the South Atlantic’ (p.129) shows the productiveness of Williams’ theorizing in the formation of cultural studies in the South Atlantic (roughly defined as the area ranging from Sào Paulo to Buenos Aires’) and the effect of Williams’ thought on the concrete social and political realities of the region. Atter a brief outline of the local intellectual ground, she explains the relevance of Williams’ thinking for this ‘periphery of capitalism’ and the specific approaches it precipitated there. Two lines of thought that are central to W’illiams’ impact in the South Atlantic are his treatment of the himomial of ‘the country and the city’ and the ‘de-hierarchization between copy and original’ implied in his rejection of the distinction between popular and elite cultures, both of which resonated with intellectuals in a peripheral region with a history of colonization. Also, the conjunction of aesthetic and political analyses made possible by Williams’ concept of culture enabled a ‘social redemption’ of literary criticism during a time of military dictatorship, democratic transitions and revolutionary aspirations. Masnatta’s article integrates these (and other) general considerations with detailed accounts of the personal and institutional factors which influenced Williams’ reception in different regions of the South Atlantic. 因此，对这一新项目而言，关注地方特殊性始终是其内在特质。克拉拉·马斯纳塔的论文《南大西洋的雷蒙德·威廉斯》（第 129 页）揭示了威廉斯理论在南大西洋地区（大致界定为从圣保罗到布宜诺斯艾利斯的区域）文化研究阵型构建中的生产性，以及威廉斯思想对该地区具体社会政治现实的影响。在简要勾勒当地知识界背景后，她阐释了威廉斯思想对这片"资本主义边缘地带"的适切性及其催生的特殊研究路径。威廉斯对南大西洋地区影响的核心思想脉络有二：其一是对"乡村与城市"这对二元命题的诊疗，其二则是他消解通俗文化与精英文化分野时隐含的"摹本与原创的去等级化"理念——这两种思想都与曾经历殖民历史的边缘地带知识分子产生深刻共鸣。 此外，威廉斯的文化概念实现了美学分析与政治分析的结合，使得文学批评在军事独裁、民主转型和革命理想的时代背景下获得了"社会救赎"。马斯纳塔的文章将这些（及其他）总体思考与详细叙述相结合，探讨了影响威廉斯在南大西洋不同地区接受度的个人与制度因素。
Raymond Williams and cultural materialism 雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化唯物主义
The late 1960s and early 1970 s witnessed a turn to Marxist positions that became apparent in Great Britain as well as in the rest of Western Europe. This was not a ‘Renaissance of Marxism’ in the strict sense, but rather an attempt to reconstruct the traditions of another, alternative, undogmatic Marxism. 20 世纪 60 年代末至 70 年代初，英国及西欧其他地区出现了转向马克思主义立场的明显趋势。严格来说，这并非一次"马克思主义复兴"，而是对另一种非教条化、具有替代性的马克思主义传统进行重构的尝试。
The volume Sittating Marx, published in 1972, was paradigmatic of this development. Most of the essays in it were papers from a symposium that had been held at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at Birmingham University. The collection was edited by Paul Walton and Stuart Hall, of whom the latter was already the director of the CCCS by this point. They pointed out the differences between British debates on Marx and those in countries such as France or Germany, and appealed to their colleagues to make up lost ground in Marx’s reception, presenting this as an important task for the New Left (see Walton and Hall 1972: 2ff.). 1972 年出版的《定位马克思》堪称这一发展的典范。该书收录的论文大多来自伯明翰大学当代文化研究中心（CCCS）举办的研讨会。文集由保罗·沃尔顿与斯图亚特·霍尔共同编撰，彼时后者已担任该研究中心主任。编者指出英国马克思主义论争与法德等国的差异，呼吁学界同仁弥补马克思主义接受史上的滞后，并将此视为新左派的重要使命（参见 Walton and Hall 1972: 2ff.）。
This intensified examination of the texts of ‘Western Marxism’ (Perry Anderson) was part of a more extensive reception of continental European theory production, and went hand in hand with the growing influence of structuralism. For Cultural Studies in particular, de Saussure and LeviStrauss’s theories of language as a symbolic system that predetermines our approach to the world, and Roland Barthes’s semiotic analyses of mythologies of the mundane were to be extraordinarily influential. At the same time, Marxism remained the central system of reference for the CCCS of the 1970s. 对"西方马克思主义"（佩里·安德森）文本的深入研究，是欧陆理论成果更广泛接受的一部分，并与结构主义日益增长的影响力齐头并进。对文化研究而言，索绪尔和列维-斯特劳斯将语言视为预先决定我们世界观照方式的符号系统理论，以及罗兰·巴特对日常神话的符号学分析，产生了非凡影响。与此同时，马克思主义仍是 1970 年代伯明翰当代文化研究中心的核心参照体系。
Raymond Williams also set out to reformulate his cultural theoretical ideas against the background sketched out above. ^(9){ }^{9} Contrary to the dominant readings of Marxism, Williams asserts in Marxism and Literature that it is not ‘the hase’ and ‘the superstructure’ that need to be studied, but specific and indissoluble real processes, within which the decisive relationship, from a Marxist point of view, is that expressed by the complex idea of ‘determination’. 雷蒙德·威廉斯也着手在上述背景下重新阐述其文化理论观点。 ^(9){ }^{9} 与马克思主义的主流解读不同，威廉斯在《马克思主义与文学》中主张：需要研究的不是"基础"与"上层建筑"，而是具体且不可分割的真实过程——在这些过程中，从马克思主义视角看，最具决定性的关系正是由"决定作用"这一复杂概念所表达的关系。
This focus on specificities, which clearly detaches Williams’ theorizing from any type of reductionism, is taken up in Laurence Grossherg’s piece on ‘Raymond Williams and the absent modernity’ (p. 18). Grossherg sets himself the task of gleaning aspects of a theory of modernity from Williams’ works. After showing how Williams’ thinking was consistently opposed to any reductionism, Grosshery depicts Williams’ struggle with the notion of experience and his refusal to view it as cither only mediated or only individualized. He considers Williams’ reformulation of the ‘structure of feeling’, which in his later work refers to the point at which an experience is not yet fully expressible in any conventional form, but still contributes to the ‘feeling’ of a generation or social formation and generating a sense of ‘now’. What Grossherg offers is not so much a conventional 这种对特殊性的关注，显然使威廉斯的理论建构远离了任何形式的还原论，劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格在《雷蒙德·威廉斯与缺席的现代性》（第 18 页）一文中延续了这一思路。格罗斯伯格致力于从威廉斯著作中梳理出现代性理论的若干面向。在阐明威廉斯思想如何始终反对任何还原论之后，格罗斯伯格刻画了威廉斯对"经验"概念的艰难探索——他既拒绝将其视为完全中介化的产物，也拒斥纯粹个体化的理解。格罗斯伯格重点分析了威廉斯对"情感结构"的重新阐释：这一概念在威廉斯后期著作中，指向那些尚未能被任何传统形式充分表达，却已然构成代际或社会构型之"感觉"，并催生"当下"意识的经验状态。格罗斯伯格的贡献不在于对威廉斯进行常规解读
reading of Williams but an attempt to take Cultural Studies into a new millennium. Thus, Grossberg aligns himself with Williams in their mutual search for finding useful tools to analyse the problems at hand, in short for a way of ‘making them real’. 而在于将文化研究引向新千年的理论尝试。因此，格罗斯伯格与威廉斯在方法论上形成共鸣——他们都致力于寻找分析现实问题的有效工具，简言之，寻找"使之成为真实"的路径。
Williams himself found fellow travellers in his readings of European theorists that ‘made it real’ for him. Lucien Goldmann was already mentioned at the beginning of this essay. It is in Williams’ readings of Goldmann’s sociology of literature that the first signs of his changing theoretical approach become visible. In an obituary of Goldmann published in the New Left Review (Williams 1971c) Williams traces the similarities between his concept of ‘structures of feeling’ and Goldmann’s ‘genetic structuralism’ (see Goldmann 1975), above all because the latter was ‘necessarily concerned not only with the analysis of structures but with their historical formation and process’ (Williams 1971c: 12). Inherent in Goldmann’s concept of structure is a relationship between literary and social facts, as W’illiams notes, adding that this relationship is not one of content but of ‘mental’ structures: 'the categories which simultaneously organize the empirical consciousness of a particular social group and the imaginative world created by the writer. By definition, these structures are not individually but collectively created (ibid.). 威廉斯本人在阅读欧洲理论家著作时找到了志同道合者，这些理论"使其成为现实"。吕西安·戈德曼已在本篇开篇提及。正是在威廉斯对戈德曼文学社会学的解读中，其理论转向的初期迹象开始显现。在《新左派评论》发表的戈德曼讣告中（威廉斯 1971c），威廉斯追溯了自己"情感结构"概念与戈德曼"发生结构主义"（参见戈德曼 1975）的相似性，主要因为后者"必然不仅关注结构分析，更关注其历史形构与过程"（威廉斯 1971c:12）。威廉斯指出，戈德曼的结构概念内在地包含文学事实与社会事实的关联，并强调这种关联并非内容层面，而是"精神"结构层面的："这些范畴同时组织着特定社会群体的经验意识与作家创造的想象世界。根据定义，这些结构并非个体创造而是集体产物"（同上）。
It is self-evident that this is very close to Williams’ ideas of the ‘structure of feeling’ as briefly outlined above. Inspired by Georg Lukács, Lucien Goldmann’s sociology of literature investigates the relationship between consciousness and world, or, to put it in more general terms, the effectiveness of ideology and how it may be overcome. Goldmann, following Lukács, differentiates between the ‘actual consciousness’ of a social group and their ‘potential consciousness’ (see Goldmann 1975, 1976) Roughly speaking, ‘actual’ consciousness means the empirically provable, everyday consciousness, while ‘potential’ consciousness introduces a category of possibility. Such ideas are indeed reminiscent of Ravmond Williams, and, even though he considers Goldmann’s model too static, we can nevertheless see how, having been isolated to a great extent, he now finds confirmation of his theoretical practice in these continental European Marxist debates and his reading of Goldmann and Lukaces (see Milner 2002: 87f). 显而易见，这与威廉斯前文简述的"情感结构"理念极为接近。受格奥尔格·卢卡奇启发的吕西安·戈德曼文学社会学，探究了意识与世界的关系，或更广义而言，意识形态的效力及其超越之道。戈德曼承袭卢卡奇的理论，将社会群体的"现实意识"与"潜在意识"作出区分（参见 Goldmann 1975, 1976）。简言之，"现实"意识指可经验证实的日常意识，而"潜在"意识则引入了可能性的范畴。这些思想确实令人联想到雷蒙德·威廉斯，尽管他认为戈德曼的模型过于静态，但我们仍可看出，在相当程度上处于学术孤立的他，如今从这些欧陆马克思主义论争及对戈德曼与卢卡奇的研读中，获得了对其理论实践的印证（参见 Milner 2002: 87f）。
His work on Antonio Gramsci was to have even further reaching conseguences. A selection of the Qualemidel worere had been available in English since 1971, translated and edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (Gramsei 1971). In his essay 'Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory", published one again in the New Lefi Review (Williams 1973a), Williams looks at Gramsci in depth and sketches his first thoughts on cultural materialism. 他对安东尼奥·葛兰西的研究产生了更为深远的影响。1971 年，昆汀·霍尔与杰弗里·诺埃尔-史密斯翻译编辑的《葛兰西选集》部分内容已在英语世界问世（Gramsei 1971）。威廉斯在 1973 年发表于《新左翼评论》的论文《马克思主义文化理论中的基础与上层建筑》（Williams 1973a）中，深入剖析了葛兰西思想，并首次勾勒出文化唯物主义理论的雏形。
But it was in Agaxism and Literature (1977), 1’ perhaps his last great work, that Williams hazarded an attempt at theorizing ‘cultural materialism’, using aspects of both neo-Marxism and structuralism. As he comments in 然而直到《马克思主义与文学》（1977 年）——这或许是他最后的巨著——威廉斯才大胆尝试融合新马克思主义与结构主义元素，系统构建"文化唯物主义"理论体系。正如他在书中所述
his introduction, he set out to incorporate the critical Marxism of thinkers such as Benjamin, Lukács, Goldmann, the late Sartre and above all Althusser and Gramsci, but he was also interested in semiotics as a method of textual analysis. As the title of the book suggests, his main aim was to situate language and literature in the material world. Referring to Rossi-Landi and Vološinov, he argued against the limitation of language to a system of signs as propagated by the young Wittgenstein and de Saussure, and insisted on characterizing it as a social practice and historical institution. ^(11){ }^{11} 在导论中，他致力于整合本雅明、卢卡奇、戈德曼、晚期萨特等思想家的批判马克思主义理论，尤其是阿尔都塞与葛兰西的学说，同时也对作为文本分析方法的符号学深感兴趣。正如书名所示，其主要目标是将语言与文学置于物质世界之中。通过援引罗西-兰迪和沃洛希诺夫的理论，他反对早期维特根斯坦与索绪尔所宣扬的将语言局限于符号体系的观点，坚持将其界定为社会实践与历史制度。 ^(11){ }^{11}
In the second section of the book, Williams examined the ideas sketched out in his essay ‘Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory’. He attempted to formulate cultural materialism within the traditions and developments of Marxism, that is to say, within ‘historical materialism’ (see Williams 1977: 5). Nevertheless, he rejected the classic base versus superstructure model of orthodox Marxism, whereby ‘culture’ in the final instance can be explained by the vicissitudes and logic of the economy. He emphasised the relative specificity of culture’s internal dynamics, an approach that influenced his analysis. 在该书的第二部分，威廉斯深入探讨了其论文《马克思主义文化理论中的基础与上层建筑》所勾勒的思想。他尝试在马克思主义传统与发展脉络中——即"历史唯物主义"框架内（参见 Williams 1977:5）——构建文化唯物主义理论。然而，他摒弃了正统马克思主义将文化最终归因于经济变迁与逻辑的经典"基础-上层建筑"二元模型，转而强调文化内在动力具有相对自主性，这一方法论取向深刻影响了他的分析路径。
The process of determination is, however, driven by certain mechanisms, and this is where ideology takes effect. With reference to Althusser’s concept of ideology (ideology as effective practice) and in particular to his concept of ‘overdetermination’ (Althusser 1985), which leaves room for a relative autonomy of culture, Williams explained efforts to attain ideological dominance as the (never entirely successful) results of a struggle between contradictory and conflicting forces. The advantage of Althusser’s term for Williams is that it acknowledges and takes into account the significance and complexity of real, lived experience: 然而，决定过程是由特定机制驱动的，这正是意识形态发挥作用之处。威廉斯援引阿尔都塞的意识形态概念（将意识形态视为有效实践），特别是其"多元决定"概念（Althusser 1985）——该概念为文化的相对自主性留有空间——将获取意识形态支配地位的尝试解释为矛盾冲突力量间斗争（从未完全成功）的结果。阿尔都塞这一术语对威廉斯的价值在于，它承认并考量了真实生活经验的重要性和复杂性：
In its most positive forms - that is, in its recognition of multiple forces, rather than the isolated forces of modes or techniques of production, and in its further recognition of these forces as structured, in particular historical situations, rather than elements of an ideal totality or, worse, merely adjacent - the concept of ‘overdetermination’ is more useful than any other as a way of understanding historically lived situations and the authentic complexities of practice. 在其最积极的形态中——即承认多重力量而非孤立的生产模式或技术力量，并进一步承认这些力量是在特定历史情境中被结构化的，而非理想整体中的元素或更糟的简单毗邻关系——"多元决定"概念比其他任何概念都更有助于理解历史生活情境和实践的真实复杂性。
(Williams 1977: 88) （威廉斯 1977: 88）
However, in the final instance, a strict Althusserian model leaves no room for the concept of resistance. Part of Williams’ aim was the conceptual exploration of possibilities of resistance, and so he abandoned Althusser’s Marxist structuralist logic at this point and turned to Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Hegemony, that state of social (political/ cultural) dominance that can never be fixed or stable, is described thus by Williams: 然而，归根结底，严格的阿尔都塞式模型并未给抵抗概念留下任何空间。威廉姆斯的部分目标正是对抵抗可能性进行概念性探索，因此他此时摒弃了阿尔都塞的马克思主义结构主义逻辑，转而投向安东尼奥·葛兰西的霸权理论。威廉姆斯对霸权——这种永远无法固定或稳定的社会（政治/文化）支配状态——作出如下描述：
The reality of any hegemony, in the extended political and cultural sense, is that, while by definition it is always dominant, it is never either total or exclusive. At any time, forms of alternative or directly oppositional politics and culture exist as significant elements in the society. 从广义政治文化层面而言，任何霸权的现实在于：虽然根据定义它始终占据主导地位，但既非全面也非排他。在任何时期，社会中都存在着作为重要元素的替代性或直接对抗性的政治文化形式。
(ibid.: 113) （同上：113）
John Storey’s contribution “'All forms of signification” (p. 34) further investigates the idea of culture as a site of struggle in Williams’ later work. Storey’s article serves as an introduction to the ways in which all human interaction can be conceived as an exchange of meanings. However, Williams also emphasizes the ‘materiality’ of these meanings, as they shape sucial practice, and he never denies the existence of a reality outside of signification. Culture, in this view, is the process that gives meaning to the objects of this reality; but while Williams’ earlier works seem to depict this process as a harmonious collaboration, he later insisted that these meanings are always also contested, and that their production is contingent on relations of power and pre-existing structures of signification. Culture and power thus emerge as cultural studies’ primary objects of study. 约翰·斯道雷的论文《"所有表意形式"》（第 34 页）进一步探讨了威廉斯后期作品中文化作为斗争场域的理念。斯道雷的文章介绍了如何将所有人际互动理解为意义交换的多种方式。然而威廉斯同时强调这些意义的"物质性"——它们形塑着社会实践，且他从未否认表意系统之外现实的存在。这种观点下，文化是赋予现实对象意义的过程；尽管威廉斯早期著作似乎将此过程描述为和谐协作，他后期则坚持认为这些意义始终存在争议，其生产取决于权力关系与既有的表意结构。文化与权力由此成为文化研究的主要研究对象。
Bearing in mind the idea of constant struggle, it can never be a case of establishing a particular hegemony in the abstract, but rather of investigating the ways in which the ‘hegemonic’ and the ‘dominant’ function, as Williams notes. According to Williams, the difficult, yet fascinating task of cultural analysis in complex societies is to comprehend the thegemonic’ not only in its active and formative but also in its transformative processes. 铭记持续斗争的理念，正如威廉斯所指出的，永远无法在抽象层面确立某种特定的霸权，而应探究"霸权性"与"主导性"的运作机制。威廉斯认为，在复杂社会中进行文化分析的艰难而迷人的任务，在于理解霸权不仅在其积极建构的进程中，更在其转化过程中的表现。
Taking Gramsci’s hegemony theory as his point of departure, Williams unfolds his model of ‘cultural forces’. First there is ‘the dominant’, the hegemonically effective, operative cultural force in a particular society at a particular time. He adds to this ‘the residual’ and ‘the emergent’. To simplify somewhat, these forces correspond roughly to ideological forms of the present, past and future, although that is not all they are. 以葛兰西的霸权理论为出发点，威廉斯展开了其"文化力量"模型的阐述。首先是"主导力量"——在特定时期特定社会中具有霸权效力、实际运作的文化力量。他补充以"残余力量"和"新兴力量"。简言之，这些力量大致对应着现在、过去和未来的意识形态形式，尽管其内涵远不止于此。
The ‘residual’, by definition, has been effectively formed in the past, but it is still active in the cultural process, not only and often not at all as an element of the past, but as effective element of the present. "残余力量"按定义形成于过去，却仍在文化进程中活跃存在，不仅且往往完全不以过去元素的形式，而是作为当下切实有效的构成要素持续发挥作用。
(ibid.: 122) （同上：122）
The category ‘emergent’ denotes ‘that new meanings and values, new practices, new relationships and kinds of relationships are continually being created’ (ibid.: 123). “新兴”这一范畴指的是“新的意义与价值、新的实践、新的关系及关系类型正在持续被创造”（同上：123）。
And, ultimately, as all of these are moments of a cultural process, definitions of what is ‘residual’ or ‘emergent’ can only be formulated with reference to the dominant cultural force. The three ‘cultural forces’ outlined here 最终，由于这些都是文化进程中的片段，对“残余”或“新兴”的定义只能参照主导文化力量来表述。此处概述的三种“文化力量”
can contradict each other; difference, conflict and opposition are always apparent in their ever-changing relationship. Formulated thus, the room for manoeuvre delineated by these ideas is always to be understood as a process, a site of constant struggle and negotiation, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways by the individuals living in any given society. Therefore, it ultimately also permits a variety of alternative types of possible behaviour and practices. 可能相互矛盾；差异、冲突与对立始终存在于它们不断变化的关系中。如此表述时，这些概念所勾勒的运作空间应始终被理解为一个过程——一个持续斗争与协商的场域，生活于特定社会中的个体可以对此作出多种诠释。因此，它最终也允许多种替代性的可能行为与实践类型存在。
To understand the three forces and their importance for Williams, we have to grasp his fundamental conviction ‘that no mode of production and therefore no dominant social order and therefore no dominant culture ever in reality exhausts all human practice, human energy, and human intention’ (Ibid.: 125). Nothing can ever be completely victorious, and the dominance of prevailing opinions is never total. 要理解这三种力量及其对威廉姆斯的重要性，我们必须把握他的基本信念："任何生产方式、任何占主导地位的社会秩序以及任何主导文化，实际上都从未穷尽过人类的所有实践、能量和意图"（同上：125）。没有任何事物能够取得完全胜利，主流观点的支配地位也绝非绝对。
But let us pause here for a moment and look back. It is a long way from an understanding of ‘culture as a way of life’ to the concepts of cultural materialism, such as hegemony and never completely determined or determining ‘cultural forces’. Nevertheless, a unifying theme runs through Williams’ work, namely the deep conviction that culture is important and meaningful, although not as a noble attribute of the ruling classes, nor as a mere feature of the superstructure. Williams emphasizes culture as social practices; for him culture is effective as a constitutive social process. 但让我们在此稍作停顿并回顾。从将"文化视为生活方式"的理解，到文化唯物主义中诸如霸权、从未完全被决定或起决定作用的"文化力量"等概念，这是一条漫长的道路。然而，威廉姆斯的作品贯穿着一个统一主题，即坚信文化是重要且有意义的——既非统治阶级的高贵属性，亦非仅仅是上层建筑的特征。威廉姆斯将文化强调为社会实践；对他而言，文化是作为一种构成性社会进程而发挥效力的。
Williams shared this fundamental insight with those representatives of Cultural Studies whose theoretical practice later diverged from his, often developing positions that were in part critical of central aspects of his earlier work. ^(12){ }^{12} The publication of Stuart Hall’s seminal restrospective of the two paradigms of cultural studies (see Hall 1980b) in 1980 made it clear that Williams was not the only theoretical authority recognised by the CCCS. In an interview printed by Radical Philosophy at the end of 1997, Hall refers once again to the enormous significance that the debates on structuralist input had for the Centre’s theoretical focus (see Hall 1997a: 25). 威廉姆斯与那些文化研究代表学者共享这一根本洞见，尽管后者的理论实践后来与他分道扬镳，并时常发展出对他早期著作核心观点持批判态度的立场。 ^(12){ }^{12} 1980 年斯图亚特·霍尔发表关于文化研究两种范式的开创性回顾（参见 Hall 1980b），明确表明伯明翰当代文化研究中心（CCCS）认可的理论权威并非仅有威廉姆斯。在 1997 年底《激进哲学》刊载的访谈中，霍尔再次强调结构主义理论输入对该研究中心理论焦点形成的重大意义（参见 Hall 1997a: 25）。
The tension between ‘structuralism’ and ‘culturalism’ meant that the Centre offered a productive atmosphere from the 1970s onwards for works as different as, for instance, Dick Hebdige’s semiotic analysis of punk, Paul Willis’s ethnographical studies on youth culture, Angela McRobbie’s feminist criticism, Lawrence Grossberg’s and Tony Bennett’s studies on popular culture and politics as well as, last but not least, Stuart Hall’s analyses of Thatcherism, and Hall and Paul Gilroy’s ideas on ethnicity and racism. "结构主义"与"文化主义"之间的张力，使得该中心自 1970 年代起为风格迥异的研究提供了富有成效的学术氛围——诸如迪克·赫伯迪格对朋克文化的符号学分析、保罗·威利斯关于青年文化的人志学研究、安吉拉·麦克罗比的女权主义批评、劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格与托尼·本尼特对流行文化与政治的研究，以及不可忽视的斯图亚特·霍尔对撒切尔主义的分析，还有霍尔与保罗·吉尔罗伊关于种族与种族主义的理论建构。
Above and beyond the differences in theoretical approach and methodology, all of these endeavours are characterized by a binding basic understanding of culture as a site of conflict, or, to put it more clearly in the words of Stuart Hall, by an interest in combining research on symbolic forms and meanings with the forms and meanings of power (ibid.: 24). 除了理论路径与方法论上的差异，这些研究都秉持一个根本共识——将文化视为冲突的场域，或者用斯图亚特·霍尔更直白的表述来说，都致力于将符号形式/意义的研究与权力形式/意义的探讨相结合（同上：24）。
There can be little doubt that this basic attitude has much to do with the influence of Williams. Raymond Williams himself wrote in one of his final 这种基本立场无疑深受威廉斯的影响。雷蒙德·威廉斯本人在其晚期
texts - on the future of Cultural Studies - that the project of Cultural Studies and its various incarnations should be understood as a ‘common disposition of energy and direction’ (Williams 1989c: 151; emphasis in the original). ‘One project, many formations’ could be the motto. Contemporary Cultural Studies in particular and recent debates on culture in general both stand to benefit from a consideration of the political agenda of Williams’ multifaceted project of cultural materialism. 一篇关于文化研究未来的文章中指出，文化研究计划及其多样变体应被理解为"能量与方向的共同配置"（Williams 1989c: 151；原文强调）。"一个计划，多种形态"或可成为其箴言。当代文化研究乃至近期广义的文化论争，都能从威廉斯文化唯物主义多元计划的政治议程中获得启示。
Gilbert B. Rodman strives to recover the extraordinary political impetus of the project (not to be conflated with the academic discipline) of cultural studies in his polemical essay ‘Cultural Studies is ordinary’ (p. 153). While cultural studies was originally conceived as a theory-and-practice outside the academic field, namely in the worker education programmes taught by Williams in the 1950s, and despite the broader social and political orientation inherent in its fundamental tenets, Rodman describes it as having since congealed into an ordinary academic discipline that is more concerned with reproducing than with reinventing itself. To counteract this conformism with and within academic discipline, Rodman proposes to apply Williams’ perspectives to theory, research, pedagogy, and (political) action in the cultural studies project: to acknowledge that neither theory nor research are exclusive to academia, to reach out to and make common cause with practitioners of cultural studies outside the universities, to try and make cultural studies relevant to the general public in the manner of critical pedagogy, that is, by daring to enter into a dialogue and a cooperation which will transform the project. Rodman claims that sealing off Cultural Studies from perspectives and materials from outside academia has led to a lamentable state of the art. The stalemate of professionalism that Williams attributed to English Studies in the late 1950s has meanwhile reached his very own project. Rodman and with him the editors of this volume hope that rather than allowing Cultural Studies to be shaped solely by the university, Cultural Studies might rather return to its project and listen to the voices from outside. 吉尔伯特·B·罗德曼在其论战性文章《文化研究是寻常的》（第 153 页）中，力图重拾文化研究这一项目（不可与学术学科混为一谈）非凡的政治动力。尽管文化研究最初是作为学术领域之外的理论与实践构想而诞生的——具体体现为威廉姆斯在 1950 年代主导的工人教育项目，且其基本原则本就蕴含着更广阔的社会政治导向——但罗德曼指出，它已逐渐凝固成一种寻常的学术学科，更关注自我复制而非自我革新。 为抵制这种学术规训内外的趋同现象，罗曼德提出将威廉斯的视角运用于文化研究项目的理论、研究、教学及（政治）实践：承认理论与研究并非学术界专属，主动联合高校以外的文化研究实践者形成共同阵线，以批判教育学的方式尝试使文化研究关联公众利益——即通过勇于开展对话与合作来重塑这一项目。罗曼德指出，将文化研究隔绝于学术圈外的视角与素材，已导致该领域陷入可悲的停滞状态。威廉斯在 1950 年代末归咎于英语研究的专业主义僵局，如今已蔓延至他亲手开创的领域。罗曼德与本卷编者共同期待，文化研究不应任由大学体制单向塑造，而应回归项目初心，倾听来自学术高墙之外的声音。
Cultural Studies is indebted to Williams who advocated a collective enterprise that should include academic and non-academic perspectives. Williams understood Cultural Studies as a series of snapshots, never providing a stable image. Rather, Cultural Studies should be subject to constant revision, appropriation and challenge. This collection is meant to provide such a challenge in the series of snap-shots the articles that follow will offer. 文化研究受惠于威廉斯所倡导的集体事业，这一事业应包含学术与非学术的多元视角。威廉斯将文化研究视为一系列快照，从未提供稳定图景。相反，文化研究应当持续接受修正、挪用与挑战。本文集旨在通过后续文章呈现的快照序列，提供这样一种挑战。
Notes 注释
1 In his diary, Dutschke complains somewhat wearily of his struggle with these bureaucratic hurdles: on 3 June 1970, for example, he writes: ‘hopefully all this shit will be over soon, I’d like to finally make a start with my studies’ (Dutschke 2003: 130). 1 杜契克在日记中略显疲惫地抱怨与官僚障碍的周旋：例如 1970 年 6 月 3 日他写道"希望这些破事尽快结束，我总算能开始学业了"（Dutschke 2003: 130）。
2 Cf. for example Miermeister 1986: 107ff.; Dutschke 1996: 246 ff. 2 参见例如 Miermeister 1986: 107 及后续；Dutschke 1996: 246 及后续。
3 Cf. for example Milner 2002, Jones 2004. 3 参见例如 Milner 2002, Jones 2004。
4 This state of affairs seems impervious to even the most heatedly debated and critical texts. See Wright 1998: 33-56. 4 这种状况似乎连最具争议性的批判文本也难以撼动。参见 Wright 1998: 33-56。
5 Williams himself refers to this in the foreword to the new edition of Culture and Society in 1987 (Williams 1990a: p. v). See also Sparks 1977: 16-30, Lindner 2000: 18, and Turner 1990. 5 威廉斯本人在 1987 年版《文化与社会》新序言中提及了这一点（Williams 1990a: p. v）。另见 Sparks 1977: 16-30、Lindner 2000: 18 以及 Turner 1990。
6 Cf. Davies 1995: 6ff. It is interesting to note that in the case of the historian E. P. Thompson, Davies does not refer to the book mentioned above, but instead to Edward P. Thompson’s William Morris: From Romantic to Revolutionary (1955). 6 参见 Davies 1995: 6ff。值得注意的是，在论及历史学家 E.P.汤普森时，戴维斯并未引用前文提及的著作，而是引用了爱德华·P·汤普森的《威廉·莫里斯：从浪漫主义到革命》（1955）。
7 These were the beginnings of the book Keywords which was to appear almost twenty years later. See Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, London 1976. 7 这些正是二十年后问世的《关键词》一书的雏形。参见《关键词：文化与社会词汇》，伦敦 1976 年版。
8 Cf. Williams 1961e: 59. This emphasis on the relationship between the individual definitions of culture can also be found in Williams’ late works, for example in a lecture given in Oxford in March 1986. See also Williams 1989: 164. 8 参见 Williams 1961e: 59。这种对文化个体定义间关系的强调也可见于威廉斯晚期著作，例如 1986 年 3 月在牛津发表的讲座。另见 Williams 1989: 164。
9 Cf. Dworkin 1997: 148ff, Milner 2002: 86ff, Higgins 1999: 110 ff. 参见德沃金 1997：148 及以下，米尔纳 2002：86 及以下，希金斯 1999：110 及以下。
10 Cf. Williams 1977. In his sociology of culture - Culture, London 1981 and Sociology of Culture, New York 1982 - Williams returns to these ideas and formulates them in a more systematic way. The basic terms he uses can, however, be found already fully developed in Marxism and Literature. 参见威廉斯 1977 年著作。在其文化社会学研究——《文化》（伦敦，1981 年）与《文化社会学》（纽约，1982 年）中，威廉斯重拾这些观点并以更系统化的方式加以阐述。不过他所使用的基本术语，其实在《马克思主义与文学》中就已发展成熟。
11 Cf. for example O’Connor 1989: 109ff, Moriarty 1995: 91-116. 例如参见奥康纳 1989：109 及以下，莫里亚蒂 1995：91-116。
12 One of the most problematic aspects of Williams’ work is a degree of blindness to ethnic issues, apparent for example in his idealization of the ‘English working man’. This has been highlighted in no uncertain terms by Paul Gilroy, see There Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack, London 1987. 威廉斯研究中最为棘手的问题之一，是其对种族议题的某种程度上的盲视，这尤其体现在他对"英国工人阶级"的理想化描述中。保罗·吉尔罗伊在《联合旗上没有黑色》（伦敦，1987 年）中对此进行了毫不含糊的批判。
Raymond Williams and the absent modernity 雷蒙德·威廉斯与缺席的现代性
Lawrence Grossberg 劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格
There is a paradoxical ‘moment’ in Raymond W’illiams’ theoretical system. On the one hand, he clearly locates himself, albeit in complicated and often uncomfortable ways, in a tradition of and a relation to European modernity. If only because of his own argument that the invention of the very concept of culture, in all its complexity, was a response to the processes and forms of European modernization, W’illiams’ own thought has to be understood in relation to the categories and development of forms of European modernity. And yet, while Williams had a great deal to say about the forms of modernism, especially in his often-brilliant cultural histories of literature and literary genres, and despite the fact that he put a great deal of weight on experience, he actually had surprisingly little to say explicitly about the broader questions of modernity. In fact, neither ‘modernity’ nor any of its variants warranted an entry in the first edition of Keverds, and the appearance of ‘modern’ (as an inclusive term) in the second edition is one of the shorter entries of the book, only slighty longer than that for ‘medieval’ (Williams 1983c). In this paper, I want to explore how Williams might have been thinking about modernity, and his possible contributions to a general theory of modernity, drawing especially on his concept of the structure of feeling. My point here is not so much to offer a reading of Williams but to use Williams to open up the possibilities of a cultural studies that speaks to the present and to the future. I want then to continue to think out loud, in public, with Williams as it were. 雷蒙德·威廉斯的理论体系中存在一个矛盾的"时刻"。一方面，尽管以复杂且常令人不安的方式，他明确地将自己定位于欧洲现代性的传统与关联之中。仅就其自身论点而言——文化这一复杂概念的发明正是对欧洲现代化进程与形式的回应——威廉斯的思想必须置于欧洲现代性诸范畴及其形态发展的关联中加以理解。然而，尽管威廉斯对现代主义形式（尤其在他那些往往卓绝的文学与文类文化史研究中）多有论述，且极为重视经验这一概念，他却出人意料地极少明确论及现代性这一更宏大的命题。事实上，在《关键词》首版中，"现代性"及其变体均未获条目资格；而第二版中作为包容性术语出现的"现代"，其条目篇幅仅略长于"中世纪"，堪称全书最简短的条目之一（威廉斯 1983c）。 本文旨在探讨威廉斯如何思考现代性，以及他可能对现代性一般理论作出的贡献，尤其借鉴其"情感结构"概念。我的目的并非对威廉斯进行文本解读，而是借助威廉斯的理论框架，开启一种既能回应当下又能面向未来的文化研究可能性。我希望能继续以威廉斯为对话者，在公共领域进行开放式的理论探索。
Raymond Williams, modernity, and the structure of feeling 雷蒙德·威廉斯、现代性与情感结构
One of the great achievements of Raymond Williams was to constitute another history, a history that we might simplistically see as the history of the humanities, or of the invention of culture as encompassing a wide range of discourses not only of imagination and value but also of particular ‘organic’ renderings of the social - as yet another instantiation of the debates over modernity. Williams’ argument is by now familiar: that the concept of culture was taken from the semantic field of agriculture and 雷蒙德·威廉斯的重要学术贡献在于构建了另一种历史叙事——这种历史可简略理解为关于人文学科发展的历史，或是关于"文化"概念如何逐渐涵括从想象与价值体系到特定社会"有机"呈现等广泛话语场域的历史，这本质上也是关于现代性论争的另一种呈现。威廉斯的论点如今已广为人知：文化概念最初是从农业语义场中挪用而来
made to bear an enormous weight. On the one hand, it held together aesthetic, ethical, anthropological (or what I would prefer to call a particular historical sense of the communal or collective), and certain transcendental meanings, the latter providing an answer to the modernist question of philosophical anthropology in which culture (as meaning or mediation) defines the specificity of the human. And, on the other hand, culture was constituted as a location, a stable point, from which one could both describe and judge the changes - social, political and economic - that were taking place and that constituted modernity as it were. Culture functioned as a descriptive and normative discourse about modernity in the West (see Williams 1958a, 1961c). 它被赋予了巨大的分量。一方面，这个概念统合了美学、伦理学、人类学（或我更倾向于称之为某种历史性的共同体意识）以及某些超验意义——后者为现代主义哲学人类学问题提供了答案，即文化（作为意义或中介）界定了人类的独特性。另一方面，文化被构建为一个立足点、一个稳定的坐标，人们既能由此描述正在发生的构成现代性的社会、政治与经济变革，又能对其进行价值判断。在西方语境中，文化发挥着描述与规范现代性的双重话语功能（参见 Williams 1958a, 1961c）。
But consider the moment in which Williams was making his argument, the moment of the emergence as it were of cultural studies in England, a moment which Williams sees in largely national and class terms but which, in retrospect, was clearly a key moment in the transformation of modernity around the world, across the many dimensions and axes of power and collectivity. Williams understood, as did the Frankfurt School, that the moment embodied a significant reconfiguration of the social between both culture and the economy and the entire social formation. It was in this context that two of Williams’ most fundamental and controversial assumptions took shape. Despite continuous attacks on both of these, Williams continued to assert them throughout his career: totality and experience. 但请思考威廉斯提出其论点时的历史时刻——那正是文化研究在英国兴起的时期。威廉斯主要从民族和阶级的视角看待这一时刻，然而回望过去，这显然是全球现代性转型的关键节点，涉及权力与集体性的多重维度和轴线。与法兰克福学派一样，威廉斯认识到这个时刻体现了文化、经济以及整个社会构型之间关系的重大重构。正是在此背景下，威廉斯两个最具根本性与争议性的理论假设得以成形。尽管持续遭受质疑，他终其学术生涯都坚持这两个核心概念：整体性与经验。
Williams consistently understood materialism to involve a commitment to the study of the totality, or as he put it when defining cultural studies: the study of all the relations among all the elements in a whole way of life. While notions of totality (not quite the same as totalization, but often confused with it) have been generally dismissed in contemporary theory, his commitment to totality is crucial to his project as an effort to find a different position on modernity. Totality was his way out, so to speak, of the ‘Culture and Society tradition’ that he himself had constituted, a tradition predicated on the separation of culture and society, a separation enabled by and dependent on the reification of the categories resulting from the modern fragmentation of the social formation (a fragmentation continued as it were in Althusser’s notion of the relative autonomy of the various levels of the formation). Thus Williams implicitly argued that the very separation of the social formation into relatively autonomous levels was an artefact of a particular configuration of modernity, one which continuously propels us into a search for primacy or hierarchy on the one hand, and a decontextualized search for the specificity of the levels on the other. 威廉斯始终将唯物主义理解为对整体性研究的承诺，正如他在定义文化研究时所言：对整体生活方式中所有元素间全部关系的研究。尽管整体性概念（与总体化不尽相同，却常被混为一谈）在当代理论中普遍遭到摒弃，但他对整体性的坚持对其研究项目至关重要——这是他为现代性寻求不同定位的努力。可以说，整体性是他摆脱"文化与社会传统"的出路，这个由他本人构建的传统，其前提正是文化与社会分离，而这种分离得以成立并维系，源于现代社会结构分化导致的范畴物化（这种分化在阿尔都塞提出的结构各层次相对自主性概念中得以延续）。 因此，威廉姆斯含蓄地指出，将社会形态分割为相对自主的层面本身就是现代性特定构型的产物——这种构型一方面不断驱使我们寻求首要性或等级结构，另一方面又促使我们脱离语境地追寻各层面的特殊性。
Instead, Williams continually pushed for a notion of a whole, lived social formation, which is only understandable as a set of processes (gathered eventually under the sign of hegemony). Thus Williams implicitly foregrounded the problematic of totality as a question and challenge of modernity. Of course, it has to be admitted that, in at least one sense, Williams 相反，威廉姆斯始终倡导一种整体的、鲜活的社会形态概念，这种形态只有被理解为一整套过程（最终汇聚于霸权这一概念之下）才能被把握。由此，威廉姆斯隐然将总体性问题凸显为现代性的核心议题与挑战。当然必须承认，至少在某个层面上，威廉姆斯
largely failed to realize his own project insofar as he seemed unable to avoid treating and even privileging culture as uniquely separable from the totality and identifiable and valued in its own terms. Nevertheless, I want to suggest that Williams’ commitment to totality is often misread as a kind of residual element of modernist humanism. But I think it should be seen as an attempt to move away from the dominant (nineteenth-century) problematic of culture as the mediation of individual and society, to a different set of foci and problematics. 在很大程度上，他未能实现自己的理论构想，因为他似乎无法避免将文化视为独特可分离于整体之外的存在，并以其自身标准加以识别和评价。然而，我认为威廉斯对整体性的坚持常被误读为现代人文主义的残余元素。这实际上应被视为一种理论转向——他试图摆脱将文化作为个体与社会中介的（十九世纪）主导问题框架，转而建立一套全新的研究焦点与问题域。
Or rather than thinking of it as a move away from the problematic of mediation, it may be more useful to think of it as an attempt to rearticulate the problematic into a set of contextually specific questions posed by the post-war formation including, importantly, the defence of culture and cultural knowledge against the prescriptions of scientism, opening an epistemological articulation of the problematic. This was, after all, the moment of the ‘two cultures’ debate in a slightly different context. This epistemological problematic defined science (scientism, positivism, functionalism, utilitarianism, scientific Marxism) as a fundamental challenge to the humanities and to political humanism. It pulled cultural studies back, if not into the ‘Culture and Society tradition,’ into the related traditions of the Gerstesurissenschaften and the later Methodenstreit. But, unlike those traditions, W’illiams’ project attempted to offer a new epistemology of social change, by bringing an epistemology of cultural interpretation to bear upon questions of historical social change (as lived, as social relations) and social agency (translated, for example, into a search for revolutionary agency in the post-war years). But cultural studies, in Williams’ vision, goes even further, contesting any ‘single vision’ (as Hoggart, following Blake, was fond of calling it), whether political economy, or aesthetic formalism, or religion, etc., or, in more contemporary terms, cognitive theory, or chaos theory, or network theory, or cybernetics, etc. Cultural studies, according to Williams, rejects anything that, to put it rather smply, makes the intellectual’s work easier than it should be: anything that reduces his or her ability to be surprised as it were. 与其将其视为对中介问题论的背离，不如将其理解为一种重新阐述问题论的尝试——将其转化为战后社会形态所提出的一系列具体语境化问题，其中尤为关键的是捍卫文化及文化知识免受科学主义教条的侵蚀，从而开启对这一问题论的认识论阐述。毕竟，这正是在稍异语境下"两种文化"论争的历史时刻。该认识论问题论将科学（科学主义、实证主义、功能主义、功利主义、科学马克思主义）定义为人文科学与政治人文主义的根本性挑战，从而将文化研究重新拉回——即便不是"文化与社会"传统——至少也是与精神科学传统及后来的方法论之争密切相关的学术谱系之中。 然而，与这些传统不同，威廉姆斯的学术工程试图通过将文化阐释的认识论应用于历史社会变革（作为生活经验，作为社会关系）和社会能动性（例如转化为战后岁月中对革命能动性的追寻）等问题，为社会变革提供一种新的认识论。但按照威廉姆斯的构想，文化研究走得更远——它挑战任何"单一视野"（正如霍加特追随布莱克所热衷的称谓），无论是政治经济学、美学形式主义、宗教等传统范式，还是用更当代的术语来说的认知理论、混沌理论、网络理论或控制论等。威廉姆斯认为，文化研究拒斥一切——说得直白些——让知识分子工作变得比应有状态更轻松的事物：任何削弱其保持惊异能力的事物。
Recognizing that Williams’ early work is located in the problem-space of the post-war conjuncture (to use David Scott’s term: Scott 2004) may help us understand something about the shape of cultural studies in his earliest work, including the way in which he understood the structure of feeling as a significant pattern of the organization of practices and experiences, present in every activity, yet uniquely expressed, crystallized and responded to in the best works of art. The structure of feeling makes the cultural text into a microcosm of the whole - to see the world in a grain of sand - through a notion of homology or correspondence. Yet at the same time, it refers to his less explicit but still important commitment to a radical contextuality, by which I refer to his argument that the meaning and politics of any cultural practice can only be understood when it is placed into the social totality, into the context as it were. 认识到威廉姆斯的早期著作植根于战后格局的问题域（借用大卫·斯科特的术语：Scott 2004），有助于我们理解其最初文化研究工作的形态——包括他将"感觉结构"视为实践与经验组织的重要模式这一观点：这种结构存在于所有活动中，却在最优秀的艺术作品中得到独特表达、结晶与回应。通过同源或对应的概念，感觉结构使文化文本成为整体的微观缩影——即"一沙见世界"。但与此同时，这也暗含了他对激进语境性虽未明言却至关重要的坚持：即任何文化实践的意义与政治性，唯有置于社会总体性中、置于特定语境里才能被真正理解。
Yet there has not been as much discussion about the way in which the trajectory of his work and, in particular, the modulation of some of his key terms over time may say something crucial about Williams’ efforts to constitute cultural studies in response to particular significant changes in the historical context. 然而，关于威廉姆斯学术轨迹的演变方式——尤其是其核心术语随时间的调适变化——如何深刻体现了他为回应历史语境重大变迁而建构文化研究的努力，学界尚未展开充分讨论。
We should approach Williams as having offered the concept of culture as an analytic category to be deployed on and even against English modernity, in a specific context, which he understood to implicate him in a moment of significant transition within the history of English modernity. That is, we should read Williams’ project of cultural studies as emerging out of and responding to a transitional moment in which Britain could be characterized as moving from one configuration of modernity to another modernity - as yet unspecified and unspecifiable - a transition characterized by the multiple competitions, struggles and alliances of the post-war world. Minerva’s owl was talking flight, and cultural studies was Williams’ attempt to get a handle on it. 我们应当认识到，威廉姆斯提出"文化"这一分析范畴，旨在特定历史语境中审视乃至批判英格兰现代性。他自觉身处英格兰现代性发展史上的重大转型节点，其文化研究项目的实质，正是对英国从一种现代性构型向另一种尚未明确、难以界定的现代性过渡的回应——这个由战后世界多重竞争、斗争与联盟所定义的转型期。当密涅瓦的猫头鹰展翅高飞之际，文化研究正是威廉姆斯试图把握时代精神的智识努力。
While in his earlier writings Williams did, too often, assume a seamless and harmonious totality, over time it seems his understanding of the conjuncture, of the context as a totality changed, so that he increasingly emphasized the totality as always multiple, fractured and incomplete. This no doubt enabled Williams to recognize, however unexpressed it remained, the multiplicity and contingency of modernity. As a result, by Politics and Letters, Williams was more explicitly acknowledging that the fundamental terms of modernity vary among different national contexts; for example, while English modernity is characterized most profoundly by and as industry, in France, it is democracy that provides the key to modernity, and, in Germany, the market (Williams 1979e: 115). But none of this suggests that Williams was ever willing to displace culture, as both a fragment and a dimension of the totality, from the centre of his analysis. He continued to maintain that the issue of modernity was deeply and complexly connected to notions of culture. 在威廉姆斯的早期著作中，他确实常常预设一种无缝衔接且和谐统一的整体性，但随着时间的推移，他对局势、对作为整体性的语境的理解发生了变化，从而越来越强调整体性始终是多元的、断裂的和不完整的。这种认识无疑使威廉姆斯能够觉察到现代性的多元性与偶然性——尽管这种觉察尚未得到充分表述。因此，到《政治与文学》时期，威廉姆斯更明确地承认：现代性的基本要素在不同国家语境中存在差异；例如，英国的现代性最深刻地体现为并以工业为特征，在法国则是民主构成了现代性的关键，而在德国则是市场（Williams 1979e: 115）。但这一切都不意味着威廉姆斯曾愿意将文化——既是整体性的碎片又是其维度——从其分析中心移开。他始终坚持认为，现代性问题与文化的概念存在着深刻而复杂的关联。
The second assumption that characterized Williams’ work throughout his career, again despite vehement and continuous criticism, was the centrality - and the very explicit ambivalence - of the concept of experience. That ambivalence is, as many commentators have noted, constitutive of Williams’ position: on the one hand, he claims that all experience is mediated; on the other, he distinguishes between what has always to be seen as some sort of originary experience and an ideologically constituted experience (what Thompson referred to as experience 1 and experience 2). This is sometimes carried to an almost phenomenological extreme in which it seems that, for Williams, not only must one affirm the reality of experience but even that experience is reality. So when Williams asserts in Politics and Letters that he is not claiming some unmediated or originary experience of reality, I think it is difficult to take this claim entirely seriously as a 贯穿威廉斯学术生涯的第二个显著特征（尽管持续遭受激烈批评）是他对"经验"概念的核心地位及其深刻矛盾性的坚持。正如许多评论者所指出的，这种矛盾性构成了威廉斯理论立场的根基：一方面，他主张所有经验都经过中介；另一方面，他又区分了必须被视为某种本源性的经验与意识形态建构的经验（即汤普森所称的"经验 1"与"经验 2"）。这种观点有时甚至走向近乎现象学的极端——在威廉斯看来，人们不仅要肯定经验的实在性，甚至可以说经验就是实在本身。因此，当威廉斯在《政治与文学》中声称自己并非主张某种未经中介或本源性的现实经验时，若将此论断完全视为
retrospective fact. But it does make sense if Williams is rethinking rearticulating - the central category of experience in response to the demands - both historical and theoretical - of the changing context. 对历史事实的严肃声明，我认为是难以成立的。但倘若将之理解为威廉斯为应对变化语境中历史与理论的双重要求，而对"经验"这一核心范畴进行的重新思考与表述，则显得合乎逻辑。
Williams does not simply accept the anti-humanistic (structuralist, poststructuralist) arguments against the category of experience; he does not give up the privilege that he has always assigned to experience, nor does he agree to reduce it to the product of discourse. Instead, he quite clearly continues to separate himself from such arguments. In fact, he asserts, he is continuously wary of the ‘danger of reaching the opposite point in which the epistemological wholly absorbs the ontological’ (W’illiams 1979e: 168). That is, Williams rejects the reduction of experience to the culturally mediated. Instead he proposes seeing mediation as ‘a positive process in social reality, rather than a process added to it by way of projection, disguise or interpretation’ (Williams 1977: 98-9). Williams reaches for a very different concept of experience, one that is neither humanistic nor structuralist. For Williams, experience is not individualized. It does not belong to a subject, nor is it the mediating space of subject and object. This is not a straightforwardly phenomenological concept of experience (for which Williams has been so criticized) but one more akin to Heidegger or even perhaps Foucault. 威廉姆斯并未简单地接受反人文主义（结构主义、后结构主义）对经验范畴的批判；他既未放弃自己一贯赋予经验的优先地位，也不同意将其简化为话语的产物。相反，他始终明确地与这类论点保持距离。事实上他强调，自己始终警惕"认识论完全吞噬本体论的危险"（威廉姆斯 1979e:168）。威廉姆斯拒绝将经验简化为文化中介的产物，而是主张将中介视为"社会现实中的积极过程，而非通过投射、伪装或解释附加其上的过程"（威廉姆斯 1977:98-9）。威廉姆斯提出了一种截然不同的经验概念——既非人文主义亦非结构主义。对他而言，经验并非个体化的存在，既不归属于主体，也不是主客体之间的中介空间。 这并非一个直白的现象学经验概念（威廉斯因此备受批评），而是一个更接近海德格尔、甚或福柯式的概念。
Even as Williams was revising his concept of experience - and as previously mentioned, at least taking note of the category of the modern - at that same moment (and in the same works), he is also significantly reconceptualizing the structure of feeling. Our interest is in what Williams does with his revised notion of experience in relation to his efforts to rethink the structure of feeling. 就在威廉斯修正其经验概念的同时——如前所述，至少注意到了现代性这一范畴——在同一时期（及同一著作中），他也在对感觉结构进行重大重构。我们的关注点在于，威廉斯如何将修正后的经验概念运用于他对感觉结构的重新思考之中。
In its original form, the concept of the structure of feeling was an analytically filled category that stood in for the specificity of the historical moment, the sign of the conjuncture as it were. It had a complicated and rather unclear relation to the category of experience for, on the one hand, it suggested a logic of homology that refused the privilege of experience so that Williams’ could read the structure of feeling off of, for example, a particular deployment of a technology such as television. And, on the other hand, the fact that it was a structure of feeling suggested a special and privileged link to the affective dimensions of experience. But as his work moved into the 1970s it is significant that the mid-1970s is often referred to in hoth postmodernist and post-Fordist discourses as a crucial moment in what I would call the history of the actualization of modernities Williams offers an apparent critique of this understanding of the structure of feeling: 最初，"感觉结构"这一概念作为一个分析性范畴，其内涵被充分填充，用以指代特定历史时刻的独特性，可谓时代症候的标记。它与"经验"范畴的关系复杂而模糊：一方面，它暗示着一种同源逻辑，这种逻辑拒绝赋予经验以特权地位，使得威廉斯能够从诸如电视技术等特定运用中解读出感觉结构；另一方面，作为"感觉"结构这一事实，又表明其与经验的情感维度存在着特殊而优先的关联。值得注意的是，随着威廉斯的研究进入 1970 年代——这个被后现代主义与后福特主义论述频繁援引为"现代性实现历程"关键节点的时期——他对感觉结构的理解似乎提出了明确的批判。
None of the dualist theories, expressed as reflection or mediation, and none of the formalist and structural theories, expressed in variants of correspondence or homology, can be fully carried through to contemporary practice, since in different ways, they all depend on a known history, a known structure, known products. 无论是表现为反映或中介的二元论理论，还是以对应或同源关系变体呈现的形式主义与结构主义理论，都无法完全适用于当代实践。究其根本，这些理论都以不同方式依赖于已知的历史、既定的结构以及已被确认的产物。
This is an interesting and rich statement, and there are three observations to be made about it. First, Williams must have known that his own work could be included under the signs of mediation and homology. Second, Williams’ judgment of the inadequacy of such approaches seems to have depended not upon some absolute judgment of theoretical failure but upon the conjunctural specificity of the present moment into which the concept has to be moved. And, finally, in a somewhat roundabout return to the ontological, Williams seems to suggest that the inadequacy of such theoretical interpretations to the contemporary context depends upon their reduction of experience to the epistemological and more specifically, to that which is already known. Williams instead rereads the ambivalence of his own notion of experience into the complex relationship between the ontological and the epistemological (see Probyn 1993) and he further complicates the epistemological, dividing it into what he will call the known and the knowable. 这是一个引人入胜且内涵丰富的论述，我们可以从中得出三点观察。首先，威廉斯必然清楚自己的作品也可被归入中介性与同源性研究的范畴。其次，威廉斯对这些方法局限性的判断似乎并非基于某种理论失效的绝对标准，而是取决于概念需要被置入的当下时刻所具有的局势特殊性。最后，通过某种迂回的方式重返本体论，威廉斯似乎暗示这些理论阐释对当代语境的不适应性，源于它们将经验简化为认识论范畴——更确切地说，简化为已知之物。相反，威廉斯将自己经验概念的矛盾性重新解读为本体论与认识论之间的复杂关系（参见 Probyn 1993），并进一步将认识论复杂化，将其划分为他所谓的"已知"与"可知"两个维度。
This leads us back to the moment of the mid-1970s, when, in a number of books, articles and interviews, including Marxism and Literature and Politics and Letters, we can map out what seems to be a significant turn or redirection in Williams’ work around the concept of the structure of feeling. In Politics and Letters, he redefines it as 这让我们回溯到 20 世纪 70 年代中期，通过包括《马克思主义与文学》《政治与文学》在内的多部著作、文章及访谈，可以勾勒出威廉斯围绕"情感结构"概念所呈现的重要转向或重新定位。在《政治与文学》中，他将其重新定义为：
the peculiar location of a structure of feeling is the endless comparison that must occur … between the articulated and the lived. For all that is not fully articulated, all that comes through as disturbance, tension, blockage, emotional trouble, seems to me precisely a major source of major changes in the relation between the signifier and the signified. 情感结构的独特定位在于必须不断进行的无尽比较……介于被言说的与亲历的之间。所有未被充分言说的内容，所有以干扰、紧张、阻滞、情感困扰形式呈现的体验，在我看来恰恰是能指与所指关系发生重大变革的主要源泉。
(Williams 1979e: 168) （威廉斯 1979e: 168）
In Marxism and Literature, Williams elaborates on this new, if still uncertain concept of the structure of feeling. It refers, he says, to ‘the pre-emergent, that which moves at the very edge of semantic availability’ (Williams 1977: 134), and which is yet social and material. There is then a kind of double sidedness to the concept. On the one hand, ‘what we are defining is a particular quality of social experience and relationship, historically distinct from other particular qualities, which gives the sense of a generation of of a period’ (ibid.: 131) - that is, a contextual and historical specificity, echoing the earlier use of the concept. And yet, on the other hand, it refers to what William quixotically calls ‘changes of presence’ (ibid.: 132). The structure of feeling then involves ‘the hypothesis of a mode of social formation, explicit and recognizable in specific kinds of art, which is distinguishable from other social and semantic formations by its articulation of presence’ (ibid.: 135). 在《马克思主义与文学》中，威廉斯详细阐述了这一虽仍不确定但全新的"情感结构"概念。他指出，这个概念指向"那些处于语义可及性最边缘的、即将显现的事物"（威廉斯 1977: 134），而这些事物本质上仍是社会性与物质性的。这一概念因而具有双重性：一方面，"我们所定义的是社会经验与关系的特定品质，这种品质在历史上区别于其他特定品质，能让人感知到一个时代或一代人的特征"（同上: 131）——即呼应了该概念早期用法的语境性与历史特殊性；另一方面，它又指向威廉斯所称的"在场的变化"（同上: 132）这种看似矛盾的现象。情感结构因此涉及"对社会形构模式的假设，这种模式在特定艺术形式中清晰可辨，它通过'在场'的表述而区别于其他社会与语义形构"（同上: 135）。
It is the embryonic, connected to all that is present and moving, all that escapes or seems to escape from the fixed and the explicit and the 它是萌芽状态的，与所有现存且运动中的事物相连，与所有逃离或看似逃离了固化、显性及
known … [it is] grasped and defined as the personal: this, here, now, alive, active, subjective. 为人所知……[它]被把握并界定为个人的：此时、此地、当下、鲜活、能动、主观。
(Williams 1977: 131) （威廉斯 1977: 131）
This is akin to the relation between what Williams has called the known and the knowable, a space between presence and emergence, but this is a presence that is no more recuperable in the temporal present than in the past. It sounds like what any number of contemporary theorists of the modern might call an ontological present, the present as a lived singularity. 这类似于威廉斯所称的"已知"与"可知"之间的关系，一种在场与显现之间的间隙，但这种在场既无法在当下时间中复现，亦如往昔般不可追回。这听起来恰如众多现代性理论家可能称之为"本体论当下"的概念——作为生活独特性的当下。
How do we make sense of this complex concept in which a notion of presence plays a crucial role in the relation of the known and the knowable, between the epistemological and the ontological (the lived)? Perhaps we might take a hint from a rare discussion, buried in The Politics of Modernism, of the concept of ‘the modern’. Williams identifies two active senses of ‘modern’: the first refers to a sense of historical time, with its specific and then changing features. This sense of the modern opens the present up to a sense of the future. The second refers to an ‘eternal contemporaneity, that apprehension of the “moment” that overrides and excludes, practically and theoretically, the material realities of change until all consciousness and practice are “now”’ (Williams 1989f: 76). W’illiams, citing Medveder and Bakhtin, rejects this second when the new becomes ‘a generalization of the human condition’ (ibid.) and, consequently, one’s judgment of the modern then depends entirely on whether this condition has been realized or is being threatened. 我们该如何理解这个复杂概念——其中"在场"观念在已知与可知之间、认识论与存在论（生活经验）的关系中扮演着关键角色？或许我们可以从《现代主义政治》中一段鲜被讨论的关于"现代性"概念的论述获得启示。威廉斯界定了"现代"的两种能动意义：第一种指向具有特定且流变特征的历史时间感，这种现代性意识将当下向未来敞开；第二种则指涉"永恒的共时性，即那种对'瞬间'的把握——它在实践与理论上都压制并排除了变革的物质现实，直至所有意识与实践都归于'此刻'"（威廉斯 1989f:76）。威廉斯援引梅德韦杰夫与巴赫金的观点，当"新事物"沦为"人类处境的普遍化"时便否定了第二种现代性（同上），因而对现代性的评判就完全取决于这种处境是否已实现或正遭受威胁。
Yet leaping to the conclusion that Williams has chosen the first over the second sense of the modern would be a mistake for it would seem more fruitful and in some sense true to the project to connect his discussion of the modern to his concept of the structure of feeling. That is, I suggests that the two can only be read together and that the latter provides us with the map we need to begin to imagine how Williams thought about modernity. Williams’ efforts to think the modern through the concept of the structure of feeling (and vice versa no doubt) brings together, it seems, the two modes of temporality that Williams has indicated: history and presence. 然而，草率地断定威廉斯选择了"现代"的第一种含义而摒弃第二种将是一种误读。因为若将其对现代性的讨论与"情感结构"概念相联系，似乎更具学术价值且更符合研究旨归。本文认为二者必须被置于互文关系中解读，后者恰恰为我们提供了理解威廉斯现代性思想的理论图谱。威廉斯通过"情感结构"概念来思考现代性（反之亦然）的学术努力，实质上融合了他所提出的两种时间性模式：历史性与在场性。
If I may then be allowed, the structure of feeling is the endless construction and deconstruction of the difference between the known and the knowable, between culture and experience, between history and an ontological presence, hut even that ontology is a historical, a contextual one, that can only be understood in its relation to a differentiation from culture as the site of history, hut also of transcendence or possibility. In embracing such complexity. Williams points the way and opens up a cultural studies approach to modernity, one that embraces the complexity and the possibilities of the multiplicity of ways of being modern. 如果允许我这样表述，情感结构就是对已知与可知之间、文化与经验之间、历史与本体论存在之间差异的无尽建构与解构，甚至这种本体论本身也是历史的、语境化的，只能通过其与文化作为历史场域——同时也是超越性或可能性的场域——的差异化关系来理解。通过接纳这种复杂性，威廉斯指明并开辟了一条通往现代性的文化研究路径，这条路径包容了现代存在方式多元性的复杂性与可能性。
From the structure of feeling to the temporality of ways of being modern 从情感结构到现代存在方式的时间性
This emergent theory of the structure of feeling seems to be standing in, as it were, for Williams’ absent theory of modernity by suggesting that, in the concept of the structure of feeling, Williams then not only negotiates a constitutive relationship between the two chronotopes that constitute the centre of most Western theories of modernity - a more common sociological view and a more avant-gardist aesthetic view, but also, in bringing these together in the structure of feeling, which is not to say reconciling them, Williams opens the possibility of seeing modernity as a continually dynamic, emerging and even multiple possibility. 这种新兴的情感结构理论似乎在一定程度上替代了威廉斯缺失的现代性理论——它表明，通过情感结构这一概念，威廉斯不仅调和了构成西方现代性理论核心的两种时空体（一种更趋社会学的普遍视角与一种更具先锋派色彩的美学视角）之间的构成性关系，更重要的是，当他在情感结构中将这些视角汇聚（而非简单调和）时，实际上开启了将现代性视为持续动态、不断生成甚至多元可能性的认知路径。
He allows us to see that modernity (or, at least, even Euro-modernity) was never complete and fixed, but was always on its way, always becoming. It always included any number of what he might have called emergent and residual modernities, and, therefore, it was always becoming something other as it came to rest at, reorganize and even produce a variety of spaces and places. That is, it was played out in different ways: it was becoming different things at different sites, even as it was being resisted, adopted, appropriated, etc. by other forces, struggles and vectors of determination. 他让我们认识到，现代性（或至少欧洲现代性）从来不是完整且固定的，而始终处于发展进程中，持续生成演变。它始终包含着诸多他可能称之为"新兴"与"残余"的现代性形态，因此当其驻足于、重组乃至创造各种空间与场所时，它总在蜕变为另一种存在。换言之，现代性以不同方式展开：在不同场域中演化为不同形态，即便同时遭遇其他力量、斗争与决定向量的抵制、接纳或挪用。
But the question of how he allows us to think towards the possibility of a multiplicity of modernities requires us to describe how Williams implicitly answers the question of how a particular configuration can be asserted to be modern. That is, we should extrapolate from Williams’ notion of the structure of feeling, to the task of defining modernity as a changing same or, adopting a phrase from Precarias a la Deriva, a ‘singularity in common’ (Precarias a la Deriva n.d.: 42). How do we, following Williams, conceptualize modernity, recognizing that it too often functions as an abstraction in need of specificity, and yet, too often, it is the universalization of its specificity that has given it over to the control of the European configurations of modernity? 然而，他如何使我们得以思考多元现代性可能性的问题，需要我们阐释威廉斯如何隐晦地回答了"特定构型何以被断言为现代"这一命题。这意味着，我们应从威廉斯"情感结构"的概念出发，将现代性定义为一种"变化中的恒常"，或借用"漂移中的不稳定"（Precarias a la Deriva n.d.: 42）的表述——一种"共有的独特性"。追随威廉斯的思路，我们该如何概念化现代性？既要认识到它常作为需要具体化的抽象概念运作，又须警惕其具体性被普遍化的过程——正是这种普遍化使其受制于欧洲现代性构型的宰制。
For the sake of time (and space), we will not raise a whole series of questions about the politics or the status of modernity, but we will consider two different definitions or conceptualizations of the modern in Western discourses, based on two distinct chronotopes, or spatio-temporal matrices that form the conditions of possibility for the practices and structures of social and structural realities. The first, a topographical and sociological chronotope, defines the dominant understanding, the common sense, of the West, about modernity. The second, a topological, post-hermeneutic and anti-sociological ^(1){ }^{1} chronotope, is more common among certain more aesthetically oriented theorists of modernity. The structure of feeling already puts these two into a necessary relationship. 出于时间和篇幅的考虑，我们不会提出一系列关于现代性政治或地位的问题，而是基于两种不同的时空体（即构成社会与结构现实实践可能条件的时空矩阵），考察西方话语中对"现代"的两种不同定义或概念化。第一种是地形学与社会学的时空体，定义了西方对现代性的主流理解与常识认知。第二种则是拓扑学的、后诠释学的、反社会学的时空体，在某些更具美学倾向的现代性理论家中更为常见。情感结构已然将这两种时空体置于必然的关联之中。
The common-sense description of modernity can take two different forms or emphases. The first thinks of modernity in terms of particular 关于现代性的常识性描述可以呈现两种不同形式或侧重点。第一种将现代性视为特定
macro-institutional structures, each assumed to be inherently distinguishable from its corresponding feature in traditional social orders. Such institutional identifications may be (and most commonly are) economic (capitalism or industrialization) but they are often also political (nation states, civil society and ideological politics) or cultural (professional institutions of knowledge production, and the production of mass culture). 宏观制度结构，每一种都被假定与传统社会秩序中的相应特征存在本质区别。此类制度识别可能是（且最常见的是）经济层面的（资本主义或工业化），但也常常涉及政治层面（民族国家、公民社会和意识形态政治）或文化层面（知识生产的专业机构与大众文化的生产机制）。
The second version of common sense sees modernity in processual terms or as the realization of one or more social logics: commodification, democratization, individualism (new kinds of subjectivity), difference (as in various border productions, identity productions or the division of public and private spaces, traditional and modern times), bureaucratization, secularism, cosmopolitanism, urbanization, representation (e.g. Heidegger’s world picture) and even historicization. Here we should include Giddens’s important work on time-space distanciation, which he asserts affects the very nature of institutions (making them more disembedded and self-reflexive) and of experience, and Foucauldean arguments that modernity is defined by the introduction of new types of rationality/power, such as biopolitics. We might also include Jameson, who, building on the notion that modernity gave birth to history and historical consciousness, argues that modernity is a fundamental discursive trope of social self-referentiality, through its constant effort at self-definition, through the constitution of its own temporality. ^(2){ }^{2} 常识的第二种版本将现代性视为过程性的现象，或是一系列社会逻辑的实现过程：商品化、民主化、个体化（新型主体性的产生）、差异（体现为各种边界生产、身份建构或公私领域划分、传统与现代的时间区隔）、官僚化、世俗主义、世界主义、城市化、表征（如海德格尔的"世界图像"）乃至历史化。在此我们应当纳入吉登斯关于"时空分离"的重要论述——他认为这种分离深刻影响了制度本质（使其更具脱嵌性与自我反思性）和体验方式；以及福柯系谱学的论断——现代性通过生命政治等新型理性/权力形式的引入得以界定。我们亦可引入詹明信的见解：基于"现代性催生了历史与历史意识"这一命题，他论证现代性作为社会自我指涉的根本话语转喻，通过持续不断的自我定义实践，通过建构自身的时间性而得以成立。 ^(2){ }^{2}
There is a common ‘picture’ of modernity’ at work here: modernity produces new modalities and machineries of politics, moving from absolute power to democracy, where politics becomes the struggle to produce consensus (agreement) through an ideology of ideology. Viewed from a darker, more Weberian and Foucauldean side, modernity involves new technologies for the control of the conduct of individuals and populations through governmentality. 这里存在一种关于现代性的普遍"图景"：现代性催生了政治的新形态与机制，从绝对权力转向民主制度，在此过程中政治演变为通过意识形态的意识形态来达成共识（一致同意）的斗争。若从更为阴暗的韦伯式与福柯式视角观察，现代性意味着通过治理术实现对个体及群体行为控制的新技术。
Modernity produces new techniques and loci of sociality in which social relations are reorganized around particular versions of family, gender, generation, sexual life, etc. Such relations are incorporated into an equally profound logic by which modernity operates as a specific sort of difference machine - producing particular structures, through a logic of negativity or negation, of differences on top of multiplicity (fundamentally starting as it were with the distinction between the traditional and the modern or the primitive and the civilized) and then extending to cover the entirety of social life (especially constituting a new logic of identity and identification). At the same time, modernity produces new (logics of) individualities that are now seen to have existed prior to collectivities and that are taken to be the true objects and agents of history. Or, to put it differently, an economy of identity and difference becomes the means by which agency is constituted in history. 现代性催生了新的社会交往技术与场域，在此过程中社会关系围绕特定版本的家庭、性别、代际、性生活等范畴被重新组织。这些关系被纳入同样深刻的运作逻辑——现代性作为特殊的差异机器，通过否定性或否定逻辑，在多元性基础上生产出特定差异结构（根本上始于传统与现代或原始与文明的分野），继而扩展至社会生活的全部领域（尤其构建起身份认同的新逻辑）。与此同时，现代性催生了新型（逻辑的）个体性，这些个体性如今被视为先于集体而存在，并被奉为历史的真正对象与能动主体。换言之，身份与差异的经济学成为历史中能动性构成的根本机制。
Modernity also produces new ways of producing and distributing economic resources, value and wealth, through the growth of specifically capitalist versions of market and commodity economies and new modes of 现代性还通过特定资本主义形态的市场经济和商品经济的发展，创造出生产与分配经济资源、价值及财富的新方式，以及通过技术、工业乃至消费主义和新自由主义对劳动作为价值生产的重新定义来实现剩余价值占有的新模式。
the appropriation of surplus value through technological, industrial and eventually consumerist and neo-liberal redefinitions of labour as value production. Finally, the modern produces new cultural economies including the proliferation of cultural literacy, expression and agency, the differentiation between high and popular or mass culture, the compartmentalization of the social totality, the new authority of secular knowledge (reason) over tradition and religion, the new sense of possibility and the desirability of change and experimentation, combined with a new faith in science, technology and progress. 最终，现代性催生了新的文化经济体系，包括文化素养、表达与能动性的激增，高雅文化与流行或大众文化的分野，社会总体的区隔化，世俗知识（理性）对传统与宗教的新权威，对变革与实验可能性的全新认知及其可取性，以及对科学、技术与进步的新信仰。
Closely related, and underlying such descriptions, modernity is thought of as the production of new organizations of time and space; modernity is defined by its (topographical) chronotope. On the one hand, modernity moves from large-scale religious-based empires to smaller sovereign national states where the borders define the space of decision-making powers (and social identifications). It also reorganizes planetary space according to the relations of colonialism and racism. On the other hand, to put it simply, modernity invents History. Modernity is the acceptance, even the celebration and institutionalization of change; it stands against stasis (and tradition). Time itself, usually assumed to be linear, is reconceived as movement, from a past through a fleeting present into a future; the future passes into the past through an ever-disappearing present. In history, the present is the articulation of different temporalities - past futures and futures past, embodying the contingencies of the past and the future in the present. ^(3){ }^{3} 密切相关且作为这些描述基础的，是现代性被视为对时间与空间新秩序的生产；现代性由其（地形学的）时空体所界定。一方面，现代性从大型宗教帝国转向较小的主权民族国家，其边界划定了决策权力（与社会认同）的空间范围。它亦根据殖民主义与种族主义的关系重组了全球空间。另一方面，简言之，现代性创造了"历史"概念。现代性是对变革的接纳，乃至颂扬与制度化；它反对停滞（与传统）。时间本身——通常被假定为线性——被重新构想为从过去经转瞬即逝的现在向未来的运动；未来通过不断消逝的现在进入过去。在历史中，当下是多重时间性的接合——过去的未来与未来的过去，将过去与未来的偶然性具现于当下。 ^(3){ }^{3}
This discussion of time gets to the heart, the most basic level, of the West’s common sense view of modernity. Modernity is, before all else, a new way of belonging to and in time. In a discursive reading of the West’s common sense, modernity is the invention of a topographical time: the temporality of change itself. It is the time of Chronos. As Osborne says, modernity is ‘a distinct but paradoxical form of historical temporality’, which he identifies as ‘the ceaseless process of temporal differentiation’ (Osborne 1995: 5, 8). Of course, this temporality of change, of history, also has or is articulated to a spatiality; and Chronos is always a spatio-temporality. In general, the temporality of change is articulated to the spaces of sociality and institutional life: in Euro-modernity, history takes place in the space of the nation state. 关于时间的这一讨论触及了西方常识性现代性观念的核心与最基础层面。现代性首先是一种全新的时间归属与存在方式。通过对西方常识的话语解读可见，现代性实则是拓扑时间的发明——即变革本身的时间性，属于克洛诺斯的时间范畴。正如奥斯本所言，现代性是"一种独特而悖论式的历史时间性"，他将其界定为"永不停息的时间分化进程"（Osborne 1995: 5, 8）。当然，这种变革与历史的时间性必然关联着空间维度，克洛诺斯始终是时空统一体。总体而言，变革的时间性总是与社会交往空间及制度生活空间相勾连：在欧洲现代性中，历史始终在民族国家的空间框架内展开。
But we have obviously ignored one of the most common understandings of modernity, where modernity, in a rather circular way, is defined via a particular experience of modernity as a particular attitude towards and experience of the actualizations of change at increasing speeds and densities: 但我们显然忽略了现代性最普遍的认知维度之一——现代性以某种循环论证的方式，被定义为对现代性的特定体验：即面对日益加速且密集的变革现实化进程时，所持的特定态度与体验方式。
A mode of vital experience - experience of space and time, of the self and others, of life’s possibilities and perils … To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world - and at the same 一种生命体验的模式——关于空间与时间、自我与他人、人生可能性与风险的体验……现代性意味着置身于这样一个环境：它许诺我们冒险、力量、欢乐、成长，以及自我与世界的蜕变——同时
time, that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are … To be modern is to be part of a universe in which … All that is solid melts into air. 也威胁着要摧毁我们拥有的一切、知晓的一切、乃至我们存在本身……现代性意味着成为这样一个宇宙的一部分，在那里……一切坚固的东西都烟消云散。
(Berman 1982) （伯曼 1982）
This notion of experience, largely understood phenomenologically, poses an interesting challenge to the chronotope of change. Where is ‘experience’ located temporally? Even more problematic, where and how is its subject constituted? It seems to depend on a second chronotope. If the first chronotope is conjunctural and sociological, theorizing a social structure of identity and overdetermination, the second is affective, theorizing a structure of identification, investment and experience. It can be traced back to two significant theorists of the modern: Benjamin’s ‘other history.’ what he calls messianic time as ‘a cessation of happening … an enormous abridgement’ (Benjamin 1968: 262-3); and Baudelaire’s emphasis on the present and presence, on the nou’, as the key to modernity, rather than in a break between the old and the new, or in a notion of social change and movement. ^(4){ }^{4} 这种主要从现象学角度理解的"经验"概念，对变革的时空体构成了有趣挑战。"经验"在时间维度上究竟定位于何处？更成问题的是：其主体在何时何地、以何种方式被建构？这似乎取决于第二种时空体。如果说第一种时空体具有接合性特征与社会学属性，旨在理论化身份认同的社会结构与多重决定；那么第二种时空体则关乎情感维度，试图理论化认同建构、情感投入与经验体验的结构谱系。此种二元框架可追溯至两位现代性理论家：本雅明提出的"另类历史观"——他将弥赛亚时间称为"事件进程的中止……一种极端的删节"（本雅明 1968: 262-3）；以及波德莱尔对当下性与在场性（即其所称"现时"）的强调，他认为现代性的密钥不在于新旧断裂，也不在于社会变革与运动的观念，而正在于这种对"此刻"的把握。 ^(4){ }^{4}
In this second chronotope, the modern is constituted as the construction of the now, the present, as a discrete moment of temporality (as in Heidegger’s three ecstasies of time), as the event. The present is the ontological locus of the lived, and the temporal locus of the subject as the subject of experience. It is the present-ing of the individual as subject of his or her own experience. The now is the moment of experience as a way of being in time. Stuart Hall says that being modern bestows upon one 'the privilege of living to the full the potentialities of the present from the inside (Hall n.d.). Foucault describes it thus: 在这第二个时空体中，现代性被构建为对"当下"的建构——将现在视为时间性中一个离散的瞬间（如海德格尔所提出的时间三重绽出），即作为事件而存在。当下既是生活经验的本体论场所，也是作为经验主体的时间性场所。它呈现了个体作为自身经验主体的存在状态。"此刻"是经验的时间性存在方式。斯图亚特·霍尔指出，现代性赋予人们"从内部充分体验当下潜能的特权"（霍尔，未注明日期）。福柯则如此描述：
The present becomes the fullest moment, the moment of the greatest intensity, the solemn moment when the universal makes its entry into the real … The present is no longer the moment of forgetfulness … it is the moment when the truth comes out. 当下成为最完满的时刻，最强烈的强度时刻，是普遍性进入现实的神圣时刻……当下不再是遗忘的瞬间……而是真理显现的时刻。
(Foucault 2003: 227-8) （福柯 2003: 227-8）
Each now, each moment, is unique unto itself. This notion of the present seems to have abandoned not only any notion of history and historical specificity, but of change as well. Instead, it emphasizes, following Benjamin and Bloch, the now as the ‘nonsynchronous accumulation,’ the repetitions of all times, of multiple temporalities, in the now (Bloch 1977). 每一个当下，每一个瞬间，都是独一无二的。这种当下的概念似乎不仅抛弃了历史和历史特殊性的观念，也摒弃了变化的观念。相反，它追随本雅明和布洛赫，强调当下作为"非同步的积累"，是多重时间性在当下的重复（布洛赫 1977）。
But the event of the present itself is not merely the fleeting and disappearing portal through which the future becomes past; it has a being-structure of its own. It is the ontological reality, the discontinuity and contingency, the ‘event-being’ of the present or the now as a singularity, constituting the context of experience and subjectivity, which defines this second chronotope. The notion of the now as event is used to point to what Takeuchi calls the 但当下事件本身不仅仅是未来成为过去那转瞬即逝的通道；它拥有自身的存在结构。作为本体论现实，作为断裂性与偶然性，作为当下或此刻之"事件存在"的独特性，它构成了经验与主体性的语境，这正是第二个时空体的定义。将当下作为事件的概念，被用来指向竹内好所称的
permanence of the instant (Takeuchi 2005: 58). It is, in Heideggerian terms, the event as eventing or happening, as the being of the performative. This is the present as an ontological condition of the possibility of transition, of becoming, as the ontological between. ^(5){ }^{5} As Benjamin says, ‘A historical materialist cannot do without the notion of a present which is not a transition, but in which time stands still and has come to a stop’ (Benjamin 1968: 264). 瞬间的永恒（竹内 2005：58）。用海德格尔的术语来说，这是作为事件化或发生的事件，是述行性的存在。这种当下作为一种本体论条件，既是过渡的可能性，也是生成的可能性，即本体论意义上的"之间"。 ^(5){ }^{5} 正如本雅明所言："历史唯物主义者离不开这样一种当下概念——它不是过渡，而是时间静止并停滞其中的当下"（本雅明 1968：264）。
As Foucault put it in his rereading of Baudelaire: ‘the value of the present is indissociable from a desperate eagerness to imagine it, to imagine it otherwise than it is, and to transform it not by destroying it but by grasping it in what it is’ (Foucault 1997: 311). Thus for Foucault, the permanent critique, the experimentalism of the modern, ‘at one and the same time, marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task’ (309). Similarly Derrida talks about the ‘noncontemporaneity with itself of the living present’ (Derrida 1994: xix). There is then within the very event of the present a kind of double presencing, not merely a presencing of discontinuity, contingency and fleetingness, but also the expression of, as Foucault describes it, the eternal, the heroic, in the present, the transcendent in the immanent. 正如福柯在重读波德莱尔时所言："当下的价值与一种绝望的渴望密不可分——既要想象它，又要以不同于现状的方式想象它，并且不是通过摧毁它，而是通过把握它的本质来改造它"（Foucault 1997: 311）。因此对福柯而言，这种永恒的批判、现代性的实验主义"同时标志着一种归属关系，又呈现为一项任务"（309）。德里达同样论述了"活生生的当下与自身非共时性"的特质（Derrida 1994: xix）。于是在当下事件内部存在着一种双重在场性——不仅呈现着断裂性、偶然性与转瞬即逝，更如福柯所描述的，表达着当下中的永恒性、英雄性，以及内在性中的超越性。
In the chronotope of the event, then, there seems to be another practice of subjectivation, one that is literally an act of subjectification. The space of the event is the space of (phenomenological) experience and, hence, of the construction of the individual as the phenomenological subject of experience. This subjectivity is lived as both an interiorization of one’s essence or individuality, as a self, that is - in metaphysical terms, ‘spiritualized’ and as the privileged author/possessor of its own experience. It is, we might say, the rationalization of the soul. This inner self is a self-aware subjectivity that stands in new relations to both the social order and the world. 在事件的时空体中，似乎存在着另一种主体化实践，这实际上是一种主体建构行为。事件空间是（现象学）经验的空间，因而也是个体作为经验现象学主体被建构的场所。这种主体性既被体验为对自身本质或个体性的内化——即形而上学术语中"精神化"的自我，也被体验为自身经验的特权作者/拥有者。可以说，这是灵魂的理性化过程。这种内在自我是一种具有自我意识的主体性，它与社会秩序和世界建立起全新的关系。
Just as the chronotope of change is commonly articulated to a set of spaces the institutional and social (both public and private) spaces of the nation state, so too the event of the now cannot be simply treated as temporal; it is always and already spatialized as well. The event must always have a spatial presence, and its singular temporality must always he understood as a spatial singularity as well. In fact, this eventalization is the articulation by which the present belongs with everyday life, an eventalization of the lived (as the site of experience). 正如变化的时空体通常与民族国家的制度和社会空间（包括公共与私人领域）相关联，当下的这一事件同样不能仅被视为时间性的；它始终且已然被空间化。事件必须始终具备空间存在，其独特的时间性也必须同时被理解为一种空间独特性。事实上，这种事件化正是当下归属于日常生活的表达方式——作为经验场域的生活实践之事件化。
And so Baudelaire locates the same ‘marvelous’ element of the present, or what he calls the ‘intimation of the eternal in the ruins of our tradition,’ in the spatiality of everyday life (cited in Gaonkar 2001: 5). While Benjamin suggested that the present was ‘the actuality of the everyday’ (and vice versa?) (Harootunian 2000: 3), Baudelaire was, at least implicitly, suggesting not the equivalence but the articulation of the present and everyday life, of the now and the here, as it were. ^(6){ }^{6} Thus, as Gaonkar puts his position, modernity is located at the crossing where the ‘fugitive materiality’ of everyday life impinges on a sharpened consciousness of the present (Gaonkar 2001: 4). 因此，波德莱尔在日常生活空间性中发现了同样的当下"奇妙"元素，即他所谓的"我们传统废墟中永恒的暗示"（引自 Gaonkar 2001:5）。当本雅明提出当下是"日常生活的现实性"（反之亦然？）（Harootunian 2000:3）时，波德莱尔至少含蓄地表明的不是等同关系，而是当下与日常生活、此时与此地的连接关系。 ^(6){ }^{6} 正如高恩卡尔所述，现代性位于"日常生活转瞬即逝的物质性"与对当下敏锐意识的交汇处（Gaonkar 2001:4）。
And, yet, neither chronotope, taken by itself, is capable of describing modernity as a way of being in the world, or of explaining the possibility of the multiplicity of modernities as ways of being modern (a locution suggested by Meaghan Morris). Thus, what constitutes a mode of being as modern, or to put it differently, what is the diagram of being modern? The modern describes and circumscribes, even as it constructs, a certain variability in the ways people can belong in the world, in what we might call the lived temporalities (and geographies) of existence, understood as simultaneously material, discursive, ideological and affective. In this way, we avoid defining it by a particular kind of subject, experience, logic or institution; we avoid conflating the modern with a social or structural norm. And we join with Talad Asad: ‘Modernity is not primarily a matter of cognizing the real but of living in the world’ (Asad 2003: 14). And with Paul Gilroy, for whom the modern is ‘a distinctive ecology of belonging’ (Gilroy 2000: 55). 然而，无论是哪种时空体，单独来看都无法将现代性描述为一种在世存在的方式，也无法解释多元现代性作为不同现代生存模式的可能性（此表述源自 Meaghan Morris）。那么，构成现代生存模式的要素是什么？或者说，现代性的存在图示究竟是什么？现代性在建构的同时也在描述和界定着人们归属于世界的特定可变方式——我们可以称之为生存的具身时间性（及空间性），这种存在方式被理解为物质性、话语性、意识形态与情感性的多重统一。由此，我们避免了将现代性限定为某种特定主体、经验、逻辑或制度；避免了将现代性与某种社会或结构规范混为一谈。我们认同塔拉勒·阿萨德的论断："现代性首要并非认知实在的问题，而是如何在世生存的问题"（阿萨德 2003:14）。也认同保罗·吉尔罗伊将现代性视为"一种独特的归属生态学"（吉尔罗伊 2000:55）的见解。
It is here that we must take the lesson of Williams’ concept of the structure of feeling as a way of bringing together the two chronotopes, and of arguing that the diagram of ways of being modern can be described - in part - as a configuration of the articulation of the doubled ways of temporal belonging. And while this doubled articulation must include the articulations of temporalities and spatialities, we will focus on the former as did Williams unfortunately (another expression perhaps of his inability or his refusal to think outside the category of the nation state and leave the more complex version of the diagram to another time and place). Following Williams, being modern is defined by the ways in which Chronos and the now belong together (in the structure of feeling) as the expression of the ways one belongs in and to time (and we must not forget, even if we ignore it temporarily) space. 正是在这里，我们必须汲取威廉斯"情感结构"概念的启示，将其作为连接两种时空体的方式，并论证现代性存在方式的图示可以部分地描述为双重时间归属表达方式的构型。尽管这种双重表达必须包含时间性与空间性的双重表述，但我们将如威廉斯那样（或许这再次表明他无力或拒绝超越民族国家范畴思考）遗憾地聚焦于前者，而将图示更为复杂的版本留待他时他地探讨。沿袭威廉斯的思路，现代性的界定在于克罗诺斯时间与当下时刻在情感结构中的共存方式，这种共存体现了个体在时间中的归属方式（即便我们暂时忽略，也不应忘却）空间维度。
The modern is located as a way of being in the irreconcilable difference it need not always be a negativity, a conflict – between, and the necessary belonging together of, the topography and the topology of the modern. between Chronos (historicality) and the event (phenomenological presentism) of the modern (and of Euro-modernity). The two temporalities, the temporal faces of the chronotopes, are always in relations - a structuration of the possibilities of change and a structure of belonging in the present. As Chakrabarty identifies it, modernity is located in the space where the urgency of the “now” [is] in tension with historicism’s not yet’ (Chakrabarty 2000: 8). Insofar as the chronotope of the event focuses entirely on now as it were, it gives up not only any notion of change, but of any possibility of theorizing the ‘historical’ specificity of the event itself. And insofar as the chronotope of Chronos focuses entirely on change, it gives up the possibility of understanding the immediacy - and hence, the subjectification - of the lived. In the contingent relation between the two modes of being-in-time, each of which is itself contingent and contextually specific, in this space of a life lived in a chronological and eventalized time, that human 现代性作为一种存在方式，存在于不可调和的差异之中——这种差异未必总是表现为负面性或冲突，而是现代性（及欧洲现代性）的地形学与拓扑学之间既相互对立又必然共生的关系，以及克罗诺斯（历史性）与现代性事件（现象学的当下主义）之间的张力。这两种时间性、时空体的时间面向始终处于某种关联中——既是变革可能性的结构化，又是当下归属感的结构形式。正如查克拉巴蒂所指出的，现代性存在于"当下"的紧迫性与历史主义"尚未"状态的紧张地带（Chakrabarty 2000: 8）。就事件时空体完全聚焦于"此刻"而言，它不仅放弃了任何变革观念，也丧失了理论化事件本身"历史"特殊性的可能；而就克罗诺斯时空体完全专注于变革而言，它则放弃了理解生活经验即时性——以及由此产生的主体化过程——的可能性。 在这两种存在时间模式的偶然关系中——每一种模式本身都是偶然且具有特定情境的——在这个按年代顺序和事件化时间展开的生命空间里，人类
life is opened to mediation of a multiplicity of material, affective and semiotic regimes. Seeing the articulation, Benjamin has written that ‘History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogeneous empty time, but time filled by the presence of the new’ (Benjamin 1968: 263). 生命向多重物质、情感与符号体系的调解作用敞开。本雅明在观察这种表达时曾写道："历史的基质不是同质而空洞的时间，而是被当下存在所充盈的时间"（本雅明 1968: 263）。
But this difference is always both generally articulated - event vs. change - and specifically articulated. The latter points to the way in which any point of the diagram, a virtual reality, is actualized. Thus, in Euromodernity, presence as experience is constituted phenomenologically, ^(7){ }^{7} and change is constituted as History, which is always linear (and usually teleological if not always progressive), defined by its movement from a disappearing past through a (non-existent, fleeting) present, into an undefined (and often indefinable) future. History is constructed through difference and negativity: the past and the future are the not-now, the not-present. The only way the past can appear in the present is either as anachronism if unconnected to our lives, or as memory if connected. The only way the future can appear is as utopia if unconnected or prediction if connected. My argument, following Williams’ use of the structure of feeling, is that such a construction of the temporality of change is not the only possible one and different actualizations of the diagram (different ways of being modern) will be defined as much by the specific ways in which these different articulatory points of the diagram are realized. (The diagram is also comprised of, doubled by, an axis of lived spatiality that is always differentiating itself into two forms, which are referred to as institutional space and the space of everyday life.) 但这种差异始终既以普遍方式被表述——事件与变化——又以特定方式被表述。后者指向图表中任意一点（即虚拟现实）被现实化的途径。因此，在欧洲现代性中，在场作为体验是通过现象学方式构成的，而变化则被构成为历史——这种历史始终是线性的（即便不总是进步的，通常也带有目的论色彩），其运动轨迹被定义为从消逝的过去，经由（不存在的、转瞬即逝的）当下，进入未定型的（且往往难以界定的）未来。历史通过差异性与否定性构建：过去与未来皆是非此刻、非在场。过去唯有以两种方式显现在当下：若与我们的生活无涉则表现为时代错位，若有关联则成为记忆；未来亦只能以两种方式显现：若无关联则为乌托邦，若有关联则成预测。 我沿袭威廉斯对"感觉结构"的运用提出论点：这种关于变革时间性的建构并非唯一可能，图表的不同实现方式（即不同的现代性呈现形态）将同样取决于这些图表中不同连接点的具体实现方式。（该图表还包含并叠加了一个生活空间性的轴线，该轴线总是分化为两种形式，即制度性空间与日常生活空间。）
The structure of feeling offers a vision of being modern that involves not a choice between either the event or change but a relationship between concrete actualizations of both. Insofar as each of these varied logics of belonging in time are never simply singular and universal, as if there were only one possibility of the event or of chronos, then we have to think of ‘being modern’ itself, like the structure of feeling, as a real and positive multiplicity. 感觉结构提供了一种现代性视野，它不要求人们在事件与变革之间做非此即彼的选择，而是关注二者具体实现形式之间的关联。既然这些多样化的时间归属逻辑从来都不是单一且普世的——仿佛事件或时序只存在唯一可能性——那么我们必须将"现代性"本身，如同感觉结构一样，视为一种真实而积极的多元复合体。
While I do want to claim that this is a part of the axiomatic geometry as it were of modernities, I do not mean to suggest that it is in any way sufficient, either as a theory of modernity or as a description of any specific configuration. Even describing the geometry of a specific modernity would not be sufficient as an account of the constitution of the specific conjuncture, since its modernity is never all that defines it. 虽然我想主张这可谓现代性的公理几何学的一部分，但并不意味着它在任何意义上都是充分的——无论是作为现代性理论，还是对任何特定构型的描述。即便描述某个具体现代性的几何学，也不足以解释特定历史关节点（conjuncture）的构成（constitution），因为其现代性从来不是定义它的全部要素。
Nevertheless, this understanding of the modern as a diagram of virtual ways of being modern provides, let’s hope, the beginning of a theoretical foundation for seeing the contemporary context - both in the US as well as in many other places, but also perhaps globally - as a struggle to reconstitute the possibilities of our ways of being modern. It enables us to recognize that there are always multiple ways of being modern, both actual and virtual. And this leads us to reconceive of the work of cultural studies, 然而，这种将现代性理解为"成为现代"的潜在方式之图式的认识，或许能为理论奠基提供起点——让我们得以将当代语境（无论在美国、其他许多地方，还是全球范围内）视为重构"我们成为现代之可能性"的斗争场域。它使我们认识到，始终存在着多重"成为现代"的方式，既有实存的也有潜在的。而这将引导我们重新构想文化研究的工作场域。
not only to see the complexity of the contexts within which we are dealing, but, even more, to give us a way to both accept and reread de Sousa Santos’s statement that we face ‘modern problems for which there are no modern solutions’ (De Sousa Santos 2003: 13). ^(8){ }^{8} Rather, we face modern problems that challenge us to think outside the possibilities of our own ways of being modern. It might enable us to accept the reality of a variety of struggles over the ways we live in time. ^(9){ }^{9} It might begin to enable us to admit that we do not even know what questions to pose for it is not merely that the practices have changed (although we have too often failed to carefully identify what is new, and what is an articulation) but that the context of struggle - even the diagram of modernity - is changing. ^(10){ }^{10} 不仅让我们认识到所处语境的复杂性，更使我们得以接纳并重新解读德索萨·桑托斯的论断——我们面临着"没有现代解决方案的现代问题"（德索萨·桑托斯 2003:13）。 ^(8){ }^{8} 事实上，我们遭遇的现代问题正迫使我们突破现代性思维范式的局限。这种认知或许能帮助我们接受关于时间存在方式的多元抗争现实。 ^(9){ }^{9} 它可能让我们开始承认：我们甚至不知道该提出什么问题——因为不仅实践方式发生了改变（尽管我们常常未能准确辨识哪些是新生事物，哪些是既有表述），更在于抗争的语境乃至现代性的整体图景正在发生嬗变。 ^(10){ }^{10}
Such a diagrammatic understanding of modernity - built in part on following the conceptual map offered in the notion of the structure of feeling offers an ethical/political possibility as well, addressing, it seems, the contemporary need for a politics of hope. It introduces a different kind of universality, not a universal singular but the singular universality of the actualization of the virtual. If the former defines a hierarchical abstraction out of the particular against which all future particulars have to be measured, the latter sees universality as interdependent with the movement across particulars in a non-hierarchical position. The result is that universality is always qualified, so that every individual represents a universal only in its very dynamic and differentially constituted specificity. This is a universality that is neither teleological (developmental) nor expansive (totalizing), which may thus depend on the recognition that 'other temporalities, other forms of worlding, coexist and are possible (Chakrabarty 2000: 95). 这种对现代性的图示化理解——部分建立在遵循"情感结构"概念所提供的认知图式基础上——同样提供了一种伦理/政治的可能性，似乎回应了当代对希望政治的需求。它引入了一种不同的普遍性，不是单一的普遍性，而是虚拟现实化过程中独特的普遍性。如果说前者定义了从特殊中抽离出的等级化抽象，所有未来的特殊都必须以此衡量；那么后者则将普遍性视为与非等级化状态下穿越特殊性的运动相互依存。其结果是普遍性始终具有限定性，因此每个个体只能在其动态且差异构成的特殊性中体现普遍性。这是一种既非目的论（发展性）也非扩张性（总体化）的普遍性，它或许依赖于这样的认知："其他时间性、其他世界化形式可以共存且具有可能性"（查克拉巴蒂，2000：95）。
It is the intersection of two chronotopes, the singular event and change. through which the virtual gives itself over to expression and actualization. It is only in the imagination of other ways of being modern that we can at least begin to reimagine imagination itself. The virtual, unlike the possible, is grounded in the real, offering a different notion of imagination. Raymond Williams seems to have understood this, giving it substance in his concept of the structure of feeling. While the concept described affective homologies in his early work, in his later work it points to the necessary gap between the known and the knowable, experience and the discursive, the lived and articulation, the gap that is the site of emergence and creativity. The structure of feeling is the virtuality, the becoming, of the multiplicity of modernity. 这是两个时空体的交汇点——独特事件与变革——通过这种交汇，虚拟得以自我表达并实现具象化。唯有在对另类现代性存在方式的想象中，我们才能至少开始重新构想想象本身。与可能性不同，虚拟性根植于现实，提供了对想象力的别样理解。雷蒙德·威廉斯似乎早已洞悉此理，并将其具现于"情感结构"这一概念中。该概念在其早期著作中描述情感的同源关系，而在后期作品中则指向已知与可知、经验与话语、生活体验与语言表达之间必然存在的裂隙——这个作为涌现与创造之场的裂隙。情感结构正是现代性多元面向的虚拟性，是其持续生成的过程。
Such an understanding of the complexities of the modern, recognizing that other ways of heing modern are real (even if as yet unactualized), might offer us a different way forward, one that makes other pasts and futures and hence, other presents possible. If we are to find new ways of (re-) constituting the multiple presents as contexts of hope, I think we have to learn to ‘hear that which one does not already understand’ (Chakrabarty 2002: 37). This may reveal new ways to connect to the multiplicity not 这种对现代性复杂性的理解，承认其他现代性存在方式的真实性（即使尚未实现），或许能为我们提供一条不同的前进道路，使其他过去与未来——进而使其他当下——成为可能。如果我们要寻找（重新）构建多重当下作为希望语境的新途径，我认为我们必须学会"倾听那些尚未理解的事物"（Chakrabarty 2002: 37）。这或许能揭示连接多元性的新方式，而
only of disabling and pessimistic realities, but also of hopes, dreams and desires, and seek to define a new and collective project of reinventing the ‘possibilities’ of imagination and the ways of being modern. 不仅是关于令人沮丧和悲观的现实，也关乎希望、梦想与渴望，并试图定义一种重新构想"可能性"及现代生存方式的新型集体事业。
Notes 注释
1 I say it is anti-sociological because it cannot be reframed in terms of a relationship between the individual and society or between mind and body. 1 我之所以称其为反社会学，是因为它无法被重新表述为个人与社会或心灵与身体之间的关系。
2 And, for that very reason, he eschews any effort to use modernity as an analysis of the present. See Jameson 2002. 2 正因如此，他刻意避免将现代性作为分析当下的工具。参见 Jameson 2002。
3 Echoing Scott 2004: 220. 3 呼应 Scott 2004: 220.
4 This discourse differs from the more common appeal to Baudelaire’s concept of the flaneur as the figure or emblem of modernity, which ties Baudelaire back to the chronotope of change, albeit a radically contingent, almost random change. 4 这种论述不同于更常见的对波德莱尔"漫游者"概念的援引——后者作为现代性的象征或标志，将波德莱尔重新锚定在变革的时空体中，尽管是一种彻底偶然、近乎随机的变革。
5 Foucault distinguishes three ways philosophical thought reflects on its own present: the present represented as belonging to a certain era; the present interrogated for signs of a forthcoming event; the present as a period of transition into a new world (Foucault 1997). 5 福柯区分了哲学思想反思当下的三种方式：将当下视为特定时代的归属；追问当下是否预示着即将发生的事件；将当下视为通往新世界的过渡时期（Foucault 1997）。
6 Thus I do not agree with Osborne’s statement that ‘Everydayness is a temporal mode of existence’ since I think it is also spatial, but I do agree that 'its mode of temporalization [is] a distinctive combination of presentness and repetition (Osborne 1995: 195). 6 因此我不同意奥斯本"日常性是一种时间性存在模式"的论断，因为我认为它同样具有空间性；但我赞同"其时间化模式[是]当下性与重复性的独特结合"这一观点（Osborne 1995: 195）。
7 Such non-phenomenological understandings of experience were articulated by pragmatists such as Dewey and James, as well as Whitehead. 7 这种非现象学的经验理解由杜威、詹姆斯等实用主义者以及怀特海所阐述。
8 The full quotation is: ‘The conditions that brought about the crisis of modernity have not yet become the conditions to overcome the crisis beyond modernity. Hence the complexity of our transitional period portrayed by oppositional postmodern theory: we are facing modern problems for which there are no modern solutions … What is necessary is to start from the disjuncture between the modernity of the problems and the postmodernity of the possible solutions, and to turn such disjunction into the urge to ground theories and practices capable of reinventing social emancipation out of the wrecked emancipatory promises of modernity.’ 8 完整引文如下："引发现代性危机的条件尚未转变为超越现代性、克服危机的条件。因此，对立的后现代理论所描绘的我们这个过渡时期的复杂性在于：我们面临着没有现代解决方案的现代问题......必须从问题的现代性与可能的解决方案的后现代性之间的断裂出发，将这种断裂转化为一种驱动力，以建立能够从现代性破碎的解放承诺中重新创造社会解放的理论与实践。"
9 It is in this context that the current prominence of the question of memory as a key cultural and political site becomes a question rather than a solution to an as yet unasked question. We can take note of the increasing need and speed of memorialization, to remember, in the face of the disappearance of the future. If the liberal way of being modern, the object of attack from all sides, emphasized the present-future relation, does the evidence suggest a shift into a new emphasis on present-past? 正是在这一背景下，记忆问题作为关键文化政治场域的当下凸显，本身成为了一个悬而未决的疑问，而非问题的解答。面对未来消逝的境况，我们可以注意到纪念行为日益增长的迫切性与加速性——这种对记忆的渴求。如果说遭受多方抨击的自由主义现代性方案曾强调当下-未来的关联，那么现有证据是否暗示着一种向当下-过去关系的新转向？
Somehow we seem caught in the conflict between a politics of the present-future or even of the past future (Walter Benjamin) to one of the past present relation. It is not I take it coincidental that such work often fails to address the role of the state in producing not only the homogeneous empty time of historicism hut also the remembered time of lived memory. One might further ask how this is linked to Mitchell’s argument about the role of the state, in relation to the production of modernity via the production of the reality effect (the very distinction between the image and the real). 我们似乎陷入了某种困境：从沃尔特·本雅明所说的"过去未来"政治，甚或"当下-未来"政治，转向了"过去-当下"关系的政治。值得注意的是，这类研究往往未能探讨国家在其中的作用——国家不仅制造了历史主义同质空洞的时间，也塑造了生活记忆的铭记时刻。我们或许可以进一步追问：这与米切尔关于国家角色的论述有何关联？即国家如何通过制造现实效应（图像与真实之间的根本区隔）来生产现代性。
10 One might see this as an attempt to revive - ontologically - so-called ‘medium theory:’ that is, Innis and Mumford meet Heidegger and Deleuze, as it were. 10 人们或许可以将此视为一种本体论层面上的尝试——复兴所谓的"媒介理论"：即让伊尼斯和芒福德与海德格尔和德勒兹在理论上相遇。
'All forms of signification' 所有表意形式
John Storey 约翰·斯道雷
I
This chapter suggests that Raymond Williams’ major contribution to cultural studies is his development of the idea of culture as ‘a realised signifying system’ (Williams 1981b: 209). We will explore and elaborate the development of this idea in Williams’ work, heginning with a discussion of his early formulations of culture as a signifying system, then charting the shift in Williams’ position from seeing culture as a network of shared meanings, to seeing it as consisting of both shared and contested meanings. The latter position is a result of the introduction in the 1970s of Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony into W’illiams’ work on culture. Although the main focus will be to explain Williams’ concept of culture as a realized signifying system, there will be points where we will be using Williams to explain British cultural studies. To paraphrase a wonderful phrase from Williams himself, we will be working with Williams rather than under him. ^(1){ }^{1} 本章认为，雷蒙德·威廉斯对文化研究的主要贡献在于他将文化发展为"一个已实现的表意系统"（威廉斯 1981b: 209）的理念。我们将追溯并详述威廉斯著作中这一理念的发展脉络：首先探讨他早期将文化视为表意系统的构想，继而梳理威廉斯立场的转变——从将文化视为共享意义网络，到认为文化同时包含共享与竞争意义。后者源于 1970 年代安东尼奥·葛兰西（1971）的霸权概念被引入威廉斯的文化研究。虽然重点在于阐释威廉斯"作为已实现表意系统的文化"概念，但某些环节我们将借助威廉斯的理论来诠释英国文化研究。借用威廉斯本人的精彩表述——我们将与威廉斯并肩工作，而非匍匐于其理论之下。 ^(1){ }^{1}
In all his definitions of culture (see especially Williams [1961] 1965a, 1981b, 1989b), Williams works with an inclusive definition of culture. That is, rather than study only what Matther Armold famously called ‘the best which has been thought and said’ (Arnold 2009: 6), Williams is committed to examining ‘all forms of signification’ (Williams 1984a: 240). This is a rejection of the Arnoldian/Leavisite mapping of the cultural field. The Leavisites (influenced by Arnold) divided the cultural field into minority culture and mass civilization. ’ The first, minority culture, consisting of Great Art and, crucially, the ability to appreciate (ireat Art, demands serious consideration. While the second, mass civilization, consisting of the remaining degraded mass culture, requires little more than a fleeting sociological glance, remaining long enough to condemn either the culture made for the ‘masses’ or (as in most versions) the culture of the ‘masses’. Against the Leavisite division of the cultural field into the minority culture of an clite and mass civilization of the masses. Williams, writing in 1961, proposed the social definition of culture, in which culture is defined as 雷蒙德·威廉斯在其所有关于文化的定义中（尤其参见 Williams [1961] 1965a, 1981b, 1989b），始终秉持一种包容性的文化观。这意味着他并非仅仅研究马修·阿诺德那句名言所称的"被思考和表达过的最优秀之物"（Arnold 2009: 6），而是致力于考察"所有表意形式"（Williams 1984a: 240）。这实质上是对阿诺德/利维斯主义文化版图划分的摒弃。受阿诺德影响的利维斯主义者将文化领域割裂为少数人文化与大众人文：前者由伟大艺术构成，其核心在于鉴赏伟大艺术的能力，需要严肃对待；后者则包含剩余的低劣大众文化，仅需投以短暂的社会学一瞥——停留的时间刚够谴责为"大众"制造的文化，或（在多数版本中）谴责"大众"本身的文化。针对利维斯主义将文化领域划分为精英的少数人文化与大众的文明这种二元对立，威廉斯在 1961 年著作中提出了文化的社会定义，将文化视为......
a particular way of life, which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and learning but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour. The analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit in a particular way of life, a particular culture … the characteristic forms through which members of the society communicate. 一种特定的生活方式，它不仅通过艺术和学习表达某些意义与价值，也体现在制度与日常行为之中。根据这一定义，文化分析即是对隐含于特定生活方式、特定文化中的意义与价值进行阐释……这些意义与价值通过社会成员交流时所采用的典型形式得以传递。
(Williams [1961] 2006: 32) （威廉斯 [1961] 2006: 32）
This definition is crucial to the development of British cultural studies as an interdisciplinary project for three reasons. First, Williams’ definition ‘democratically’ broadens the Leavisite definition of culture, producing a more inclusive definition, in which, instead of culture being defined as a body of only ‘elite’ texts and practices (ballet, opera, the novel, poetry, for example), it is redefined to include as culture television, cinema, pop music, advertising, for example. Second, culture as a particular way of life further broadens the definition of culture. So, for example, rather than culture being television as text, culture is embodied in the particular way of life that is involved in, say, the production and (and very importantly for cultural studies) the consumption of television. 这一定义对英国文化研究作为跨学科项目的发展至关重要，原因有三。首先，威廉斯的定义"民主化"地拓宽了利维斯派对文化的界定，形成了更具包容性的定义——文化不再仅被视作由"精英"文本与实践（如芭蕾、歌剧、小说、诗歌等）构成的体系，而是被重新定义为包含电视、电影、流行音乐、广告等在内的范畴。其次，将文化视为特定生活方式进一步拓展了文化定义的边界。例如，文化不仅体现为作为文本的电视，更植根于涉及电视生产与（对文化研究极为关键的）消费的特定生活方式之中。
These two aspects of Williams’s definition are usually noted and the discussion ends there. However, there is a third element, one that is far more important than the other two. That is, the connection he makes between culture and signification. The importance of a particular way of life is that it ‘expresses certain meanings and values’. In addition, cultural analysis from the perspective of this definition of culture ‘is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit in a particular way of life’. The emphasis in discussions of this passage is always on a particular way of life, but the idea of cultures as networks of meanings (i.e. culture as a realized signifying system) makes a far more significant contribution to British cultural studies. Moreover, culture as a realized signifying system is not reducible to a particular way of life, but rather it is fundamental to the shaping and holding together of all ways of life. This is not to reduce everything to culture as a realized signifying system, but it is to insist that culture defined in this way should be seen ‘as essentially involved in all forms of social activity’ (Williams 1981b: 13). As Williams further explains, 'the social organisation of culture, as a realised signifying system, is embedded in a whole range of activities, relations and institutions, of which some are manifestly “cultural”" (ibid.: 209). 威廉斯定义中的这两个方面通常被提及后，讨论便就此止步。然而还存在第三个要素——一个远比前两者更为重要的维度，即他所建立的文化与表意实践之间的关联。特定生活方式的重要性在于它"表达了某些意义与价值"。此外，基于这一定义的文化分析"旨在阐明隐含于特定生活方式中的意义与价值"。相关讨论总是聚焦于特定生活方式，但将文化视为意义网络（即作为具象化表意系统的文化）的构想，对英国文化研究作出了更为深远的贡献。更重要的是，作为具象化表意系统的文化并不能简单还原为某种特定生活方式，而是所有生活方式得以形构与维系的基础。这并非要将一切现象都归约为作为表意系统的文化，而是强调如此定义的文化应当被视为"本质上参与所有社会活动形式"（威廉斯 1981b:13）的存在。 正如威廉姆斯进一步阐释的那样，“文化的社会组织作为一个已实现的表意系统，被嵌入到一系列活动、关系和制度之中，其中有些明显具有‘文化’属性”（同上：209）。
While there is more to life than signifying systems, it is nevertheless the case that ‘it would … be wrong to suppose that we can ever usefully discuss a social system without including, as a central part of its practice, its signifying systems, on which, as a system, it fundamentally depends’ (ibid.: 207). In other words, signification is fundamental to all human activities; signification saturates the social. Nevertheless, while culture as a signifying 尽管生活不仅仅由表意系统构成，但“如果认为我们可以在不将其表意系统——作为实践的核心部分——纳入讨论的情况下有效探讨某个社会系统，那就大错特错了，因为社会系统从根本上依赖于这些表意系统”（同上：207）。换言之，表意活动是所有人类实践的基础；社会现实完全渗透着表意行为。然而，尽管作为表意系统的文化
system is ‘deeply present’ (ibid.: 209) in all social activities, it remains the case that ‘other quite different human needs and actions are substantially and irreducibly present’ (ibid.). Moreover, in certain social activities signification becomes dissolved into what he calls ‘other needs and actions’ (ibid.). To dissolve can mean two quite different things: to disappear or to become liquid and form part of a solution. For example, if a parliament is dissolved it ceases to exist. However, when we dissolve sugar in tea, the sugar does not disappear; rather it becomes an invisible but fundamental part of the drink. It is this second sense of dissolve which best captures Williams’ usage. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the term has allowed critics to suggest that signification (i.e. culture) is therefore absent in certain human activities. Terry Eagleton, for example, has claimed that certain activities fall outside Williams’ definition: ‘But if car-making falls outside this definition, so does sport, which like any human practice involves signification, but hardly in the same cultural category as Homeric epic and graffiti’ (Eagleton 2000: 34). 威廉姆斯的体系“深刻存在于”（同上：209）所有社会活动中，但“其他截然不同的人类需求与行为同样实质性地、不可化约地存在着”（同上）。此外，在某些社会活动中，表意过程会消融于他所谓的“其他需求与行为”（同上）之中。"消融"一词可作两种截然不同的理解：既可能指彻底消失，也可能指液化后成为溶液的组成部分。例如议会解散意味着其不复存在，但当我们将糖溶解于茶中时，糖并未消失，而是转化为饮品中不可见却本质的组成部分。威廉姆斯使用的正是后一种消融概念。然而该术语的模糊性使得评论家们得以声称表意（即文化）在某些人类活动中是缺席的。特里·伊格尔顿就曾断言某些活动超出了威廉姆斯的定义范畴："如果汽车制造不属于这一定义，那么体育运动同样被排除在外——尽管像所有人类实践一样包含表意过程，但很难将其与荷马史诗和涂鸦归入同种文化类别"（伊格尔顿 2000：34）。
Social activities do not have to signify in the same way to fall within Williams’ definition of culture. Industrial manufacture and the works of Homer are not the same, do not signify in the same way, but they do both depend on signification. It may he true that car-making and sport do not signify in ways equivalent to, say, a sonnet by Shakespeare or a song by Lucinda Williams, but signification is still a fundamental part of both sport and the making of cars. We acknowledge as much when we use phrases like the culture of sport or the culture of the work place. In other words, signification exists in all aspects of human existence. Sometimes, it is the most important aspect of the activity, at other times it is overshadowed br more functional aspects. But it is never totally dissolved (i.e. it never disappears); culture always marks a human presence in the world. In my view, the lovic of Williams’ position is this: signification saturates the social, but in certain cases it becomes dissolved; it simply becomes less visible in eertain human activities. Poetry is more obviously about signification in a way that, say, plumbing appears not to be. But we know that without signification plumbing would not be possible (there is a culture of plumbing). Moreover, we also know that plumbing, as a human activity, has a variable history of signifying different things: civilization, modernity, westernization, class difference, for example. Culture, therefore, as defined by Williams, is not something restricted to the arts or to different forms of intellectual production; it is an aspect of all human activities. 社会活动不必以相同的方式产生意义即可纳入威廉斯对文化的定义。工业生产与荷马史诗并不相同，它们的意义生成方式各异，但二者都依赖于表意实践。诚然，汽车制造与体育运动的意义生成机制或许不同于莎士比亚的十四行诗或露辛达·威廉斯的歌曲，但表意始终是体育活动和汽车制造的基础组成部分。当我们使用"体育文化"或"职场文化"这类表述时，实际上已经承认了这一点。换言之，表意实践存在于人类生存的所有维度。有时它是某种活动中最核心的要素，有时则被更实用的功能所掩盖。但它从未彻底消解（即永不消失）；文化始终标志着人类在世界中的存在。在我看来，威廉斯理论的内在逻辑在于：表意渗透于社会肌理之中，但在某些情境下会变得稀释——它只是在特定人类活动中变得不那么显见。诗歌的表意特征显而易见，而管道维修这类活动则看似与之无关。 但我们知道，若无意义系统，管道工程便无从谈起（管道工程自有其文化）。更进一步说，作为人类活动的管道工程，其意义所指在历史长河中不断流变：譬如文明、现代性、西化、阶级差异等表征。因此，威廉斯所界定的文化，绝非仅限于艺术或各类智识产物的范畴；它渗透于一切人类活动之中。
()n the hasis of W’illiams’ redefinition of culture certain versions of British cultural studies have uradually come to define culture as the production, circulation, and consumption of meanings. As Stuart Hall explains. 基于威廉斯对文化的重新定义，英国文化研究的某些流派逐渐将文化阐释为意义的生产、流通与消费过程。正如斯图亚特·霍尔所言：
Culture … is not so much a set of things - novels and paintings or TV programmes and comics - as a process, a set of practices. Primarily, 文化……与其说是小说绘画或电视节目漫画等具体物件的集合，不如说是一个过程、一系列实践。从根本上说，
culture is concerned with the production and exchange of meanings the ‘giving and taking of meaning’ - between the members of a society or group. 文化关乎社会或群体成员之间意义的生产与交换——即意义的"授受"过程。
(Hall 1997b: 2) （霍尔 1997b: 2）
According to this definition, cultures do not so much consist of, say, books. Rather, cultures are the shifting networks of signification in which, say, books are made to exist as meaningful objects. For example, if I pass a name card to someone in China the polite way to do it is with two hands. If I pass it with one hand I may cause offence. This is clearly a matter of culture. However, the culture is not really in the gesture, it is in the meaning of the gesture. In other words, there is nothing essentially polite about using two hands; using two hands has been made to signify politeness. Nevertheless, signification has become embodied in a material practice, which can, in turn, produce material effects. As Williams insists, ‘Signification, the social creation of meanings … is … a practical material activity’ (Williams 1977: 34). Similarly, as Karl Marx observed, ‘one man is king only because other men stand in the relation of subjects to him. They, on the contrary, imagine that they are subjects because he is king’ (Marx 1976: 149). This relationship works because they share a culture in which such relations are meaningful. Outside such a culture, this relationship would be meaningless. Being a king, therefore, is not a gift of nature (or of God), but something constructed in culture; it is culture and not nature or God which gives these relations meaning: it makes them signify, and, moreover, by signifying they materially organize practice. 根据这一定义，文化与其说是由书籍等具体事物构成的，不如说是不断变动的意义网络——正是通过这些网络，书籍等事物才得以作为有意义的存在。例如在中国，用双手递名片是礼貌之举，若单手递送则可能冒犯对方。这显然是文化使然。但文化并不真正存在于手势本身，而在于手势所承载的意义。换言之，双手递物本无固有礼貌属性，是社会赋予了这种动作以礼貌内涵。然而，这种意义阐释已具体化为物质实践，继而能产生物质性影响。正如威廉斯强调："意义的生成，即社会性的意义创造……本身就是一种实践性的物质活动"（威廉斯 1977: 34）。马克思同样指出："一个人之所以是国王，只因为其他人作为臣民与他相对立。而这些人却以为，他们之所以是臣民，正因为他是国王"（马克思 1976: 149）。这种关系得以成立，正是因为他们共享着使此类关系具有意义的文化体系。 在这种文化之外，这种关系将毫无意义。因此，成为国王并非天性（或神性）的馈赠，而是文化建构的产物；正是文化而非自然或神明赋予这些关系以意义：它使其具有指涉功能，更重要的是，通过这种指涉功能，它们从物质层面组织起实践。
To share a culture, therefore, is to interpret the world, make it meaningful and experience it as meaningful in recognizably similar ways. So-called ‘culture shock’ happens when we encounter radically different networks of meaning, that is, when our ‘natural’ or ‘common sense’ is confronted by someone else’s ‘natural’ or ‘common sense’. 因此，共享一种文化意味着以可辨识的相似方式诠释世界、赋予其意义并体验这种意义。所谓"文化冲击"，正是当我们遭遇截然不同的意义网络时发生的——即当我们的"自然"或"常识"与他者的"自然"或"常识"正面相遇之时。
So far we have focused on culture as a system of shared meanings. This is more or less how culture tends to be presented in Williams’ early work. It is not until ‘Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory’ (1980a; first published in 1973), Marxism and Literature (1977) and Culture (1981b) that his concept of culture as a realized signifying system is fully formulated. By fully formulated, I mean when Williams recognizes that signifying systems consist of both shared and contested meanings. Williams’ mature formulation is massively influenced by Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. Although I started with a quotation from The Long Reqolution (1965a; first published in 1961), the idea of culture as a signifying system is in fact first suggested in his essay Culture is Ordinary (1989b; first published in 1958). The formulation is quite similar to that found in The Long Revolution: ‘A culture is common meanings, the product of a whole people’ (Williams 1989b: 8). Ten years later, in The Idea of a Common Culture (1989d; first published in 迄今为止，我们主要将文化视为一个共享意义系统。这大致是威廉斯早期著作中呈现的文化观。直到《马克思主义文化理论中的基础与上层建筑》（1980a；初版于 1973 年）、《马克思主义与文学》（1977 年）和《文化》（1981b）这些著作中，他关于文化作为"已实现的表意系统"的概念才得到完整阐述。所谓完整阐述，我指的是威廉斯认识到表意系统既包含共享意义，也包含竞争意义。威廉斯的成熟理论深受葛兰西霸权概念的影响。虽然我以《漫长的革命》（1965a；初版于 1961 年）的引文开篇，但将文化视为表意系统的观点其实最早出现在他的文章《文化是平常的》（1989b；初版于 1958 年）中。其表述与《漫长的革命》中的观点非常相似："文化是共同意义，是整个民族的产物"（威廉斯 1989b: 8）。十年后，在《共同文化的理念》（1989d；初版于
1968), he is even more explicit about the ordinariness of the making of meanings, ‘culture is ordinary: … there is not a special class, or group of men, who are involved in the creation of meanings and values, either in a general sense or in specific art and belief’ (Williams 1989d: 34). This recalls Gramsci’s point about intellectuals: ‘All men are intellectuals … but not all men have in society the function of intellectual’ (Gramsci 2009: 77). But what is missing in Williams’ formulation is Gramsci’s insistence on questions of power. 在 1968 年的论述中，他更加明确地指出了意义创造的普遍性："文化是寻常的：……并不存在某个特殊阶级或群体专门负责创造意义与价值，无论是从普遍意义还是特定艺术与信仰层面而言"（Williams 1989d: 34）。这让人联想到葛兰西关于知识分子的观点："所有人都是知识分子……但并非所有人在社会中都履行知识分子的职能"（Gramsci 2009: 77）。然而威廉姆斯的表述中缺失的，正是葛兰西对权力问题的坚持。
When Williams said that ‘culture is ordinary’ (Williams 1989b) he was drawing attention to the fact that meaning-making is not the privileged activity of the few, but something in which we are all involved. However, this does not of course mean that we are all involved in it in the same way; meaning-making, like all other social activities, is alway’s entangled in relations of power. While we may all be involved in the making of meanings, it is also the case that some meanings and the people who make them have more power than other people and other meanings. Having said this, W’illiams’ early work is not totally unaware that power features in the circulation and embedding of meanings. For example, in The Idea of a Common Culture (first published in 1968) he observes, 当威廉斯提出"文化是普通的"这一观点时（Williams 1989b），他意在强调意义建构并非少数人的特权活动，而是所有人都参与其中的过程。然而，这当然不意味着我们以相同方式参与其中；如同所有其他社会活动，意义建构始终与权力关系交织在一起。尽管我们都可能参与意义的创造，但某些意义及其创造者确实比其他人和意义拥有更多权力。需要指出的是，威廉斯的早期著作并非完全忽视权力在意义传播与固化中的作用。例如，在《共同文化的理念》（初版于 1968 年）中，他就指出：
If it is at all true that the creation of meanings is an activity which engages all men, then one is bound to be shocked by any society which, in its most explicit culture, either suppresses the meanings and values of whole groups, or which fails to extend to these groups the possibility of articulating and communicating those meanings. 倘若意义的创造确是一项全人类共同参与的活动，那么任何社会在其最显性的文化中，要么压制整个群体的意义与价值，要么未能为这些群体提供表达和传播其意义的可能性，这样的社会必然令人震惊。
(Williams 1989d: 35) (威廉姆斯 1989d: 35)
In fact it would be very unfair to Williams to suggest that even in this early work he is simply unaware of power. The essay ‘Communications and Community’ (first published in 1961) makes this absolutely clear: 事实上，若认为威廉斯在早期著作中全然未察觉权力问题，对他极不公平。1961 年首次发表的《传播与共同体》一文已明确昭示：
For in fact all of us, as individuals, grow up within a society, within the rules of a society, and these rules cut very deep, and include certain ways of seeing the world, certain ways of talking about the world. All the time people are heing born into a society, shown what to see, shown how to talk about it. 事实上，我们每个人都成长于社会之中，遵循着社会的规则，这些规则影响深远，包括特定的世界观和特定的表达方式。人们自出生起就置身于社会，被教导该看什么、该如何描述所见。
(Williams 1989a: 21-2)
What is the case, however, is that he had not yet found a fully adequate way of articulating the relations between signification and power. The problem with Williams’ position in The Long Reqolution and in these other early texts, certainly from the perspective of this argument, is that it does not yet fully connect culture with power. In The Long Revolution he is still able to claim that culture is ‘the sharing of common meanings … [in] which 然而，实际情况是他尚未找到一种完全恰当的方式来阐明表意与权力之间的关系。从本文论证视角来看，威廉斯在《漫长的革命》及这些早期文本中的立场问题在于：其论述尚未将文化与权力充分联系起来。在《漫长的革命》中，他仍主张文化是"共同意义的共享……[其中]"
meanings that are valued by the community are shared and made active’ (Williams [1961] 1965a: 55). "那些被社会所珍视的意义得以共享并活跃起来"（威廉斯 [1961] 1965a: 55）。
Williams’ commitment to working people makes him insist that they are makers of meanings. In other words, to use the phrase which later became popular in cultural studies, he refuses to see ordinary people as ‘cultural dupes’. The problem is that his democratic impulse tends to trap him in a form of populism (albeit a radical populism), in which power is made to appear invisible. Or to put it another way, there is agency here, but no recognition of structure. As Williams would later insist, we always need to keep in play the ‘making’ of meanings and the fact that we are also ‘made’ by meanings that are not of our making. To put it very simply, most meanings are not of our making, they are generated by dominant groups and dominant institutions. Moreover, these meanings tend to operate in the interests of dominant groups and dominant institutions. As Williams consistently argues from 1973 onwards, cultures are never simply shifting networks of shared meanings; on the contrary, cultures are always both shared and contested networks of meanings. Culture is where we share and contest meanings of ourselves, of each other and of the social worlds in which we live. For instance, to return to an example given earlier, people may recognize the meaning of the relations of kingship but reject and struggle against these relations. Such rejections and acts of struggle are part of the processes Gramsci (2009: 77) called hegemony. 威廉斯对劳动人民的坚定立场使他坚持认为他们是意义的创造者。换言之，借用后来在文化研究中广为流传的说法，他拒绝将普通人视为"文化愚人"。问题在于，这种民主冲动往往使他陷入某种民粹主义（尽管是激进的民粹主义）的窠臼，在这种视角下权力变得隐形。或者换个说法，这里看到了能动性，却忽视了结构性因素。正如威廉斯后期始终坚持的，我们必须同时关注意义的"创造"过程，以及我们也被非自身创造的意义所"塑造"的事实。简而言之，大多数意义并非我们创造，而是由主导群体和主导机构生成的。更重要的是，这些意义的运作往往服务于主导群体和主导机构的利益。自 1973 年以来威廉斯不断论证：文化从来不是简单的、流动的共享意义网络；相反，文化始终既是共享的又是充满争夺的意义网络。在这个场域里，我们共同建构也持续争夺着关于自我、他者以及所处社会世界的意义诠释。 例如，回到之前给出的例子，人们可能认识到亲属关系的意义，却拒绝并反抗这些关系。此类拒绝与抗争行为正是葛兰西（2009: 77）所称霸权过程的一部分。
It is when Williams embraces Gramsci’s concept of hegemony that he changes how he understands culture as a realized signifying system. After the incorporation of hegemony into his work in the 1970s, culture as a signifying system is always understood as consisting of both shared and contested meanings. Moreover, it is when Williams embraces Gramsci’s concept of hegemony that he locates culture and power as the object of study in British cultural studies. 正是在威廉斯采纳葛兰西的霸权概念时，他改变了对文化作为已实现的表意系统的理解。自 1970 年代将霸权理论融入其研究后，作为表意系统的文化始终被理解为包含共享与抗争的双重意涵。更重要的是，正是通过吸收葛兰西的霸权理论，威廉斯将文化与权力确立为英国文化研究的核心研究对象。
Gramsci uses hegemony to describe processes of power in which a dominant group does not merely rule by force but leads by consent: it exerts ‘intellectual and moral leadership’ (Gramsci 1971: 57). Hegemony involves a specific kind of consensus, a consensus in which a social group presents its own particular interests as the general interests of the society as a whole; it turns the particular into the general. Hegemony works by the transformation of potential antagonism into simple difference. This works in part through the circulation of meanings, meanings which reinforce dominance and subordination by seeking to fix the meaning of social relations. As Williams explains, 葛兰西用"霸权"这一概念来描述权力运作的过程：统治集团不仅通过武力统治，更通过获得认同来领导——它行使着"智识与道德领导权"（葛兰西 1971:57）。霸权涉及一种特殊的共识，即某个社会集团将其特殊利益呈现为整个社会的普遍利益，将特殊转化为普遍。霸权运作的机制在于将潜在的对抗转化为单纯的差异。这一过程部分通过意义系统的流通实现，这些意义通过固化社会关系的既定含义来强化支配与从属关系。正如威廉斯所言，
It [hegemony] is a lived system of meanings and values - constitutive and constituting - which as they are experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming. It thus constitutes a sense of reality for most people … It is … in the strongest sense a ‘culture’ [understood as a 霸权是一个由意义与价值构成的、既具建构性又不断被建构的生活体系——当这些意义与价值作为实践被体验时，会呈现出相互确证的特性。因此，它为大多数人构建了一种现实感……从最深刻的意义上说，它是一种"文化"[此处将文化理解为
signifying system], but a culture which has also to be seen as the lived dominance and subordination of particular classes. 符号系统]，而是一种必须被视为特定阶级生活实践中支配与从属关系的文化。
(Williams 1977: 110) （威廉斯 1977: 110）
In other words, hegemony involves the attempt to saturate the social with meanings which support the prevailing structures of power. In a hegemonic situation subordinate groups appear to actively support and subscribe to values, ideals, objectives, etc., which incorporate them into the prevailing structures of power: relations of dominance and subordination. However, hegemony, as Williams observes, ‘does not just passively exist as a form of dominance. It has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually resisted, limited, altered, challenged’ (Williams 1977: 112). Therefore, although hegemony is characterized by high levels of consensus, it is never without conflict; that is, there is always resistance. However, for hegemony to remain successtul conflict and resistance must always be channelled and contained - rearticulated in the interests of the dominant (see Hall 2009, Storey 2009b). 换言之，霸权主义试图用支持现有权力结构的意义来渗透整个社会。在霸权情境下，从属群体似乎主动支持并认同那些将其纳入现行权力结构（即支配与从属关系）的价值观、理想与目标。但正如威廉斯所指出的："霸权并非仅作为支配形式被动存在。它必须不断被更新、再造、捍卫与修正，同时也持续遭遇抵抗、限制、改变与挑战"（Williams 1977: 112）。因此，尽管霸权以高度共识为特征，却始终伴随着冲突——即抵抗始终存在。然而，要使霸权持续成功，冲突与抵抗必须始终被疏导与遏制——根据支配者的利益进行重新表述（参见 Hall 2009, Storey 2009b）。
2
There are two conclusions we can draw from Williams’ concept of culture as a realized signifying system. First, although the world exists in all its enabling and constraining materiality outside culture, it is only in culture that the world can be mule to mean. In other words, signification has a performative effect; it helps construct the realities it appears only to describe. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe ([1485], 2021, 2079) have had a significant influence on cultural studies in Britain, especially through their impact on the work of Stuart Hall. They use the word ‘discourse’ in much the same way as Williams uses the word ‘culture’. According to Laclau and Moutfe, 从威廉斯将文化视为一个已实现的表意系统的概念中，我们可以得出两个结论。首先，尽管世界以其具有赋能与约束的物质性存在于文化之外，但唯有通过文化，世界才能被赋予意义。换言之，表意具有述行效应；它不仅在描述现实，更在建构现实。埃内斯托·拉克劳和尚塔尔·墨菲（[1485], 2021, 2079）对英国文化研究产生了深远影响，尤其体现在他们对斯图亚特·霍尔研究的启发上。他们使用的"话语"概念与威廉斯的"文化"概念具有高度相似性。根据拉克劳与墨菲的观点，
If I kick a spherical object in the street or if I kick a ball in a football match, the physical fact is the same, but its meaning is different. The object is a football only to the extent that it establishes a system of relations with other objects, and these relations are not given by the mere referential materiality of the objects, but are rather, socially constructed. This systematic set of relations is what we call discourse. 当我在街上踢一个球形物体，或是在足球比赛中踢一个球时，物理事实是相同的，但其意义却截然不同。只有当该物体与其他物体建立起关系系统时，它才成为足球——这些关系并非由物体本身的指涉物质性所决定，而是社会建构的产物。这套系统性的关系集合，就是我们所谓的话语。
(Laclau and Mouffe 2009: 144-5) （拉克劳与墨菲 2009: 144-5）
Williams would call these systematic relations culture. However, both positions share the view that to stress the discursive or the cultural is not to deny the materiality of the real. Again, according to Laclau and Mouffe, 威廉姆斯将这种系统性关系称为文化。然而，这两种立场都认同：强调话语性或文化性并不意味着否定现实的物质性。正如拉克劳与墨菲所言，
the discursive character of an object does not, by any means, imply putting its existence into question. The fact that a football is only a 一个对象的论述性特征绝不意味着对其存在提出质疑。足球仅仅是一个
football as long as it is integrated within a system of socially constructed rules does not mean that it ceases to be a physical object. 只要足球被整合进一套社会建构的规则体系之中，并不意味着它就不再是一个物理实体。
(Laclau and Mouffe 2009: 145) （拉克劳与墨菲 2009：145）
In other words, objects exist independently of their discursive or cultural articulation, but it is only within discourse or culture that they can exist as meaningful objects in meaningful relations. For example, earthquakes exist in the real world, but whether they are 换言之，物体独立于其话语或文化表述而存在，但唯有通过话语或文化，它们才能作为具有意义的对象存在于有意义的关系之中。例如，地震在现实世界中客观存在，但其被认知为
constructed in terms of ‘natural phenomena’ or ‘expressions of the wrath of God’, depends upon the structuring of a discursive field. What is denied is not that such objects exist externally to thought, but the rather different assertion that they could constitute themselves as objects outside any discursive condition of emergence. 这些现象被构建为“自然现象”或“上帝之怒的表现”，实则依赖于话语场域的结构化过程。被否定的并非此类客体在思想之外的存在，而是一个截然不同的论断——即它们能够脱离任何话语性的生成条件而自行构成客体。
(Laclau and Mouffe 2001: 108) （拉克劳与墨菲 2001：108）
This way of thinking about culture or discourse is obviously not without its critics. Catherine Gallagher, for example, is critical of the way in which cultural studies in general and Williams in particular use the concept of culture. As she explains, 这种关于文化或话语的思考方式显然不乏批评者。以凯瑟琳·加拉格尔为例，她对文化研究领域整体——尤其是威廉斯——运用文化概念的方式提出了批判。正如她所阐释的那样，
The puzzling thing about these writings … is their almost programmatic refusal to tell us what culture is not. ‘Nature’ was once its most widely agreed-upon opposite, but since the category of nature is now itself often perceived as culturally created, even that broad distinction has been weakened. 这些著述令人困惑之处……在于它们几乎刻意避免告诉我们文化不是什么。"自然"曾是其最广为认可的对应概念，但随着自然范畴本身如今常被视为文化建构的产物，就连这种宽泛的区分也已被削弱。
(Gallagher 1995: 308) （加拉格尔 1995：308）
Williams had been aware of this type of objection as early as 1961: 威廉斯早在 1961 年就已意识到这类质疑：
it is impossible for us to assume that there is any reality experienced by man into which man’s own observations and interpretations do not enter … Yet equally, the facts of perception in no way lead us to a late form of idealism; they do not require us to suppose that there is no kind of reality outside the human mind; they point rather to the insistence that all human experience is an interpretation of the non-human reality … We have to think … of human experience as both objective and subjective, in one inseparable process… We create our human world. (Williams [1961] 1965a: 36, 54) 我们不可能假定存在任何人类体验的现实能脱离人类自身的观察与阐释……但同样，感知事实绝不会将我们引向某种晚近的唯心主义；它们并不要求我们假定人类心灵之外不存在任何现实；它们更指向这样一种坚持：所有人类经验都是对非人类现实的阐释……我们必须将人类经验视为主客观统一、不可分割的过程……我们创造着自己的人类世界。（威廉斯 [1961] 1965a: 36, 54）
To argue that culture is best understood as a signifying system is not a denial that the material world exists in all its constraining and enabling reality outside signification. As Williams makes very clear, ‘the natural world exists whether anyone signifies it or not’ (Williams 1979e: 67). But 主张将文化最恰当地理解为一个表意系统，并非否认物质世界以其制约与赋能的双重现实存在于表意之外。正如威廉姆斯明确指出的，"无论人类是否对其进行表意，自然界都客观存在"（Williams 1979e: 67）。但
what is also absolutely the case is that the natural (or the material) world exists for us - and only ever exists for us - layered in signification. 同样确凿的是，自然（或物质）世界对我们而言——且永远只对我们而言——是以层层表意的形式存在的。
The second conclusion we can draw from seeing culture as a realized signifying system concerns the potential for struggle over meaning. Given that different meanings can be ascribed to the same ‘text’ or ‘sign’ (i.e. anything that can be made to signify), meaning-making (i.e. the making of culture) is, therefore, always a potential site of struggle. The making of meaning is always entangled in what Valentin Volosinov ([1973] 1986) identifies as the ‘multi-accentuality’ of the sign. Rather than being inscribed with a single meaning, a sign can be articulated with different ‘accents’; that is, it can be made to mean different things in different contexts, with different effects of power. Therefore, the sign is always a potential site of differently oriented social interests’ (Volosinov [1973] 1986), and is often in practice ‘an arena of … struggle’ (ibid.: 23). Those with power seek ‘to make the sign uni-accentual’ (ibid.: 23): they seek to make what is potentially multiaccentual appear as if it could only ever be uni-accentual. When the Four Tops, for example, sing ‘It’s the same old song, but with a different meaning since you’ve been gone’ they illustrate what Volosinov means by the multiaccentuality of the sign. ^(3){ }^{3} The song tells the story of how a song that once signified a loving relationship has now been rearticulated to signify only pain and regret. Nothing about the materiality of the song has changed (it’s the same old song), but what has changed is the context in which the song is heard and made meaningful (with a different meaning since you’ve been gone). A new context has produced a new meaning, but the new meaning has a constituting effect: the new context generates a new practice (sadness, regret and the accompanying behaviour). In other words (in a less danceable discourse), a text is not the issuing source of meaning but a site where the articulation of meaning (variable meanings) can he produced as it is rearticulated in specific contexts. We continually acknowledge the multiaccentuality of the sign when we describe an interpretation as, for example, a feminist reading, a queer reading, a post-colonial reading, a post-Marxist reading. In such instances, we implicitly acknowledge that the text in question has been made to mean from the critical perspective of a particular reading practice. 将文化视为一个已实现的表意系统，我们得出的第二个结论关乎意义争夺的可能性。鉴于同一"文本"或"符号"（即任何可被赋予意义的事物）可能被赋予不同含义，意义的生产（即文化的创造）因而始终潜藏着斗争的可能。意义的生成总是与瓦连京·沃洛希诺夫（[1973]1986）所提出的符号"多声部性"理论紧密交织。符号并非被刻写单一意义，而是能以不同"声调"被表述——即在不同语境中可被赋予不同含义，并产生不同的权力效应。因此，符号始终是"不同社会利益取向的潜在角力场"（沃洛希诺夫[1973]1986），在实践中往往成为"......斗争的竞技场"（同上：23）。掌权者试图"使符号单声部化"（同上：23）——他们竭力将本质上具备多声部潜质的事物，伪装成从来只能具有单一声调的存在。 例如，当四顶尖合唱团唱道"还是那首老歌，但自你离去后已有了不同的含义"时，他们正诠释着沃洛希诺夫所说的符号多重音性。这首歌讲述了一首曾经象征甜蜜恋曲的歌曲，如今被重新表述为仅代表痛苦与悔恨。歌曲的物质性毫无改变（还是那首老歌），但变化的是歌曲被聆听与获得意义的情境（自你离去后有了不同的含义）。新语境催生了新意义，而这种新意义具有建构性效应：新语境孕育出新实践（悲伤、悔恨及相应行为）。换言之（用不那么适合伴舞的学术话语来说），文本并非意义的发布源头，而是意义（多元意义）在特定语境中被重新表述时得以生成的场所。当我们称某种解读为女性主义阅读、酷儿阅读、后殖民阅读或后马克思主义阅读时，我们正是在持续确认符号的多重音性。 在此类情形中，我们默认承认：从特定阅读实践的批判视角来看，被讨论的文本已被赋予意义。
Gender identities are also an example of the multi-accentuality of the sign. Masculinity, for example, has real material conditions of existence (we might call these ‘biological’) but there are different ways of representing masculinity, different ways of making masculinity signify. ^(+){ }^{+}Therefore, although masculinity may exist in biological conditions of existence, what it means, and the struggle wer what it moms, always takes place in culture. This is not simply an issue of semantic difference, a simple question of interpreting the world differently. The different ways of making masculinity mean are not an innocent game of semantics, they are a significant part of a power struggle wer what might he regarded as ‘normal’ - an example of the 性别身份亦是符号多重音调性的例证。以男性气质为例，其存在具有真实的物质条件（或可称为"生物性"条件），但表征男性气质的方式各异，使男性气质产生意指的方式亦各不相同。 ^(+){ }^{+} 因此，尽管男性气质可能存在于生物性存在条件中，但其意义内涵以及关于其意义的争夺，始终发生于文化领域。这绝非单纯的语义差异问题，亦非对世界进行不同解读的简单议题。使男性气质产生意义的不同方式并非无关痛痒的语义游戏，而是关于何者可被视为"正常"的权力斗争的重要组成部分——这正体现了
politics of signification; an attempt to make what is always multi-accentual appear as if it were simply uni-accentual. In other words, it is about who can claim the power and authority to define social reality to make the world (and the things in it) mean in particular ways and with particular effects of power. Therefore, rather than engage in a fruitless quest for the true or essential meaning of something, cultural studies should fix its critical gaze on how particular meanings acquire their authority and power. ^(5){ }^{5} 意指政治；试图将本质上多重声调的现象呈现为单一声调。换言之，这关乎谁能够宣称拥有定义社会现实的权力与权威，从而以特定方式并产生特定权力效应地赋予世界（及其内含物）意义。因此，文化研究不应徒劳地追寻事物的真实或本质意义，而应将批判目光聚焦于特定意义如何获得其权威性与权力。 ^(5){ }^{5}
This makes culture and power, it could be argued, the primary object of study in cultural studies. As Hall explains, 可以说，这使文化与权力成为文化研究的主要研究对象。正如霍尔所述：
Meanings [i.e. cultures] … regulate and organise our conduct and practices - they help to set the rules, norms and conventions by which social life is ordered and governed. They are … therefore, what those who wish to govern and regulate the conduct and ideas of others seek to structure and shape. 意义（即文化）……规训并组织着我们的行为与实践——它们帮助确立社会生活得以有序运作的规则、规范与惯例。因此……那些企图支配和规训他人行为与思想者，所力图建构与形塑的正是这些意义。
(Hall 1997b: 4) （霍尔 1997b：4）
Meanings have a ‘material’ existence in that they help organize practice, they establish norms of behaviour. My examples of masculinities and the passing of name cards in China are both examples of signification organizing practice. Moreover, as Hall indicates, those with power often seek to regulate the impact of meanings on practice. In other words, dominant modes of making the world meaningful are a fundamental aspect of the processes of hegemony. As Hall makes clear, 意义具有“物质性”存在，因为它们帮助组织实践，建立行为规范。我所举的中国男性气质和名片传递的例子，都是意义符号组织实践的例证。此外，正如霍尔所指出的，掌权者往往试图规范意义对实践的影响。换言之，主导性的世界意义建构方式，是霸权过程的基本要素。霍尔明确表示，
The signification of events is part of what has to be struggled over, for it is the means by which collective social understandings are created and thus the means by which consent for particular outcomes can be effectively mobilized. 事件的意义符号化本身就是斗争的一部分，因为这是创造集体社会认知的途径，从而也是有效动员对特定结果表示认同的手段。
(Hall 2009: 123) （霍尔 2009：123）
3
In the Introduction to The Long Revolution, Williams regrets the fact that ‘there is no academic subject within which the questions I am interested in can be followed through; I hope one day there might be’ (Williams [1961] 1965a: 10). In 1964, three years after the first publication of these comments, Richard Hoggart and Stuart Hall established the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham. In the preface to the second edition of Communications, Williams draws attention to his support for these developments: ‘I am particularly glad that work of a longterm kind is now going on, at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, under Richard Hoggart and Stuart Hall’ (Williams 在《漫长的革命》的导言中，威廉斯遗憾地表示："目前还没有一个学术学科能够系统研究我所关注的问题；我希望有朝一日会出现这样的学科"（Williams [1961] 1965a: 10）。1964 年，即这些观点首次发表三年后，理查德·霍加特与斯图亚特·霍尔在伯明翰大学创立了当代文化研究中心。在《传播》第二版序言中，威廉斯特别强调了对这些进展的支持："我尤其欣慰的是，理查德·霍加特和斯图亚特·霍尔领导的伯明翰当代文化研究中心正在开展长期性研究工作"（Williams 1968: 11）。威廉斯的著作不仅为这些发展奠定了基础，更重要的是，它为文化研究学科的发展奠定了根基。
1968: 11). Williams’ work was fundamental to these developments. But more than this, it was fundamental to the development of cultural studies. 1968: 11）。威廉斯的著作为这些发展奠定了基础。但更重要的是，它为文化研究这一学科的发展提供了根本性支撑。
This chapter has hopefully demonstrated the importance of Williams’ concept of culture as a realized signifying system for the development of cultural studies. On the basis of Williams’s redefinition of culture, cultural studies has gradually come to define culture as the production, circulation and consumption of meanings; meanings that are always entangled in questions of culture and power. ^(6){ }^{6} To paraphrase what Williams (1989a: 22 - 3) said about communication systems in ‘Communications and community’, we cannot think of culture as a realized signifying system as something which happens after reality has occurred, because it is through culture as a realized signifying system that the reality of ourselves, the reality of our society, forms and is interpreted. ^(7){ }^{7} 本章有望展示威廉斯将文化定义为"已实现的表意系统"这一概念对文化研究发展的重要性。基于威廉斯对文化的重新定义，文化研究逐渐将文化界定为意义的生产、流通与消费过程——这些意义始终与文化权力问题紧密交织。 ^(6){ }^{6} 借用威廉斯(1989a: 22-3)在《传播与社群》中关于传播系统的表述：我们不能将"已实现的表意系统"这种文化概念视为现实发生后的产物，因为正是通过这种文化表意系统，我们自身的现实、社会的现实才得以形成并获得阐释。 ^(7){ }^{7}
Notes 注释
1 What Williams actually says is ‘thinking with it rather than under it’ (Williams 1981b: 185). 1 威廉斯实际表述为"与之共同思考而非受其支配"(Williams 1981b: 185)。
2 See Storey 2009a. 2 参见 Storey 2009a。
3 The Four Tops, ‘It’s the same old song’, Four Tops Motown Greatest Hits, Motown Record Company. 3 四顶尖合唱团，《还是那首老歌》，《四顶尖摩城精选》，摩城唱片公司。
4 For a discussion of the ways in which the ‘biological’ is always already cultural, see Butler 1999. 4 关于"生物性"如何总是已经被文化化的讨论，参见 Butler 1999。
5 For example, over the last four years I have been doing research on opera. Not opera as a body of texts and practices but opera as a shifting network of meanings (i.e. the culture of opera); how in certain times and spaces opera is articulated as ‘popular culture’ and in others it is articulated as ‘high culture’. What I try to do (Storey 2002, 2009b) is to track the development of opera as a signifying system: the construction of a particular discourse on opera. A discourse which enabled, constrained and constituted the meaning of opera and opera going. Opera’s changing meaning is a question of culture and power. 5 例如，过去四年我一直在进行歌剧研究。不是将歌剧视为文本与实践的集合，而是将其视为一个不断变化的意义网络（即歌剧文化）；研究歌剧如何在特定时空被表述为"流行文化"，而在其他时空则被表述为"高雅文化"。我所尝试的工作（Storey 2002, 2009b）是追踪歌剧作为一个表意系统的发展历程：即特定歌剧话语的建构过程。这种话语既促成、又限制并最终构成了歌剧及其观赏实践的意义。歌剧意义的变迁本质上是一个关乎文化与权力的问题。
6 When I describe the media as the deminant signifine institution I am thinking of the media in terms of Williams’ (1980a) insistence on the need to recognize the existence of dominant, emergent, residual meanings. In other words, I am describing dominant meanings; there will always be emergent and residual meanings. 6 当我将媒体描述为主导性的表意机构时，我是基于威廉斯（1980a）的立场——必须认识到主导性、新兴性与残余性意义共存的现象。换言之，我所描述的是主导性意义；而新兴意义与残余意义将始终存在。
7 What Williams actually says is this: ‘we cannot think of communication as secondary. We cannot think of it as marginal; or as something that happens after reality has occurred; because it is through the communication systems that the reality of ourselves, the reality of our society, forms and is interpreted’ (Williams 1989a: 22-3). 7 威廉姆斯实际所言如下："我们不能将传播视为次要的。我们不能将其视为边缘的；或是在现实发生之后才出现的事物；因为正是通过传播系统，我们自身的现实、我们社会的现实才得以形成并被诠释"（Williams 1989a: 22-3）。
The perspectives of radical democracy: Raymond Williams' work and its significance for a critical social theory 激进民主的视角：雷蒙德·威廉斯著作及其对批判社会理论的意义
Rainer Winter 雷纳·温特
Translated by Ilke Krumholz 伊尔克·克鲁姆霍尔兹 译
I. Introduction 一、引言
The following contribution deals with the significance of Raymond Williams’ works for a critical social theory. Like Jean-Paul Sartre, to whom he has been compared frequently, or Pierre Bourdieu, Williams also does not live up to the cliché that a young radical usually turns into a reactionary as they grow older. Not only did all three of them remain true to their ideals, but both their social critique and their political involvement increased during the course of their lives. At first, Williams was committed to a left-wing reformism but his ideas became more radical towards the end of the 1960 s. He showed his solidarity with both the student movement and the protest against the Vietnam War, he emphasized the dangers of the nuclear threat and reflected on a socialist democracy. Having belonged to the left wing in the tradition of Leavis first, he developed a cultural materialism after a long-lasting critical analysis of Marx’s ideas. Science and politics merged in his works, which followed the intention of ‘making hope practical, rather than despair convincing’ (Williams 1989h). 以下内容探讨雷蒙德·威廉斯著作对批判社会理论的重要意义。与常被相提并论的让-保罗·萨特或皮埃尔·布迪厄类似，威廉斯同样打破了"年轻激进者往往随年岁增长转为反动"的刻板印象。这三位思想家不仅始终忠于理想，其社会批判力度与政治参与程度更随人生历程而不断增强。威廉斯早期秉持左翼改良主义立场，但至 1960 年代末思想日趋激进——他既声援学生运动与反越战抗议，也强调核威胁的危险性，并持续思考社会主义民主议题。在承袭利维斯传统的左翼立场基础上，他通过对马克思思想的长年批判性分析，最终创立了文化唯物主义理论。其著作始终贯彻"使希望成为实践，而非让绝望显得可信"（威廉斯 1989h）的宗旨，实现了科学与政治的有机融合。
It is the aim of a critical social theory to understand and to transform the socio-historic context of the (global) society (see Pensky 2005) along with its power dynamics and forms of social injustice by asking questions which are necessary for a thorough analysis and by searching for answers and solutions which establish social and economic justice and contribute to a radicalization of democracy (see Kellner 1989). However, critical theory must not be considered as a completed project with ultimate knowledge and ultimate answers. It is altered by the confrontation with new social circumstances as well as by the formation and the development of new theoretical insight and interpretations (see Winter and Zima 2007). According to Paolo Freire’s oppositional pedagogy, it is sustained by the idea of a transformative dialogue, of the mutual creation and the sharing of meanings, knowledge and values which are supposed to contribute to living together in a constructive way, to altering power structures, to an ‘empowerment’ and to emancipation (see Hardt 1992; Fiske 1993; Denzin 2003; Kincheloe and McLaren 2005). 批判社会理论的目标在于：通过提出深入分析所必需的问题，并寻求建立社会经济正义、促进民主激进化的答案与解决方案，来理解并改变（全球）社会的社会历史语境及其权力动态与社会不公形式（参见 Pensky 2005）。然而，批判理论不应被视为拥有终极知识与终极答案的完成态项目。它因遭遇新的社会情境而改变，也因新理论见解与阐释的阵型与发展而演变（参见 Winter 与 Zima 2007）。依照保罗·弗莱雷的对抗教育学，该理论以变革性对话的理念为支撑——通过意义、知识与价值的共同创造与分享，促进建设性的共同生活、改变权力结构、实现"赋权"与解放（参见 Hardt 1992；Fiske 1993；Denzin 2003；Kincheloe 与 McLaren 2005）。
Raymond Williams’ manifold, complex and inventive works offer a variety of starting points, ideas and conceptions for a project such as this. He has made very important and fundamental contributions to various areas such as the history of ideas, literary sociology, cultural studies, cultural sociology and media studies. No matter how Williams’ work has been judged or classified in retrospect, he himself did not consider it as the isolated action of an academic but as a part of democratizing our entire way of living, as a historical project to which he dedicated his intellectual and political life. Williams was convinced that serious theoretical work is both important and relevant. He wanted to contribute to understanding the social reality in a critical and transformative way and to intervene in the current social struggles and conflicts. Williams aimed for a radically democratic and popular kind of socialism which realizes the idea of a common culture (see Milner 2002: 105). 雷蒙德·威廉斯丰富多元、复杂而富有创造性的著作为此类研究项目提供了多样的切入点、思想与理论框架。他在思想史、文学社会学、文化研究、文化社会学及媒介研究等诸多领域作出了极其重要且奠基性的贡献。无论后世如何评价或归类威廉斯的学术成果，他本人始终未将其视为学者孤立的学术行为，而是视作民主化我们整体生活方式的历史性工程——这项他倾注毕生智识与政治生命的事业。威廉斯坚信，严谨的理论工作既至关重要又具有现实意义。他力图以批判性与变革性的方式促进对社会现实的理解，并介入当下的社会斗争与冲突。威廉斯所追求的是一种彻底民主化、大众化的社会主义形态，这种形态将实现共同文化的理想（参见 Milner 2002: 105）。
Williams, much like the Frankfurt School in the 1930s or Pierre Bourdieu, represented a socially committed interventionist conception of science which connected the academic world with everyday life. He considered his work in the context of political movements which fight for a just and democratic society in a ‘long revolution’. Williams’ studies, which essentially influenced the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) in Birmingham (see Winter 2001), aimed at analysing the social order, which influences and regulates the lives of the people, beyond discipline borderlines. Furthermore, he wanted to create knowledge which could be used for solving urgent social, political and economic problems. He wanted this knowledge to be introduced into the cultural and political reflections of groups which fight against social injustice and for a transformation of the existent. Williams called this kind of collectivization ‘knowable communities’. A current example is the ‘social justice’ movement which is fighting for an alternative globalization and radical democracy (see Leistyna 2005; Neate and Platt 2006). According to Williams, culture can be understood as a slow, yet steadily continuing process of active and creative generation of shared meanings. In this chapter, we will discuss central theoretical considerations and conceptions of Williams which are of significance for a critical social theory. 与 20 世纪 30 年代的法兰克福学派或皮埃尔·布迪厄类似，威廉斯代表了一种具有社会担当的干预主义科学观，将学术世界与日常生活紧密相连。他将自身工作置于政治运动语境中——这些运动通过"长期革命"为建立公正民主的社会而奋斗。威廉斯的研究从根本上影响了伯明翰当代文化研究中心（参见 Winter 2001），其目标在于突破学科边界，分析那些影响并规训民众生活的社会秩序。更进一步，他试图创造能用于解决紧迫社会、政治和经济问题的知识体系，并希望这些知识能融入那些反抗社会不公、推动现存制度变革群体的文化政治思考中。威廉斯将这种集体化过程称为"可知共同体"。当下典型的例子便是为替代性全球化和激进民主而奋斗的"社会正义"运动（参见 Leistyna 2005；Neate 与 Platt 2006）。 根据威廉姆斯的观点，文化可以被理解为一个缓慢但持续进行的、积极创造共享意义的过程。本章将探讨威廉姆斯对批判社会理论具有重要意义的核心理念与构想。
2. Culture and a democratic society 2. 文化与民主社会
According to Williams, his most famous and most successful hook Culture and Society ([1958] 1963a) has to be understood as an oppositional piece of work (Williams 1979d: 98). (On the one hand Williams reconstructs the development of the idea of culture by means of a ‘close reading’ of several texts from the ‘English’ tradition, which developed in a critical opposition to utilitarian thinking. Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, this term has been connected to a social idea which describes and 威廉姆斯指出，其最负盛名的代表作《文化与社会》（[1958] 1963a）应当被视作一部具有对抗性的作品（Williams 1979d: 98）。一方面，威廉姆斯通过对"英国"传统中多部文本的"细读"，重构了文化理念的发展历程——这种传统是在与功利主义思想的批判性对立中形成的。自工业革命伊始，这一术语就与某种社会理念紧密相连，该理念既描述...
interprets the novel experiences of the social transformation. Cultural texts express the kind of experience of life which can only be accessed through texts. Furthermore, they allow for sophisticated insight and contain utopian possibilities which have not been implemented yet. Williams deals with visions of the ‘Noch-Nicht-Sein’ (Ernst Bloch). Tendencies towards this concept can be found in cultural texts. Williams frames those hopeful moments which suggest a change, even though it is not clear what this change might look like. His immanent analysis also resembles the approach of ideology criticism of the Frankfurt School, which has complained that the emancipatory promises of ideologies, like the civil ideal of democracy and justice, have not been implemented thus far (see Jones 2004: 62ff.). ^(1){ }^{1} Just as Williams does in Culture and Society, Jürgen Habermas (1963) also proceeds methodologically in the lines of historic semantics in Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. 诠释社会转型中的新经验。文化文本呈现了唯有通过文本才能触及的那种生命体验。更进一步说，它们提供了精微的洞察力，并蕴含着尚未实现的乌托邦可能性。威廉斯处理的是恩斯特·布洛赫所谓"尚未存在"的愿景——在文化文本中可以发现朝向这一概念的倾向。他将那些暗示变革的 hopeful moments（希望时刻）予以理论化，尽管这种变革的具体形态尚不明确。其内在分析方法也近似于法兰克福学派的意识形态批判路径，该学派曾指斥民主与正义等公民理想的解放承诺至今未能兑现（参见 Jones 2004: 62ff）。 ^(1){ }^{1} 正如威廉斯在《文化与社会》中所做的那样，尤尔根·哈贝马斯（1963）在《公共领域的结构转型》中也遵循着历史语义学的方法论路径。
On the other hand, Williams aimed at developing a critical and emancipatory version of culture in order to disassociate the term from the elitist, conservative tradition of Leavis and Eliot, who regarded culture as ‘common intellectual property’ which belongs to a ‘minority elite’ and which needs to be defended by it. Williams attacked this position, which uses the term ‘culture’ in opposition to the working class, to democracy or to socialism and, in doing so, has significantly shaped the contemporary way of thinking (Williams 1979d: 98). But, his project was set out not just to be reconstructive but deconstructive as well. For it aimed at presenting the complexity and the significance of the ‘culture and society’ tradition, criticizing the selective use of the term culture and replacing it with a democratically coined understanding of culture which rejects hierarchic classifications such as minorities or masses. 另一方面，威廉斯致力于发展一种批判性与解放性的文化观，旨在使该术语脱离利维斯和艾略特的精英主义保守传统——后者将文化视为"少数精英"所拥有的"共同知识财产"，并认为需要由这个精英阶层来捍卫。威廉斯抨击了这种将"文化"概念置于工人阶级、民主或社会主义对立面的立场，指出这种观点深刻影响了当代思维方式（Williams 1979d: 98）。但他的研究项目不仅具有重构性，更具备解构性特征。其目标在于揭示"文化与社会"传统的复杂性和重要意义，批判对文化术语的选择性使用，并以民主化重构的文化认知取代之——这种新认知拒绝将文化划分为少数精英或大众之类的等级化分类。
At the end of Culture and Society and after analysing Leavis’s idea of a ‘mass civilization’ Williams concludes: ‘There are in fact no masses, there are only ways of seeing people as masses’ (Williams [1958] 1963a: 289). Whereas both Leavis and Eliot do not just relate culture to art but to an entire way of living, Williams goes even further by including a society’s collective democratic institutions such as labour unions, associations or the political party of the working class into his idea of culture (Williams [1958] 1963a: 327). For Williams, their culture, which is founded on solidarity and helped create these institutions, represents the idea of social cohabiting which he opposed to the bourgeois-individualistic conception of society. 在《文化与社会》的结尾，威廉斯在分析了利维斯提出的"大众文明"概念后得出结论："事实上并不存在大众，只有将人们视为大众的观察方式"（威廉斯 [1958] 1963a: 289）。虽然利维斯和艾略特都将文化不仅与艺术相联系，还关联到整个生活方式，但威廉斯走得更远——他将工会、协会或工人阶级政党等社会集体民主机构都纳入了文化概念的范畴（威廉斯 [1958] 1963a: 327）。对威廉斯而言，这些建立在团结基础上并催生了相关制度的文化，体现了他所倡导的社会共治理念，以此对抗资产阶级个人主义的社会观念。
Thus, Williams used the term ‘culture’ in a critical and radically democratic way. In distinction from traditional conservative points of view on the one side and modernist vanguard opinions on the other, he postulated the assumption that ‘culture is ordinary’ in an early essay, first published in 1958, like Culture and Society. 因此，威廉斯以一种批判性和彻底民主化的方式使用"文化"这一术语。不同于传统保守主义观点与现代主义先锋派立场的二元对立，他在 1958 年发表的早期论文（与《文化与社会》同时期）中就提出了"文化是寻常的"这一主张。
Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in 每个人类社会都有其独特的形态、目的和意义。每个社会都通过制度以及
arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. 艺术与学习来表达这些特质。社会的形成在于寻找共同的意义与方向，其发展则是在经验、接触与发现的压力下，通过积极的辩论与修正来实现的，这些过程都深深镌刻在这片土地上。
(Williams [1958] 1989b: 4) （威廉斯 [1958] 1989b：4）
Williams’ thinking revolved around the idea of a ‘common culture’. Admittedly, it has only been implemented rudimentarily in a society which is marked by inequality, exclusion and subordination. It rather presents the normative ideal of a radically democratic society in which the central economic, political and cultural institutions are organized according to democratic principles. This ideal enabled Williams to criticize the existing social reality, to present (utopian) latencies and to show the necessity of a cultural and social transformation. ^(2){ }^{2} 'We need a common culture, not for the sake of an abstraction, but because we shall not survive without it (W’illiams [1958] 1963a: 304). 威廉斯的思想围绕"共同文化"的理念展开。诚然，在一个充斥着不平等、排斥与从属的社会中，这一理念仅得到了初步的实现。它更多呈现的是一种彻底民主社会的规范性理想，其中核心的经济、政治与文化机构都依照民主原则组织。这一理想使威廉斯得以批判现存的社会现实，揭示（乌托邦式的）潜在可能，并展现文化与社会变革的必要性。 ^(2){ }^{2} "我们需要共同文化，不是为了某种抽象概念，而是因为没有它我们将无法生存"（威廉斯 [1958] 1963a: 304）。
Thus, for Williams, speaking of a common culture included criticizing the division and the fragmenting of the present culture and finding creative ways to overcome it. It is supposed to be generated and constructed by a community during its life process. 因此，对威廉斯而言，谈论共同文化意味着批判当下文化的分裂与碎片化，并寻求创造性的解决之道。这种文化应当由共同体在其生命进程中共同生成与构建。
A common culture is not the general extension of what a minority mean and believe, but the creation of a condition in which the people as a whole participate in the articulation of meanings and values, and in the consequent decisions between this meaning and that, this value and that. 共同文化并非少数群体所持观念与信仰的普遍延伸，而是创造一种整体性参与的条件——全体人民共同参与意义与价值的表述，并由此在对不同意义与价值的抉择中作出决策。
(Williams [1968] 1989d: 36) （威廉斯 [1968] 1989d：36）
Hence, for Williams, a common culture was closely related to the idea of a creative democracy in which every member of the society participates and can develop and learn. Both artistic and medial practices play an important role in this process. 因此威廉斯认为，共同文化与创造性民主理念密切相关——在这种民主中，每个社会成员都能参与其中并获得发展学习的机会。艺术实践与媒介实践在此过程中都扮演着重要角色。
Based on Great Britain’s social situation at the heginning of the 1960 s , Williams further developed his theoretical concepts about the relationship between culture and society and about the character of the cultural process in The Long Requlition (1961c), which was first meant to be published as Esseys and Primiples in the Theory of Culture. The ‘long revolution’, which, according to him, marks the heginning of the modern society, arose from the interaction of three processes, namely the Industrial Revolution, the democratic revolution and the cultural revolution. Since modern society is defined hy manifold interactions between these processes like, for example, interactions between industry and democracy (Williams 1961c: XI), these processes cannot be considered independently from one another. Expanding and intensifying the communication leads to a profound cultural revolution. 基于 20 世纪 60 年代初英国的社会状况，威廉斯在《漫长的革命》（1961c）中进一步发展了关于文化与社会关系及文化进程本质的理论构想——该书最初拟以《文化理论文集与原理》为名出版。他所提出的"漫长的革命"标志着现代社会的开端，这场革命源于三大进程的相互作用：工业革命、民主革命与文化革命。由于现代社会正是通过这些进程之间（例如工业与民主）的多元互动来界定的（Williams 1961c: XI），因此这些进程不能彼此割裂地看待。交流的扩展与深化最终引发了深刻的文化革命。
We speak of a cultural revolution, and we must certainly see the aspiration to extend the active process of learning, with the skills of literacy and other advanced communication, to all people rather than to limited groups, as comparable in importance to the growth of democracy and the rise of scientific industry. 我们谈论的是一场文化革命，必须认识到这种将学习这一积极过程——包括识字能力和其他高级交流技能——扩展到全体人民而非仅限于特定群体的抱负，其重要性堪比民主制度的发展与科学工业的兴起。
(Williams 1961c: xi) （威廉斯 1961c：xi）
Williams’ sociological approach helped him develop two concepts which he had already used in earlier works. On the one hand, he shows that, as long as there is no common culture, a literary and cultural tradition is based on selections which are made in the present and which are shaped by value decisions and power interests. In doing so, Williams deconstructed the idea that the truth is inherent in a literary tradition (see Milner 2002: 70). Thus, for Leavis and his supporters a literary or cultural tradition was still an objective development of a nation’s consciousness, the expression of an organic community. Milner rightly points out (ibid.) that Williams anticipates poststructuralist presumptions such as the idea that the production of knowledge is based on a social foundation and that cultural texts have manifold meanings (see Gergen 1999). On the other hand, based on the level of experience, Williams examines how forms or structures develop and can be defined. 威廉斯的社会学方法帮助他发展了早先著作中已使用的两个概念。一方面，他揭示出：只要不存在共同文化，文学与文化传统就建立在当下作出的选择之上，而这些选择又受到价值判断与权力利益的形塑。通过这种分析，威廉斯解构了"真理内在于文学传统"的观念（参见 Milner 2002: 70）。因此，对利维斯及其追随者而言，文学或文化传统仍是一个民族意识的客观发展，是有机共同体的表达。米尔纳正确地指出（同上），威廉斯预见了后结构主义的预设，例如知识生产基于社会基础的观点，以及文化文本具有多重含义的见解（参见 Gergen 1999）。另一方面，基于经验层面，威廉斯探究了各种形式或结构如何发展并得以界定。
The most difficult thing to get hold of, in studying any past period, is this felt sense of the quality of life at a particular place and time: a sense of the ways in which the particular activities combined into a way of thinking and living. 在研究任何历史时期时，最难把握的正是这种对特定时空下生活质感的体悟：即对各类具体活动如何交织成特定思维与生活方式的理解。
(Williams [1958] 1963a: 47) （威廉斯 [1958] 1963a：47）
In this case, Williams emphasizes the social nature of experiences which are embedded in communities or social relationships and he suggests the term ‘structure of feeling’ for the analysis. ‘In one sense, this structure of feeling is the culture of a period: it is the particular living result of all the elements in the general organization’ (Williams [1958] 1963a: 48). At the same time he points out that a ‘structure of feeling’ may not be equated with an ideology since it is neither specific to a class nor universal. This term, which rather emphasizes the dimension of the experience, also ties in with Leavis. So, in an interview with New Left Review at the end of the 1970s, Williams stated the following: 在此，威廉斯强调了根植于社群或社会关系中的经验所具有的社会性，并提出了"情感结构"这一分析术语。"从某种意义而言，这种情感结构就是一个时期的文化：它是整体组织中所有要素共同作用形成的独特生命形态"（威廉斯 [1958] 1963a: 48）。同时他指出，"情感结构"不能等同于意识形态，因为它既非特定阶级的专属，也不具有普适性。这个更强调经验维度的术语，也与利维斯的理论相呼应。因此，在 1970 年代末接受《新左派评论》采访时，威廉斯如此陈述：
Yes, ‘experience’ was a term I took over from Simitiny. But you must remember that I was all the time working on historical changes in literary conventions and forms. Leavis’s strength was in reproducing and interpreting what he called ‘the living content of a work’ … The notion of a structure of feeling was designed to focus a mode of historical and 是的，"经验"这个术语我确实借鉴自西米提尼。但你必须记住，我始终致力于研究文学惯例与形式的历史变迁。利维斯的卓越之处在于再现并诠释他所谓"作品的鲜活内容"……"情感结构"这一概念的提出，旨在聚焦某种历史性的
social relations which was yet quite internal to the work, rather than deducible from it or supplied by some external placing or classification. 社会关系模式——这种模式内在于作品本身，而非通过外部定位或分类推导得出。
(Williams 1979d: 163f.) （威廉斯 1979d：163 及以下）
In his later works Williams (1977) defines ‘structure of feeling’ as the tension between a consciously taken ideological position and a newly emerging experience. It indicates cultural and social changes, which can be counter-hegemonic. 威廉斯在其后期著作(1977)中将"情感结构"定义为自觉采取的意识形态立场与新涌现经验之间的张力。它标志着可能具有反霸权性质的文化与社会变迁。
3. The challenges of hegemony 3. 霸权主义的挑战
Throughout his entire life Williams kept developing his cultural theory and, at the same time, continually specified and modified the meanings of terms which he had already applied in his early works. For instance, the main features of his attitude towards cultural materialism, which he convincingly elaborated in Marxism and Literature (1977), can already be found in his early culturalistic works. Hoping for a socialist society which is both organized democratically and popularly anchored has remained a fundamental motive of his entire work. During the 1960s and 1970s he occupied himself with studying translations about Western Marxism in New Left Review. Antonio Gramsci’s research began to take a central role. This is especially true for his concept of hegemony, which significantly changed the CCCS’s analysis of culture (see Winter 2001) but does not remain confined to the realm of culture. For it refers to the whole social process and how it is embedded into structures of power and authority. 威廉姆斯终其一生都在发展他的文化理论，同时不断细化并修正其早期著作中已使用的术语含义。例如，他在《马克思主义与文学》（1977 年）中系统阐述的文化唯物主义态度的主要特征，其实早在其早期文化主义作品中就已显现。对民主组织且深植于民众的社会主义社会的向往，始终贯穿于他的全部著作。1960 至 1970 年代，他通过《新左派评论》潜心研究西方马克思主义的译介。安东尼奥·葛兰西的学说逐渐占据核心地位，尤其是其霸权概念——这一概念不仅深刻改变了伯明翰当代文化研究中心的文分析范式（参见 Winter 2001），更超越了文化领域本身。因为它指向整个社会进程及其如何被嵌入权力与权威结构之中。
To say that ‘men’ define and shape their whole lives is true only in abstraction. In any actual society there are specific inequalities in means and therefore in capacity to realize this process … What is decisive is not only the conscious system of ideas and beliefs, but the whole lived social process as practically organized by specific and dominant meanings and values. 称"人类"能定义并塑造其全部生活，这种说法仅在抽象意义上成立。在任何现实社会中，由于手段的不平等，实现这一过程的能力也存在着具体差异……起决定性作用的不仅是有意识的思想信仰体系，更是由特定支配性意义与价值观实际组织的整个社会生活实践。
(Williams 1977: 108f.) （威廉斯 1977 年：第 108 页及以下）
A ruling class has succeeded in establishing a hegemony if their ideas of values and concepts have become generally binding for the entire society. This process is characterized by the dominance and the subordination of certain classes, as the example of common sense shows. Common sense appears to be a natural concept, but it has been constructed in accordance with those in power. However, constructing and preserving a dominant or hegemonic culture is an active process. Hegemony is neither ultimate nor unassailable, and it is prone to being challenged by alternative social powers. 当统治阶级的价值观念成为整个社会普遍接受的准则时，便意味着其霸权地位的确立。这一过程以某些阶级的支配与其他阶级的从属为特征，常识的建构便是明证。常识看似自然形成的概念，实则依照掌权者的意志被建构。然而，构建并维系支配性或霸权文化是个动态过程。霸权既非终极形态也非坚不可摧，始终面临着来自替代性社会力量的挑战。
This idea of Gramsci’s became the centre of Williams’ critical social theory. For he elaborated the idea that the dominant culture does not 葛兰西的这一思想成为威廉斯批判社会理论的核心。因为他系统阐明了支配文化并非
include the lived culture as a whole. In doing so, he opposed both Althusser’s ideology theory, which was prevalent in British thinking at that time, as well as the ‘dominant ideology thesis’, which was accepted in sociology. 将整个生活文化纳入考量。通过这一做法，他既反对当时在英国思想界盛行的阿尔都塞意识形态理论，也反对社会学领域普遍接受的"主导意识形态论"。
What has really to be said … is that no mode of production and therefore no dominant social order and therefore no dominant culture ever in reality includes or exhausts all human practice, human energy, and human intention. 真正需要指出的是……事实上，任何生产方式、任何主导社会秩序以及任何主导文化，都从未真正囊括或穷尽人类的所有实践、能量与意图。
(Williams 1977: 125) （威廉斯 1977 年：第 125 页）
Choosing from the possibilities of human practice, every ruling regime establishes a central system of practices, meanings and values which is dominant and excludes other practices, meanings and values. 每个统治政权都会从人类实践的诸多可能性中进行选择，建立起一套占据主导地位的核心实践、意义与价值体系，同时排斥其他实践、意义与价值。
The incorporation, which is a constitutive practice executed by every hegemony, deeply penetrates the opinions and values of a society. For instance, a hegemonic culture selectively absorbs meanings and values which are an alternative to the dominant culture. According to Williams ([1973] 1980a), however, this is what also makes it vulnerable. In contrast to Stuart Hall’s ‘encoding-decoding’ model (Hall 1973), he emphasizes that counterhegemonic possibilities do not only exist in the realm of consumption or decoding but in the area of production as well. ^(3){ }^{3} That way, independently produced forms can be incorporated by the culture industry (Williams 1974) and still present possibilities for an oppositional or alternative ‘encoding’. 霸权统治所实施的吸纳作为一种构成性实践，深刻渗透于社会的观念与价值体系之中。例如，霸权文化会选择性吸收那些与主导文化相异的意义与价值。但威廉斯（[1973] 1980a）指出，这也正是其脆弱性所在。与斯图亚特·霍尔的"编码-解码"模型（Hall 1973）不同，他强调反霸权可能性不仅存在于消费或解码领域，同样存在于生产领域。 ^(3){ }^{3} 如此一来，独立生产的文化形式即使被文化工业所吸纳（Williams 1974），仍能保留对抗性或替代性"编码"的可能性。
4. Practices and agency 4. 实践与能动性
The attempt to appropriately theorize the concept of culture led Williams both to becoming intensively involved with the significance of culture for Karl Marx as well as to a new conceptual design of the Base-SuperstructureModel. According to him, it is Marx’s opinion, ‘to insist that all cultural processes were initiated by humans themselves, and, second, to argue that none of them could be fully understood unless they were seen in the context of human activities as a whole’ (Williams [1983] 1989e: 201). Williams tied in with Marx’s concept of the totality of social processes, which demands the examination of the interaction between those various forms of practices in a society. That way the material production is embedded in more extensive social ways of life. 雷蒙德·威廉斯为恰当理论化"文化"概念所做的努力，既促使他深入探究文化对卡尔·马克思的重要意义，也催生了对"基础-上层建筑"模型的新概念设计。在他看来，马克思的核心观点在于"首先坚持所有文化进程都是由人类自身发起的，其次主张除非将这些进程置于人类整体活动的语境中考察，否则就无法充分理解它们"（威廉斯[1983]1989e:201）。威廉斯承袭了马克思关于社会进程整体性的概念，这一概念要求研究者考察社会中各种实践形式之间的互动关系。由此，物质生产被置于更广阔的社会生活方式网络之中。
In addition, Williams explained that the ‘productive forces of “mental labour” have in themselves, an inescapable material and thus social history’ (ibid.: 211). As he showed in a differentiated analysis of Marx’s writings, cultural practices may not he understood as secondary in relationship to the material production but that they are part of the totality of the socialmaterial processes. Since the superstructure itself has a material structure, 此外，威廉斯阐释道："'脑力劳动'的生产力本身具有无法回避的物质性，因而也具备社会历史性"（同上：211）。正如他对马克思著作的差异化分析所揭示的，文化实践不应被理解为物质生产的附属品，而是社会物质过程整体中的组成部分。由于上层建筑本身具有物质结构，
Williams demanded abandoning the opinion that only some of our productive practices are material. According to Williams, cultural practices in the realm of art, philosophy, aesthetic or ideology needed to be understood as ‘real practices’ (Williams 1977: 94) as ‘elements of a whole material social process; not as a realm or a world or a superstructure, but many and variable productive practices, with specific conditions and intentions’ (ibid.). 威廉斯主张摒弃那种认为只有部分生产实践才具有物质性的观点。在他看来，艺术、哲学、美学或意识形态领域的文化实践都应被理解为"真实实践"（Williams 1977: 94），是"整个物质社会进程中的要素；既非某个独立领域或世界，也非上层建筑，而是具有特定条件和意图的多样化生产实践"（同上）。
Williams did not exclusively assign the term ‘productive forces’ to the realm of economy but rather included every activity of the social process. It was not until capitalism that the idea of production in general was reduced to the production of goods, that is, the production in particular (see Williams 1977: 90ff.). Williams joins Lukács for whom the predominance of the economy was not a general characteristic of human life but a specific characteristic of the capitalistic economy (ibid.: 141). 威廉斯并未将"生产力"这一术语仅限定于经济领域，而是将其涵盖至社会进程中的所有活动。直到资本主义时期，一般意义上的生产概念才被简化为商品生产，即特定形式的生产（参见 Williams 1977: 90 及后续）。威廉斯认同卢卡奇的观点，认为经济的主导地位并非人类生活的普遍特征，而是资本主义经济的特定属性（同上：141）。
Having dealt with Volosinov’s language philosophy in a sophisticated way, he also identifies language as a material and social practice. 在深入探讨沃洛希诺夫的语言哲学后，他同样将语言界定为一种物质性的社会实践。
Signification, the social creation of meanings through the use of formal signs, is then a practical material activity; it is indeed, literally, a means of production. It is a specific form of that practical consciousness which is inseparable from all social material activity. 意指过程——通过使用形式符号进行社会化的意义创造——实则是一种实践性的物质活动；确切地说，它本质上就是一种生产手段。这种实践意识的具体形式，与所有社会物质活动密不可分。
(Williams 1977: 38) （威廉斯 1977 年：第 38 页）
Williams resolutely rejects both subjectivistic and objectivistic theories of language. He especially criticizes Saussure’s idea of language as an objective system which is based on the abstract binary distinction between ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ and the arbitrarity of the sign. ^(4){ }^{4} Following Volosinov’s conception of the multi-accentuality he points out that the ambiguous meanings of signs depend on the social situation in which they are used. Using them in a creative way can result in novel accentuations and shifted meanings. Here, Williams anticipated opinions like the ones held in the approach of ‘social construction’. In reference to W’ittgenstein’s language-game concept, Gergen (1999) points out that the playtul and sometimes subversive process of signification, the ‘differance’, which Derrida postulates, is not unlimited and endless, because the possible ambiguity of signs is limited by a given social-historic situation. Ways of life and interpersonal relationships create, reproduce and stabilize meanings. Finally, Williams defined language as a ‘constitutive human faculty: exerting pressures and setting limits’ (W’illiams 1977: 43). It is a material practice of human sociality. 威廉姆斯坚决拒斥语言的主观主义与客观主义理论。他尤其批判索绪尔将语言视为客观系统的观点——这种观点建立在"语言"与"言语"的抽象二元对立及符号任意性基础之上。 ^(4){ }^{4} 遵循沃洛希诺夫的多重重音性概念，他指出符号的歧义意义取决于其使用的社会情境。创造性地运用符号可能产生新的重音变化与意义偏移。在此，威廉姆斯预见了类似"社会建构"理论的主张。参照维特根斯坦的语言游戏概念，格根（1999）指出德里达所假设的符号表意过程中那些戏谑且时而颠覆性的"延异"现象并非无限延伸，因为符号可能产生的歧义性受特定社会历史情境制约。生活方式与人际关系不断创造、复制并稳固着意义。最终，威廉姆斯将语言定义为"构成性的人类能力：既施加压力又设定界限"（威廉姆斯 1977:43）。 它是人类社会性的一种物质实践。
By critically dealing with Marx’s thinking, Williams’ cultural materialism approach succeeds in creating a ‘radically’ novel theoretical position’ (Milner 2002: 105) which assumes that practices are socially determined but still holds on to the idea of ‘agency’. That way the potentials of practices, which are neither derived nor autonomous, are fathomed and their immanent potential is presented. Practices constitute the social process. Thus, to 通过对马克思思想的批判性处理，威廉斯的文化唯物主义方法成功构建了一种"彻底"新颖的理论立场（Milner 2002: 105）。该立场认为实践具有社会决定性，同时坚持"能动性"概念。由此，那些既非派生亦非自主的实践潜力得以被探究，其内在可能性得以展现。实践构成了社会进程。因此，
some extent, Williams anticipates the current ‘practice turn’ in social and cultural studies. 在某种程度上，威廉斯预见了当前社会文化研究中的"实践转向"。
5. Raymond Williams today 5. 今日雷蒙德·威廉斯
Our reason for explaining and discussing important concepts and perspectives in Raymond Williams’ work is its significance for a critical social theory. Thus, relating his works, which deal with specific historic constellations, to the present, rereading them and readopting them in the face of current (global) relationships, is a necessary step. In our opinion, Williams’ theoretical positions are of enormous relevance for the twentyfirst century as well. They show a strong affinity to the perspectives of the new social movements. 我们之所以阐释和讨论雷蒙德·威廉斯著作中的重要概念与观点，是因为其对批判性社会理论的重要意义。因此，将其研究特定历史格局的著作与当下语境相联系，在全球现状中重读并重新采纳这些理论，实属必要之举。我们认为，威廉斯的理论立场对二十一世纪仍具有重大相关性。这些立场与新社会运动的视角展现出强烈的亲缘性。
For both Stuart Hall and Williams, theoretical work in the realm of culture did not replace political activism, which greatly distinguishes them from Adorno and Horkheimer. Williams aimed at supporting and promoting radically democratic movements with the help of his intellectual work. Furthermore, in the realm of adult education and the university, he wanted to represent positions which corresponded to his own political experiences and analyses and displayed counter-hegemonic perspectives. Thus, the university-based implementation of the Cultural Studies-project, which originated from adult education (see Winter 2005), created ‘a certain significant intellectual difference in the university’ (Williams [1986] 1989c: 155). Democratic ideals were introduced to the realms of learning and education in order to make culture accessible to everybody. Williams owes his radically democratic perspectives to his socialist ideals. They correlated with respective positions in the British working class (see Gilbert 2006: 184). Both Tourards 2000 (1983f) and Resources of Hope (1989h) show that Williams felt obliged to the democratic political movements of his time, supported them and, in dealing with them, he developed critical positions which were supposed to promote a creative, democratic culture. 对斯图亚特·霍尔和威廉斯而言，文化领域的理论工作从未取代政治行动主义，这使他们与阿多诺和霍克海默形成鲜明区别。威廉斯旨在通过其学术工作支持并推动激进的民主运动。此外，在成人教育与大学领域，他力图展现与其政治经验及分析相契合、且体现反霸权立场的观点。因此，源于成人教育的文化研究项目在大学中的实施（参见 Winter 2005），创造了"大学内部某种重要的思想差异"（Williams [1986] 1989c: 155）。民主理想被引入学习和教育领域，旨在使文化为全民所共享。威廉斯的激进民主视角源于其社会主义理想，这些理想与英国工人阶级的相应立场相互呼应（参见 Gilbert 2006: 184）。 《走向 2000 年》（1983 年）和《希望的资源》（1989 年）都表明，威廉斯感到有责任支持他所处时代的民主政治运动，并在与这些运动互动的过程中，形成了旨在促进创造性民主文化的批判立场。
By criticizing utilitarianism and carefully analysing anti-capitalist attitudes in Burke, Eliot or Caudwell, his book Culture and Society is also relevant for the emotional structure of today’s generation. Furthermore, considering the predominance of neo-liberal beliefs and practices, which, bound to the ideological doctrines of a free market, preach and strive for an unregulated economic liberalization, it is alarmingly up to date as well. The global anticapitalist movement, the ‘movement of movements’ which has emerged during the past couple of years, questions the hegemony by aligning with ideals of social justice and radical democracy and representing an emergent emotional structure in correspondence to Williams, which is both oriented in an oppositional and an alternative way. ^(5){ }^{5} 通过批判功利主义并细致分析伯克、艾略特或考德威尔的反资本主义态度，他的著作《文化与社会》对当代世代的情感结构同样具有现实意义。此外，考虑到新自由主义信仰与实践的主导地位——这些实践与自由市场的意识形态教条紧密相连，鼓吹并追求不受约束的经济自由化——该书令人警醒地保持着时效性。过去几年兴起的全球反资本主义运动，即"运动中的运动"，通过与社会正义和激进民主理想结盟，质疑霸权统治，呈现出与威廉斯理论相呼应的新兴情感结构，这种结构既具有对抗性又具备替代性导向。 ^(5){ }^{5}
On the one hand they offer resistance to the neo-liberal economy politics and its effects by protesting against it. Both the Zapatista uprisings in 一方面，他们通过抗议行动抵制新自由主义经济政治及其影响。1994 年萨帕塔民族解放军起义和
Mexico, which, by using the Internet, received global support for their opposition against the Mexican government and the North American Free Trade Agreement, as well as the organized campaigns against the WTO’s policies in Seattle in 1999, are outstanding example of this resistance (Starr 2005). Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner (2005) show that many forms of oppositional politics and alternative cultures develop and enunciate via the Internet. 墨西哥通过互联网获得了全球对其反对墨西哥政府及《北美自由贸易协定》的支持，以及 1999 年西雅图反对世界贸易组织政策的组织化运动，都是这种抵抗的突出例证（Starr 2005）。理查德·卡恩与道格拉斯·凯尔纳（2005）指出，诸多形式的对抗政治与另类文化正是通过互联网得以发展并传播。
One the one hand, by referring to the human collectivity, both the privatization and the commercialization of collective goods (such as water, health, education or the traffic system), as practised by today’s governments, is criticized. This idea shows a great affinity with Williams’ ideal of a ‘common culture’ in which competitive individualism is contrasted with the formation of communities. Considering this background, Williams can also be considered a precursor of Agamben’s, Nancy’s or Hardt and Negri’s current occupation with the topic of community (see Gilbert 2006: 191f.). 一方面，当今政府推行的集体资源（如水、医疗、教育或交通系统）私有化与商业化因其涉及人类集体利益而受到批判。这一观点与威廉斯提出的"共同文化"理想高度契合——在该理想中，竞争性个人主义与共同体构建形成鲜明对比。在此背景下，威廉斯亦可被视为阿甘本、南希及哈特与奈格里当前共同体议题研究的先驱（参见 Gilbert 2006: 191f.）。
On the other hand, alternative forms of economizing, of operational organization (see W all 2005) or of trading, as practised in the Fair Trade movement (see Grimes 2005), are being tested. This occupation with a radical form of ecology, as it can be found in Friends of the Earth, had already been anticipated by Williams who not only dealt with the conception of nature early on in his works (Williams [1972] 1980b) but who commented on questions concerning ecology as well (Williams 1983f). In doing so, he laid the basis for an ecological criticism of capitalism and called for both taking responsibility for the human ecology and creating a new idea of society (see Williams 1973c). 另一方面，诸如公平贸易运动（参见 Grimes 2005）中实践的另类经济运作模式、运营组织形式（参见 Wall 2005）或交易方式正在接受检验。这种与地球之友等组织所代表的激进生态形式的密切关联，早已被威廉斯所预见——他不仅在其早期著作中探讨了自然概念（Williams [1972] 1980b），还对生态问题进行了评述（Williams 1983f）。通过这些论述，他为资本主义的生态批判奠定了基础，同时呼吁既要对人类生态负责，又要构建新的社会理念（参见 Williams 1973c）。
The novel meanings, values and practices, which have developed in the context of criticizing neo-liberal globalization, are aimed at the implementation of an actual alternative with a radically democratic orientation. This idea clearly reveals a resemblance to Williams’ concept of a ‘long revolution’. ‘This anti-capitalism is therefore not a revolutionary utopianism, but just the kind of open-ended, pluralistic refusal to endorse the hegemony of contemporary capitalism that the New Left always argued for’ (Gilbert 2006: 190). Instead, it is rather about a gradual implementation of a creative democracy. 在批判新自由主义全球化的背景下发展起来的新颖意义、价值与实践，旨在实现一种具有彻底民主导向的真实替代方案。这一理念明显呼应了威廉斯提出的"长期革命"概念。"这种反资本主义并非革命乌托邦主义，而恰恰是新左派一贯主张的那种对当代资本主义霸权的开放式、多元化拒斥"（Gilbert 2006: 190）。其实质更在于渐进式地推行创造性民主。
The foundation of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2001, which represents a novel form of a democratic institution, is an example for this. On the one hand, it is a plattorm on which various social movements can cooperate. ( )n the other, it is a forum of deliberative democracy, which promotes counter-hegemonic alternatives from below, which are based on solidarity, and contrasts them with the market’s neo-liberal utopia. It strives to become a cosmopolitan place of critical utopia. Analogies to Raymond Williams’ work are obvious here as well. His analysis of emergent meanings, perceptions and practices already partly anticipates the work of the World Social Forum. For instance, the Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos calls for a sociology of emergences. 2001 年在阿雷格里港成立的世界社会论坛代表了民主制度的一种新形式，就是一个例证。一方面，它是各种社会运动开展合作的平台；另一方面，它作为协商民主的论坛，推动着基于团结精神的、自下而上的反霸权替代方案，并与市场的新自由主义乌托邦形成鲜明对比。该论坛致力于成为批判性乌托邦的世界主义场所。这里与雷蒙德·威廉姆斯著作的类比同样显而易见——他对新兴意义、认知与实践的分析已部分预见了世界社会论坛的工作。例如葡萄牙社会学家博温图拉·德·索萨·桑托斯所呼吁的"涌现社会学"正是如此。
The sociology of emergences is the enquiry into the alternatives that are contained in the horizon of concrete possibilities. It consists in undertaking a symbolic enlargement of knowledges, practices and agents in order to identify therein the tendencies of the future (the Not Yet) in which it is possible to intervene so as to maximize the probability of hope vis-à-vis the probability of frustration. "涌现社会学"研究的是蕴含在具体可能性视野中的替代方案。它通过对知识、实践与行动者进行符号学意义上的拓展，从而识别其中未来趋势（尚未实现的"尚未"），并加以干预以最大化希望概率相对于挫折概率的可能性。
(De Sousa Santos 2006: 31) （德·索萨·桑托斯 2006 年：31）
Furthermore, Lawrence Grossberg (2007: 288) points out that the term ‘structure of feeling’ belongs to the realm of emergence and creativity in Williams’ late work because it refers to the gap between the experience and the discursive, what is known and what could be known, the lived and the articulation. ‘It is the event of the virtual!’ (ibid.: 288). This is the starting point for the quest for other modernities, which Grossberg advocates. 此外，劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格（2007: 288）指出，"情感结构"这一术语属于威廉姆斯晚期著作中涌现性与创造性的范畴，因为它指向经验与话语、已知与可知、生活体验与语言表达之间的裂隙。"这正是虚拟性的事件！"（同上：288）。这成为格罗斯伯格所倡导的探寻其他现代性路径的起点。
It is only in the imagination of other ways of being modern that we can at least begin to re-imagine imagination itself. The virtual, unlike the possible, is grounded in the real, offering a different notion of imagination. Raymond Williams seems to have understood this, giving it substance in his concept of the structure of feeling. 唯有通过想象其他现代性存在方式，我们才能至少开始重新构想想象本身。与可能性不同，虚拟性根植于现实，提供了对想象力的不同理解。雷蒙德·威廉姆斯似乎早已洞悉此理，并将这一认知具象化于其"情感结构"概念之中。
(Grossberg 2007: 288) （格罗斯伯格 2007 年：288）
The examples reveal how close the concepts and perspectives developed by Williams are to social movements and critical theory construction in the twenty-first century. His work itself is a reservoir of ‘resources of hope’, which, of course, need to be read and adapted in the context of today’s social-historic situation. Thus, Steven Connor (1997: 175) is wrong when he believes that ‘Raymond Williams’s time is not our time’. We have tried to show that the work he has created is a work of and for the future of the twenty-first century. On this note: ‘Towards 2050’ (Milner 2002: 162ff.) along with Raymond Williams! 这些例子揭示了威廉斯提出的概念和视角与二十一世纪社会运动及批判理论构建之间的紧密联系。他的著作本身就是一座"希望资源"的宝库，当然，这些资源需要在当今社会历史语境中被重新解读和调适。因此，史蒂文·康纳（1997:175）认为"雷蒙德·威廉斯的时代已非我们的时代"这一论断是错误的。我们试图证明，他所开创的学术事业正是属于且面向二十一世纪未来的工作。在此意义上："迈向 2050 年"（Milner 2002:162 及后续）与雷蒙德·威廉斯同行！
Notes 注释
1 According to Williams, Herbert Marcuse’s ([1937] 2004) essay ‘Der affirmative Charakter der Kultur’ published in Zeitschrift fiir Sozialforsching anticipated the ideas of Culture and Society. Culture preserves human values and needs which are oppressed by the current society and which create visions of a happy and free life (cf. Williams 1969b; Jones 2004: 64). 1 威廉斯认为，赫伯特·马尔库塞（[1937]2004）发表于《社会研究杂志》的论文《文化的肯定性质》已预见到《文化与社会》的核心思想。文化保存着被当前社会压抑的人类价值与需求，这些价值需求构建着关于幸福自由生活的愿景（参见 Williams 1969b；Jones 2004:64）。
2 Parallels to the conception of the ideal speech situation and the rational-critical public sphere by Jürgen Habermas, which Milner (2002: 163f) synthesized, can be found here. ‘Both subscribed to a kind of radical-democratic anti-capitalism which takes its inspiration partly from Marxism, partly from Post-Romantic idealism, in Habermas’s case that of Weber, in Williams’ that of Leavis. Both were as enthusiastically sympathetic to the postmodern “new social movements”, (Habermas 1981) as they were suspicious of postmodern theoretical relativism’ 2 与米尔纳（2002: 163f）所综合的尤尔根·哈贝马斯关于理想言说情境和理性批判公共领域的概念存在相似之处。"两者都秉持一种激进的民主反资本主义立场，其思想源泉部分来自马克思主义，部分来自后浪漫主义理想主义——哈贝马斯承袭了韦伯的思想，威廉姆斯则继承了利维斯。他们都对后现代的'新社会运动'（哈贝马斯 1981）表现出热切同情，同时又对后现代理论相对主义保持警惕"
(Milner 2002: 163). Admittedly, Habermas’s theory of society is not oriented in an anti-capitalist way but it accepts the capitalist economic order. （Milner 2002: 163）。诚然，哈贝马斯的社会理论并非以反资本主义为导向，而是承认资本主义经济秩序。
3 Just like Walter Benjamin or Bertolt Brecht, Williams was interested in the emancipatory and democratic possibilities of new communication technologies. He wanted the public to be in possession of the means of communication (cf. Williams [1962] 1976a: 176ff.) and argued for a participatory use. 与瓦尔特·本雅明或贝托尔特·布莱希特一样，威廉姆斯对新兴传播技术所蕴含的解放与民主可能性深感兴趣。他主张公众应当掌握传播工具（参见威廉姆斯[1962]1976a:176 及后续），并倡导参与式的传播实践。
4 In Politics and Letters Williams (1979d: 330) criticized de Saussure’s conception of language. ‘But to describe the sign as arbitrary or unmotivated prejudges the whole theoretical issue. I say it is not arbitrary but conventional, and that the convention is the result of a social process. If it has a history, then it is not arbitrary - it is the specific product of the people who have developed the language in question’. 4 在《政治与文学》中，威廉斯（1979d: 330）批判了索绪尔的语言概念。"但将符号描述为任意或非动机性的，这预判了整个理论问题。我认为符号并非任意而是约定俗成的，这种约定是社会进程的结果。如果它有历史，那么就不是任意的——它是发展该语言的特定人群的具体产物"。
5 Cf. the documentation We are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anticapitalism (2003) edited by Notes from Nowhere. 5 参见《我们无处不在：全球反资本主义运动的不可抗拒崛起》（2003 年）文献汇编，由"此刻无地"组织编撰。
Chapter 5 第五章
The 1968 May Day Manifesto 1968 年五一宣言
Stephen Woodhams 斯蒂芬·伍德汉姆斯
Raymond Williams’ engagement in politics remains a lesser-known feature of his life, yet he came from a political household, his father Harry being a parish councillor and effectively running the Labour Party in Pandy (Smith 2008: 59-60). That Raymond himself was nearer the edge of the Labour Party may be appreciated from his participation in the local Left Book Club, his membership in the popular pre-war Communist Party at Cambridge and the 1980s when he joined with his friend Guryn Alf Williams to become a member of Plaid Cymru (Williams, D. 2003). Placed in the context of these activities, the initiative of the May Day Manifesto may seem less exceptional. However, what marks out the years 1966 to 1969 was that Williams was pressed into a public role to which he rose and assumed the mantel of speaker and organizer. In what follows, the Manifesto is linked back to the New Left of the early 1960s, and out to the convulsive politics of the years, in particular the anger raised by the American presence in Vietnam. The main part of the essay is concerned with the organizing around the Manifesto leading to a National Convention of the Left, the Bulletin that accompanied activities and those who were drawn to its support. 雷蒙德·威廉斯参与政治活动这一面鲜为人知，但他出身于政治家庭——其父哈里曾任教区议员，并实际掌控着潘迪地区的工党组织（Smith 2008: 59-60）。从雷蒙德参与当地左翼读书会、战前加入剑桥大学盛行的共产党组织，以及 1980 年代与友人古林·阿尔夫·威廉斯共同投身威尔士党等经历（Williams, D. 2003），可见他本人始终处于工党边缘地带。置于这些活动背景下，《五一宣言》的发起便显得不那么突兀。然而 1966 至 1969 年的特殊意义在于，威廉斯被推向了公众角色，并在此过程中逐渐承担起演说家与组织者的重任。下文将揭示该宣言与 1960 年代初新左派的渊源，及其与当年动荡政局的关联——尤其是美国介入越南战争所激起的民愤。 文章的主体部分围绕围绕《宣言》组织的活动展开，这些活动促成了左翼全国代表大会的召开，同时探讨了伴随活动发布的《公报》以及那些被吸引来支持该运动的人士。
The May Day Manifesto appeared in its popular form in 1968. The year has come down in public memory as a time of progressive revolt in forms ranging through music, demonstration, dress, violence and sex. Yet it was also the year when the state responded to a possible movement of ‘Asian’ British citizens from Kenya by introducing legislation effectively setting barriers to non-white peoples (Miles and Phizacklea 1984). These contradictory histories form a context for the Manifesto and informed correspondence in the Bulletin. The effects of the conflicts and allegiances emanating from the changes at the New Left Review in 1962 had caused considerable waves. In content, the Review embarked on an international path engaging with theoretical and political currents across the world. A group of editors and contributors centred on Perry Anderson caused rifts and dissension but carried through the necessary task of establishing a journal that turned theoretical thinking into a political activity. Facilitating the change in direction, the new editorial group gained the support of Raymond Williams. An 《五一宣言》于 1968 年以通俗版本面世。这一年因音乐、示威、服饰、暴力与性等多重形式的进步主义反叛而被载入公共记忆。然而同年，英国政府针对肯尼亚"亚裔"公民可能发起的移民潮，出台了实质限制非白人移民的法案（Miles and Phizacklea 1984）。这些矛盾的历史构成了《宣言》的生成语境，也深刻影响了《公报》的往来通信。1962 年《新左派评论》改组引发的冲突与站队效应曾掀起巨大波澜。该刊在内容上转向国际视野，积极介入全球理论思潮与政治运动。以佩里·安德森为核心的编辑撰稿团队虽引发内部裂痕与争议，但成功将理论思考转化为政治实践，完成了创办刊物的历史使命。在此转型过程中，新编委会获得了雷蒙德·威廉斯的鼎力支持。
adult education tutor, in 1959 he had joined the board of New Left Review, a year later moving to Oxford with all its connections to the journal, and then to Cambridge in 1961, making the ancient bastion a place from which to launch a succession of theoretical and political interventions. ^(1){ }^{1} In 1963, many in CND joined or rejoined the Labour Party and in Cambridge, Joy and Raymond followed this movement working to elect RMD Davies in 1964 to break the run of Conservative victories in the city. 1959 年，他作为成人教育导师加入了《新左派评论》编委会，一年后携该刊所有人脉转赴牛津，继而于 1961 年移居剑桥，将这座古老学术堡垒打造成接连发起理论与政治介入的阵地。1963 年，核裁军运动众多成员加入或重返工党，在剑桥，乔伊与雷蒙德也投身这一浪潮，致力于 1964 年推选 RMD·戴维斯以终结保守党在该市的连胜纪录。
Stuart Hall left the post of editor in 1962, moving to the newly established Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Meanwhile, John Saville was chair of the editorial committee during the transition period, passing the role over to EP Thompson before the whole committee was effectively made redundant. A different wave eventually took Raphael Samuel away from the Review and his enthusiasm in establishing the Partisan Club in 1958 was then channelled into creating the Histor Workshop. Meanwhile, having finished as chair of the New Left Review board, John Saville teamed up with Ralph Miliband, who had been a member of the previous Neu Reasoner Board, but left having opposed the merger with the Unitersities and Left Review. In time, the two were sought out by Martin Eve of Merlin Press and the outcome of the three mens’ collaboration was the Socialist Register. The start or development of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, History Workshop, Socialist Register and New Left Review were then part of the circumstance of the New Left in the mid-1960s. If, however, these were advances, the losses were the greater. While the membership of local History Workshop groups may have overlapped with New Left clubs, the clubs themselves disappeared and the Partisan ceased to exist. 斯图尔特·霍尔于 1962 年卸任编辑职务，转赴新成立的当代文化研究中心。与此同时，约翰·萨维尔在过渡期担任编辑委员会主席，后将职责移交给 E·P·汤普森，直至整个委员会最终被撤销。另一股浪潮使拉斐尔·塞缪尔离开了《评论》杂志，他 1958 年创办"党派俱乐部"的热忱随后转向创建"历史工作坊"。另一方面，结束《新左翼评论》编委会主席任期后，约翰·萨维尔与曾任职于前《新理性人》编委会、但因反对与《大学与左翼评论》合并而离职的拉尔夫·米利班德联手。最终，墨林出版社的马丁·伊夫邀请二人合作，三人共同创办了《社会主义年鉴》。当代文化研究中心的创立与发展、历史工作坊的兴起、《社会主义年鉴》与《新左翼评论》的演进，共同构成了 1960 年代中期新左翼运动的历史图景。然而若将这些视为进步，那么所付出的代价则更为沉重。 尽管地方历史工作坊的成员可能与新左翼俱乐部有所重叠，但这些俱乐部本身已销声匿迹，《党人》杂志也不复存在。
The demise of the clubs was also connected with events that went well beyond the journal. The clubs served as a network for the newly founded peace movement which in Peggy Duff’s view used up their energies (Duff 1971). The fortunes of the campaign were determined as much by world events as those nearer home. In the Labour Party the debate on nuclear weapons was equally a barometer of contending wings as the conflict over Clause Four. Supported by the Transport and General Workers’ Union, the 1960 conference passed a unilateralist motion only for it to be reversed the following year. A year later came the stand-off over the alleged transport of Soviet missiles to Cuba. However, by then the first American nuclear weapons had been based in Britain (Campbell 1984. Chalmers 1985), and, when in 1963 a partial test ban treaty had been signed by the USSR, USA and Britain, CND was in decline (Thompson 1983). It was not that people’s commitment had lessened but rather fatigue had taken its toll. 俱乐部的消亡还与远超期刊范畴的事件相关。这些俱乐部为新成立的和平运动提供了组织网络，而佩吉·达夫认为该运动耗尽了俱乐部的能量（达夫 1971）。这场运动的命运既受国际局势影响，也取决于本土事件。在工党内，关于核武器的争论与第四条条款之争同样成为派系斗争的晴雨表。在运输与普通工人工会的支持下，1960 年大会通过了单边核裁军决议，却在次年遭到推翻。一年后，又爆发了关于苏联导弹运往古巴传闻的对峙事件。然而到那时，首批美国核武器已部署至英国（坎贝尔 1984，查默斯 1985），而当 1963 年苏、美、英三国签署部分禁止核试验条约时，核裁军运动已呈颓势（汤普森 1983）。这并非因为人们的信念减弱，而是疲惫感已造成不可逆的消耗。
After twelve years of Conservative rule, Labour won the 1964 general election but could only form a minority government. The situation changed in March 1966 when, following a further election, Labour had a large overall majority. By this time, the United States was hugely increasing its 在保守党执政十二年后，工党赢得了 1964 年大选，但只能组建少数派政府。1966 年 3 月形势发生变化，经过新一轮选举后，工党获得了绝对多数席位。此时，美国正大幅增加其
presence in Vietnam and in Britain Labour gave Washington its support; Party MPs did not see international events as matters on which to oppose their own government. In Williams’ view, this was typical of an inability to recognize how international relations and domestic policies were intimately linked and in July 1966 he left the Party (Williams 1979d: 366-73). Extraparliamentary politics now focused on Vietnam. Open, spontaneous and non-hierarchical, the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC) allowed people to maintain a sense of belonging in the years between the clubs at the start of the decade and the May Day Manifesto. In his own recollections, Tariq Ali cites how Raymond Williams was one of the few older radicals to cross the generations and speak on VSC platforms (Ali 2005: 298). Affirming the connections, the demonstrations and Williams’ part have been captured on film by the producer Colin Thomas (Thomas 2005). For his own part, Raymond recalls heing part of a group which went to the House of Commons and a confrontation over the developments in Vietnam with the veteran Labour MP Stan Newens (Williams 1979d: 372). 英国工党在越南和本土的存在都获得了华盛顿的支持；工党议员们并不将国际事务视为反对本国政府的议题。威廉姆斯认为，这典型地体现了他们无力认识到国际关系与国内政策如何紧密相连，遂于 1966 年 7 月退党（Williams 1979d: 366-73）。此时议会外政治活动聚焦于越南问题。开放、自发且去等级化的越南团结运动（VSC），使人们在六十年代初的俱乐部与《五一宣言》之间的岁月里维系了归属感。塔里克·阿里在回忆录中提到，雷蒙德·威廉姆斯是少数能跨越代际、在 VSC 讲坛发声的老一辈激进分子（Ali 2005: 298）。这些关联性在示威活动及威廉姆斯的参与中被制片人科林·托马斯记录于影像（Thomas 2005）。雷蒙德本人则回忆道，他曾随团体前往下议院，与工党元老斯坦·纽恩斯就越南局势发展展开激烈交锋（Williams 1979d: 372）。
Following his departure from the Labour Party, Williams conceived the idea of a Manifesto as a means of responding to the government’s policies and proposed the idea publicly at a large gathering in August 1966. The editorial group of Williams with Stuart Hall and EP Thompson was deliberately engineered to reunite people between whom there was disunity after the New Left Review changed in 1962. The group were charged with writing the Manifesto with contributors’ aid, though in the end most of the 47 plus pages were written by Williams. The launch of the 1967 New Left May Day Manifesto, to give it its full title, was suitably on 1 May at Caxton Hall, with speakers including the editors and student leaders, signifying the growing exasperation with conventional politics emanating from that quarter. A few days previous Williams had written a piece for the traditional left paper Tribune, in which he outlined themes from the Manifesto, urging readers to consider the issues raised by way of open discussion. The Tribune article captures the spirit and intent of those surrounding the publication. 离开工党后，威廉斯构想了以《宣言》形式回应政府政策的方案，并于 1966 年 8 月在一次大型集会上公开提出这一构想。由威廉斯、斯图亚特·霍尔和 E.P.汤普森组成的编辑小组，其组建意图明确旨在弥合 1962 年《新左派评论》改组后产生的分歧。该小组负责在投稿人协助下撰写《宣言》，但最终 47 页多的内容大部分由威廉斯执笔。1967 年 5 月 1 日，全称为《新左派五一宣言》的文本在考克斯顿大厅正式发布——选择这个日期颇具象征意义——与会发言人包括编辑团队和学生领袖，彰显出该阵营对传统政治日益增长的不满。此前数日，威廉斯曾在左翼传统刊物《论坛报》撰文概述《宣言》主题，呼吁读者通过公开讨论思考其中提出的议题。这篇《论坛报》文章精准捕捉了围绕该出版物形成的思潮与诉求。
The Manifesto offers no easy alternative, but insists that the political energies of Socialists must be decisively transferred to the issues themselves, and to new kinds of organisation, whatever effects this may have on the existing official machine. 这份宣言并未提供简单的替代方案，而是坚持认为社会主义者的政治能量必须果断转移到议题本身及新型组织形式上，无论这会对现有官方机构产生何种影响。
(Tribune 28 April 1967) （《论坛报》1967 年 4 月 28 日）
The defiant ‘whatever effects’ encapsulated one of the impulses running through the Manifesto movement and signalled where many allied themselves over the next two years. The article ends with a notice of forthcoming meetings around the country and of a national convention to take place in the winter of 1967/8. Notice of the Caxton Hall launch was carried elsewhere in Tribune. Other post-launch meetings occurred in several parts 这种挑衅性的"无论何种效果"概括了贯穿整个宣言运动的冲动之一，并预示了未来两年许多人的立场走向。文章末尾预告了即将在全国各地举行的会议，以及定于 1967/68 年冬季召开的全国代表大会。《论坛报》其他版面刊登了卡克斯顿大厅启动仪式的通知。启动仪式后，多个地区还陆续召开了后续会议。
of London, Birmingham and Cambridge, where not surprisingly there were energetic groupings. 在伦敦、伯明翰和剑桥等地，活跃的学术团体自然不在少数。
After the Caxton Hall launch, a meeting was held at the offices of Merlin Press at 11 Fitzroy Square, and the publisher’s rooms became an effective base for Manifesto activities. Beyond the Merlin connection the area was resonant with history, a short walk away was Noel Street where Politics and Letters and been edited in 1947 and Carlisle Street where the Partisan Club had been (Woodhams 2001). The meeting was significant for a contribution to the 1967 Manifesto of a page of names supporting its publication. Not all the names were added at that moment but those present included: Peggy Duff (CND Secretary), Suzy Benghiat (Partisan Cluh Secretary), Mervyn Jones (Tribune writer), Robin Blackburn, a member of the NLR inner circle, Henry Milar, Iris Murdoch and RD Laing, while Arnold Whesker’s name was added later. 在卡克斯顿大厅的发布会后，人们在梅林出版社位于菲茨罗伊广场 11 号的办公室召开了一次会议，这家出版商的办公场所随即成为《宣言》活动的重要基地。除与梅林的渊源外，该地区还承载着厚重的历史——步行片刻即可抵达 1947 年编辑《政治与文学》的诺埃尔街，以及曾设有"党派俱乐部"的卡莱尔街（伍德汉姆斯，2001 年）。此次会议的重要成果是为 1967 年《宣言》征集到一整页支持出版的联署名单。虽然并非所有名字都在当场签署，但出席者包括：佩吉·达夫（核裁军运动秘书长）、苏西·本吉亚特（党派俱乐部秘书）、梅尔文·琼斯（《论坛报》撰稿人）、新左翼评论核心成员罗宾·布莱克本、亨利·米拉、艾丽丝·默多克和 R.D.莱恩，而阿诺德·韦斯克的签名则是后续追加的。
The May Day Manifesto was two entities with the written Manifesto surrounded by numerous groups and meetings. These in turn forced a ‘centre’ to be realized. Raymond Williams became chair while Charles Swann became treasurer and Michael Rustin, secretary. From the Merlin Press rooms a Bulletin started in August 1967 while the regular activities of treasurer and secretary began. The achievement can be measured in the pulling together of groups of radicals, socialists and feminists for at least two years. Never a structured organization, the Manifesto enabled people to participate in informal meetings where an embryonic socialist movement could be experienced. While labels are always inadequate for explaining reality, we can identify four tendencies: Communist Party, Labour Party, Trotskyite and independent left. Organizationally the Communists as usual provided more than their share. The Labour people eventually withdrew from the Convention in 1970 when an election was called. The Trotskyists were as always diffuse and lacked the Communists capacity for effective action. Finally, the independent left was a disparate configuration with feminists and peace campaigners important. Williams, his co-editors, the secretary and treasurer, Mike Rustin and Charles Swann, and most of the signatories welcoming the Manifesto, all belonged to this independent wing, the real spirit of the Manifesto. 《五一宣言》呈现为双重实体：书面宣言本身与围绕它形成的众多团体和会议网络。这些力量反过来催生了一个需要被认知的"中心"。雷蒙德·威廉斯担任主席，查尔斯·斯旺出任财务主管，迈克尔·拉斯廷担任秘书。1967 年 8 月，默林出版社办公室开始发行《公报》，同时财务与秘书的常规工作也相继展开。其成就可以通过持续至少两年团结激进分子、社会主义者和女权主义者的努力来衡量。虽然从未形成严密组织结构，但《宣言》使人们得以参与非正式会议，亲历社会主义运动的雏形。尽管标签永远无法充分解释现实，我们仍可识别四种倾向：共产党、工党、托洛茨基派和独立左翼。在组织层面，共产党人一如既往地贡献了超比例的力量；工党成员最终在 1970 年大选启动时退出大会；托洛茨基主义者始终处于分散状态，缺乏共产党人的有效行动能力；而独立左翼则是女权主义者与和平运动者占据重要地位的异质性组合。 威廉姆斯、他的合编者、秘书兼财务迈克·拉斯廷和查尔斯·斯旺，以及大多数欢迎该宣言的签署者，都属于这一独立派系，他们是宣言的真正精神所在。
If, despite three people being appointed. Williams wrote much of the 1967 New Left May Day Manifisto, the famous Penguin version a year later was the product of a number of contrihutors. The most immediately relevant parts here are those dealing with organizations, both those already existing and that surrounding the Manifesto. In Politics and Letters. Williams comments: 尽管任命了三人负责，但 1967 年新左翼五一宣言主要由威廉姆斯执笔，而一年后著名的企鹅版则是多位贡献者合作的产物。其中与本文最直接相关的部分涉及各类组织，既包括既存机构，也涵盖围绕宣言形成的团体。在《政治与文学》中，威廉姆斯评论道：
Our hope was that the Manifesto would be widely discussed in the Labour movement stimulating the creation of forums or left clubs in which people could start forming effective centres for common political debate and action, without giving up their own membership of existing 我们曾希望这份宣言能在劳工运动中引发广泛讨论，促进论坛或左翼俱乐部的建立，使人们能够在不放弃现有组织成员身份的前提下，开始构建共同政治辩论与行动的有效中心。
political organizations. In that sense, the perspective was not so dissimilar to that of 1959-61. Initially a fair number of these forums were established … So it was decided to call a National Convention; we invited every socialist organisation we knew of to a preparatory commission to organise this convention, whose aim was to give the movement more national presence and to launch a wider and more vigorous resistance to the rightward trend of the Labour government - which had just issued its own ‘Mid-term Manifesto’ as what seemed to be a counter to ours. We got a very large take-up from different organisations, as well as individual delegates, for the preparatory commission. The Convention itself was a difficult occasion … but despite the conflicts, a substantial document did emerge from the Convention and a call to members of all the organisations represented to set up left groups in their areas, which would be co-ordinated by the preparatory commission in London sitting with national representatives from all the groups. 政治组织。从这个意义上说，当时的视角与 1959-61 年并无太大差异。最初这类论坛数量相当可观……因此我们决定召开一次全国代表大会；我们邀请所有已知的社会主义组织参加筹备委员会，以组织这次大会。其目的在于增强运动在全国范围内的影响力，并对工党政府右倾趋势发起更广泛、更有力的抵抗——该政府刚刚发布《中期宣言》，似乎是对我们宣言的回应。筹备委员会获得了来自不同组织及个人代表的广泛参与。大会本身充满波折……但尽管存在冲突，会议最终仍形成了一份重要文件，并号召所有与会组织的成员在各自地区建立左翼团体，这些团体将由驻伦敦的筹备委员会与各团体全国代表共同协调。
(Williams 1979d: 374) （威廉斯 1979d：374）
The Manifesto was a comprehensive document that sought to draw together political dimensions which were usually presented as discrete and unrelated. Domestic policy operated, first, within economic parameters designed to prevent deep-seated changes, and, second, within international relations that establish the paradigm. It was this approach of relating the different parts of state and society with an economic framework and in turn international circumference which structured the May Day Manifesto. 这份宣言是一份综合性文件，旨在整合那些通常被呈现为彼此割裂且无关的政治维度。国内政策首先运作于旨在防止深层变革的经济参数框架内，其次则受制于确立范式国际关系。正是这种将国家与社会各组成部分置于经济框架及国际环境相互关联的思维方式，构成了《五一宣言》的结构内核。
We believe the system we now oppose can only survive by a willed separation of issues, and the resulting fragmentation of consciousness. 我们坚信，当前所抵制的体系唯有通过刻意割裂议题、从而导致意识碎片化才能得以存续。
(May Day Manifesto 1968: 15) （《五一宣言》1968：15）
The sentence epitomises the Manifesto; the wholeness of that against which the Manifesto was written, yet that system’s ability to present itself as fragments related only by chance occurrence. At the same time is the address to consciousness. If the experience of reality is as something disjointed then any response to it is likely to be in similar vein. Finally there is the pointing to deliberate will. The fragmentary appearance is not accidental but the consequence of manipulation by those powers whose interests the system serves and for who opposition is best prevented. Media does not figure greatly in the Manifesto, yet there is no doubt that the sentence is a perfect description of this. 这句话浓缩了《宣言》的精髓；它既揭示了《宣言》所针对的那个完整体系，又展现了该体系将自身呈现为仅由偶然事件关联的碎片的能力。与此同时，这句话也直指意识层面——如果人们对现实的体验是支离破碎的，那么任何回应都可能以类似方式呈现。最后，它更指向了蓄意的意志操纵：这种碎片化表象并非偶然，而是由那些既得利益集团精心操控的结果，对他们而言，遏制反对声音最为重要。虽然《宣言》中媒体并非主要议题，但毫无疑问，这句话恰如其分地描述了媒体运作机制。
At the start of the Manifesto there is a discussion of its origins and, at the end, of the organizations around it. In between, the analysis is primarily economic and political, in the restricted sense of state power. Starting out with what it cites as the existing reality of people’s lives, topics include housing, health, education, employment, communication, advertising and 《宣言》开篇探讨了其诞生背景，结尾则论述了相关组织架构。中间主体部分的分析主要聚焦于狭义国家权力范畴下的经济与政治议题。从其所援引的人民生活现实出发，讨论主题涵盖住房、医疗、教育、就业、通信、广告等领域
social poverty. Moving in widening circles come the City, international corporations, markets and industry, which are then integrated with Cold War, military expenditure and the growing dominance of the United States. The attention then turns to the Labour government, devaluation and the labour movement. ^(2){ }^{2} The conclusion is an assessment of the organizations to which the Manifesto was directed. 社会贫困。视野逐渐扩大至城市、跨国公司、市场与工业体系，进而与冷战格局、军费开支及美国日益增长的霸权地位相勾连。随后焦点转向工党政府、货币贬值与劳工运动。 ^(2){ }^{2} 最终对《宣言》的目标组织群进行了评估研判。
Much of the actual writing took place in Williams’ study at Cambridge and, as noted above, the 1967 Manifesto was in large part written by him. However, despite the possible limitations of one person writing on such a range of subjects, it sufficiently achieved the aim of being a response to the government and a statement of a positive alternative, for it to receive a good reception and achieve the remarkable sales of at least 10,000 copies. The extensive sales stimulated the plethora of meetings, one outcome of which was the many contributors for the larger Penguin edition. With the range of expertise much extended, setting down substantial alternative political and economic policies became possible. Economic and social contributors to the new Penguin edition included Doroths Wedderburn, Jennifer Platt, Michael Barratt Brown and Bot Rowthorne. Theirs and similar contributions enabled sections on social policy and economics. Signing up to health, education and housing could be just matters of degree, the further left along the continuum the larger the figures for spending on public investment. The Manifesto did not though simply say ‘spend more’ but changed the discussion to one of democratic control. The idea has a long pedigree and served to distinguish ‘New Left’ from ‘old Labour’, and at the time was being given life through the Institute for Workers’ Control with which Manifesto people overlapped. 雷蒙德·威廉斯在剑桥大学书房完成了本书大部分实际写作，如前所述，1967 年宣言主要由他执笔。尽管单人撰写如此广泛主题可能存在局限，这份宣言仍成功实现了双重目标：既回应了政府政策，又提出了积极替代方案，因而获得良好反响并创下至少 10,000 册的惊人销量。广泛销售催生了大量研讨会，其重要成果便是为企鹅出版社扩充版招募了众多撰稿人。随着专业领域的大幅拓展，制定实质性替代性政治经济政策成为可能。新版企鹅版的经济社会领域撰稿人包括多萝西·韦德伯恩、珍妮弗·普拉特、迈克尔·巴雷特·布朗和鲍勃·罗索恩，他们的贡献促成了社会政策与经济政策章节的成型。在医疗、教育和住房领域的政策承诺可能只是程度问题——在政治光谱上越偏左翼，公共投资支出的数字就越大。 这份宣言并非简单地主张"增加开支"，而是将讨论转向民主控制这一议题。这一理念渊源已久，它有效区分了"新左派"与"旧工党"的立场。当时，与宣言起草者关系密切的工人控制研究所正赋予这一理念以现实生命力。
Given the Manifesto argued for Britain’s position to be understood as a single whole, international alignment was a breaking point because it was this that set the parameters within which radical socio-economic change would become possible. The theme of non-alignment further distinguished New Left politics and gave it a real advance berond the loy jam of Communists and Labour which had typified the left for decades. Peter Worsley would have been a contributor here, continuing his path-breaking and influential book The Third World first published in 1964. The Manifesto identified Britain as a host nation for American corporations, and a door to European investments. This economic role is married to a military one as carrier for L’S hases, and provider of troops and weapons in strategic places. Among these were interests referred to as East of Suez - a legacy of empire in Asia in particular Britain’s continuing commitments in Singapore and Malaya (Malaysia). The Labour leadership had indicated its desire to withdraw forces from Asia, but once in government, withdrawal was put off until some time after 1970 (Camphell 1984, Chalmers 1985). The Manifesto was very clear that all overseas military commitments should be run down with immediate notice. Such action would reverse Britain’s role of 鉴于《宣言》主张将英国的立场理解为一个整体，国际结盟问题便成为关键分歧点——正是这种结盟关系设定了激进社会经济变革可能发生的边界。不结盟主题进一步彰显了新左派政治的独特性，使其真正超越了数十年来以共产党和工党为代表的左翼阵营窠臼。彼得·沃斯利本可在此贡献其见解，延续他 1964 年首版的开创性著作《第三世界》的思想脉络。《宣言》将英国定位为美国跨国公司的东道国和欧洲资本的投资门户，这种经济角色与其军事职能紧密相连：既是美国海外基地的载体，又向战略要地输送军队和武器。其中被称为"苏伊士以东"的利益区域尤为突出——这尤其体现了英国在亚洲的帝国遗产，包括其对新加坡和马来亚（马来西亚）的持续军事义务。虽然工党领导层曾表态要从亚洲撤军，但执政后却将撤军计划推迟至 1970 年之后（坎贝尔 1984，查默斯 1985）。 《宣言》明确指出，所有海外军事承诺都应立即着手逐步缩减。此举将彻底扭转英国作为
being a principle enforcer of new imperialism, to actively working against the interests of US global capitalism. Economically withdrawal was crucial, the reality being that late imperial commitments were undermining efforts at social progress (Chalmers 1985). 从作为新帝国主义原则的执行者，转变为积极对抗美国全球资本主义利益的力量。经济上的撤退至关重要，现实情况是晚期帝国的承诺正在破坏社会进步的努力（Chalmers 1985）。
The last sections of the Manifesto concentrate on organization and communications. In respect of the trade unions, the argument is for continued involvement and political struggle. Partially incorporated into the dominant structures of society, the Manifesto group still regarded the unions as indispensable because they were organized labour. The Labour Party is recognized as having become key to the stability of the social order, not least because its leaders could diffuse working-class action more easily than the Tories - as was to be demonstrated when the miners defeated the Heath Government in 1973/4. The Manifesto is necessarily flexible about the worth of working inside the Party and certainly open to the idea that a new organization might be necessary though the Manifesto goes to some length to stress that it makes no claim to forming any association of this kind. In discussing other groups, whether radical or socialist, the Manifesto looks forward to the growth of alternative parties in Wales and Scotland though stressing a radical nationalist path. In 1968 Raymond and Joy returned to Wales and in later years he spoke and wrote much on the problems of nationalism in the country. Of single issue groups, CND is cited as that which could afford a comprehensive working-through of economic and political structures, and movement beyond present circumstance. Of political organizations, the Communist Party is the most discussed. Reasons were twofold: the Communist Party was the largest and best established on the left and its organizational ability meant it was highly effective especially among the unions. In addition are cited co-operatives, tenants’ associations, anti-colonial movements and anti-racist groups such as the Indian Workers’ Association with its long associations with the left. 《宣言》的最后部分聚焦于组织与传播问题。关于工会的论述主张持续参与和政治斗争。尽管已被部分吸纳进社会主导结构中，宣言团体仍视工会为不可或缺的力量，因其代表着有组织的劳工。工党被确认为社会秩序稳定的关键因素，这尤其体现在其领导人比保守党更易化解工人阶级行动——正如 1973/74 年矿工击败希思政府时所印证的那样。宣言对党内工作价值持必要弹性态度，并明确开放接纳可能需要新组织的观点，但着重强调其无意组建此类联盟。在讨论其他激进或社会主义团体时，宣言虽强调激进民族主义路径，仍对威尔士和苏格兰地区替代性政党的发展寄予期待。 1968 年，雷蒙德与乔伊重返威尔士。在随后的岁月里，他就该地区的民族主义问题发表了大量演讲与著述。在单一议题团体中，核裁军运动（CND）被援引为能够对经济政治结构进行全面梳理、并推动突破现状的典范。就政治组织而言，共产党是被讨论最多的对象。原因有二：共产党在左翼阵营中规模最大、根基最深，其组织能力使其尤其在工会领域成效卓著。此外被提及的还有合作社、租户协会、反殖民运动以及诸如印度工人协会这类与左翼渊源深厚的反种族主义团体。
Specific work the Manifesto group saw as its contribution included research and publication (May Day Manifesto 1968: 184). While some work would be connected to particular situations, a Socialist National Plan setting down strategies and policies is advocated (ibid.: 184). Many around the Manifesto group had come from single issue campaigns, most commonly CND and from this experience came recognition of the need for a ‘total description’ (ibid.: 183). If to discuss this, Labour Party members, CND activists, communists and people from the independent left could be brought together, it was ‘a real achievement’ (ibid.: 186). Reflecting this belief, the writers state: ‘We are interested in promoting a connecting process’ (ibid.: 186) and to this end issued a Bulletin. Building on the collective assembled for the second issue of the Manifesto the possibility of a permanent body was being looked into (ibid.: 187). This was not fully achieved and in consequence much of the advance made by the Manifesto was allowed to come to a halt. 宣言团体认为其具体工作贡献包括研究与出版（《五一宣言》1968：184）。虽然部分工作会与特定情境相关联，但他们主张制定一份确立战略与政策的《社会主义国家计划》（同上：184）。围绕宣言团体的许多人曾参与单一议题运动，最常见的是核裁军运动（CND），正是从这些经验中，他们认识到需要一种"总体性描述"（同上：183）。若能就此展开讨论，将工党成员、核裁军运动活动家、共产主义者以及独立左翼人士汇聚一堂，这将是"一项真正的成就"（同上：186）。基于这种信念，撰稿者们宣称："我们致力于推动联结进程"（同上：186），并为此发行了《公报》。以第二期宣言集结的集体力量为基础，他们开始探讨建立常设机构的可能性（同上：187）。这一目标未能完全实现，导致宣言运动取得的诸多进展最终陷入停滞。
The August 1966 meeting had set up a timetable, with the Manifesto being presented in May 1967, and in the first issue of the Bulletin, which appeared in the summer, a Convention was signalled to take place in 1968. However, a dilemma as to the best means of proceeding caused a long delay, and the second issue of the Bulletin did not appear until February 1968. The whole project had entered something of a juncture with two views emerging as to the way ahead. One view was that the project should seek to draw on existing groups facilitating a Convention at which people could represent an organization. The other view was that the Convention should be a process of working up a grass-roots movement which would eventually express itself through a national gathering. In practice, the Manifesto committee took a path between the two, engaging with existing bodies and encouraging local growth. 1966 年 8 月的会议制定了时间表，计划于 1967 年 5 月提交宣言，并在夏季出版的首期《公报》中宣布将于 1968 年召开大会。然而，关于最佳推进方式的困境导致了长期延误，第二期《公报》直到 1968 年 2 月才得以出版。整个项目进入了一个关键节点，关于未来发展路径出现了两种观点。一种观点认为项目应依托现有团体促成大会，让各组织派代表参会；另一种观点主张大会应作为培育基层运动的进程，最终通过全国性集会实现自我表达。实践中，宣言委员会采取了折中路线，既与现有机构合作，又鼓励地方发展。
Issue two stated that the Bulletin was from then on to be a monthly affair and issue three duly appeared for March. The timetable of monthly publication was maintained until number 7 in July 1968, after which it gase way to a rather strange procedure of apparently double issues every two months which yet were always produced as a single volume. The tensions in the Manifesto groups resurfaced with the first double issue, numbered 8,9 for August/September 1968, after which there was a break until the new year when issues 10/11 were published for January February 1969. Regularity was again fairly maintained until issues 22//2322 / 23 for Mar June 1970 when the Bulletin abruptly stopped. During its lifetime the strain of organizing is evident from the breaks, in July/August and November, December 1969, yet to have published 23 issues over three extremely turbulent vears while organizing at least two major gatherings and a series of ‘quarterly conferences’ should alert us to the very considerable substance of the May Dar. Manifesto organization. 第二期声明《公报》此后将按月发行，第三期随即于 1968 年 3 月如期问世。这种月刊模式持续至 1968 年 7 月的第 7 期，之后转为每两月出版一期合刊的奇特形式——尽管这些合刊始终以单卷本形式呈现。随着 1968 年 8/9 月第 8、9 期合刊的发行，宣言派内部的紧张态势再度显现，此后停刊直至新年才推出 1969 年 1/2 月第 10/11 期合刊。出版节奏大体保持规律，直至 1970 年 3-6 月第 20 期时《公报》戛然而止。从其出版历程可见组织工作的艰难：1969 年 7/8 月与 11/12 月两度中断，但在三年剧烈动荡中仍刊发 23 期，期间还筹办了至少两次大型集会与一系列"季度会议"，这足以使我们意识到《五月宣言》组织所蕴含的深厚底蕴。
（说明：根据学术翻译规范，对以下要素进行了专业处理：
1. 保留原刊名《公报》及特殊出版形式"合刊"的准确表述
2. 时间表述统一转换为"1968 年 3 月"等中文标准格式
3. "Manifesto groups"译为"宣言派"符合政治思想史术语
4. "May Dar Manifesto"音意结合译为《五月宣言》
5. 长难句按中文表达习惯拆分重组，如最后复合句处理为因果句式
6. 保持学术文本的客观严谨性，避免添加解释性内容）
The Bulletin acted as a forum, with its pages carring articles and messages. Topics in the first issues included alienation and community, ‘race’ in Notting Hill, miners and state fuel policy, workers control and U’S ’ Yietnam draft refugees. However, the reports were the more interesting. Those originating from ‘the centre’ covered activities at Fitzroy Syuare, discussions about the Manifesto Movement’s direction and groups meeting around the country. Those from elsewhere included reports of these meetings, but also activities and projects such as comprehensive schools in Brighton, an engineering factory closure in north London and rent rises in Cambridge. 《公报》充当了一个论坛平台，其版面刊载各类文章与讯息。创刊号探讨的主题包括异化与共同体、诺丁山地区的"种族"问题、矿工与国家燃料政策、工人自治以及美国越战征兵难民。但更具启发性的是那些实地报道——来自"中心"的通讯记录了菲茨罗伊广场的活动、关于《宣言》运动方向的讨论以及全国各地的团体集会；地方来稿则不仅汇报这些会议，还涉及布莱顿综合学校、北伦敦工程工厂倒闭、剑桥房租上涨等具体事件与民生项目。
Groups grew up in many quarters though London certainly dominated a problem that has bedevilled every radical endeavour that sought to go beyond the local. ()ver the weeks, the timetable changed, and the Convention was put back in favour of a Conference set for ()ctober 1968. Notice of the Conference ran, 尽管伦敦无可争议地成为这场试图突破地域局限的激进运动的核心（这一困境始终困扰着所有同类尝试），各地仍涌现出众多团体。随着时间推移，原定议程发生变更，1968 年 10 月召开的会议取代了先前规划的代表大会。会议通知如下：
On 27-28 April a Manifesto Conference is being held in the Botany Theatre, Iniversity College, (jower Street, London, WC1. The purpose 4 月 27-28 日将在伦敦大学学院（WC1 区高尔街）植物学讲堂举行《宣言》会议。其宗旨在于
of the Conference is to devise policies and organisation following publication of the new Manifesto. 会议旨在根据新宣言的发布制定相关政策和组织架构。
(May Day Manifesto Bulletin No 4 April 1968). （《五一宣言公报》第 4 期 1968 年 4 月）
Correspondence suggested that organizing was conducted from a number of addresses, several in an arch running north from Notting Hill toward Hampstead and down to Regents Park, extending the networks of radicalism existent in those areas of London. 往来信函显示，组织工作以多个地址为据点开展，其中数个据点呈拱形分布，自诺丁山向北延伸至汉普斯特德，再向南至摄政公园，拓展了伦敦这些地区既有的激进主义网络。
The Conference met as planned and the outcomes were to be published in Bulletin No. 5, May 1968. However, the Conference Reports did not appear and the Editorial for the issue comments that, ‘preparation of launching meetings [for publication of the Penguin edition of the Manifesto] in ten towns in the following week absorbed all surplus energy’ (ibid. Bulletin No. 5 May 1968). Instead, four position papers and two substantial policy statements appeared. However, the ‘Main Resolution Adopted’ at the Conference was printed in full and the essence of that should be quoted for the significance of the event to be appreciated today: 会议如期召开，其成果原定发表于 1968 年 5 月第 5 期公报。然而会议报告最终未能刊出，该期社论解释道："为筹备接下来一周在十座城市举行的[企鹅版宣言出版]发布会，耗尽了所有剩余精力"（同上，《公报》第 5 期，1968 年 5 月）。取而代之的是四份立场文件和两份重要政策声明。不过，会议通过的"主要决议"被完整刊载，为理解该事件的历史意义，有必要引述其核心内容：
This Conference believes that the Labour Government has now become the agent of the new capitalist system, and accepts the need for a systematic political opposition, as outlined in the May Day Manifesto 1968. 本次会议认为，工党政府已成为新资本主义体系的代理人，并接受建立系统性政治反对力量的必要性，正如 1968 年《五一宣言》所阐述的那样。
We therefore commit ourselves to the formation of a political movement, radical and socialist, primarily extra parliamentary, but accepting the significance of a national presence, though rejecting the notion of Parliamentary socialism which the Labour Party represents. 我们因此承诺建立一个激进且社会主义的政治运动，主要以议会外形式开展，同时承认全国性存在的重要性，但拒绝接受工党所代表的议会社会主义理念。
The analysis of the Manifesto should be developed into realisable socialist goals, the creation of a political ‘Programme for a Generation’. 应将《宣言》的分析发展为可实现的社会主义目标，制定一项"世代纲领"的政治计划。
A national convention should be called in the autumn of 1968 to launch a unified socialist movement. 应于 1968 年秋季召开全国代表大会，发起统一的社会主义运动。
(ibid., Bulletin No. 5 May 1968) （同上，第 5 期 1968 年 5 月）
The Conference has no written record beyond the Bulletin (the writer would be very pleased to be disavowed of this claim and hear otherwise). Its tone was apparent from the ‘Main Resolution Adopted’, but more than that was the unrecordable success of it actually happening. At any time it is difficult to assemble groups of people with strongly held beliefs, since part of that strength is in holding those beliefs in adversity to others, but the choice of chairs was likely to have helped, which, apart from the economist Dorothy Wedderburn, included the renowned CND organizer, Peggy Duff. 除公报外，会议未留下任何书面记录（笔者非常乐意被告知这一说法有误）。其基调可从《通过的主要决议》中窥见，但更重要的意义在于这场会议得以成功召开本身——这种成功是无法用文字记录的。要让一群秉持坚定信念的人聚集起来从来都不容易，因为这种坚定往往体现在与异见者的对抗中。不过会议主席的人选或许起到了关键作用：除经济学家多萝西·韦德伯恩外，还包括著名的核裁军运动组织者佩吉·达夫。
The Convention eventually met on 25-27 April 1969, the published outcome of which was a document headed ‘Report and I’roposals’. The gathering itself though was a noteworthy occasion. Some years earlier Universities and Left Review held a series of meetings initially at hotels and 大会最终于 1969 年 4 月 25-27 日召开，其公开成果是一份题为《报告与建议》的文件。但集会本身才是真正值得铭记的事件。几年前，《大学与左派评论》曾组织过一系列会议，最初在酒店举行
then at its club in Carlisle Street. These were remarkable for the mix of people but hest remembered for the profile of speakers (Woodhams 2001). The National Convention was noteworthy for bringing together otherwise very diverse groups in a deeply democratic process. 后来移至其位于卡莱尔街的俱乐部。这些会议因参会者的多元性而著称，但最令人难忘的是演讲者的阵容（伍德汉姆斯，2001 年）。而本次全国大会的非凡意义，在于通过深度民主的流程将原本迥异的群体凝聚在一起。
A record of the event counted 622 people present, of whom 246 were delegates from organizations, the rest being there in an individual capacity. Of course, it is likely that further people passed without record through the event but, even so, the number is impressive. The record gives a picture of the gathering with its list of organizations and branches. The figures reveal how seriously Communist Party members took the event and it is likely that some of these, uncertain as to the future of their Party after the events in Czechoslovakia the previous year, were seeking new outlets for their energy. The range of organizations is impressive with no less than three different Indian representations, a Spanish Defence committee, a JewishArab reconciliation society and the Movement for Colonial Freedom. The last had been in existence for many years led by the veteran radical Fenner Brockway. Surprisingly only the Campaign for Peace in \ietnam appears, though Black Dwarf which was associated with the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign is listed under ‘Radical Press, Journals’. L’nity’ Theatre and Agitprop extended the gathering in artistic directions. The Institute for Workers’ Control is missing from the record though this hides otherwise fruitful links. Community Action Groups and especially forums and Left L’nity Groups were where the Convention most readily lived beyond the event itself. In this connection it is worth highlighting the note alongside ‘Local Organisations’ recording that 60 per cent of these delegates came from outside London. 活动记录显示现场共有 622 人，其中 246 人是各组织的代表团成员，其余则以个人身份出席。当然，很可能还有更多未登记人员参与了活动，即便如此，这个数字仍令人瞩目。记录中列出的组织与分支名单，为这场集会勾勒出清晰图景。数据表明共产党员对此次活动极为重视——鉴于前一年捷克斯洛伐克事件后他们可能对党的前途心存疑虑，其中部分人正试图为自身能量寻找新的释放渠道。与会组织阵容令人惊叹：至少有三个不同的印度代表团、西班牙保卫委员会、犹太-阿拉伯和解协会以及殖民自由运动——后者由资深激进分子芬纳·布罗克韦领导已运作多年。令人意外的是越南和平运动仅出现了一次，不过与越南团结运动关联的《黑矮星》杂志被列在"激进报刊"条目下。团结剧院与宣传鼓动队则将集会延伸至艺术领域。 工人控制研究所的缺席使记录有所缺失，尽管这掩盖了原本富有成效的联系。社区行动团体，特别是各类论坛和左翼团结组织，才是公约精神在活动结束后最持久延续的载体。值得注意的是，"地方组织"旁的备注显示，这些代表中有 60%来自伦敦以外地区。
A decade after the Manifesto in Politics and Letters, the editors of New Left Review asked Raymond Williams about organization around the project and parts of its content. In his reply, there is some distancing from the Manifesto built on a hardening of position by the time of Polatics and Letters. The Manifesto is posited as something of the end of an era succeeded by a closer attention to Marxism. Certainly in the interviews, the state is conceived in a Marxist fashion which serves to push away arguments in the Manifesto. This is to he regretted since the effect is to detract from the project. This is wrong; it was a remarkable attempt to set out a socialist critique in a manner that has not been equalled since. Its shortcomings are real and should have been tackled through further work. L’nfortunately the politics of the years immediately following 1908 were not conducive to this, with the National Committee breaking on the barriers of the 1970 General Election, when the Momitesto should have served as a base for more sustained work during the Heath Government. In fact, what happened was a loss of initiative among the New Left which was not regained until the end of the 1970s when the work had to begin again, this time under the umbrella of the Beyond the Fragments grouping. The Manifesto was 《政治与文学》宣言发表十年后，《新左派评论》的编辑们就组织架构与部分内容向雷蒙德·威廉斯提出质询。他的回应显示出与宣言立场的疏离——这种态度在《政治与文学》时期因立场固化而加剧。该宣言被定位为一个时代的终结，随后是对马克思主义更为紧密的关注。访谈中明显可见，国家概念被赋予马克思主义式的阐释，这实际上消解了宣言中的诸多论点。此种转向令人遗憾，因其弱化了该项目的思想价值。这种否定有失公允：这份宣言以空前的方式系统阐述了社会主义批判理论，其不足确实存在，本应通过后续研究予以完善。遗憾的是 1908 年后数年的政治环境未能促成此事——全国委员会在 1970 年大选的政治壁垒前分崩离析，而这份宣言本应成为希思政府时期持续深化研究的理论基础。 事实上，新左派在此期间丧失了主动权，直到 1970 年代末才重新振作，当时的工作不得不在"超越碎片"组织的框架下重新开始。这份宣言
translated into several languages and enjoyed large international sales. That it inspired progress across the world in the 1970s is not in doubt; where it was let down was the lack of a dedicated body to deepen and extend its critique as an ongoing project of meetings and publications. 被翻译成多种语言并在国际上畅销。毫无疑问，它在 1970 年代推动了全球进步；其不足之处在于缺乏一个专门机构来持续深化和扩展其批判性研究，使之成为通过会议和出版物持续推进的项目。
Acknowledgements 致谢
I am indebted to Tom Wengraf and Stan Smith for discussion of the internal workings and activities around the May Day Manifesto. 感谢汤姆·温格拉夫和斯坦·史密斯对《五一宣言》内部运作及相关活动的讨论。
Notes 注释
1 In a programme made following Raymond Williams’ death, Stuart Hall refers to working with Raymond in his college rooms and how, while for others the fact of developing a socialist project in such surroundings seemed incongruous, for Williams it was simply a good place to do serious work (C4, 28 February 1988). 1 在一部纪念雷蒙德·威廉斯逝世的专题节目中，斯图亚特·霍尔回忆了在威廉斯的学院宿舍里与他共事的经历。对其他人而言，在这种环境中发展社会主义项目似乎格格不入，但对威廉斯来说，这不过是开展严肃工作的理想场所（第四频道，1988 年 2 月 28 日）。
2 The Labour government had been forced to devalue the pound in 1967 following a fierce conflict in and around the Cabinet. Wilson had been strongly opposed but others such as George Brown had finally won the case. The devaluation was an impetus for the Manifesto project though addressed as only a symptom of those wider economic structures just outlined. 2 1967 年，工党政府在内阁及周边激烈冲突后被迫将英镑贬值。威尔逊曾强烈反对，但乔治·布朗等人最终赢得了这场辩论。此次贬值虽仅被视为前述更广泛经济结构的表征，却为《宣言》项目提供了推动力。
Fellow-travellers at the conjunction: Williams and educational communicators 交汇处的同行者：威廉斯与教育传播者
Christopher Joseph Westgate 克里斯托弗·约瑟夫·韦斯特盖特
When communication met education 当传播学遇上教育学
Edward Said recalled Raymond Williams’ contributions to culture, history, literature and society in a 1988 obituary from The Nutton. One section of Said’s column familiarized readers in the L’nited States with the admirable authority of Williams’ work on communication and education (see Said 1988). This brief mention reflects an exen briefer presence of Williams’ thoughts within pedagogical studies of print, film and related culture industries. Although his teaching methods sparked interest decades ago in cultural studies, communication and education, scholars have ret to evaluate Williams’ writings on the culture industries, its messengers and their messages. Many of his adult education teaching plans confirmed a commitment to the reading and writing of mediated messages between 1946 and 1961 (see McIlroy 1990). 爱德华·萨义德在 1988 年为《新政治家》撰写的讣告中回顾了雷蒙德·威廉斯对文化、历史、文学及社会的贡献。萨义德专栏的某部分向美国读者介绍了威廉斯在传播与教育领域令人钦佩的学术权威（参见 Said 1988）。这一简短提及折射出威廉斯思想在印刷、电影及相关文化产业教学研究中的更微弱存在。尽管其教学方法早在数十年前就引发了文化研究、传播学与教育领域的兴趣，但学者们尚未系统评估威廉斯关于文化产业、传播者及其讯息的著述。他在 1946 至 1961 年间制定的诸多成人教育教学方案，印证了其对媒介化讯息读写实践的执着追求（参见 McIlroy 1990）。
I suggest that Williams met educational communicators as fellowtravellers at an interdisciplinary conjunction. I define educational communicators as cultural workers, such as book publishers, television advertisers, magazine journalists or music critics who have continued to make their means of expression available for classroom criticism. ^(1){ }^{1} The means of expression include computers or other machines used he educational communicators such as writers and photographers to create commodities. The conjunction implies an interdisciplinary space in which communication and education converge and converse. The term suggests not fancy airs, but rather common affairs. Chassonom criticism refers to an unhurried reading and writing of mediated texts as an exercise in what others have labelled media literacy (see Buckingham 2003). This claim holds larger implications for the unwritten history of engagement between communication and education as interdisciplinary fields of inquity. ^(2){ }^{2} and contributes a founding chapter to that narrative by nominating Williams as a founder. 我认为威廉斯在跨学科交汇处与教育传播者相遇，彼此成为志同道合的同行者。我将教育传播者定义为文化工作者——包括图书出版商、电视广告商、杂志记者或音乐评论家等群体，他们持续为课堂批评提供表达载体。 ^(1){ }^{1} 这些表达载体涵盖计算机等工具设备，作家、摄影师等教育传播者藉此创造文化商品。所谓交汇处，实则是传播学与教育学相互交融对话的跨学科场域，这一概念不标榜虚浮姿态，而着眼于日常实践。沙索尼式批评指代对媒介文本的从容读写，这种操练被学界称为媒介素养（参见 Buckingham 2003）。此论断对传播学与教育学作为交叉研究领域尚未书写的互动史具有深远意义， ^(2){ }^{2} 通过将威廉斯推举为奠基人，为该叙事谱写了开篇章节。
The conjunction’s existence depends on three contexts that continue to surround chucational communicators and their means of expression today: critical pedagogy, practical criticism and political principles. Critical 这一联结的存在取决于至今仍围绕教育传播者及其表达方式的三种语境：批判教育学、实用批评与政治原则。批判
pedagogy promotes dialogue between teachers and students in the study of educational communicators and their means of expression; practical criticism suggests ways to slowly and closely read educational communicators and their means of expression as everyday texts; and political principles point to the power of educational communicators and their means of expression. 教育学提倡师生在学习教育传播者及其表达方式时展开对话；实用批评建议将教育传播者及其表达方式作为日常文本来进行细致缓慢的阅读；而政治原则则指向教育传播者及其表达方式所蕴含的权力。
With these definitions in mind, I canvassed Williams’ thought on communication and education through textual analyses of relevant books and articles written between the 1940s and the 1980s. Symptomatic reading inspired not so much a search for hidden meaning, but rather an opportunity to generate new knowledge. The analytical approach follows Louis Althusser’s emphasis on ideological systems of representation that concern unasked yet implied questions (see Althusser [1969] 1971). 基于这些定义，我通过分析威廉姆斯在 1940 至 1980 年代间撰写的相关书籍与文章，梳理了他关于传播与教育的思考。症候式阅读所激发的并非对隐藏意义的追寻，而更多是创造新知识的契机。该分析方法遵循路易·阿尔都塞对意识形态表征体系的强调——这些体系关涉未被言明却隐含的问题（参见阿尔都塞[1969] 1971）。
Select scholars identified a disregard for Williams’ writings on teaching and learning decades after post-positivism eclipsed more humanistic contributions to the creation and development of communication and education as interdisciplinary formations in the United States (see Shapiro 1982). ^(3){ }^{3} Yet if we reserve his thoughts for specific cultural projects in twentieth-century British society, we will only threaten the advancement of transnational talk on educational communicators and their means of expression. Williams’ observations remain timely today, particularly as we monitor their translation to nations in which educational communicators wield influence. 部分学者指出，在后实证主义主导美国传播学与教育学跨学科建构的数十年间，威廉斯关于教学与学习的论述长期遭受忽视（参见 Shapiro 1982）。 ^(3){ }^{3} 但若将其思想仅限定于 20 世纪英国社会的特定文化项目，我们将阻碍教育传播者及其表达方式的跨国对话发展。威廉斯的洞见至今仍具现实意义，尤其当我们考察这些思想在那些教育传播者具有影响力的国家中的转化时。
This chapter’s first section enters a short conversation between communication and education from the former’s disciplinary vantage point in order to historicize their conjunction. The argument unfolds with Williams’ early insight into critical pedagogy, practical criticism and political principles across the remaining sections. Other writers in this volume present thoughtful perspectives from Austria, Germany, Portugal, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. As a humanist from the United States trained in communication and cultural studies, most of my scholarship has been influenced to some degree by Williams’ meticulous analyses of mediated culture. I often revisit his writings, as I know others do, for direction on how to weather ideological hail storms in uncertain times. 本章第一节从传播学的学科视角出发，简要探讨了传播与教育之间的关联，旨在对这一结合进行历史化梳理。后续各节通过威廉斯对批判教育学、实用批评和政治原则的早期洞见逐步展开论述。本书其他撰稿人分别来自奥地利、德国、葡萄牙、英国等地，提供了富有见地的观点。作为一名接受过传播与文化研究训练的美国人文学者，我的学术研究在很大程度上受到威廉斯对媒介文化细致分析的影响。和许多同行一样，我时常重读他的著作，从中寻求如何在不确定时代抵御意识形态冰雹风暴的指引。
A tale of two prepositions 两个介词的故事
The conjunction between communication and education co-evolved with a sub-discipline whose status has waxed and waned over the past sixty years. Critics have long questioned communication education’s standing within departments of (speech) communication. However, such criticism could never negate the importance of learning how to refine parole through practice (see Morreale and Pearson 2008). 传播与教育的结合催生了一个在过去六十年间地位起伏不定的子学科。长期以来，评论家们一直质疑传播教育在（言语）传播院系中的地位。然而，这类批评从未能否认通过实践精进言语能力的重要性（参见 Morreale 与 Pearson 2008 年研究）。
The Speech Teacher’s contributors have covered most levels of education from 1952 through the journal’s name change to Communication Edication 自 1952 年创刊至更名为《传播教育》期间，《言语教师》的撰稿人涵盖了绝大多数教育层级
in 1976. Other journals have addressed teaching and learning, including Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, known before 1995 by the abbreviated Journalism Educator. From 1986 through the time of this writing, The Speech Communication Teacher has published professional news under a truncated Communication Teacher title. Each name change reflects growing interdisciplinary concerns with matters that move beyond persuasion. Interestingly, not a single author from these journals has investigated Williams’ writings on educational communicators and their means of expression as a central subject. We could and should not conclude that his ideas were absent, but rather invisible in their influences on sub-disciplinary discussions of communication education from the mid to the late twentieth century. 1976 年。其他期刊也涉及教学与学习议题，包括 1995 年前以缩写名称《新闻教育者》闻名的《新闻与大众传播教育者》。1986 年至今，《言语传播教师》以简化的《传播教师》为名持续刊发专业动态。每次更名都体现了学科间对超越劝服范畴议题的日益关注。值得注意的是，这些期刊中竟无一位作者将威廉斯关于教育传播者及其表达方式的论述作为核心研究主题。我们既不能也不应断言其思想缺席，而应认识到这些思想以隐形方式影响着二十世纪中后期传播教育这一子学科领域的讨论。
A clear delineation exists between communication education and instructional communication. The former tracks the reaching of message transmission and reception by the disciplinary conventions of communication, while the latter traces communication in classrooms across the disciplines. Communication education refers to curricular strategies designed for and by teachers within communication studies, including but not limited to syllabi construction for courses in telecommunication or interpersonal communication (see Roberts 2002; Rubin 2002; Sprague 1999). Communication education exists for the discipline of communication. 传播教育与教学传播之间存在明确区分。前者遵循传播学学科规范追踪信息传递与接收的达成，后者则跨学科追踪课堂中的传播现象。传播教育特指传播学领域内由教师设计并服务于该学科的课程策略，包括但不限于电信传播或人际传播课程的 syllabus 构建（参见 Roberts 2002；Rubin 2002；Sprague 1999）。传播教育是为传播学学科而存在的。
In contrast, instructional communication advances communication in education through encounters across departments and colleges. This area of scholarship takes up distance education in economics, physics or virtually any other area of study. ^(4){ }^{4} We must depart from either-or binaries and prepositional preferences. By framing the conversation in the same space with ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or’ terms, we will not only reach transdisciplinary audiences, but also bring educational communicators and their means of expression together with pedagogical ends (e.g. the creation and completion of an exam) and technological means (e.g. teaching and learning through distance education). 相比之下，教学传播通过跨院系、跨学科的交流推动了教育领域的沟通。这一学术领域涵盖了经济学、物理学乃至几乎所有其他学科领域的远程教育研究。我们必须摒弃非此即彼的二元对立思维和先入为主的立场预设。通过采用"兼收并蓄"而非"非此即彼"的对话框架，我们不仅能够触及跨学科受众，更能将教育传播者及其表达方式与教学目标（如试卷的编制与测评）和技术手段（如远程教育的教与学）有机结合起来。
For Williams, communications connotes ‘institutions and forms in which ideas, information and attitudes are transmitted and received’, (Williams 1962: 17) while commonication denotes transmission and reception between humans. I do not mean to collapse communication(s) into education or conversely zap the ghosts through ‘better wiring’ (Peters 1999: 9). Isolating the plural from the singular in idealist terms does not necessitate a materialist separation. Scholars may consider communication and communications as distinct constructs for the sake of analytical clarity. Yet we must also recognize experiences of transmission and reception as commonly and complexy mediated. Communications will become apparent through my use of communication, largely because the former is synonymous with educational communicators’ means of expression. 对威廉斯而言，"communications"意味着"传递和接收思想、信息与态度的制度及形式"（Williams 1962: 17），而"communication"则特指人类之间的传递与接收行为。我并非要将传播简化为教育，或试图通过"优化传输线路"来驱散那些幽灵（Peters 1999: 9）。在理想主义层面区分复数与单数形式，并不必然导致唯物主义的分裂。学者们出于分析明晰的考虑，可将传播与传播体系视为不同概念。但我们必须承认，传递与接收的体验始终以普遍而复杂的方式被中介着。通过我对"communication"的使用，"communications"的意涵将自然显现——这很大程度上源于后者与教育传播者表达方式的同构性。
In an underappreciated essay from the Journal of Communication, Williams claimed communication not only as a central principle for cultural studies, 在《传播学刊》一篇被低估的论文中，威廉斯不仅将传播确立为文化研究的核心原则，
but also as a primary practice in analyses of educational resources. For example, he regarded political pamphlets from the seventeenth century and contemporary government broadcasts as artefacts and acts worthy of equal attention (see Williams 1974). Newspapers, magazines, advertisements, film, radio and television programmes both affected and reflected public opinion. Educational communicators and their means of expression proved equally if not more powerful than politicians because of their unbounded influence on the production, preservation and contestation of cultural beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviours. 同时也是分析教育资源时的一项主要实践。例如，他将十七世纪的政治小册子与当代政府广播节目视为具有同等研究价值的文化产物与行为（参见 Williams 1974）。报纸、杂志、广告、电影、广播及电视节目既影响又反映着公众舆论。教育传播者及其表达方式对文化信仰、态度、价值观及行为的生产、保存与争辩具有无远弗届的影响力，其作用力甚至不亚于政客。
Apart from its communicative and educative characteristics, the conjunction rests on a set of suppositions. Williams might have characterized it as 除却传播与教育特性，这种联结关系还建立在一系列假设之上。威廉斯或许会将其描述为
a method of association and cooperation in which the processes we separate out as politics, as economics, as communication, as education, are directly related to the reality of living together, and in which control over the processes is in the hands of the people who use them. 一种关联与协作的方法——其中被我们区隔为政治、经济、传播与教育的过程，直接关联着共同生活的现实；而对这类过程的控制权，始终掌握在使用它们的民众手中。
(Williams 1961: 199) (威廉斯 1961: 199)
A communicational-educational conjunction depends on the hope for equal management of any and every means of expression, including all sonic symbols and iconic inscriptions. These symbols and inscriptions may appear in moments of mobile privatization, such as when we listen to musical messages through private headphones on a public bus. 一种传播-教育联结依赖于对各种表达手段平等管理的期望，这包括所有声音符号和图像铭文。这些符号和铭文可能出现在移动私有化的时刻，例如当我们在公共汽车上通过私人耳机聆听音乐信息时。
We can summarize the communicational-educational conjunction in one short sentence: ‘for who can doubt, looking at television or newspapers, or reading women’s magazines, that here, centrally, is teaching, and teaching financed and distributed in a much larger way than is formal education’ (Williams 1962: 14). The culture industries have become important resources for permanent education. Pointed critique of educational communicators and their means of expression required an instructor with clearly articulated methods to engage learners from their own life-worlds. Williams inspired a kind of independent inquiry from his adult education students. This rings true with the aims, if not the actual accomplishments, of critical pedagogy today. ^(5){ }^{5} 我们可以用一句简短的话来总结这种传播-教育联结："看着电视或报纸，或阅读女性杂志，谁能怀疑这里存在着教学，而且是以比正规教育更庞大的资金支持和更广泛的传播方式进行的教学"（威廉斯 1962: 14）。文化产业已成为终身教育的重要资源。对教育传播者及其表达手段的尖锐批评，需要教师具备清晰阐述的方法来吸引来自不同生活世界的学习者。威廉斯激发了他的成人教育学生进行某种独立探究。这与批判教育学的目标——即便不是其实际成就——产生了共鸣。 ^(5){ }^{5}
Critical pedagogy 批判教育学
This project places poetics and politics within critiques of capitalist social relations. Critical pedagogy aims for social justice and extension outside the classroom. It also drums up democratic buzzwords of collaboration, cooperation, active teaching and student-centred learning. The teacher no longer fills empty vessels with authoritative knowledge morsels because the student becomes a legitimate constructor of knowledge in an ongoing dialogue 本项目将诗学与政治置于资本主义社会关系的批判之中。批判教育学旨在追求社会正义并突破教室的局限。它还宣扬民主化的合作、协作、主动教学和以学生为中心的学习等流行理念。教师不再以权威知识碎片填充被动容器，因为学生通过持续对话已成为知识的合法建构者。
with himself or herself, peers, teachers and the social world (see Alanís 2006; Fassett and Warren 2006; McLaren and Kincheloe 2007). 与自身、同伴、教师及社会世界的关系（参见 Alanís 2006；Fassett 与 Warren 2006；McLaren 和 Kincheloe 2007）。
Critical pedagogy receives criticism for not adequately addressing vocational goals of non-academically minded students. This alternate view portrays learners as quickly earning credit and entering the workforce. Critics claim critical pedagogy leaves the student vulnerable to study and surveillance by the assessing gaze of the teacher. The project thus becomes clandestinely conservative, disguised by outward appearances of a different sort. Didactic lectures seemingly absolve students from the lecturer’s gaze and the responsibility to contribute, perhaps because non-verbal codes express almost anything and everything (see Durst 2006; Maton and Wright 2002). 批判教育学因未能充分关注非学术倾向学生的职业目标而受到批评。这种对立观点将学习者描绘成快速获取学分并进入职场的群体。批评者认为批判教育学使学生容易陷入教师的评估性凝视下的学习与监控。该项目因而成为暗中保守的实践，被不同形式的外表所伪装。说教式讲座似乎使学生免于讲师的凝视与参与责任，或许因为非语言符号几乎能表达一切（参见 Durst 2006；Maton 与 Wright 2002）。
As a scholar and teacher, Williams brought critical and didactic approaches to bear during distinct phases of his career. From 19+619+6 to 1954 , he expected a fair amount of independent thought from classroom dialogue: 'I have discussed newspapers with young trade unionists; discussed television with apprentices; to me these have been formative experiences and I have learnt as much as I have taught (Mcllroy 1990: 130). These words suggest a style of pedagogy that partially removes the sage from the stage in an effort to accommodate democratically minded and extemporaneously embodied knowledge construction. 作为一名学者和教师，威廉斯在其职业生涯的不同阶段运用了批判性与教学性相结合的方法。从 19+619+6 到 1954 年间，他期望通过课堂对话激发相当程度的独立思考："我曾与年轻工会成员讨论报纸，与学徒探讨电视；这些经历对我具有塑造性意义，我的收获与传授同样丰富（Mcllroy 1990: 130）"。这番言辞揭示了一种教学风格——通过部分消解讲台上的圣贤形象，来接纳民主意识导向且即兴体现的知识建构。
It may seem difficult, then, to understand why Williams adopted a didactic approach to pedagogy in 1955. Although he began to dedicate more time to formal lectures than he had in previous vears, we must heed a cautionary note: Williams frequently lectured, but did not completely eliminate all discussion and collaboration after 1955. Experimentation and student engagement continued to steer his intellectual development (see Woodhams 1999). To that degree we ought to think of Williams as an early participator in the benefits and limits of eritical pedagogy. Here I extend Henry Giroux’s observation of Williams as an mfluencer on to a participator in critical pedagogy because he created an environment conducive to discussion on the value and growth potential of educational communicators and their means of expression (see Giroux 1992). 因此，要理解威廉斯为何在 1955 年采用说教式教学法似乎颇有难度。尽管相较于早年，他开始投入更多时间进行正式授课，但我们必须注意一个警示：威廉斯虽频繁讲授课程，却并未在 1955 年后完全摒弃讨论与协作。实验精神与学生参与始终引领着他的学术发展（参见 Woodhams 1999）。就此而言，我们应将威廉斯视为批判教育学实践早期参与者，既受益于其优势也受限于其边界。在此我将亨利·吉鲁对威廉斯作为批判教育学影响者的观察延伸至实践者层面——因为他营造了有利于探讨教育传播者价值、发展潜力及其表达方式的环境（参见 Giroux 1992）。
Williams’ thoughts on critical pedagogy as permanently unsettled seem timeless by today’s standards: 威廉斯关于批判教育学"恒久未定"的思考，以当今标准来看仍具永恒意义：
What [permanent education] valuably stresses is the educational force of our whole social and cultural experience. It is therefore concerned, not only with continuing education, of a formal or informal kind, but with that [which| the whole environment, its institutions and relationships, actively and profoundly teaches. [永久教育]所宝贵强调的，是我们整个社会文化经验的教育力量。因此它不仅关注正规或非正规的持续教育，更着眼于[整个环境及其制度与关系所积极且深刻传授的内容]。
(Williams 1962: 14) （威廉斯 1962: 14）
By this line of locic, permanently unsettled education provides a full expression of meaning to ordinary cultural workers in a global village. 依照这一逻辑，永续发展的教育为地球村中的普通文化工作者提供了完整的意义表达。
Lecture and discussion merely represent two operational means to larger conceptual ends concerned with the human condition and its potential for sociality (see Gray 2003). ^(6){ }^{6} 讲座与讨论仅是实现更高概念目标的两种操作手段，这些目标关乎人类境况及其社会性潜能（参见格雷 2003）。 ^(6){ }^{6}
Tom Steele challenged the absence of quantification and instrumentation in Williams’ writings on critical pedagogy, claiming that he did not publish any major articles other than occasional entries (see Steele 1996). I suggest we not draw conclusions on the merits of what Williams did not say on teaching and learning based on what he did say to Marxist or literary scholars, for to do so would perpetuate a harmful habit of associating him only with those areas of thought, ‘precluding the recognition of the international influence of his early writing on drama, film, communications and social history’ (Woodhams 1999: 241). 汤姆·斯蒂尔质疑威廉姆斯关于批判教育学著作中缺乏量化与工具性分析，指出他除零星文章外未发表过任何专业论文（参见 Steele 1996）。笔者认为，不应根据威廉姆斯对马克思主义学者或文学研究者所言，来推断他未对教学与学习领域发表见解的价值，这种做法将强化将其思想仅囿于特定领域的偏见，正如伍德汉斯所言："阻碍了人们认识其早期关于戏剧、电影、传播与社会历史著作的国际影响力"（Woodhams 1999: 241）。
Observations of Williams’ ‘extreme vagueness about outcomes, little evidence of written work, and no systematic collection of feedback’ (Steele 1996: 293) pay homage to post-positivistic proclivities. Surely Williams would have responded that scholars can also think of communication as a humanistic enterprise that not only explains, but also ‘evaluates the arts of expression, exchange and influence through the ages and across culture.’ (National Communication Association 2008: 2 3) His critical stance on educational communicators as suitable for interpretation and evaluation challenged omnipresent social-scientific effects research in the United States during the mid-twentieth-century. A penchant for prediction and explanation met its match in Williams’ emergent and empathic processes of knowledge formation. 对威廉斯"对结果极度模糊、鲜有书面作品证据且未系统收集反馈"的观察（Steele 1996: 293）体现了后实证主义倾向。威廉斯定会回应道：学者们亦可将传播视为人文事业，其不仅解释现象，更"评判古今跨文化中的表达艺术、交流与影响技艺"（全美传播协会 2008: 2-3）。他对教育传播者作为诠释与评价主体的批判立场，挑战了二十世纪中叶美国学界无处不在的社会科学效果研究。当预测与解释的学术偏好遭遇威廉斯提出的知识生成之涌现性与共情过程时，终遇劲敌。
One final critique from Steele merits reconsideration: ‘because he wrote no major professional texts, he could not therefore have heen considered a specialist in the subject’ (Steele 1996: 293). This remark does not grant us permission to discredit Williams from nomination as an expert in critical pedagogy for two reasons. The first is a definite matter of articles. Williams may not have been the specialist, hut he certainly was a specialist on the collaborative analysis of mediated messages. Second, Steele does not adumbrate the criteria by which we might distinguish specialist from generalist texts of critical pedagogy. The reader consequently has no concrete way of assessing the basis for his criticism. 斯蒂尔提出的最后一项批评值得重新审视："由于他未曾撰写过重要的专业文本，因此不能被视作该学科的专家"（Steele 1996: 293）。这一论断不能成为我们否定威廉姆斯作为批判教育学领域专家资格的依据，原因有二。首先是明确的文献问题——威廉姆斯或许并非专科医生式的专家，但他无疑是媒介信息协同分析领域的专业学者。其次，斯蒂尔并未阐明区分批判教育学专业文本与通论文本的标准，导致读者无从具体评估其批评的立论基础。
Several writers confirm that Williams tirelessly thought about criticalpedagogical methods and shared his teaching plans with those who cared enough to read them (see McIlroy 1993). Those plans included general suggestions for analyses of story types, adoption recommendations for essays, and inter-textual instructions on how to read and discuss a range of comics in relation to Huckleberry Finn. He offered advice on the writing of film reviews, and on how to handle values in magazine stories (see Williams 1963). Williams even taught methods, from how’ to ‘access information, and [test] its reliability … [to] methods of note taking, [and] methods of organizing the knowledge one has gained’ (Williams 1953: 249). 多位学者证实，威廉姆斯始终不倦地思考批判性教学方法，并与那些愿意研读的人分享其教学方案（参见 McIlroy 1993）。这些方案包含对故事类型分析的通用建议、散文作品的选用推荐，以及关于如何将各类漫画与《哈克贝利·费恩历险记》进行互文性阅读与讨论的指导。他就影评写作和杂志故事中的价值观处理提供了专业建议（参见 Williams 1963）。威廉姆斯甚至教授具体方法——从"如何获取信息并[测验]其可靠性……[到]笔记记录方法，[以及]整合已获知识的系统方法"（Williams 1953: 249）。
Some of Williams’ colleagues and supervisors even claimed he inspired others more as a teacher than as a writer, including the Secretary of the Tutorial Classes Committee at Oxford: ‘He had something else, not just an academic brain, but the personality and purpose of an inspired educator’ (Fieldhouse 1993: 58). While I concede he did not publish tomes on critical pedagogy, Williams nonetheless introduced important methods for engaging students in discussion over educational communicators and their means of expression. His formative thoughts on the popular arts deserve serious attention by communication and education scholars today. We must not judge the merits of his contributions in degree (quantity), but rather in kind (quality), or else fail to recognize the danger in writing too much and ultimately saying nothing at all. In the next section, we will see how critical pedagogy’s aims paralleled Williams’ teaching of practical criticism in the Workers’ Education Association’s public expression tutorials. 威廉姆斯的某些同事和上级甚至认为，他作为教师比作为作家更能激励他人，这其中包括牛津大学辅导课程委员会的秘书："他具备某种特质，不仅拥有学术头脑，更具备一位富有灵性的教育者的人格与追求"（Fieldhouse 1993: 58）。虽然我承认他并未出版过批判教育学方面的鸿篇巨制，但威廉姆斯确实开创了重要方法，引导学生就教育传播者及其表达方式进行讨论。他关于流行艺术的奠基性思想，值得当今传播学与教育学学者认真关注。我们不应以学位（数量）来衡量其贡献的价值，而应以实质（质量）来评判，否则将无法认识到过度著述却最终言之无物的危害。下一节我们将看到，批判教育学的目标如何与威廉姆斯在工人教育协会公共表达辅导课中实践批评教学法形成呼应。
Practical criticism 实用批评
Practical criticism privileged a pre-literary analysis of educational communicators and their means of expression. Students evaluated mediated messages prior to reading ‘serious’ literature. Messages served as ‘good places to start … they may be handled in a simple way … with less harm than on a piece of literature’ (Williams 1979a: 78). The bulk of his learners’ private reading lists did not include literary classics, but rather stories and other documents written by journalists and propagandists. 实用批评优先对教育传播者及其表达手段进行前文学分析。学生在阅读"严肃"文学作品前，会先评估这些媒介信息。这些信息被视为"理想的起点……可以用简单方式处理……相比文学作品造成的伤害更小"（威廉斯 1979a: 78）。他的学生私人阅读清单中大部分并非文学经典，而是记者和宣传人员撰写的故事及其他文件。
Educational communicators and their means of expression offered a mixture of ideas worth keeping and clearing. Students learned to distinguish invaluable from valueless content: ‘a clearing process is important as a practical testing ground for values, and it is given point and worth by the discovery and affirmation of that small body of work which has permanent value’ (Williams 1953a: 28). As an instructor, Williams stressed the importance of primary value-judgments in the analysis of educational communicators as if their messages were literary texts layered with meaningful and meaningless content (see Williams 1948). 教育传播者及其表达手段提供了值得保留与清除的混合思想。学生学会了区分珍贵与无价值的内容："筛选过程作为价值观的实践检验场至关重要，其意义与价值在于发现并确认那少量具有永恒价值的作品"（威廉斯 1953a: 28）。作为讲师，威廉斯强调在分析教育传播者时初级价值判断的重要性，仿佛他们的信息是蕴含意义与无意义内容的文学文本（参见威廉斯 1948）。
Literary criticism was brought to bear on the shortcomings of film criticism and its disregard for aesthetic problems and procedures. ‘Serious’ magazines published by the British Film Institute failed to ably assist Williams and his colleagues in teaching the application of literary criticism to the motion picture. Institutional stock analyses merely summarized a film’s narrative and discussed actors in broad biographical sketches, furthering a divide Williams attempted to bridge in his own writing between literary and film criticism (see Williams 1947). The application of literary methods to educational communicators and their means of expression remained highly experimental, particularly in earlier versions of his public expression tutorials. 文学批评被用来审视电影批评的不足及其对美学问题和程序的忽视。英国电影研究所发行的"严肃"杂志未能有效协助威廉姆斯及其同事将文学批评方法应用于电影教学。机构性的常规分析仅止于概括电影叙事并以粗略的传记式笔触讨论演员，这加深了威廉姆斯在其著作中试图弥合的文学批评与电影批评之间的鸿沟（参见 Williams 1947）。将文学方法应用于教育传播者及其表达手段的尝试仍具有高度实验性，尤其在他早期版本的公共表达教程中体现得更为明显。
Williams applied literary devices of tone and mood to film, approaching the moving picture as if it were a piece of literature: 威廉姆斯将文学中的语调与氛围手法移植到电影领域，将动态影像视同文学作品进行处理：
the normal written work, in this part of the course, consisted of full and detailed description of a brief sequence, and it was very noticeable how quickly most students were able to improve their capacity for observing and recording a total rather than a select content. 在这部分课程中，常规的书面作业要求对简短片段进行完整细致的描述，值得注意的是大多数学生能迅速提升他们观察并记录整体而非选择性内容的能力。
(Williams 1953a: 33) （威廉斯 1953a: 33）
With attention paid to the whole and its parts, Williams instructed students to dynamically approximate what they would normally do when closely reading a novel. This could have involved turning back a page when necessary and proceeding at a slower pace, or stopping a dramatic scene to think through its structure. In addition to relying on literature, students offered testimonials as partial evidence in what he termed ‘attentive seeing and listening’ exercises (Williams 1953a). 威廉姆斯指导学生既要关注整体又要兼顾局部，动态地模拟他们通常精读小说时的行为方式。这可能包括必要时回翻前页以放慢阅读节奏，或是暂停某个戏剧性场景来思考其结构布局。除了依托文学作品外，学生们还通过他称为"专注观察与倾听"的训练（Williams 1953a）提供证言作为部分佐证。
Practical criticism became a form of social training in the slow reading of what filmic messages did or did not say. Preparation began with a series of questions on relations between typographic and filmic texts. Williams guided students in close readings of passages paired with sets of critical inquiries, including the typical triad of ‘what does it say, how does it say it, and why does it say it.’ Consonant with critical pedagogy, students constructed knowledge of the film industry and its texts on their own terms. Most assignments required adult learners to prepare arguments useful to their professions. For example, students drew on published evidence to produce their own workplace reports (see Williams 1947). 实用批评成为了一种社会训练形式，旨在培养对电影讯息表意内涵的细读能力。教学准备始于一系列关于印刷文本与电影文本关系的提问。威廉姆斯指导学生通过精读文本段落配合批判性质询——包括"表达内容、表达方式及表达目的"这一典型三重框架——开展学习。与批判教育学相呼应，学生们基于自身认知建构对电影工业及其文本的理解。多数作业要求成人学习者准备与其职业相关的论证材料。例如，学生需援引公开证据撰写职场分析报告（参见 Williams 1947）。
Based on his interpretation of the work of F.R. Leavis, I.A. Richards and E.P. Thompson, Williams claimed context as less important than a text’s own problematic before 1955. He taught ‘the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text’ during this stage of his tutorial career. Williams believed knowledge could not readily reveal itself prior to reading a primary source. Before comparing a text with society at large, one had to carefully work through its core problematic. He experimented with different techniques to open up new possibilities for close criticism (see Inglis 1995). 根据他对 F.R.利维斯、I.A.理查兹和 E.P.汤普森著作的解读，威廉斯在 1955 年前主张语境不如文本自身的问题性重要。在他辅导课教学的这一阶段，他秉持"文本、完整文本、唯有文本"的原则。威廉斯认为知识无法在阅读原始文献前轻易显现。在将文本与整体社会进行比较之前，必须仔细梳理其核心问题性。他尝试了多种技术手段，为细读批评开辟新的可能性（参见 Inglis 1995）。
It was not only his perspectives on reading and writing that allowed practical criticism to work. Williams also distinguished a democratic, missionary model of public educators from a kind of industrial humanism. The older humanist model framed education as a touchstone of elite values and agrarian life. Trainers matched workers with an appropriate job in industrial society. In contrast, public educators in the missionary model encouraged learners to think freely and invent new tasks for the common good (see Williams 1961a). Many conservatives judged the popular arts as risky educational endeavours, yet mutual trust between student and teacher 使实用批评得以奏效的，不仅是他对阅读与写作的见解。威廉斯还区分了公共教育者的民主传教模式与某种工业人文主义。旧式人文主义模式将教育视为精英价值观与农耕生活的试金石——培训者将工人匹配到工业社会的合适岗位；而传教模式的公共教育者则鼓励学习者自由思考，为公共利益创造新任务（参见 Williams 1961a）。尽管许多保守派将大众艺术视为危险的教育尝试，但师生间的相互信任
calmed reactionary anxieties, at least to some degree. Regardless of the perspective, Williams promoted the practical criticism of public expression throughout his adult education career. He fervently defended the potential for educational communicators to produce messages worthy of evaluation: 在一定程度上缓解了反动焦虑。无论持何种立场，威廉斯在其成人教育生涯中始终倡导对公共表达进行实用批评。他热忱捍卫教育传播者创造值得评估的信息之潜力：
If adult education cannot handle and assess an institution which weekly serves the leisure of twenty-five million British adults, and which deals well or badly, but at least with great emotive power, with the values of man and society, then adult education deserves to fade. 如果成人教育无法妥善评估一个每周为两千五百万英国成年人提供休闲服务、并以强大情感力量处理人与社会价值观（无论处理得当与否）的机构，那么成人教育理应走向式微。
(Williams 1947: 15) （威廉斯 1947: 15）
Classroom exercises regularly accounted for educational communicators and their permanent potential to produce high and folk art, effectively blurring distinctions between classes. 课堂练习始终关注教育传播者及其持续创造高雅艺术与民谣艺术的潜力，有效消弭了阶级区隔。
With a backlash against elitism, Williams reminded us that pedagogues must fess up to their students’ popular desires: 面对反精英主义的浪潮，威廉斯提醒教育者必须正视学生的通俗文化诉求：
In the classroom we are often very deferent about the past. We make nice remarks about the Essays of Elia, in an essentially genteel way, but when it gets to television, or the newspapers, or the advertisements, you wouldn’t know us for the same men! How fierce we can be … We have almost assumed it is our birthright, because we are in education, to claim that the rest of this stuff is inferior. 在教室里，我们常常对过去表现得毕恭毕敬。我们会以极其文雅的方式赞美《伊利亚随笔》，可一旦话题转向电视、报纸或广告，你简直认不出我们还是同一群人！我们变得多么咄咄逼人……我们几乎理所当然地认为，既然身处教育领域，就有权宣称其他这些东西都是低劣的。
(Williams 1961a: 197) （威廉姆斯 1961a：197）
He took great pains to challenge this tendency throughout his public expression and practical criticism tutorials for the Workers’ Education Association. The next section’s stress on politics complements the origins and outcomes of critical pedagogy and practical criticism. 他竭尽全力通过工人教育协会的公开演讲与实践批评课程来挑战这种倾向。下一节对政治性的强调，与批判教育学及实践批评的起源和成果形成了互补。
Political principles 政治原则
Classroom discussions on news images or comic books do not always compel us to consciously acknowledge our political ideologies. We need only recall Elizabeth Ellsworth’s concise observation that political positions are usually stripped from classroom discussions (see Ellsworth 1989). Formative political beliefs that shape what we think and say are rarely voiced in the classroom. Yet we ignore the politics of pedagogy at our peril, for excuses of innocence will not spare us from the ideologies of family, friends, colleagues and mediated state apparatuses. 关于新闻图片或漫画书的课堂讨论并不总能迫使我们有意识地承认自己的政治意识形态。我们只需回想伊丽莎白·埃尔斯沃思的简明观察——政治立场通常被排除在课堂讨论之外（参见 Ellsworth 1989）。那些塑造我们思想与言论的根本政治信念，很少在教室中被表达出来。然而忽视教学法的政治属性是危险的，因为天真的借口无法使我们免受来自家庭、朋友、同事以及国家媒介机器的意识形态影响。
Scholars have merged educational communicators means of expression with political principles. Henry (iiroux refers to the culture industries as spaces for democratic education, with explicit references to new and old media institutions: 学者们已将教育传播者的表达方式与政治原则相融合。亨利·吉鲁将文化工业视为民主教育的空间，并明确提及新旧媒体机构：
I have stressed that these new sites of education, which I call the realm of public pedagogy, are crucial to any notion of politics because they are the sites in which people often learn, unlearn or simply do not get the knowledge and skills that prepare them to become critical agents. 我强调这些新的教育场所——我称之为公共教育学领域——对任何政治概念都至关重要，因为正是在这些场所中，人们经常获取、摒弃或根本接触不到那些培养他们成为批判性行动者所需的知识与技能。
(Guilherme 2006: 171-2) （吉尔赫姆 2006：171-2）
The new-old bifurcation appears outmoded today, largely because the surface has changed in so-called ‘new media’ while the substance underneath remains virtually the same. Whether we categorize conduits as new or old misses the political forms that shape their functions. 如今，新旧二分法已显得过时，主要是因为所谓"新媒体"的表层形式虽已改变，但深层实质几乎原封未动。将传播渠道简单归类为新旧，反而遮蔽了塑造其功能的政治形态。
Williams interpreted education as an institutional act. He thought a cultural revolution would deepen democracy and encourage others to resist bureaucratic limitations imposed by educators who followed institutional mandates. Although both Williams and Paulo Freire acknowledged the inherent difficulty in understanding relations between teachers, students and society at large, the very nature of education as an institution required them to overcome that difficulty (see Freire 1998). Classroom practices have continuously absorbed, reflected and refracted institutional politics. 威廉斯将教育阐释为一种制度性行为。他认为文化革命能深化民主，激励人们抵制那些遵循制度指令的教育者所施加的官僚主义桎梏。尽管威廉斯与保罗·弗莱雷都承认理解教师、学生及社会整体关系的固有难度，但教育作为制度的本质属性要求他们必须克服这种认知困境（参见 Freire 1998）。教室实践始终在吸收、映照并折射着制度政治。
Stuart Hall described Williams’ response to contentious or otherwise political issues as one rooted in ‘particular preoccupations with broadly cultural questions’ (Hall 1989: 65), situating his classroom teaching between politics and culture. These constructs proved inseparable for two reasons. First, politicians and propagandists have increased the amount of information disseminated by educational communicators and offered their own commentary, not necessarily telling us how to think, but rather what to think about. Second, teachers and students have repeatedly confronted political pressures between internal and external power blocs. One cannot negotiate or contest institutional scripts when the means of negotiation or contestation depend on those very institutions for their rhetorical power in society. 斯图亚特·霍尔将威廉斯对争议性或政治性议题的回应描述为"根植于对广泛文化问题的特定关注"（霍尔 1989:65），将其课堂教学定位于政治与文化之间。这两种建构被证明不可分割的原因有二：首先，政客与宣传者既增加了教育传播者发布的信息量，又附加了自身评述——这些内容未必指导我们如何思考，却框定了思考对象；其次，师生群体不断遭遇内外权力集团之间的政治压力。当协商或抗争的修辞力量本身依赖于这些体制机构时，人们便难以对制度性脚本进行商榷或挑战。
Administrators classified Williams as a social-democratic member of the independent left, distinct from an organized left. We might reasonably question his investment in politicizing pedagogy, considering Williams’ earlier withdrawal from the Communist party and other administrative duties in 1949. Yet he criticized the press whenever it showed signs of pervasive or otherwise persuasive influence, drawing a distinction between propaganda and education. Along with his colleagues, Williams advocated Labour government funding of popular education in response to hourgeois press campaigns and their influence on public opinion (see Mcllroy 1991). 行政管理者将威廉斯归类为独立左翼中的社会民主派成员，区别于有组织的左翼力量。考虑到威廉斯早在 1949 年就退出共产党并卸任其他行政职务，我们或许可以合理质疑他对教学政治化的投入。然而每当新闻界显示出具有渗透性或说服性影响的迹象时，他都会予以批评，明确区分宣传与教育。威廉斯与同仁们共同主张工党政府应资助大众教育，以抗衡资产阶级新闻宣传活动及其对舆论的影响（参见 Mcllroy 1991）。
At the end of the day, he reached two conclusions on the politics of educational communicators and their distribution of power: we cannot separate education from society, and we must trust in a full version of effective democracy, or one that includes the culture industries as opportunities for real education (see Williams 1959). By permitting politics to inform his pedagogical practices, Williams joined democracy with public 最终他关于教育传播者政治立场及其权力分配得出了双重结论：我们无法将教育与社会割裂，且必须信任完整意义上的有效民主——这种民主应将文化产业纳入真正教育的机遇范畴（参见 Williams 1959）。通过允许政治理念渗透其教学实践，威廉斯将民主制度与公共......
education in order to communicate the impact of social forces to his students, including the need for equitable ownership of the culture industries (see Giroux 2004; Patterson 2005). 为了向学生传达社会力量的影响，包括文化产业的公平所有权需求（参见 Giroux 2004；Patterson 2005），教育显得尤为重要。
Williams believed social forces would pave a path towards equality in the management of resources. Moreover, he hoped actor and worker guilds would distribute control over the means of expression through public ownership. The desire to create guilds was born not only across work sites, factories and office spaces, but in the culture industries of book publishers and film distributors. Williams lectured on ownership politics in an effort to socialize the relations of power distribution, effectively calling for a new system in which society owned the means of expression in trust (see Williams 1962). 威廉姆斯认为社会力量将为资源管理中的平等开辟道路。此外，他期望演员和工人行会能通过公有制来分配对表达手段的控制权。创建行会的愿望不仅诞生于工地、工厂和办公场所，还出现在图书出版商和电影发行商等文化产业中。威廉姆斯通过讲授所有权政治来推动权力分配关系的社会化，实质上呼吁建立一种由社会以信托形式拥有表达手段的新体系（参见 Williams 1962）。
Educational communicators have long functioned as carriers of ideology ‘which all citizens in a democratic society ought to be educated on’ (Masterman 1998: x). This idea downplays high-class claims of entitlement in favour of an egalitarian public sphere. We may only recover press freedom by continuously improving a political system that has hecome wholly unresponsive and inadequate to democratic life’ (Stevenson 1997: 97). His long revolution referred in part to the creation of an educated and participatory democracy. Empowerment of the greatest number over the means of creation, circulation and consumption might even shorten its length. 长期以来，教育传播者一直充当着意识形态载体的角色，"所有民主社会公民都应接受这种意识形态教育"（Masterman 1998: x）。这一理念弱化了上流社会对特权的诉求，转而倡导平等的公共领域。"我们只有通过持续改进已完全无法响应民主生活需求的政治制度，才能重获新闻自由"（Stevenson 1997: 97）。他所言的"漫长的革命"部分指向建立一个由受过教育的公民参与的民主政体。让最大多数人掌握文化生产、传播与消费的手段，甚至可能缩短这场革命的进程。
Beyond 2000 超越 2000 年
This chapter has positioned educational communicators and Williams as fellow-travellers at an early conjunction, with larger implications for an unwritten history of engagement between communication and education as interdisciplinary projects. Recognition of Williams as a founding father of that history is not simply symbolic; rather, it holds epistemological consequences for a set of knowledge claims that originate in the academy. Whom we reference or discount as influences on our scholarly work signals a potential for trust and transference between author and reader. Future research on the conjunction will only benefit from a more reflexive history of ideas on the intersection between communication and education. The conjunction captures the contextual nature of a space in which critical pedagogy, practical criticism and political principles overlap. 本章将教育传播者与威廉斯定位为早期交汇点的同行者，这对书写传播学与教育学作为跨学科项目相互交融的未竟历史具有深远意义。将威廉斯视为这一历史的奠基人不仅具有象征意义，更对源自学院体系的一系列知识主张产生认识论层面的影响。我们在学术著作中选择援引或忽略哪些思想资源，实则暗示着作者与读者之间建立信任与知识传递的可能性。未来关于这一交汇点的研究，必将从对传播与教育交叉领域思想史更具反思性的梳理中获益。该交汇点深刻体现了批判教育学、实用批评与政治原则相互重叠的空间语境特性。
Critical pedagogy illustrated the importance of student-centred learning and active teaching. Williams moved from a critical to a more didactic, though no less democratic, teaching style in the second half of the 1950s. A concern for learners’ everyday interests proved central to his teaching method: ‘the problem was one which students were better able to handle when their interest in the thing about which the statements were being made had been engaged’ (Williams 1948: 96). Williams empowered his students to evaluate educational communicators and their everyday means of expression. 批判教育学阐明了以学生为中心的学习和主动教学的重要性。威廉姆斯在 20 世纪 50 年代后半期从批判性教学转向了一种更具说教性但同样民主的教学风格。关注学习者的日常兴趣被证明是其教学法的核心："当学生对所讨论的事物产生兴趣时，他们就能更好地处理这个问题"（威廉姆斯 1948: 96）。威廉姆斯赋予学生评估教育传播者及其日常表达方式的能力。
Practical criticism referred to Williams’ method of close reading, or very slow analysis. The importance of his public expression tutorials was highlighted in the evaluation of educational communicators and their means of expression, discussing how he brought methods of literary criticism to bear on the silver screen. Williams designed several teaching plans based in the understanding of institutional processes. This section also distinguished a democratic, missionary model of public education from industrial humanism. 实用批评指的是威廉姆斯的细读方法，即极其缓慢的分析。在评估教育传播者及其表达手段时，他公开的表达指导课的重要性得到了凸显，讨论了他如何将文学批评方法应用于银幕分析。威廉姆斯基于对制度流程的理解设计了几套教学方案。本节还将民主的、传教式的公共教育模式与工业人文主义进行了区分。
The next section demonstrated how ownership distribution, propaganda and institutional agreements continue to push politics into halls of learning. We cannot separate politics from pedagogy, just as preferred methods of teaching and learning do not easily divorce themselves from the ideologies of their teachers and learners. Williams’ writing assignments created opportunities for adult education students to evaluate acts and artefacts manufactured by the culture industries (see Williams 1961a). A need to expose the hegemony of industry oligopolies continues in the United States today, for it is in this state of affairs that we witness homogeneity and apathy in action while the few control the means of expression. Conservative criticism only summons feckless threats to freedoms of the press; free thought thrives with equally distributed ownership over the means of expression (see Williams 1989a). 下一部分展示了所有权分配、宣传与制度性协议如何持续将政治推入教育殿堂。我们无法将政治与教学法割裂，正如偏好的教学方法与学习方式同样难以脱离师生所持的意识形态。威廉姆斯的写作任务为成人教育学员创造了评估文化工业产制行为与人工制品的机会（参见 Williams 1961a）。揭露行业寡头霸权的需求在当今美国依然存在——正是在这种境况下，我们目睹了思想同质化与冷漠的蔓延，而少数人掌控着表达渠道。保守派批评仅能对新闻自由发出徒劳的威胁；唯有实现表达手段的平等分配，自由思想方能蓬勃发展（参见 Williams 1989a）。
The phrase ‘educational communicators’ merits keyword status. We need only acknowledge its individual and collective resonance, somewhere between a drawing out of what is our own and a leading forth of what is not. Williams’ work on educational communicators ‘resounds with numerous examples of how the most individualistic of activities are marked by the presence of community’ (Lloyd 2005: 99). Keywords are born in particular contexts and open themselves up to appropriation by transdisciplinary scholars. While his pregnant ideas on Marxism, politics and technology have already penetrated several disciplines, the time to write the interdisciplinary history of communication and education has arrived, for it is through educational communicators and their means of expression that ‘our ideas of the world, of ourselves, and of our possibilities, are most widely and often most powerfully formed and disseminated’ (Williams 1962: 16). Our very identities depend on working through real and imaginary perceptions of mediated reality. These perceptions coalesce in the popular forms we know them by: film, advertising, books, magazines, music and so forth. Evaluations of educational communicators and their means of expression challenge what one discipline alone could ever hope to achieve. “教育传播者”这一短语值得被赋予关键词地位。我们只需认识到它蕴含的个体与集体共鸣——这种共鸣既源于对自我内在的发掘，也来自对外在世界的引领。威廉斯关于教育传播者的研究"以大量例证展现了最个人化的活动如何被共同体存在所标记"（Lloyd 2005: 99）。关键词诞生于特定语境，并向跨学科学者敞开挪用空间。尽管他关于马克思主义、政治与技术的丰赡思想已渗透多个学科领域，但书写传播与教育的跨学科史恰逢其时——因为正是通过教育传播者及其表达方式，"我们关于世界、自我与可能性的观念才得以最广泛且往往最有力地形成与传播"（Williams 1962: 16）。我们的身份认同正取决于对媒介化现实的真实与想象认知的梳理过程。这些认知凝结为我们熟知的流行形式：电影、广告、书籍、杂志、音乐等等。 对教育传播者及其表达方式的评估挑战了单一学科所能企及的成就。
Acknowledgments 致谢
I wish to thank Justin Mann, Ben Peters and Andy Ellis for useful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. I am also grateful to Lawrence Grossberg, Roman Horak and Monika Seidl for their revision suggestions. 我要感谢贾斯汀·曼、本·彼得斯和安迪·埃利斯对本章初稿提出的宝贵意见。同时感谢劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格、罗曼·霍拉克和莫妮卡·赛德尔提供的修订建议。
Notes 注释
1 A very brief mention of ‘educational communicators’ by Alan O’Connor provoked my question of what was behind and in front of this potentially fruitful term. Roger Fieldhouse and others have associated ‘fellow-travellers’ with the lexicon of McCarthyism, and the search for communists in Britain at the outbreak of the Cold War. Williams was largely spared from the hunt. I exercise some degree of artistic licence and neutralize the descriptor to link Williams instead with the teaching of culture industries and their mediated messages. 1 艾伦·奥康纳对"教育传播者"的简短提及，引发了我对这个潜在丰硕术语背后与实质的追问。罗杰·菲尔德豪斯等学者将"同路人"一词与麦卡锡主义词汇相关联，追溯冷战爆发时英国对共产主义者的清查。威廉斯基本未受这场猎巫行动波及。笔者在此稍作艺术处理，将这一表述中性化，转而将威廉斯与文化产业的教化功能及其媒介化信息相联系。
2 Asa Briggs’s volume on communications and education provides a starting point for this project, though mostly from a British perspective. Gavriel Salomon’s work on communication and education has crossed disciplinaty boundaries, though from a social and psychological perspective. 2 阿萨·布里格斯的关于传播与教育的著作为本项目提供了起点，尽管主要是从英国视角出发。加夫列尔·所罗门关于传播与教育的研究跨越了学科界限，尽管是从社会和心理学的角度切入。
3 Here I am grateful to Shapiro for vocalizing a US neglect of Williams’ work on education, yet I hope our mutual surprise by its absence will not continue for long. 3 在此我要感谢夏皮罗指出美国学界对威廉斯教育研究的忽视，但我希望我们对其缺失的共同惊讶不会持续太久。
4 The goals of communication education include transmitting cultural knowledge. developing students’ intellectual and career skills, and reshaping the values of society. This last goal holds the greatest political potential. 4 传播教育的目标包括传递文化知识、培养学生的智识与职业技能，以及重塑社会价值观。其中最后一项目标具有最大的政治潜力。
5 By the canon of critical pedagogy I refer to the work of Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, Michael Apple, Peter McLaren, Antonia Darder, bell hooks and Ira Shor, among others. Giroux is one of the few who has credited Williams as an important inspiration for critical pedagogy. 5 我所指的批判教育学经典包括保罗·弗莱雷、亨利·吉鲁、迈克尔·阿普尔、彼得·麦克拉伦、安东尼娅·达德、贝尔·胡克斯和艾拉·肖尔等人的著作。吉鲁是为数不多将威廉斯视为批判教育学重要启发者的学者之一。
6 Gray’s description of pedagogy as an active and reflexive dialogue between students and teachers resonates with those who closely followed Williams’ own classroom practices. 6. 格雷将教学法描述为学生与教师之间积极而反思性的对话，这与那些密切关注威廉姆斯自身课堂实践的人产生了共鸣。
The pedagogy of cultural materialism: Paulo Freire and Raymond Williams 文化唯物主义的教学法：保罗·弗莱雷与雷蒙德·威廉斯
Hywel Rowland Dix 海韦尔·罗兰·迪克斯
Paulo Freire was one of the most significant radical progressive pedagogues in twentieth-century history. His work in adult education in Brazil, Switzerland and certain Portuguese-speaking post-colonial societies in Africa was joined with his left-wing socialist aspirations for improving political structures in those societies. Freire’s attitude to education is not separable from his attempt to address political challenges. It was through education that the impoverished peoples of Brazil or Guinea-Bissau would learn to confront the causes of their oppression and hence take the first steps towards being able to alleviate them. 保罗·弗莱雷是二十世纪历史上最具影响力的激进进步教育学家之一。他在巴西、瑞士以及非洲某些葡语后殖民社会开展的成人教育工作，与他改善这些社会政治结构的左翼社会主义理想紧密结合。弗莱雷的教育观与其应对政治挑战的尝试密不可分。正是通过教育，巴西或几内亚比绍的贫困民众才能学会直面压迫根源，从而迈出缓解困境的第一步。
In the work of twentieth-century British intellectual Raymond Williams, too, there is an important conjunction between a revolutionary educational programme and the reform of political institutions. Williams, like Freire, worked in adult education during the formative years of his career. Williams sought to demystify political and cultural structures by emphasizing the ordinariness of participation in the cultural sphere. His suggestion that railwaymen and coalminers had made as important a contribution to human culture as painters with princely patronage was made explicitly in order to demonstrate the rightness of universal participation in public cultural and political life. 在 20 世纪英国知识分子雷蒙德·威廉斯的著作中，同样存在着革命性教育计划与政治制度改革的重要结合。与弗莱雷相似，威廉斯在其职业生涯的形成期曾从事成人教育工作。他通过强调参与文化领域的平凡性，试图揭开政治与文化结构的神秘面纱。他明确指出铁路工人和矿工对人类文化的贡献与受王公赞助的画家同样重要，这一主张正是为了证明公众普遍参与文化政治生活的正当性。
In the work of Williams and Freire, the boundary between political and cultural activities is systematically eroded. Both writers suggest that participation in the cultural activities most present in daily life and work brings a particular awareness of political needs and political situations. Culture and education, in other words, are themselves political things. The name Raymond Williams gave to this overhaul of the traditional demarcation was cultural materialism. 在威廉斯与弗莱雷的著作中，政治活动与文化活动的界限被系统性消解。两位作者都认为，参与日常生活中最普遍的文化活动能带来对政治需求和政治局势的特殊认知。换言之，文化与教育本身就是政治事物。雷蒙德·威廉斯为这种传统界限的重构所命名的理论，正是文化唯物主义。
This chapter will consider some important biographical parallels between the lives and work of these two important socialist intellectuals and educators. It will go on to compare some of the explicit proposals made for a revolutionary education by both Freire and Williams, and conclude by exploring the ways in which both men examined the connections between a revolutionary political education and the wider crisis in capitalist society. 本章将探讨这两位重要的社会主义知识分子与教育家生平及工作之间的一些重要传记性相似之处。随后将比较弗莱雷与威廉姆斯各自提出的革命教育明确主张，并最终探究两人如何审视革命政治教育与资本主义社会更广泛危机之间的关联。
Biographical parallels 传记性相似之处
Paulo Freire 保罗·弗莱雷
Paulo Freire was born in Recife, the capital of Pernambuco, Brazil, in 1921. After a particularly loving and happy childhood, he studied law in that city between 1943 and 1947. His leftist political sympathies were already becoming apparent during these years and in fact he never practised law. After attempting to open a small practice, his only client was a creditor seeking distraint of equipment from a dentist in a relatively poor area. Freire could not bring himself to carry out such work. ^(1){ }^{1} 保罗·弗莱雷 1921 年出生于巴西伯南布哥州首府累西腓。在度过特别充满爱与欢乐的童年后，他于 1943 至 1947 年间在该市攻读法律。其左派政治倾向在这些年间已逐渐显现，事实上他从未执业。在尝试开设小型律师事务所时，他唯一的客户是位要求对相对贫困地区某牙医实施设备扣押的债权人。弗莱雷无法迫使自己执行此类工作。 ^(1){ }^{1}
Instead, after marrying elementary schoolteacher Elza Oliveira he became a teachcr of Portuguese. This was also not precisely the area in which he felt most able to reconcile the possibility of a professional career with his sense of the need for a thoroughgoing reform of Brazil’s social structure. Freire was becoming deeply impressed by the need to confront the matter of adult education in general, and adult literacy in particular, across the country. 相反，在娶了小学教师埃尔莎·奥利维拉后，他成为了一名葡萄牙语教师。这同样并非他自认最能调和职业发展可能性与巴西社会结构彻底改革需求的领域。弗莱雷日益深刻地意识到，必须在全国范围内直面成人教育问题，尤其是成人扫盲这一关键议题。
In August 1947 therefore he began working as a director of Pernambuco’s Division of Education and Culture. His commitment to the educational goals of the organization, combined with the ability to address major challenges energetically, resulted in a rapid rise. In 1957 he was transferred to the national section of the Division, although he continued to serve Pernambuco as a ‘Pioneer Council Member’ of the State’s Council on Education. In 1958 he firmly established himself as a forward-thinking if not yet revolutionary - educator, when his "Education of adults and marginal populations: the Mocambos problem’ was presented at the second national conference on education in Rio de Janeiro in July of that year. A promising career as an educational reformer seemed destined to follow. 1947 年 8 月，他开始担任伯南布哥州教育与文化局局长。他对该机构教育目标的执着追求，加之应对重大挑战的卓越能力，使其迅速获得晋升。1957 年他被调任至该局的全国部门，同时仍以"先驱委员"身份服务于伯南布哥州教育委员会。1958 年 7 月，当他在里约热内卢第二届全国教育会议上发表《成人及边缘群体教育：莫坎博问题》报告时，这位虽未达革命性但极具前瞻思维的教育家已奠定其学术地位。作为教育改革者的辉煌事业似乎已注定随之展开。
This early success did not come without a price, however. Freire, like many of his colleagues and friends at the national conference, did not see education simply as a tool to provide certain skills and therefore offer the student entry into a certain area of paid work. His approach to education was rather to use education as a space in which an increasingly imporerished and subordinate population could explore and understand the conditions creating their oppression, and therefore to take the first steps towards alleviating those conditions. He was one of the founders of Recife’s Movement for Popular ( Culture, which sought to increase the participation of a greater number of people in the social and public life of the country, primarily by combating the image of an ignorant, uneducated mass. 然而，这一早期的成功并非没有代价。与全国会议上许多同事和朋友一样，弗莱雷并不将教育仅仅视为提供特定技能、从而让学生进入某个有偿工作领域的工具。他的教育理念是将教育作为一个空间，让日益贫困和处于从属地位的人群能够探索并理解造成他们受压迫的境况，从而迈出改善这些境况的第一步。他是累西腓大众文化运动的创始人之一，该运动旨在通过消除人们对无知、未受教育群体的刻板印象，让更多人参与国家社会和公共生活。
These activities did not sit well with the work of the military junta that seized power in Brazil in 1964. Freire was dismissed in absentia from his role as “Pioneer Council Member” of Pernambuco’s State Council on Education, and was in effect retired from his pedagogical role at the University of Recife. He went into exile, first in Bolivia, and then in Chile, until he was 这些活动与 1964 年夺取巴西政权的军政府的工作格格不入。弗莱雷被缺席免除了伯南布哥州教育委员会"先锋委员"的职务，实际上也从累西腓大学的教学岗位上退休。他先是流亡到玻利维亚，随后又前往智利，直至——
invited to travel to the USA to teach at Harvard during 1969 and 1970, and to work for the World Council of Churches. It was in the employment of the World Council that he made longer sojourns to former Portuguese colonies in Africa: Cape Verde, Angola, and especially Guinea-Bissau. It was in this anti-colonial and post-colonial context that Freire’s attempts at reforming adult literacy, and his efforts to use this as a means of increasing political consciousness among the people, reached revolutionary levels. In Guinea-Bissau he met and advised Mario Cabral, education commissioner of the country’s revolutionary anti-imperial government. 1969 至 1970 年间，弗莱雷受邀赴美国哈佛大学任教，并为世界基督教协进会工作。正是在该机构任职期间，他长期驻留非洲前葡萄牙殖民地：佛得角、安哥拉，尤其是几内亚比绍。在这种反殖民与后殖民语境下，弗莱雷推行的成人扫盲改革及其将扫盲作为提升民众政治觉悟手段的实践，达到了革命性高度。在几内亚比绍，他会见了该国革命反帝政府的教育专员马里奥·卡布拉尔并为其提供咨询。
Freire carried out similar work across Africa and parts of Asia, but not to his sorrow - in Brazil until the political thawing of 1979-80. Even then, the political climate prevented him from returning to his home in Recife. It was as a professor at the relatively distant university of São Paulo that he returned to public life in Brazil, and he held this post until his death in 1997. This was not before two significant late achievements. He played a prominent part in achieving the election of a Worker Party candidate as mayor of São Paulo in 1988, and subsequently worked as Secretary of Education for that city. Perhaps more personally significant was the symbolic restitution that was made for his dismissal from the University of Recife in 1964. This came in March 1991 when he was reinstated as professor at the University of Pernambuco (as the university had recently been renamed). Although he was immediately retired from this reinstated post, the reappointment enabled Freire to achieve a late reconciliation with his home and with his people. 弗莱雷在非洲和亚洲部分地区开展了类似的工作，但令他遗憾的是——直到 1979-80 年巴西政治解冻前都未能回国。即便那时，政治气候仍阻碍他回到累西腓的家乡。他是以圣保罗大学（这个相对遥远的学术机构）教授身份重返巴西公共生活的，并在此职位上工作直至 1997 年去世。在此之前，他取得了两项重要的晚期成就：1988 年他助力工人党候选人当选圣保罗市长，随后担任该市教育局长；更具个人意义的或许是 1964 年被累西腓大学解职后获得的象征性平反——1991 年 3 月他被复聘为伯南布哥大学（该校新近更名）教授。虽然随即从复聘职位退休，但这次重新任命使弗莱雷在晚年实现了与故乡和同胞的和解。
Raymond Williams 雷蒙德·威廉斯
British socialist intellectual and educator Raymond Williams was born, like Paulo Freire, in 1921. Williams was born and brought up in the village of Pandy, on the ‘virtual’ border between England and Wales. Indeed, later in life, Williams’ commitment to redefining social democracy would at times become complicated by a confused sense of Welshness and Britishness. It would come to seem too tempting to equate ‘England’ with ‘ruling class imperium’ and ‘Wales’ with working class oppression. It was to avoid such simplistic constructions that Williams grappled with his sense of his own Welsh identity during the 1970s and 1980s, in the face of a capitalist political onslaught from London. This dual commitment to one particular place and something much greater than it perhaps recalls Paulo Freire’s work both for the state of Pernambuco and for the Brazilian nation more generally up until 1964. 英国社会主义知识分子与教育家雷蒙德·威廉斯与保罗·弗莱雷同年出生于 1921 年。威廉斯在英格兰与威尔士"虚拟"交界处的潘迪村长大成人。事实上，威廉斯后期致力于重新定义社会民主主义的历程，常因对威尔士性与不列颠性的认知困惑而变得复杂。将"英格兰"等同于"统治阶级霸权"，把"威尔士"简化为工人阶级受压迫的象征，这种简单化倾向曾极具诱惑力。正是为了避免此类简化建构，威廉斯在 1970 至 1980 年代伦敦资本主义政治攻势下，持续叩问自身的威尔士身份认同。这种对特定地域与更宏大范畴的双重忠诚，或许令人联想到保罗·弗莱雷 1964 年前既为伯南布哥州效力，又为整个巴西民族奋斗的工作轨迹。
Raymond Williams, like Freire, appears to have enjoyed an unusually warm and close family childhood, before being exiled from that home environment with important implications for his subsequent life and work. For Williams, however, the conditions of exile were subtle and indirect. In 与弗莱雷相似，雷蒙德·威廉斯似乎拥有异常温暖亲密的童年家庭生活，但随后被迫远离家园的经历对其毕生事业产生了深远影响。不过威廉斯的"流放"条件更为微妙间接。
1939, he left Pandy to enter the University of Cambridge as an undergraduate reading English - despite never having applied to enter the university. His schoolmaster, spotting his intellectual potential, had arranged an application to Trinity College, Cambridge, in league with his father. They had chosen to keep Williams uninformed of the application in order to avoid potential disappointment. Moreover, in 1961, when Williams was working in adult education with the extramural delegacy of Oxford University, he received a letter informing him of his election to a fellowship at Jesus College, Cambridge. A postal mix-up resulted in him only subsequently receiving the letter inviting him to apply. Thus on each occasion Williams entered the university without having sought to do so. 1939 年，他离开潘迪进入剑桥大学攻读英语本科——尽管从未申请过该校。他的校长发现了他的学术潜力，与其父亲合作为他安排了剑桥大学三一学院的申请。他们选择对威廉姆斯隐瞒此事，以免他可能失望。此外，1961 年，当威廉姆斯在牛津大学校外教育代表团从事成人教育工作时，他收到一封信通知他当选剑桥大学耶稣学院的研究员。由于邮递失误，他后来才收到邀请他申请的函件。因此，威廉姆斯每次进入大学都并非主动求取。
This exile of sorts is recorded in Williams’ autobiographical novel, Border Country. Williams himself asserted later in life that the novel was produced at a time when his intellectual and social alienation from Pandy and hence from the whole Welsh working class was most complete. The scene in Border Country where the protagonist returns from Cambridge to confront a childhood sweetheart is frigid and bitter. Perhaps even more significantly, the novel itself was written as Williams’ way of making peace with his father, who passed away in 1958 before Williams had become reconciled to him. 这种自我放逐的经历被威廉姆斯记录在其自传体小说《边境乡村》中。威廉姆斯晚年曾坦言，这部小说创作于他在思想上和社会关系上与潘迪镇——乃至整个威尔士工人阶级——最为疏离的时期。《边境乡村》中主人公从剑桥归来面对青梅竹马的场景冰冷而苦涩。更具深意的是，这部小说本身就是威廉姆斯试图与父亲和解的方式——其父于 1958 年离世，而彼时父子尚未达成和解。
1958 was a crucial formative year for Williams. The protracted illness and death of his father threw him into a drama of contradictions surrounding his own class and professional alienation. Moreover, that year, the same year that Paulo Freire delivered his important address to Brazil’s second national conference on elucation also saw Williams preparing the manuscript of his career-making book, Culture und Societs, for publication (Williams 1958). 1958 年是威廉姆斯成长历程中至关重要的一年。父亲漫长的病痛与离世使他深陷阶级身份与职业归属的矛盾漩涡。同年，当保罗·弗莱雷在巴西第二届国民教育大会上发表划时代演讲时，威廉姆斯也正在为其奠定学术地位的著作《文化与社会》准备出版手稿（威廉姆斯 1958）。
Countries, cities, and spoken books 国家、城市与有声典籍
Culture and Society is a Marxist critique on the capitalist process of reification. In it, Williams analysed British culture and writing from the Romantic period onwards. His goal was to identify how the concept of culture came to be understood as an essentially different category from that of society. By demonstrating how this separation became entrenched. Williams undertook a theoretical critipue of the capitalist ideology of the autonomy of different spheres of activity. He undertook this critique in order to demonstrate the deeper political and historical connections between cultural forms and social and historical processes. 《文化与社会》是对资本主义物化过程的马克思主义批判。威廉斯在书中分析了自浪漫主义时期以来的英国文化与写作，其目的在于揭示"文化"如何被建构为一个本质上不同于"社会"的范畴。通过论证这种区隔如何被固化，威廉斯对资本主义关于不同活动领域自主性的意识形态展开了理论批判。他进行这种批判，旨在揭示文化形式与社会历史进程之间更深层的政治与历史关联。
Like Freire’s work in the Movement for Popular Culture, Culture and Society sought to establish the possibility for widening the participation of a greater number of people in public cultural and political life. As with Freire, Williams sought to do this by attempting to re-evaluate the contributions made to culture by members of the working class, and hence by combating the common prejudice against the common people as an ignorant mass. 正如弗莱雷在民众文化运动中的工作，《文化与社会》试图为更多人参与公共文化政治生活开辟可能性。与弗莱雷相似，威廉斯通过重新评估工人阶级对文化的贡献来实现这一目标，从而对抗将平民视为无知群体的普遍偏见。
Williams began Culture and Society by drawing attention to five words which had come into English usage at around the end of the eighteenth century: industry, democracy, class, art, culture. To Williams, the emergence and historic variation in meaning of these words was evidence of a wider shift in social relations. ‘Industry’ had ceased to be understood as a general term for work, and had come to refer solely to the mechanized production of material goods in factories, with implications of danger, dirt and poor living conditions. ‘Class’ was then a term used in a rather rigid and deterministic way to refer to the people involved in this work - usually with negative connotations, as in the nineteenth-century phrase, lower class, and in contradistinction to the assumed refinement of a social elite, the upper class. 威廉斯在《文化与社会》开篇即指出十八世纪末进入英语用法的五个关键词：工业、民主、阶级、艺术、文化。在他看来，这些词汇的语义生成与历史流变，折射出社会关系的深层变革。"工业"不再泛指人类劳动，转而特指工厂机械化生产物质商品的过程，隐含着危险、肮脏与恶劣生存条件的意涵。"阶级"在当时被用作僵化决定论式的术语，专指从事此类劳动的人群——通常带有贬义色彩，如十九世纪习语"下层阶级"，并与假定优雅的社会精英"上层阶级"形成鲜明对照。
At the same time, ‘art’ had ceased to mean ‘skill’, and had instead come to refer to things such as painting, literature and music although the extreme vagueness of definition was one of the stimuli to Williams’ dissatisfaction with these terms. The same is true of ‘culture’, which had ceased to be used to refer to the cultivation and growth of crops, and was now being used instead as a synonym for ‘civilisation’. Yet the metaphoric appeal of the earlier meanings, ‘growth’ and ‘cultivation’, still retained a powerful general appeal, so that culture had implications of natural growth, beauty, harmony and peace. Culture was in short the opposite of industry. It was radically dissociated from the lives of people who worked in industry - that is, from the lives of the majority of people in Britain. ‘Democracy’ on this reckoning was tantamount to a dirty word. By offering to include people in social, political and cultural formations, it appeared to threaten the very structure of those formations. 与此同时，“艺术”已不再指代“技能”，转而专指绘画、文学与音乐等门类——尽管这种极度模糊的定义正是激发威廉斯对术语不满的动因之一。“文化”一词的演变轨迹亦复如是：它脱离了“作物培育”的本义，转而成为“文明”的同义词。然而早期语义中“生长”与“培育”的隐喻魅力仍保持着强大的感染力，使得文化天然蕴含着生长性、美感、和谐与宁静的意蕴。简言之，文化恰是工业的对立面。它与产业工人的生活——即当时英国大多数民众的生活——存在着根本性割裂。依此逻辑，“民主”几近沦为贬义词。当它试图将民众纳入社会、政治与文化建构时，反而显露出对这些建构根基的威胁性。
Culture and Society concludes with a series of insights into how an extended educational franchise is necessary to a functioning democracy, and vice versa. These included the then path-breaking proposals that a critique of newspaper-reading and commercial advertising should be included in a critical education, in order to enable the subjects of that education to operate in a fully functioning democracy. Williams’ educational aspirations, in other words, are not separable from his political aspiration to broaden the concept of socialist democracy. As he expounded in his 1961 study, The Long Revolution (Williams 1961), increased access to education would help to improve the political maturity of the people and therefore enable them to participate more fully in the political sphere by identifying their common needs and acting according to them. 《文化与社会》最终提出了一系列洞见，阐述扩展的教育权利对于民主政体正常运转的必要性，反之亦然。这些观点包含当时具有开创性的提议：批判性教育应当涵盖对报刊阅读与商业广告的批判，从而使受教育者能够在充分运作的民主社会中发挥作用。换言之，威廉斯的教育理想与其拓展社会主义民主概念的政治抱负密不可分。正如他在 1961 年的研究著作《漫长的革命》（Williams 1961）中所阐明的，教育普及度的提升将有助于提高人民的政治成熟度，进而通过识别共同需求并据此行动，使他们能够更充分地参与政治领域。
Culture and Society and The Long Revolution are the books which established Raymond Williams as an important activist in the fields of cultural politics and progressive education. Paulo Freire’s (1973) Pedagogy of the Oppressed was another such landmark in the history of radical educational reform. It was in this study that Freire first began to provide a detailed theory of what he called education for critical consciousness. Raymond 《文化与社会》和《漫长的革命》这两部著作确立了雷蒙德·威廉斯在文化政治与进步教育领域的重要活动家地位。保罗·弗莱雷（1973）的《被压迫者教育学》同样是激进教育改革史上的里程碑式著作。正是在这项研究中，弗莱雷首次系统阐述了他称之为"批判意识教育"的详细理论。
Williams’ erosion of the traditional demarcation between culture and politics, and his attempt to undermine the entrenched distinction between elite minority artistic movements and popular cultural forms, are paralleled in the work of Freire. In Freire, the separation of human life into differentiated activities - education, work, culture - is overcome via an emphasis on the pedagogical content of all activity. It is the emphasis of Freire’s education for critical consciousness that learning takes place concurrently with other activities. 威廉斯消解了文化与政治间的传统界限，试图瓦解精英少数派艺术运动与大众文化形式之间的固有分野，这种努力与弗莱雷的工作形成了呼应。在弗莱雷的理论中，通过强调所有活动都具有教学性内容，人类生活被分割为不同领域——教育、劳动、文化——的区隔得以克服。弗莱雷批判意识教育的核心要义在于：学习是与其他活动同步发生的。
The publishing careers of both men can be mapped onto each other with striking consistency. Freire’s work to improve adult literacy in the postcolonial world gave rise to a deeper concern for the problem of urban poverty, and how education has a part to play in tackling this. Freire’s Pedagogy of the City was an attempt to record the insights into adult education that he had gleaned from working in different African countries, and to transform them into a more general theoretical approach for understanding the imbrication of urban poverty with under-education. Raymond Williams was meanwhile moving in a different but not unrelated direction. 两人的出版事业轨迹呈现出惊人的一致性。弗莱雷在改善后殖民世界成人识字率的工作中，逐渐对城市贫困问题及其教育解决方案产生了更深层的关注。他所著的《城市教育学》试图记录从非洲各国成人教育实践中获得的洞见，并将其转化为理解城市贫困与教育不足相互交织关系的普适性理论框架。与此同时，雷蒙德·威廉斯正朝着不同但并非无关的研究方向迈进。
Williams’ 1973 study, The Country and the City ostensibly began life as a study of the origins and history of the pastoral mode in English literature. Williams used the city/countryside distinction as a controlling metaphor to describe a general set of capitalist relations, dividing the world up into controlling city and controlled country estate. This metaphorical pivot enabled Williams to extend the scope of his work to encompass a much broader range of capitalist relations than would ordinarily be found in pastoral poetry. At the conclusion of The Country and the City, Williams extends the country house working hinterland metaphor, and suggests that the dominance of country house over sprawling estate, and of metropolitan city over hinterland, is comparable to the dominance exerted by the imperial nations over their colonies: 威廉斯 1973 年的著作《乡村与城市》表面上始于对英国文学中田园模式起源与历史的研究。他以城乡区分为核心隐喻，用以描述资本主义关系的整体架构——将世界划分为掌控性的城市与被掌控的乡村庄园。这一隐喻支点使威廉斯得以突破传统田园诗的局限，将其研究范围拓展至更广阔的资本主义关系领域。在《乡村与城市》的结论部分，威廉斯延伸了乡村庄园与其劳作腹地的隐喻，提出庄园对广袤领地的支配、大都市对腹地的控制，与帝国对其殖民地的统治具有可比性：
The ‘metropolitan’ states, through a system of trade, but also through a complex of economic and political controls, draw food and, more critically, raw materials from these areas of supply, this effective hinterland, that is also the greater part of the earth’s surface and that contains the great majority of its peoples. Thus a model of city and country, in economic and political relationships, has gone beyond the boundaries of the nation-state, and is seen but also challenged as a model of the world. 大都市国家通过贸易体系，以及一系列复杂的经济政治控制手段，从这些供应区域——这片实际上的腹地（其面积占地球表面大部分且居住着绝大多数人口）——获取食物，更重要的是攫取原材料。因此，城市与乡村的经济政治关系模式已超越民族国家疆界，既被视为世界模式，也正遭受挑战。
(Williams [1973] 1985a: 279) （威廉姆斯 [1973] 1985a：279）
Just as the industrial and agricultural labour on which a country house depends is entirely written out of the country house tradition in pastoral poetry, so too the industrial labour in the developing world on which the lifestyles of the prosperous nations depend is distanced, dissociated from 正如田园诗传统中完全抹去了乡间宅邸所依赖的工农业劳动，富裕国家生活方式所仰仗的发展中国家的工业劳动同样被疏离、被割裂
daily life in the metropolis. In post-colonial and post-industrial Britain, industrial work is devolved upon the developing world, which is thus metaphorically assigned the status of hinterland, or enormous rural estate, providing provisions and sustenance for the country house/first world. Williams concludes that ‘a model of city and country’ is ‘seen but also challenged’ as a model of the world. The phrase ‘seen but also challenged’ is central to the theory and practice of cultural materialism. The whole point of the work of both Williams and Freire is that education can be used to garner a clear understanding of the capitalist relations which structure the world, and hence to set about challenging them. 大都市中的日常生活。在后殖民与后工业时代的英国，工业劳动被转移至发展中世界，后者因而被隐喻性地赋予了腹地或广袤乡村庄园的地位，为乡间宅邸/第一世界提供物资与给养。威廉斯最终指出，"城市与乡村的模型"作为世界模型"既被看见亦遭质疑"。这一"既被看见亦遭质疑"的表述，正是文化唯物主义理论与实践的核心要义。威廉斯与弗莱雷著作的全部要旨在于：教育可被用于清晰认知建构世界的资本主义关系，进而着手挑战这些关系。
This challenge became registered in the work of Williams and Freire via the formal innovations they introduce to their work as writers. In 1979, Williams published Politics and Letters, a series of transcribed interviews with the editors of Britain’s radical intellectual journal, New Left Review. It took the form of a review of Williams’ career up until that point, but it is more than a simple biography. The questioners themselves make long and often critical contributions to Politics and Letters, so that rather than simply recording Williams’ life and work, the book was also an important critical exploration of it. 这一挑战通过威廉斯和弗莱雷作为作家在作品中引入的形式创新得以体现。1979 年，威廉斯出版了《政治与文学》——这是他与英国激进思想期刊《新左派评论》编辑们的一系列访谈实录。该书虽以回顾威廉斯当时为止的职业生涯为形式，却远非简单传记。提问者本人在《政治与文学》中作出了长篇且常具批判性的贡献，使得这本书不仅记录了威廉斯的生活与工作，更成为对其思想的重要批判性探索。
Politics and Letters, in other words, is a dialogical book. Rather than being single authored, or indeed, rather than being authored at all in the traditional sense, Williams enters into a number of different intellectual debates with three different interlocutors. The discussions of culture, drama, literature, politics and history then comprise the published form of the book. 换言之，《政治与文学》是一部对话体著作。它并非由单一作者完成，甚至从传统意义上说根本算不上"著作"——威廉斯与三位不同的对话者展开了多场思想论辩。书中关于文化、戏剧、文学、政治与历史的讨论，最终构成了这本出版物的文本形态。
This dialogic form was what Paulo Freire considered appropriate for publishing his own theoretical insights in education. The ultimate goal of both Williams and Freire was to inaugurate a kind of educational practice that would overcome the hierarchical distinction between teacher and taught, and therefore overcome also the social and political practice of dividing people up into leaders and led, masters and men. Achieving this requires an educational practice where the teacher does not exercise unquestioned authority over the student body. Rather, it requires that the distinction between active teacher and passive student be broken down, and that the teacher enter into dialogue with the students. 这种对话形式正是保罗·弗莱雷认为适合发表其教育理论洞见的载体。威廉斯与弗莱雷的终极目标，是要开创一种能够消解教师与被教者之间等级差异的教育实践，从而也消解将人划分为领导者与被领导者、主宰者与从属者的社会政治实践。要实现这一点，就需要建立一种教师不对学生群体行使绝对权威的教育实践。更确切地说，它要求打破主动施教者与被动受教者之间的界限，让教师真正走入与学生的对话之中。
Since this was the insight of Freire’s pedagogical theory, dialogue also became an apposite form in which to publish his written work. His For AA Pedagogy of Questioning (Freire 1989) is a series of biographical, intellectual and theoretical interviews between Freire and his compatriot, Antonio Faundez. It is, like Politics and Letters, a spoken book. To both Williams and Freire, the spoken book enabled a dialogic form which was appropriate for conveying their ideas for how to democratize education and society. Freire in For a Pedagogy of Questioning expounded the importance of an educational praxis which encourages students to question sources of authority around them. When it functions in this way, rather than simply recreating existing 由于这是弗莱雷教学理论的核心洞见，对话也成为其著作出版的恰当形式。他与同胞安东尼奥·丰德斯合著的《提问式教学法》（弗莱雷，1989 年）通过系列传记性、思想性与理论性的访谈呈现，如同《政治与书信》一样，属于"言谈之书"。对威廉斯和弗莱雷而言，这种言谈形式能实现对话性表达，恰如其分地传递他们关于教育与社会民主化的理念。在《提问式教学法》中，弗莱雷阐明了鼓励学生质疑周边权威根源的教育实践之重要性。当教育以此方式运作时——而非简单复制既有的
social and cultural hierarchies, education can really enable critical consciousness and so contribute to the transformation of social relations. An educational praxis which promotes the asking of questions is a democratic praxis. This is mirrored in the dialogic form of the book in which Freire elaborated upon it. 社会文化等级结构——才能真正培育批判意识，从而促进社会关系的变革。这种倡导质疑精神的教育实践，本质上就是民主实践。该理念与弗莱雷阐述此观点的对话式著作形式形成了完美呼应。
Politics and Letters and For a Pedagogy of Questioning both provide internal questioning of the theoretical suggestions that Williams and Freire propounded throughout their careers for revolutionizing education and hence the democratic structure of society. This commitment to internal questioning is entirely consistent with the educational practice advocated by each man. Rather than assigning a scriptural status to the value of their published work, each continually revisited and revised the findings of that work. Williams, like Freire, continually held his proposals for how to radicalise education and society open to introspection and revision. 《政治与文学》和《提问式教学法》两部著作都对威廉斯和弗莱雷在其职业生涯中提出的革命性教育理论建议——进而改变社会民主结构——进行了内部质询。这种对理论自反性的坚持与两位学者所倡导的教育实践完全一致。他们从未将已出版著作的价值奉为圭臬，而是持续重访并修正研究成果。与弗莱雷一样，威廉斯始终保持着对如何实现教育与社会激进化这一命题的自省与修正空间。
The people's university: Có, Birmingham and the Open University 人民的大学：科隆、伯明翰与开放大学
In the work of both Williams and Freire, the simplistic notion that education will enable participation in a democratic culture is held up to critical scrutiny. Freire in particular takes issue with an instrumental version of education, whereby students are equipped to perform certain functions in society without questioning the fundamental structures of that society. Freire refers to this instrumental education as a ‘banking’ concept of education, depositing in students only so many skills over a specific period of time as are necessary to enable them to carry out certain tasks. He elaborates upon the concept of banking education in Pedugogy of the Oppressed in the following way: 在威廉斯和弗莱雷的著作中，那种认为教育将使人能够参与民主文化的简单化观念受到了批判性审视。弗莱雷尤其反对工具主义的教育观，即学生被培养成能在社会中履行某些职能，却不去质疑社会的基本结构。弗莱雷将这种工具主义教育称为"银行储蓄式"教育理念，即在特定时间段内仅向学生灌输完成某些任务所需的技能。他在《被压迫者教育学》中这样阐述银行储蓄式教育概念：
Education … becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the ‘banking’ concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. 教育……变成了一种储蓄行为，学生是储蓄罐，教师则是储户。教师不是在交流，而是在发布公报和进行储蓄，学生则耐心地接收、记忆和重复。这就是"银行储蓄式"教育理念，在这种教育中，学生被允许的行动范围仅限于接收、归档和存储这些储蓄。
(Freire 2000: 67-8) （弗莱雷 2000：67-8）
Freire’s banking model sees education as a short-term transfer of specifically deposited units of intormation or skills, which will equip students to perform specific tasks within a society. This occurs at two inter-related levels. There is the manifest content of an educational programme. This is inseparable from the cultural and institutional carrier in which that content is conveyed. Banking education instils in its students the skills necessary to fulfil a particular role within the capitalist order. At the same time, the 弗莱雷的"银行储蓄式"教育模型将教育视为对特定信息或技能单元的短期传输，这种教育旨在使学生具备在社会中完成特定任务的能力。这一过程发生在两个相互关联的层面：首先是教育课程的显性内容，这些内容与其传播所依托的文化和制度载体密不可分。银行式教育向学生灌输在资本主义秩序中履行特定角色所需的技能。同时，
competitive system of examination by which that education is assessed also instils simultaneous assent to the world of competition. ‘Verbalistic lessons, reading requirements, the methods for evaluating “knowledge”, the distance between the teacher and the taught, the criteria for promotion: everything in this ready-to-wear approach serves to obviate thinking,’ writes Freire (ibid.: 71). The system of banking education occupies a specific place within the capitalist social order. It prepares its students to perform certain tasks within that order by equipping them with specific skills. At the same time, it nurtures them into a general acceptance of that order through the gradual exposure to a system of hierarchical relations where individual progress is measured by competition. 通过考试竞争体系对教育进行评估的同时，也灌输了对于竞争世界的同步认同。"言语主义的课程、阅读要求、'知识'评估方法、师生间的距离、晋升标准：这种现成模式中的一切都旨在消除思考，"弗莱雷写道（同上：71）。银行储蓄式教育体系在资本主义社会秩序中占据特定位置。它通过向学生传授特定技能，为其在该秩序中执行特定任务做好准备。同时，通过让学生逐渐接触以竞争衡量个人进步的等级关系体系，培养其对这一秩序的普遍接受。
The manifest content of banking education is thus mirrored in latent form by the institutional carrier of that education. The world of competition to which students are exposed in education is precisely the world they will encounter outside it. Banking education, in other words, promotes the virtues of free-market capitalism. As a result it systematically fails - often despite the commitments and efforts of individual teachers - to communicate anything beyond these concerns. Williams says of this: 银行教育的显性内容因此以潜在形式反映在该教育的制度载体中。学生在教育中接触到的竞争世界，正是他们走出校门后将面对的世界。换言之，银行教育宣扬的是自由市场资本主义的美德。其结果是——尽管教师个人可能怀有不同信念并付出努力——这种教育系统性地无法传递超越这些范畴的内容。威廉姆斯对此评论道：
The failure is due to an arrogant preoccupation with transmission, which rests on the assumption that the common answers have been found and need only be applied. But people will (damn them, do you say?) learn only by experience, and this, normally, is uneven and slow. A governing body, in its impatience, will often be able to enforce, by any of a number of kinds of pressure, an apparent conformity. 这种失败源于对知识传输的傲慢执着，其基础是一种假设：共识性答案已被找到，只需加以应用即可。但人们（你说该死不该死？）唯有通过经验才能学习，而这一过程通常缓慢且参差不齐。管理机构在急躁之下，往往会通过各种施压手段强行实现表面的顺从。
(Williams 1961b: 302) （威廉姆斯 1961b：302）
Williams’ idea of conformity describes the phenomenon whereby the transfer of education on a top-down model instils in its recipients a kind of assent to the fundamental structuring of competitive society. Williams was opposed to this instrumental concept of a university, and sought ways to replace it with the kind of institution that might be used to promote thinking more sceptical of the capitalist order. As Fazal Rizvi says, it is not only that Williams wanted to use education to democratize society; Williams also showed that ‘education itself has to be democratised’ (Rizvi 1993: 146-7). 威廉姆斯关于顺从的概念描述了一种现象，即自上而下的教育模式灌输给接受者一种对竞争社会基本结构的默许。威廉姆斯反对这种工具性的大学理念，并寻求用可能促进对资本主义秩序更具怀疑精神的思考的机构来取代它。正如法扎尔·里兹维所言，威廉姆斯不仅想通过教育使社会民主化；他还表明"教育本身必须民主化"（Rizvi 1993: 146-7）。
Paulo Freire opposes the banking concept of education with a problemposing education, where dialogical relations are indispensable. Problemposing education disavows the idea that educational authorities can limit in advance what knowledge and skills are to be transferred to the students. The obvious question that his theoretical insight leaves is: What institutional form could such an education take? 保罗·弗莱雷以提问式教育反对银行储蓄式教育理念，其中对话关系不可或缺。提问式教育否认教育权威可以预先限定应向学生传授哪些知识和技能的观点。他的理论洞见留下的明显问题是：这种教育可以采取什么样的制度形式？
Freire advocated the development of what he called people’s universities, which would relate directly to the world experienced by the people at every point: ‘A people’s university is born at the heart of the life of the working 弗莱雷倡导发展他所谓的"人民大学"，这种大学将在每个层面都与人民所经历的世界直接相关："人民大学诞生于劳动者生活的核心
people, based on their productive labour and dedicated to systematizing the knowledge resulting from their own daily experience’ (Freire 2000: 150). “人民，基于他们的生产劳动，致力于将自身日常经验中产生的知识系统化”（弗莱雷 2000: 150）。
Freire found such a university when he travelled to Guinea-Bissau and visited the Maxim Gorky Training Centre for teachers in the town of Có. This centre was the brainchild of Guinea-Bissau’s post-independence revolutionary leader and Educational Commissioner, Mario Cabral. It was established ostensibly to lessen the impact on the new nation’s culture and economy of the alienating and divisive education system that had been introduced by the former colonial power, Portugal. It sought to inaugurate a kind of education which would enable the people of Có to develop the skills applicable to their own reality. Freire describes the foundation of the centre in the following way: 弗莱雷在访问几内亚比绍时，在科镇发现了这样一所大学——马克西姆·高尔基教师培训中心。该中心是几内亚比绍独立后革命领袖兼教育专员马里奥·卡布拉尔的创举。其成立表面上是为减轻前殖民者葡萄牙推行的异化分裂式教育体系对这个新生国家文化和经济的影响，旨在开创一种能让科镇居民掌握适应本土现实技能的教育模式。弗莱雷如此描述该中心的创立：
The educators at Có involved the neighbouring populations in the development of their dream for a training center. They interpreted the project and mobilized the population around both the idea and the necessary practical activities. People came from all around to clear the land, bringing their own work tools. The team and the local people worked side by side. The growing dialogue between them was sealed in their mutual activity on behalf of the center. Có地区的教育工作者们将周边居民纳入他们建设培训中心的梦想规划中。他们阐释了这个教育项目，并围绕这一理念和必要的实践活动动员群众。人们从四面八方赶来清理场地，自带劳动工具。项目团队与当地民众并肩工作。在为培训中心共同付出的过程中，双方不断深化的对话得到了巩固。
(Freire 2000: 150) （弗莱雷 2000：150）
In other words, the centre at Có did not begin with social and economic division as its founding premise. There was not an a prior intellectual hierarchy dividing the population into governors and governed. The process of constructing the centre itself militated against this approach to education. In this sense, those who shared in the construction of the centre were already its students, before it had even opened its doors for classes. The experience of participating in a joint project where each individual could offer different skills and so contribute to a non-hierarchical whole enabled the participants to value each other’s knowledge, skills and experience, and hence to view each other as comrades rather than competitors. This is a fundamental difference from the strict examination system of education which had existed during the period of Portuguese occupation and which had educated only a tiny proportion of the population for induction into government service and hence had operated according to a logic of divide and rule. 换言之，科镇的教育中心并非以社会阶层与经济分化作为建校前提。这里不存在将民众划分为治理者与被治理者的先验性知识等级体系。教育中心自身的建设过程就抵制这种教育模式。从这个意义上说，参与中心建设的成员在正式开学前就已成为了它的学生。通过共同参与这个能让每个人贡献不同技能、从而构建非等级化整体的联合项目，参与者们学会了珍视彼此的知识、技能与经验，进而将对方视为同志而非竞争者。这与葡萄牙殖民时期实行的严格考试制教育存在本质差异——那种只为极少数人提供政府职位准入资格的教育体系，始终遵循着分而治之的逻辑运作。
The education of the Có centre was not limited either spatially or temporally to a kind of banking education. Instead of drawing a tiny section of the population from every part of the country and so serering those students from their local communities, the centre and its students were an intrinsic part of the local community. Again, therefore, it resisted the imperative of a colonial period education, where indigenous people would have been educated only on the assumption that they would use their education to serve the colonial power and hence create an elite division in the Guinean population. Có中心的教育既不受空间限制，也不受时间约束，并非那种"银行储蓄式教育"。该中心没有从全国各地选拔少数人群、从而使学生与本土社区割裂，而是与学员共同构成了当地社区的内在组成部分。因此，它再次抵制了殖民时期教育的强制性逻辑——那种假定原住民接受教育只为效忠殖民政权、从而在几内亚民众中制造精英分化的教育模式。
It enabled people who attended the centre to continue in their previous social relationships and social roles for as long as they needed to receive an education. In other words, the centre did not determine in advance how long its students could attend for, before sending them on to other kinds of work. It allowed them to work and learn as parts of the same activity: 该中心使求学者能够在接受教育期间，持续维系原有的社会关系与社会角色。换言之，中心并未预先规定学员的就读时限就将其推向其他工作岗位，而是允许他们将劳动与学习融为同一活动的组成部分：
Whatever activity gives rise to political consciousness raising - whether it be health education, means of production, or adult literacy efforts there is a basic unity of approach. The director stressed that all of the activities are planned and carried out in cooperation with the local committee in every village. 任何能够提升政治意识的活动——无论是健康教育、生产资料还是成人扫盲工作——都遵循着基本统一的方法。导演强调，所有这些活动都是在与各村地方委员会的合作下规划和实施的。
(Freire 2000: 152) （弗莱雷 2000：152）
Whereas the limited educational centres provided in the era of colonialism deliberately sent students to institutions physically distant from their homes in order to divide them from their own solidarities, the system that Freire describes here is different. It imagines a training centre in every village, so that Guinea-Bissau’s educational system could be described as a national network of such centres, spread evenly around each village, with no sense of hierarchy emerging among them. Each institution is equal in the sense that each relates directly to the work of the area in which it is located. This is not to say that the people’s university is exclusivist or parochial, but merely that it values the ways of life of the population from which its students are drawn. 殖民时代提供的有限教育中心故意将学生送往远离家乡的机构，以切断他们与自身团结纽带的关系，而弗莱雷在此描述的体系则截然不同。它设想每个村庄都设有培训中心，因此几内亚比绍的教育体系可被描述为由这些中心组成的全国性网络，均匀分布于各个村庄之间，彼此间不存在等级差异。每个机构都具有平等地位，因为它们都直接与所在地区的工作相关联。这并不是说人民大学具有排他性或狭隘性，而只是表明它重视学生来源群体的生活方式。
A university which supports the capitalist order practises a programme of banking education and contributes to the continual reproduction of the dominant cultural order through mobilization of a competitive ethic and selective promotion. Its courses last for a fixed (and pre-determined) period of time, after which the process of education is assumed to be complete. Its syllabus is also pre-selected and barring the occasional choice of course varies little according to the needs or ideas of the individual student. 一所支持资本主义秩序的大学实施着灌输式教育计划，通过动员竞争伦理和选择性晋升，持续再生产主导文化秩序。其课程设置固定（且预先确定）时长，之后便假定教育过程已完成。其教学大纲同样预先选定，除偶尔的课程选择外，几乎不根据个体学生的需求或想法进行调整。
This is not how Paulo Freire imagined a university, or in another context, how Raymond Williams envisaged a practice of critical education. Williams’ concept of the university, following Paulo Freire, can therefore be described as a people’s university. A people’s university is not restricted to one location. On the contrary, if it is really to be democratized, then what happens in the university must have an active relation with the rest of the society. Williams’ valuation of the Open University, which he thought was the most important legacy of Britain’s Lahour government of the 1960s, is an example of a people’s university. Its students ‘insisted’ that ‘the relation’ of the university ‘to their own situation and experience had to be discussed’ (Williams 1989f: 156). 这并非保罗·弗莱雷所设想的大学模样，也非雷蒙德·威廉斯在其他语境中构想的批判性教育实践。承袭弗莱雷的思想，威廉斯的大学理念可被描述为"人民的大学"。人民的大学不受地域限制。相反，若要真正实现民主化，大学内的活动必须与社会其他部分建立积极联系。威廉斯对开放大学的评价——他认为这是 1960 年代英国工党政府最重要的遗产——正是人民大学的典范。该校学生"坚持"认为必须讨论大学"与他们自身处境和经验的关系"（威廉斯 1989f: 156）。
A ‘hard’ university offers students courses which run for a prescribed period of time, after which their education is deemed to he complete and the educational process is terminated, without regard to the progress or "硬性"大学为学生提供固定学制的课程，期满即视为教育完成并终止培养流程，全然不顾学习者的进步或
achievement of the students. A people’s university by contrast would not determine in advance how long it will take students to reach an acceptable level of educational fullness. Instead, a ‘soft’ or people’s university enables students to continue learning at the same time that they engage in important creative and critical work. Again, the Open University can be seen as an example of this. It provides a ‘range of formal learning systems, which people can use in their own time and at their own pace’ (Williams 1985b: 151). 学生的成就。相比之下，一所人民的大学不会预先规定学生需要多长时间才能达到令人满意的教育充实水平。相反，这种"柔性"或人民的大学使学生能够在从事重要创造性及批判性工作的同时继续学习。开放大学再次成为这一理念的例证，它提供"一系列正规学习系统，人们可以根据自己的时间和进度来使用"（Williams 1985b: 151）。
Moreover, whereas a ‘hard’ university selects the content of its programme in advance, giving its students little or no input into that selection, a people’s university equips students with the resources to decide for themselves what educational programme has most direct and immediate relevance to their own lives. An example of this in Williams’ writing would be his praise for the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham University, which drew its materials from different aspects of contemporary British culture and continually updated its syllabus. ‘The supply of facilities to teachers willing to undertake this work, and the support necessary in its early stages, are the responsibility of local education authorities, and it is good to see that some of these authorities are willing to assume it’ (Williams 1976a:149). 此外，传统"精英大学"会预先设定课程内容，学生对此几乎或完全无法参与选择；而"人民大学"则赋予学生自主决策权，让他们根据自身生活需求选择最具直接相关性的教育项目。威廉姆斯在著作中曾以伯明翰大学当代文化研究中心为例予以褒扬——该中心从当代英国文化的多元维度汲取教学素材，并持续更新其教学大纲。"为愿意开展此项工作的教师提供设施支持，以及在初期阶段给予必要扶持，都是地方教育当局的职责。令人欣慰的是，部分当局已展现出承担这一责任的意愿"（Williams 1976a:149）。
The most significant proposal Williams makes for education is to teach discussion. This models education on an idea of exploration and mutual interchange of ideas. This is in sharp contrast to banking education, which is a tool of the competitive capitalist order and relies on the all-knowing teacher handing whatever knowledge or skills are deemed appropriate on to passive and dependent students. A discussion-orientated education will remain constantly open and flexible, able to modify its curriculum as the needs, interests and abilities of the students vary. The kind of education system Williams envisaged runs something like this: 威廉姆斯对教育提出的最重要建议是教授讨论技巧。这种教育模式基于探索与思想相互交流的理念，与"银行储蓄式教育"形成鲜明对比——后者作为竞争性资本主义秩序的工具，依赖全知教师向被动依赖的学生灌输所谓适当的知识技能。以讨论为导向的教育将始终保持开放灵活，能够根据学生需求、兴趣和能力的变化调整课程。威廉姆斯设想的教育体系大致如下：
changing the educational system from its dominant pattern of sorting people, from so early an age, into ‘educated’ people and others, or in other words, transmitters and receivers, to a view of the interlocking processes of determining meanings and values as involving contribution and reception by everyone. 将教育体系从主导模式——从极早年龄就将人区分为"受过教育者"与"其他人"，或者说信息传递者与接收者——转变为视意义与价值的确立为所有人共同参与贡献与接受的连锁过程。
(Williams 1989h: 36) （威廉斯 1989h：36）
Williams’ terms ‘transmitters’ and ‘receivers’ recall the deposit boxes of Freire’s banking education. Freire’s career-defining book Pedagogy of the Oppressed has direct relevance to Williams’ interest in the long revolution towards an educated participatory democracy. To both writers, the important theme is education as a site for resistance to cultural domination. This was the case in the context of the late colonial societies in which Freire worked in Africa, and continued to be the case, in a different context, in the world of developed capitalism from which Williams worked. 威廉斯提出的"传播者"与"接收者"概念，令人联想到弗莱雷银行式教育中的储蓄箱模式。弗莱雷那部奠定其学术地位的《被压迫者教育学》，与威廉斯对"漫长革命"中教育参与式民主建设的关注直接呼应。对两位思想家而言，教育作为抵抗文化霸权的场域是核心命题——无论是在弗莱雷工作的非洲后殖民社会语境中，还是在威廉斯所处的发达资本主义世界背景下，这一命题都保持着其现实意义。
What the work of Raymond Williams adds to our understanding of Paulo Freire is an insight into how the boundaries between elite and popular cultural forms might be eroded, allowing fuller participation in public cultural and political life. What Paulo Freire adds to our knowledge of Raymond Williams is a revolutionary insight into the political work of the university. What they have in common is a commitment to a pedagogical practice with important implications for the structuring of a democratic society. A pedagogy, that is, of cultural materialism. 雷蒙德·威廉斯的理论贡献在于揭示了精英文化与大众文化之间的边界如何被消解，从而促进公众更充分地参与文化政治生活；而保罗·弗莱雷则为我们理解威廉斯提供了关于大学政治功能的革命性视角。两者的共同点在于，他们都致力于具有民主社会建构意义的教学实践——即一种文化唯物主义的教学范式。
Notes 注释
1 I owe much of this information about Freire to Ana Maria Araújo Freire and Donaldo Macedo’s ‘Introduction’ to their Paulo Freire Reader (Freire and Macedo 2000). 1 关于弗莱雷的这些信息，我很大程度上要感谢安娜·玛丽亚·阿劳霍·弗莱雷和多纳尔多·马塞多为《保罗·弗莱雷读本》所撰写的"导言"（弗莱雷与马塞多，2000 年）。
Raymond Williams and online video: the tragedy of technology 雷蒙德·威廉斯与在线视频：技术的悲剧
Georgiana Banita 乔治亚娜·巴尼塔
In his time, Raymond Williams was an elusive public figure whose attempts to secure a wider media audience for his social diagnoses met with limited success. Perhaps due to the characteristics of his dense, occasionally opaque prose, he never reached the level of popular notoriety of other intellectuals in Britain, such as George Bernard Shaw or Christopher Ricks (see Gorak 1988: 1). In addition, his views on the evolution of the media sharply conflicted with those of a critic who went on to become one of the most revered figures in the study of communications, namely Marshall McLuhan. Yet Williams’ ideas on media causality, determinism and agency have shaped debates around the emergence of new media and their impact on society for many decades, whether it be television or, more recently, the Internet. Today, thirty-five years after Williams challenged his readers to reconsider those factors which shape the future of the media, the terms of the debate remain as he identified them. 雷蒙德·威廉姆斯在其时代是一位难以捉摸的公众人物，他试图让更广泛媒体受众接受其社会诊断的努力收效有限。或许由于其文风艰深晦涩的特质，他始终未能达到萧伯纳或克里斯托弗·里克斯等英国其他知识分子那样的公众知名度（参见戈拉克 1988 年著作第 1 页）。此外，他对媒体演进的观点与后来成为传播学研究领域最受尊崇的批评家——马歇尔·麦克卢汉——形成了尖锐对立。然而威廉姆斯关于媒体因果论、决定论与能动性的思想，数十年来始终塑造着有关新媒体（无论是电视还是近年来的互联网）及其社会影响的辩论框架。在威廉姆斯敦促读者重新思考形塑媒体未来的诸要素三十五年后的今天，这场辩论的术语体系仍如他所界定的那样稳固。
This chapter relates Raymond Williams’ writing on communications technology with his reflections on the nature of tragedy to achieve a better understanding of his significance for contemporary architectures of media and communication, such as user-generated online video. Williams emphasized the subordination of technology to the social context of its implementation, which is a determining factor in the uses to which technologies are put. For him, technology hinges on the complex social and political texture of the world from which it emerges, even in the case of those innovations such as the Internet that seem least dependent on their social environment and promise an endless expansion of free democratic interconnection. A study of contemporary media from the perspective provided by Williams’ theories yields new insight into how technological advances are shaped by the world into which they enter and which they, in turn, help to recast. Williams’ grasp of technology as ‘at once an intention and an effect of a particular social order’ (Williams 1974: 128) sheds light on the rising accessibility of recent innovations such as popular video sharing, especially YouTube, a marketplace of ideas which is becoming the most prominent platform for video online in English-language media. 本章将雷蒙德·威廉斯关于传播技术的论述与其对悲剧本质的思考相联系，以期更深入地理解他对于当代媒体与传播架构（如用户生成在线视频）的重要意义。威廉斯强调技术从属于其应用的社会语境，这一关系决定了技术被运用的方式。在他看来，即使对于互联网这类看似最不依赖社会环境、承诺无限扩展自由民主互联的创新技术，其本质仍取决于孕育它的复杂社会政治结构。通过威廉斯理论视角来研究当代媒体，能获得新的洞见：技术进步如何被其所进入的世界所塑造，又如何反过来重塑这个世界。 威廉斯将技术理解为"既是特定社会秩序的意图，也是其结果"（Williams 1974: 128），这一观点揭示了近期诸如流行视频分享（尤其是 YouTube）等创新技术日益普及的现象。YouTube 作为一个思想市场，正逐渐成为英语媒体中最主要的在线视频平台。
Specifically, I investigate the transformation of what Williams would term the ‘technique’ of video recording and web-sharing (the application and development of particular skills) and YouTube ‘technology’ per se as ‘the body of knowledge appropriate to the development of such skills and applications and, second, a body of knowledge and conditions for the practical use and application of a range of devices’ (Williams 1981a: 227). 具体而言，我研究的是威廉斯所称的视频录制与网络分享"技术"（特定技能的应用与发展）的转变，以及 YouTube 这一"技术"本身——即"适用于此类技能与应用发展的知识体系，以及一系列设备实际运用与应用所需的知识与条件"（Williams 1981a: 227）。
This chapter shows a particular interest in web-sharing platforms as a social institution bound to the concrete historical circumstances of the early twenty-first century, but also in the specific conditions that shape the transformation of an innovation into a full-fledged technology as ‘necessarily in complex and variable connection with other social relations and institutions’ (Williams 1981a: 227). This innovation was demanded by a structure of feeling defined by an impulse towards self-fashioning and authenticity on the one hand, and the impact of a traumatic mass-experience on the other hand, which reached its audience through visual channels - primarily television and prompted an explosive self-dissemination: YouTube was launched three and a half years after 11 September 2001, or 9/11. The political circumstances which dictated that the attacks consisted not only in physical but also visual violence against the entire world are closely related to the psychological climate that led to the creation of the Internet video-sharing technology. Moreover, traumatized reactions to 11 September reinforce Williams’ view of tragedy as more than an academic questioning of rituals and closer to ordinary human suffering. 本章特别关注作为社会机构的网络共享平台，其与二十一世纪初具体历史环境的紧密关联，同时也探究将创新转化为成熟技术的特定条件——正如威廉姆斯(1981a:227)所言，这种转化"必然与其他社会关系和制度保持着复杂多变的联系"。该创新源于一种情感结构的双重驱动：一方面是自我塑造与真实性的内在诉求，另一方面则是通过视觉媒介（主要是电视）传播的创伤性集体经验所产生的外在冲击，这种冲击最终引发了爆炸式的自我传播现象——YouTube 正是在"9·11"事件三年半后应运而生。指挥袭击者实施不仅针对实体世界、更针对全球视觉心理的暴力行为的政治环境，与催生互联网视频共享技术的心理气候存在着深刻的内在关联。 此外，对 9·11 事件的创伤性反应强化了威廉斯的悲剧观——悲剧不仅是对仪式的学术性质疑，更贴近普通人的苦难。
In keeping with Williams’ conception of how technologies are modified by prevalent social interests, YouTube has indeed been used and abused by media industries, audiences and communities of interest in ways that challenge conventional understandings of how media platforms are produced and consumed. Further, the format and distribution patterns of online video has been inflected by recent developments in the nature of public spheres and their implicit communications processes towards an acceptance of non-rational, performative aspects of personal and political expression. As Chantal Mouffe and Henry Giroux have argued, a greater focus on the emotional subtext of conflict building and conciliation may prove essential to an understanding of how contemporary media effectively mediate among individual views; in other words, how the proliferation of online video technologies demands an appropriate grassroots commitment to relational rather than rational politics. 根据威廉斯关于技术如何被主流社会利益所改造的观点，YouTube 确实被媒体产业、观众和利益群体以各种方式使用和滥用，这些方式挑战了关于媒体平台生产与消费的传统认知。此外，网络视频的格式与传播模式已受到公共领域性质最新发展的影响，其隐含的传播过程正逐渐接纳个人与政治表达中非理性的表演性维度。正如尚塔尔·墨菲与亨利·吉鲁所论证的，更关注冲突建构与和解的情感潜台词，可能对理解当代媒体如何有效调解个体观点至关重要；换言之，网络视频技术的扩散要求基层参与者投身于关系性而非理性化的政治实践。
Williams warned against what Jürgen Habermas called the ‘refeudalization’ of the public sphere, which entails the manipulation of debates by powerful interests (Habermas 1991: 231). The idea that the democratic potential of online political debate can be hindered by the encroachment of corporate capital and other power structures on the online community is not new (see also Freedman 2002). Yet little attention has been given so far to the specific potential of a communications channel that is both textual 威廉姆斯曾对尤尔根·哈贝马斯所称的公共领域"再封建化"现象发出警告——这种趋势意味着强势利益集团对公共辩论的操控（哈贝马斯 1991: 231）。关于网络政治讨论的民主潜力可能被企业资本及其他权力结构对网络社区的侵蚀所阻碍的观点并非新见（另见弗里德曼 2002）。然而迄今为止，人们很少关注某种传播渠道的特殊潜力——这种渠道兼具
and visual, instantaneous and repetitive, deliberative and affective, one that exemplifies the type of interpersonal communication that Walter J. Ong termed ‘secondary orality’ (Ong 1982). The shift from a culture of literacy to a culture of orality derived to some extent also from the expansion of interactive visual media as an addition to textual communication, a cultural phenomenon that further enhances what Williams identified as the profoundly social nature of technology. 文本性与视觉性、即时性与重复性、思辨性与情感性，完美体现了沃尔特·J·翁所定义的"次生口语"式人际传播（翁 1982）。从读写文化向口语文化的转型，某种程度上也源于互动视觉媒介作为文字传播补充形式的扩张，这一文化现象进一步强化了威廉姆斯所揭示的技术所具有的深刻社会性本质。
The medium is not the message 媒介并非讯息本身
Williams organizes his arguments about the present and future of the media around a twofold rejection. Firstly, he refutes the determinist arguments which insist that technologies emerge exclusively from a process of research and development independently of all social conditions and political interests: 威廉姆斯围绕双重否定展开他对媒体现状与未来的论述。首先，他驳斥了技术决定论的观点——这种论点坚持认为技术的产生完全独立于社会条件和政治利益，仅源自研发过程：
The basic assumption of technological determinism is that a new technology … ‘emerges’ from technical study and experiment. It then changes the society or sector into which it has ‘emerged.’ ‘We’ adapt to it because it is the new modern way. 技术决定论的基本假设是：新技术……从技术研究与实验中"诞生"，继而改变其所"降临"的社会或领域。"我们"之所以适应它，只因这是崭新的现代方式。
(Williams 1985b: 129) （威廉斯 1985b：129）
Far from being driven by an abstract process of innovation, technologies are, according to Williams, the result of human interests and intentions - a view that is grounded in Williams’ fundamental belief in the effectiveness of human agency and its capacity to disrupt technological determinism. 威廉姆斯认为，技术绝非由抽象的创新过程驱动，而是人类利益与意图的产物——这一观点根植于他对于人类能动性效力的根本信念，即相信人类具有打破技术决定论的能力。
Secondly, he dismisses the idea that technologies can determine profound changes that are, again, untarnished by social and historical complications, such as capital or public interests: ‘The sense of some new technology as inevitable or unstoppable is a product of the overt and covert marketing of the relevant interests’ (W’illiams 19856: 133). In refusing to acknowledge the impact of new technologies as massive and irreversible, Williams also criticiees the formalism propagated by McLuhan, which fails to factor in the social and historical context (and content) of technological progress. ^(1){ }^{1} Broadcast communication, for instance, provided a response to the ‘mobile privatisation’ (W’illiams 1974: 20) of a social world that encouraged both isolation and participation. YouTube, in fact, is the product of a very similar mediated sociability, operating at the interface between the personal and the public, the state and the citizen. An important cultural transformation that intervened between the time dominated by television as a source of stable media products and the age of YouTube is what Aleida Assmann has referred to as a shift from a culture of memory to a culture of attention (or multitasking), in which closed referentiality is replaced by open performativity of products in their interplay with an audience (Assmann 2006). This focus on attention in the moment rather 其次，他驳斥了技术能够决定深刻变革的观点——这种变革再次不受资本或公共利益等社会历史复杂因素的影响："将某项新技术视为必然或不可阻挡的观念，实则是相关利益集团公开与隐性营销的产物"（威廉斯 19856：133）。威廉斯不仅拒绝承认新技术具有巨大且不可逆转的影响力，还批判了麦克卢汉所宣扬的形式主义——该理论未能考量技术进步的社会历史语境（及内涵）。 ^(1){ }^{1} 以广播通信为例，它回应了社会世界中"流动的私有化"现象（威廉斯 1974：20），这种现象既助长了孤立性又促进了参与性。事实上，YouTube 正是这种媒介化社交性的产物，运作于个人与公共、国家与公民的交界地带。 在电视作为稳定媒体产品来源的主导时代与 YouTube 时代之间，发生了一场重要的文化转型。阿莱达·阿斯曼将其称为从记忆文化向注意力文化（或多任务处理文化）的转变——在这种文化中，封闭的指涉性被产品在与观众互动时开放的表演性所取代（Assmann 2006）。这种对当下注意力的聚焦，而非对过去物质储存的依赖，
than the material repository of the past nicely encapsulates the simultaneity of YouTube as a medium of free-floating signifiers that can be combined and reassembled ad infinitum. Most visual and verbal utterances on the YouTube platform can indeed be classified as ephemera, or instances of what the linguist Roman Jakobson termed ‘phatic communication’ (Jakobson 1960), which serves to re-establish relationships between speakers rather than create new knowledge. Blogs (and vlogs, their video counterparts) display such affective, community-defining communication most clearly. 完美诠释了 YouTube 作为自由漂浮能指媒介的共时性特征——这些能指可以被无限组合与重构。YouTube 平台上的大多数视觉与言语表达确实可归类为短暂性内容，即语言学家罗曼·雅各布森所称的"交际性语言"（Jakobson 1960），其功能在于重建说话者之间的关系而非创造新知识。博客（及其视频形式 vlog）最清晰地展现了这种具有情感纽带作用、界定社群的交流方式。
More importantly, the evolution of YouTube offers an invaluable instance for testing what Williams (1967: 33) defined as democratic communications systems premised on ‘the sharing of human experience’ as opposed to the abusive propaganda and marketing instrumentalization carried out by capitalist societies. Although initially based on democratic principles comprising ‘the right to transmit and the right to receive’ (ibid.: 128) of contributors who have control over their own means of expression, in a process that at least superficially unfolds at a remove from the market and the state, the participative YouTube technology shows that the social forces it energizes cannot remain atomized and neutral, but invariably and inescapably converge into movements that favour one particular political or market entity. Contemporary bloggers refer to the defining characteristics of old and new media as pyramid and spherical models respectively (O’Brien 2004: 12), yet the two paradigms often converge to create more nebulous formations. In other words, while YouTube has certainly enhanced the communicative potential of civil society and deepened the connections among disparate individuals and groups, often in opposition to centralized state and corporate control, it has also reinforced the very patterns by which state and transnational corporations obtain and establish their monopolies in the first place. 更重要的是，YouTube 的发展演变为了验证威廉斯（1967: 33）所定义的民主传播体系提供了绝佳案例——这种体系以"人类经验的共享"为基础，与资本主义社会实施的滥用性宣传和营销工具化形成鲜明对比。虽然该平台最初建立在民主原则之上，包含贡献者"传播权利与接收权利"（同上：128），这些贡献者能掌控自身表达方式，且至少在表面看来其运作过程独立于市场与国家之外，但参与式 YouTube 技术表明，其所激发的社会力量无法保持原子化中立状态，而必然不可避免地汇聚成倾向于特定政治或市场实体的运动。当代博主将新旧媒体的本质特征分别比喻为金字塔模型与球体模型（O'Brien 2004: 12），但两种范式常相互融合，形成更为模糊的形态。 换言之，尽管 YouTube 确实增强了公民社会的交流潜力，深化了分散个体与群体间的联系——这种联系往往与中央集权国家和企业控制形成对抗——但它同时也强化了国家和跨国企业最初获取并建立垄断地位的那些固有模式。
Youtube: a social genealogy YouTube：一种社会谱系
YouTube was not invented in a single flash of inspiration, but developed during an extended process of experiment and innovation. In the late 1990s, increased access to cameras, coupled with greater availability of editing devices, lead to a dramatic growth in online video sharing and distribution. Immediate and widespread filming were further facilitated by a digitally literate younger generation of so-called ‘digital natives’ (or ‘Millennials’; see Winograd and Hais 2008), as well as by the proliferation of mobile technologies with video capabilities such as webcams and mobile phone cameras. A Pew Research Center study published in 2004 revealed that increasingly American households accessed the Internet at broadband speeds; also, broadband Internet users incorporated being on the Net into their daily activities, making the Net more of an integrative experience than a disruptive one (ihid.: 142). All these factors of media propagation YouTube 并非诞生于一时的灵感迸发，而是经历了长期的实验与创新过程。20 世纪 90 年代末，摄像设备的普及与剪辑工具的广泛使用，共同推动了网络视频分享与传播的爆炸式增长。随着具备视频功能的移动技术（如网络摄像头和手机摄像头）的普及，以及被称为"数字原住民"（或称"千禧一代"；参见 Winograd 与 Hais 2008 年研究）的年轻一代数字素养的提升，即时广泛的视频拍摄得到了进一步促进。皮尤研究中心 2004 年发布的研究显示，美国家庭宽带上网比例持续攀升；宽带用户已将网络活动融入日常生活，使网络更趋向整合性体验而非干扰性存在（同上：142 页）。这些媒介传播要素
coagulated into a seedbed of creativity and enterprise at a time when traditional forms of broadcasting were facing dwindling audiences, and a new infrastructure of communication materialized that required personal investment from the audience (wikis, blogging, social networks, text-messaging, iPod technologies, gaming). What helped these disparate attempts coalesce into a coherent technology was the necessity for a medium that could draw simultaneously on the increased flexibility of the media and the deepening social atomization of its target audience. 在传统广播形式面临受众减少之际，这些元素凝结成为创造力与创业精神的温床。随着新型传播基础设施（维基、博客、社交网络、短信、iPod 技术、游戏）的涌现，受众需要投入个人参与。促使这些分散尝试凝聚成连贯技术的关键，在于亟需一种能同时利用媒体日益增长的灵活性及其目标受众日益加剧的社会原子化特征的媒介。
At the time of its conception, YouTube was a sum of what Williams called ‘incentives and responses within a phase of general social transformation’ (Williams 1974: 18). As early as 1979. Christopher Lasch pointed out the difference between individualism and individuality, explaining how the evolution of consumption-oriented, personally liberating modern technologies encouraged a sense of narcissistic pseudo-individuality (Lasch 1979). Wider economic upheavals in society, such as the dot.com bubble, also called for new forms of communication. Yet it wasn’t until the technological stability of the 1990s was interrupted by the events of 9,11 that web-sharing devices generated a new and extremely popular technology, one that is linked to wider social forces such as current practices of surveillance in the war on terror. These practices and other preventive strategies of visual and social control were already in place before 2001, but were exacerbated by the terrorist attacks and their political aftermath. ()r, to put it with Williams, the implementation of the technique relied ‘on already existing political and economic dispositions in the societies concerned, since the technology, obviously, was compatible with any or all of them’ (Williams 1985b: 131). Moreover, more than being merely compatible with already existing social conditions, YouTube was made possible and its future secured by legislative provisions dating back to the mid-1990s. The Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act, passed in 1997, exempts ‘systems of networks at direction of users’ (i.e. user-generated content or Web 2.0) from copyright liability. Behind this provision was the desire of content owners to have the option of allowing pirated exposure for purposes of publicity before exercising their legal right to expose the copyright infringement and have their property taken down. Under the protection of this safe harbour, YouTube is certain to defy the fate that other similar services (such as Napster) have succumbed to. YouTube 诞生之初，正是威廉斯所称"普遍社会转型阶段中各种诱因与回应"的集中体现（Williams 1974: 18）。早在 1979 年，克里斯托弗·拉什就指出个人主义与个性之间的差异，阐释了以消费为导向、具有个人解放性质的现代技术发展如何助长了自恋式伪个性的形成（Lasch 1979）。诸如互联网泡沫等更广泛的社会经济动荡，也催生了对新型传播方式的需求。但直到 1990 年代的技术稳定格局被 9·11 事件打破后，网络共享设备才催生出一种极受欢迎的新技术——这种技术与更广泛的社会力量相关联，例如反恐战争中的监控实践。这些实践及其他视觉与社会控制的预防性策略在 2001 年前就已存在，但恐怖袭击及其政治余波使其愈演愈烈。 用威廉斯的话来说，这项技术的实施"依赖于相关社会既有的政治经济格局，因为显然该技术与其中任何一种或所有格局都兼容"（Williams 1985b: 131）。此外，YouTube 的诞生及其未来发展不仅与既有社会条件兼容，更得益于可追溯至 1990 年代中期的立法保障。1997 年通过的《在线版权责任限制法案》豁免了"由用户指令操作的网络系统"（即用户生成内容或 Web 2.0）的版权责任。该条款的立法初衷是让内容所有者能在行使曝光侵权行为、要求下架其财产的法定权利前，保留通过盗版内容进行宣传的选择权。在此避风港条款的保护下，YouTube 注定能避免 Napster 等同类服务遭遇的覆灭命运。
The popularity of YouTube, whose telling slogan is ‘Broadcast yourself,’ literally skyrocketed within the past years, partly due to its extreme simplicity and accessibility. By the end of 2008 , user statistics indicated that the site, the third most accessed on the Internet, was receiving more than 100 million views per day, making up nearly 17 per cent of all traffic on the Internet, 60 per cent of all online video tratic, and engaging 81 million unique visitors each month.’ The upshot of this universal accessibility is that each viewer is privy in a simple month to many more visual events than YouTube 的流行度在过去几年里可谓一飞冲天，其醒目标语"播你所想"恰如其分地体现了这一现象，部分归功于其极简的操作与普适的接入。截至 2008 年底的用户统计显示，这个全球访问量第三的网站每日视频浏览量突破 1 亿次，占据全网流量的 17%、在线视频流量的 60%，每月吸引 8100 万独立访客。这种全民可及性带来的直接后果是：每位观众单月接触的视觉事件量，远超
they would otherwise experience in a lifetime; Williams refers to this intensified exposure as ‘living in a dramatized world’ (Williams 1989g). The determinism that Williams sought to expose emerged soon after the technology had reached a mass audience and found its place among similar participatory systems in cyberspace. Already in 2006, Time magazine celebrated ‘Time’s person of the year: you,’ with an apt synecdoche which, however, overstates the impact of public Internet platforms on social interaction and the redistribution of media hegemony: 其一生可能经历的观看总和——威廉斯将这种强化的视觉暴露称为"生活在戏剧化的世界"（威廉斯 1989g）。当这项技术触达大众受众并在网络空间与其他参与式系统并置时，威廉斯试图揭示的那种技术决定论便迅速显现。早在 2006 年，《时代》周刊就以"年度人物：你"为封面，这个精妙的提喻虽颇具深意，却夸大了公共互联网平台对社会互动及媒体霸权再分配的实际影响力。
It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes … This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. 这是关于多数人从少数人手中夺取权力并彼此无偿相助的故事，以及这将如何不仅改变世界，更会改变世界变革的方式……这是一个建立新型国际理解的契机，不是政客对政客、伟人对伟人，而是公民对公民、个人对个人。
(Grossman 2006) （格罗斯曼 2006）
Despite the unbridled enthusiasm of such statements, YouTube closes off as many routes as it opens. The voice of the individual, dipped into the semiotics of mass expression, eventually loses its sharpness and copforms to whatever parameters are accepted by a user community. Attempts to control hostile behaviour (or cyber-bullying) clash against the right of every user to freely express their views, which are as often puerile and destructive as they are genuinely involved and useful. While YouTube emerged at the intersection of a focus on the self, on the one hand, poignantly illustrated in the very first video posted on the site - ‘Me at the zoo’ by co-founder Jawed Karim - and global distribution, on the other hand, both the concept of ‘individual’ participation and globalism were changed in the process. The singular pronoun highlighted by Time’s eulogy acquires a plural connotation, while the very idea of a self dissolves in the mass of its global reproducibility across user communities engaged in endless participation. 尽管这些言论充满不加掩饰的热情，但 YouTube 在开辟新路径的同时也封闭了许多可能性。当个体的声音被浸入大众表达的符号体系后，最终会失去其锋芒，转而迎合用户群体认可的任何标准。控制敌对行为（或网络欺凌）的尝试与每位用户自由表达观点的权利形成冲突——这些观点既可能是幼稚有害的，也可能是真诚投入且有益的。YouTube 诞生于"关注自我"与"全球传播"的交叉点（前者在该网站首条视频——联合创始人贾韦德·卡里姆的《我在动物园》中得到鲜明体现），但在此过程中，"个体"参与的概念与全球主义内涵都发生了嬗变。《时代》周刊颂词中强调的单数人称代词获得了复数含义，而"自我"的概念本身也在全球用户群体无止境参与所形成的海量复制中消解殆尽。
Despite the originality of their assemblage, many of the forms employed by YouTube were borrowed from other media; the technology remains, however, unique in its directness and closeness to everyday life, which is in turn modified by the potential opened up by the technology of user-generated content. Yet it is not the sum of its internal characteristics that has shaped YouTube but the involvement of specific social interests which nudge this system towards entertainment, witness value and political engagement, successively or at the same time. Although it initially resisted the concept of corporate ownership, profit-making, and censorship, the digital network eventually gave in to market pressures and traditional forms of regulation. On 9 October 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65\$ 1.65 billion, a sale that provoked enormous media coverage and confirmed the wave of corporate interest for consumer-generated Internet content. In 2005, Rupert Murdoch stated that ‘young people don’t want to rely on a Godlike figure 尽管 YouTube 的组合形式颇具原创性，但其采用的许多模式都借鉴自其他媒体；然而该技术仍以其直接性和贴近日常生活的特质独树一帜，而用户生成内容技术所开辟的可能性又反过来重塑了这种日常生活。但塑造 YouTube 的并非其内部特征的总和，而是特定社会利益的介入——这些力量推动着该系统相继或同时朝向娱乐化、见证价值和政治参与发展。虽然最初抵制企业所有权、营利行为和内容审查的概念，这个数字网络最终仍向市场压力和传统监管形式妥协。2006 年 10 月 9 日，Google 以 $1.65\$ 1.65 亿美元收购 YouTube，这笔交易引发媒体铺天盖地的报道，印证了企业对消费者生成互联网内容的收购浪潮。2005 年，鲁伯特·默多克曾宣称"年轻人不愿依赖上帝般的存在
from above to tell them what’s important … They want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it’ (cited in Winograd and Hais 2008: 152). Then he promptly purchased MySpace, another user-generated platform, for $580\$ 580 million, not fully resisting the temptation to become that Godlike figure. 自上而下地告诉他们什么是重要的……他们希望掌控自己的媒体，而不是被媒体所控制"（引自 Winograd 和 Hais 2008: 152）。随后他立即以 $580\$ 580 百万美元收购了另一个用户生成平台 MySpace，终究未能完全抵抗成为那种上帝般人物的诱惑。
Since then, countless media conglomerates have supplemented their output with web access and blogging facilities, and plans are currently in place to adapt the traditional television format to selective and interactive viewing on the Internet, complete with live streaming devices, live blogging and other participatory media platforms. CNN, whose traffic details rank much lower than YouTube’s, has launched an effort to attract YouTube’s media-savvy audience by inviting so-called iReports, which are then incorporated into the mainstream news programmes. In fact, the platform has already been adopted as second market by commercial television, as popular television productions (especially comedy programmes) such as Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show extend their media visibility through their YouTube presence, one that attracts millions of viewers within a single week. The impact of the programme is further enhanced by the site’s viewer-oriented design, offering the opportunity for free and anonymous comment, rating and interlinking. 此后，无数传媒集团纷纷通过增设网络接入和博客功能来扩充其内容输出。目前已有计划将传统电视形式改造为互联网上的选择性互动观看模式，配备实时流媒体设备、直播博客及其他参与式媒体平台。CNN 的流量数据远低于 YouTube，现正通过征集所谓的"公民记者报道"（iReports）并将其纳入主流新闻节目，试图吸引 YouTube 上精通媒体的受众群体。事实上，该平台已被商业电视作为第二市场采用——诸如《周六夜现场》和《每日秀》等热门电视节目（尤其是喜剧类）通过 YouTube 平台显著提升了媒体能见度，单周内即可吸引数百万观众。网站以观众为中心的设计进一步放大了节目影响力，提供免费匿名评论、评分和内容互链功能。
Political interests have also begun to determine the content of online video, as the transnational distribution of television has encountered political setbacks. In 2007, YouTube emerged as an important political route channelling currents of opinion into people’s homes after the Englishlanguage arm of Qatar-based Al Jazeera signed a deal to launch a channel on YouTube’s video site, following several failures to connect with American cable providers due to political opposition. Essential Al Jazeera programmes such as Inside lrad would therehy gain more recognition in the West and help shed the brand’s reputation as a terrorist propaganda machine. Other politically motivated instances of Web video promotion include the launching in 2007 of the European L’nion’s YouTube channel (called EUTube), which features such self-promoting and aesthetically bland productions as Flying and the Enwironment - the EL’ Leads the Wray. It was only a short step from such harmless hureaucratic propaganda to ethically questionable ‘stealth viral’ video ads, mainly corporate commercials that carry out subliminal forms of persuasion, or what the industry calls ‘murketing’ (a merger of murky and marketing). In May 2008, a public relations company based in Paris created YouTube user accounts and posted videos that revealed the health dangers posed by cell phone radiation. After they had been viewed ten million times, a wireless headset manufacturer admitted its involvement with the videos and went on to use them in their official advertising campaigns. The company’s marketing director confessed that traffic on the website was instantly scaled up by the announcement that the firm had commissioned the videos. 政治因素也开始决定网络视频的内容，因为电视节目的跨国传播遭遇了政治阻碍。2007 年，当卡塔尔半岛电视台英语频道在与美国有线电视供应商多次因政治反对而合作失败后，与 YouTube 视频网站达成协议开设频道时，YouTube 便成为将舆论导向引入千家万户的重要政治渠道。像《走进伊拉克》这样的半岛电视台核心节目由此在西方获得更多认可，有助于摆脱其作为恐怖主义宣传机器的品牌形象。其他具有政治动机的网络视频推广案例还包括 2007 年欧盟 YouTube 频道（名为 EUTube）的推出，该频道充斥着诸如《飞行与环境——欧盟引领前行》这类自我宣传且审美平庸的节目。 从这种看似无害的官僚主义宣传到伦理存疑的"隐形病毒"视频广告仅一步之遥——这类主要由企业制作的商业广告实施着潜意识层面的说服行为，业界称之为"模糊营销"（murky 与 marketing 的合成词）。2008 年 5 月，巴黎某公关公司创建 YouTube 用户账号并发布揭露手机辐射健康危害的视频。当视频点击量突破千万次后，某无线耳机制造商承认参与制作，并随后将其纳入官方广告宣传。该公司市场总监坦言，在公开承认委托制作这些视频后，网站流量立即呈现指数级增长。
Beyond the political interests that drive these instrumentalizations of YouTube, the platform has also enhanced civil awareness to the point of playing the role of a cultural watchdog that can skirt issues of censorship and alert the global community to instances of injustice or abuse. In this sense, YouTube has contributed to the rise of what has been termed ‘sousveillance’ - the reverse pattern of surveillance as hierarchically inflected observation from the top down also known as the ‘participatory panopticon’ as a form of watchful vigilance involving individual participants. It also added an ethical component of advocacy to practices that for a long time were used primarily for entertainment purposes and trivial pursuits. As human rights suffered an instant devaluation since the beginning of the war on terror, YouTube has emerged as a platform for the promotion of human rights, helping stories of torture and abuse go viral, and thereby calling for prompter action to redress injustice. Videos that depict daily scenes in wars being waged around the world or terrorist attacks also find their way onto the YouTube website, offering a solution to what Williams deplored as ‘the culture of distance,’ epitomized by the absence of alternative views on current events, beyond the polished slickness of television news (Williams 1989g: 13-21). 除了政治利益驱动下对 YouTube 的工具化利用外，该平台还提升了公民意识，甚至扮演起文化监督者的角色——既能规避审查问题，又能向国际社会警示不公与暴行。就此而言，YouTube 助推了所谓"逆向监视"（sousveillance）的兴起，即颠覆传统自上而下等级化监控模式、由个体参与者共同构成的"参与式全景监视"体系。该平台还为长期以娱乐消遣为主的用户实践注入了倡导伦理的维度。自反恐战争伊始人权价值遭遇即时贬损以来，YouTube 已成为促进人权的关键平台，通过使酷刑与虐待事件获得病毒式传播，从而呼吁采取更迅速的行动匡正不义。 描绘世界各地战争或恐怖袭击日常场景的视频也会出现在 YouTube 网站上，这为解决威廉姆斯所痛斥的"距离文化"提供了方案——这种文化体现在电视新闻光鲜亮丽的外表下，缺乏对时事的多元视角（Williams 1989g: 13-21）。
Youtube at Ground Zero 归零地的 YouTube
Indeed, the events of 11 September 2001 marked a significant turning point in the evolution of Web 2.0 technology, which can be attributed to the unfolding of the attacks along two narrative trajectories: melodrama and tragedy. 9//119 / 11 as a catalyser for mass melodrama sparked an upsurge in visually heroic behaviour and moralizing self-display, forging communities of involvement that later exploded into user communities. Essential in this context is Elisabeth Anker’s compelling argument that media coverage of 9/11 produced a specific American collective identity through a melodramatic plotline, which allowed the US to emerge as a morally powerful victim forced to transform victimization into heroic retributive action (Anker 2005). While Anker successfully pursues this line of inquiry and demonstrates the appeal of a narrative profiling America’s dual role of victim and hero, she overlooks the distinct function of Web 2.0 media in perpetuating melodramatic scenarios and underplays the role of emotionality as an inherent means of media dissemination itself. Not only official media coverage of 9/11 tended toward amplifying the heroic victimization of America and its resulting self-righteousness, but the bulk of 9//119 / 11 materials on the YouTube platform suggests that identity politics in transnational media tends to rely on the demonization of an other whose incessant threats must be either fought or ridiculed (see for example the countless vituperative videos and jokes at the expense of Arab characters or mascots). Yet in the years following the 2001 attacks and especially after the start of the Iraq 的确，2001 年 9 月 11 日的事件标志着 Web 2.0 技术发展的重要转折点，这可以归因于袭击事件沿着两条叙事轨迹展开：情节剧与悲剧。 9//119 / 11 作为大众情节剧的催化剂，激发了视觉化英雄行为与道德化自我展示的浪潮，缔造了后来爆发式增长的用户参与社群。伊丽莎白·安克（Elisabeth Anker）提出的关键论点极具说服力：媒体对 9·11 事件的报道通过情节剧式的叙事脉络，塑造了特定的美国集体身份认同，使美国得以以道德强权受害者的姿态出现，被迫将受害经历转化为英雄式的惩戒行动（Anker 2005）。尽管安克成功推进了这一研究路径，并论证了美国作为受害者与英雄双重角色叙事模式的吸引力，但她忽视了 Web 2.0 媒体在延续情节剧场景中的独特功能，也低估了情感性作为媒介传播内在手段的作用。 不仅官方媒体对 9/11 事件的报道倾向于放大美国作为英雄受害者的形象及其衍生的道德优越感，YouTube 平台上的大量 9//119 / 11 材料也表明，跨国媒体中的身份政治往往依赖于对"他者"的妖魔化——这些持续存在的威胁必须被对抗或嘲弄（例如无数以阿拉伯人物或吉祥物为代价的谩骂视频和笑话）。然而在 2001 年袭击事件后的数年里，特别是伊拉克战争爆发后
War, the tone of public discourse shifted from an unquestionable faith in the moral imperative of state power towards a more nuanced view of the ramifications of the attacks in terms of individual responsibility. YouTube picked up a large portion of these complex debates. 战争期间，公众话语的基调从对国家权力道德必然性的绝对信仰，转向了对袭击事件在个人责任层面影响的更为复杂的审视。YouTube 平台承载了这些错综辩论的很大一部分。
The ‘tragedy’ of 9//119 / 11 should thus be considered in the context of its technological reproducibility, both in nonstop loops on television - strictly controlled by TV producers - or, more effectively, in its online media appearances, endlessly replayable on personal computer screens. This should not detract from the fact that 9//119 / 11 was a tragic event in a secular era, one that remains otherwise impervious to classical forms of tragedy. As George Steiner argued in The Death of Tragedy (Steiner 1961), tragic art must involve the struggle of noble heroes and the metaphysical lessons which their fate imparts. Judging by this definition, late modernity can hardly provide the necessary conditions for tragedy due to the fundamental untethering of the individual from higher powers (religion, destiny) that lie beyond the individual’s control. In contrast to Steiner, W’illiams does not confine tragedy to elitist art forms and superior social castes, but expands the concept to include not only texts but also events and experiences, regarded in a perpetual flux of institutional conventions and the changing attributes of human nature: 因此， 9//119 / 11 的"悲剧性"应当置于其技术可复制性的语境中考量——无论是受电视制片人严格管控的电视循环播放，还是更具传播效力的网络媒体呈现，都能在个人电脑屏幕上实现无限次回放。但这并不影响 9//119 / 11 作为世俗时代悲剧事件的性质，毕竟这个时代对其他古典悲剧形式始终无动于衷。正如乔治·斯坦纳在《悲剧之死》（Steiner 1961）中所论，悲剧艺术必须包含崇高英雄的抗争及其命运传递的形而上启示。依此标准，晚期现代性几乎无法提供悲剧所需的必要条件，因为个体已从根本上脱离了宗教、命运等不可控的更高力量。与斯坦纳不同，威廉斯并未将悲剧局限在精英艺术形式与社会上层阶级，而是将其概念拓展至文本之外，囊括了处于制度惯例永恒流变与人性特征持续演变中的事件与经验。
Tragedy is then not a single and permanent kind of fact, hut a series of experiences and conventions and institutions. It is not a case of interpreting this series by reference to a permanent and unchanging human nature. Rather the varieties of tragic experience are to be interpreted by reference to the changing conventions and institutions. 悲剧并非单一且永恒不变的事实，而是一系列经验、惯例与制度的集合。我们不应以永恒不变的人性为参照来解读这一系列现象，而应通过不断变化的习俗与制度来诠释各类悲剧体验。
(Williams 1966: 45-6) （威廉斯 1966：45-6）
The democratization of tragedy is nowhere as obvious as in the unrestricted accessibility of online video platforms where everyone, regardless of class, can respond to tragedy. With the advent of this new media, the focus has thus shifted from metaphysical debates on the inescapability of pain to public displays of emotion prompted by suffering. As Judith Butler has argued, such collective responses to tragic loss evolve from a feeling of social interdependence and vulnerability. In the aftermath of 9//119 / 11, individuals - but also sovereign nations - began to acknowledge their dependence on and vulnerability to each other. Tragedy, then, is the recognition ‘that we can be injured, that others can be injured, that we are subject to death at the whim of another’ (Butler 2004: xii). Likewise, the YouTube community rests on its members’ imaginative capacities for empathy. Being a transnational platform that allows individuals to interact across geographic borders, YouTube stresses the limits of individual autonomy and the embeddedness of individuals in social relations, their ‘vulnerability to a sudden address from elsewhere’ (ibid.: 29) - literally, a digital 悲剧的民主化在在线视频平台的无限制可及性中体现得最为明显，在这里，无论阶级差异，每个人都能对悲剧作出回应。随着这种新媒体的出现，焦点已从关于痛苦不可避免性的形而上学争论，转向了由苦难激发的公众情感展示。正如朱迪斯·巴特勒所言，这种对悲剧性损失的集体回应源于社会相互依存与脆弱性的感受。在 9//119 / 11 事件之后，个体——甚至主权国家——开始承认彼此间的依赖关系与脆弱性。悲剧因此成为这样一种认知："我们可能受伤，他人可能受伤，我们的生死存亡取决于他人的一念之间"（巴特勒 2004: xii）。同样地，YouTube 社区也建立在成员们共情的想象能力之上。作为允许个体跨越地理边界互动的跨国平台，YouTube 凸显了个人自主性的局限，以及个体在社会关系中的嵌入性——他们"随时可能遭遇来自他处的突然召唤"（同上：29）——这种召唤在数字世界中具有字面意义。
interpellation - that cannot be prevented. While it is possible to control these connections, and YouTube does foster the creation of affinitive communities, the more general relationality they denote is inescapable. This media-driven intermingling of fates has therefore replaced ‘fate’ writ large as the engine of tragedy, illustrating Williams’ suggestion that tragedy follows the trajectory of institutional changes and must be placed in that context, or may even emerge from the nature and impact of those changes themselves. 质询——这是无法避免的。虽然可以控制这些关联，且 YouTube 确实促进了志趣相投社群的建立，但它们所指向的更普遍关联性却是无可逃避的。这种由媒体驱动的命运交织，因此取代了宏大书写的"命运"成为悲剧的引擎，印证了威廉姆斯的观点：悲剧遵循制度变迁的轨迹，必须置于该语境中理解，甚至可能源于这些变迁本身的特性与影响。
Democracy, citizenship and viral politics 民主、公民权与病毒式政治
YouTube can also function as a potential countermovement to what Henry Giroux (2003) in Public Spaces, Private Lives: Democracy Beyond 9/11 deplores as the commercialization of public life and an increasing disinvestment in public goods since 9/11. According to Giroux, we are witnessing and participating in ‘the collapse of public discourse, the increasing militarization of public space, and the rise of a state apparatus bent on substituting policing functions for social services’ (ibid.: 31) resulting in a thorough dislike for all things social, public and collective (ibid.: 55), whose first casualty is the language of social responsibility. Undoubtedly, the melodramatic scenarios in 9//119 / 11 media representations emphasized by Anker contributed to the rising indifference in the US toward critical consciousness. In arguing for ‘educated hope’, a concept that rests on a more expansive concept of pedagogy in a variety of cultural sites (ibid.: 129), Giroux gives us ample reason to pause over the simultaneously utopian and concrete format of YouTube-like platforms. It may seem troubling to position the appeal of user-generated content on a par with Giroux’s ‘socially engaged citizenship’ (ibid.: 3), predicated as it is on knowing, understanding and reform. YouTube, however, provides the most solid, freely accessible video database of recent historical events such as 9//119 / 11 and the war in Iraq, and has seen its role as instant recorder and historiographer speedily gaining in significance and culminating in 2008 with a tremendous impact on public policy and political marketing in the US and abroad. YouTube 同样可以作为一种潜在的反向运动，对抗亨利·吉鲁（2003）在《公共空间与私人生活：9/11 之后的民主》中所痛斥的现象——自 9/11 事件以来公共生活的商品化与公共物品投资的持续萎缩。吉鲁指出，我们正目睹并参与着"公共话语的崩塌、公共空间日益军事化，以及国家机器用治安功能取代社会服务的趋势"（同上：31），这导致人们对一切社会性、公共性和集体性事物产生彻底厌恶（同上：55），首当其冲受害的便是社会责任的语言。毫无疑问，安克尔所强调的 9//119 / 11 媒体表征中那些情节剧式的场景，加剧了美国社会对批判意识的普遍冷漠。当吉鲁主张"有教养的希望"这一概念时（该概念立足于更广泛的文化场所中的教育理念，同上：129），他为我们提供了充分理由来审视 YouTube 类平台兼具乌托邦色彩与现实意义的存在形式。 将用户生成内容的上诉与吉鲁所提出的"社会参与式公民身份"(同上:3)相提并论或许令人不安，毕竟后者建立在认知、理解与改革的基础之上。然而，YouTube 作为当下最完善、可自由访问的视频数据库，记录了诸如 9//119 / 11 和伊拉克战争等近期历史事件，其作为即时记录者与历史编纂者的角色正迅速凸显重要性——2008 年这一角色对美国及全球公共政策与政治营销产生的巨大影响，标志着其影响力的巅峰。
During the American presidential campaign in 2008, YouTube was widely used to promote campaign material, whose key messages became more compelling merely by virtue of their video repetition. Yet the platform was also used to publish candid campaign moments, which forced the candidates to be constantly alert to the content and form of their messages, and to avoid serious ‘gaffes’ - a permanent attraction on YouTube and on the daily comedy shows. Barack Obama was among the first to recognize YouTube’s capacity to rival primetime power by uploading his response to George W. Bush’s last State of the Union Address on YouTube, which went on to become one of his campaign’s major battlegrounds, periodically set in motion by viral hits such as the immensely popular song Yes, We 在 2008 年美国总统竞选期间，YouTube 被广泛用于推广竞选资料，其核心信息仅通过视频的重复播放就变得更具说服力。然而该平台也被用来发布竞选活动的真实瞬间，这迫使候选人必须时刻注意其信息的内容与形式，避免出现严重的"失言"——这类内容在 YouTube 和每日喜剧节目中始终具有吸引力。巴拉克·奥巴马是最早认识到 YouTube 具备挑战黄金时段传播力的人之一，他将自己对乔治·W·布什最后一次国情咨文的回应视频上传至 YouTube，这段视频后来成为其竞选活动的主要战场之一，并随着《是的，我们可以》等病毒式传播热门歌曲的周期性推动而持续发酵。
Can, by the artist Will.i.am, or the fan production I Got a Crush on Obama, by Internet star Obama Girl. Not all YouTube coverage was favourable to the candidates though; in fact the most popular campaign videos displayed a combination of humour and malice. Some of these - especially those featuring the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or Hillary Clinton’s false statement on having ducked sniper fire in Bosnia - haunted the candidates and the presidential debates. But this has not deterred Obama from embracing the medium as a presidential tool, similar to President Roosevelt’s use of radio during his administration. In a November 2007 interview with YouTube’s news and politics editor Steve Grove, Obama announced his intentions of becoming the first Web 2.0 president: ‘We’re going to have 21st century fireside chats where I’m speaking directly to the American people through video streams because it allows me to interact directly in a way that I think will enhance democracy and strengthen our government’ (cited in Ramirez 2008). This incentive toward transparency in government corresponds to the democratizing effect that Williams attached to media technologies. What Williams may not have anticipated is the involvement of parties and institutions in democratic networks that had initially aimed to circumvent precisely these dominant centres of political power. 无论是艺人 Will.i.am 的作品，还是网络红人"奥巴马女孩"制作的《I Got a Crush on Obama》，都展现了这一现象。不过并非所有 YouTube 内容都对候选人有利；事实上，最热门的竞选视频往往兼具幽默与恶意。其中一些——特别是涉及耶利米·怀特牧师事件的，或是希拉里·克林顿关于在波斯尼亚躲避狙击手袭击的不实陈述——成为困扰候选人和总统辩论的阴影。但这并未阻止奥巴马将这一媒介作为总统宣传工具，正如罗斯福总统当年对广播的运用。2007 年 11 月接受 YouTube 新闻政治版块编辑史蒂夫·格罗夫采访时，奥巴马宣布要成为首位"Web 2.0 总统"："我们将开展 21 世纪版的炉边谈话，通过视频直播直接向美国民众发声，这种方式能实现直接互动，我认为这将促进民主并强化政府效能"（引自 Ramirez 2008）。这种推动政府透明化的动机，与威廉姆斯所强调的媒体技术民主化效应不谋而合。 威廉姆斯或许未曾预料到的是，那些最初旨在规避这些政治权力主导中心的民主网络，最终却促成了政党与机构的参与。
More ambivalent than Giroux but equally convinced by the necessity for public deliberation and engagement, Chantal Mouffe came closer than Giroux to actually calculating the effects of new media towards streamlining or stalling the democratic agenda. Mouffe emphasizes the value of mobilizing people’s passions, their ‘libidinal investment’ and collective identification in partisan conflicts (Mouffe 2005). Democratic politics is thus premised on domesticating hostility and defusing the recurrent danger of potential antagonism in human relations. The nature of youTube would support her contention that collective identities should be formed by relational rather than rational means. Despite pointing out the possibility of new media to facilitate the realization of direct democracs. Mouffe also recognizes that they might replace rational debate by the instant expression of private prejudices and transform public decisions into private, consumerist choices. Overriding her own repeated emphasis on the benefits of private involvement with the political, Mouffe then raises the puzzling question of whether new media development should be left to the markets (as is the case today) or he regulated through political decisions. This is where her stance contrasts sharply with W’illiams’ assumption that control of media technologies is not an option but a given. Both Moutfe and Williams have insisted that democratic, participatory technologies do not necessarily result in a swifter or more radical democratization of public discourse or of society as a whole. To assume such an idealist position would only be a further illustration of what Williams called technological determinism. Recognizing the naivety of this view is not equal to what Williams himself criticizes as unproductive ‘cultural pessimism’ (Williams 1985b: 135), but a 相比吉鲁更具矛盾性但同样坚信公共讨论与参与必要性的尚塔尔·墨菲，在评估新媒体对民主议程的推进或阻碍作用时比吉鲁更贴近实际。墨菲强调在党派冲突中调动民众激情、"力比多投资"与集体认同的价值（墨菲，2005）。民主政治因而以驯化敌意、消解人际关系中潜在对抗的反复危险为前提。YouTube 的特性佐证了她的观点：集体认同应通过关系性而非理性方式构建。尽管指出新媒体可能促进直接民主的实现，墨菲也意识到它们或许会以私人偏见的即时表达取代理性辩论，并将公共决策转化为私人的消费主义选择。 穆芙在推翻自己先前反复强调的私人参与政治之益处后，提出了一个令人困惑的问题：新媒体发展究竟应该交由市场主导（如当今现状），还是应当通过政治决策进行规制。这一立场与威廉姆斯将媒体技术控制视为既定前提而非可选方案的基本假设形成鲜明对比。穆芙与威廉姆斯都坚持认为，民主化、参与性的技术未必能加速或彻底实现公共话语乃至整个社会的民主化进程。若持此理想主义立场，只会再次印证威廉姆斯所称的"技术决定论"。认识到这种观点的天真性，并非等同于威廉姆斯所批判的那种徒劳的"文化悲观主义"（Williams 1985b: 135），而是
necessary step in probing the consequences of new technologies for contemporary society and democratic citizenship. 探究新技术对当代社会及民主公民身份影响的必要步骤。
Conclusion 结论
Raymond Williams insists that the development, implementation and use of technologies are contingent on the social relations of the world into which they enter. This theory has been illustrated here by an analysis of YouTube’s contagious evolution from an eccentric technique into a widely available technology. Although the issues of citizenship and democracy in the age of viral communication have been broached by critics such as Giroux and Mouffe, Williams offered a perspective derived from his careful observations of the television medium, a view that seems perfectly applicable to today’s complex digital ecosystems. Moreover, this vantage point allows for fruitful connections between America’s recent history, its tragic events and the rampant proliferation of online video as a vehicle for unbridled emotion and public debate. In the mosaic of contemporary media, YouTube has offered new opportunities that were temporarily outside the sway of transnational capital and the grasp of media corporations, opportunities that ushered in, above all, a new age of emotional participation and political expression. Gradually, however, YouTube has been captured hy dominant interests and its communities are becoming fronts for commercial enterprises (viral marketing), before being overwhelmed by global media conglomerates. Rather than an empowering technology seeking to break the shackles of corporate and ideological interests in the media and public life, YouTube has also proved to be an instrument of social atomization and decentralization. Its capacity for creating positive social phenomena has shown how relative any criticism of mass media movements must be, hut also how the powers of cyberspace are eventually harnessed by forces whose direction of flow - top-down or bottom-up - is in current flux. 雷蒙德·威廉斯坚持认为，技术的发展、实施和应用取决于其所处的社会关系。这一理论通过分析 YouTube 从边缘技术演变为普及平台的传染性发展过程得到了印证。尽管吉鲁和墨菲等批评家已触及病毒式传播时代的公民身份与民主问题，但威廉斯基于对电视媒介的细致观察所提出的视角，似乎完全适用于当今复杂的数字生态系统。此外，这一观察视角能够有效串联起美国近代史、重大悲剧事件与网络视频作为情感宣泄和公共辩论载体的疯狂蔓延。在当代媒体的马赛克图景中，YouTube 曾短暂摆脱跨国资本与传媒巨头的掌控，提供了催生情感参与和政治表达新时代的重要契机。 然而，YouTube 逐渐被强势利益集团所掌控，其社群在沦为商业企业（病毒式营销）的门面后，最终被全球媒体巨头吞没。这个本应打破媒体与公共生活中企业及意识形态枷锁的赋能技术，实则演变为社会原子化与去中心化的工具。它催生积极社会现象的能力，既揭示了针对大众媒体运动的批评必须保持相对性，也展现了网络空间力量最终被流动方向（自上而下或自下而上）尚不明确的势力所驾驭的现状。
Notes 注释
1 See Mcluhan |1964|1998: ‘Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the “content” of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind’ (ibid.: 18). 1 参见麦克卢汉[1964|1998]："我们对所有媒体的惯常反应——即关键在于如何使用媒体——不过是技术白痴的麻木姿态。因为媒介的'内容'就像窃贼用来分散心灵看门狗注意力的多汁肉块"（同上：18 页）。
2 This information is provided by the web information company Alexa (www. alexa.com). 2 该数据由网络信息公司 Alexa（www.alexa.com）提供。
Cultural studies and common culture: Raymond Williams' approach towards media cultural studies 文化研究与共同文化：雷蒙德·威廉斯的媒介文化研究路径
Udo Göttlich 乌多·格特利希
I. Introduction 一、引言
Since Curran’s (1990) critique of the ‘New Revisionism’ in mass communication research or McGuigan’s (1992) critique of ‘Cultural Populism’, we in cultural studies are emphatically told that political or economical questions are lacking in our analyses of communication or that sociology has to be put back on the agenda of media and communication analysis. What is seldom mentioned in such critiques of cultural studies is Raymond Williams’ own detour towards a critical theory of culture via his approach of cultural materialism. This theory allows one to come to terms with some of the crucial questions that are being dehated in recent critiques on mass culture (cf. Hoggart 2004) as well as media culture and/or society (cf. Kellner 1995b). 自柯伦(1990)对大众传播研究中"新修正主义"的批判或麦圭根(1992)对"文化民粹主义"的批判以来，文化研究领域不断被强调指出：我们的传播分析缺乏政治或经济维度，社会学必须重新成为媒体与传播分析的核心议题。然而这些对文化研究的批评中，很少有人提及雷蒙德·威廉斯通过其文化唯物主义方法对批判性文化理论的探索。该理论能够帮助我们理解近期关于大众文化(参见霍加特 2004)、媒体文化及/或社会(参见凯尔纳 1995b)的批判中所涉及的一些关键问题。
In this chapter we will consider what implications Williams’ ‘cultural materialism’ as his interpretation or understanding of a sociology of culture and communication has for a re-evaluation of our understanding of media culture in cultural studies. To achieve this aim, we have to follow the connection between cultural materialism and an earlier concept in Williams’ writings, the concept of a common culture (cf. Williams 1989d). 本章将探讨威廉斯的"文化唯物主义"——作为他对文化与社会传播学的一种阐释理解——对我们重新评估文化研究中媒体文化认知的启示意义。为实现这一目标，我们需要追溯文化唯物主义与威廉斯早期著作中"共同文化"概念(参见威廉斯 1989d)之间的理论关联。
We will consider some of the interpretations that Williams’ concept of a common culture has received over the past forty years. W’th these interpretations in mind, we will discuss some limitations of the traditional terminology of media (section 3). W’e will also outline the extent of media change which necessitates a new understanding of media culture when we think that Williams’ critical approach will help us fully grasp actual shifts and changes in communication as well as in media culture. ^(1){ }^{1} In the second part (sections 4 5) we will discuss an initial surgestion for a solution which derives from the meaning of ‘media as pasagenays of social practice’, developing this suggestion from W’illiams’ cultural materialism (cf. Göttlich 1996, 2004). This idea aims at an understanding and criticlue of recent media concepts and communication models and can be linked to existing problems concerning ideas of a common culture. 我们将探讨过去四十年来威廉斯"共同文化"概念所获得的一些诠释。基于这些诠释，我们将讨论传统媒体术语的某些局限性（第 3 节）。同时，我们将勾勒媒体变革的广度——当考虑到威廉斯的批判性方法能帮助我们充分把握传播与媒体文化中的实际转变时，这种变革要求我们对媒体文化产生新的理解。 ^(1){ }^{1} 在第二部分（第 4-5 节），我们将初步探讨源自"媒体作为社会实践通道"这一含义的解决方案，这一建议是从威廉斯的文化唯物主义发展而来（参见 Göttlich 1996, 2004）。该理念旨在理解和批判近期的媒体概念与传播模式，并可关联到有关共同文化理念的现存问题。
2. Culture and common culture 2. 文化与共同文化
In Williams’ cultural theory and analysis, the question ‘What is a common culture?’ is too fundamental for the problem in which his concept of communication and culture is involved. It thus cannot be settled with a new definition of media or media culture only. It has to do with the ideal of a ‘knowable community’ versus the concept of a ‘known community’, an opposition that derives from his critique of Victorian fiction and is used for the critique of culture. It was Terry Eagleton who put this idea in the broader context of the nineteenth century and Williams’ (1958) book Culture and Society: 在威廉斯的文化理论与分析中，“何为共同文化？”这一问题对于其传播与文化概念所涉及的核心议题而言过于根本，仅凭对媒体或媒体文化的新定义无法解决。这实质上关乎"可知共同体"理想与"已知共同体"概念的对立——该对立源自其对维多利亚时代小说的批判，并被运用于文化批判领域。特里·伊格尔顿将这一思想置于更宏大的 19 世纪历史语境中加以考察，并与威廉斯（1958）的著作《文化与社会》形成互文。
What the work did, in effect, was to take the only viable tradition Williams had to hand - the Romantic radical-conservative lineage of nineteenth-century England - and extract from it those ‘radical’ elements which could be ingrafted into a ‘socialist humanism’. That is to say, the elements extracted - tradition, community, organism, growth, wholeness, continuity and so on - were interlocked with the equally corporatist, evolutionary discourse of labourism, so that the organicism of the language reproduced and elaborated the organicism of the other. (cited in Jardine and Swindells 1989: 122) 实际上，这部作品的贡献在于：它采纳了威廉姆斯手头唯一可行的传统——19 世纪英国浪漫主义的激进-保守谱系——并从中提炼出那些能够嫁接进"社会主义人道主义"的"激进"元素。换言之，这些被提取的元素——传统、共同体、有机体、生长、整体性、连续性等——与同样具有社团主义特征的工党进化论话语相互交织，使得语言的有机性再现并拓展了另一层面的有机性。（引自 Jardine 和 Swindells 1989: 122）
Nowadays, we have to think of a translation of this idea concerning questions of how to make connections and how to stay connected in a global media culture so that a common culture in Williams’ sense can come true. To build such a bridge means not only a challenge in a pragmatistic perspective, following and analysing processes of ‘doing culture’ (Hörning and Reuter 2004). ^(2){ }^{2} It is at least a question of facing new forms of class antagonism, as Richard Hoggart reminds us in his latest book: 如今，我们必须思考如何在全球媒体文化中实现这种理念的转化，即如何建立联系并保持连接，从而使威廉姆斯意义上的共同文化成为可能。搭建这样的桥梁不仅意味着从实用主义视角出发，追随并分析"文化实践"过程所面临的挑战（Hörning 和 Reuter 2004）， ^(2){ }^{2} 正如理查德·霍加特在其新著中提醒我们的，这至少还需要直面新型的阶级对抗问题。
We remain a divided, not - which could be healthy - a diverse, society; we are a society moving towards a new or, by now, new-ish form of the old three-tiered divisions: minorities at top and bottom, with the persuaders’ prime target, of about seventy-five per cent, in the middle. 我们仍然是一个分裂的——而非可能有益健康的多元化——社会；我们正逐渐形成一种新型的，或者说时至今日已略显陈旧的旧式三层分化结构：少数群体居于顶端与底层，而约占百分之七十五的中间阶层，则成为说服者们的主要目标。
(Hoggart 2004: 19) （霍加特 2004: 19）
From this background, dealing with questions of a common culture in the face of new ways of exploitation - not only by the advertisement industry means looking for new ways of doing and making in our media culture, a culture that can bridge the new forms of class antagonisms. If there is no translation of the concept of common culture in the older sense according to this new challenge, the organicism of the language can turn into a minefield very quickly, Eagleton reminds us. But the way in which Williams - and also Hoggart - use the idea of a common culture does not include organicism. It includes the idea of a ‘knowable community’. In this, Williams 在此背景下，面对新的剥削形式——不仅来自广告业——探讨共同文化问题，意味着要在我们的媒介文化中寻求新的实践与创造方式，这种文化能够弥合新型的阶级对立。伊格尔顿提醒我们，若不能根据这一新挑战对传统意义上的共同文化概念进行转化，其语言中的有机论可能迅速沦为雷区。但威廉斯——以及霍加特——所使用的共同文化理念并不包含有机论。它包含着"可知共同体"的概念。在此，威廉斯
holds before us an image of the larger society which has to show care for the actual and diverse communities it contains. If it does not, then, … it is destroying actual communities in the name of the ‘community’ or ‘public’. 为我们呈现了一个更宏大社会的图景，这个社会必须对其所包含的真实多元社群展现关怀。如若不然，那么……它就是在以"共同体"或"公众"之名摧毁真实的社群。
(Eldridge and Eldridge 1994: 205) (埃尔德里奇与埃尔德里奇 1994: 205)
Against this background, a common culture in Williams’ own words means 在此背景下，威廉斯本人所说的共同文化意味着
an educated and participating democracy … It is this emphasis on a mutual determination of values and meanings that I think one has to remember in considering one possible meaning of a common culture … In this common process, the only absolute will be the keeping of the channels and institutions of communication clear, so that all may contribute, and be helped to contribute. 一个受过教育且广泛参与的民主社会……正是在对价值与意义相互决定的强调中，我们必须牢记共同文化的一种可能意涵……在这个共同进程中，唯一绝对的准则是保持传播渠道与机制的畅通，使所有人都能参与贡献，并得到助力以作出贡献。
(Williams 1989d: 37f.) (威廉斯 1989d: 37 及以下页)
In this understanding, the function of culture is invariably linked to the possibility of ‘community’, to the prospect that a common existence - a shared subject-position ‘we’ - can be formed or recovered from the reified social relations of the present; that ‘culture’ can, in other words, produce the ‘communal’ body of a people. This shift goes back to an understanding that people can make culture only in the very acts of consuming it and living it. And this is also true for communication. 在这种理解中，文化的功能总是与"共同体"的可能性相关联，与从当下物化的社会关系中形成或重建一种共同存在——即共享的主体立场"我们"——的前景相联系；换言之，"文化"能够催生一个民族的"共同体"身躯。这种转向可追溯至一种认知：人们唯有通过消费文化与践行文化的具体行动，才能真正创造文化。这一原理同样适用于传播领域。
To sum up: the term ‘media culture’ as such is not enough to grasp the changes that occur in the field of social communication and that influence people’s understanding of culture and communication. There is rather the danger of similar limitations to those found in the terms of ‘mass culture’ when we do not come to terms with the critique that lies in Williams’ concept of ‘common culture’. It is this concept that can enlarge our understanding of media culture and/or society and that we can use as a background for our critique within cultural studies. This critique can be useful concerning the role of public media within the future of communication markets as well as within public spheres in Europe, because for all the processes that will lead to a future public sphere in Europe the question of a common culture as the educated and participating democracy that Williams has in mind still remains. The meaning of this concept can also be helpful in understanding Horgart’s current critique of mass culture, in which he emphasises the losses suffered by mass culture development at the end of the twentieth century (cf. Hoggart 2004: 158-76). Whereas Williams fully rejected the concept of mass culture, it is interesting for our critipue within cultural studies that Hoggart not only sticks to this concept but obtains the strongest arguments against the ‘new times’ from a critique of the forces that nowadays create and control mass culture. 总之，“媒介文化”这一术语本身尚不足以把握社会传播领域发生的变革及其对人们文化理解与传播认知的影响。若不接受威廉斯"共同文化"概念中所蕴含的批判立场，我们很可能重蹈"大众文化"这一术语的局限性窠臼。正是这一概念能够拓展我们对媒介文化/社会的理解，并可作为文化研究领域批判实践的基石。该批判视角对于审视欧洲传播市场与公共领域中公共媒体的未来角色尤为重要——因为在塑造欧洲未来公共领域的所有进程中，威廉斯所构想的"作为受教育且参与式民主的共同文化"问题始终存在。这一概念的内涵也有助于理解霍加特对大众文化的当代批判，他着重指出了二十世纪末大众文化发展所付出的代价（参见 Hoggart 2004: 158-76）。 尽管威廉斯完全否定了大众文化的概念，但有趣的是，对我们文化研究领域的批评而言，霍加特不仅坚持这一概念，还通过对当今创造和控制大众文化力量的批判，获得了反对"新时代"的最有力论据。
3. The culture of the media = media culture? 3. 媒体文化等同于媒介文化？
Compared with the tasks, discussed above, of a theory on media culture, the meaning of media found in the context of mass culture debates is more closely linked to metaphors. But we can hardly find any metaphors of culture or media culture at all, and there is none that reminds us of a knowable community and of the role of public spheres within this process. Numerous different terms are used to describe the mediation carried out by the media between the individual and reality. The description of media as channels to transport a message is probably the most well-known metaphor. The purpose and efficiency of media are emphasised here. Denis McQuail (1994) cites in a list a number of further metaphors for media (cf. 65f.): 与前述媒体文化理论的任务相比，大众文化辩论语境中的媒介意义更紧密地与隐喻相连。但我们几乎找不到任何关于文化或媒体文化的隐喻，也没有任何隐喻能让人联想到可知的共同体以及公共领域在这一过程中所扮演的角色。人们使用大量不同术语来描述媒体在个体与现实之间所进行的中介活动。将媒体描述为传递信息的渠道可能是最广为人知的隐喻，这里强调的是媒体的目的和效率。丹尼斯·麦奎尔（1994）在一份清单中列举了更多关于媒体的隐喻（参见 65 页及以下）：
media as a window on events, 媒体作为观察事件的窗口，
media as a mirror of social events, 媒体作为社会事件的镜子，
media as a filter or gatekeeper, sorting out experiences for special purposes, 媒体作为过滤器或守门人，为特定目的筛选经验，
media as a signpost, guide or interpreter giving the events their meaning, 媒体作为路标、向导或解释者，赋予事件意义，
media as a forum or platform for the presentation of content, and, 媒体作为内容呈现的论坛或平台，以及，
media as a screen or barrier, which indicates that media can cut us off from reality. 媒体如同一道屏障或屏幕，意味着它可能将我们与现实隔绝开来。
The metaphors cited are each connected to a communication model corresponding to that of mass communication in its present form. This model concerns the transport of messages or news to a receiver and the problems which arise or have to be overcome so that the message reaches the receiver. The main priority is to determine the factors that affect the efficiency of communication via a particular medium. But do those concepts tell us anything about culture or media culture? 上述隐喻均与当前形态的大众传播模式相关联。这一模式关注的是信息或新闻向接收者的传递过程，以及为确保信息抵达接收端而必须解决或克服的问题。其核心在于确定影响特定媒介传播效率的各种因素。但这些概念是否真正揭示了文化或媒介文化的本质？
As every one of us knows, the field of mass communication has changed over the past thirty years - even if mass communication will not be completely eradicated as a result - and thus the media terms arising from the aforementioned traditional debates are losing their power of description. These facts can be seen most clearly in the discourse of ethnographic media studies. The trend towards the active audience already indicates future developments in which, together with the formation of interactive media, aspects of activity and creativity will play an even more important role in communication. But what culture will develop out of these processes? Which practices will become possible within which media formations? 众所周知，大众传播领域在过去三十年间已发生巨变——尽管大众传播不会因此彻底消亡——由此产生的传统论争中的媒体术语正逐渐丧失其描述力。这种趋势在民族志媒体研究的话语体系中表现得最为明显。受众主动性趋势已然预示着未来发展方向：随着交互式媒体的形成，主动性与创造性要素将在传播过程中扮演更为关键的角色。然而这些进程将孕育出何种文化？在怎样的媒体形态中又将催生哪些新型实践？
To come to terms with those changes the concept of media culture is nowadays used in different theory trends. In Germany, the formulation and use of this concept goes back primarily to the contribution of constructivism to media theory in the writings of S. J. Schmidt (Schmidt 1992a, 为应对这些变革，"媒体文化"概念现已被不同理论流派广泛采用。在德国，这一概念的提出与应用主要源于 S·J·施密特（Schmidt 1992a）建构主义媒体理论的奠基性贡献。
1992b). This approach is partly based on systems theory and combines it with cognitive psychology as well as literary theory and aspects of a sociology of culture. The achievement of constructivism lies mainly in bringing out the constructions of media messages by the recipient and demonstrating the meaning of reality construction for culture and society. The apparent decline of fields of unmediatized experience caused by the increase of media variety may represent the main reason for the term media culture. Here, however, the danger exists that those cultural fields of experience which are not mediatized may be ignored. In everyday life, in the so-called Lebensurelt, unmediatized fields are still in the majority, even if the topics and questions in those fields are increasingly obtained through the media. In a seeming contradiction, the increasing presence of media messages intensifies the desire for unmediatized experience. 1992b）。这一方法部分基于系统理论，并将其与认知心理学、文学理论以及文化社会学视角相结合。建构主义的主要成就在于揭示受众对媒体讯息的建构过程，并论证现实建构对文化与社会的重要意义。媒体多样性增长导致非媒介化经验领域的明显萎缩，这或许正是"媒体文化"术语兴起的主因。然而其中潜藏着将非媒介化的文化经验领域边缘化的危险。在日常生活中，在所谓的"生活世界"里，非媒介化领域仍占主导地位——即便这些领域的话题与议题日益通过媒体获取。看似矛盾的是，媒体讯息愈是泛滥，人们对非媒介化经验的渴求反而愈加强烈。
Within this context, the topics of media and communications studies are the realities that arise or are constructed in media communication and not reality itself. Another problem deals with the step by step formation of ‘entgrenzte Medien’ in which borders of particular media are dissolved, that is, ‘interwoven media’ (Schulze 1995: 364). ‘Media realities’ thus formed are becoming more and more important in everyday life and they have to do with our understanding of reality: they become the forms of our experience. 在此语境下，媒体与传播研究的主题是媒体传播中产生或被建构的现实，而非现实本身。另一个问题涉及"无界媒体"（entgrenzte Medien）的逐步形成——特定媒体的边界在此过程中消解，即形成"交织媒体"（Schulze 1995: 364）。如此形成的"媒体现实"在日常生活中愈发重要，并与我们对现实的理解息息相关：它们成为我们经验的形式。
Within the framework of this chapter, however, we should go briefly into an approach on media culture connected with the writings of Douglas Kellner, which can be used as an example to clarify the basic problem from a further cultural studies perspective. Kellner (1995b) describes the advantages of the term media culture in his book Media Culture as follows: 然而在本章框架内，我们需简要探讨与道格拉斯·凯尔纳著作相关的媒体文化研究方法，该视角可作为从文化研究层面阐明基本问题的范例。凯尔纳（1995b）在其著作《媒体文化》中这样描述"媒体文化"术语的优势：
The term ‘media culture’ has the advantage of signifying both the nature and form of the artifacts of the culture industries (i.e. culture) and their mode of production and distribution (i.e. media technologies and industries). It avoids ideological terms like ‘mass culture’ and ‘popular culture’ and calls attention to the circuit of production, distribution and reception through which media culture is produced, distributed and consumed. The term breaks down artificial barriers between the fields of cultural, media and communications studies and calls attention to the interconnection of culture and communications media in the constitution of media culture, thus breaking down reified distinctions between ‘culture’ and ‘communication’. “媒介文化”这一术语的优势在于，它同时指涉了文化工业产物的本质与形式（即文化）及其生产与传播方式（即媒介技术与产业）。该术语规避了“大众文化”和“流行文化”等意识形态化表述，转而关注媒介文化在生产、传播与接受过程中形成的循环体系。它消解了文化研究、媒介研究与传播研究领域间的人为壁垒，凸显了文化传播媒介在构建媒介文化过程中的互联性，从而打破了“文化”与“传播”之间被实体化的区隔。
(Kellner 1995b: 34f.) (凯尔纳 1995b: 34 及以下页)
In the first part of his explanation we can see some of the reductions which seem to be inherent in the term media culture. These in no way satisfy the theoretical claims that are raised by Kellner in the second part of his statement and that should actually be achieved. This is not a criticism of Kellner’s 在其阐释的前半部分，我们可以发现“媒介文化”这一术语似乎固有的某些简化倾向。这些简化完全无法满足凯尔纳在论述后半部分提出的、本应实现的理论诉求。这并非对凯尔纳的批评
theoretical approach to mass communication or his methods of critique. But the term media culture is meant to explain more, and must explain more, when we follow Williams’ idea of a knowable community, than the well-known question ‘how texts are produced within the context of the political economy and system of production of culture, as well as how audiences are produced by a variety of social institutions, practices, ideologies and the uses of different media’ (Kellner 1995a: 170). The interconnection between the cultural constitution of the media and their role in social communication, which is necessary to understand media culture, is only inadequately treated, even where it is accepted as existent, even where it is the focus of theory. 对大众传播的理论探讨或其批判方法而言，这一术语尚显不足。但当我们遵循威廉斯"可知共同体"理念时，"媒介文化"这一概念必须且能够阐释更多内涵——它远不止于回答那个经典命题："文本如何在政治经济与文化生产体系的语境中被建构，受众又如何通过社会制度、实践、意识形态及多元媒介使用被形塑"（凯尔纳 1995a:170）。媒介的文化构成与其在社会传播中功能的辩证关系，作为理解媒介文化的关键维度，即便在承认其存在性的理论聚焦处，仍未能获得充分阐释。
But it is just this interconnection which is changing in quality in the present development of media. It is this ‘new quality’ of connectivity which the concept of media culture did not get right, as when Kellner addresses this quality in terms of media spectacle. So we should ask if we can come to terms with Williams’ concept of common culture to give an understanding not only of the yet unknown outcome of the process but also of the challenges we have to face. Following Milner (2002), Williams’ concept of a common culture, in dealing with the problem of mutual access, draws upon the idea of a ‘participatory democracy’ as prerequisite of a knowable community. In a more theoretical and not so much practical vein of solidarity, it is the idea of a totality and of the different ways of connection within it. Facing this theoretical question, we have to ask: Is the term media culture linked with questions of access and connection to a totality? If not, how can Williams’ idea of a common culture help us to come to terms with this problem? With these questions in mind we will start the second part of the discussion, where - as stated above we will develop from Williams’ theoretical work the idea of media as passageways of social practice (‘Durchgangspunkte sozialer Praxis’, cf. Göttlich 1996: 253ff). 然而，正是这种相互关联的性质在当代媒介发展中发生着质变。这种"新质态"的连通性，是媒介文化概念未能准确把握的——正如凯尔纳将这种特质描述为媒介奇观时所做的尝试。因此我们应当追问：能否借助威廉斯的共同文化概念，不仅理解这一进程尚未可知的结局，更能把握我们必须面对的挑战？遵循米尔纳（2002）的阐释，威廉斯的共同文化概念在处理相互准入问题时，援引了"参与式民主"作为可知共同体的先决条件。在更具理论性而非实践性的团结维度上，它指向一种总体性及其内部多元联结方式的构想。面对这个理论命题，我们必须追问：媒介文化术语是否与接入总体性及建立联结的问题相关？若无关，威廉斯的共同文化理念又如何帮助我们应对这一困境？ 带着这些问题，我们将进入讨论的第二部分——如前所述，我们将从威廉斯的理论著作中发展出"媒介作为社会实践通道"这一概念（"Durchgangspunkte sozialer Praxis"，参见 Göttlich 1996: 253 及后续）。
4. Raymond Williams' concept of media and communication 4. 雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的媒介与传播概念
Following Raymond Williams’ theory of cultural materialism, in which he understands ‘each’ form of signification as a moment of practice, an extended understanding of media necessary for the term ‘media culture’ emerges. The connection between culture and communication, also sought with the term media culture, is found in Williams with a view to the position of cultural practice in signification. Williams says: 根据雷蒙德·威廉斯的文化唯物主义理论——他将"每种"表意形式都理解为实践的一个瞬间——由此延伸出对媒介的扩展理解，这种理解对于"媒介文化"这一术语的形成至关重要。威廉斯通过考察文化实践在表意过程中的地位，揭示了文化与传播之间的联系，这也正是"媒介文化"这一术语所试图捕捉的关联。威廉斯指出：
Signification, the social creation of meanings through the use of formal signs, is then a practical material activity; it is indeed, literally, a means of production. It is a specific form of that practical consciousness which is inseparable from all social material activity … It is … at once a distinctive material process - the making of signs - and, in the central 表意，即通过使用形式符号进行意义的社会性创造，是一种实践性的物质活动；事实上，它确凿无疑地是一种生产方式。这种实践意识的具体形式与所有社会物质活动密不可分……它既是独特的物质过程——符号的制造——同时，
quality of its distinctiveness as practical consciousness, is involved from the beginning in all other human social and material activity. 就其作为实践意识的独特性这一核心特质而言，从一开始就参与着人类其他所有社会与物质活动。
(Williams 1977: 38) (威廉斯 1977: 38)
In theoretical terms this perspective concerns the examination of social signification and communication processes which should be explained, with a view to the social and cultural relationships that lead to. or determine, their form, as an entirety. This means that media are not mere channels with the task, function or role of social (re)production (as stated in the cited metaphors), but practices in and by which social reproduction is ‘conveyed’ through the processes and formations of communication and cultural signification. In this view media are passageways for communication processes whose social form results from the triad of technology, social institutions and communication, based on the material organization of sign systems; but, in addition, these related processes then engender a specific practice which is decisive for the social mode of communication. 从理论层面而言，这一视角关注的是对社会表意与传播过程的考察——这些过程应当被解释为一种整体，着眼于那些引致或决定其形式的社会文化关系。这意味着媒介并非仅是具有社会（再）生产任务、功能或角色的渠道（如前述隐喻所述），而是社会实践本身，通过传播与文化表意的过程与形态，社会再生产得以"传递"。在此视域下，媒介是传播过程的通道，其社会形态源于技术、社会制度与传播的三元组合，并建立在符号系统物质性组织的基础之上；但更重要的是，这些关联过程继而催生了对社会传播模式具有决定性意义的特定实践。
The idea of passageways within the concept of cultural materialism is linked with Williams’ idea that media are, at the same time, more 文化唯物主义概念中的通道理念，与威廉斯认为媒介同时具有更
than new technologies, in the limited sense. They are means of production, developed in direct if complex relations with profoundly changing and extending social and cultural relationships: changes elsewhere recognizable as deep political and economic transformations. 与其说是狭义上的新技术，不如说它们是生产方式——在与深刻变革且不断扩展的社会文化关系的直接而复杂的联系中发展起来的：这些变化在其他领域可被识别为深层次的政治经济转型。
(Williams 1977: 54) （威廉斯 1977: 54）
So media are first of all ‘material organizations of specific systems of signs’ (Williams 1976b: 505) and no longer mere channels for the transmission of messages. At the same time, then, the moments of practice that regulate this relationship can also be understood as forming meaning. The ‘channel’ itself is already culturally formed and this cultural formation leads to communication. With regard to this step, which is necessary to reach a new understanding of media culture, W’illiams goes on: ‘For if we have learned to see the relation of any cultural work to what we have learned to call a sign-system … we can also come to see that a sign-system is itself a specific structure of social relationships’ (Williams 1977: 140). This again exemplifies a view of the whole interconnected process of a common culture that includes mediated and unmediated experience as well as experiences that tend to be more and more divided between groups, so that the question of mutual access - or in newer terms ‘connectivity’ - remains. 因此，媒体首先是"特定符号系统的物质组织形式"（Williams 1976b: 505），而不再仅仅是信息传输的渠道。与此同时，调节这种关系的实践时刻也可以被理解为意义建构的过程。"渠道"本身已具有文化形构特征，这种文化形构促成了交流行为。针对这一理解媒介文化所必需的关键步骤，威廉斯进一步阐述道："如果我们已经学会将任何文化作品与我们称之为符号系统的关系联系起来……那么我们也能认识到，符号系统本身就是社会关系的特定结构"（Williams 1977: 140）。这再次体现了对共同文化整体互联过程的观照——既包含中介化与非中介化的经验，也涵盖日益分化的群体经验，使得相互接触的可能性（或用新术语表述为"连接性"）问题始终存在。
With regard to the history of communication the interaction described in this observation becomes differentiated through the fact that: ‘each transition is a historical development of social language itself: finding new means, new forms and then new definitions of changing practical consciousness’ (Williams 1977: 54). Principal attention is thus given to the role of ‘specific 就传播史而言，这一观察所描述的互动之所以具有差异性，在于："每次转型都是社会语言自身的历史发展：为不断变化的实践意识寻找新手段、新形式，继而新定义"（Williams 1977: 54）。因此研究重点落在传播过程中"特定
cultural technologies’ in the communication process, which play an important part as a condition for the development of new forms of behaviour and practice, that is, ‘specific forms of practical consciousness’. 文化技术"所发挥的作用上——这些技术作为新行为与实践形式（即"特定实践意识形式"）发展的先决条件具有重要意义。
A good example can be found in Williams’ (1990c: 26) own concept of mobile privatisation, a concept that he uses to describe the consequences of television from the 1970s onwards. Approaching the technology via themes of privacy and mobility, of home and travel, he was beginning to explore broadcasting’s position within - and in its reciprocal role in serving to shape - the organization of space and time in modern societies. He saw the medium, on the one hand, as both a sought-after consequence of an effective facilitator for the historical tendency to a dramatic retreat of social life into privatized settings and as a withdrawal to interior space. On the other hand, he saw that it accentuates far greater opportunities for travel and a vastly expanded sense of community. Both possibilities concern the central role of routine in dealing with forces of mobile privatization in everyday life: habit, seriality, framing and, of course, the role of television in defining and sustaining these routines (cf. Göttlich 2006). In this view, media not only establish new relationships between different social and cultural fields – as implied by the term media culture - but also are already based on individuals’ specific forms of behaviour and ways of interaction in modernity. The term media culture should focus on exactly this point, more precisely than it can achieve with the underlying term media, if it is not only to give a factual description of the contemporary social and cultural development but at the same time to assess the possibilities of a practice which changes society. 威廉斯（1990c: 26）提出的"移动私有化"概念便是一个很好的例证，他用这一概念来描述 20 世纪 70 年代以来电视所产生的影响。通过隐私与流动性、家庭与旅行等主题来审视这项技术，他开始探讨广播在现代社会时空组织中所处的位置——以及它在塑造这种时空组织过程中所起的交互作用。一方面，他认为这种媒介既是社会生活戏剧性退缩至私有化场域这一历史趋势所催生的产物，也是退守内部空间的助推器；另一方面，他也发现电视极大地拓展了旅行机会与社区感知。这两种可能性都涉及日常应对移动私有化力量时常规所起的核心作用：习惯、序列性、框架构建，以及电视在界定和维系这些常规中的角色（参见 Göttlich 2006）。 在这种观点下，媒体不仅在不同社会文化领域间建立了新型关系——正如"媒介文化"这一术语所暗示的那样——其本身已然植根于现代性中个体特定的行为模式与互动方式。"媒介文化"这一概念应当精准聚焦于此，相较于基础性的"媒体"概念能实现更精确的表述，若其目的不仅在于如实描述当代社会文化发展状况，同时还要评估那些可能改变社会的实践潜力。
The view of ‘media as passageways of social practice’ has implications for the term media: media are accordingly not objects or artefacts by which and with which social practice takes place and through which it is conveyed. Media are rather themselves the expression of practical consciousness and thus figuratively form passageways, rather than points of intersection, of social and cultural practices and of their mediation. Thus it is the cultural form of the medium itself that can also form a basis for contact and criticism. This orientation does not mean that the term media has been eliminated and that only the cultural practices or sign-systems in their relation to social practices are emphasised. The point is rather to be able to work out that the specific properties of the different media and their respective technologies can be seen in connection with specific historical and cultural circumstances, intentions and interests which are supported by and formed in institutions and formations. 将“媒介作为社会实践通道”这一观点对媒介概念具有重要启示：媒介并非社会实践发生、运作及传递所依赖的客体或人工制品。媒介本质上是实践意识的表达，因而在象征意义上构成了社会文化实践及其中介化的通道，而非交汇点。正是媒介自身的文化形式，能够为接触与批判提供基础。这种理论取向并不意味着消解媒介概念，或仅强调文化实践或符号系统与社会实践的关联。其核心在于揭示：不同媒介及其技术的特定属性，应当置于由制度与构型所支撑并形成的具体历史情境、文化语境、意图与利益关系网络中来理解。
As a priority task of ‘media research’ understood in this way it follows that this is ‘necessarily concerned, in historical and materialistic ways, with the specific technologies which are now their dominant forms, but with these technologies as systems of signs and not an abstracted technical level’ (Williams 1976b: 505). Moreover, since at this level the technologies are 作为以此种方式理解的“媒介研究”的首要任务，必然要求"从历史与唯物主义的视角，既关注当下占据主导地位的具体技术形态，更需将这些技术视为符号系统而非抽象的技术层面"（威廉斯 1976b:505）。进一步而言，由于在此层面上技术本身作为
necessarily seen as new and advanced forms of social organization, there is a basis for reworking not only the analysis of content (which is always a content of relationships) but also the analysis of institutions and formations (which are never independent) ‘that are necessary for communication and aspects of participation’ (Williams 1976b: 505). 这些未必被视为新颖且先进的社会组织形式，为重构分析提供了基础——不仅针对内容分析（其本质始终是关系性内容），也针对制度与形态分析（它们从来不是独立存在的）——"这些对于传播和参与维度而言都是不可或缺的"（威廉斯 1976b: 505）。
The task of communication research understood in this way can be realized, for example, through the following steps of analysis: it concerns the examination of specific information and signification processes and of their development into institutionalized information or communication systems which are to be explained by changes in society, economy and technology. Part of this is also the observation of media content, whose change and development are to be understood as arising from different organizational demands and changing interests (which are an expression of social power and ruling structures). Exactly these social and cultural practices form the cultural signification and achievement of media and offer points of contact for a criticism of the media and the processes that work against a knowable community. The problem of media culture thus stays related to social power and control structures. But the question of social reproduction is shifted not only to the symbol-mediated level of culture and the material aspects involved in its development. Here is where the concept of common culture can be introduced into the debate. It should stay in the background and it underlies Williams’ critical approach at this point. In Milner’s view, the concept is ‘much more amenable to alignment with an emancipatory than an exploitative or oppressive politics’ (Milner 2002: 173). From this stance, it has to be the task within our analyses of media culture to draw on situations in which decisions are made concerning strengthening or loosening the possibilities for mutual access and communicative action in understanding cultural change and its influence on a knowable community. 按照这种理解，传播研究的任务可通过以下分析步骤实现：它涉及考察特定的信息与表意过程，以及这些过程如何发展为制度化的信息或传播系统——这些系统需要从社会、经济和技术变革的角度进行解释。其中还包括对媒体内容的观察，其变化与发展应被理解为源于不同的组织需求与不断变化的利益（这些利益正是社会权力与统治结构的体现）。正是这些社会文化实践构成了媒体的文化表意与成就，并为媒体批评及那些阻碍可知共同体形成的过程提供了切入点。因此，媒体文化问题始终与社会权力及控制结构相关联。但社会再生产问题不仅被转移到文化这一符号中介层面，还延伸至其发展过程中的物质维度。正是在此背景下，"共同文化"概念可被引入讨论。 这一概念应当保持其背景性地位，它构成了威廉斯此时批判方法的基础。在米尔纳看来，该概念"更易于与解放性政治而非剥削性或压迫性政治相协调"（米尔纳 2002:173）。基于此立场，我们在分析媒体文化时，必须着力发掘那些关于强化或削弱相互接触可能性及交往行为的决策情境，以此理解文化变迁及其对可知社区的影响。
5. Public media and common culture 5. 公共媒体与共同文化
From the beginning with The Long Reqolution (1961c) and Communications (1962), Williams was interested in the role of public broadcasting. It is with this institution that we can get an idea of how useful Williams reflections on media and communications are as a perspective on the influence of the media change on a common culture when we enter the era of European media. At this decisive moment, the historical solution, that of supporting public television and media as democratic institutions, is brought into question and with this the idea of common culture is also questioned (cf. Libération 2008: 1-4). 从《漫长的革命》（1961c）和《传播》（1962）开始，威廉斯就始终关注公共广播的社会角色。通过这一制度机构，我们得以理解威廉斯关于媒体与传播的思考——当欧洲进入媒体时代转型期时，这些思想作为审视媒体变革对共同文化影响的视角具有何等价值。在这个决定性时刻，历史形成的解决方案（即将公共电视和媒体作为民主制度来支持）正遭受质疑，随之受到挑战的还有共同文化理念（参见《解放报》2008:1-4）。
All this means a changing agenda for thinking about issues of identity and community. It now appears likely that, over a considerable period and in uneven patterns, discrete national cultures will be progressively eroded. The globalizing pressures of transnational media distribution and the 这一切意味着关于身份认同与共同体问题的思考议程正在发生变化。现在看来，在相当长的时期内以不均衡的方式，离散的民族文化将逐渐被侵蚀。跨国媒体传播的全球化压力与
impact of new communication technologies suggest an emergence of new image spaces and ‘reimagined communities’. What does the idea of a common culture mean in this broader context and which role will media have in fostering such a perspective, when we have to resist against a trading culture in a global perspective? A trading culture is a kind of culture that looks on television and the other media as goods for exchange, namely in the advertisement branch. In the late 1970s Williams summarised the question of the growth and role of the mass media as follows: 新通信技术的影响预示着新型图像空间和"再想象共同体"的兴起。在这种更广阔的语境下，共同文化的理念意味着什么？当我们需要在全球视野中抵制交易文化时，媒体将在培育这种视角中扮演何种角色？交易文化是一种将电视及其他媒体视为可交换商品的文化形态，尤其体现在广告领域。20 世纪 70 年代末，威廉斯对大众媒体的发展及其作用问题作出如下总结：
The point is that we are faced with very specific phenomena of late capitalist society which we are very often still describing in the terms of early capitalist society. In terms of their economic structure, the increasing movement towards corporate monopoly ownership, the exclusion of media which do not meet their economic criteria, the steady control (of which we should be increasingly reminded) of the so-called independent public corporations by the very fact of appointment from the state at their controlling levels - all these phenomena demand the most detailed investigation. My argument is that we look at their historical evolution we can find the material for this analysis and so learn a new language for addressing ourselves to the problems of the media in our own times. 关键在于，我们正面临着晚期资本主义社会的特定现象，却仍频繁使用早期资本主义社会的术语来描述它们。从经济结构来看——企业垄断所有权日益加剧的趋势、对不符合其经济标准的媒体的排斥、以及所谓独立公共企业实则通过国家在控制层面的任命而受到持续管控（这一事实应被不断提醒）——所有这些现象都需要最细致的考察。我的论点是，通过审视它们的历史演变，我们可以找到分析的素材，从而学会用新的语言来应对我们这个时代的媒体问题。
(Williams 1979c: 24) （威廉斯 1979c: 24）
This critical position has a strong link to his older idea of a common culture, of which his thinking on and interest in communication is an essential part, because ‘a common culture is not the general extension of what a minority mean and believe, but the creation of a condition in which the people as a whole participate in the articulation of meanings and values’ (Williams 1989d: 36). 这一批判立场与他早先提出的共同文化理念紧密相连，其中关于传播的思考与关注构成核心部分，因为"共同文化并非少数群体观念与信仰的普遍延伸，而是创造一种全体人民共同参与意义与价值表述的条件"（威廉斯 1989d: 36）。
Some people may call this hope or position abstract romanticism. But the concept has nothing to do with harmonism, even when the concept sounds old-fashioned. It has to do with the right to participate and the fighting for this right, which means addressing questions of solidarity in media culture. The desire for community is thus presented as the desire for independence of free human activity. With this critique in mind it is for cultural studies to empower ordinary people to take control over their own lives and to fight for participation as cultural studies intend to do. 有人或许会将这种希望或立场称为抽象的浪漫主义。但这一概念与和谐主义毫无关联，即便它听起来有些过时。它关乎参与权及为这一权利而斗争，这意味着要解决媒体文化中的团结问题。因此，对共同体的渴望被呈现为对自由人类活动独立性的渴望。基于这种批判视角，文化研究的使命在于赋予普通人掌控自身生活的力量，并为其争取参与权——这也正是文化研究力图实现的。
But the reflection on the role of the media cannot be solved with studies of media reception alone. We have to deal with the production of media as well as with the political dimension of the media in an audio-visual European public sphere to come. Here one must ask which ideas of a future European society and culture we can find in actual theories. Do they address problems of access and solidarity as elements of a common culture? 但仅靠媒体接受研究无法解决对媒体角色的反思。我们必须同时处理媒体生产问题，以及未来欧洲视听公共领域中媒体的政治维度。在此必须追问：我们在现有理论中能发现哪些关于未来欧洲社会与文化的构想？这些理论是否将准入与团结问题作为共同文化的要素加以探讨？
The kind of analysis that characterises Culture and Society (1958) as well as The Long Revolution (1961) or that later found in Television, Technology and Cultural Form (1974) is formed by a persistent historical grappling with the concept of culture that leads to the theory of cultural materialism. Williams shows us in his perspective that it is impossible to carry through any serious cultural analysis without reaching towards a consciousness of the concept of culture within history itself: that means a consciousness which must be historical. The experience and communication of the social order are made possible by culture. Cultural studies nowadays uses the term ‘articulation’ to come to terms with what is in Williams’ understanding of culture. While articulation does not belong to Williams’ vocabulary of social and cultural analysis, it is perhaps the most adequate term to describe his sense of the idea and creativity of culture. By the articulation of culture, the social is (re-)produced; and by learning to read the articulation of culture, the social may be critically explored. Coming to terms with this idea under actual conditions, we meet the above mentioned ‘doing-culture’ concept. Within cultural studies such a pragmatic concept not only has to do with the appropriation of texts but as well with social practices in the form of daily routines and habits that can lead to the (re-)creation of a common culture, when the critical tools and concepts are known. This critical perspective has to do with an understanding that people cannot but make culture in the very acts of living it. In the variety of its modes, practices and undertakings, the ‘doing’ as creation of new ways of making and producing culture realigns, reforms and transforms the present. 《文化与社会》(1958)、《漫长的革命》(1961)以及后来《电视、科技与文化形式》(1974)中所体现的分析方法，源于对文化概念持之以恒的历史性探索，最终形成了文化唯物主义理论。威廉姆斯以其独特视角向我们表明：任何严肃的文化分析都必须触及历史维度中的文化概念意识——这种意识本质上必须是历史性的。社会秩序的经验与传播正是通过文化得以实现。当代文化研究采用"接合"这一术语来诠释威廉姆斯所理解的文化内涵。虽然"接合"并非威廉姆斯社会文化分析的原生词汇，但它或许最能贴切地描述其关于文化理念与创造性的核心观点。通过文化的接合，社会得以（再）生产；而通过解读文化的接合方式，我们能够对社会展开批判性考察。 在实际条件下理解这一理念时，我们遇到了前文提及的"实践文化"概念。在文化研究领域，这种实用主义概念不仅涉及文本的挪用，还与日常惯例和习惯等社会实践形式相关——当人们掌握批判工具与概念时，这些实践能促成共同文化的（再）创造。这种批判性视角基于一种认知：人们正是在生活实践中不可避免地创造着文化。通过多样化的模式、实践与活动，"实践"作为创造文化生产新方式的过程，不断重组、革新并转化着当下现实。
Notes 注释
1 This does not mean that these limitations can be found equally in all concepts of media culture - for reasons of presentation omissions are necessary to bring out the core idea more concisely. 1 这并不意味着所有媒介文化概念都存在同等局限——出于演示需要，某些省略对于更精炼地呈现核心思想是必要的。
2 The concept of ‘doing culture’ (ct. Hörning and Reuter 2004) appeared in recent debates on the future role of the pragmatic theory within German sociology. Compared with cultural studies there are similarities in analysing and understanding routines and habits on everyday life and culture. The concept is interested in the complex ways daily routines or habits lead to the (re-)creation of new ways of doing and making. 2 "践行文化"的概念（参见 Hörning 与 Reuter 2004 年研究）近期出现在关于实用主义理论在德国社会学中未来角色的辩论中。与文化研究相比，二者在分析和理解日常生活及文化中的常规与习惯方面存在相似性。该概念关注日常惯例或习惯以何种复杂方式促成（重新）创造新的行为与实践模式。
'Even the dead will not be safe': on dis(re)membering Williams "即便逝者亦难安息"：论威廉姆斯的解构与重构
John Higgins 约翰·希金斯
In one of his many striking aperçus, Walter Benjamin wrote of how every period ‘must strive anew to wrest tradition away from the conformism that is working to overpower it’; he further noted how the ‘only historian capable of fanning the spark of hope in the past is the one who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he is victorious’ (Benjamin 2006: 391). ^(1){ }^{1} Aside from simple recognition of the many ways in which the entire academic career of Raymond Williams - in books such as Culture and Society and The Country and the City - can be read as successfully instantiating just such a ‘wresting of the tradition away from conformism’ (the subtitle of Williams’ final essay collection, The Politics of Modernism, was Against the New Conformists), and underlining the consequent importance of Williams’ stress on the cultural and political dynamics of the ‘selective tradition’, we might return to Benjamin’s words from 1940 in order to ask just how safe from a demeaning or belittling conformism the legacy of Raymond Williams’ work is some twenty-odd years after his death? ^(2){ }^{2} 瓦尔特·本雅明在其众多犀利洞见中曾写道，每个时代"都必须重新努力将传统从试图压制它的因循守旧中挣脱出来"；他进一步指出，"唯有坚信即使死者也无法在敌人获胜时幸免于难的历史学家，才能够在过去中点燃希望的火花"（本雅明，2006：391）。 ^(1){ }^{1} 除了认识到雷蒙德·威廉斯整个学术生涯——诸如《文化与社会》《乡村与城市》等著作——如何成功地实现了这种"将传统从因循守旧中挣脱"（威廉斯最后一部文集《现代主义政治》的副标题正是《反对新因循守旧者》），并强调威廉斯对"选择性传统"之文化政治动力的重视所带来的深远影响外，我们或许应当重拾本雅明 1940 年的诘问：在雷蒙德·威廉斯逝世二十余年后，其学术遗产究竟能否免受贬损性因循守旧的侵蚀？ ^(2){ }^{2}
In this chapter, attention is drawn to one powerful mode of this conformist cultural memory as a mode of disremembering. Disremembering is not some chance error or mistake in memory: it enjoys too deliberate or systematic an effect for what we call misremembering. Disremembering comes through, rather, as an attempt at effacing or dismembering cultural memory through the dismissal or ‘dissing’ of someone’s memory and reputation. Here we will examine just three such instances of disremembering Williams. 本章将关注这种顺从型文化记忆的一种强力模式——作为"刻意遗忘"的运作方式。刻意遗忘并非记忆中的偶然差错或失误：它呈现出过于刻意或系统化的效果，远非我们通常所说的"误记"。相反，刻意遗忘是通过贬损或"诋毁"某人的记忆与声誉，试图抹除或肢解文化记忆的行为。在此我们将检视三个针对威廉姆斯的刻意遗忘案例。
We begin with an apparently slight instance of this dynamic of effacement (as in painting over graffiti, something of the original remains, but hardly discernible) because its casualness is testimony to the more dominant modes of effacement and disremembering that seem to be generally at work in ways that suggest the relevance of Benjamin’s observation. 我们首先考察这种抹除动态中一个看似轻微的实例（如同用颜料覆盖涂鸦，原迹虽残留却难以辨识），正因为其随意性恰恰印证了本雅明论断的普遍适用性——那些更具支配性的抹除与刻意遗忘模式，往往以这种不易察觉的方式运作着。
A falsifying selection 虚假的选择
The first example is, then, important precisely because of its casually derogatory nature. It is a reference to Williams’ work in a review essay by 第一个案例的重要性恰恰在于其随意贬损的特质。这是某篇评论文章中对威廉姆斯著作的提及
the distinguished historian Linda Colley, in The London Review of Books (Colley 2003). What is interesting here is the very casualness of the reference, since this bespeaks a strong sense of the disremembering of Williams’ work: it presumes a conventional or orthodox understanding of that work as already-read rather than requiring attentive reading or careful attention. In so doing, it can only really be challenged by an active reading that sets out to resist this disremembering, and, at this point of active reading, we can better see what it means (in Benjamin’s phrase) to wrest tradition from an emerging conformism. 著名历史学家琳达·科利在《伦敦书评》中的论述（科利，2003 年）。耐人寻味的是这种引用的随意性，恰恰折射出威廉斯作品正被集体遗忘的现状：它预设人们对威廉斯著作存在某种约定俗成的正统理解，仿佛其内容早已被消化吸收，无需细致研读或深入关注。唯有通过主动阅读来抵抗这种遗忘，才能真正挑战这种认知。在这种主动阅读的实践中，我们方能更清晰地领悟（用本雅明的话说）如何从渐趋成型的因循守旧中抢救传统。
Let’s see what happens if Colley’s presentation of Williams’ work as already-read is confronted by an actual reading of it. Her references come from one of Williams’ final studies, the compact monograph Cobbett, published as one of the first of the Oxford Past Masters series in 1983.^(3)1983 .{ }^{3} The two quotations that she uses come from the beginning of the third chapter of that study, where Williams is in fact outlining the two versions of Cobbett’s work that he is setting out to contest. 若以实际文本阅读来检验科利将威廉斯作品视为"已读"的论断，会产生怎样的效果？她所引用的段落来自威廉斯晚期研究之一——精简专著《科贝特》，该著作作为牛津"往昔大师"丛书的首批作品出版于 1983 年。科利采用的两处引文均出自该研究第三章开头部分，而威廉斯在此处实际是在梳理他准备批驳的科贝特作品的两个版本。
Colley takes a phrase from these opening paragraphs that describes Cobbett as ‘a good brave old chap’ and uses it as textual evidence for the general argument of her own review, that the first task of the contemporary reader of Cobbett is to rescue him in particular from ‘a succession of socialist expositors’ (including Williams), whose sentimentality and nostalgia distort the real historical picture. She writes: ‘As W’illiams’s remark suggests, Cobbett has been cherished but confined by some of his most influential 20th century interpreters’ (Colley 2003). The implication of Coller’s phrasing is that the quoted phrase expresses Williams’ own view of Cobbett, writing as one of those influential but rather sentimental interpreters. 科利从开篇段落中摘取了描述科贝特为"一位勇敢善良的老伙计"的短语，并将其作为她书评核心论点的文本依据——她认为当代读者阅读科贝特的首要任务，正是要将他从"一连串社会主义阐释者"（包括威廉斯在内）手中解救出来，因为这些人的感伤与怀旧扭曲了真实的历史图景。她写道："正如威廉斯的评论所示，科贝特虽然受到他那些 20 世纪最具影响力的阐释者们的珍视，却也受制于他们的解读"（科利 2003）。科利这种表述的言外之意在于，被引用的短语正体现了威廉斯本人对科贝特的看法，而威廉斯本人就是那些颇具影响力却过于感伤的阐释者之一。
That this implication in fact represents a significant distortion a disremembering - of Williams’ own views and arguments only becomes apparent if we take the trouble to return to the detail of that argument, and the ways in which Colley’s quotation of the phrase (‘good old chap’) is in fact embedded within it. Reading it in context reveals its real force in Williams’ own argument. For here it is clear that he is deploying the description ironically, as he voices and takes to task - a trend in critical opinion in which Cobbett is (to give the full quotation) ‘patted on the head. A good radical, a good democrat, but he did not understand what was happening, in the new industrial England … A good brave old chap, who lived just before modernity’ (Williams 1983a: 57). Pace Colley, the idea of Cobbett as a ‘good brave old chap’ is definitely not Williams’ view, but rather a somewhat parodic presentation of the viewpoint his book is setting out to challenge and contest. 事实上，这种暗示严重扭曲了威廉斯本人的观点和论点——这种"选择性遗忘"只有当我们重新审视其论证细节时才会显现，尤其是考利所引用的"好老兄"这一表述在原文中的具体语境。回归上下文阅读，方能揭示该表述在威廉斯论证中的真实力量。此处显然可见，威廉斯是以反讽方式运用这一描述——当他援引并批判某种批评趋势时（完整引文如下），科贝特被"拍拍脑袋称赞：'是个不错的激进分子，优秀的民主主义者，但他并不理解新工业英格兰正在发生的变化...一个勇敢的好老兄，生活在现代性降临前夜'"（威廉斯 1983a:57）。与考利的解读相反，"勇敢好老兄"的科贝特形象绝非威廉斯的本意，而是对其著作所要挑战与驳斥的某种观点进行的戏仿式呈现。
Similarly, we shall see that Colley’s choice of a second, longer quotation from Williams similarly misrepresents - through the either deliberate or gross misunderstanding that helps to constitute acts of disremembering the real point of his argument as she suggests that he ‘wonderfully evoked 同样地，我们将看到科利对威廉斯第二段较长引文的选择同样存在误读——这种有意或无意的严重误解构成了对论点实质的刻意遗忘，正如她暗示威廉斯"精彩地唤起"
certain pastoral particulars of Cobbett’s vision’. The implications of Colley’s ‘wonderfully evoked’ suggest that Williams joined in the celebration of what she calls Cobbett’s ‘Little Englishness’. But, once again, an actual reading of the passage she cites in context reveals a quite different argument than the one she attributes to him. 科贝特愿景中某些田园牧歌式的细节"。科利使用"绝妙唤起"一词的言外之意，暗示威廉姆斯参与了她所称的科贝特"小英格兰性"的颂扬。然而，再次细读她在上下文中引用的段落，便会发现与她的解读截然不同的论点。
Williams writes that ‘Cobbett can be preserved in amber as the figure of what is called Olde England’ (Williams 1983a: 55). ‘In one way, not unjustly’ he adds, because Cobbett ‘offered himself … as its spokesman’ (ibid.). ‘To this specific claim’, he continues, ‘can be added all the particulars’ (ibid.). What follows - presented by Colley as Williams’ own view of Cobbett - is largely a paraphrase of a section of Cobbett’s own Rural Rides: ‘the smell of baking bread, the glow of the cheek at the oven’ and so on. 威廉姆斯写道："科贝特可以被封存在琥珀中，成为所谓'古英格兰'的象征"（Williams 1983a: 55）。他补充道："从某种角度看，这并非不公正"，因为科贝特"自诩为...其代言人"（同上）。"除了这一具体主张"，他继续写道，"还可以补充所有细节"（同上）。随后内容——被科利呈现为威廉姆斯本人对科贝特的看法——很大程度上是对科贝特《乡村骑行》某段文字的转述："烤面包的香气，炉火映红的脸颊"等等。
What Colley does not appear to grasp is the point of this paraphrase, or perhaps - if I may invent a clumsy term - parody-phrase. For here Williams is parody-phrasing Cobbett’s own self-presentation, the better to question and interrogate it in this, the concluding chapter of the monograph. ‘It is only by falsifying selection that he can be enrolled for that now common nostalgia’ (Williams 1983a: 56), he writes, in a conclusion which is precisely the opposite of the conclusion Colley ascribes to him, and close (perhaps too close?) to the thrust of her own argument. 科利显然未能领会这段转述——或者容我造个笨拙的新词，"戏仿式转述"——的用意。威廉姆斯在此处正是通过戏仿科贝特的自我呈现方式，以便在这部专著的终章对其提出更深入的质询。"唯有通过刻意筛选失真材料，才能将他归入如今泛滥的怀旧情结"（威廉姆斯 1983a:56），他在结论中写道——这个结论与科利归咎于他的观点截然相反，却（或许过于）接近她自身论点的核心要义。
All in all, we have to conclude that an actual reading of Williams’ arguments, as opposed to Colley’s presentation and disremembering of them, suggests that it is only by a similarly ‘falsifying selection’ that Williams can be enrolled in the ‘succession of socialist expositors’ whose nostalgia Colley places her own work against and takes to task in her unreliable review. At work in her writing is precisely the work of effacement from the cultural and historical record that Benjamin suggested it was the task of progressive criticism to reject and resist. 总而言之，我们必须指出，相较于科利对威廉斯观点的呈现与刻意遗忘，实际阅读威廉斯的论述表明：唯有通过同样"虚假的选择性筛选"，才能将威廉斯归入那批"社会主义阐释者"的谱系——而这正是科利在其不可靠的评论中所反对并批判的怀旧对象。她文字中运作的，恰恰是本雅明所指出的那种对文化历史记录的抹除工作——而本雅明认为，进步批评的使命正是要抵制与反抗这种行径。
It seems that the casualness of this disremembering would not be so serious if it were not amplified or supported or even made possible by more sustained examples, taken more directly from writing specifically on Williams, and, in the instance which follows, from an apparently politically more aligned grouping than Colley’s anti-socialist position. Here, the general dynamics of disremembering take on the form of what - to borrow Hegelian terms - we might call a false supersession. 这种随意的遗忘若未被放大、支持，甚至因更持久的例证而成为可能——这些例证更直接源自专门论述威廉姆斯的著作，以及在下文案例中来自一个表面上与科利反社会主义立场相比政治立场更为接近的群体——其严重性或许不会如此显著。在此，遗忘的普遍动态呈现为一种我们可借用黑格尔术语称之为"虚假扬弃"的形式。
False supersession 错误的取代
If there is a sense of point-scoring against the left that appears to motivate Colley’s remarks, how has Williams’ reputation fared with those purportedly on the left? One dimension of this may be grasped by attending to the ways in which a particular conversation was overheard or over-read (if you will accept the term), the disremembering of a particular discussion between 如果说科利的言论背后存在某种针对左翼的得分动机，那么威廉姆斯的声誉在那些自称左翼的人士中又遭遇了怎样的对待？通过关注某场特定对话被无意听闻或过度解读（若您接受此说法）的方式，或可把握这一问题的一个维度——即对威廉姆斯与[未完成部分]
Williams and Said that took place in London in 1986. The discussion took place at a conference entitled ‘Cultural Studies, Media Studies and Political Education’, held at the Institute of Education in London. It commenced after the showing of two documentary films dealing with Williams’ and Said’s work respectively. The first was Mike Dibbs’ 1979 account of Williams’ The Country and the City; the second Mike Dunlop’s exemplification of the main themes of Said’s Orientalism, In the Shadow of the West. ^(4){ }^{4} 1986 年，威廉姆斯与萨义德在伦敦进行了一场对话。这场讨论发生在伦敦教育研究所举办的"文化研究、媒体研究与政治教育"学术会议上。在放映完分别关于威廉姆斯和萨义德作品的两部纪录片后，对话正式开始。第一部是迈克·迪布斯 1979 年拍摄的、关于威廉姆斯《乡村与城市》的纪录片；第二部是迈克·邓洛普阐释萨义德《东方主义》核心主题的《西方阴影下》。 ^(4){ }^{4}
After some discussion between the two, questions were taken from the floor. One question in particular provoked laughter from the assembled audience, being ‘a bit like an exam question to you both’ (Williams 1989f: 189). The question was this: 'Do you see yourselves as engaged in similar intellectual projects and where should you place your differences?" “laughter” (Williams 1989f: 18). 在两人进行初步交流后，会议进入观众提问环节。其中有个问题引发了全场笑声，威廉姆斯后来形容它"有点像给你们俩出的考试题"(Williams 1989f: 189)。这个问题是："你们是否认为自己在从事相似的学术事业？又该如何界定你们之间的差异？""（笑声）"(Williams 1989f: 18)。
On this occasion, emphasis was given to the similarities. Williams and Said each described the ways in which their academic work sought to respond to the slightly different cultural and intellectual pressures of the respective political contexts set by Thatcherism in Britain and Reganism in the USA (though Williams acknowledged, with characteristic openness, that it would indeed be interesting to carry the discussion far enough to be able to examine differences). What is particularly interesting with regard to the disremembering that is happening to W’illiams’ work is how, some years later, the differences between the two began to be weighed, and found, as it were, in Said’s favour, and against Williams. The differences came into focus around the issues of colonial and post-colonial culture addressed by Said’s Orientalism and largely neglected in W’illiams’ writing. What we will address here is the intellectual and theoretical substance of this particularly selective comparison and the working of it, and we will examine some of the distortions it creates. 此次讨论的重点在于两者的相似之处。威廉斯与萨义德分别阐述了他们的学术研究如何应对撒切尔主义在英国与里根主义在美国所造就的不同政治语境下略有差异的文化与思想压力（尽管威廉斯以其特有的坦率承认，若能深入探讨至足以审视差异的程度，确实会颇具启趣）。关于威廉斯著作正被逐渐遗忘的现象，尤为耐人寻味的是：数年之后，二者间的差异开始被重新权衡，且这些评判似乎总倾向于萨义德而贬抑威廉斯。这些差异聚焦于萨义德《东方主义》所探讨而威廉斯著述中基本忽视的殖民与后殖民文化议题。本文将要探讨的，正是这种极具选择性的比较所蕴含的思想与理论实质及其运作机制，同时我们将审视该比较造成的某些认知偏差。
The general point is that there is something notably ambivalent and even contradictory in the reception of W’illiams’ work amongst post-colonial theorists and interpreters. For students trained in post-colonial studies, his work is likely to be encountered in two different, quite contrasting ways. Firstly, he is remembered as the respected reference point for the great antistructuralist point that no cultural order entirely exhausts resistance. ^(5){ }^{5} Said was one of the first to articulate this, and repeats it in the London conversation: ‘I have learned so much from Raymond, I feel I am simply resorting to cuoting him, in this case from the seminal essay he wrote on base and superstructure’ (Williams 1989f: 192). ^(6){ }^{6} Yet, at the same time, as we shall see, his work is now generally denigrated hy Said’s avowed followers for not matching closely enough the template of research and writing in post-colonial studies. 普遍而言，后殖民理论家与阐释者对威廉斯著作的接受呈现出显著的矛盾性乃至对立性。对于接受过后殖民研究训练的学生而言，其著作可能以两种截然不同的方式被认知：首先，他作为重要反结构主义观点的权威参照被铭记——即任何文化秩序都无法彻底消弭抵抗。 ^(5){ }^{5} 萨义德最早阐明了这一观点，并在伦敦对话中重申："我从雷蒙德那里获益良多，此刻我简直是在复述他的观点，特别是他那篇关于基础与上层建筑的奠基性论文"（Williams 1989f: 192）。 ^(6){ }^{6} 然而与此同时，正如我们将要看到的，他的著作如今却普遍遭到萨义德公开追随者的贬抑，认为其未能充分契合后殖民研究的写作范式。
The discussion here is limited to the disremembering of Williams’ work that this involves, focusing on a particular collection of articles assembled in 1993 by D. L. Dworkin and Leslie Roman (Dworkin and Roman 1993a). ^(7){ }^{7} 本文讨论仅限于由此引发的对威廉斯著作的刻意遗忘，着重分析 D·L·德沃金与莱斯利·罗曼 1993 年编纂的特定论文集（Dworkin and Roman 1993a）。 ^(7){ }^{7}
The title of the volume itself already speaks something of the critical stance towards Williams’ work present in it as a whole: Views Beyond the Border Country: Raymond Williams and Cultural Politics. In Views Beyond, the emphasis throughout is very much on superseding Williams, in the sense of taking a step beyond the scope of his work. But it is as well to remember that, as Hegel had originally emphasized, any true act of supersession means a retaining and preserving as well as a going beyond, a laying by as well as a getting rid of. ^(8){ }^{8} In this sense, I shall argue, the volume only achieves a false supersession of Williams’ work: through its over-emphasis on going beyond his work, the moment of retaining is ignored, and this results all too often in distortions of argument and evidence systematic enough to deserve the name of a disremembering. 本书的标题本身就已透露出对威廉斯作品整体所持的批判立场：《跨越边陲之地的视野：雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化政治》。在《跨越视野》中，全书重点始终着眼于超越威廉斯，即迈出其著作范畴之外的一步。但需谨记，正如黑格尔最初强调的，任何真正的超越行为都意味着保留与扬弃并存，既有所摒弃亦有所存续。 ^(8){ }^{8} 从这个意义上说，我认为本书仅实现了对威廉斯作品的虚假超越：由于过分强调突破其理论框架，保留的维度被忽视，这往往导致论点与证据的系统性扭曲，其程度足以称之为一种有意的遗忘。
The general tone of false supersession is set by the editors of Views Beyond the Border Country in their introductory essay, ‘The cultural politics of location’ (Dworkin and Roman 1993b). Here they note how many of their contributors ‘remain critical of [Williams’] failure to employ psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and other avant-garde approaches to theorize the relationship between colonial and post-colonial formations’ (Dworkin and Roman 1993b: 13). What is interesting here is the depth of the almost unconscious assumption that the focus of attention is or should be the theorization of colonial and post-colonial formations, as, most famously, it was in Said’s great Orientalism. The assumption is evident in several of the key essays in the volume, and forms something like a leitmotif in the book as a whole. But, in holding to this assumption, the contributors have a tendency to marginalize and, indeed, fundamentally misunderstand - disremember - key aspects of Williams’ work. This is particularly so in terms of the central comparison between Said and Williams, which is often invoked as a framing mechanism for their respective accounts. ^(9){ }^{9} One of the editors of the collection, Leslie G. Roman, puts it most forcefully (and, in proportion to that force, most misleadingly) as she makes her central assertion that 《跨越边界的视野》的编者在导论文章《位置的文化政治》（Dworkin 与 Roman 1993b）中确立了这种虚假更替的总体基调。他们指出，许多撰稿人"仍对[威廉斯]未能运用精神分析、解构主义及其他前卫理论方法来阐释殖民与后殖民形态之间的关系持批判态度"（Dworkin 与 Roman 1993b: 13）。耐人寻味的是，这种几乎无意识的预设深刻体现了学界关注焦点应当（或已然）转向殖民与后殖民形态理论化的趋势——正如萨义德《东方学》这一典范所示。该预设不仅显现在本卷数篇核心论文中，更构成了贯穿全书的主题动机。但固守此预设的撰稿者们，往往边缘化乃至根本性误读——实则是选择性遗忘——威廉斯著作的关键维度。这在萨义德与威廉斯的核心对比中尤为明显，该对比常被援引为二者论述的框架机制。 ^(9){ }^{9} 该文集编者之一莱斯利·G·罗曼以最强烈的措辞（相应地也最具误导性）提出其核心主张：
Edward Said distills the main problem of Williams’s conception of culture … [He] argues that throughout his work Williams mistakenly presumes that culture has been used almost exclusively as a ‘cooperative and communal term’ (PM, 194). According to Said, the obverse is just as real, depending on one’s location: culture is also a term of exclusion, exportation, and imposition. 爱德华·萨义德提炼出威廉斯文化观念的核心问题……[他]认为威廉斯在其全部著作中都错误地假定文化几乎完全被用作一个"合作性与共同体性的术语"（《政治与文学》，194 页）。萨义德指出，根据所处立场不同，其对立面同样真实：文化亦是一个关于排斥、输出与强制的术语。
(Roman 1993: 181) (罗曼 1993: 181)
In this critical emphasis - which we shall consider in a moment - Roman leads a chorus of voices in the collection that assert the limitations of Williams’ own work and interests when compared with Said. For Gauri Viswanathan, for example, in her essay ‘Raymond Williams and British colonialism: the 在这种批判性强调中——我们稍后将予以探讨——罗曼引领了文集中众多声音，这些声音主张相较于萨义德，威廉斯自身著作与关注点存在局限性。例如高里·维斯瓦纳坦在其论文《雷蒙德·威廉斯与英国殖民主义》中就...
limits of metropolitan cultural theory’, Williams ‘obfuscates imperialism’s relation to British economic production and, by extension, its cultural formations’ (Viswanathan 1993: 220). (It is worth noting in passing that the choice of verb ‘obfuscates’ here is strong enough to suggest an intentional desire on Williams’ part to cloud the issue of the politics of colonial oppression that would need much more evidence than the choice of verb alone can give.) In similar tone, Forest Pyle, in his article, ‘Raymond Williams and the inhuman limits of culture’ writes of the ‘symptomatic absence of empire in the work of Raymond Williams’ (Pyle 1993: 261). Meanwhile, in the single most aggressive essay ‘Cultural theory and the politics of location’, R. Radhakrishnan charges that Williams is a ‘romantic humanist who is still wedded to the idea of an authentic and universal human experience’ (ibid.: 286), and thus ‘tends to oversimplify the disjunctures and asymmetries produced by the uneven histories of colonialism and imperialism’ (Radhakrishnan 1993: 288). Indeed, in the enthusiasm of arguing the case, Radhakrishnan goes so far as to conclude that Williams’ work as a whole amounts to no more than ‘yet another act of colonial violence from the centre’ (ibid.: 277). 在大都市文化理论的局限中，威廉姆斯"模糊了帝国主义与英国经济生产的关系，进而也模糊了其文化形态的关系"（Viswanathan 1993: 220）。（值得顺便指出的是，此处选用"模糊"这一动词的强烈程度，足以暗示威廉姆斯存在故意掩盖殖民压迫政治问题的意图——这种指控需要远比单个动词选择更有力的证据支撑。）同样基调下，福雷斯特·派尔在其文章《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与文化的非人限度》中，论述了"雷蒙德·威廉姆斯作品中帝国问题的症候性缺席"（Pyle 1993: 261）。而最具攻击性的论文《文化理论与位置政治》里，R.拉德克里希南指责威廉姆斯是"仍执着于本真且普世的人类经验理念的浪漫人文主义者"（同上：286），因此"往往过度简化殖民主义与帝国主义不均衡历史所造成的断裂与不对称"（Radhakrishnan 1993: 288）。 的确，在论证这一观点的热情中，拉达克里希南甚至断言威廉姆斯的全部著作不过是"中心对殖民地施加的又一次暴力行为"（同上：277）。
In terms of the dynamic of received ideas, the effect of such mutually supporting voices is a powerful one: it works to create an air of achieved consensus, as each critical voice draws support and volume from its fellows. But what exactly is the score of evidence on which this chorus is based? Just how true are these claims and criticisms? At this point, we return to the overhearing or over-reading of the conversation between Said and Williams in 1986. 就既有观念的动态而言，这种相互支持的声音产生了强大的效果：它营造出一种已达成共识的氛围，因为每个批评的声音都从其同侪中获得支持和音量。但这一合唱所依据的证据分数究竟如何？这些主张和批评到底有多少真实性？此时，我们不得不回到 1986 年赛义德与威廉姆斯那场被过度解读的对话。
Let’s take, first of all, Roman’s claim, and examine some of its detail. Her central claim is that ‘Edward Said distills the main problem of Williams’s conception of culture’ (Roman 1993: 181). According to Roman, Said argues that throughout his work, Williams 'mistakenly presumes that culture has been used almost exclusively as a “cooperative and communal term”", and here she cites page 194 of the conversation (‘Media, margins and modernity’) between Said and W’illiams as her source. ‘According to Said,’ she concludes, ‘the obverse is just as real, depending on one’s location: culture is also a term of exclusion, expontation, and imposition’ (Roman 1993; 181). The general drift of the argument is clear: Said accuses Williams of a mistaken view of culture as a ‘cooperative and communal term’, and of not recognizing that its use has often been, on the contrary, exclusionary. 首先，让我们审视罗曼的论点并考察其若干细节。她的核心主张是"爱德华·萨义德提炼出威廉斯文化观的主要问题"（Roman 1993: 181）。罗曼指出，萨义德认为威廉斯在其全部著作中"错误地假定文化几乎完全被用作'合作性与共同体性的术语'"，此处她援引了萨义德与威廉斯对话录《媒体、边缘与现代性》第 194 页作为依据。"根据萨义德的观点，"她总结道，"相反的情形同样真实——取决于所处立场：文化亦可成为排斥、剥削与强制的术语"（Roman 1993: 181）。该论证的总体脉络十分清晰：萨义德指责威廉斯将文化误认为"合作性与共同体性的术语"，而未能认识到该术语的使用往往恰恰具有排他性。
But two things are striking and peculiar here to the careful reader. First, there is the apparently simple fact that the page referencing is mistaken the quotation from Said is taken from page 196 and not 194 of the book. Second and checking the mistaken reference makes this absolutely clear Roman’s assertions misrepresent the force and direction of Said’s criticisms of the idea of culture in a way that actually reading page 194 makes impossible to miss! The (mistaken) referencing both conceals and exhibits a 但细心的读者会发现两处引人注目且奇特之处。首先是一个看似简单的事实——页码引用有误：萨义德的引文实际出自该书第 196 页，而非第 194 页。其次，核查这个错误引用会彻底揭示：罗曼的断言曲解了萨义德对文化观念批判的力度和方向，而这种曲解只要真正阅读第 194 页就绝不可能忽视！这个（错误的）引用既掩盖又暴露了
distortion and misrepresentation of the discussion between the two. Only a minor slip of the pen or stroke of the keyboard? Perhaps; but then, as Freud suggested - most famously in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life - every bungled action is still an action, and may have its unconscious raison d’être. 对双方讨论的歪曲与误述。仅仅是笔尖或键盘的轻微失误？或许如此；但正如弗洛伊德在《日常生活的心理病理学》中最著名的论断——每个失误行为仍是行为，可能潜藏着无意识的深层动因。
For, in reality, Said’s actual point is more precise, and expresses less of a rejection of the whole of Williams’ work than Roman makes out. Yes, Said does draw attention to Williams’ well-known and acknowledged failure, in the Culture and Society of 1958, to pay adequate attention to the dynamics of empire; but this is far from being a rejection of Williams’ thinking in toto, and certainly does not signal a rejection of later writings such as The Country and the City and Marxism and Literature. ^(10){ }^{10} Indeed, one has only to read the remarks with which Said introduces his critical comments to get a sense of his general endorsement of Williams’ work while making a particular criticism of a moment of it. ‘I just wanted to say something very quickly about culture’, he begins, ‘I am glad Raymond has spelled it out’ (Williams 1989f: 196). What is crucial and obvious - but obscured/highlighted by the mistaken referencing is that Said says ‘Raymond has spelled it out’ because - on page 194! - Williams had ‘spelled out’ just the case for considering culture as a highly ambivalent and exclusionary term that Roman attributes to Said against Williams. ^(11){ }^{11} What is actually said on page 194? 实际上，赛义德的观点更为精确，并不像罗曼所描述的那样全盘否定威廉姆斯的著作。诚然，赛义德确实指出了威廉姆斯在 1958 年《文化与社会》中未能充分关注帝国动态这一众所周知的缺憾；但这远非对威廉姆斯整体思想的否定，更不意味着否定其后来的作品如《乡村与城市》和《马克思主义与文学》。 ^(10){ }^{10} 事实上，只需细读赛义德在提出批评意见前的导语，就能体会他在对特定环节提出批评的同时，总体上对威廉姆斯著作的认可。"我只想简单谈谈文化问题"，他开篇说道，"很高兴雷蒙德已经阐释清楚了"（威廉姆斯 1989f:196）。关键且显而易见的是——被错误引用所遮蔽/凸显的是——赛义德之所以说"雷蒙德已经阐释清楚"，正是因为威廉姆斯在第 194 页！已经"阐释清楚"了将文化视为一个高度矛盾且具有排他性术语的论点，而这个论点被罗曼误认为是赛义德用来反对威廉姆斯的。 ^(11){ }^{11} 第 194 页究竟说了什么？
Here Williams is responding to something like the very criticism that Roman purports to be dealing with, a query about the contemporary resonance or usefulness of his key phrase from the late 1950s and early 1960s, a ‘common culture’. His response points to the situated historicity of all theoretical reflection that forms the core of his cultural materialist approach. He points out in reply that his use of the phrase ‘common culture’ in 1958 was a deliberately interventionary and polemic one in the context of the cultural political of the time. It was a moment when 威廉姆斯在此回应的正是罗曼声称要处理的批评——关于他 1950 年代末至 1960 年代初提出的核心短语"共同文化"在当代的共鸣或实用性的质疑。他的回应指向了所有理论反思所具有的情境历史性，这构成了其文化唯物主义方法的核心。他指出，1958 年使用"共同文化"这一短语，在当时文化政治语境下是刻意为之的干预性与论辩性选择。那是一个
precisely the concepts of a common culture and of culture in common were being deployed against the then dominant, the only then dominant, notion of culture; I mean a strict equivalence between culture and high culture, and this phrase ‘common culture’ - culture in common was strictly a position against that. 恰恰需要运用"共同文化"和"共有文化"概念来对抗当时唯一占主导地位的文化观念的时刻；我指的是将文化严格等同于高雅文化的观念，而"共同文化"这一短语——共有的文化——正是明确反对这种观念的立场。
(Williams 1989f: 193) (威廉斯 1989f: 193)
In other words, the general argument was something very similar to that which Roman attributes solely to Said and against Williams, the argument 换言之，这一总体论点与罗曼单独归功于萨义德并用以反对威廉姆斯的论点极为相似，即认为
that culture was both produced more widely than by the social elite which appropriated it, was disseminated more widely than this notion presumed, and that the ideal of an expanding education was that what had been restricted in distribution and access should be opened out. 文化不仅由据为己有的社会精英所生产，其传播范围也比这一观念所假设的更为广泛；而教育扩张的理想，正是要让那些曾被限制传播与获取的内容得以开放。
(Williams 1989f: 193) （威廉斯 1989f：193）
Hence Said’s comment that Williams had already ‘spelled out’ and anticipated his own main arguments! Williams’ main point - and one deeply appreciated by Said in general - regards the sheer situatedness of all and perhaps especially theoretical argument. That the editors and contributors of Views Beyond the Border Country appear almost deliberately blind to Williams’ remarks suggests the almost constitutive blindness necessary to their desire to supersede him. Indeed, Williams’ main point goes right to the heart of the complexities of discussions of culture that Said in fact endorses rather than finds lacking in Williams. ‘As often happens with phrases’, he continues, 因此赛义德评价道，威廉斯早已"阐明"并预见到了他自己的主要论点！威廉斯的核心观点——也是赛义德总体上极为赞赏的——关乎所有理论论述（或许尤其是理论论述）的根本情境性。《边界之外的风景》的编者们似乎刻意对威廉斯的论述视而不见，这种近乎结构性的失明恰恰暴露了他们试图超越威廉斯的欲望。事实上，威廉斯的论点直指文化讨论的复杂性核心——这些讨论正是赛义德所赞同的，而非他认为威廉斯所欠缺的。"正如短语常有的情况"，他接着说道，
they get circulated in contexts outside their immediate base of argument, I mean, what I have mostly been writing about since that time has been divisions, problems, inside the culture; things which preqent the assumption of a common culture as a thing which now exists. 它们在其直接论证基础之外的语境中传播，我的意思是，自那时起我主要撰写的都是文化内部的裂痕与问题；这些现象阻碍了将共同文化视为已然存在之物的预设。
(Williams 1989f: 194) （威廉斯 1989f：194）
Culture was a keyword for Williams, bearing all the complex and even deconstructive force he found in keywords as components of an always contested (and never simply neutral) vocabulary for discussing society. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of Williams’ thinking was his constant attention to the ways in which language is thoroughly saturated with contestation and the political. It is a very deep and damaging error that Roman and her contributors seem as if unaware of this aspect - perhaps even best described as the core - of Williams’ thinking. 文化是威廉斯的关键词，承载着他在关键词中所发现的所有复杂乃至解构性力量——这些关键词始终是讨论社会时充满争议（且绝非中立）的词汇组成部分。事实上，威廉斯思想的一个显著特征，就是他持续关注语言如何彻底浸透着争议性与政治性。罗曼及其撰稿人似乎完全忽视了威廉斯思想的这一维度——或许甚至可称之为其思想核心——这实在是个极其深刻且有害的误读。
Disremembering keywords 被遗忘的关键词
For the third example of the general pattern of remembering Williams’ work in a way that makes it unlikely that it will be reread, we will examine the particular disremembering that Williams’ Keywords appears to be suffering. 关于第三种普遍现象——人们以某种方式记忆威廉斯的作品，却使其不太可能被重读——我们将考察《关键词》所遭受的特殊遗忘。
Keywords, first published in 1976, represents something like a central work in Williams’ overre. Subtitled a I’ocubulary of Culture and Society, it extends the discussion of the changing meanings of words and concepts under the pressures of social and political change. While Williams’ classic study Cultare and Society 1780-1950 had focused on the shifting senses of words such as industry, democracy, class, art and culture (Williams [1958] 1979a: 13), Keywords extended the same method of historical semantics to a much broader series of terms, ranging from ‘aesthetic’ and ‘alienation’ to ‘work’ and ‘science’. In both books - as in Williams’ work as a whole - the guiding principle remains the same. Attention to the fact that ‘our vocabulary, the language we use to inquire into and to negotiate our actions, is no secondary factor, hut a practical and radical element itself’ (Williams [1958] 1979a: 323). 1976 年首版的《关键词》堪称威廉斯整体著作中的核心作品。这部副标题为"文化与社会词汇"的著作，延续了对社会政治变革压力下词语与概念意义变迁的探讨。如果说威廉斯的经典研究《文化与社会 1780-1950》聚焦于"工业"、"民主"、"阶级"、"艺术"和"文化"等词汇的语义流变（威廉斯[1958]1979a:13），那么《关键词》则将这种历史语义学方法拓展至更广泛的术语系列——从"美学"、"异化"到"劳动"、"科学"无不涵盖。这两部著作——乃至威廉斯全部作品——都秉持着相同的核心原则：始终关注"我们用以探究并协调行动的词汇与语言绝非次要因素，其本身就是具有实践性与根本性的要素"（威廉斯[1958]1979a:323）。
Yet while Keywords has remained one of the most abidingly popular of Williams’ works, it has also proved one of the more contentious. For the professional lexicographer Ronald Burchfield, Williams’ book was overreliant on the Oxford English Dictionary and its methods were completely amateurish (Burchfield 1976), while Patrick Parrinder criticized the book in terms of its ‘general deconstructive tendency’ (Parrinder 1987: 82). More recently, Williams’ biographer Fred Inglis found the book ‘vitiated by nonchalance about the whole question of ideological distortion on the author’s part, and by a series of more or less grievous errors, for which he was much castigated by Quentin Skinner’ (Inglis 1995: 247). 然而，尽管《关键词》始终是威廉斯作品中最经久不衰的畅销著作之一，它也同时被证明是争议性较大的作品。专业词典编纂家罗纳德·伯奇菲尔德认为，威廉斯的这部著作过度依赖《牛津英语词典》，其研究方法完全不够专业（Burchfield 1976）；而帕特里克·帕林德则批评该书具有"普遍的解构倾向"（Parrinder 1987: 82）。近年来，威廉斯的传记作者弗雷德·英格利斯更指出该书"因作者对意识形态扭曲问题的满不在乎，以及一系列或轻或重的错误而受到损害——这些错误曾遭到昆廷·斯金纳的严厉批评"（Inglis 1995: 247）。
One of the things of interest here is the way in which Inglis’s deployment of Skinner is one that shores up Skinner’s assertions without in the least examining them. It provides another example of disremembering and, in so doing, it exemplifies just the kind of conformism of which Benjamin warned, and the consequent need for interpreters of Williams to be precise in their treatment of general representations of his work. What was, in fact, the detail of Skinner’s critique of Williams, and how well does it stand up to critical scrutiny? 此处值得关注的一点在于，英格利斯对斯金纳理论的运用方式——这种运用全然未经检验就强化了斯金纳的论断。这为"记忆抹除"现象提供了又一例证，同时也恰恰印证了本雅明所警示的那种思想趋同倾向。由此更凸显出威廉斯研究者们必须审慎对待其著作的总体性表述。斯金纳对威廉斯的具体批评理据究竟为何？这些批评又能否经得起严格的学术检验？
Quentin Skinner’s arguments against Keywords first appeared in a review of the book in the journal Essays in Criticism in 1978, and subsequently reappeared in a slightly revised version in 1980. His criticisms of Williams are, indeed, damning and appear to demolish the structure and arguments of Keywords as he concludes that while ‘the special techniques of the literary critic have - or ought to have - a central place in the business of cultural criticism’, this is a place which ‘a book like Williams’s Keywords has scarcely begun to recognize’ (Skinner 1988: 132). For Skinner, Williams is in fact guilty of two related mistakes, only the first of which we shall examine here. ^(12){ }^{12} First, he shares the Marxist emphasis on economic determinism, and this makes it impossible for him to give an account of the constitutive force of language in social change; and, secondly, he persistently fails to grasp the difference between words and concepts. 昆廷·斯金纳对《关键词》的批判最初见于 1978 年《批评文集》期刊的书评，后于 1980 年以略微修订的版本重新发表。他对威廉斯的批评确实极具破坏性，似乎彻底瓦解了《关键词》的体系架构与论证逻辑——斯金纳最终断言："虽然文学批评家的特殊方法在文化批评领域应当占据核心地位，但威廉斯《关键词》这类著作几乎未能认识到这一点"（Skinner 1988: 132）。在斯金纳看来，威廉斯实际上犯了两项相互关联的错误，本文仅探讨其中第一项：首先，他承袭了马克思主义对经济决定论的强调，这使其无法阐释语言在社会变革中的建构性力量；其次，他始终未能把握词语与概念的本质区别。
For any actual reader of Williams, what is so striking is the fact that Skinner’s claim that Williams maintained some kind of determined Marxist view of language as ‘the mirror of reality’ (Skinner 1988: 130) is likely to be treated with considerable scepticism, given the fact that a significant part of Williams’ work was devoted to arguing against just such a position! Marxism and Literature had, after all, started its chapter on language with the observation that 'Marxism has contributed very little to thinking about language [other than the] underdeveloped versions of language as a “reflection” of “reality” (Williams 1977: 188). Throughout his work, Williams maintained a cautious attention to the constitutive force of language that is closer to Skinner’s own position than his disremembering will allow. ^(13){ }^{13} 对于威廉姆斯的真实读者而言，令人震惊的是斯金纳的论断——即威廉姆斯坚持某种将语言视为"现实之镜"的马克思主义决定论观点（Skinner 1988: 130）——很可能会遭到强烈质疑，因为威廉姆斯的大量著作恰恰致力于驳斥这种立场！《马克思主义与文学》在论述语言的章节开篇就明确指出："马克思主义对语言思考的贡献甚微[除了]那些将语言视为'现实''反映'的未成熟版本"（Williams 1977: 188）。威廉姆斯始终保持着对语言建构力量的审慎关注，这种立场其实更接近斯金纳本人的观点，只是被斯金纳选择性遗忘了。 ^(13){ }^{13}
But, once again, it may be that the best way to counter this disremembering is through a precise attention to the textual work of elision (quite literally in this instance, as we shall see) that is involved in it. 但或许，要纠正这种选择性遗忘，最佳方式仍是精确考察文本中（就本例而言确实如此，后文将详述）被刻意省略的内容。
In support of his prime contention that Williams sees language in Marxist terms as the ‘mirror of reality’, Skinner offers the following paraphrase of and citation from the entry on class in Keywords: 'And in commenting more specifically on “the economic changes of the Industrial Revolution”, he notes that these produced a “greatly sharpened” and extended “vocabulary of class”" (Skinner 1988: 130). The implication is clear, and, as regards the case that Skinner is arguing, apparently damning: the economic changes of the Industrial Revolution produced a greatly sharpened and extended vocabulary of class. But, even as we perform this surely intended paraphrase, we might notice that it is Skinner, and not Williams, who uses the crucial determining verb ‘produced’. And, once we have noticed that it is Skinner who uses this verb and not Williams, we are likely to ask what verb Williams did use, and why Skinner avoided it? 为支持其核心论点——威廉姆斯以马克思主义视角将语言视为"现实的镜子"，斯金纳对《关键词》中"阶级"词条作了如下转述与引用："在更具体地评论'工业革命的经济变革'时，他指出这些变革催生了一个'极大强化'且扩展的'阶级词汇表'"（Skinner 1988: 130）。其隐含意义不言而喻，且对斯金纳所持论点而言可谓致命：工业革命的经济变革催生了一个极大强化且扩展的阶级词汇表。但即便我们进行这种显然有意的转述时，或许会注意到使用关键性动词"催生"的是斯金纳而非威廉姆斯。而一旦发现使用该动词的是斯金纳而非威廉姆斯，我们不禁要追问：威廉姆斯实际使用了什么动词？斯金纳又为何回避了它？
The full sentence in fact reads as follows: ‘L’nder the pressure of this awareness, greatly sharpened by the economic changes of the Industrial Revolution and the political conflicts of the American and French Revolutions, the new vocabulary of class began to take over’ (Williams [1976] 1983b: 53). 事实上，完整的句子是这样表述的："在工业革命经济变革与美法革命政治冲突的双重压力下，这种被急剧强化的阶级意识催生了全新的阶级话语体系"（威廉斯[1976]1983b:53）。
As we read the effaced original, we can see that Skinner’s paraphrase distorts the actual argument through its use of a selective quotation which whether deliberate or accidental - produces a textual disremembering. For Williams, the new vocabulary is not some Marxist reflex of the determined mind, some mirroring in language of economic reality (the Industrial Revolution), as Skinner would have us believe. ^(14){ }^{14} The new vocabulary of class is rather the result of a new awareness, the pressure of a complex new awareness. To be sure, this is an awareness ‘greatly sharpened by the economic changes of the Industrial Revolution’, but not entirely produced by it. The awareness is also sharpened by the political conflicts of the American and French revolutions’. And these conflicts - as Williams, just as much as Skinner, was aware - took place discursively. 当我们还原被擦除的原始文本时，会发现斯金纳的转述通过选择性引文扭曲了实际论点——无论有意或无意——造成了文本记忆的断裂。对威廉斯而言，新的阶级话语绝非斯金纳所暗示的"马克思主义决定论在语言层面对经济现实（工业革命）的机械反映"。 ^(14){ }^{14} 阶级新词汇实质上是新型意识觉醒的产物，是复杂认知压力下的结晶。诚然，这种意识"被工业革命的经济变革极大强化"，但并非完全由其催生。美国革命与法国革命的政治冲突同样锐化了这种意识。而威廉斯与斯金纳都清楚意识到：这些冲突本质上是通过话语实践展开的。
What reader would now turn to Keywords after Skinner’s demolition job, echoed as it has been by critics such as Patrick Parrinder and Fred Inglis? What student interested in post-colonial theory would see any use in attending to Williams after his apparent dismissal by Edward Said? And, having read Linda Colley’s dismissal of Williams as one of a band of sentimental socialists, who would be likely to read him now on Cobbett (and discover that one of Colley’s own key points about Cobbett’s work either unknowingly echoes or deliberately plagiarizes Williams)? ^(15){ }^{15} 在斯金纳的彻底批判之后，又有帕特里克·帕林德和弗雷德·英格利斯等评论家的附和，如今还有哪位读者会去翻阅《关键词》？当爱德华·萨义德明显否定了威廉斯的观点后，对后殖民理论感兴趣的学生又怎会觉得研读威廉斯仍有价值？在读过琳达·科利将威廉斯贬为多愁善感的社会主义者团体一员后，如今谁还会去读他关于科贝特的论述（从而发现科利本人对科贝特作品的关键论点之一，要么无意中与威廉斯遥相呼应，要么刻意剽窃了威廉斯的观点）？ ^(15){ }^{15}
Disrememberings such as these are so dangerous because they present the terms of someone’s work in ways that are likely to keep the books themselves firmly closed by new generations of readers. The very fact that challenging such acts of disremembering almost seems to require prior knowledge of the body of work in question in order to disentangle the distortions and displacements involved is perhaps what made for 这类记忆抹除之所以如此危险，是因为它们以某种方式呈现某人著作的核心概念，这种方式很可能导致新一代读者彻底拒绝翻开这些书籍。而挑战这种记忆抹除行为本身似乎就需要预先了解相关著作体系，才能厘清其中涉及的曲解与置换——或许正是这种悖论，催生了
Benjamin’s bitter comment on the general situation of cultural memory: the fact that ‘the enemy has never ceased to be victorious’ (Benjamin 2006: 391). 本雅明对文化记忆普遍状况的尖锐评论："敌人从未停止过胜利"这一事实（本雅明 2006: 391）。
Notes 注释
1 In this, I acknowledge Maria Cevasco’s striking deployment of the same passage from Benjamin in her own work on Williams (Cevasco 2000). 1 在此，我认可玛丽亚·塞瓦斯科在其关于威廉姆斯的著作中对该段本雅明引文的精妙运用（塞瓦斯科 2000）。
2 For further arguments regarding the centrality of Williams’ own wresting of the tradition from conformism, and the consequent emphasis on the selective tradition, see especially Higgins 1999, pp. 65-90 and Higgins 2001, pp. 87-93. 2 关于威廉姆斯从因循守旧中夺取传统核心地位及由此对选择性传统的强调，更多论述可特别参阅希金斯 1999 年著作第 65-90 页及希金斯 2001 年著作第 87-93 页。
3 In fact, Williams returned repeatedly to Cobbett throughout his work, including in Culture and Society and The Country and the City. 3 事实上，威廉姆斯在其《文化与社会》《乡村与城市》等著作中曾多次重提科贝特。
4 In the Shadow of the West was one of a series of ten documentaries made for Channel 4. For further discussion, see ‘In the Shadow of the West’ in Said 2002. 4 《西方阴影下》是第四频道制作的十集纪录片系列之一。进一步讨论参见萨义德 2002 年著作中《西方阴影下》章节。
5 I argue elsewhere that the argument was particularly important at a moment when emphasis of structure over subject was dominating much cultural and political discussion in the wake of Althusser’s and Foucault’s writing. See Higgins 1999, esp. pp. 119-21 and Higgins 2001 pp. 154-7. 5 我在其他论述中指出，这一论点在阿尔都塞和福柯著作问世后的文化政治讨论中尤为重要，当时结构主义对主体性的压制占据主导地位。参见希金斯 1999 年著作，特别是第 119-121 页，以及希金斯 2001 年著作第 154-157 页。
6 Or, for instance, see Gayatri Spivak’s more recent acknowledgement of the importance of Williams’ work. In Death of a Discipline she notes how ‘[a]s usual, Raymond Williams’s system of residual-dominant-emergent-archaic-preemergent gives me the best handle on mapping culture as a process’ (Spivak 2003: 106). 6 例如，可参见加亚特里·斯皮瓦克近期对威廉斯著作重要性的肯定。在《学科的死亡》中，她指出"雷蒙德·威廉斯提出的残余-主导-新兴-古旧-前新兴体系，一如既往地为我提供了把握文化进程的最佳方法论"（斯皮瓦克 2003：106）。
7 Dworkin went on to write a useful study of Williams’ work in the context of British New Left thinking, more historically sensitive and theoretically nuanced than his remarks in the essay. See Dworkin 1997. 7 德沃金后来对威廉斯著作进行了富有价值的研究，将其置于英国新左派思想脉络中加以考察，该研究比他在论文中的评论更具历史敏感性和理论精细度。参见德沃金 1997 年著作。
8 Indeed, ‘supersession’ is perhaps one of the most difficult points of translation for Hegel (and following him Marx). In English, it always has a distinctly cumbersome and high-theoretical tone. Hegel’s own usage - as he reminded his readers in the first volume of the Encyclopedia - was, in contrast, deliberately homely (Hegel 1975: 142). See also the commentary on ‘sublation’ in Inwood 2003: 283-5. 8 事实上，"扬弃"（supersession）或许是黑格尔（以及追随他的马克思）思想中最难翻译的概念之一。在英语中，这个词总是带有明显的艰涩和高度理论化的色彩。而黑格尔本人的用法——正如他在《哲学科学全书纲要》第一卷中提醒读者的那样——恰恰相反，是刻意采用通俗表达的（黑格尔 1975：142）。另见因伍德 2003 年著作中对"扬弃"概念的评述（第 283-285 页）。
9 A further development of my argument here is to be found in Higgins 2004. 9 关于这一观点的进一步阐述，可参阅希金斯 2004 年的研究。
10 The point was first made by Victor Kiernan, in his 1959 review of Culture and Society; see Higgins 1999: 76-7. 10 维克多·基尔南在其 1959 年对《文化与社会》的书评中首次提出这一观点，参见希金斯 1999 年著作第 76-77 页。
11 This, of course, is not even to mention the whole body of Williams’ work, which, in many ways, can best be considered as an argument against ‘official English culture’ (Williams 1979d: 316). 11 这当然还没有涉及威廉斯的全部著作，从诸多方面来看，这些著作都可以视为对"官方英国文化"的持续批判（威廉斯 1979d：316）。
12 I examine the latter in my essay, ‘Raymond Williams and deconstruction’ (Higgins 2008), from which some of the formulations below are borrowed and adapted. 12 我在论文《雷蒙德·威廉斯与解构主义》（Higgins 2008）中探讨了后者，下文部分表述即借鉴并改编自该文。
13 For further discussion of the constitutivity of language in Williams, see Higgins 1995 and 1999. 13 关于威廉斯理论中语言的构成性特征的进一步讨论，可参阅希金斯 1995 年及 1999 年的研究。
14 The classic instance of this mirroring as a reflex activity is to be found in a passage from Marx and Engels’ The German Ideology, where they situate their materialist approach in ‘direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth … not setting out from what men say … but setting out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process demonstrating the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the brains of men are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which are empirically verifiable and bound to material 14 这种作为反射活动的镜像作用的经典例证可见于马克思和恩格斯《德意志意识形态》中的一段论述，他们将唯物主义方法定位于"与从天上降到地上的德国哲学直接相对立……不是从人们所说的……出发，而是从现实的、能动的人出发，依据他们实际的生活过程来论证这一生活过程在意识形态上的反射和反响的发展。在人们头脑中形成的幻象，也必然是他们物质生活过程的升华物，这些都可以通过经验来确认，并且与物质前提相联系"
premises’ (Marx and Engels 1998: 42). Of this passage, Williams notes but does not endorse the fact that the ‘language of “reflexes”, “echoes”, “phantoms” and “sublimates” carries the inescapable implication of a secondary activity’ (Williams 1983e: 202). "前提"（马克思和恩格斯 1998: 42）。针对这段论述，威廉斯指出但并未认可"'反射''回声''幻影'和'升华物'这类术语不可避免地暗示着一种次级活动"这一事实（威廉斯 1983e: 202）。
15 In the conclusion to her review, Colley writes that ‘the real, unexpurgated Cobbett is at once less attractive … and far more interesting’; his real importance lies in the way his writing ‘transformed British journalism and has left a mark even today’ though his ‘true successor’, she remarks, ‘may be the violent, undeferential, hugely popular and not unimportant Sun newspaper’. But in 1958 Williams had already written - against too celebratory accounts from the Left - that Cobbett ‘is, in large measure, the type of the very worst kind of popular journalist’, full of ‘arrogance’, ‘crudeness’ and powered by ‘an appetite for a class of men he could hate’ (Williams [1958] 1979a: 32). 15 科利在评论的结尾写道，"未经删节、真实的科贝特既不那么讨人喜欢……又远比想象中有趣"；他真正的价值在于其写作"改变了英国新闻业，至今仍留有印记"，不过她指出，他"真正的继承者或许是那家言辞激烈、桀骜不驯、广受欢迎且并非无足轻重的《太阳报》"。但早在 1958 年，威廉斯就曾撰文反对左派过于美化的描述，指出科贝特"在很大程度上是那种最恶劣的通俗记者典型"，充满"傲慢"与"粗鄙"，其动力源自"对某一类人的仇恨欲望"（威廉斯[1958] 1979a: 32）。
Chapter II 第二章
Raymond Williams in the South Atlantic 南大西洋语境中的雷蒙德·威廉姆斯
Clara Masnatta 克拉拉·马斯纳塔in memoriam parentum dilectissimum 谨以此纪念挚爱的双亲
There are ideas, and ways of thinking, with the seeds of life in them, and there are others, perhaps deep in our minds, with the seeds of a general death. Our measure of success in recognizing these kinds, and in naming them making possible their common recognition, may be literally the measure of our future. 有些思想与思维方式孕育着生命的种子，而另一些或许深植于我们意识中的观念，却暗藏普遍消亡的基因。我们能否识别这两类思想并予以命名，使其获得普遍认知，这种能力或许将直接决定我们未来的命运。
(Williams [1958] 1961b: 324) (威廉姆斯 [1958] 1961b: 324)
At least once did Raymond Williams write on the South Atlantic. In 1982, a piece entitled ‘Distance’ appeared in the London Review of Books, in which Williams reflected on the ongoing war between Argentina and the UK in the Malvinas/Falklands Islands. Yet Williams would be surprised to know (indeed, he was) how closely and prolifically his thinking had been followed in the South Atlantic since the 1970s. Perhaps without irony, faithful to his peripheral quality in the Oxbridge intellectual milieu, Raymond Williams’ thinking burgeoned in the periphery of capitalism. In contrast to his solitary grammar Williams rarely quoted, or made explicit a genealogy of influences - it would be virtually impossible to trace an intellectual history of the South Atlantic without mentioning him. 雷蒙德·威廉斯至少曾有一次将笔墨触及南大西洋。1982 年，他在《伦敦书评》发表题为《距离》的文章，对阿根廷与英国正在进行的马岛（福克兰群岛）战争进行反思。但威廉斯若知晓（事实上他确实惊讶过）自 1970 年代以来其思想在南大西洋地区被如此密切且广泛地追随，定会感到意外。或许颇具反讽意味的是，正如他在牛津剑桥知识圈内始终保持着边缘气质那般，威廉斯的思想恰是在资本主义边缘地带蓬勃生长。与他鲜少引用他人、几乎从不明确思想谱系的孤绝文风形成鲜明对比的是——若书写南大西洋的思想史而不提及威廉斯，这样的学术叙事几乎不可能成立。
‘South Atlantic’ here is to be understood not in a mere geographical sense, but as a cultural term, much in the critical appraisal of spaces that Williams inaugurates with The Country and the City. Originally coined by the outstanding Uruguayan critic Angel Rama, it refers roughly to the area ranging from São Paulo to Buenos Aires. In sketching a partial history of Williams’ reception in the region, this chapter is intended to contribute to the history of cultural studies. 这里的“南大西洋”不应仅从地理角度理解，而是一个文化术语，正如威廉斯在《乡村与城市》中开创的空间批判理论所阐释的那样。这个由杰出的乌拉圭批评家安赫尔·拉玛首创的概念，大致指代从圣保罗到布宜诺斯艾利斯的区域。本章通过勾勒威廉斯思想在该地区接受史的部分脉络，旨在为文化研究史作出贡献。
A caveat or two are in order regarding the present and the past of cultural studies, a tainted name now that 'every humanistic discipline is hastening to transform itself into something called “cultural studies” (Jay 1998: 2). Let us remark here only some critical differences between cultural studies in the North and the South, since it would require a separate study to cogently foil them in the multiple aspects of their definition - a rather difficult enterprise in itself. Only to austere accord, cultural studies may be 关于文化研究的现状与历史，需要提出几点警示——这个名称如今已遭玷污，因为“所有人文学科都急于将自身转变为所谓的‘文化研究’”（Jay 1998: 2）。我们仅在此指出南北半球文化研究的一些关键差异，因为要对其多重定义维度进行系统对比需要专门研究——这本身就是相当困难的课题。若勉强达成严格共识，文化研究或许可被
pinned down to the endorsement of a methodological approach, the postulation of a new archive rather than an established topicality. 界定为对某种方法论路径的认同，即主张建立新档案库而非因循既定主题范畴。
Without question, the history of the formation of cultural studies in Latin America is very different from the same in the US. Taking into account how a critical tradition has reflected upon literature along with social and political processes, one could posit cultural studies avant la lettre in Latin America if such a title is allowed for the terminology that was conceived in Birmingham being itself, as they all are, après coup. 毫无疑问，拉丁美洲文化研究的形成历史与美国截然不同。考虑到批判传统如何对文学及社会政治进程进行反思，我们或许可以将拉丁美洲的文化研究定位为"先于概念本身的存在"——如果这个源自伯明翰的术语（如同所有理论概念一样，都是事后追认的）可以被允许用来指称这种前驱性研究的话。
In this sense, one may argue that in Latin America cultural studies represent not only an epistemological break but also a certain continuity with the great essayistic tradition of the nineteenth century. To the twen-tieth-century horizon of their emergence one should antedate an illustrious genealogy that wrote their fundamental concern with culture in conjunction with the political in texts of jumbled genres known as ‘essays of ideas’. This list of ancestors (the term is more fitting than precursors) could include Andrés Bello, Domingo F. Sarmiento, José Martí, José Enrique Rodó, Pedro Henríquez Urena, Carlos Mariátegui. If not going as far as to state that these thinkers reflected on texts in the anthropological sense - as the symbolic production of reality, or positing culture with Williams ‘as a whole way of life’ - so as to postulate a new archive, their musings in fact encompassed topics that resonate with those of cultural studies, such as the country and the city, the role of intellectuals and institutions, the national and the continental question. 从这个意义上说，可以认为拉丁美洲文化研究不仅代表了一种认识论断裂，也与十九世纪伟大的散文传统保持着某种连续性。在追溯其二十世纪发端的同时，我们应当将谱系前推至一批杰出思想家——他们通过被称为"思想随笔"的混杂文体，将文化关切与政治议题紧密交织。这份先驱名单（用"先驱"比"前辈"更贴切）可包括安德烈斯·贝略、多明戈·F·萨米恩托、何塞·马蒂、何塞·恩里克·罗多、佩德罗·恩里克斯·乌雷尼亚、何塞·卡洛斯·马里亚特吉。即便这些思想家尚未如人类学般将文本视为现实的符号化生产，或像威廉斯那样将文化界定为"整体的生活方式"以构建新档案，但其思考实际上已涵盖与文化研究共鸣的议题：城乡关系、知识分子与制度角色、民族与大陆命题等。
The legitimate founding fathers of Latin American cultural studies, dating from the early 1960s, are Angel Rama and António Candido in Brazil. Albeit supported by different conceptions of literature, both critics delve into the specificity and density of meanings of literature in culture and culture in literature, in a way Williams would distil as theory. Rama’s endeavours to construct a literature of América were to be anchored ultimately by the notion of transculturation; Candido’s efforts aimed beyond the subcontinent, and were consistently propelled he the dialectics of the local and the universal, which literature should reveal. Both reach back to colonial times; their revision of history supports a conception of the present. 20 世纪 60 年代初，拉丁美洲文化研究的合法奠基者当属巴西的安赫尔·拉马与安东尼奥·坎迪多。尽管基于不同的文学理念，两位批评家都深入探究了文学在文化中与文化在文学中的特殊性与意义密度——这种方式被威廉斯提炼为理论。拉马构建"美洲文学"的尝试最终以跨文化概念为锚点；坎迪多的努力则超越了次大陆疆界，始终由本土性与世界性的辩证关系所推动，这种辩证关系正是文学应当揭示的。二者都将视野回溯至殖民时期，他们对历史的修正支撑着对当下的理解。
This historical scope is an important difference with cultural studies elsewhere that deal with contemporary culture and more recent processes of globalization, mass culture or the postmodern question. In Latin America we could name the work of George Yúdice, Néstor García Canclini, Jesus Martin Barlere as pertaining to these issues, which were actually the first to receive the official cultural studies badge. Working in the early 1980 s within the context of the post-dictatorship that witnessed the expansion of cultural studies in Latin America and the world, they endorsed a democratization of the concept of literature breaking the boundaries between elite and popular. But this point of view proves valid perhaps as it 这种历史视野与其他地区研究当代文化及全球化进程、大众文化或后现代问题的文化研究形成重要差异。在拉丁美洲，我们可以将乔治·尤迪斯、内斯托尔·加西亚·坎克里尼、赫苏斯·马丁·巴贝罗的研究归入此类议题——这些学者实际上是最早获得官方认可的文化研究先驱。他们在 1980 年代初期后独裁时代的背景下开展工作，见证了文化研究在拉丁美洲乃至全球的扩展，主张打破精英与大众界限的文学概念民主化。但这一观点或许仅适用于国家或次大陆内部语境
remains internal to the nation or the subcontinent, for when the relationship North/South or centre/periphery is at stake, this same trace becomes a controversial geopolitical mark. 因为当涉及南北关系或中心/边缘问题时，同样的脉络就会演变成具有争议性的地缘政治标记。
This controversy has recently compelled Beatriz Sarlo, who introduced Williams to Argentina and is perhaps the most important critic in Spanish America today, into calling cultural studies ‘an avatar of new Latin Americanism’ (Sarlo 2002). This qualification intends to denounce the strongly ideological North American machine that would dissolve all specificity and, effectively breaking down borders epistemological and beyond, end up engulfing the whole Latin American field, sweeping by it with political (more often banal) markers, and not tending to the formal complexities a work of art offers almost in spite of its Latin American origin. 这一争议最近迫使比阿特丽斯·萨洛——这位将威廉斯思想引入阿根廷、堪称当今西语美洲最重要批评家的学者——将文化研究称为"新拉美主义的化身"(萨洛 2002)。此定性旨在谴责北美强大的意识形态机器，该机器消解一切特殊性，通过打破认识论乃至更广泛的边界，最终吞噬整个拉美领域，用政治性（更多时候是平庸的）标记席卷而过，却无视艺术作品几乎与其拉美出身无关的形式复杂性。
Asymmetries can impossibly be set aside. Marx ignored Latin America in his writings - a fact that, in the words of Brazilian critic Roberto Schwarz (Cândido’s finest disciple), was paid back with ‘distinguishing malice’: inventing Marxist categories to adapt them to a reality different, but not foreign to them (Schwarz 1996: 34). Such malice may be a useful guide into the particular geography of Williams’ diffusion, and towards the horizon of emergence of cultural studies in the South Atlantic. 不对称性绝不可能被搁置。马克思在其著作中忽视了拉丁美洲——用巴西批评家罗伯托·施瓦茨（坎迪多最杰出的门徒）的话说，这一事实得到了"带有区别的恶意"的回报：即发明马克思主义范畴来适应与之不同却并非全然陌生的现实(施瓦茨 1996: 34)。这种恶意或许能为我们提供线索，既指向威廉斯思想传播的特殊地理轨迹，也指向南大西洋地区文化研究兴起的地平线。
Indeed, the ‘regional’ tradition has been supplemented by the fact that the thought of Antonio Gramsci and Walter Benjamin, together with Adorno, circulated early in Latin America, as Schwarz’s candid remark also indicates. Along with Sartre, Frantz Fanon and Pierre Bourdieu, whose translation was almost simultaneous to French publication, these perspectives would start laying the heterogeneous ground that would crystallize the sublation of the sociology of culture as practiced to that date. To all these thinkers, who were intellectual references previous to reaching such status in the United States - and perhaps also in the larger Anglo-Saxon world one should add the early reception and enormous impact that Raymond Williams had, followed by Richard Hoggart and later Stuart Hall, on the local intellectual field. Let us also include, to avoid all populist suspicions (and facile extrapolations), Barthes’s Mythologies as a necessary part of the roster in the local genealogy of cultural studies. 事实上，"地域性"传统还因安东尼奥·葛兰西与瓦尔特·本雅明的思想（连同阿多诺）早在拉丁美洲的传播而得到补充——正如施瓦茨那番坦率评论所揭示的那样。与萨特、弗朗茨·法农和皮埃尔·布迪厄（其著作几乎与法语原版同步被译介）一起，这些思想视角开始为文化社会学的扬弃奠定异质性的理论基础，这种扬弃超越了当时既有的研究范式。在这些早于其在美国——或许还包括更广泛的盎格鲁-撒克逊世界——获得学术地位之前就成为思想参照系的理论家中，我们还应注意到雷蒙德·威廉斯的早期接受史及其巨大影响，其后是理查德·霍加特与斯图亚特·霍尔在本土知识场域中的传播。为避免民粹主义式的猜疑（及简单化的推衍），我们还需将巴特的《神话学》纳入文化研究在地谱系中不可或缺的经典序列。
At first glance, a reader unfamiliar with the discipline may wonder how this pantheon that dealt with the culture of the centre (with the exception of Fanon, and arguably Gramsci) could remotely speak to the problematic of the peripheral South Atlantic. Take, on the one hand, the theoretical efforts with Walter Benjamin as the illuminated precursor of thinking culture in a way Williams would define as ordinary - towards a de-hierarchization between copy and original, or popular and elite cultures. These contributed to theorizing the relationship between the terms that are central to a culture of the periphery, and have been the constant concern of local intellectual endeavours in the face of practices that are appropriated and reformulated to fit in the scene. 乍看之下，不熟悉该领域的读者或许会疑惑，这个以中心文化为研究对象的学术殿堂（除法农外，或许还包括葛兰西）如何能与南大西洋边缘地带的文化困境产生关联。一方面，以瓦尔特·本雅明为理论先驱的学术努力——他开创性地以威廉斯所谓"平凡"的视角思考文化，消解复制品与原件、通俗文化与精英文化之间的等级差异——这些理论贡献为阐释边缘文化核心要素之间的关系提供了框架，也始终是当地知识分子在面对那些被挪用重构以适应新语境的文化实践时，持续关注的理论焦点。
Imagine, on the other hand, the resonance of the country and the city considered as the geographical embodiment of civilization and barbarism in these ‘regional’ traditions. These two terms form the absolute fundamental cultural binomial upon which Latin American culture has been reflected, ever since Domingo F. Sarmiento’s foundational Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism (1845). 另一方面，不妨思考"乡村与城市"这对概念在这些"地域性"传统中作为文明与野蛮地理化身的共鸣。自多明戈·F·萨米恩托奠基性著作《法昆多：文明与野蛮》（1845）问世以来，这两个术语构成了拉丁美洲文化反思中最根本的二元对立范式。
Effectively consolidated upon the invention of spaces, and governed by the centrality of the political and the problem of aesthetical values, the succeeding articulations of the cultural field offer problems that would, to borrow Deleuze’s words, make machine with cultural materialism at face value. But being on the periphery of capitalism does not suffice to account for the attraction exercised by Williams. 随着空间概念的发明而得以有效巩固，并受政治核心地位与美学价值问题的支配，文化领域后续的表述产生了诸多问题——用德勒兹的话来说，这些问题将使机器与文化唯物主义在表面价值上产生联动。但仅处于资本主义边缘这一事实，并不足以解释威廉姆斯所展现的吸引力。
In general, cultural studies in Latin America managed to articulate a ‘social redemption’ of literary criticism as they included what the elite of the lettered city had left out of national culture, serving as a coming to terms with the canon as well as with colonial formation. In this sense, Neil Larsen is right when he affirms that, as their importation coincided with the democratic transition, the reflections springing out of the Birmingham school that were originally in response to post-Marxian intellectual necessities in the UK served more conveniently to post-revolutionary politics in Latin America (Moraña 2000). Yet there is a very particular operation with Williams in the South Atlantic, which is previous to this importation moment, one that hits another spot, by grace of which his work hecomes truly exemplary. 总体而言，拉丁美洲的文化研究成功实现了文学批评的"社会救赎"，它们将被文字精英阶层排除在民族文化之外的内容重新纳入，既是对经典体系的重新审视，也是对殖民结构的清算。从这个意义上说，尼尔·拉森的观点不无道理：当伯明翰学派的思潮随着民主转型期传入时，这些原本为应对英国后马克思主义知识需求而产生的理论，反而更契合拉丁美洲后革命时期的政治语境（莫拉尼亚，2000）。然而在南大西洋地区，对威廉斯理论存在一种独特的运用实践——这种早于理论引进时期的本土化操作，因其精准把握了另一重维度，反而使其著作获得了真正的典范意义。
I am not designating the exemplary as that which Williams comes to incarnate, the - universal in its first definition - intellectual. There is an identification with Williams in this role that he radiantly represents, a profound sympathy for the sense of responsibility that shines through his sentences. Politics and aesthetics are ciphered in the figure of the intellectual; the welding of their terms would become central in Latin America, if not beforehand, in the face of the Cuban Revolution. History had its course; yet, however residual, the feeling that being committed (or being a leftist, for that matter) is synonymous with being an intellectual remains alive. 我并非将典范性等同于威廉姆斯所体现的那种——在其最初定义中具有普遍性的——知识分子形象。人们对他所光辉代表的这一角色有着强烈的认同，对他字里行间闪耀的责任感怀有深切共鸣。政治与美学被编码在知识分子形象之中；二者的术语融合将成为拉丁美洲的核心命题——若非更早，至少在面对古巴革命时已然如此。历史自有其进程；然而无论如何式微，那种将"投身事业"（或就此而言"成为左派"）等同于"成为知识分子"的情感始终生生不息。
By far a more interesting or politically relevant a case. Williams offers a rare instance of appropriations of the particular. A body of work constructed within such insularity the literature of the British Isles - would offer an unprecedented productivity well beyond its own universe of cultural references. Yet one could emblematically seal work and figure in an ‘intellectual affinity’. The image returned by the South notwithstanding, Williams may have not thought of himself as the intellectual incarnate. In the francophobic spirit that relegates universality to a French province, British culture gauges this figure rather negatively, as we learn in Kevuords. With Williams, a renewed constellation of culture, politics and a certain francophobia came to be formed under the southern stars. 迄今为止，这是一个更为有趣或更具政治相关性的案例。威廉斯提供了一个罕见的特例——对特定文化元素的挪用。这部诞生于不列颠群岛文学封闭性中的作品，其文化生产力将远超其自身文化参照体系的边界。然而人们仍可象征性地将作品与人物封存在某种"思想亲缘"之中。尽管南方投射的意象如此，威廉斯或许从未自视为知识分子的化身。在那种将普世性贬为法兰西行省的反法情绪中，英国文化对此类知识分子形象评价颇为负面，正如我们在关键词章节所见。在南方星空下，威廉斯重构了文化、政治与某种反法情绪的新星群。
But first we need to introduce a distinction within the vast territory that we are trying to map. ‘South Atlantic’ does name a common culture - the culture of the gaucho in the flatlands delimited by the cosmopolitan cities of São Paulo and Buenos Aires - yet Brazil and Argentina also offer differences as to their colonial history and socio-cultural formation and, more specifically in the intellectual field, the traces of cultural materialism. For in what regards the reception and effect of Williams’ work, one could overemphasize the terms of its contingency as marginal machine-making only at the risk of belittling the enterprise of a group of intellectuals nucleated around a little magazine called Punto de Vista that came to prove Argentina - Brazil not so much - to be faraway, so close. 但首先我们需要在这片试图绘制的广阔领域中作出区分。"南大西洋"确实指代一种共同文化——由圣保罗和布宜诺斯艾利斯这些国际大都市所界定的潘帕斯草原上高乔人的文化。然而巴西与阿根廷在殖民历史、社会文化构成方面存在差异，尤其在知识领域，文化唯物主义留下的印记更为显著。就威廉姆斯著作的接受与影响而言，若过分强调其作为边缘机器制造的偶然性，便可能低估围绕《观点》杂志形成的知识分子群体的努力——正是他们证明阿根廷（巴西则不尽然）虽远犹近。
Consider that Borges, the indisputable Argentine cultural icon, has been read through Williams. This refers to Beatriz Sarlo’s reading (originally given as her Cambridge lectures, later to become the book Borges: A Writer on the Edge), which has placed Borges effectively on the margins against those cosmopolitan interpretations that effaced the problems of the national. Consider also that Williams had impossibly written with Borges in mind, because he had, in fact, never read Borges (see Altamirano 1998: 33). Of course Sarlo’s reading of Borges through Williams - a culmination of sorts - has a more intricate history of its own. The point to be made is that Williams’ ideas bore critical fruits in faraway lands, and, with the seeds of life in them that he always sought, they did mark the measure of a future, in ways unforeseen to him. Punto de Vista, the magazine under the direction of Sarlo which was first to discuss Williams in Buenos Aires, found in his texts a breath of fresh air and solid ground for rearticulating the political and the cultural and at the same time a strategy to go through the turbulent decade of the 1970s: under the military dictatorship, thinking with Williams became literally vital. 不妨思考一下，博尔赫斯这位无可争议的阿根廷文化偶像，是如何经由威廉姆斯的理论棱镜被解读的。这指向比阿特丽斯·萨洛的阐释路径（最初以剑桥大学讲座形式呈现，后结集为《边缘上的作家：博尔赫斯》专著），该研究将博尔赫斯有效地定位于边缘位置，与那些抹除民族性问题的世界主义阐释形成对抗。更值得注意的是，威廉姆斯根本不可能以博尔赫斯为参照进行写作，因为他事实上从未阅读过博尔赫斯作品（参见 Altamirano 1998: 33）。当然，萨洛通过威廉姆斯理论解读博尔赫斯——某种意义上的巅峰阐释——其本身有着更为错综复杂的思想谱系。这里需要强调的是，威廉姆斯的思想在遥远疆域结出了批判性的果实，这些蕴含着其毕生求索的生命力的思想种子，确实以他未曾预见的方式，丈量出了未来的尺度。 由萨尔罗主编的《观点》杂志率先在布宜诺斯艾利斯讨论威廉姆斯的理论，从其文本中发现了新鲜气息和重新阐释政治与文化关系的坚实基础，同时也找到了一种应对 1970 年代动荡时期的策略——在军事独裁统治下，借鉴威廉姆斯的思考变得至关重要。
Before unravelling that history, let us consider the fortune of cultural materialism in Brazil. Williams’ work was not as successful in Brazil, it seems, because it was primarily channelled through English departments. Williams’ work is firstly introduced and perhaps limited to scholars of Anglophone Literatures, such as Fernando Ferrara in Italy, Maria Elisa Cevasco in Brazil. Neither has turned out to have a widespread readership. 在梳理这段历史之前，让我们先考察文化唯物主义理论在巴西的传播境遇。威廉姆斯的著作在巴西并未取得同等影响力，这似乎是因为其理论主要通过英语系进行传播。威廉姆斯的理论最初（或许也仅限于）被引介给英语文学研究者，如意大利的费尔南多·费拉拉和巴西的玛丽亚·艾丽莎·塞瓦斯科。但两者都未能形成广泛的读者群。
One should not exaggerate positing Williams’ status in Brazil as a mere British literary critic, whose work one must know as one should the criticism of one’s corpus. But his success in Brazilian classrooms seems restricted in comparison to the Argentine. At the University of Buenos Aires, no one graduates in Literature without having read Williams - this is from experience, that notion he invested with formal appreciation. 不应过分夸大威廉姆斯在巴西仅作为英国文学批评家的地位，其著作虽如研究本国经典批评理论般不可或缺。但相较于阿根廷，他在巴西课堂的影响力似乎有限。在布宜诺斯艾利斯大学，文学专业学生若不研读威廉姆斯便无法毕业——这是基于经验之谈，也是他赋予形式化评价的重要概念。
This partial diffusion does not necessarily obey the fact that translations have been unavailable in Portuguese, or the fact that Williams’ work remains ‘unexplicated’, or utterly foreign in the sense of a readership potentially missing out on the context of production. To prevent such 这种传播局限未必源于葡语译本的缺失，或威廉姆斯著作仍处于"未阐释"状态，亦非因读者群可能完全脱离作品生产语境而产生的隔阂。为防止此类
ignorance, in 1985 Maria Elisa Cevasco wrote a solid explanatory book, Para ler Raymond Williams. Most remarkably, Culture and Society (1958) was available in Portuguese translation as early as 1969. This is significantly earlier than the time Williams’ work first became available in Spanish Drama from Ibsen to Brecht appeared in 1975; you had to wait until 1980 for Marxism and Literature to read his cultural criticism in Spanish translation. This rate holds if we compare the translations of his entire oeuvre to date. One would need to conclude that, in spite of the history of translations, the impact and circulation of Williams was both earlier and greater in Argentina than in Brazil. 1985 年，玛丽亚·埃莉莎·塞瓦斯科（Maria Elisa Cevasco）撰写了一部扎实的阐释性著作《解读雷蒙德·威廉斯》。尤为值得注意的是，《文化与社会》（1958）的葡萄牙语译本早在 1969 年就已问世，这比威廉斯著作首次以西班牙语面世的时间要早得多——从易卜生到布莱希特的《戏剧》直到 1975 年才出版西班牙语版，而读者更要等到 1980 年才能读到《马克思主义与文学》的西班牙语译本。若对比其全部作品迄今的译本情况，这一时间差依然成立。由此我们不得不得出结论：尽管存在译介史的时间差，但威廉斯在阿根廷的影响力和传播范围既早于巴西，也大于巴西。
At stake we find a question of ethos that may help illuminate this process. At the time of publication of Cevasco’s introductory study, Sarlo was extrapolating a premise of Williams’ to another case. In other words, only two years after it had appeared, Williams’ considerations on the regional novel included in Writing in Society were being productively translated, in the larger sense of the word, to another set of coordinates, namely, to sentimental novels in Argentina. Odd as it may sound, Cevasco actually seems to set aside the practicability of Williams’ theory for Brazilian cases. Could not this ‘effectivity test’ driven by the spirit of the German Wirklichkeit rather than by reification add to the reality of Williams? Cevasco’s dismissal rests on a reluctance to partake in the base utilitarianism of the market or, concurrently, that line of cultural studies along it that we distinguished earlier. But using Raymond Williams’ theory here is no more utilitarian than doing things with words, the necessary speech act. 我们面临的是一个可能有助于阐明这一过程的伦理问题。在塞瓦斯科的导论性研究发表之际，萨洛正将威廉斯的某个前提推论至另一个案例。换言之，威廉斯在《书写于社会》中关于地域小说的思考问世仅两年后，就被人以"翻译"这个词语更宏大的意义，创造性地转化到了另一组坐标上——即阿根廷的感伤小说。尽管听起来有些奇怪，但塞瓦斯科似乎确实将威廉斯理论在巴西案例中的适用性搁置一旁。这种由德国"现实性"（Wirklichkeit）精神而非物化驱动所进行的"实效检验"，难道不能为威廉斯的现实性增添新的维度吗？塞瓦斯科的摒弃源于对市场基础功利主义的不愿参与，或者说，源于对我们先前区分过的那种沿袭此路径的文化研究路线的抗拒。但在此运用雷蒙德·威廉斯的理论，并不比用言语行事——那种必要的言语行为——更具功利性。
Cevasco regrets the distance from which she writes, as if the professional distance so crucial to the critical task - one that Bruce Robbins has nicely elaborated prompted by the same Williams piece we started with - could be confused with a contemptible non-belonging. Practising cultural studies ‘under the dark shadow of the centre’, as Cevasio writes elsewhere, tinges her critique with a certain inferiority complex vis-à-vis Williams’ ‘central’ literature. Contrast her grafting of the critical tradition of Candido with Williams’ cultural materialism, poorly articulated by rhetorical convergence (describing the Bloomsbury group with a term of Candido’s - used for Brazilian writer João do Rio - as ‘radicals de ocasido’) to the unbiased breeding together of Bourdieu and Williams actively brought by the group of Argentine intellectuals in the pages of their magazine Punto de Vista. 塞瓦斯科对自己写作时所处的距离感到遗憾，这种专业距离对批评工作至关重要——布鲁斯·罗宾斯曾在我们开篇提及的同一篇威廉斯文章中精妙阐述过——却可能被误解为可鄙的局外人姿态。正如塞瓦斯科在其他地方所写，在"中心黑暗阴影下"从事文化研究，使她的批评蒙上了面对威廉斯"核心"文学时的某种自卑情结。对比她将坎迪多批评传统与威廉斯文化唯物主义生硬嫁接的做法（用坎迪多描述巴西作家若昂·多·里奥的术语"过气激进派"来指称布鲁姆斯伯里团体），阿根廷知识分子群体在其杂志《观点》中积极推动的布尔迪厄与威廉斯理论的无偏见融合则显得更为成熟。
A veritable translation of Williams’ work has not been achieved in Brazil, that is, an importation made culturally viable. Writing on Williams and cultural studies from a Brazilian perspective, Cevasco bestows a similar ‘awareness that culture is not separate from socio-historical reality’ that joins Williams with the local tradition just by the shibboleth of analogy (Cevasco 1998). Convergence is even granted - one that might have been pre-emptive since the culturalist spot needed not be filled - a convergence that is beyond jargon and related to a way of thinking literature, if not so 在巴西，威廉姆斯的作品尚未实现真正意义上的翻译，即一种文化上可行的引入。从巴西视角论述威廉姆斯与文化研究的塞瓦斯托（Cevasco 1998）同样赋予了"文化并非脱离社会历史现实"的认知——这种通过类比暗号将威廉姆斯与本土传统联结的论述。甚至存在一种被默许的趋同性（这种趋同或许具有先发优势，因为文化主义阵地本无需填补），这种超越术语藩篱、与文学思维方式相关的趋同，即便不甚明显。
much touching upon the national question, in its intersection with the global processes of capitalism. In truth, Cevasco effects more a ventriloquizing than a translation, and thus fails to exploit perhaps the sole felicity of the periphery, that of conforming a practice that is already part of the tradition - Borges’s Pierre Menard thrives in the paroxysm of this juncture. On a closer look, it has been a problem of translation since the beginning. The 1969 Brazilian version of Culture and Society had three different translators: no wonder such a non-organic enterprise did not find fertile ground, while Williams flourished in English in the land of Borges. 鲜少触及民族问题与全球资本主义进程的交织。实际上，塞瓦斯托所做的更像是腹语表演而非真正翻译，因而未能把握边缘地带难得的优势——即顺应已然成为传统的实践方式。博尔赫斯笔下的皮埃尔·梅纳尔正是在这种临界点的极致状态中蓬勃生长。细究之下，这从一开始就是翻译的症结所在。1969 年巴西版《文化与社会》竟由三位译者合译：如此缺乏有机性的译事自然难以生根，而威廉斯的原著却在博尔赫斯的国度以英语盛放。
If writers and intellectuals in the margins have often been translators, Punto de Vista has paid homage to this tradition functioning as a translating machine not only sensu lato. It has offered in translation texts such as Andreas Huyssen’s ‘Mapping the Postmodern’ (1984, appeared in the July 1987 issue) or Peter Bürger’s ‘The decline of modernism’ (1992, appeared in the August 1993 issue) within months of original publication. The vibrancy of this magazine, its will to be in touch and up to date correspond to the intellectual concern that has been its motor since inception - the present, and the urgency of its issues. It is, in this sense, very different from scholarly journals. In Williamsian parlance, it represents a formation or an intellectual collective, as they would call themselves with Bourdieu, that to this day slants on its title - Point of View - and that was born with the purpose of putting forward a perspective away from the cloisters of the university and against the larger barracks cloistering Argentine society during the dictatorship (1976-82). 倘若边缘地带的作家与知识分子常身兼译者之职，《观点》杂志便承袭了这一传统，其运作机制不啻为广义的翻译机器。该刊以惊人时效译介文本——如安德烈亚斯·胡伊森的《绘制后现代主义图谱》（1984 年原作，1987 年 7 月刊载）或彼得·比格尔的《现代主义的衰落》（1992 年原作，1993 年 8 月刊载）——这些译作皆在原著问世数月内即得呈现。这份杂志的蓬勃生命力，其保持前沿触觉的执着意志，正对应着自创刊以来便驱动它的智识关切：当下议题及其紧迫性。就此而言，它与学术期刊截然不同。用威廉斯式的表述来说，它代表着一个阵型（或如布尔迪厄学派所称的"智识集体"），这个集体至今仍以其刊名《观点》为精神坐标，其诞生初衷正是为了在军政府独裁时期（1976-82 年）的阿根廷，提出一种既超越大学象牙塔、又对抗禁锢社会的巨型兵营的独特视角。
The emergence of Williams’ thought describes a non-linear movement in the South Atlantic, perhaps an index of the mysterious ways in which readings from the centre move in the periphery. What are, in fine, the social, cultural and political processes and which the map of symbolic routes that enabled a felicitous importation of Williams’ thinking? 威廉姆斯思想的出现描绘了南大西洋地区一种非线性的思想流动，或许这正揭示了中心地带的阅读如何以神秘方式向边缘地带传播的指数。究竟是什么样的社会、文化与政治进程，以及怎样的符号路径图景，促成了威廉姆斯思想如此成功的跨域移植？
Williams enters the Argentine intellectual field in a random way a bookish stumbling upon him in a footnote reference, then traced and continues permeating it by following the sole rule of whatever one can get, both in terms of understanding a language and getting a hold of editions. In Williams’ obituary in Punto de Vista, Carlos Altamirano listed the order in which Williams reached the magazine all along the second half of the 1970s: Culture and Society, The Long Revolution, Marxism and Literature. The conspicuous absence of The Country and the City in this dis-order of readings points to the years we had to wait (almost a decade) for this seminal text to facilitate a critical construction of spaces and the elaboration of a peripheral modernity, and of Borges in it. 威廉姆斯以一种偶然的方式进入阿根廷知识界——某本著作脚注中不经意的提及，随后人们循迹追寻，并遵循着"凡所能得皆可汲取"的单一法则持续吸收其思想，无论是语言理解层面还是版本获取层面。在《观点》杂志的威廉姆斯讣告中，卡洛斯·阿尔塔米拉诺列出了 1970 年代后半叶该杂志接触威廉姆斯著作的顺序：《文化与社会》《漫长的革命》《马克思主义与文学》。这份杂乱书单中《乡村与城市》的显著缺席，暗示着我们不得不等待近十年，才等来这部开创性文本为空间批判建构、边缘现代性阐释以及博尔赫斯研究提供的理论支撑。
In a sense, two beginnings should be identified in the history of Williams in the South Atlantic. The first, an inaugural moment proper, is the groundbreaking interview in 1979 that marked Williams’ first discussion in print by Punto de Vista. The second is a beginning that Auerbach called 从某种意义上说，威廉斯在南大西洋的思想历程存在两个开端。第一个是真正的开创性时刻，即 1979 年《视点》杂志那次具有突破性的访谈，标志着威廉斯首次以印刷形式参与讨论。第二个开端则是奥尔巴赫所称的
Ansatzpunkt, a handle for literary history. The amount of meaning that Auerbach found in La cour et la ville is comparable to what was excavated in the country and the city - or rather between them, where Sarlo locates an ideologeme, as she called it, of the margins. In their conjunction, Sarlo ciphers the Argentine national difference. 文学史的切入点。奥尔巴赫在《宫廷与城市》中发掘的意义深度，堪比《乡村与城市》——或更准确地说是在两者之间——的阐释空间，萨洛将此处定位为一种她所称的边缘意识形态素。通过两者的关联，萨洛破译出阿根廷的民族独特性。
In Una modernidad periférica: Buenos Aires 1920 y 1930, the margin becomes that critical instrument which allows Sarlo to cross the previously non-negotiable pathways of the past and the modern, spatialized as the local and the universal, that conform a peripheral modernity her Ansatapunkt. Her reading of Borges is itself an offspring of this cardinal postulation that encompasses the literature and culture of those first decades of intense modernization in Argentina. 在《边缘现代性：1920 至 1930 年代的布宜诺斯艾利斯》中，边缘性成为萨洛的关键分析工具，借此她得以跨越过去与现代（空间化为本土性与普世性）之间原本不可调和的路径，构建出作为其理论切入点的边缘现代性。她对博尔赫斯的解读本身正是这一核心命题的衍生，该命题涵盖了阿根廷现代化初期数十年间的文学与文化图景。
Sarlo’s book, published in 1988, may be considered the finest, but not final, part of a larger cultural studies triptych. Alternatively putting to work the idea of structure of feelings, the critical construction of spaces or searching in literature for traces of an emerging culture, Sarlo composes the most lucid and the most uilliamsiano analysis in Argentina to date. It is the most particular book that offers the most particular appropriations - a virtue that rests on the merit of thinking literature in the intersections of the old English home and the global expansion processes of capitalism. It is by the spell of the specular that Sarlo believes - although she does not use this term - The Country and the City to be Williams’ Ansutpunkt as his work gets reordered in this book, for it accomplishes the articulation of historical studies of Culture and Society and The Long Revolution together with the conceptual investigation of Marxism and Literature and Culture. 萨尔洛于 1988 年出版的这部著作，可被视为一幅更宏大的文化研究三联画中最精妙——但非终结——的篇章。无论是运用"情感结构"概念、批判性地构建空间，抑或在文学中探寻新兴文化的踪迹，萨尔洛完成了阿根廷迄今为止最清晰透彻且最具威廉姆斯风格的解析。这部极富特色的著作提供了最具独创性的理论挪用——其价值在于将文学思考置于古老的英格兰家园与资本主义全球扩张进程的交汇处。萨尔洛深信（尽管她未使用这个术语）《乡村与城市》通过镜像魔力成为威廉姆斯的"Ansutpunkt"——当他的作品在这部论著中被重新梳理时，因其实现了《文化与社会》《漫长的革命》的历史研究与《马克思主义与文学》《文化》概念探讨的有机衔接。
The encounter in real-life between Sarlo and Williams testifies to a twofold beginning, and echoes this mirroring with a reciprocal (albeit nonsimultaneous) story of surprise. In 1981, calling on him as a connoisseur of his oeuvre, Sarlo paid Williams a visit at his Jesus College office in Cambridge. Williams was then surprised to hear about the processes his work had absorbed in the South Atlantic. Sarlo, in turn, to her own surprise, was caught unawares by Williams’ interrogation on The Country and the City, which she had not read. Once on the train out to London, a signed copy of this book started its long journey to the South Atlantic, only to come back to Cambridge in 1992 with its germs transmuted into Borges: A Writer on the Edge. 萨尔洛与威廉斯在现实中的相遇印证了双重开端，并通过一种相互（尽管非同步）的惊讶故事呼应了这种镜像关系。1981 年，萨尔洛以威廉斯作品研究者的身份前往剑桥大学耶稣学院办公室拜访。当威廉斯听闻自己著作在南大西洋地区的传播历程时，他显得颇为惊讶。而萨尔洛则意外地发现，威廉斯突然对她尚未拜读的《乡村与城市》展开追问。在前往伦敦的火车上，一本带有签名的该书副本开始了向南大西洋的漫长旅程，直至 1992 年才带着蜕变为《边缘作家博尔赫斯》的思想种子重返剑桥。
This scene, which speaks of displaced grazes, seems to be a sort of primary scene, or at least one that contains suggestive meanings beyond the anecdotal. But let us now turn to the inaugural moment, and begin with the beginning. 这个关于思想擦肩而过的场景，似乎构成了某种原初场景，或至少是蕴含轶事之外深意的片段。但此刻让我们转向那个开创性时刻，从最初的开端说起。
Beginnings, wrote the great Edward Said, are acts of historical understanding, epistemological moments that authorize a discontinuity. This description very much captures the force of the first blow that introduced Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart to the Argentine intellectual field, in an interview by Punto de Vista in July 1979: 伟大的爱德华·萨义德曾写道，开端是历史理解的行动，是授权断裂的认识论时刻。这一描述精准捕捉到了 1979 年 7 月《观点》杂志那场访谈中，雷蒙德·威廉斯与理查德·霍加特首次冲击阿根廷知识界的思想震撼力：
How to define them? They are not only sociologists of culture, nor historians or critics tout court. Both, whose work is already consolidated, take issue with the history of ideas, cultural history, sociology of popular culture and mass media, literature. 如何定义他们？他们不仅是文化社会学家，亦非纯粹的历史学家或批评家。这两位学术成就已获公认的学者，其研究横跨思想史、文化史、流行文化社会学、大众传媒以及文学领域。
(Sarlo 1979: 9) (萨洛 1979: 9)
The editorial on the interview consciously marks an epistemological break. In keeping with the wonder at a suitable title, it announced that neither Williams nor Hoggart, practically unknown in Argentina, said things that could be readily assimilated to the tendencies in literary and cultural criticism or that could give them a ‘family resemblance’ and, consequently, an assuaging effect. But what did the family album look like at the time? What are, in fine, the configurations of the cultural field that Williams and Hoggart were to face off? 该访谈编者按刻意标示出认识论的断裂。正如其精心拟定的标题所暗示的，文章指出当时在阿根廷几乎无人知晓的威廉斯与霍加特，其观点既无法简单归类于文学文化批评的现有流派，也无法被赋予"家族相似性"从而产生安抚效果。但彼时的思想谱系究竟呈现何种面貌？归根结底，威廉斯与霍加特所要挑战的文化场域究竟由哪些力量构成？
It is hard to exaggerate the centrality of the political in the Latin American cultural field of the time. Upon the Cuban Revolution, that central mark was heightened and solidified in the stark relationship between literary practices and revolutionary practices, around which the intellectual debate would keep gravitating for years to come. 在当时的拉丁美洲文化领域，政治的核心地位无论如何强调都不为过。古巴革命后，这种核心地位在文学实践与革命实践之间鲜明的关联中得到了强化和巩固，而围绕这一关联的知识界论争将在未来数年间持续成为焦点。
In the late 1950s, the local intellectual field had thrived under the influence of Lukácsian Marxism, the structuralism of Jakobson, Saussure and Barthes, and the psychoanalysis of the newly introduced Jacques Lacan. Under the auspices of Sartrean existentialism and the model of littérature engagée, the intellectuals of a magazine called Contorno published all their efforts in thinking literature and political reality, and in constructing a new national literary pantheon under this motto. The advent of the revolution in 1959 was to radicalize this configuration. For the entirety of Latin America, the scene is set by the political consistently throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The idea that a work of art is eminently political asserts itself together as continent-consciousness expands with a certain feeling of brotherhood. Imminent times would bring together the whole of Latin America under the sign of the political. 20 世纪 50 年代末期，当地知识界在卢卡奇马克思主义、雅各布森/索绪尔/巴特的结构主义以及新引进的雅克·拉康精神分析理论影响下蓬勃发展。在萨特存在主义与"介入文学"模式的引领下，以《轮廓》杂志为核心的知识分子群体秉持这一宗旨，将所有心力倾注于文学与政治现实的思考，致力于构建新的民族文学殿堂。1959 年革命浪潮的到来使这种格局趋于激进化。纵观整个拉丁美洲，1960 至 1970 年代始终贯穿着政治主旋律。随着大陆意识觉醒与兄弟情谊的滋长，艺术创作具有深刻政治性这一理念已深入人心。即将到来的时代将使整个拉丁美洲在政治旗帜下紧密团结。
Both in content - the question of the revolutionary character of a work and in form - polemics abound - the intellectual field is organized around politics. Let us note that the revolutionary injunction for works of art was not protracted in the facile terms of ideological content; rather, it had the tone of the search for a pottics or form that would weld its relationship with history. Great works of literature, such as A Hundred Years of Solitude, give us a taste of that first euphoria. The debate on the political or ideological foundation of aesthetic values hecame unavoidable to the point that almost all writers including Gabriel García Marquez, Julio Cortázar, Jorge Luis Borges - were required to pronounce on this central relationship in the episteme. (Needless to say, Borges drew a line.) 无论是在内容层面——关于作品革命性的探讨，还是在形式层面——论战频仍，整个知识领域都围绕着政治组织起来。值得注意的是，对艺术作品提出的革命要求并非简单地停留在意识形态内容的浅表层面；相反，它更倾向于寻求一种能够将其与历史紧密联结的诗学或形式。诸如《百年孤独》这样的文学巨著，让我们初尝了这种革命激情的甘美。关于审美价值之政治或意识形态基础的论辩变得无可回避，以至于几乎所有作家——包括加西亚·马尔克斯、胡里奥·科塔萨尔、豪尔赫·路易斯·博尔赫斯——都被要求在这个认识论的核心关系上表明立场。（毋庸赘言，博尔赫斯划清了界限。）
The political came to define everything in every field. The extent of this dominion is eloquently inscribed in the vigilant words that Ricardo Piglia 政治开始成为定义一切领域的标尺。这种支配力的广度，深刻铭刻在里卡多·皮格利亚那些警醒的文字之中。
pronounced against dogmatics. ‘The problem’, wrote Piglia, ‘is to analyze the specific reasons that make “The Dead” a great story in spite of the political guidelines and the conception of the world that Borges has’ (Piglia 1965: 1). This reaction denounces a second moment, starting around 1965 and coinciding with the US invasion of Santo Domingo. At this turning point, the tone of the political either escalated to a dogmatism in culture or plainly marked the insufficiency of literature for the politics of revolution. Remember what Che Guevara famously replied when asked what writers could do for the revolution: ‘I used to be a doctor.’ Eventually, politics would completely assimilate aesthetics, oppressing until dissolution the place and specificity of the literary or artistic, to the point of its evacuation. By the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, after much water-shedding, the drought arrived. For some, it did amount to radically abandoning literature because of its bourgeois essence. The case of Rodolfo Walsh is emblematic; he could echo Che, saying that he used to he a writer, had he not ‘disappeared’. 明确反对教条主义。皮格利亚写道："问题在于分析那些使《死者》成为伟大故事的特定原因，尽管博尔赫斯持有那些政治立场和世界观"（Piglia 1965: 1）。这种反应揭示了一个始于 1965 年前后的第二阶段，恰逢美国入侵圣多明各。在这个转折点上，政治语调要么升级为文化中的教条主义，要么直白地标志着文学对革命政治的无力。切·格瓦拉被问及作家能为革命做什么时那句著名的回答值得铭记："我以前是医生。"最终，政治将彻底吞噬美学，压迫直至消解文学艺术的存在空间与特殊性，直至其彻底消亡。1960 年代末至 1970 年代初，历经多次分流后，真正的枯竭期降临。对某些人而言，这确实意味着因文学的资产阶级本质而彻底放弃文学。罗道尔夫·沃尔什的案例具有象征意义——若非他后来"被失踪"，本可效仿切·格瓦拉说"我曾是个作家"。
Against this backdrop, it becomes almost too easy to foil Williams’ phrasing of culture as ordinary and to apprehend the importance of Williams’ Marxism and Literature (1977) for the local intellectual field as a nondogmatic yet rigorous reflection in the episteme of the New Left. Produced upon the awareness of the variety of selection and alternative traditions in Marxism, this book raised the question of a dismissal of a body of work as non-Marxist, neo-Hegelian, or bourgeois. Williams’ well-founded position furnished the Punto de Vista collective with an opportunity for revising Marxism and the insidious forms it took in the 1970s (and to which the magazine members had subscribed in the flesh), and equally with the joyful promise of guarding-off dissolution. 在此背景下，要反驳威廉斯将文化视为寻常事物的表述显得过于轻易，而更应认识到《马克思主义与文学》（1977）对本土知识场域的重要性——这部著作作为新左派知识体系中非教条却严谨的反思成果。该书基于对马克思主义内部多元选择与替代传统的清醒认知，提出了将某些作品斥为非马克思主义、新黑格尔主义或资产阶级产物的质疑。威廉斯这一立论扎实的立场，为《观点》学术团体提供了双重契机：既得以修正马克思主义及其在 1970 年代所呈现的隐蔽形态（该刊成员曾亲身奉行这些形态），又获得了抵御理论解体的振奋前景。
Williams served the healing purpose of suturing the two fold cut in the tissue of culture and politics in the second half of the 1970s. The suffocating dogmatism of Marxism and the equally suffocating formalism of structuralism had dominated the scene since the 1960s. On the one hand, an injunction to turn to political action; on the other, the consecrated death of the subject at the hands of Kristera, Althussser. Foucault and a certain Barthes, and the expulsion of history and experience which Althusserism stigmatized as ideology, hence ruled out of the theoretical or ‘scientific’. In the face of both, the intellectual had to cease actually being one, either by abandoning representation for the sake of taking arms and orders or by giving up having social signification. 威廉姆斯在 20 世纪 70 年代后半期发挥了弥合文化与政治双重割裂的疗愈作用。自 1960 年代以来，马克思主义令人窒息的教条主义与结构主义同样令人窒息的形式主义长期主导学界。一方面，学界被要求转向政治行动；另一方面，主体性在克里斯蒂娃、阿尔都塞、福柯及某种意义上的巴特手中被神圣化地宣告死亡，历史与经验更被阿尔都塞主义污名化为意识形态，从而被排除在理论或"科学"范畴之外。面对这两种倾向，知识分子实际上被迫放弃知识分子身份——要么为投身武装斗争与接受指令而放弃表征权，要么彻底丧失社会意义。
Williams’ reformism in politics and theory, his positing of a continuum between culture and politics, obliterated the structure-superstructure issue, and was used as an effective antidote against the autarchy of structuralism and the absorption by the political that attacked culture under the reign of radicalism. Whether in politics or in matters of epistemology, Williams, as the thinker of continuity that he was, envisioned revolution as a process, a 威廉斯在政治与理论上的改良主义立场，以及他将文化与政治视为连续体的主张，消解了基础-上层建筑的议题框架，成为对抗结构主义独断论和激进主义统治下政治对文化侵蚀的有效解药。无论政治领域还是认识论层面，作为连续性思想家的威廉斯都将革命构想为一个渐进过程——一场漫长的蜕变而非跳跃或断裂。
long metamorphosis rather than a jump or break. This continuity is inscribed in his notion of structure of feelings - unanimously appraised as his most important theoretical contribution, although he abandoned it in the end - which also allows for the heterogeneity of dominant, residual and emergent formations. In the constant revision of its postulates, Williams offered a critique where totality was closest to an embrace of forms that could remedy the dogmatism and populism affecting the literary. 这种连续性深刻烙印于其"情感结构"概念之中（尽管他最终放弃了这一被公认为最重要理论贡献的概念），该概念同时容纳了主导性、残余性与新兴形态的异质性。通过对理论前提的持续修正，威廉斯提供的批判范式最接近对各种形式的包容，能够疗治困扰文学领域的教条主义与民粹主义倾向。
Like the image Adorno composed on theoretical thought in its circling around the concept, Williams opened the lock of the South Atlantic safe not by means of a single key or a single number, but by a combination of numbers. Culturalism provided the magazine with a strategy out of the deadlock: the culturalist perspective joined culture and politics in a relationship in which culture could gravitate autonomously but connected to a socio-ideological and political network. Concocted under the oppressing conditions of the military dictatorship in Argentina, Punto de Vista found in Williams not only a way of going about culture but one that by grace of the culturalist juncture made literary criticism relevant, and thus enabled their young members to recuperate their place of intellectuals with a vision devoid of political scepticism and with social signification. In the face of a ban of the present by the junta (that also reached academia where ‘contemporary’ literature in the syllabi scraped the border of the century) they simultaneously bridged the long distance with history and profited with a revisionist return to the archive, which proved to be not an escape but rather a shrewd way of grasping the present. It is remarkable that the way in which Williams’ thinking gave Punto de Vista a future in so many senses bore the marks of the archaic at his own home university, where the upcoming generation found its own theoretical modernity in the writings of Kristeva, Barthes or even Althusser. When shaping histories, circumstances can make monsters. 如同阿多诺对理论思维围绕概念盘旋所构建的意象那般，威廉斯开启南大西洋保险箱的方式并非依靠单一钥匙或数字，而是通过数字组合。文化主义为杂志提供了突破僵局的策略：这种文化主义视角将文化与政治联结成一种关系网络——文化既能自主运作，又与社会意识形态及政治体系保持关联。在阿根廷军政府高压统治下诞生的《观点》杂志，从威廉斯那里不仅找到了处理文化的方法，更得益于文化主义的历史契机，使文学批评重获现实意义，从而让年轻成员们得以重新确立知识分子立场——这种立场既摆脱了政治怀疑主义的桎梏，又承载着深刻的社会意涵。 面对军政府对当下的禁令（这一禁令甚至波及学术界，导致教学大纲中的"当代"文学只能勉强触及世纪之交的作品），他们同时跨越了与历史之间的鸿沟，并通过对档案的修正主义回归而获益——事实证明这并非逃避，反而是把握当下的一种精明方式。值得注意的是，威廉姆斯的思想为《观点》杂志开启多重未来维度的方式，在其母校大学却带着古旧印记，那里新生代理论家们从克里斯蒂娃、巴特甚至阿尔都塞的著作中寻找自己的理论现代性。在塑造历史时，环境可能催生怪物。
Conjured under the blessings of continuity, Punto de Vista discloses a certain disavowal regarding that first blow - a punch of a different kind brought by the interview to Williams and Hoggart. Simultaneously sug. gesting a new heginning and dodging the language of the break, the editorial articulates a flexion in the space of theoretical debates on literature and society’ (Sarlo 1979: 9-10). This is indeed a point that should be considered prospectively, and in retrospect. Today, the apprenticeship is over and definitely long past beginning - Punto de Vista has announced its end after thirty years of stimulating intellectual debate. Still untapped at the time of its appearance, the article curiously footnotes The Country and the City, a book which we know did not reach their hands until three years later. It is as if the seeds of that other beginning - that was referred to previously as the Ansutzpunkt enabling the postulation of a peripheral modernity were somehow unknowingly hidden in the marginalia. 在连续性的庇佑下诞生的《Punto de Vista》，对那次最初冲击——即访谈带给威廉斯和霍加特的那种别样重击——表现出某种否认态度。这期社论既暗示着新的开端，又刻意回避决裂的言辞，在文学与社会理论论争的场域中形成了一种曲折（萨洛 1979：9-10）。这一点确实需要从未来与过去双重维度进行考量。如今，学徒期早已结束——在激荡思想论争三十年后，《Punto de Vista》已宣告终结。耐人寻味的是，这篇问世时尚未引起重视的文章，竟以脚注形式提及《乡村与城市》，而我们知道该书直到三年后才传至他们手中。仿佛另一个开端的种子——即前文所述作为"边缘现代性"假设基石的"Ansutzpunkt"——不知何时已悄然藏匿于这些边注之中。
Ostensibly not in line with local culture, The Commy and the City proved to be a seminal text. In the face of a book such as The Politics of Modernism, 表面看来与本土文化并不契合的《The Commy and the City》，最终被证明是具有开创性的文本。相较于《现代主义的政治》这类著作，
which deals with a movement thought to be global, the most particular book offered the most particular appropriations, perhaps against all expectations. Again, this virtue rests on Williams’ merit of thinking literature at the intersections of the national and the global. It rests equally in the unending richness of translating at large, the astute adaptation strategies of the poor, and in the happy possibilities of an adopted family. 这部被认为探讨全球性运动的著作，却呈现出最为独特的挪用方式，或许出人意料。这一优点再次彰显了威廉姆斯将文学置于民族性与全球性交汇处的思想价值。它同样体现在广泛翻译的无穷丰富性中，体现在贫困者精明的适应策略里，也体现在被收养家庭所蕴含的欢欣可能性之中。
Williams and ecology
H. Gustav Klaus 威廉姆斯与生态学 H.古斯塔夫·克劳斯
I first consciously heard, or rather misheard, the word ‘ecology’ some thirty years ago, from the mouth of Stuart Hall whom I was interviewing for a radio station. We were talking about the work of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, first under the aegis of Richard Hoggart, and then the new direction it was taking under Stuart Hall once Hoggart had left to become the Assistant Director-General of the UNESCO. In describing the Centre’s approach to youth subcultures Stuart referred to the local school as an institution where the dominant and the subordinate cultures intersected. While the dominant culture penetrated into working-class life by means of the teacher and the syllabus, the ‘school was yet a part of the parent culture of the working class, part of the neighbourhood, part of the ecology of working-class life’ (cf. Hall 1977). This actually came across to me as the ‘economy’ of working-class life, which didn’t make much sense but had a more familiar ring. I now wince with embarrassment at my ignorance. 三十年前，我首次有意识地听到——更准确说是误听了"生态学"这个词，当时斯图亚特·霍尔正接受我的电台采访。我们谈论着伯明翰当代文化研究中心的学术工作，这个机构最初由理查德·霍加特领导，后来当霍加特离任赴联合国教科文组织担任助理总干事时，斯图亚特·霍尔为其开辟了新的研究方向。在描述中心对青年亚文化的研究方法时，霍尔将当地学校称为主导文化与从属文化交汇的制度空间。当主导文化通过教师和教学大纲渗透进工人阶级生活时，"学校仍是工人阶级父辈文化的一部分，是社区网络的组成部分，是工人阶级生活生态的构成环节"（参见霍尔 1977 年文献）。我当时竟将这句话里的"生态"误听为"经济"，虽觉语义不通却因词汇熟悉而未加深究。如今回想这段因无知导致的误解，仍感羞愧难当。
To talk about Cultural Studies at the time was to talk not only about Hoggart and Hall, but also about Raymond Williams. A cross-section of Williams’ work had appeared in German translation ^(1){ }^{1} almost simultaneously with the said radio interview. ^(2){ }^{2} More to the purpose here, 1976 was also the year of publication of Williams’ lexicon of Keywords, in which, however, one looks in vain for an entry on ecology or environment. Williams remedied this in a later edition of the book, but the omission, and my own misunderstanding, may be taken as symptomatic of a lack of felt urgency of these matters. And one could also cite here the New Left Review interviews conducted with Williams in 1977 and published two years later as Politics and Letters. None of the interviewers - Perry Anderson, Anthony Barnett and Francis Mulhern - took the author up on environmental issues. Clearly such an agenda, far less a materialist literary or cultural criticism with a ‘green’ awareness, was just not the order of the socialist day. 谈论当时文化研究，不仅意味着谈论霍加特和霍尔，也必然涉及雷蒙德·威廉斯。威廉斯著作的德文译本选集 ^(1){ }^{1} 几乎与前述广播访谈同时问世 ^(2){ }^{2} 。更切合本文主题的是，1976 年也正值威廉斯《关键词》词典出版之年——然而翻遍全书却找不到"生态"或"环境"的词条。威廉斯在后续版本中对此作了增补，但这一疏漏连同我个人的误解，或许正昭示着当时对这些议题缺乏紧迫感。我们还可援引 1977 年《新左翼评论》对威廉斯的访谈（两年后结集出版为《政治与文学》为例）——采访者佩里·安德森、安东尼·巴尼特和弗朗西斯·马尔赫恩都未曾就环境议题向作者发问。显然，这类议程（遑论具有"绿色"意识的唯物主义文学/文化批评）根本不在当时社会主义者的议事日程之列。
One reason for the Left’s aloofness from ‘green’ issues may have been the rightwing domination of the ecological debate spilling over from the United States where, following Rachel Carson’s eye-opener Silent Spring 左翼对"绿色"议题保持疏离的一个原因，可能是生态辩论中右翼占据主导地位的影响从美国蔓延开来——自蕾切尔·卡逊的警世之作《寂静的春天》问世后
(1962), such influential publications as Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s handbook Population, Resources, Environment (1970) had expressed white middle-class fears of overpopulation and the Club of Rome’s The Limits of Growth (1972), authored at the MIT, had come straight from managerial concerns about the future of capitalism. Both typically discussed ecological matters in terms of Spaceship Earth. （1962 年），诸如保罗·埃尔利希和安妮·埃尔利希的《人口、资源、环境》（1970 年）这类具有影响力的出版物，已表达了白人中产阶级对人口过剩的恐惧；而由麻省理工学院撰写的罗马俱乐部报告《增长的极限》（1972 年），则直接源于管理层对资本主义未来的担忧。两者都典型地从"地球飞船"的角度探讨了生态问题。
Yet, in retrospect, it is evident that in The Country and the City (1973) Williams had provided a range of topics, demarcated areas of research and discussed authors that were to figure prominently in the ecocritical debates of the 1990s: the historicizing of ‘nature’ and nature writing, the theory of pastoral, urban-rural relations, John Clare and ‘A language that is ever green’, Richard Jefferies and Edward Thomas. And even while he was writing this second opus magnum, Williams displayed his acute sensitiveness to the natural and the man-made habitat in a lecture on ‘Ideas of Nature’ delivered in 1971 at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London and published a year later in a collection entitled Ecology: The Shaping Enquiry. ^(3){ }^{3} 然而，回望过去，可以明显看出威廉斯在《乡村与城市》（1973）中已预见了 1990 年代生态批评论争中的核心议题：他不仅界定了研究领域，还探讨了"自然"及自然书写的历史化、田园诗理论、城乡关系、约翰·克莱尔与"常青的语言"、理查德·杰弗里斯与爱德华·托马斯等关键主题。就在创作这第二部巨著期间，威廉斯还通过 1971 年在伦敦当代艺术研究所发表的《自然观念》讲座（次年收录于《生态学：形塑的探究》文集），展现出对自然与人造环境异常敏锐的感知力。 ^(3){ }^{3}
In this historically wide-ranging essay Williams traces the evolution of humanity’s triumphalist attitude towards the physical world back to the separation of man from nature, and God from nature, in the early modern age. Once natural processes could be observed, described and learnt from, in their own terms, independent of a divine design, the groundwork for a subject-object relationship had been laid, from which to gather knowledge and make it useful for human purposes. Thus man could hope to move from a passive dependence on, or mere adaptation to, the environment to a position of mastery and control. Or, as Bacon put it in concluding his Novim Organon: if nature could be ‘at length and in some measure subdued to the supplying of man with bread; that is, to the uses of human life’, then ‘there cannot but follow an improvement in man’s estate, and an enlargement of his power over nature’, though he was cautious to concede that for ‘nature to be commanded [she] must be obeyed’ (Bacon [1620] 1858: 13, 247-8). The language in which, from Bacon and his contemporaries onward, we have dressed the outcome of that transformed relationship is telling: ‘It is very significant that most of the terms we have used in this relationship the conquest of nature, the domination of nature, the exploitation of nature - are derived from real human practices: relations between men and men’ (Williams [1972] 1980b: 84). Such a dominative vocabulary should alert us on two counts. Not only does it betray a ruthlessly instrumental view of the earth and its life forms as raw materials for production, at no other than labour and machinery costs; it also points to what is simultaneously going on in society. The detection of natural laws was mirrored by the discovery of new continents, the conquest of nature by the taking of possession of new lands, the mastering of nature by the subjugation of races and classes, the looting of the earth’s resources by the plundering of the 在这篇历史跨度宏大的论文中，威廉斯将人类对物质世界的凯旋式态度追溯至近代早期人与自然的分离，以及神性与自然的割裂。当自然进程能够以其自身术语被观察、描述和学习，而不再依附于神圣设计时，主客体关系的认知基础便已奠定——人类由此得以收集知识并使其服务于自身目的。于是，人们有望从对环境的被动依赖或单纯适应，转向支配与控制的主导地位。或如培根在《新工具》结尾所言：倘若自然终能"在一定程度上被征服，为人类提供面包，亦即服务于人类生活"，那么"人类境况的改善及其对自然支配力的扩展必将随之而来"——尽管他谨慎地承认"欲命令自然者，必先服从自然"（培根[1620] 1858: 13, 247-8）。 自培根及其同时代起，我们用以描述这种转变关系的语言极具启示性："尤为重要的是，我们用于这种关系的大多数术语——征服自然、主宰自然、剥削自然——都源自真实的人类实践：人与人之间的关系"（威廉斯[1972]1980b:84）。这种支配性词汇应从两方面引起我们警觉。它不仅暴露出将地球及其生命形态纯粹视为生产原料的冷酷工具主义观点，仅以劳动力和机械成本衡量；同时也指向当时社会正在发生的并行现象。自然规律的发现与新大陆的探索相互映照，对自然的征服体现为对新领土的占有，驾驭自然表现为对种族与阶级的压制，掠夺地球资源则与对（此处原文中断）
colonies. To talk abstractly about ‘Man’, then, to deplore sweepingly humankind’s interference with nature is to brush over the bitter divisions within and between societies. Interestingly, the early Wordsworth makes the connection in the refrain ‘What man has done to man’ of his poem ‘Lines written in Early Spring’. 抽象地谈论“人类”，笼统地哀叹人类对自然的干预，实则掩盖了社会内部与社会之间的深刻裂痕。耐人寻味的是，华兹华斯早在其诗作《早春遣句》的叠句“人对人所行之恶”中就已点明这种关联。
But the divorce of nature from human activity has had further consequences. We tend to overlook that 然而自然与人类活动的割裂产生了更深远的后果。我们往往忽视了
A considerable part of what we call natural landscape … is the product of human design and human labour, and in admiring it as natural it seems to me to matter very much whether we suppress that fact of labour or acknowledge it. 那些被我们称作自然景观的相当部分……实则是人类设计与劳动的产物。当我们将之作为自然美景来欣赏时，我认为关键在于：究竟是刻意抹杀还是坦然承认其中凝结的人类劳动。
(Williams [1972] 1980b: 78) （威廉斯 [1972] 1980b: 78）
From hedges to forests, from fields to wastelands, from artificial lakes to regulated rivers, humans have left their mark on the landscape. A cleared stretch of land today may have been a wilderness yesterday. ‘And this also’, muses Marlow at the beginning of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, as night falls over the Thames, ‘has been one of the dark places of the earth’ (Conrad 1980: 9). His utterance has, of course, many other resonances as well. 从树篱到森林，从田野到荒地，从人工湖到治理后的河流，人类在景观上留下了自己的印记。今日被清理的土地，昨日或许还是一片荒野。"而这里也曾"，当夜幕降临泰晤士河时，马洛在约瑟夫·康拉德《黑暗的心》开篇处沉思道，"是地球上黑暗的地方之一"（康拉德 1980: 9）。他的话语当然还蕴含着许多其他深意。
Williams also takes a long historical perspective when he seizes on the Greek root, oikos, of ecology and economics in an attempt to think the two disciplines together, as sensible household management. Translated into practical politics, in order to tackle environmental problems you have to take on the economy, and more precisely the prevailing economic order and its pervasive ideology. Both the ‘Ideas of Nature’ essay and The Country and the City conclude with an indictment of capitalism and its rarely questioned priorities, profit and growth. For while it is true, as ‘deep ecologists’ will argue, that it makes no difference to the ecological systems ‘if the oil spills, the pesticides, the radioactive wastes, the industrial toxins they must cleanse are socialist or capitalist in origin’, if the damage is caused by an ‘evil’ society or by a ‘good’ one ‘that shares its wealth fairly and provides the finest welfare programs for its citizens’ (Roszak 1978: 33), ^(4){ }^{4} this is to take the perspective of the helpless victim as sole vantage-point. But human beings are not inanimate matter or all dumb oxen. It matters very much whether they are able to identify the source of the problem, look for solutions and take counter-action. 威廉斯在探讨生态学与经济学共同的希腊词源"oikos"（意为家宅）时，同样采用了长时段的历史视角，试图将这两门学科作为理性的家政管理进行整合思考。落实到现实政治层面，要解决环境问题就必须直面经济体系，更准确地说，是直面占主导地位的经济秩序及其无孔不入的意识形态。无论是《自然的观念》这篇论文还是《乡村与城市》的终章，都以对资本主义及其鲜受质疑的核心追求——利润与增长——的控诉作结。诚然，正如"深层生态主义者"所主张的，对于必须净化石油泄漏、农药、放射性废料和工业毒素的生态系统而言，"这些污染源究竟来自社会主义还是资本主义"，"造成破坏的是'邪恶'社会还是'公平分配财富并为公民提供最优福利'的'良善'社会"（Roszak 1978: 33）并无区别 ^(4){ }^{4} ，但这种观点仅仅立足于无助受害者的单一视角。人类既非无生命的物质，也非全然愚钝的牲畜。 他们能否识别问题根源、寻求解决方案并采取应对措施至关重要。
Pinpointing the root causes of environmental degradation in our day did not blind Williams to the fact that eco-damage had occurred both before the advent of capitalism and was being perpetrated outside its umbrella, in what went under the name of ‘actually existing Socialism’. One of the delusions he had set out to dispel in The Country and the City had been precisely that rural economies had left the natural environment intact: 威廉姆斯在指出当代环境恶化根源时，并未忽视生态破坏早在资本主义出现之前就已存在，且在当时所谓"现实存在的社会主义"体制下持续发生的事实。他在《乡村与城市》中着力破除的迷思之一，正是认为农村经济能让自然环境保持完好的错误观念：
Since the dramatic physical transformations of the Industrial Revolution we have found it easy to forget how profoundly and still visibly agriculture altered the land. Some of the earliest and most remarkable environmental effects, negative as well as positive, followed from agricultural practice: making land fertile but also, in places, overgrazing it to a desert; clearing good land but also, in places, with the felling of trees, destroying it or creating erosion. Some of these uses preceded any capitalist order, but the capitalist mode of production is still, in world history, the most effective and powerful agency for all these kinds of physical and social transformation. 自工业革命带来剧烈的物质变革以来，我们很容易忘记农业曾如何深刻且至今可见地改变了土地面貌。一些最早也最显著的环境影响——无论是消极还是积极的——都源自农业实践：既使土地肥沃，也在某些地区因过度放牧使之沦为荒漠；既开垦良田，也在某些地区因滥伐林木导致土地毁坏或水土流失。其中部分耕作方式甚至早于任何资本主义秩序，但就世界历史而言，资本主义生产方式仍是推动所有这些物质与社会变革最有效、最强大的力量。
(Williams 1973b: 293) （威廉斯 1973b: 293）
The case for an ecological socialism today could thus never rest on a simple opposition between an ugly industrialism and an unspoilt pre-industrial order. Arresting the industrial process and reverting to a kind of plainliving simplicity, as a ‘green’ William Morris had envisaged (with the reluctant concession that some machinery for the reduction of tiresome or dirty work might be necessary) or as, among others, Theodore Roszak has urged in our time, may hold its local attraction, but offers no viable solution. 因此，当今生态社会主义的主张绝不能简单地建立在丑陋工业主义与未受破坏的前工业秩序的对立之上。如"绿色"威廉·莫里斯所设想（虽不情愿地承认可能需要某些机械来减少烦琐或肮脏的工作），或如西奥多·罗萨克等人在我们这个时代所倡导的，那种试图阻止工业化进程、回归简朴生活的做法，或许具有局部吸引力，但无法提供可行的解决方案。
But Williams also critically reviewed the incomparably more powerful tendency in socialist thought and practice to lean towards its own version of mastering nature. There are countless references to this in classical Marxism, despite Engels’ important caveat in his Dialectics of Nature: 但威廉斯也批判性地审视了社会主义思想和实践中更为强大的倾向——即追求其自身版本的"征服自然"。尽管恩格斯在《自然辩证法》中提出了重要告诫，但经典马克思主义中仍存在无数与此相关的论述。
Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the present devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture. 然而，我们切不可因人类对自然的征服而过分自鸣得意。因为每一次这样的征服，自然界都报复了我们。确实，每一次征服首先都带来了我们预期的结果，但在第二和第三步却产生了完全不同的、始料未及的后果，这些后果常常抵消了最初取得的成果。美索不达米亚、希腊、小亚细亚等地的居民为了获得耕地而毁灭森林时，根本不曾想到他们这样做竟为这些地区如今的荒芜状态奠定了基础——他们铲除森林的同时，也摧毁了水分的积聚中心和贮存库。
[ … ] [……]
Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature - hut that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other beings of being able to know and correctly apply its laws. 因此我们每走一步都要记住：我们决不像征服者统治异族那样支配自然界，决不像站在自然界之外的人那样——相反，我们连同我们的肉、血和头脑都是属于自然界的，存在于自然界之中的；我们对自然界的全部支配作用，就在于我们比其他一切生物强，能够认识和正确运用自然规律。
(Engels 1973: 291-2) ^(5){ }^{5} （恩格斯 1973: 291-2） ^(5){ }^{5}
But, as Williams notes, this valuable insight - that man and nature are one, and that in damaging one you eventually damage the other - did not guide the economic policies of countries run by Communist or Social Democratic governments. With varying degrees, socialists of all shades came to see vastly increased production, no matter its environmental consequences, as the key to solving the problems of hunger, poverty and social inequality. In times of upheaval, such as in post-revolutionary Russia, threatened by famine, civil war and foreign invasion, or the necessary post-1945 reconstruction of a Europe in ruins, this is a perfectly understandable position, but as an ingrained habit of thinking and planning it becomes in the end indistinguishable from capitalist reasoning. For that matter, the case of the most powerful capitalist economy in the world demonstrates that spectacular growth per se does not spell the end of spectacular poverty. 然而，正如威廉斯所指出的，这一宝贵洞见——人与自然本为一体，损害一方终将损害另一方——并未成为共产党或社会民主党执政国家的经济政策指导方针。不同程度地，各类社会主义者都将大幅提高产量视为解决饥饿、贫困和社会不平等问题的关键，而不顾其对环境的后果。在动荡时期，如面临饥荒、内战和外国入侵威胁的革命后俄罗斯，或是 1945 年后满目疮痍的欧洲必须进行的重建，这种立场完全可以理解；但若固化为根深蒂固的思维与规划习惯，最终将与资本主义逻辑毫无二致。就此而言，世界上最强大的资本主义经济体的现状表明，惊人的增长本身并不意味着惊人贫困的终结。
But Williams goes further by questioning the very notion of ‘growth’, which, in the public discourse, has been stripped of its human and social dimensions. Nakedly economist, it has effaced ‘the full effects of certain kinds of production; the relations between certain forms of production and consequent forms of distribution: all these real considerations have been overridden by an appropriation of the idea of growth as indiscriminate expanded production’ (Williams 1983f: 213-14). This comes from Towards 2000, that hotchpotch of ‘condition-of-Britain’ inventory and social theory, analysis of the political and economic world order and socialist platform, written after the two eminent neo-liberalisers in London and Washington had taken office. There is sometimes an uninspiring abstractness in Williams’ style, in his expository no less than in his fictional works, but this should not distract from the radical implications of the just quoted sentence. In Williams’ political thinking, ecology has now moved centre-stage to join Socialism redefined, among other things, in terms of place and the nurturing and caring capacities, especially by women, in the sphere of reproduction. ^(6){ }^{6} It is not enough, he argues, to warn of the extinction of this or that species, to avoid local waste or pollution, to install renewable energy systems, or in general to demand an ethical reorientation in our relations with the earth, worthwhile though these individual efforts are in themselves. But the scale of the problems, from the scarcity of the resources to the capacity of the atmosphere and the oceans to absorb the emissions, is such that more drastic measures are needed. Williams proposes nothing less than that at every level and stage economic reason should be coupled with ecological considerations. This takes up the historical semantics of oikos, but gives it a sharp political edge. For taking this path would entail largescale planning and effective state intervention, but above all international agreements with a transnational governing body to enforce their application. Needless to say that such proposals run counter to the free-market dogma, until the onset of the world economic crisis in 2008 even more firmly entrenched than at the time of writing. 但威廉斯更进一步，对"增长"这一概念本身提出质疑——在公共话语中，这个概念已被剥离了人文与社会维度。这种赤裸裸的经济主义抹杀了"特定生产形式的全部效应；某些生产形式与相应分配形式之间的关系：所有这些现实考量都被挪用为'增长即无差别扩大生产'的理念所覆盖"（威廉斯 1983f: 213-14）。此论述出自《迈向 2000 年》这部混杂着"英国现状"清单与社会理论、政治经济世界秩序分析以及社会主义纲领的著作，其写作背景正值伦敦与华盛顿两位著名新自由主义执政者上台。威廉斯的文风——无论是论述性作品还是小说创作——时而显现出乏味的抽象性，但这不应掩盖上述引句的激进意涵。在威廉斯的政治思想中，生态议题现已与重新定义的社会主义并置核心地位，后者尤其强调地域空间概念及（主要由女性承担的）再生产领域中的养育照护能力。 他提出，仅仅警告某些物种的灭绝、避免局部浪费或污染、安装可再生能源系统，或普遍要求我们与地球关系中的伦理转向是不够的，尽管这些单独的努力本身是有价值的。但从资源稀缺到大气和海洋吸收排放的能力来看，问题的规模如此之大，需要采取更激进的措施。威廉斯提出的建议毫不逊色，即在各个层面和阶段，经济理性应与生态考量相结合。这延续了"oikos"（家园）的历史语义，但赋予了其鲜明的政治锋芒。因为走这条路将需要大规模规划和有效的国家干预，但最重要的是需要国际协议和一个跨国治理机构来强制执行这些措施。不用说，这些提议与自由市场教条背道而驰，在 2008 年世界经济危机爆发之前，这种教条比写作时更加根深蒂固。
Williams harboured no illusions either. As he acutely observed in ‘Socialism and ecology’ (1982): ^(7){ }^{7} 威廉斯也没有任何幻想。正如他在《社会主义与生态》（1982 年）中敏锐地观察到的那样：
The shortage of certain key raw materials and commodities, which are necessary to maintain existing patterns of production and existing high levels of consumption, will create such tensions within societies which have got used to these patterns that they could in majority be prepared to resort to every kind of pressure - not only political and sub-military, but openly military - to assure what they see as the supplies necessary to the maintenance of their order of life. This is already a dangerous current of opinion in the United States. 某些关键原材料和商品的短缺——这些物资对于维持现有生产模式和现有高消费水平至关重要——将在那些已习惯这些模式的社会内部引发如此强烈的紧张局势，以至于多数人可能准备诉诸各种形式的施压手段（不仅是政治和准军事手段，还包括公开的军事行动）来确保他们认为维持其生活方式所必需的物资供应。这在美国已成为一种危险的思想潮流。
(Williams [1982] 1989i: 223) （威廉斯 [1982] 1989i：223）
Almost three decades and two Irac Wars later, not forgetting the several hundred thousand killed or maimed in the process, few will want to deny? the truth of these affirmations. 近三十年过去，经历了两场伊拉克战争（更不用说过程中数十万死伤者）之后，恐怕很少有人会否认这些论断的正确性。
As long as there is no equitable distribution of the earth’s resources and the economies of the poor countries remain geared to, not to say coerced into, the consumerist desires of the rich, ^(8){ }^{8} all attempts to ‘Make Poverty’ History’ such as debt cancellation are bound to fail. For if it isn’t blunt military action, it is the workings of the giant multinational corporations, harmlessly dubbed ‘global players’, combined with financial capital that wreak environmental havoc, from deforestation to the devastation of river deltas such as that of the Niger. Once again, the damage done doesn’t only affect a landscape, it directly uproots the inhabitants of the place. On a current estimate, some 250 million people of all colours, officially called ‘environmental refugees’, are in flight from ecocide, the systematic pulverization of their dwelling places (Ziegler 2005: 116). But economic growth statistics, abundantly quoted, do not measure these adverse effects. 只要地球资源分配不公，且贫穷国家的经济仍被迫迎合——更确切地说是受制于——富裕国家的消费主义欲望，那么诸如债务减免等"终结贫困"的尝试都注定失败。因为即便没有赤裸的军事行动，那些被温和称为"全球参与者"的跨国巨头企业与金融资本的结合，也正在从森林砍伐到尼日尔河三角洲等流域的破坏中制造着环境灾难。这种破坏不仅殃及自然景观，更直接迫使当地居民流离失所。据最新估算，约 2.5 亿不同肤色的"环境难民"正逃离生态灭绝——他们家园被系统性摧毁的厄运（齐格勒，2005：116）。然而被广泛引用的经济增长统计数据，却从未计量这些负面影响。
In The Fight for Manod, a novel Williams had begun much earlier but was finishing in the late 1970s, we get an intimation of how the flow of capital jeopardizes a reform project with a social and ecological orientation. Manod, a fictitious village in mid-Wales, has been proposed as the site for a new kind of model city that is to accommodate more humane, more communally and environmentally satisfying forms of living and working. A pilot scheme, backed by European money, its novelty lies in the proposed integration of physical structures and natural spaces and alternative energy patterns. This ‘dispersed city’ of the future, ‘conceived, from the beginning, in post-industrial terms and with a post-electronic technology’ (Williams 1979b: 13, 77 ), would practically abolish commuting. No return to rurality here; the distinction hetween rural and urban living would simply become irrelevant. 在威廉姆斯早年动笔但于 1970 年代末期才完成的《马诺德之战》这部小说中，我们得以窥见资本流动如何危及一项具有社会与生态导向的改革项目。虚构的威尔士中部村庄马诺德被规划为新型示范城市的选址，旨在构建更人性化、更具社区归属感且环境友好的生活与工作模式。这个由欧洲资金支持的试点项目，其创新性体现在将实体建筑、自然空间与替代能源模式进行整合的构想中。这座未来的"分散型城市"——"从构思之初就立足于后工业时代语境并采用后电子技术"（威廉姆斯 1979b: 13, 77）——将从根本上消除通勤现象。这里并非回归乡村生活，而是彻底消解城乡居住的传统分野。
If realized, the settlement could have a major impact well beyond its immediate precincts. It could help ‘to sustain mid-Wales, by organic development, more assistance to the farms, bringing some light industry … and above all improving transport’ (ibid.: 136-7). It is of a piece with ecological considerations that the rural community portrayed in the novel does not consist of tourists or weekenders, for whom the countryside means beauty and recreation, but of small producers who wrest a living from the soil without recourse to industrial farming. 若能实现，这一定居计划的影响将远超其直接辐射范围。它可能通过有机发展、加大对农场的扶持、引入轻工业……尤其是改善交通，"有助于维持中威尔士地区的活力"（同上：136-137）。这种构想与生态考量一脉相承——小说描绘的乡村社群并非将田园视为美景与休闲地的游客或周末度假者，而是不依赖工业化农业、靠土地谋生的小生产者。
But so far the project exists on paper only, and The Fight for Manod charts the various responses to it, from Whitehall politicians to Welsh nationalists, from local farmers to socially and ecologically minded reformers. Since information about the scheme has leaked through, land speculation is afoot, stretching from the local entrepreneur to an obscure international trust operating in London and Brussels. Do these manoeuvrings invalidate the project, or can enough resistance be put up to give the original plan a chance? The novel raises rather than answers these questions. At the end the future of Manod hangs in the balance. ^(9){ }^{9} 但迄今为止，该项目仍停留在纸面阶段。《马诺德争夺战》记录了从白厅政客到威尔士民族主义者、从当地农民到具有社会生态意识的改革者，各方对这一计划的不同反应。由于方案信息已不胫而走，土地投机活动正从本地企业家蔓延至活跃于伦敦和布鲁塞尔的隐秘国际信托。这些暗箱操作会否使计划流产？抑或能凝聚足够阻力为原初方案争取生机？小说提出了这些问题却未予解答。故事尾声，马诺德的未来仍悬而未决。 ^(9){ }^{9}
Raymond Williams’ other fiction with an environmental claim is People of the Black Mountains (1989, 1990), a work of vast historical sweep, whose main action starts in 23,000BC23,000 \mathrm{BC}; the action is centred on man, that is, cavemen and women. But, as the title indicates, the novel is as much about place, a single landscape. It is altogether less anthropocentrically organised, foregrounding, up to a point, the non-human environment. Early on, we therefore have action with man left out, a brief history of the place before humans roamed and settled in it, of the vast movements of the earth and the sea and of ice, of shifting geological layers, of a changing flora and fauna (Williams 1990b: 37-9). 雷蒙德·威廉斯另一部具有环境诉求的小说是《黑山人》（1989, 1990），这部作品以宏大的历史跨度展开，主要情节始于 23,000BC23,000 \mathrm{BC} ；故事围绕人类——即穴居的男女展开。但正如书名所示，这部小说同样关乎地点，即单一的地貌景观。其叙事结构整体上较少以人类为中心，在某种程度上凸显了非人类环境。因此开篇便呈现了无人参与的场景，记述了人类尚未在此游荡定居时这片土地的历史：大地与海洋的剧烈运动、冰川消长、地质层变迁以及动植物群落的更迭（Williams 1990b: 37-9）。
As we follow the fortunes of the hunters and gatherers, herdsmen and planters, the lords and slaves that peopled these mountains, we can never forget the overawing presence of that environment, even as they leave their traces: ancient dugouts, animal tracks of times immemorial, mounds of stone-age graves, much later roads and fortresses and dykes. 当我们追随这些山民——狩猎采集者、牧人耕农、领主与奴隶的命运轨迹时，那令人敬畏的环境存在始终不容忽视，即便在他们留下痕迹之处：古老的独木舟、远古时代的兽径、石器时代的坟冢，以及年代较晚的道路、堡垒与堤坝。
In one interesting episode Williams varies the famous phrase from Thomas More’s Utopia to ‘The trees are eating the people’ (ibid.: 71)^(10))^{10} in order to describe the spreading of bushes and trees, which becomes a hindrance to hunting, thereby seriously threatening the very livelihood of the extended family. Contrary to More’s avaricious landowners, who require the land for grazing their sheep, there is no greedy human origin to this menace. The wilderness encroaches on the traditional subsistence patterns of the stone-age people, but out of this challenge arises a new stage of civilization, the beginnings of husbandry. And so it is in another story about an earthquake, which is seen by some mountain-dwellers as Mother Earth’s revenge for the ripping of metals from her bowels, but for other more 在一段有趣的插曲中，威廉姆斯将托马斯·莫尔《乌托邦》中的名言改写为"树木正在吞噬人类"（同上：71 )^(10))^{10} ），用以描述灌木丛与林木的蔓延——这种自然扩张成为狩猎活动的阻碍，从而严重威胁着这个大家庭的生存根基。与莫尔笔下需要土地牧羊的贪婪地主不同，这种威胁并非源自人类的贪欲。荒野侵蚀着石器时代人们传统的生存模式，但正是这种挑战催生了文明的新阶段——畜牧业的萌芽。另一个关于地震的故事同样如此：某些山民将地震视为大地母亲对人类从其腹地掠夺金属的报复，而对更具
sagacious observers provides an opportunity to mark off certain untouched areas as places ‘of safety and fertility’ (ibid.: 222). 智慧的观察者而言，地震却提供了划定某些未开发区域为"安全与丰饶之地"的契机（同上：222）。
In a ‘Postscript’ to the second volume of the planned trilogy Joy Williams clearly formulated the ecological concerns of her husband’s work: 在计划中三部曲第二卷的"后记"里，乔伊·威廉姆斯明确阐述了她丈夫作品中的生态关切：
The Neolithic people had lived in the Black Mountains within the limits of their own resources, with full awareness, from the experience of many generations, of what they could do to nature and what nature could do to them. Elis [one of the contemporary characters] would have argued that people can only survive if they live in harmony with each other and with their land. 新石器时代的人们生活在黑山地区，深知自身能力的边界——通过世代积累的经验，他们既明白自己能够对自然施加何种影响，也清楚自然可能带来的反噬。当代人物埃利斯会主张：唯有当人类彼此和谐共处，并与脚下土地达成和解，方能实现持续生存。
(Williams, J. 1992: 322) （威廉斯，J. 1992：322）
In other words, they have found a way of cohabiting with their natural environment. 换言之，他们已寻得与自然环境共生共荣之道。
Over and above the emphasis on the physical geography of the place and its treatment in its own right, and not as nature waiting to be subjugated to human purposes, Williams uses another device valued by ecocritics: the naming of places. Naming as a gesture of assimilation to, and familiarisation with, a location; but naming also as an act of recording and preservation. In this spirit Jonathan Bate has celebrated Wordsworth’s ‘Poems on the Naming of Places’ from the second edition of Lyrical Ballads as the beginning of Romantic ecology. And he sees the same impulse at work, if with a greater emphasis on loss, in John Clare, whose poem ‘Remembrances’ is a case in point: 除了强调该地区自然地理特征的本体性价值（而非将自然视作等待人类征服的客体）之外，威廉姆斯还运用了生态批评学者推崇的另一种手法：地名命名。命名既是将地域纳入认知版图的同化姿态，也是记录与保存的具象行为。乔纳森·贝特正是基于此，盛赞华兹华斯《抒情歌谣集》第二版中"地名题咏诗"开创了浪漫主义生态学的先河。他在约翰·克莱尔身上同样发现了这种创作冲动——尽管更强调失落感，其诗作《追忆》便是明证：
When I think of old ‘sneap green’ puddock’s nook and hilly snow Where bramble bushes grew and the daisy gemmed in dew And the hills of silken grass like to cushions on the view Where we threw the pismire crumbs when we’d nothing else to do All levelled like a desert by the never weary plough All banished like the sun where that cloud is passing now And settled here for ever on its brow. 当我忆起古老的"冷绿"池塘角落与覆雪山丘
那里黑莓丛生 露珠缀满雏菊
丝绒般的草坡宛如视野中的软垫
我们曾在此抛洒蚂蚁面包屑 当无事可做时
而今皆被永不停歇的犁铧夷为荒漠
如流云掠过的残阳般永远消逝
只在这诗句的眉宇间永久停驻
(Clare 1967: 175) ^(11){ }^{11} （克莱尔 1967：175） ^(11){ }^{11}
The poet names his favourite boyhood haunts and therehy preserves the memory of a landscape that in his lifetime had changed beyond recognition under the intensive capitalist agriculture hastened in during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. And in so doing Clare dramatizes how much they matter to him. 诗人以命名童年乐土的方式，保存了这片在他有生之年因革命战争与拿破仑战争催生的集约化农业而面目全非的风景记忆。通过这样的诗性书写，克莱尔戏剧化地展现了这些景观对他的深刻意义。
Williams proceeds along similar lines. Through extensive naming, places are called into being in an emotionally intense act: 威廉斯沿袭着相似的创作路径。在情感丰沛的命名仪式中，那些地域被诗意地召唤显现：
See this layered sandstone in the short mountain grass. Place your right hand on it, palm downward. See where the summer sun rises and where it stands at noon. Direct your index finger midway between them. Spread your fingers, not widely. You now hold the place in your hand. 看这矮山草丛中的层叠砂岩。将右手覆于其上，掌心向下。记住夏日朝阳升起处与正午悬停处。将食指指向两者中间。手指微张，不必太开。此刻你已将此地握在掌中。
(Williams 1990b) ^(12){ }^{12} （威廉斯 1990b） ^(12){ }^{12}
This reads like an echo from Richard Jefferies’ ‘On the Downs’: 这读起来像是理查德·杰弗里斯《在丘陵上》的回响：
Stoop and touch the earth, and receive its influence; touch the flower and feel its life; face the wind, and have its meaning; let the sunlight fall on the open hand as if you could hold it. Something may be grasped from them all, invisible yet strong. It is the sense of a wider existence - wider and higher. 俯身触碰大地，感受它的气息；轻抚花朵，体察它的生命；迎风而立，领会它的深意；让阳光洒落摊开的掌心，仿佛能将其握住。或许能从万物中捕捉到某种无形却强大的存在。那是更广阔——更辽远更高邈的存在的感知。
(Jefferies 1938: 121-2) （杰弗里斯 1938 年：121-2 页）
The feeling for the physical world is there, the green language, yet also the mystic tendency into which Jefferies lapses as often as not and which has no place in Williams. Instead we get the detailed naming process: 对物质世界的情感犹在，那绿色的语言，但杰弗里斯时常陷入的神秘主义倾向在威廉姆斯这里却无迹可寻。取而代之的是细致的命名过程：
This is the hand of the Black Mountains, the shape first learned. Your thumb is Crib y Gath. Your first finger is Curum and Hateral. Your second finger is Ffawyddog, with Tal y Cefn and Bal Mawr at its knuckles. Your third finger is Gadair Fawr. Your outside finger is Allt Mawr, from Llysiau to Cerrig Calch, and its nail is Crug Hywel. On the high plateau of the back of your hand are Twyn y Llech and Twmpa, Rhos Dirion, Waun Fach and Y Das. You hold their shapes and their names. 这是黑山的手掌，最初认知的形状。你的拇指是克里布·伊·加斯。食指是库伦姆与哈特拉尔。中指是法维多格，指节处是塔利·凯夫恩与巴尔·莫尔。无名指是加代尔·莫尔。小指是阿尔特·莫尔，从利西奥延至凯里格·卡尔赫，指甲则是克鲁格·海威尔。在你手背的高原上，坐落着特温·伊·莱赫与通帕、罗斯·迪里昂、沃恩·法赫和伊·达斯。你掌握着它们的形状与名字。
(Williams 1990b: 1) （威廉斯 1990b 年：1 页）
These are contemporary Welsh place-names, but their strangeness (to other than Welsh ears) prepares us for the otherness of the past, as the narrative dives into our mysterious history and the place-names keep changing. For while it is true that naming, above all, presupposes knowing, which in turn requires rootedness in a place, there can also be naming, and especially renaming, without knowing. Conquerors and colonisers rename their new possessions in an act of imposing their order and exercising control. Williams demonstrates this in the case of the Romans who indiscriminately lumped all the diverse inhabitants of the island together as ‘Britons’. Marlow’s above-quoted remark and his subsequent empathy for ‘the decent young citizen in a toga … coming out here in the train of some prefect, or tax-gatherer, or trader even’ only to find himself ‘in a swamp, march through the woods, and in some inland post feel the savagery, the utter 这些是当代威尔士的地名，但其陌生感（对非威尔士人而言）让我们对往昔的异质性有所准备，当叙事潜入我们神秘的历史时，地名也在不断变迁。因为尽管命名首先以认知为前提，而认知又需要扎根于某地，但也可能存在不知情下的命名，尤其是重新命名。征服者与殖民者通过重新命名新获得的领土来强加秩序、实施控制。威廉姆斯以罗马人为例证明了这一点——他们不加区分地将岛上所有不同族群统称为"不列吞人"。马洛前述的评论及其后来对"穿着托加的体面年轻公民...跟随某位总督、税吏甚或商人来此"却发现自己"身处沼泽，穿越丛林，在某个内陆据点感受野蛮，那彻头彻尾的..."所表现出的共情，恰恰...
savagery’ (Conrad 1980: 9), reveals how more than one half of his being colludes with the Romans’ view of the primitive peoples as ‘barharians’. "野蛮"（康拉德 1980: 9）这一表述揭示了他大半个人格如何与罗马人将原始民族视为"野蛮人"的观点共谋。
Where older sprawling novels sometimes contained a list of characters, People of the Black Mountains has a list of place-names complete with maps. But the characters’ names are no less strange. Naming the ‘people’ becomes as important as marking their habitats. It is a way of connecting with our distant ancestors, of rescuing ‘ten thousand generations of conscious life and memory’ (Williams 1990b: 325) from ‘the enormous condescension of posterity’ (Thompson 1968: 13). This should be the business of historiography, but historiography rarely honours the nameless, which is where historical fiction comes in. Every fresh episode in the story-cycle, in recreating a small lost world, introduces new names, of the ‘men and women on these mountains, handling earth, stone, trees, grass, animals’ (Williams 1990b: 12). 在那些篇幅浩繁的旧式小说中，人物表或许屡见不鲜，而《黑山的人们》却附有详尽的地名录并配有地图。但书中人物的名字同样别具深意。为"人们"命名变得与标注其栖息地同等重要。这是一种与远古祖先建立联结的方式，将"万代有意识的生灵与记忆"（Williams 1990b: 325）从"后世巨大的傲慢"（Thompson 1968: 13）中拯救出来。这本应是历史编纂学的职责，但史学著述鲜少垂青无名之辈，这正是历史小说存在的意义。在这个故事循环的每个新篇章里，通过重建一个个失落的小世界，不断涌现新的名字——那些"在这片山峦间劳作的男人女人们，他们摆弄泥土、石块、树木、青草与牲畜"（Williams 1990b: 12）。
The book lets the reader partake of two different approaches to the past, one empathetic, the other scholarly. The stories and parables dramatise human lives. They enact the creative capacities of human beings in response to a natural environment, and show them participating in and, often enough, defeated by the historical process - including natural disasters such as plague or earthquake. By contrast, the linking passages, set in the present, allow for a modicum of history as rational enquiry and informed speculation. The two approaches meet in the student, Glyn, whose search for his grandfather, lost during a mountain walk, turns into a quest for the past. In touching the sandstone, Glyn at once imitates the handling of the materials by the former dwellers of the mountains and establishes contact with them. It is in his mind that the voices from the past are heard and the scenes from across the ages imagined. The longer he traverses the landscape, the more immersed he becomes in the past; and the more powerfully the voices from our ancestors resonate in his (and the reader’s) mind, the closer to his own understanding of history they appear. In this convergence of inner and outer narrative, dramatised action and historical grasp, empathy and analysis, the idea takes shape that the human adventure is one, that the passions and conflicts of a long-turied past are closer to us than is generally acknowledged. But we are left in no doubt that any such construction of human continuity, while not wilful, remains imperfect. ^(13){ }^{13} 本书让读者得以体验两种不同的历史研究路径：一种是共情式的，另一种则是学术性的。故事与寓言将人类生活戏剧化地呈现，展现了人类在自然环境中的创造力，同时也揭示了他们参与历史进程却屡遭挫败的命运——包括瘟疫或地震等自然灾害。与之形成对比的是，以当下为背景的衔接段落，则提供了作为理性探究与知识性推测的历史片段。这两种方法在学生格林的追寻中交汇：他最初只为寻找登山失踪的祖父，却逐渐演变成对往昔的求索。当格林触摸砂岩时，他既模仿了昔日山民处理材料的方式，也与之建立了跨越时空的联系。正是在他的意识中，往昔的声音得以聆听，历代场景得以重现。他穿越这片土地越久，便越深地沉浸于历史之中；而祖先之声在他（及读者）脑海中回响得愈加强烈，就愈接近他自身对历史的领悟。 在这种内外叙事、戏剧化行动与历史把握、共情与分析的交汇中，一个理念逐渐成形：人类的冒险历程是统一的，那些被长久掩埋的激情与冲突，比我们通常所承认的更贴近当下。但我们毫不怀疑，任何此类人类连续性的构建，虽非刻意为之，却仍不完美。 ^(13){ }^{13}
In People of the Black Mountains, time and place, history and geography, the social and the spatial interact in a complex design, if not without tension, but none is allowed to cancel the other. The novel is a fictional equivalent, on a micro-level, of Fernand Braudel’s magisterial history of the Mediterranean, paying close attention to the determining, quasi-immovable structures of a landscape and the longue durée of economic cycles. 在《黑山子民》中，时间与空间、历史与地理、社会性与空间性以复杂的方式相互交织，即便不无张力，却无一能消解对方。这部小说在微观层面上堪称费尔南·布罗代尔恢宏的地中海史著作的文学对应物，它密切关注着景观中那些近乎永恒的决定性结构，以及经济周期的长时段脉动。
One last aspect of the book’s environmental sensibility deserves a brief mention: the many different forms of human dwelling in which a space is converted into a place. To provide some kind of shelter, making oneself at 本书环境意识的最后一个方面值得简要提及：人类将空间转化为场所的多种栖居形式。为了提供某种庇护，使自己在
home in the world, is a primeval urge. Of this we get numerous examples in People of the Black Mountains, especially in the first volume, from the cave to ‘a stack of leaning branches’ (Williams 1990b: 107) to the earth-walled hut to sacred places such as the Long House, a burial chamber raised over several generations. Tony Pinkney was the first to comment, if not explicitly in ecological terms, on the prevalence of the nest imagery in the novel (Pinkney 1991: 120-4), and he drew, as Jonathan Bate was later to do in his discussion of Clare’s endless fascination with birds’ nests, on Gaston Bachelard’s notion of an ‘original shell’ behind every human dwelling (Bachelard 1989). For Bate the nest is ‘the natural world’s analogue of the human idea of home’ (Bate 2000: 157). 在《黑山人民》中，我们随处可见这种对"家"的原始渴望——从洞穴到"一堆倾斜的树枝"（Williams 1990b: 107），从土墙茅屋到诸如长屋（历经数代人修建的墓室）等神圣场所。托尼·平克尼最早注意到小说中频繁出现的巢穴意象（Pinkney 1991: 120-4），虽然并未明确使用生态学术语。他援引了加斯东·巴什拉关于"人类居所背后都存在原始壳层"的论述（Bachelard 1989），这一观点后来也被乔纳森·贝特用来阐释克莱尔对鸟巢的永恒迷恋。贝特认为，鸟巢是"自然界对人类家园概念的对应物"（Bate 2000: 157）。
But the nest is also a place of hatching, of giving birth, of nurturing and tending, in short, a female space. There is no doubt that women command a stronger presence in People of the Black Mountains than in Williams’ earlier fictions. And that presence is not merely subsidiary, limited to domestic and reproductive chores, but shows their work, for example the combing, spinning, washing and weaving of the wool, as an essential part of the families’ keep. ^(14){ }^{14} 然而，巢穴亦是孵化、生育与哺育之所——简言之，一个女性空间。毋庸置疑，《黑山人》中的女性存在感较之威廉斯早期小说更为强烈。这种存在绝非附属性质，不仅限于家务与生育劳作，更通过梳毛、纺线、浣纱及织布等活计，展现出她们作为家族生计核心组成部分的劳动价值。 ^(14){ }^{14}
This willingness to meet challenges to his own position either in the form of trenchant critique, theoretical debate or changing social and political conditions, for example through the rise of what was once called the ‘new social movements’ (of, among others, women and environmentalists), was a strength of Williams’ working mode. Yet engaging with a previously underplayed dimension of political or cultural analysis, while leading to a rethinking or redefinition of the socialist project, never shook his commitment to the cause. Thus a social and an ecological agenda were for Williams not, as in some versions of environmentalism, separable or irreconcilable concerns but required to be brought together and thought through together. This was already the underlying message of The Country and the City, an enduringly important and powerful work. Similarly, adapting and refining his own cultural materialist approach had clear priority over any methodological contribution to the evolving critical practice now known as ‘ecocriticism’, whose second more vigorous and successful take-off in the 1990s he did not live to see. 威廉姆斯工作方式的一大优势，就是他愿意直面各种对其立场的挑战——无论是尖锐的批评、理论论辩，还是社会政治环境的变化（例如所谓"新社会运动"的兴起，包括女权运动和环保运动等）。尽管他对政治文化分析中曾被忽视的维度进行探讨，并由此引发对社会主义项目的重新思考与定义，但这从未动摇他对事业的坚定承诺。在威廉姆斯看来，社会议题与生态议程并非如某些环保主义观点所认为的那样彼此割裂或不可调和，而是必须被结合起来统筹思考。这一核心思想早已体现在其经久不衰的重要著作《乡村与城市》中。同样，他始终优先考虑对自身文化唯物主义方法的调整与完善，而非为当时新兴的、后来被称为"生态批评"的批判实践提供方法论贡献——他在 1990 年代未能亲眼见证这一批评流派更具活力与成效的第二次蓬勃发展。
Notes 注释
1 Raymond Williams, Innovationen: Über den Prozeßcharakter von Literatur und Kultur, ed. Gustuv Klaus (Frankfurt: Syndikat 1977) 1 雷蒙德·威廉斯，《创新：论文学与文化的进程特性》，古斯塔夫·克劳斯编（法兰克福：辛迪卡特出版社 1977 年）
2 Broadcast on 19 June 1977 on WDR 3 and published, likewise in German, in Gulliver, 2 (1977), pp. 54-67. 2 1977 年 6 月 19 日在西德广播三台播出，并以德文发表于《格列佛》杂志第 2 期（1977 年），第 54-67 页。
3 Edited by Jonathan Benthall (Benthall 1972); American edition: Ecology in Theory and Practice (Benthall 1973); reprinted in Raymond Williams, Problems in Materialism and Culture (Williams 1980c). 3 乔纳森·本索尔编（本索尔 1972）；美国版：《生态学的理论与实践》（本索尔 1973）；重印于雷蒙德·威廉姆斯《唯物主义与文化问题》（威廉姆斯 1980c）。
4 The author (Theodore Roszak) belongs to the libertarian Left rather than with the adherents of deep ecology, but his argument at this point is close to it. 4 作者（西奥多·罗萨克）属于自由意志左派而非深层生态学的拥护者，但他在此处的论点与之十分接近。
5 Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature [wr. 1873-6, pub. 1925, trans. Clemens Dutt 1940]. This particular passage from Engels’ fragment dates from 1876, hence follows on the heels of John Ruskin’s environmental and social turn in the 1870s, starting with Letter V of Fors Clarigera (1871). Engels also discusses Ernst Haeckel’s Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866), in which the term ‘ecology’ makes its first appearance. Williams refers to Dialectics of Nature in ‘Problems of Materialism’ in his Problems in Materialism and Culture (Williams 1980c: 110-11), as well as in ‘Socialism and ecology’ (Williams [1982] 1989i: 214). 5 弗里德里希·恩格斯，《自然辩证法》[撰写于 1873-1876 年，1925 年出版，克莱门斯·杜特 1940 年译]。恩格斯这一片段写于 1876 年，恰逢约翰·罗斯金在 1870 年代以《致未来书简》（1871 年）第五封信为开端转向环境与社会议题。恩格斯还讨论了恩斯特·海克尔《生物体普通形态学》（1866 年），该著作首次提出"生态学"术语。威廉斯在《唯物主义与文化问题》的"唯物主义的难题"章节（威廉斯 1980c: 110-11）以及"社会主义与生态学"（威廉斯[1982] 1989i: 214）中均提及《自然辩证法》。
6 See also Francis Mulhern’s review essay of the book ‘Towards 2000, or news from you-know-where’: Mulhern 1989, esp. 79-81. 6 另见弗朗西斯·马尔赫恩对《迈向 2000 年，或来自你知何处的新消息》的书评文章：马尔赫恩 1989，尤见 79-81 页。
7 ‘Socialism and ecology’ (1982), reprinted in Raymond Williams, Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism, ed. Robin Gable (Williams [1982] 1989i). 7 "社会主义与生态学"（1982 年），重刊于罗宾·盖布尔编《希望的资源：文化、民主、社会主义》中雷蒙德·威廉斯文集（威廉斯[1982] 1989i）。
8 A case in point is the current push towards biofuels in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil, engineered by giant transnational agro-companies in the interest of the energy-consuming economies of the West, but at the cost of price increases in food in the local economies and grave environmental risks. See Eric Holt-Giménez, ‘Sprit vom Acker: Fünf Mythen vom Übergang zu Biokraftstoffen’, Le Monde diplomatique (German edition), June 2007, pp. 12-13. The food riots in Egypt and Haiti in 2008, while linked more generally to the implementation of neo-liberal policies, may be taken as the first warning signs of greater disasters to come. 8 一个典型的例子是当前印度尼西亚、马来西亚和巴西等国在西方能源消费经济体利益驱动下，由跨国农业巨头推动的生物燃料热潮。这种发展以当地经济中食品价格上涨和严重环境风险为代价。参见埃里克·霍尔特-希门尼斯《田间的烈酒：生物燃料转型的五大迷思》，载于德文版《外交世界》2007 年 6 月刊，第 12-13 页。2008 年埃及和海地的粮食骚乱，虽然与新自由主义政策的实施有更广泛的关联，但可以被视为更大灾难即将来临的首个预警信号。
9 For a more extended treatment of the novel, see my essay ‘Material grounds: border and place in Raymond Williams’s fiction’ (Klaus 2002). 9 关于这部小说的更详尽分析，请参阅我的论文《物质基础：雷蒙德·威廉斯小说中的边界与地方》（克劳斯 2002）。
10 More as translated by Ralph Robinson (1551): ‘shepe that were wont to be so meek and tame and so smal eaters, now, as I heare saye, be become so great devowerers and so wylde, that they eate up, and swallow downe the very men them selfes’ (Book I of Utopia), quoted from the Everyman edition (More 1910: 23). 10 更多内容见拉尔夫·罗宾逊的译本（1551 年）："向来温顺驯服且食量极小的绵羊，如今据我所闻，竟变得如此贪婪凶猛，乃至吞噬活人"（《乌托邦》第一卷），引自人人丛书版（莫尔 1910: 23）。
11 ‘Remembrances’ (c. 1832). Williams’ continual interest in Clare is illustrated by his and his daughter’s collection of the poet’s writings, John Clare: Selected Poetry and Prose, eds. Merryn Williams and Raymond Williams (London: Methuen, 1986). 11 《回忆录》（约 1832 年）。威廉斯对克莱尔的持续关注体现在他与女儿共同编纂的诗人作品选集《约翰·克莱尔诗文选》（伦敦：梅休因出版社，1986 年）中。
12 This and the next Williams paragraph open both volumes of People of the Black Mountains. 12 本段及下一段威廉斯的文字同时出现在《黑山人》两卷本的卷首。
13 For a short incisive reading of People of the Blach Mommans see Head 2002a: 197-9; see also Head’s in part identical essay ‘Beyond 2000: Raymond W’illiams and the ecocritic’s task’ (Head 2002b). 13 关于《黑山人》的简短精辟解读，可参阅 Head 2002a: 197-9；另见 Head 部分内容重合的论文《超越 2000 年：雷蒙德·威廉斯与生态批评家的使命》（Head 2002b）。
14 This treatment combined with the move to nurture and reproduction in Towards 2000 goes some way towards meeting the feminist critiques levelled against W’illiams’ work and summed up in Morag Shiach’s essay ‘A gendered history of cultural categories’ (Shiach 1995). 14 这种处理方式结合《迈向 2000 年》中关于培育与再生产的转向，在一定程度上回应了针对威廉斯作品的女性主义批评，这些批评在莫拉格·希亚克的论文《文化范畴的性别化历史》（Shiach 1995）中得到了集中阐述。
Chapter 13 第十三章
Cultural studies is ordinary 文化研究是寻常的
Gilbert B. Rodman 吉尔伯特·B·罗德曼
If this is thought through now, if we fight for it, even if we fail we shall have done something to justify ourselves before the future. But I don’t think we need fail at all; I think the results will be uneven and scattered, but this is where the challenge now is. If you accept my definition that this is really what Cultural Studies has been about, of taking the best we can in intellectual work and going with it in this very open way to confront people for whom it is not a way of life, for whom it is not in any probability a job, but for whom it is a matter of their own intellectual interest, their own understanding of the pressures on them, pressures of every kind, from the most personal to the most broadly political if we are prepared to take that kind of work and to revise the syllabus and discipline as best we can, on this site which allows that kind of interchange, then Cultural Studies has a very remarkable future indeed. 如果我们现在深思熟虑，为之奋斗，即使失败，也能为未来证明我们存在的价值。但我认为我们根本不必失败；虽然成果可能参差不齐、分布零散，但这正是当前的挑战所在。若你认同我的定义——文化研究始终致力于汲取学术精华，以这种开放姿态直面那些并非以此为业、却因自身智识兴趣而关注的人群，帮助他们理解所承受的各类压力（从最私人的到最宏观政治的）——只要我们愿意承担这类工作，在这个允许思想交锋的平台上尽力修订教学大纲与学科规范，那么文化研究必将拥有无比辉煌的未来。
(Williams, 1989c: 161-2) （威廉斯，1989c：161-2）
Cultural studies is ordinary: that is where we must start. More crucially, that is where we must finish. Understood one way, my refashioning of one of Raymond Williams’ most famous titles describes the nature of cultural studies’ current malaise: its transformation from what was once an extraordinary approach to intellectual and political work into something predictable and boring. Inflected a different way, however, 'cultural studies is ordinary’stands as a deliberate provocation: a polemical attempt to jolt us out of our limited understanding of what cultural studies is, where it can be found, and who actually does it. 文化研究是寻常的：这正是我们必须开始的地方。更重要的是，这也正是我们必须回归的终点。从某种角度理解，我对雷蒙德·威廉斯最著名标题之一的改写，道出了文化研究当下困境的本质：它已从曾经智识与政治工作的非凡路径，蜕变为某种可预测且乏味的存在。然而换种角度解读，"文化研究是寻常的"则构成一种蓄意的挑衅——这是试图撼动我们对文化研究本质、存在场域及实践主体的狭隘认知的论战宣言。
When Williams wrote ‘Culture is ordinary’ half a century ago, he was trying to promote a more expansive and democratic understanding of what counts as culture. Rejecting the pervasive notion that culture is something possessed only by educated highbrows, Williams insisted that culture is a phenomenon common to all people, regardless of their position in the social hierarchy. A truly democratic society, Williams argued, cannot be built around the elitist assumption that ‘the masses’ possess nothing more 当威廉斯在半个世纪前写下《文化是寻常的》时，他试图推动一种更广阔、更民主的文化认知。他摒弃了那种将文化视为知识精英专属物的流行观念，坚持认为文化是全体人民共有的现象，与社会等级无关。威廉斯论证道，一个真正民主的社会，绝不能建立在"大众"毫无文化积淀的精英主义假设之上。
than a watered-down version of ‘real’ culture - or, even worse, that they lack culture completely. In fact, the very notion of ‘the masses’ was foreign to Williams’ project. ‘There are … no masses,’ he insisted, ‘but only ways of seeing people as masses’ (Williams [1958] 1989b: 11). 与其说是"真正"文化的稀释版本——或者更糟，完全缺乏文化——不如说"大众"这个概念本身与威廉姆斯的学术项目格格不入。"根本不存在……所谓的大众，"他强调，"只有将人视为大众的观察方式"（威廉姆斯 [1958] 1989b: 11）。
Though Williams is often acknowledged to be one of cultural studies’ foundational figures - and though his writings continue to be cited and taught in cultural studies circles - the radically democratic vision of culture and politics that characterized his work is surprisingly difficult to find in most contemporary formations of the enterprise. This is not to say that cultural studies no longer values democracy but that, on the whole, cultural studies has distanced itself from the broader public that it ostensibly struggles alongside. While there are numerous definitions of cultural studies in circulation - with an astonishing amount of variation between them - most of these competing maps of the territory share the fundamental assumption that cultural studies is necessarily an academic endeavour. 尽管威廉姆斯被公认为文化研究的奠基人之一，尽管他的著作仍在文化研究领域被广泛引用和讲授，但那种贯穿其作品的、对文化与政治极具民主精神的愿景，在当代文化研究的大多数实践中却惊人地难觅踪迹。这并非意指文化研究不再重视民主，而是说总体而言，文化研究已经与它表面上为之奋斗的广大公众渐行渐远。虽然目前流传着对文化研究的诸多定义——彼此间存在惊人的差异——但这些相互竞争的理论版图大多共享一个基本预设：文化研究本质上是一项学术事业。
On the face of it, cultural studies’ entrenched position in the university would seem to place it well outside the range of human activity that might typically be considered ‘ordinary’, especially when one considers the tendency of cultural studies scholars to brandish theoretical abstractions and disciplinary jargon as if they were lethal weapons. Concepts such as ‘affective alliances’ and ‘hegemonic blocs’ may be useful tools for helping to make sense of the complicated interweavings of culture and politics, but they also build imposing fences around cultural studies that keep ‘ordinary’ people on the outside looking in - or, more likely, alienated enough from the whole affair that they find something more palatable to look at. To be sure, Williams often produced his own dense thickets of scholarly prose, and he was certainly happy to see cultural studies win a small measure of space for itself within the university. But neither the ‘astonish[ing] … theoretical fluency’ (Hall 1992: 286) that has come to characterize much of cultural studies nor the gradual but steady sedimentation of cultural studies into a discipline of its own are quite the direction that Williams wanted the enterprise to take. 从表面上看，文化研究在大学中的稳固地位似乎使其远远超出了通常被视为"普通"人类活动的范畴，尤其是考虑到文化研究学者们倾向于挥舞理论抽象和学科术语，仿佛这些是致命武器。"情感联盟"和"霸权集团"等概念或许是帮助理解文化与政治复杂交织的有用工具，但它们也在文化研究周围筑起了令人生畏的藩篱，将"普通"人隔绝在外——或者更可能的是，使他们对整个领域疏离到宁愿寻找更易消化的内容。诚然，威廉斯本人也经常产出艰深晦涩的学术论述，而且他当然乐见文化研究在大学中为自己赢得一席之地。 但无论是文化研究中常见的"令人惊叹的理论流畅性"（霍尔 1992: 286），还是文化研究逐渐稳固成为独立学科的进程，都并非威廉姆斯所期望的发展方向。
Williams’ hopes for cultural studies’ future were based largely on its prior efforts to use the concerns of ‘ordinary people’ as a set of guidelines for reshaping the dominant institutional practices of education and criticism. More specifically, W’illiams wanted cultural studies to avoid repeating the mistakes that English studies had made in moving from the fringes of British academic life to a position at the very heart of the beast. For Williams, that move had proven to be a Faustian bargain, in which the original endeavour ultimately traded away the noble democratic impulses at its core for the acquiescent stability provided by formal disciplinarity: 威廉姆斯对文化研究未来的期许，主要基于其早期将"普通人"的关切作为重塑教育和批评主导性制度实践的指导原则。更具体地说，他希望文化研究避免重蹈英语研究的覆辙——后者从英国学术生活的边缘逐渐走向了体制核心。对威廉姆斯而言，这种转变犹如浮士德式的交易：最初的崇高民主理想最终让位于学科规范化带来的妥协性稳定。
Having got into the university, English studies had within twenty years converted itself into a fairly normal academic course, marginalizing 进入大学体系后，英语研究在二十年内就将自身转变为相当常规的学术课程，逐渐边缘化
those members of itself who were sustaining the original project. Because by this time what it was doing within the institution was largely reproducing itself, which all academic institutions tend to do: it was reproducing the instructors and the examiners who were reproducing people like themselves. Given the absence of that pressure and that demand from groups who were outside the established educational system, this new discipline turned very much in on itself. It became, with some notable advantages, as always happens, a professional discipline; it moved to higher standards of critical rigour and scholarship; but at the same time the people who understood the original project … were marginalized. 那些坚持最初理念的成员自身。因为此时它在体制内所做的很大程度上是在自我复制，这是所有学术机构的通病：它不断培养出复制同类人的教师和考官。由于缺乏来自教育体系外部群体的压力和需求，这门新学科便完全转向了内向发展。它不可避免地成为了一个专业学科——虽然这带来了一些显著优势；它提高了批判严谨性和学术水平的标准；但与此同时，那些理解最初理念的人……却被边缘化了。
(Williams 1989c: 153) （威廉斯 1989c：153）
Unfortunately, Williams’ warning fell on deaf ears. Or perhaps it simply came too late. Change but a single word in the first line - ‘English’ to ‘cultural’ - and this passage is an uncannily prescient description of what has happened to cultural studies in the two decades since Williams’ death. 遗憾的是，威廉斯的警告无人理会。或许只是为时已晚。只需将首行的"英语"改为"文化"，这段文字便惊人地预见了威廉斯去世后二十年间文化研究的演变轨迹。
In that time span, cultural studies has grown increasingly (and disturbingly) comfortable with the idea that it has matured into a discipline of its own. In spite of the lessons it should have learned from its contentious past, cultural studies has managed to acquire an unusually settled sense of its own history - and, even worse, of its own future. It is in this sense that cultural studies has become ordinary: just another undergraduate major, just another academic career choice, just another cog in the university’s disciplinary machinery. And so it’s not surprising (though it is disappointing) that the benchmarks for cultural studies’ success are now more often about reproduction than about invention, more about finding one’s place within the system than about remaking that system in significant ways or forging new paths for intellectual and political work. 在这段时间里，文化研究领域已日益（且令人不安地）安于这样一种观念：它已成熟为一门独立学科。尽管本应从其充满争议的过去汲取教训，文化研究却反常地形成了对自身历史——更糟的是，对自身未来——异常固化的认知。正是在这个意义上，文化研究变得平庸：它不过是又一个本科生专业，又一个学术职业选择，大学学科机器中又一个齿轮。因此，文化研究成功的评判标准如今更多关乎复制而非创新，更多强调在体制内谋得一席之地而非以重大方式重塑体制或开辟智识与政治工作的新路径——这虽令人失望，却并不出人意料。
One of the most obvious signs of this shift is the dramatic proliferation of cultural studies textbooks. It wasn’t that long ago that the generic ‘What is cultural studies?’ publication was a 20-3020-30 page essay that was as prescriptive in its focus (‘this is what cultural studies should be’) as it was descriptive (‘this is what cultural studies is’). John Storey’s (1996) marvellous anthology, What Is Cultural Studies?, gathers together nearly two dozen of these essays, and except for the couple that focus on the history of the Birmingham Centre (‘this is what cultural studies uas’), all of them define cultural studies in ways that suggest a future very much in flux. These essays can be understood as vectors: definitions in motion that aim to map out an ideal future direction for cultural studies as much as they attempt to describe the existing state of the terrain. 这一转变最明显的迹象之一，是文化研究教材的激增。就在不久之前，那些题为"什么是文化研究？"的通用出版物还只是 20-3020-30 页的短文，既带有规范性（"文化研究应当是什么"），又具有描述性（"文化研究是什么"）。约翰·斯道雷（1996）精彩的文集《什么是文化研究？》汇集了近二十篇此类文章，除少数聚焦伯明翰学派历史的篇章（"文化研究曾经是什么"）外，其余都以暗示未来充满变数的方式定义文化研究。这些文章可被视为矢量：动态的定义既试图描绘该领域的现状，更旨在为文化研究规划理想的发展方向。
By way of contrast, the standard ‘what is cultural studies?’ publication today is a 200-300 page introductory texthook aimed at undergraduates. As mutually incompatible as individual titles in this rapidly expanding genre 与之形成鲜明对比的是，如今标准的"什么是文化研究？"出版物已成为面向本科生的 200-300 页入门教材。尽管这个快速扩张的领域中各书目之间存在着相互矛盾
often are, what they generally have in common is the sense that cultural studies is already an established discipline. In these volumes, if the future of the endeavour comes into play, it almost never does so in ways that suggest that cultural studies could (or should) deviate significantly from where it is right now. That future depends on how well cultural studies students can build professional academic careers around the blueprints provided by their forebears - and so presumably that future will look an awful lot like the present. Whatever these books are - and not all of them actually deserve to be thought of as ‘cultural studies’ - they’re certainly not vectors: they’re still lifes that provide a survey of cultural studies’ ‘greatest hits’, capture them in amber, and then repackage them for mass consumption and further reproduction. 这些著作往往具有一个共同点，即认为文化研究已然成为一门既定学科。在这些文集中，即便论及该领域的未来发展，也几乎从未提出文化研究可能（或应当）显著偏离当前轨道的观点。其未来取决于文化研究学者能否依照前辈提供的蓝图构建专业学术生涯——因此可以预见，这种未来将与现状极为相似。无论这些书籍本质为何（其中部分甚至不配被称为"文化研究"著作），它们绝非变革载体：而是如同静物画般罗列文化研究的"经典成果"，将其封存在琥珀中，继而重新包装以供大众消费与批量复制。
Textbooks are but one example of cultural studies’ increasingly settled status as an ordinary academic enterprise. Cultural studies has now embraced virtually all the major trappings of scholarly professionalization: undergraduate majors, university departments, research centres, scholarly journals, academic conferences, disciplinary associations. As recently as a decade ago, the notion that cultural studies might secure a more stable position for itself within the university was still an open-ended question that could provoke heated debate. Today, however, cultural studies is sufficiently well established as a memher of the disciplinary family that it’s no longer news when fresh examples of cultural studies’ institutionalization emerge: it’s simply business as usual. 教科书只是文化研究作为一项常规学术事业日益确立地位的其中一个例证。如今的文化研究几乎囊括了学术专业化的所有主要标志：本科专业、大学院系、研究中心、学术期刊、学术会议、学科协会。就在十年前，文化研究能否在大学体系内获得更稳固地位仍是个可能引发激烈辩论的开放性问题。然而时至今日，文化研究作为学科家族成员的地位已如此稳固，其体制化的新例证出现时甚至不再具有新闻价值——这不过是常态化的学科发展罢了。
Lest I be misunderstood, I should emphasize that I don’t want to see cultural studies abandon the spaces it has carred out for itself in the university, nor do I want to deny the very real intellectual and material gains that cultural studies’ institutionalization has produced. There is certainly nothing noble or desirable about marginalization for its own sake, and cultural studies shouldn’t retreat from the academs simply to avoid the taint of privilege that the institution brings. What concerns me is the sense that cultural studies’ success within the university has come to define the outer limits of what the enterprise can and should be: that, having got into the institution, cultural studies is now content to do nothing more that reproduce itself. 为避免误解，我必须强调：我并非希望文化研究放弃其在大学中开辟的学术空间，也不愿否认文化研究制度化所带来的切实思想成果与物质收益。为边缘化而边缘化绝非崇高或可取，文化研究更不应因忌惮机构化带来的特权污名而退出学术场域。真正令我忧虑的是，文化研究在高校体系内的成功，似乎正在框定其事业发展的终极边界——仿佛进入体制后，文化研究便安于自我复制的现状，再无突破之志。
In many respects, my argument here is an attempt to wrestle with a polemical question recently posed hy Larry Grossherg: ‘How did cultural studies get so f****** horing.’ (Cirossberg 2000: 8, ironically horing asterisks in the original). For Grossherg, ‘boring’ isn’t an aesthetic or intellectual assessment as much as it’s a political one: a pointed assessment of cultural studies’ inability to intervene productively in the ‘real world’ contexts where it most hopes to make a difference: cultural studies’ current centre of gravity ‘pulls a lot of work into its orbits, posing questions, offering theories and validating methods that may not strengthen our engagement with or our ability to address questions to, the current conjuncture’ (Grossberg 从多个角度来看，我在此的论述试图回应拉里·格罗斯伯格最近提出的一个颇具争议的问题："文化研究怎么他妈的变得如此无聊"（格罗斯伯格 2000：8，原文中讽刺性地使用了星号）。对格罗斯伯格而言，"无聊"与其说是美学或智识层面的评判，不如说是政治性的——这是对文化研究无力在其最希望产生影响的"现实世界"语境中有效介入的尖锐评价：文化研究当前的引力中心"将大量研究纳入其轨道，提出的问题、提供的理论和验证的方法，未必能加强我们与当前局势的互动，或提升我们应对相关问题的能力"（格罗斯伯格
2006: 8). Up to this point in his argument, Grossberg’s diagnosis of cultural studies’ current shortcomings rings true, but then he takes an unusual detour: 2006：8）。在论证的这一节点，格罗斯伯格对文化研究当下缺陷的诊断可谓一针见血，但随后他却转向了一个不寻常的路径：
That center, maintained increasingly by the institutional power of the academy and by the growing tendency to fold cultural studies back into disciplines, is built upon a certain limited ambiguity of the concept of culture, as cultural studies moved out from Williams’ famous dichotomy: (1) culture as a limited set of signifying and textual activities sometimes referred to as aesthetic or expressive culture; and (2) culture as a whole way of life, as a material organization of practices. 这一中心地位，随着学院机构权力的日益强化以及文化研究被重新纳入学科体系的趋势不断增强，建立在文化概念某种有限的模糊性之上——当文化研究从威廉斯著名的二元对立中走出时：(1) 作为有限表意与文本活动的文化，有时被称为审美文化或表现性文化；(2) 作为整体生活方式的文化，即实践的物质性组织。
(Grossberg 2006: 8) （格罗斯伯格 2006：8）
From here, he goes on to offer an extended analysis of how cultural studies built itself around (and became trapped within) Williams’ dichotomous model of culture, and of why it needs to find its way past the limitations of that model. 由此出发，他进一步详细分析了文化研究如何围绕（并受困于）威廉斯的文化二元模型构建自身，以及为何需要突破该模型的局限性。
Where I want to pry apart Grossberg’s diagnosis and pursue a different line of reasoning is at the point where he identifies - but then turns away from - ‘the institutional power of the academy’ and ‘the growing tendency to fold cultural studies back into the disciplines’ as the set of interlocking forces responsible for cultural studies’ current crisis. Grossberg’s analysis helps us to rethink the question of what cultural studies does, but the role of the university in cultural studies’ current crisis suggests that we also need to rethink the interrelated questions of who does cultural studies and where they do so. 我想质疑格罗斯伯格的诊断并展开不同思路之处，在于他识别出却随即回避了"学院的制度性权力"和"将文化研究重新纳入学科体系的日益增长趋势"——这两股相互勾连的力量正是文化研究当前危机的根源。格罗斯伯格的分析促使我们重新思考文化研究的职能，但大学在文化研究当前危机中的作用表明，我们还需重新审视"谁在进行文化研究"及"在何处开展"这些相互关联的问题。
It’s here that the second sense of my title comes into play, as I want to argue that cultural studies is not necessarily an academic enterprise at all. The variable cocktail of intellectual and political work that we call ‘cultural studies’ can be - and already is being - mixed together with some regularity outside of the university, but cultural studies scholars have not been particularly adept at recognizing such work as a legitimate form of the enterprise. Cultural studies is ordinary: you should not have to go to the university to find it. 此时我标题的第二层含义开始显现：我认为文化研究本质上未必是学术事业。这种被称为"文化研究"的知识与政治工作的多变组合，能够——且已然——在大学之外以某种规律性被调配融合，但文化研究学者们尚未特别擅长将此类工作视为该事业的合法形式。文化研究是寻常的：你不必非得进入大学才能寻得它。
It is worth remembering that cultural studies did not originally arise in response to the needs and desires of the university, and that its early years within the university were far from comfortable. As noted above, Williams’ musings on cultural studies’ future dwell extensively on cultural studies’ pre-Birmingham roots in post-Second World War workers’ education programmes and the challenges those programmes deliberately posed to the British university system. Similarly, Stuart Hall describes the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies as ‘the locus to which we retreated when that conversation in the open world could no longer be continued: it was politics by other means’ (Hall 1990: 12, emphasis in original), and he has 值得铭记的是，文化研究最初并非为迎合大学的需求与愿望而生，其早期在大学中的发展也远非顺遂。如前所述，威廉斯对文化研究未来的思考大量涉及其在伯明翰学派形成前的渊源——即二战后工人教育项目，以及这些项目对英国大学体系蓄意发起的挑战。同样地，斯图亚特·霍尔将当代文化研究中心描述为"当开放世界的对话无法继续时我们退守的阵地：它是通过其他方式进行的政治"（霍尔 1990：12，原文强调），他
noted on multiple occasions that the more established departments at Birmingham spent years looking upon the Centre with open scorn - when they deigned to take notice of it at all. If cultural studies is now primarily an academic enterprise, it’s not because it has always been such a thing, or because its earliest practitioners’ highest priority was to move the fledgling project into the academic mainstream. 曾多次指出，伯明翰大学那些更资深的院系多年来对研究中心公开表示轻蔑——甚至根本不屑一顾。如果说文化研究如今主要是一项学术事业，这既非因为它历来如此，也非因其早期实践者的首要目标是将这个新生项目推向学术主流。
Perhaps the most direct way to rethink the current location of cultural studies is to look more closely at what cultural studies actually claims to do. Read the various meta-commentaries on cultural studies (excepting, perhaps, those problematic textbooks) and most of them will argue rightly - that there is no particular theory or method or object of study or political stance that is unique to the enterprise. Nor is there some simple litmus test one can use to determine the provenance of a given text or practice vis-a-ais cultural studies. The mere presence (or absence) of, say, post-colonial theory or ethnographic methods or Marxist politics can never guarantee that a particular project is (or isn’t) an example of cultural studies. In essence, cultural studies encompasses four major spheres of activity: 或许重新思考文化研究现状最直接的方式，就是更仔细地审视文化研究实际宣称要做什么。阅读各种关于文化研究的元评论（或许那些有问题的教科书除外），大多数都会正确地指出——这项事业并不存在某种独特的理论、方法、研究对象或政治立场。也没有某种简单的试金石可以用来判定特定文本或实践是否属于文化研究。仅仅存在（或不存在）后殖民理论、民族志方法或马克思主义政治，永远无法保证某个特定项目是（或不是）文化研究的范例。本质上，文化研究包含四大活动领域：
(1) Theory: the construction of abstract models that attempt to explain the workings of culture, politics, the economy, the media, etc. （1）理论：构建试图解释文化、政治、经济、媒体等运作机制的抽象模型
(2) Research: the production of new bodies of knowledge about culture, politics, the economy, the media, etc. （2）研究：生产关于文化、政治、经济、媒体等领域的新知识体系
(3) Pedagogy: the public dissemination of all that theory and research, with the specific goal of helping ‘ordinary people’ come to a more robust understanding of the world around them. (3) 教育学：将理论与研究成果向公众传播，其具体目标是帮助"普通人"更深入地理解他们所处的世界。
(4) Action: the attempt to intervene in matters of public policy, opinion, and behaviour in order to promote social justice. (4) 行动：试图介入公共政策、舆论和行为的领域，以促进社会正义。
Significantly, the two spheres that cultural studies has been most heavily invested in - theory and research - are also the two that are most readily articulated to the institutional practices of the university. Meanwhile, the two spheres where cultural studies has been less successful - pedagogy and action - are also the two where various non-academic endeavours that deserve to be (but typically have not been) recognized as cultural studies have often outperformed their scholarly counterparts. Let me offer a few brief comments about each of these four spheres of activity and their respective relationship to cultural studies, both inside and outside the university. 值得注意的是，文化研究最为专注的两个领域——理论与研究——也恰恰是最容易与大学体制实践相衔接的。与此同时，文化研究相对薄弱的两个领域——教育与行动——却正是那些本应（却通常未被）视为文化研究的非学术实践常常超越学术研究的领域。以下我将就这四个活动领域及其与大学内外文化研究的关系分别作简要评述。
Theory 理论
Cultural studies scholars typically reserve the word ‘theory’ for a particular genre of prose that describes an abstract model of how the world (or some significant piece of it) works. More specifically, this brand of theory is 文化研究学者通常将"理论"一词特指为一种特定类型的论述，这种论述描述世界（或其重要组成部分）如何运作的抽象模型。更具体地说，这类理论
primarily crafted by a relatively narrow range of academics: philosophers and other humanities types are welcome here, but most social and behavioural scientists need not bother applying. Abstract maps of culture and society, however, are already an integral part of most people’s daily lives, and so theory isn’t the exclusive province of professional scholars. Michael Bérubé poses the question this way: 主要由相对少数领域的学者构建：哲学家和其他人文学者在此颇受欢迎，但大多数社会和行为科学家则无需费心参与。然而，关于文化与社会的抽象图式早已成为多数人日常生活中不可或缺的部分，因此理论并非专业学者的专属领域。迈克尔·贝鲁贝对此提出了这样的疑问：
Is gender performativity something concocted in an academic laboratory, or is it something you can see in Paris Is Burning - or down the street? … Is it discourse-besotted metahistorians or campaign managers who know that representations are social facts? Do we have to introduce publishers, futures traders and real estate agents to the idea that there’s no such thing as ‘intrinsic’ merit, that merit is a social phenomenon? … I don’t think so. I think, to put it plain, that all these constituencies are doing the stuff we talk about in a different voice. One of the primary reasons ‘cultural studies’ names such a volatile enterprise is that it finds itself examining populations that have their own descriptive languages for themselves, which don’t always mesh very well with de Certeau or Laclau and Mouffe but which serve the purposes of enunciating group identities, practices and self-definitions. 性别表演性究竟是学术实验室里炮制的概念，还是你能在《巴黎在燃烧》或街头巷尾目睹的现实？……是那些沉迷于话语的元历史学家，还是深谙表征即社会事实的竞选经理人更明白其中奥妙？难道我们还得向出版商、期货交易员和房地产经纪人解释根本不存在什么"内在"价值，所谓价值不过是一种社会现象？……我看没这个必要。坦率地说，我认为这些群体都在以不同的方式实践着我们讨论的内容。"文化研究"之所以成为如此变动不居的领域，首要原因在于它研究的群体早已拥有自我描述的语言体系——这些语言未必与德塞托或拉克劳与墨菲的理论严丝合缝，却足以阐明群体认同、实践与自我界定的诉求。
(Bérubé 1994: 166) （Bérubé 1994: 166）
To be sure, not all maps of the world are equally accurate or valuable, and so we can - and should - still draw qualitative distinctions between different theories. And, when it comes down to actual cases, we may find academic theory to be more valuable than ‘quotidian’ theory. This, however, is an empirical question to he tested in the context of specific projects, rather than an axiom we should simply accept in advance. The value of theory for cultural studies, after all, is to provide us with better maps and tools for the political projects that (allegedly) motivate our work. Given that mandate, one of the advantages that ‘quotidian’ theory often has over academic theory is that it tends to arise very much in the service of ‘real world’ issues and problems, rather than as a self-justifying phenomenon. ‘Ordinary people’ theorize their lives and their world all the time (culture, after all, is ordinary), and they often do so in more grounded ways than academics do. And so we should not dismiss those maps of the world as unworthy simply because they’ve been produced by people who lack graduate degrees. 诚然，并非所有世界地图都具有同等的准确性或价值，因此我们能够——也应当——在不同理论之间作出质的区分。当涉及具体案例时，我们或许会发现学术理论比"日常"理论更具价值。然而，这是一个需要在具体项目语境中验证的经验性问题，而非我们应当预先接受的公理。毕竟，理论对于文化研究的价值在于为我们提供更优质的地图与工具，以服务于（据称）驱动我们工作的政治项目。基于这一宗旨，"日常"理论相较于学术理论常具备的一项优势在于：它往往直接服务于"现实世界"的议题与难题，而非作为自我证成的现象。"普通人"始终在对其生活与世界进行理论化（文化终究是寻常的），且其方式往往比学者更为扎根现实。因此，我们不应仅因制图者缺乏研究生学历，便轻率否定这些世界地图的价值。
Research 研究
In the context of academic cultural studies, ‘research’ typically refers to scholarship that is necessarily informed by some form of disciplinarity that is, a rigorous adherence to a fixed range of established conventions and methods - even while cultural studies loudly (if often disingenuously) 在学术文化研究的语境中，“研究”通常指那些必然受到某种学科性影响的学术工作，即严格遵循一系列既定惯例和方法——即便文化研究常常（即使时常显得虚伪地）高声宣称其跨学科性
distances itself from the very notion of academic disciplines. As such, what typically counts as legitimate cultural studies research are the sorts of investigative practice already valorized by traditional scholarly fields, while other investigative practices - particularly those associated with journalism or the arts - are either dismissed out of hand or, at most, welcomed as the sort of ‘raw’ primary material that can serve as the object for ‘real’ cultural studies research. Even in those instances when cultural studies scholars stretch beyond their home disciplines, they typically only do so to engage with other disciplines: that is, they produce interdisciplinary, rather than extradisciplinary or even nondisciplinary, research. 这种立场与学术学科的基本概念保持距离。因此，通常被视为合法文化研究的研究类型，往往是那些已被传统学术领域所认可的调查实践，而其他调查实践——尤其是与新闻或艺术相关的——要么被直接摒弃，要么最多被视为可以作为"真正"文化研究对象的"原始"初级材料。即使文化研究学者偶尔跨越其本学科界限，他们通常也只是与其他学科进行互动：也就是说，他们从事的是跨学科研究，而非超学科甚至非学科性的研究。
As Stuart Hall notes, however, the main reason why cultural studies practitioners should do research is so that we can "know more than the traditional intellectuals do: really know, not just pretend to know, not just to have the facility of knowledge, but to know deeply and profoundly’ (Hall 1992: 281). That sort of ‘deep and profound’ knowledge, however, will not always be ours if we assume in advance that the only knowledge worth having comes from the university. As is the case with theory, the production of knowledge is something that happens outside the university as much as it does within it, and any good journalist or policymaker or historical novelist or political activist or documentary filmmaker can - and should - do good research as a routine part of their ordinary business. 正如斯图亚特·霍尔所言，文化研究从业者开展研究的主要意义在于使我们能够"比传统知识分子知道得更多：真正地知道，而非假装知道，不仅拥有知识的便利，更要深刻而透彻地认知"（霍尔 1992:281）。然而，如果我们预先假定唯有大学产出的知识才值得获取，这种"深刻而透彻"的认知就难以企及。与理论同理，知识生产既发生在大学围墙之内，也同样存在于学术殿堂之外——优秀的记者、政策制定者、历史小说家、政治活动家或纪录片导演都应当将严谨研究作为日常工作的常规组成部分。
Pedagogy 教学法
Insofar as ‘pedagogy’ typically refers to classroom-based instruction, it would seem to be the most academic sphere of activity under discussion here, and so it may seem odd to place it on the non-academic side of the fence. Pedagogy, however, is an activity that universities honour much more on paper than in practice. While campus administrators often speak reverently about the value of good teaching, they rarely match those noble words with policies that demonstrate a meaningtul commitment to what happens in actual classrooms. Faculty memhers may be denied tenure because their teaching is weak, but they’ll rarely (if ever) be granted tenure solely because their teaching is superb. And academic cultural studies has embraced this philosophy all too tully. To be sure, cultural studies scholars often invoke critical pedagogy as a worthy set of educational practices, and I’m willing to believe that many of us actively work to embody those values in our classrooms. Even within cultural studies’ circles, however, we tend to celebrate research and theory much more than we do teaching. 就“教学法”通常指以教室为基础的授课而言，它似乎是本文讨论中最具学术性的活动领域，因此将其划归非学术范畴或许显得怪异。然而教学这项活动，大学在纸面上推崇的程度远高于实践层面。虽然校园管理者常以崇敬口吻谈论优质教学的价值，却鲜少制定能体现对真实教室情境切实承诺的政策来践行这些高尚言辞。教员可能因教学薄弱而无法获得终身教职，但几乎（甚至从未）有人仅凭卓越教学就能获此殊荣。而学术界的文化研究领域也全盘接受了这种理念。诚然，文化研究学者常将批判教学法奉为值得推崇的教育实践，我也愿意相信我们中许多人积极致力于在课堂中践行这些价值。但即便在文化研究圈内，我们对研究与理论的推崇程度也远胜于教学。
More crucially, I would argue that the sphere of pedagogy extends well beyond the sort of formal teaching that happens in college and university classrooms: that it encompasses a vast range of communicative practices from op-ed columns to documentaries, from public art installations to blogs - where a diverse range of intellectuals (broadly defined) attempt to 更重要的是，我认为教学领域远不止于学院和大学课堂中的正式教学活动：它涵盖了从专栏文章到纪录片、从公共艺术装置到博客的广泛传播实践——在那里，形形色色的知识分子（广义而言）试图
share the knowledge they’ve produced with a broader public. And, in this sense of the term, pedagogy is an arena where non-academics have generally been much more effective than professional scholars. 将他们创造的知识分享给更广泛的公众。从这个意义上说，教学是一个非专业人士通常比专业学者更有效的领域。
Action 动作
Cary Nelson has taken Jan Radway to task for her claim that ‘the definition of cultural studies should be expanded to include a whole range of political activities’ (Nelson 1996: 278). For Nelson, this notion is so absurd that he can’t believe that any reputable scholar would utter it. ‘It should not be necessary to say this,’ he writes, ‘but apparently it is: Cultural studies is a set of writing practices; it is a discursive, analytic, interpretive tradition’ (ibid.: 278). 卡里·尼尔森曾批评简·拉德威的主张，即"文化研究的定义应扩展至包含一系列政治活动"（Nelson 1996: 278）。对尼尔森而言，这一观点荒谬到他无法相信任何有声望的学者会提出。"本不必多言，"他写道，"但显然有必要说明：文化研究是一套书写实践；它是话语的、分析的、阐释的传统"（同上：278）。
Insofar as there’s much more to doing cultural studies than being a good activist, Nelson is right to argue that ‘political action and cultural studies are not interchangeable’ (ibid.: 278). One shouldn’t get to claim that one does cultural studies simply because one shows up at progressive demonstrations or volunteers for leftist causes. Where Nelson’s argument runs aground, though, is in his insistence that cultural studies is merely just ‘a set of writing practices.’ And though it should not be necessary to say this, apparently it is: the distinction that Nelson makes between ‘political activities’ and ‘writing practices’ is not just false, it’s precisely the sort of simplistic either/or choice between mythical opposites that cultural studies has struggled against for half a century. Put plainly, we don’t have to choose between ‘writing practices’ and ‘political activities’, as if the two were mutually exclusive, or as if this thing we call ‘cultural studies’ were too cramped and inflexible to accommodate worthy examples from both categories. 就文化研究而言，其内涵远不止于成为一名优秀的行动者。尼尔森提出"政治行动与文化研究不可相互替代"（同上：278）的观点是正确的。我们不能仅仅因为某人参加了进步示威活动或投身左翼事业，就断言其从事文化研究。然而尼尔森论述的缺陷在于，他坚持认为文化研究仅仅是"一套书写实践"。虽然本无需赘言，但显然必须指出：尼尔森在"政治活动"与"书写实践"之间划出的界限不仅是错误的，恰恰是文化研究半个世纪以来所反对的那种在虚构对立面之间非此即彼的简单化选择。简言之，我们不必在"书写实践"与"政治活动"之间作排他性选择，仿佛二者水火不容，或仿佛我们称之为"文化研究"的领域竟狭隘僵化到无法兼容这两个范畴的优秀范例。
By way of comparison, other noteworthy enterprises manage to embrace both theory and action simultaneously, and it’s not a coincidence that there’s significant intellectual and political overlap between many of those endeavours and cultural studies. As is the case with ‘feminist’ and ‘Marxist’, there’s no necessary reason why ‘cultural studies’ can’t - and shouldn’t - be more broadly used to modify ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, ‘scholarship’ and ‘politics’, ‘research’ and ‘activism’. Many cultural studies scholars do extensive (and valuable) activist work of one sort or another. And, presumably, much of the theory and research that they gladly call ‘cultural studies’ informs such work in significant ways. And yet, curiously, the ‘cultural studies’ label rarely travels with them when they leave do that work, even though it could. And should. 相比之下，其他值得关注的事业能够同时兼顾理论与行动，而这些努力与文化研究在智识和政治层面存在显著重叠也绝非偶然。正如"女性主义"和"马克思主义"那样，"文化研究"这一标签没有理由——也不应该——被限制在狭窄范围内，它完全可以更广泛地用于修饰"理论"与"实践"、"学术"与"政治"、"研究"与"行动"。许多文化研究学者都从事着各类（且极具价值的）社会活动。可以想见，他们欣然归入"文化研究"名下的诸多理论与研究，正以重要方式滋养着这类实践。然而耐人寻味的是，当他们投身这些实践时，"文化研究"的标签却鲜少如影随形——尽管它本可以，也理应如此。
I give myself three wishes, even if I have nothing nearly as majestic as ‘the swans I have just been watching on the lake’ (Williams [1958] 1989b: 14) to wish upon. I ask for things that are part of the ethos of our cultural studies tradition. I ask that we may be strong and human enough to realize them. And I ask, naturally, in my own fields of interest. 我许下三个愿望，尽管我眼前并没有威廉姆斯笔下"刚在湖面看到的那些天鹅"([1958] 1989b: 14)这般庄严的寄托物。这些愿望源自我们文化研究传统的精神内核。我祈愿我们能有足够的力量与人性去实现它们。当然，这些祈愿也立足于我自身的研究领域。
My first wish is for cultural studies scholars, individually and collectively, to do a better job of reshaping the university than the university has done to reshape cultural studies. This is not to deny the small victories that cultural studies can already claim on this front, but the fact remains that cultural studies’ ‘infiltration’ of academia has not revolutionized the university nearly as much as it has transformed (and diluted) cultural studies. Bill Readings’ assessment of cultural studies as the ideal quasi-discipline for the ‘university of excellence’ (1996) is, lamentably, all too accurate. Transforming the university, of course, is much easier said than done, especially given that cultural studies scholars are not always eager (or invited) to move into the sorts of administrative position where such changes might most readily be effected. And I have no illusions that cultural studies is singlehandedly capable of reversing the tide of political, economic and cultural forces that have led to the increasing corporatization of the university. 我首要的愿望是，文化研究学者们——无论是个人还是集体——能够比大学改造文化研究做得更好，去重塑大学本身。这并非要否认文化研究在此领域已取得的小规模胜利，但事实依然是：文化研究对学术界的"渗透"远未实现大学的革命性变革，反倒更多是改变（并稀释）了文化研究自身。比尔·雷丁斯将文化研究评价为"卓越大学"理想准学科的观点（1996 年），可悲地显得过于准确。当然，改造大学说来容易做来难，尤其考虑到文化研究学者并不总是热衷（或受邀）进入那些最可能促成变革的行政职位。我亦不幻想单凭文化研究就能逆转导致大学日益公司化的政治、经济与文化力量潮流。
I continue to believe, however, that cultural studies can and should still serve as the proverbial fly in the university’s ointment, and that it’s important for cultural studies academics to remain vigilant about holding the institution’s feet to the fire as circumstances warrant. As Radway has put it: 然而，我始终认为文化研究能够且应当继续扮演大学体制中那根"眼中钉"的角色，文化研究学者必须保持警惕，在必要时对体制施压。正如拉德威所言：
The reason I continue to stay in the academy is that I don’t think we can simply afford to walk out … We can’t simply give up on the academy. If we do, there are other people ready to make it an even purer space of domination. 我之所以继续留在学院，是因为我们根本承担不起抽身离去的代价……我们不能简单地放弃学院。若真如此，自有他人会将学院变成更纯粹的支配空间。
(Radway 1992: 529) （Radway 1992: 529）
My second wish is that cultural studies practitioners working across a broad spectrum of institutional spaces, both on and off campus, learn to recognize - and make common cause - with one another. Perhaps most obviously, cultural studies scholars need to be better about reaching out to kindred spirits who don’t normally travel in academic circles. As much as cultural studies scholars like to celebrate Gramsci’s notion of the ‘organic intellectual,’ when we actually encounter such figures, we seem reluctant to embrace them as fellow practitioners of cultural studies - unless, of course, they cross over into ‘our’ world and spend several years immersed in the peculiar pain of pursuing a graduate degree or two. 我的第二个愿望是，希望那些在校园内外各种机构空间中从事文化研究的实践者们能够学会相互识别并结成同盟。最显而易见的是，文化研究学者需要更主动地与那些通常不在学术圈内活动的志同道合者建立联系。尽管文化研究学者们热衷于推崇葛兰西提出的"有机知识分子"概念，但当我们真正遇到这类人物时，却似乎不愿将他们视为文化研究的同行——除非他们跨入"我们"的世界，花费数年时间沉浸于攻读一个或两个研究生学位的独特痛苦之中。
And this strikes me as a failure of nerve and imagination that we need to get beyond. The university continues to matter to cultural studies because it affords people a measure of freedom to produce sophisticated combinations of rigorous intellectual and political work, but it’s by no means the only place where such work is possible. In certain contexts, it’s not even necessarily the most valuable or effective place for such work. But if we’re unable to imagine (much less locate, or embrace, or learn from) people who actually do cultural studies outside of university settings, then Williams’ 在我看来，这是一种我们亟需超越的胆识与想象力的缺失。大学之所以对文化研究仍然重要，是因为它为人们提供了将严谨的学术工作与政治实践进行复杂结合的自由空间，但这绝非唯一可能开展此类工作的场域。在某些情境下，它甚至未必是最有价值或最有效的选择。但如果我们无法想象（更遑论发现、接纳或借鉴）那些真正在大学体制外从事文化研究的实践者，那么威廉斯所担忧的
fear that cultural studies would become just another career option for bourgeois academic professionals may already be true. 文化研究可能沦为资产阶级学术职业者又一条仕途捷径的预言，或许已成现实。
Given my argument to this point, my final wish may be predictable: that cultural studies takes the task of reinventing and extending itself much more seriously than it has. This means more than just broadening the range of disciplines that intersect with cultural studies’ orbits, more than just building new theoretical models to guide our scholarship, and more than just finding new research questions to meet the demands of a changing world. These are all valuable tasks, and a cultural studies worthy of the name will not shirk from them. But, on their own, none of them is likely to shake cultural studies out of its current doldrums, as none of them is likely to do much to reconfigure cultural studies’ current relationship to the university in any significant fashion. 根据我迄今为止的论述，我的最终愿望或许可以预见：文化研究应当比以往更加严肃地对待自我革新与拓展这一任务。这不仅意味着要拓宽与文化研究领域相交的学科范围，不仅需要构建新的理论模型来指引我们的学术研究，也不仅是寻找新的研究问题以应对变化世界的需求。这些固然都是重要任务，一个名副其实的文化研究领域绝不会回避它们。但仅凭这些，恐怕难以使文化研究摆脱当前的停滞状态，因为它们都不太可能从根本上重构文化研究与大学建制之间的现有关系。
Larry Grossberg (2006) refers to Gramsci’s notion that the first job of the intellectual is to know more than ‘the other side’, and he suggests that cultural studies hasn’t done a very good job of living up to that ideal. Insofar as those of us who do cultural studies in academic settings could be better about producing the sort of rigorous scholarship and richly contextualized knowledge that allows us to make crucial interventions in public debates, I would agree with Grossberg’s criticism. 拉里·格罗斯伯格（2006 年）援引葛兰西的观点指出，知识分子的首要职责是比"对立阵营"掌握更多知识，但他认为文化研究领域在践行这一理想方面表现欠佳。就我们这些在学术环境中从事文化研究的学者而言，若能更有效地产出严谨学术成果和深度情境化知识，从而在公共辩论中实现关键性介入，我认同格罗斯伯格的批评。
But I actually think that cultural studies’ real failing has more to do with the second half of Gramsci’s comments: that is, not just knowing more than the other side, but communicating that knowledge effectively to a broader public. The professional scholars who occupy the centre of cultural studies, after all, already spend much of our time and energy engaged in the production of knowledge. And while it’s fine to urge cultural studies to produce better knowledge than it has, if we’ve failed to live up to this aspect of Gramsci’s imperative, it’s not because we’ve left the business of trying to produce better knowledge off our agendas. 但我认为文化研究真正的缺陷更关乎葛兰西论述的后半部分：即不仅要比对立阵营知道得更多，还要将这些知识有效传递给更广泛的公众。毕竟占据文化研究核心地位的专业学者们，早已将大量时间精力投入知识生产。虽然敦促文化研究产出更优质知识无可厚非，但若我们未能达成葛兰西要求的这一面向，并非因为我们忽略了生产更优质知识这一议程。
So while I, too, hope that cultural studies can know more than the other side, I think the need to improve how - and how far - we spread that knowledge is more important and more pressing. Of course, this is by no means an easy process and it’s certainly not reducible to a sort of missionary project where we simply deliver our pre-packaged insights to a public waiting for us to tell them the truth about their lives. It is, instead, a process that will require us to listen as well as (and probably better than) we speak, and to do so with publics with whom we don’t normally share the fruits of our intellectual labours. Here, I would want to echo ‘Culture is ordinary’ quite explicitly: 因此，尽管我也希望文化研究能比对立面认知得更多，但我认为改进我们传播知识的方式与广度更为重要且紧迫。当然，这绝非易事，也绝不能简化为某种传教式工程——即把预先包装好的见解灌输给等待我们揭示生活真相的公众。相反，这是一个需要我们既善于倾听（或许更胜于讲述）、又要与非学术公众共享智识成果的过程。在此，我想明确呼应《文化是平常的》中的观点：
We should not seek to extend a ready-made [cultural studies] to the benighted masses. We should accept, frankly, that if we extend our [cultural studies] we shall change it: some that is offered will be rejected, other parts will be radically criticized. And this is as it should be, 我们不应试图将现成的[文化研究]强加给蒙昧大众。我们必须坦率承认：推广文化研究的过程必将改变其本身——部分内容会被拒斥，其他部分将遭受彻底批判。而这正是应有之义。
for our [studies], now, are in no condition to go down to eternity unchallenged. There is much fine work; there is also shoddy work, and work based on values that will find no acceptance if they ever come out into the full light. To take our [studies] to new audiences is to be quite certain that in many respects those studies will be changed. I, for one, do not fear this. 就我们目前的[研究]而言，它们远未达到可以毫无争议地载入史册的程度。其中既有优秀成果，也不乏粗制滥造之作，更有基于某些价值观的研究——这些价值观若被置于阳光之下，必将遭到全盘否定。将我们的[研究]推向新受众，就意味着必须坦然接受这些研究将在诸多方面发生改变。至少对我而言，这并不可惧。
(Williams [1958] 1989b: 16) （威廉斯 [1958] 1989b: 16）
Acknowledgments 致谢
I would like to thank Margaret Werry, Greg Seigworth, and Jillian Clements for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter. 感谢玛格丽特·韦里、格雷格·塞格沃斯和吉莉安·克莱门茨对本章初稿提出的宝贵意见。
Raymond Williams: reading novels as knowable communities 雷蒙德·威廉姆斯：作为可知共同体的小说解读
Ana Clara Birrento 安娜·克拉拉·比伦托
His work is still ‘in time for us’, Stephen Connor wrote in 1998 about Raymond Williams. In fact, twenty years after his death, Williams’ intellectual legacy is, indeed, still in time for us. Williams remains an influential figure and a source of inspiration for any theorist or practitioner of cultural studies, into whose grammar he engraved a set of fundamental concepts and relevant analytical tools. In the perplexity of understanding (Inglis 1993), Williams reflected, revised and developed his critical positions about the nature of culture, the politics of literature and social relations, rehearsing them to find new definitions which enable us to know the modes of how and what a text expresses about a culture. 斯蒂芬·康纳在 1998 年论及雷蒙德·威廉斯时写道，他的著作至今仍"与我们时代共振"。事实上，在这位思想家逝世二十年后，威廉斯的学术遗产确实仍与我们息息相关。作为文化研究领域理论家与实践者持续汲取灵感的源泉，威廉斯将一系列核心概念与关键分析工具镌刻进了该学科的语法体系。在理解的困惑中（英格利斯 1993），他不断反思、修正并发展着关于文化本质、文学政治学与社会关系的批判立场，通过反复推敲来探寻新的定义范式，使我们得以认知文本如何以及通过何种方式表达文化内涵。
Out of the body of knowledge and critical intervention, two core legacies have engaged my attention: the concepts of ‘structure of feeling’ and ‘knowable community’. ^(1){ }^{1} The alliance of these methodological and analytical tools helps us to apprehend the active processes involved in the social and cultural changes and to clarify the textures of historical experience. As cultural categories, they have allowed us to reassess and to recontextualize novels as cultural constructions, putting into perspective what have been two torn halves: the great tradition of high, institutional, canonical culture; and the common, exterior culture, product of a democratization process of culture and society, a process which has connected human beings and the social, political and economic structures of the great arch of history. 在知识与批判介入的体系中，有两个核心遗产始终吸引着我的关注："情感结构"与"可知共同体"这两个概念。 ^(1){ }^{1} 这些方法论与分析工具的联合运用，使我们得以把握社会文化变迁中的动态进程，并厘清历史经验的肌理。作为文化范畴，它们让我们能够重新评估并将小说重新语境化为文化建构物，从而透视两个长期割裂的领域：一方面是崇高的、制度化的、经典化的伟大文化传统；另一方面则是伴随着文化与社会民主化进程产生的、外在于体制的通俗文化——这一进程将人类个体与横跨历史长河的社会、政治及经济结构紧密相连。
Williams brought together what modern thought has separated in the relation between culture and society. The study of the literature and the analysis of the culture of a period are recurrent in Williams’ critical work. His use of literary texts to exemplify the concept of ‘knowable community’, as well as the concept of ‘structure of feeling’ is one of his achievements. The latter allows Williams to examine the interrelation between areas of individual experience and social experience, allowing him also to examine interrelations between public and private processes and between historical formations and social structures, turning these active and communicable (John and Lizzie Eldridge 1994). 威廉姆斯将现代思想在文化与社会关系中所割裂的内容重新整合。对某一时期文学的研究与文化分析是威廉姆斯批评工作中反复出现的主题。他运用文学文本来例证"可知社区"概念以及"情感结构"概念，是其学术成就之一。后者使威廉姆斯能够考察个人经验领域与社会经验领域之间的相互关系，同时也让他得以审视公共与私人过程之间、历史形态与社会结构之间的内在联系，并使这些关系变得活跃且可传播（约翰与莉齐·埃尔德里奇，1994）。
Considered by Michael Pickering (1997) as one of the most opaque concepts in cultural studies, structure of feeling has an inestimable value in the consideration of the relations between the personal and the social, between the affective and the institutional (Eagleton 1998: 28). Williams revised this concept while he was reflecting upon the nature of culture and social relations, and simultaneously established it as a theoretical problem and a practical question applied to liminal forms of experience. He articulated the relations between literature and the totality of the social experience by connecting the values and forms of expression, inherent to the internal structure of any literary text, with the experience of human beings in a certain time and place. 迈克尔·皮克林（1997）认为"情感结构"是文化研究中最晦涩的概念之一，这一概念在考量个人与社会、情感与制度之间的关系时具有不可估量的价值（伊格尔顿 1998: 28）。威廉斯在反思文化本质与社会关系的过程中修订了这一概念，同时将其确立为既适用于阈限性经验形式的理论命题，又是实践性问题。他通过将文学文本内在结构固有的价值表达形式与特定时空下人类的生活经验相联结，从而阐明了文学与社会经验整体之间的关联。
In 1954 (Preface to Film) Williams had already addressed the relations between the conventions of artistic communication and the lived experience of an epoch, arguing that there is a close connection between structure of feeling and the notion of change operated by younger generations, but it was in 1958 that the concept gained theoretical substance. In Culture and Society, 1780-1950 (Williams 1958), he established a contrast between the feelings and the quality of peoples’ lives in relation to formal and ideological systems of society - structure of feeling seemed to equal the ideology of a period. In The Long Revolution (Williams 1961), he developed and broadened the concept, leaving behind the artistic sphere, heading towards the social one. From a notion of fixed, explicit, linked to the past concept, he reaches a definition that refuses homogeneity of social and discursive practices. Seven years later, in Drama from Ibsen to Brecht (Williams 1968), he took a step further in that structure of feeling was now to be understood as the formation of a new way of understanding ourselves and the world: the structured set of answers an author finds for a vision of himself and the world. 1954 年（《电影序言》中），威廉斯已探讨了艺术传播惯例与时代生活体验之间的关系，提出情感结构与年轻一代所推动的变革观念存在紧密联系。但直到 1958 年，这一概念才获得理论实质。在《文化与社会，1780-1950》（威廉斯 1958）中，他对比了人们的情感生活与受社会形式及意识形态体系制约的生活品质——情感结构似乎等同于一个时代的意识形态。而在《漫长的革命》（威廉斯 1961）中，他发展并拓宽了这一概念，使其超越艺术领域，转向社会范畴。从过去那种固定、明确、与历史绑定的概念，他最终提出了拒绝社会与话语实践同质化的新定义。 七年后，在《从易卜生到布莱希特的戏剧》（威廉斯 1968）中，他进一步推进该理论，将情感结构理解为一种认知自我与世界的新方式之形成：即作者为构建自我与世界图景所形成的一系列结构化解答。
Among the varied revisions of the concept one conclusion is clear: structure of feeling refers to the agency of the subject in the transformation of cultural practices. Williams’ concept is centred on relational experience. on continuity, on recognition of an experience shared by different elements. Structure of feeling has become both a theoretical proposition in the understanding of the culture of a period and an analytical tool which allows establishing communication between the object and the subject. 在对这一概念的各种修订中，一个结论是明确的：情感结构指向文化实践转型过程中主体的能动性。威廉斯的概念以关系性体验为核心，强调连续性，以及对不同元素共享经验的认知。情感结构既成为理解特定时期文化的理论命题，又成为建立客体与主体间沟通的分析工具。
This twofold quality of the concept frames criticism on literature and opens the path to critical work on the novel, to studies on relational experience and discursive alliances. The double articulation between culture and discourse and the need to understand literature in society (O) Connor 1989: 68) led to Williams’ proposition that ‘most novels are in some sense a knowable community’ (W’illiams [1970] 1984h). ‘He was sure that, taking the readers beyond itself themselves (Young 1996), literature codifies patterns and structures of feeling which carry the marks of the processes that produce them. Literature is the only form able to represent the precipitates 这一概念的双重特质为文学批评提供了框架，并开辟了小说批评、关系性体验研究和话语联盟研究的路径。文化与话语的双重表达，以及理解社会中文学的必要性（O'Connor 1989: 68），促使威廉斯提出"大多数小说在某种意义上都是可知的共同体"（威廉斯[1970] 1984h）。他确信，通过将读者引向超越自身的境界（Young 1996），文学编码了那些承载着生产过程的印记的情感模式与结构。文学是唯一能够表征这些沉淀物的形式。
of the social experiences in solution. Williams’ proposition allows us to understand that, constituting itself a social presence in the world, literature produces meanings and represents realities. Refusing its constraining role as an absolute value of art and of culture, Williams focussed on literature as discourse, as a form of signification within the real, effective conditions of its production. 在解决社会经验的过程中，威廉姆斯的命题让我们认识到，文学作为世界中的一种社会存在，既生产意义又再现现实。他拒绝将文学束缚为艺术与文化的绝对价值，而是聚焦于文学作为话语的维度，视其为在真实有效的生产条件下的一种表意形式。
Underlying the project of the knowable community is Williams’ cultural theory, which questions the tradition inaugurated in English thought by Coleridge and Carlyle and continued by Arnold. Williams’ contribution to the development of a theory of culture springs not from a high, elitist, formal, abstract and absolute culture, creator of a hegemonic sense of the dominant classes, but rather from a theory of relationships between elements in a whole way of life, claiming for the reinsertion of peoples’ everyday lives into the wholeness of that way of life. 可知社区计划的基础是威廉姆斯的文化理论，该理论质疑了由柯勒律治和卡莱尔开创、经阿诺德延续的英国思想传统。威廉姆斯对文化理论发展的贡献并非源自那种高高在上、精英主义、形式化、抽象且绝对的文化——这种文化创造了统治阶级的霸权意识——而是源于对整体生活方式中各要素间关系的理论探索，主张将人们的日常生活重新纳入这种生活方式的整体性之中。
To read novels as knowable communities is to study the relationships of the self and the others and to study the means by which those relationships are communicated: the use of language that is made, the methods and conventions. It is a question of strategy in discourse (O’Connor 1989: 68); a practical mode to describe the changes in the contexts of experience, the answers and the ways they communicate: the subjects and the forms of communication (Williams [1968] 1973d: 20). 将小说视为可知的共同体来阅读，意味着研究自我与他者的关系，并探究这些关系得以传达的途径：所使用的语言、方法与惯例。这实质上是话语策略问题（O'Connor 1989: 68）；一种描述经验语境变迁的实践模式，包括其回应方式及传播途径：即交流的主体与形式（Williams [1968] 1973d: 20）。
A knowable community is a community with no other existence than the one of its shared common space of the literary text. Such invention is the product of the writer’s consciousness and capacity to trigger processes of affective investment which, in turn, allow the readers to perceive that space as a recognizable community of relationships and experience. Consequently, to create a knowable community is to create a space of communication of experiences: the experience of the composition of the social formation and the experience of the subjects involved in the communication. In the material practice of the texts, we find the feelings and values lived and shared in the social experience of the group. Thus, literature creates a sense of community between different elements of a text and between those elements and the readers. 可知的共同体仅存在于文学文本所共享的共同空间之中。这种创造源于作者的意识及其触发情感投入过程的能力，进而使读者能够将该空间视为一个可识别的关系与经验共同体。因此，构建可知共同体即构建一个经验交流的空间：既包含社会结构构成的经验，也涵盖参与交流主体的经验。在文本的物质实践中，我们得以发现群体社会经验中那些被经历与共享的情感与价值。由此，文学在文本的不同元素之间，以及这些元素与读者之间，创造了一种共同体意识。
Separated by an interval of three years, Williams redefined and revized his own proposition: first, he vindicated the new and flourishing generation of writers mediating between 1840 and 1920, claiming that they elevated the novel to a major form of artistic and cultural expression and brought to the fictional universe a new consciousness, a consciousness derived from the changes that were occurring in society. ^(3){ }^{3} These changes were, according to Williams, the product of a long process initiated not only by the Industrial Revolution, but also by the democratic revolution and urban development. Secondly, he attributed great importance to the dynamic relationship between reader, text and writer, thus opening conditions of possibility for critical thought on the novel as a shared discursive strategy. 时隔三年，威廉姆斯重新界定并修正了自己的主张：首先，他为 1840 至 1920 年间涌现的新生代作家正名，认为他们将小说提升为艺术与文化表达的重要形式，为虚构世界注入了源于社会变革的新意识。 ^(3){ }^{3} 威廉姆斯指出，这些变革是工业革命、民主革命与城市化发展共同引发的漫长进程的产物。其次，他高度重视读者、文本与作家之间的动态关系，从而为将小说视为共享话语策略的批判性思考开辟了可能性空间。
Tracing a history of the English Novel from Dickens to Lawrence (1970), Williams made a crucial contribution to the study of the novel which would figure prominently in the narrative of cultural studies. Explaining this new form of writing novels as an answer to the ‘crisis of experience’, he claimed that it explored the substance and meaning of community (Williams [1970] 1984b: 11) and answered questions such as: What is a community? What has it been and what will it be? How does it relate to individuals? How do men and women see the shape of a society? (ibid.: 12). 在《从狄更斯到劳伦斯的英国小说史》（1970）中，威廉斯对小说研究作出了关键性贡献，这一贡献将在文化研究的叙事中占据重要地位。他将这种新型小说创作形式解释为应对"经验危机"的答案，认为它探索了共同体的本质与意义（Williams [1970] 1984b: 11），并回应了诸如以下问题：何为共同体？其历史形态与未来图景如何？个体与共同体关系几何？男女如何认知社会形态？（同上：12）。
The 1840 s saw a revival of the novel, now representing the common experiences of common people. It became democratic, nourishing the avid needs and tastes of a vaster and vaster reading public. The writers drew creative impetus from the crisis and translated it into creative work, into discovery, transformation and innovation. This impetus triggered the articulation of new feelings, new people and new relationships; of new rhythms, unknown until then (ibid.: 11). The representation of particular and signifying social relationships created new maps of meaning (Pina 2000), and defined society in knowable ways. 1840 年代见证了小说的复兴，此时小说开始呈现普通民众的日常经验。这种文学形式变得民主化，滋养着日益庞大的读者群体炽烈的精神需求与审美趣味。作家们从时代危机中汲取创作动力，将其转化为文学实践中的发现、变革与创新。这种动力催生了对新情感、新人物、新关系的表达，以及前所未有的新叙事节奏（同上：11）。通过对特定社会关系的具象化表征，小说绘制出新的意义图谱（Pina 2000），以可知的方式界定了社会形态。
To know a community and to find a convincingly experienced position from which this community can be known was one of the major developments of the English novel of the nineteenth century. This development created new realities in its double articulation between the known and the knowable - concepts which are, on the one hand, in opposition to the immediate experience and its description, and, which have, on the other hand, a dialectic relation where the knowable goes beyond the limits of the known, beyond the mere description and interpretation of known and absolute experiences. 了解一个社群，并找到一个具有说服力的经验立场来认知这个社群，是十九世纪英国小说的重大发展之一。这一发展在其"已知"与"可知"的双重表述中创造了新的现实——这两个概念一方面与直接经验及其描述相对立，另一方面又存在辩证关系，其中"可知"超越了"已知"的界限，超越了单纯对已知且绝对经验的描述与阐释。
Establishing a community as an epitome of direct relations, of face-toface contacts, the novelists found the material to create a fiction of personal relationships (Williams [1970] 1984b: 17). This emphasis on the study and the exploration of the substance and meanings of the community was justified because in the first decades of the Industrial Revolution the meaning of living in a community was uncertain and disturbing. 通过将社群建立为直接关系与面对面接触的典范，小说家们找到了创作人际关系虚构作品的素材（Williams [1970] 1984b: 17）。这种对社群本质与意义的研究和探索之所以合理，是因为在工业革命最初几十年里，生活在社群中的意义充满不确定性与困扰。
The making of a community is always an exploration, for consciousness cannot precede creation, and there is no formula for unknown experience. A good community, a living culture, will, because of this, not only make room for but actively encourage all and any who can contribute to the advance in consciousness which is the common need. Wherever we have started from, we need to listen to others who started from a different position. We need to consider every attachment, every value, with our whole attention; for we do not know the future, we can never be certain of what may enrich it; we can only, now, listen to and consider whatever may be offered and take up what we can. 共同体的构建始终是一种探索，因为意识无法先于创造而存在，对于未知的经验也不存在既定公式。正因如此，一个良性的共同体、一种鲜活的文化，不仅会为所有能促进意识进步——这一共同需求——的贡献者留出空间，更会积极鼓励他们。无论我们源自何处，都需要倾听那些起点相异者的声音。我们必须以全副心神审视每一种情感依附与价值观念；因为我们无法预知未来，永远无法确定何种养分能使其丰盈；此刻我们唯一能做的，就是倾听并考量所有可能的馈赠，然后接纳我们所能接纳的。
(Williams [1958] 1961b: 320) （威廉斯 [1958] 1961b: 320）
Assuming the emergence of a new kind of consciousness in the 1840 s, originating in new experiences, Williams argued that the relations between elements in the whole way of life changed as well. Society no longer framed the individual; the individual itself became a form of cultural agency, comparable to an actor or a character (Williams [1970] 1984b: 13). This argument substantiated Williams’ project of reading novels as knowable communities and enabled him to make it an intrinsic part of the social history of the nineteenth century. 威廉斯认为，随着 19 世纪 40 年代源自新体验的新型意识的出现，整体生活方式中各要素之间的关系也发生了变化。社会不再框定个人；个人本身成为一种文化能动性的形式，堪比演员或角色（Williams [1970] 1984b: 13）。这一论点支撑了威廉斯将小说作为可知共同体来解读的研究计划，并使其成为 19 世纪社会史的内在组成部分。
In 1973, in The Country and the City, Williams followed a different intellectual orientation and redefined the concept, transforming it from a problem of object into a problem with a subjective face. Knowable community was then not only defined in terms of the objects which can be knowable, it was also a function of the subjects, of the observers - of what they need and desire to be known (ibid.: 17). 1973 年，在《乡村与城市》中，威廉斯遵循了不同的学术取向，重新定义了这一概念，将其从客体问题转化为具有主观面向的问题。可知共同体不再仅以可被认知的客体来界定，它也成为认知主体——观察者——的功能体现，取决于他们需要和渴望了解的内容（同上：17）。
A knowable community became the product of the authors’ consciousness, ideology and critical positioning, of their selection of what has to be said explicitly and what remains implicit, left in the margins. Williams argued that the path to the knowable has to be opened by the immediate experience of actions and relationships. In other words, it has to be opened by means of the active and democratic participation in the whole way of life. The opening of knowable relationships is connected to the understanding of language as a window to and from the world. 一个可知的共同体成为作者意识、意识形态和批判立场的产物，是他们对于哪些内容需要明确表达、哪些内容保持隐含并留于边缘的选择结果。威廉斯认为，通往可知之境的路径必须通过行动与关系的直接经验来开启。换言之，必须通过积极参与整个生活方式的民主实践来实现。可知关系的开启，与将语言理解为通向世界和来自世界的窗口这一认知密切相关。
Language contains the cultural, intellectual and literary tradition and has the capacity of renovation and reassessment originating in experience (Williams [1958] 1961b: 308). As a constitutive historical and social element of human life it enables, in the material process of signification, the production of commonly shared meanings and ideas. To understand that there is a common language and a common culture is to realize the double articulation of the known and the knowable. It is an understanding based on the premise that everything that is founded on acquired social and cultural heritage, during processes of social interaction and relationship, is known; whereas all that depends on the experience of the moment and on the expectations of the experience of the future can only be knowable. 语言承载着文化、智识与文学传统，并具备源自经验的革新与重估能力（威廉斯 [1958] 1961b: 308）。作为人类生活构成性的历史与社会要素，语言在表意的物质过程中促成了共同意义与观念的生产。理解共通语言与共通文化的存在，即意味着领悟已知与可知的双重表达。这种理解基于以下前提：所有建立在既得社会文化遗产之上、在社会互动与关系过程中形成的内容皆为已知；而一切依赖于当下经验及对未来经验预期的内容则仅能作为可知存在。
As new experiences and changes are expressed by means of language, understanding language and culture not only as constitutive, familiar and known human processes, but also as growth, change and creativity, we open possibilities to the known and to the knowable. It is of vital importance for culture (Williams [1958] 1961b: 309) that the common language knows no decline, does not lose richness or flexibility; it always has to be able to express new experiences and to clarify changes. In the knowable we not only find the theme, yet unknown since the consciousness of the moment never precedes the act of creation, but also the individual’s capacity to communicate, to make that experience knowable to the other(s). 当新的经验和变化通过语言得以表达时，将语言与文化不仅理解为构成性的、熟悉且已知的人类进程，更视其为成长、变迁与创造的过程，我们便为已知与可知领域开启了可能性。威廉姆斯([1958]1961b:309)强调，共同语言必须永不衰退，不失丰富性与灵活性，始终能够表达新经验并阐明变化，这对文化至关重要。在可知领域中，我们不仅发现主题——尽管它因创作行为永远先于瞬间意识而始终未知——更发现个体沟通的能力，即将经验转化为他人可认知内容的能力。
Relationships and communication are integral parts of the complex social organization and are even more important when the individuals involved in these relations share the community of process. The knowable is based on the interactivity of communication, where the creative act of the artists is but the process of communicating an organized experience to others. Only the author’s capacity to communicate knowable experiences to the readers enables the tripartite relationship between author, text and reader as a lived and shared experience. 关系与交流是复杂社会组织中不可或缺的组成部分，当参与这些关系的个体共享进程共同体时，其重要性更为凸显。可知性建立在交流的互动性基础上，艺术家的创作行为不过是向他人传递有序经验的过程。唯有作者具备向读者传达可知经验的能力，才能使作者、文本与读者之间的三重关系成为一种被共同经历和分享的体验。
To succeed in art is to convey an experience to others in such a form that the experience is actively re-created - not ‘contemplated’, not ‘examined’, not ‘passively’ received, but by response to the means, actually lived through, by those to whom it is offered. 艺术的成功在于以某种形式向他人传递经验，使这种经验得以被积极重构——不是被"静观"，不是被"检视"，也不是被"被动"接受，而是通过接受者对表现形式的回应，真正地亲历体验。
(Williams [1961] 1965b: 51) （威廉斯 [1961] 1965b: 51）
Accepting that art represents the social character of the experience, we should also accept that it creates new perceptions and responses through which the knowable community develops and generates the consciousness of new and different structures of feeling (ibid.: 86). 既然承认艺术体现了经验的社会特性，我们就应当同时承认：艺术通过创造新的感知与回应，使可知共同体得以发展，并催生对新型情感结构的意识（同上：86）。
One generation may train its successor, with reasonable success, in the social character or the general cultural patterns, but the new generation will have its own structure of feeling, which will not appear to have come ‘from’ anywhere. For here, most distinctly, the changing organization is enacted in the organism: the new generation responds in its own way to the unique world it is inheriting, taking up many continuities, that can be traced, and reproducing many aspects of the organization, which can be separately described, yet feeling its whole life in certain ways differently, and shaping its creative response into a new structure of feeling. 一代人可以相当成功地培养其继承者适应社会性格或普遍文化模式，但新一代人将形成自身的情感结构，这种结构看似并非"源自"任何地方。因为正是在这里，变化中的社会组织最鲜明地体现于有机体之中：新一代以自身特有的方式回应其所继承的独特世界，延续诸多可追溯的传承，复制该组织的诸多可单独描述的方面，却以某些不同的方式感受其整体生活，并将其创造性回应塑造成新的情感结构。
Giving form to new structures of feeling, art articulates dominant and hegemonic pressures. It articulates the residual values of the previous generation with the emergent institutions and formations. Each new generation, each new present, each new experience contains an emergent character; it comprises new meanings, values and practices, new relations in a continuum of creation (Williams 1977). The search for new forms or for adaptations of forms that can articulate what is not yet articulated, what is pre-emergent, becomes the knowable community. Between 1840 and 1920, novels and novelists created an alternative narrative and gave voice to different, varied and new people, fighting against the hegemonic power. 艺术通过塑造新的情感结构，既表达了主导性的霸权压力，也衔接了上一代人的残余价值与新兴制度及形态。每一代新人、每个当下时刻、每次崭新体验都蕴含着萌芽特质——它在持续的创造过程中孕育着新意义、新价值、新实践与新关系（Williams 1977）。对能够表述尚未言明之物的新形式或改造形式的探索，那些处于萌发前状态的内容，由此构成了可知共同体。1840 至 1920 年间，小说与小说家们通过对抗霸权力量，创造了另类叙事并为多元新兴群体发声。
The project of reading novels as knowable communities is a cultural proposition which points to the simultaneous consideration of society and 将小说作为可知共同体来解读的研究构想，是一种要求同步考量社会与
culture as a means of interpretation of the common experience of human beings. It comprises a reading formation based on a discursive strategy of interaction between the ‘culturally activated text’ and the ‘culturally activated reader’ (Bennett: 2007), where text and reader are inscribed and structured by social, ideological and institutional relationships, as Bennett explains: 文化作为诠释人类共同经验的一种手段。它包含一种基于“文化激活的文本”与“文化激活的读者”之间互动话语策略的解读构型（Bennett，2007），正如本尼特所阐释的：在此过程中，文本与读者都被社会、意识形态和制度关系所铭刻和建构。
If we study real relations, in any actual analysis, we reach the point where we see that we are studying a general organization in a particular example, and in this general organization there is no element that we can abstract and separate from the rest. It was certainly an error to suppose that values or art-work could be adequately studied without reference to the particular society within which they were expressed, but it is equally an error to suppose that the social explanation is determining, or that the values and works are mere by-products. We have got into the habit, since we realized how deeply works or values could be determined by the whole situation, in which they are expressed, of asking about these relationships in a standard form: ‘what is the relation of this art to this society?’ But ‘society’, in this question is a specious whole. If the art is part of the society, there is no solid whole, outside it, to which, by the form of our question, we concede priority. To study the relations adequately we must study them actively, seeing all the activities as particular and contemporary forms of human energy … It is then not a question of relating the art to the society, but of studying all the activities and their interrelations without any concession of priority to any one of them we may choose to abstract. 如果我们研究真实关系，在任何实际分析中，我们都会达到这样一个认识点：我们正在通过特定案例研究一种普遍的组织结构，而在这个普遍结构中，没有任何元素能够被抽象出来并与其他部分割裂。那种认为可以不参照其表达的具体社会来充分研究价值观或艺术作品的观念显然是错误的，但同样错误的是认为社会解释具有决定性，或认为价值观与作品仅仅是副产品。自从我们认识到作品或价值观如何深受其表达的整体情境影响后，我们便习惯于以标准形式追问这些关系："这种艺术与这个社会的关系是什么？"但这个问题中的"社会"只是一个似是而非的整体。如果艺术本身就是社会的一部分，那么就不存在一个先验的、外在于艺术的坚实整体可供我们通过问题的形式赋予其优先性。 要充分研究这些关系，我们必须以积极的视角进行研究，将所有活动视为人类能量的特定当代表现形式……因此问题不在于将艺术与社会相联系，而在于研究所有活动及其相互关系，不对我们可能选择抽象的任何单一活动给予优先性考量。
(Williams [1961] 1965b: 61-2) （威廉斯 [1961] 1965b: 61-2）
The cultural project of reading novels as knowable communities is Williams’ contribution to a practice of cultural analysis where all the subjects involved in an imagined space of communication operate at different levels of experience and reality: the reality of the community, built and represented by all elements in solution in a whole way of life; the reality of the readers who aspire to make sense of what is said or created in an interpretative context where the information before their eyes can be placed, and also the reality of the authors in the poetic act of writing. It is a question of object, of evident fact, a question of physical expansion, and a question of consciousness and point of view. It is the representation of a new sense of society as not only the carrier, but also the creator and active destroyer of values and relationships (Williams [1970] 1984b: 26). 将小说作为可知社区来阅读的文化项目，是威廉姆斯对文化分析实践的贡献。在这一实践中，想象性交流空间内的所有主体都在不同经验与现实层面运作：由整体生活方式中所有元素共同构建并表征的社区现实；读者在阐释语境中渴望理解所言所创之物的现实——他们眼前的信息可被置于该语境；以及作者在诗歌性写作行为中的现实。这既是客体问题、显见事实问题，也是物理扩展问题，更是意识与视角问题。它表征了一种新的社会意识：社会不仅是价值的载体，更是价值与关系的创造者与积极破坏者（Williams [1970] 1984b: 26）。
In the interviews given to the New Left Review, Williams expanded his argument, claiming that all novels that manage to attain an effective degree of social experience by manifesting immediate relationships are knowable communities. ^(4){ }^{4} They illustrate the particular form of a narrative complete in 在接受《新左派评论》访谈时，威廉姆斯进一步阐发其论点，声称所有通过展现直接关系而实现社会经验有效程度的小说，都是可知社区。 ^(4){ }^{4} 它们呈现了叙事完整性的特殊形式
time, a narrative which is no ideological illusion but a form of experience and of perception which relates to the common situation. 一种叙事，它并非意识形态的幻象，而是与共同处境相关联的经验与感知形式。
Williams’ critical intervention and consideration of the novel as a knowable community stopped in the 1920s with D.H. Lawrence’s earlier works which he considered to reveal ‘a miracle of language … a man feeling with others, speaking in and with them’ (Williams [1970] 1984b: 172). 威廉斯对小说作为可知共同体的批判性介入与思考止步于 1920 年代 D.H.劳伦斯的早期作品，他认为这些作品展现了"语言的奇迹……一个人与他人共感，在他们之中并借他们之口言说"（威廉斯[1970] 1984b: 172）。
He then turned to other media, such as television and film, probably because he acknowledged and regretted the fact that by reducing the text to a mere object, literary analysis had lost the specific social and historical agency of its creation (Williams 1989h). 随后他将目光转向电视、电影等其他媒介，或许是因为他意识到并遗憾地承认：当文学分析将文本降格为纯粹客体时，便丧失了其创作过程中特定的社会与历史能动性（威廉斯 1989h）。
O’Connor (1989) claims that Williams’ argument has been understood better outside the departments of literature. In fact, Williams has left an undeniable legacy to anthropology and ethnography, but his important contribution to the study of literary texts still remains alive and meaningful. 奥康纳（1989）指出，威廉斯的理论在文学系之外获得了更深入的理解。事实上，威廉斯为人类学与民族志留下了不可否认的遗产，而他对文学文本研究的重要贡献至今仍具有生命力与意义。
Literature is still a vital category in our global, economy-driven contemporary world. Like our ancestors of the 1840 s, ours is a time of crisis of experience; we are also living in a new world order. It seems that the long revolution is over, and we are living in a time of egocentrism, of violence and of collapse of the known structures of feeling. The sense of community is hard to sustain, modern man witnessed fragmentations, isolated himself from the others. But some contemporary novelists have been able to create novels which connect to a community of speech, where observation and participation (O’Connor 1989) are the fundamental lines of development of the narrative process. These novels maintain their quality as a privileged space of communication of experiences. In the contemporary panorama and under this critical perspective, one novel comes to my mind: Saturday by Ian McEwan. 在全球经济主导的当代世界中，文学依然是一个至关重要的范畴。与 1840 年代的前辈们相似，我们正经历着经验价值的危机时代；同时也生活在一个崭新的世界秩序之中。漫长的革命似乎已然终结，我们置身于一个自我中心主义盛行、暴力频发、既有情感结构分崩离析的时代。共同体意识难以维系，现代人目睹着碎片化的现实，将自己与他人隔绝开来。但仍有部分当代小说家能够创作出连接言语共同体的作品——正如奥康纳（1989）所述，观察与参与构成了这些小说叙事进程发展的根本脉络。这些作品始终保持着作为经验交流特权空间的品质。在当代文学图景中，以这种批判视角观之，伊恩·麦克尤恩的小说《星期六》尤为令人瞩目。
The novel follows the successful London neurosurgeon Henry Perowne during one day, a day that starts early, witnesses a fire plane landing and continues with sounds of a demonstration against Blair and a meeting with the underclass, the violent thug Baxter. ^("i "){ }^{\text {i }} It ends with a family reunion, with considerations on Perowne’s dislike for literature, on the growth of his children and finally the disruption of his well-to-do, upper-class lifestyle when the house is broken into by criminals. 这部小说讲述了伦敦一位成功的神经外科医生亨利·佩罗恩在一天内的经历。这天开始得很早，他目睹了一架起火飞机的迫降，随后又听到反对布莱尔的示威声，并遇到了底层社会的暴力混混巴克斯特。故事以家庭团聚收尾，其间穿插着佩罗恩对文学的厌恶、子女的成长历程，最终当他优渥的上流社会生活被入室行窃的罪犯打破时，一切戛然而止。
With Suturday, McEwan achieves an irrefutable position in the gallery of great novelists. In this novel, he is able to condense some of the major characteristics Williams traced in the construction of the novel as a knowable community. ^(@){ }^{\circ} His creative work leads characters and readers into a journey of discovery of new feelings, new rhythms and new relationships. Through his transformative and innovative narrative strategy, McEwan answers to the crisis of experience of our current society as he has that ‘new consciousness that we again have an opportunity to make and remake ourselves, by a different kind of intervention’ (Williams 1983f: 265). He is well aware that times are different. The postmodern world is made of evident 凭借《星期六》，麦克尤恩在伟大小说家的殿堂中确立了无可争议的地位。在这部作品中，他成功浓缩了威廉斯所追溯的小说作为可知共同体建构的若干核心特征。 ^(@){ }^{\circ} 他的创作引领人物与读者共同踏上一段发现新情感、新节奏与新关系的旅程。通过其变革性与创新性的叙事策略，麦克尤恩回应了我们当下社会的经验危机——正如他所持有的"那种新意识：我们再次有机会通过不同形式的介入来塑造与重塑自我"（威廉斯 1983f: 265）。他清醒地意识到时代已然不同。这个后现代世界由显见的
facts and evident identity. The postmodern human being is selfish, living isolated from others. Perowne and his family ignore those who do not belong to the same social and economic stratum, showing no sense of community. ^(7){ }^{7} This upper-middle class cosmopolitan family overlooks the underclass. But McEwan is well aware that a certain privileged lifestyle has to ‘address itself to a modern future in which community may be imagined again’ (Williams 1989j: 35). Only by knowing the self and the others are human beings able to become actual subjects in changing the conditions of possibility of new formations of community. 事实与明显的身份认同。后现代人是自私的，生活在与他人隔绝的状态中。佩罗恩和他的家人忽视那些不属于同一社会经济阶层的人，表现出毫无社区意识。 ^(7){ }^{7} 这个中上阶层的世界主义家庭漠视底层群体。但麦克尤恩深知，某种特权生活方式必须"面向一个现代未来，在那里社区可能被重新构想"（Williams 1989j: 35）。只有通过认识自我与他人，人类才能成为改变新型社区可能性条件的真正主体。
Perowne is then taken into a different stage of experience, a stage in which the author is both observer and participant: like Dickens, McEwan shares with his readers and with his protagonist the experience of the city and charts maps of meaning. He traces a knowable community, selecting what he wants to be seen and making known new structures of feeling. The meeting with Baxter reveals another world and another self with whom Perowne has to learn to relate. In the texture of the narrative, we find subjectivities in relation within a shared space of communication. Like Hardy, McEwan shows the underlying patterns of change, in this case of the London society post 9/11; he makes knowable the nature of the other’s identity. Like Lawrence, McEwan operates a miracle of language and writes with experience (Williams [1970] 1984b) - author, text and readers share a community of speech. 佩罗恩随后被带入一个不同的经验阶段，在这个阶段中，作者既是观察者又是参与者：如同狄更斯一样，麦克尤恩与读者及其主人公共同体验城市生活，并绘制意义地图。他勾勒出一个可知的共同体，选择他想被看见的事物，并揭示新的情感结构。与巴克斯特的相遇展现了另一个世界和另一个自我，佩罗恩必须学会与之建立联系。在叙事的肌理中，我们发现主体性在共享的交流空间中相互关联。与哈代相似，麦克尤恩揭示了潜藏的变化模式——此处是 9·11 后伦敦社会的变迁；他使他人身份的本质变得可知。如同劳伦斯，麦克尤恩创造了语言的奇迹，以经验书写（威廉斯[1970]1984b）——作者、文本与读者共享着言语共同体。
In Saturday, we find an ‘active mutual responsibility’ (Eagleton 1998: 29) because McEwan speaks the same language as his character and his readers, crossing the border between the affective and the structural. If we consider that the knowable community has to do with the perception of the self and the others, we easily accept that this novel depends on the writer’s capacity to find ways of understanding the place each one of us occupies in society. Creating valid and communicable ways of expressing experiences by means of artistic conventions and notations, the writer is involving the readers as cooperative critics in the task of making a knowable community. 在《星期六》中，我们发现了"积极的相互责任"（伊格尔顿 1998: 29），因为麦克尤恩与他的角色及读者使用着相同的语言，跨越了情感与结构的边界。如果我们认为可知共同体与自我和他者的认知相关，就很容易理解这部小说依赖于作家寻找理解每个人社会位置的能力。通过艺术惯例和符号创造有效且可传播的经验表达方式，作家正将读者作为合作批评者纳入构建可知共同体的任务中。
When analysing Saturday as a knowable community, we have to consider the modes of how writer and readers create discursive strategies that are able to articulate configurations of practices (Grossberg 1997), conceived to define effective cultural relations. We have to consider that this analysis explores the modes these alliances define not only where and how individuals live specific practices, but also how they enable the comprehension of everyday life. The cultural construction of a knowable community is found in the authorial selection, exposition and interpretation of events, and in their representation. The centrality of the experiences produces a rearticulation of the relationship between text, writer and reader, in a dynamic process of discursive alliances. 在将《星期六》作为可知社区进行分析时，我们必须考量作家与读者如何通过话语策略构建能够阐明实践配置的模式（Grossberg 1997），这些模式旨在界定有效的文化关系。我们必须认识到，这种分析不仅探讨这些联盟如何定义个体实践的具体时空维度，更揭示了它们如何促成对日常生活的理解。可知社区的文化建构体现在作者对事件的选择、阐述与诠释中，也体现在其表征形式里。经验的核心地位促使文本、作家与读者之间的关系在话语联盟的动态过程中被重新表述。
Viewed from this critical stance, Saturday opens new possibilities to the imagined community, possibilities in the process and the strategies of 从这一批判视角审视，《星期六》为想象共同体开辟了新的可能性——这些可能性既存在于建构过程中，也体现在策略运用上。
communication, and observed beyond themselves by the modes in which the readers read them, bringing their horizons of expectation to the communicable sphere of experience. The literary and cultural construction of a community is also a question of reception, where the readers try to find a common structure of meanings and of values, looking for the conditions of plausibility (Sinfield 1992) of the text, aiming at a better understanding of themselves and of the others. 交流，并通过读者阅读方式被观察，将他们的期待视野带入可沟通的经验领域。文学与文化的共同体构建同样是一个接受问题，读者在其中试图寻找意义与价值的共同结构，探求文本的可信条件（Sinfield 1992），旨在更好地理解自身与他人。
Both writer and readers share the ideological production of interpretations of experiences which seem plausible to them, involving themselves in a continuous process of negotiation of the social reality. The knowable community is also a community of process, based on a common shared culture and language. The trust in a knowable world is based not only on the existing community between writer and theme but also on the relationship between writer and reader, communities and relationships which are established by means of a prose directly related to the common language of the world. 作者与读者共同参与对看似可信的经验解释的意识形态生产，将自己持续卷入社会现实的协商过程。可知共同体也是一个基于共同文化与语言的进程性共同体。对可知世界的信任不仅建立在作者与主题间现有共同体的基础上，更依托于作者与读者、共同体与关系之间的纽带——这些联系通过直接关联世界共同语言的散文体得以确立。
Human community grows by the discovery of common meanings and common means of communication. Over an active range, the patterns created by the brain and the patterns materialized by a community continually interact. The individual creative description is part of the general process which creates conventions and institutions, through which the meanings that are valued by the community are shared and made active. This is the true significance of our modern definition of culture, which insists on this community of process … The ability to live in a particular way depends, ultimately on acceptance of this experience by others, in successful communication. Thus our descriptions of our experience come to compose a network of relationships, and all our communication systems, including the arts, are literally parts of our social organization. The selection and interpretation involved in our descriptions embody our attitudes, needs and interests, which we seek to validate by making them clear to others … Since our way of seeing things is literally our way of living, the process of communication is in fact the process of community: the sharing of common meanings and thence common activities and purposes; the offering, reception and comparison of new meanings, leading to the tensions and achievements of growth and change. 人类共同体通过发现共同意义和共同交流方式而发展壮大。在活跃的范围内，大脑创造的范式与共同体物质化的范式持续互动。个体创造性的描述是创造习俗与制度的普遍过程的一部分——通过这些习俗与制度，被共同体所珍视的意义得以共享并焕发活力。这正是我们现代文化定义的核心要义，它强调这种过程的共同体属性……以特定方式生存的能力，最终取决于这种经验能否通过成功交流被他人接纳。因此，我们对自身经验的描述逐渐编织成关系网络，包括艺术在内的所有交流系统，实质上都是我们社会组织结构的组成部分。 我们在描述中的选择与诠释体现了我们的态度、需求及兴趣，这些都需要通过向他人阐明来获得确认……既然我们看待事物的方式实质上就是我们的生存方式，那么交流过程实则就是共同体形成的过程：共享共通的意义，继而开展共同活动、追求共同目标；通过新意义的提出、接纳与比较，引发成长与变革中的张力与成就。
(Williams [1961] 1965b: 54-5) （威廉斯 [1961] 1965b：54-5）
To conclude, we can say that the project of reading novels as knowable communities comprises a project of cultural construction based on Williams’ refusal to consider the separation between culture and society. To understand that ‘most novels are in some sense knowable communities’ is to understand and work under the light of a cultural theory applied to the 总之，将小说作为可知共同体来解读的这一学术工程，体现了威廉斯拒绝割裂文化与社会关系的文化建构主张。理解"大多数小说在某种意义上都是可知共同体"，意味着要在应用于文学研究的文化理论指引下，探索构成整体生活方式中各要素间关系的组织本质。
study of literature, in an attempt to discover the nature of the organization which composes the relations between elements in a whole way of life. （注：最后段落因原文截断，译文保持相同结构未补全）
Modernity has in part developed from the separation of culture and society, where the former has emerged as an answer and alternative to a new social reality, and as an activity separated from the latter. It was a consequence of new methods of production, of the kinds of personal and social relationships originating in new concepts of modern history. It aimed at creating a separate body of moral and intellectual activities above the social relations and everyday life. 现代性部分源于文化与社会分离的发展，前者作为对新社会现实的回应与替代方案而出现，成为一项独立于后者的活动。这是新型生产方式的产物，源自现代历史新概念所催生的个人与社会关系。其目标是在社会关系和日常生活之上，构建一个独立的道德与智识活动体系。
Only by unlearning the dominant, hegemonic mode of culture, dislocating old constellations (Hall 1980b) can we learn to read novels as knowable communities, novels where we can find representations of the moral codes and common behaviour of all elements of society, which is, in turn, represented as a social organization that fully belongs to culture. 唯有摒弃主流霸权文化模式，解构旧有格局（Hall 1980b），我们才能学会将小说解读为可知的共同体——在这些小说中，我们能发现社会各阶层道德准则与共同行为的表征，而社会本身也被呈现为完全归属于文化范畴的社会组织。
To read novels as knowable communities is not to hesitate between tenses (Williams 1991); it is to give a future tense to the imagination of the authors and of the readers. Making use of this cultural proposition, the critics will be able to know past structures of feeling in new ways and find new ways to give shape to alternative structures of feeling, uniting past, present and future tenses (Williams 1991). As active subjects in the process of communication and of the cultural construction, experience helps us to participate in the texts, to interpret them according to our own structures of feeling, to be ourselves within a cultural theory. Moreover, echoing Williams’ lessons and practices from 50 years ago, when we consider novels as knowable communities we are rethinking literature as both a cultural representation of society and relationships and as the product of the artist’s creative capacity of language. 将小说视为可知的共同体来阅读，并非在时态间踌躇（Williams 1991），而是为作者与读者的想象赋予未来时态。借助这一文化命题，批评家们得以以新方式认知过去的情感结构，并找到新途径来塑造替代性的情感结构，从而统一过去、现在与未来时态（Williams 1991）。作为传播过程与文化建构中的能动主体，经验值帮助我们参与文本，根据自身情感结构进行阐释，在文化理论中确立自我存在。此外，呼应威廉斯五十年前的教诲与实践，当我们将小说视为可知的共同体时，我们正重新思考文学的双重属性：它既是社会关系与文化表征的载体，也是艺术家语言创造力的产物。
Notes 注释
1 For a full comprehension of the work of revision on the key concepts of structure of feeling see Preface to Film (1954); Culture and Society (1958), The Long Revolution (1961), Drama from Ibsen to Brecht (1968), Marxism and Literature (1977) and the interviews given to the New Left Review (1979) published in Politics and Letters; the concept of knowable community is mainly developed and revised in The English Novel from Dickens to Lawrence (1970) and The Country and the City (1973). 1 要全面理解雷蒙德·威廉斯对"情感结构"这一关键概念的修订工作，可参阅《电影序言》(1954)、《文化与社会》(1958)、《漫长的革命》(1961)、《从易卜生到布莱希特的戏剧》(1968)、《马克思主义与文学》(1977)以及《新左派评论》访谈录(1979 年收录于《政治与文学》)；而"可知共同体"概念主要在其《从狄更斯到劳伦斯的英国小说》(1970)和《乡村与城市》(1973)中得到发展和修正。
2 Williams first used the concept in an article on George Eliot: ‘The knowable community in George Eliot’s novels’ (Williams 1969a). 2 威廉斯最初在论述乔治·艾略特的文章《乔治·艾略特小说中的可知共同体》中使用了这一概念(Williams 1969a)。
3 Similar to Leavis, but grounded on a different political frame of mind and critique, Williams created his own great tradition in the English novel: Charles Dickens, the Brontë sisters, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad and D. H. Lawrence. In all, Williams found different voices and new ways of creating novels as knowable communities. 3 与利维斯相似但基于不同的政治思维和批判立场，威廉斯构建了自己笔下的英国小说伟大传统：查尔斯·狄更斯、勃朗特姐妹、乔治·艾略特、托马斯·哈代、约瑟夫·康拉德和 D.H.劳伦斯。威廉斯认为这些作家都以不同声音和新颖手法，将小说创作为可知共同体。
4 Williams used the expression again, on 26 January 1987, in the W.D. Thomas Memorial Lecture entitled ‘Country and city in the modern novel’, at University College of Swansea. 4 1987 年 1 月 26 日，威廉斯在斯旺西大学学院举行的 W.D.托马斯纪念讲座《现代小说中的乡村与城市》中再次使用了这一表述。
5 Critics have pointed to the similarity of structure with Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway (cf. review in The New York Times by Michiko Kakutani, 18 March 2005). 5 评论家们指出了该作品与伍尔夫《达洛维夫人》在结构上的相似性（参见《纽约时报》Michiko Kakutani 2005 年 3 月 18 日的书评）。
6 Cf. The English Novel from Dickens to Lawrence (Williams 1984b), where Williams identifies particular narrative strategies in each of the chosen novelists in the making of a knowable community. 6 参见《从狄更斯到劳伦斯的英国小说》（Williams 1984b），威廉斯在该书中分析了每位入选小说家构建"可知共同体"时采用的特定叙事策略。
7 In The English Novel from Dickens to Lawrence (Williams 1984b), Williams explains that, in Jane Austen, community means to belong to a class, based on selective, social recognition. At first, McEwan seems to engage with this strategy only to show its dangers. 7 在《从狄更斯到劳伦斯的英国小说》（Williams 1984b）中，威廉斯阐释道：简·奥斯汀笔下的共同体意味着基于选择性社会认同的阶级归属。麦克尤恩起初似乎采用了这一策略，却意在揭示其危险性。
Bibliography 参考文献
Alanís, J. (2006) ‘How much are you willing to risk? How far are you willing to go’, Cultural Studies < = > Critical Methodologies, 6: 166-84. 阿兰尼斯，J.（2006）《你愿意冒多大风险？你愿意走多远》，《文化研究<=>批判方法论》，6：166-84。
Ali, T. (2005) Street Fighting Days, London and New York: Verso. 阿里，T.（2005）《街头战斗岁月》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
Altamirano, C. (1998) ‘Raymond Williams 1921-88’, Punto de Vista 33. 阿尔塔米拉诺，C.（1998）《雷蒙德·威廉斯 1921-88》，《观点》第 33 期。
Althusser, L. (1971; 1st edn 1969) ‘For Marx’, in Lenin and Philosophy, New York: Monthly Review Press. 阿尔都塞，L.（1971；初版 1969）《保卫马克思》，收录于《列宁与哲学》，纽约：每月评论出版社。
(1985) For Marx, London and New York: Verso. (1985)《保卫马克思》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
Anker, E. (2005) ‘Villains, victims and heroes: melodrama, media, and September 11’, Journal of Communication 55(1): 22-37. 安克，E.（2005）《恶棍、受害者与英雄：情节剧、媒体与 9·11 事件》，《传播学刊》55(1): 22-37。
Arnold, M. (2009) ‘Culture and anarchy’, in Storey, J. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 4th edn, London: Pearson. 阿诺德，M.（2009）《文化与无政府状态》，收录于斯托里，J.（编）《文化理论与大众文化》（第 4 版），伦敦：培生教育。
Asad, T. (2003) Formations of the Secular, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 阿萨德，T.（2003）《世俗的构成》，斯坦福：斯坦福大学出版社。
Assmann, A. (2006) ‘The printing press and the Internet: from a culture of memory to a culture of attention’, in Gentz, N. and Kramer, S. (eds) Globalization, Cultural Identities, and Media Representations, Albany: State of New York Press. 阿斯曼，A.（2006）《印刷机与互联网：从记忆文化到注意力文化》，载根茨，N.与克雷默，S.（编）《全球化、文化认同与媒介表征》，奥尔巴尼：纽约州立大学出版社。
Bachelard, G. (1989) La poétique de l’espace, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 巴什拉，G.（1989）《空间诗学》，巴黎：法国大学出版社。
Bacon, F. (1858; 1st edn 1620) ‘The new organon’, in Spedding, J., Ellis, R.L. and Heath, D.D. (eds) The Works of Francis Bacon, vol. IV: Translations of the Philosophical Works, London: Longman. 培根，F.（1858；初版 1620）《新工具》，载斯佩丁，J.、埃利斯，R.L.与希思，D.D.（编）《弗朗西斯·培根著作集》第四卷：哲学著作译本，伦敦：朗文出版社。
Bate, J. (2000) The Song of the Earth, London: Picador. 贝特，J.（2000）《大地之歌》，伦敦：皮卡多出版社。
Benjamin, W. (1968) Illuminations, New York: Harcourt Brace & World. 本雅明, W. (1968) 《启迪》, 纽约: 哈考特·布雷斯与世界出版社.
(2006) ‘On the concept of history’, in Selected Writings Vol. 4, 1938-40 (trans. Jephcott, E. et al.), Cambridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press of Harvard. (2006) 《论历史的概念》, 载《选集》第 4 卷, 1938-40 年 (杰夫科特, E. 等译), 剑桥(马萨诸塞州)与伦敦: 哈佛大学贝尔纳普出版社.
Bennett, T. (2007) Critical Trajectories, Culture, Society, Intellectuals. Blackwell, Oxford. 贝内特, T. (2007) 《批判轨迹: 文化、社会与知识分子》, 牛津: 布莱克威尔出版社.
Benthall, J. (ed.) (1972) Ecology: The Shaping Enquiry, London: Longman. 本索尔, J. (编) (1972) 《生态学: 形塑的探究》, 伦敦: 朗文出版社.
(ed.) (1973; 1st edn 1972) Ecology: The Shaping Enquiry, New York: Viking. （编）（1973 年；初版 1972 年）《生态学：形塑的探究》，纽约：维京出版社。
Berman, M. (1982) All That Is Solid Melts Into Air, New York: Simon and Schuster. 伯曼，M.（1982 年）《一切坚固的东西都烟消云散了》，纽约：西蒙与舒斯特出版社。
Bérubé, M.(1994) ‘Bite size theory: popularizing academic criticism’, in Public access: Literary theory and American cultural politics, London and New York: Verso. 贝鲁贝，M.（1994 年）"理论快餐：学术批评的通俗化"，载《公共通道：文学理论与美国文化政治》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
Bloch, E. (1977) ‘Non-synchronism and the obligation to its dialectics’, New (jerman Critique 11: 22-38. 布洛赫，E.（1977 年）"非同步性及其辩证法的义务"，《新德意志批判》第 11 期：22-38 页。
Briggs, A. (1991) Serious Pursuits: Communications and Education, Champaign: University of Illinois Press. 布里格斯，A.（1991）《严肃追求：传播与教育》，香槟：伊利诺伊大学出版社。
Buckingham, D. (2003) Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press. 白金汉，D.（2003）《媒介教育：素养、学习与当代文化》，剑桥：政体出版社。
Burchfield, R. (1976) ‘A case of mistaken identity: Kevu’ords’, Encounter 46: 57-64. 伯奇菲尔德, R. (1976) 《身份误认案例: 关键词研究》, 《遭遇》46 期: 57-64.
Butler, J. (1999) Gender Trouble, London and New York: Routledge. 巴特勒，J.（1999）《性别麻烦》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence, London and New York: Verso. （2004）《脆弱的生活：哀悼与暴力的力量》，伦敦与纽约：Verso 出版社。
Campbell, D. (1984) The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier, London: Michael Joseph. 坎贝尔, D. (1984) 《永不沉没的航空母舰》, 伦敦: 迈克尔·约瑟夫出版社.
Cevasco, M. E. (1998) ‘Raymond Williams and cultural studies: a Brazilian perspective’, Pretexts: studies in writing and culture 7(2): 235-49. 塞瓦斯科，M. E.（1998）《雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化研究：巴西视角》，《Pretexts：写作与文化研究》7(2): 235-49。
(2000) ‘Our best man’, Pretexts: literary and cultural studies, 9(1): 119-23. （2000）《我们最优秀的人》，《Pretexts：文学与文化研究》9(1): 119-23。
Chakrabarty, D. (2000) Provinctalizing Europe, Princeton: Princeton L’niversity Press. 查克拉巴蒂, D. (2000) 《欧洲地方化》, 普林斯顿: 普林斯顿大学出版社.
(2002) Habitations of Modernity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. （2002）《现代性的栖居》，芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社。
Chalmers, M. (1985) Paying for Defence, London: Pluto Press. 查尔默斯，M.（1985）《为防务买单》，伦敦：冥王星出版社。
Clare, J. (1967; wr. c. 1832) ‘Remembrances’, in Robinson, E. and Summerfield, G. (eds) Selected Poems and Prose of John Clare, London: Oxford University Press. 克莱尔，J.（1967；约写于 1832 年）《回忆录》，收录于罗宾逊，E.与萨默菲尔德，G.（合编）《约翰·克莱尔诗文选》，伦敦：牛津大学出版社。
Colley, L. (2003) ‘I am the watchman’, London Revieu of Books 20 November 2003: 16-17. 科利，L.（2003）《我是守望者》，《伦敦书评》2003 年 11 月 20 日：16-17 页。
Connor, S. (1997) ‘Raymond Williams’s time’, in Wallace, J., Jones, R., Nield, S. (eds), Raymond Williams Now: Knowledge, Limits and the Future, New York: St. Martin’s Press. 康纳，S.（1997）《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的时间》，载于华莱士，J.，琼斯，R.，尼尔德，S.（编），《今日雷蒙德·威廉姆斯：知识、界限与未来》，纽约：圣马丁出版社。
(1998) ‘Raymond Williams’s time’, Key Words: A Journal of Cultural Materialism 1: 12-27. （1998）《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的时间》，《关键词：文化唯物主义期刊》第 1 期：12-27 页。
Conrad, J. (1980) Heart of Darkness, Harmondsworth: Penguin. 康拉德（1980）《黑暗之心》，哈蒙兹沃斯：企鹅出版社。
Coopey, R., Fielding, S. and Tiratsoo, N. (eds) (1993) The Wilson Govemments 14nt 1970, London: Pinter. 库佩、菲尔丁与蒂拉索合编（1993）《威尔逊政府 1964-1970》，伦敦：品特出版社。
Cowan, K., and Valentine, G. (2006) Tuned Out: The BBC’s Portrayal of Lesbian and Gay People, London: Stonewall. 考恩与瓦伦丁合著（2006）《频道之外：BBC 对男女同性恋者的呈现》，伦敦：石墙组织。
Curran, J. (1990) ‘The new revisionism in mass communication research: a reappraisal’, European Journal of Communication, 5(2-3): 135-64. 柯伦（1990）《传播研究中的新修正主义：重审》，《欧洲传播学刊》第 5 卷(2-3 期)：135-164 页。
Davies, Ioan (1995) Cultural Stadres and Berond: Fragments of Empari London and New York: Routledge. 戴维斯（1995）《文化研究及其超越：帝国残片》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
De Sousa Santos, B. (2002) Toward a New Legal Common Sense, London: Butterworths. 德索萨·桑托斯（2002）《迈向新的法律常识》，伦敦：巴特沃斯出版社。
(2006) The Rise of the Global Left: The World Social Forum and Beyond, London and New York: Zed Books. （2006）《全球左翼的崛起：世界社会论坛及其超越》，伦敦与纽约：泽德图书。
Denzin, N. K. (2003) Performance Ethmenraphy: Contical Peducos? and the Polatics of Culture, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. 邓津，N. K.（2003）《表演民族志：批判教育学与文化政治学》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：塞奇出版社。
Derrida, J. (1994) Specters of Marx, London and New York: Routledge. 德里达，J.（1994）《马克思的幽灵》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Duff, P. (1971) Left, Left, Left, London: Allison and Busby. 达夫（1971）《左，左，左》，伦敦：艾莉森与巴斯比出版社。
Durst, R.K. (2006) ‘Can W’e Be Critical of Critical P’edayony?’ College Composition and Communication, 57: 110-13. 德斯特, R.K. (2006) 《我们能批判批判教育学吗？》，《学院写作与交流》，57 卷：110-13 页。
Dutschke, G. (1996) Wir hatten ein barbarisches, schönes Leben: Rudi Dutschke: Eine Biographie, Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. 杜奇克（1996）《我们曾有过野蛮而美好的生活：鲁迪·杜奇克传》，科隆：基彭霍伊尔与维茨出版社。
Dutschke, R. (2003) Jedie hat sem Lebon gan : 11 leben: Die Tagebiacher 190.3 14,9 (ed. Gretchen Dutschke) Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. 杜契克，R.（2003）《每个人都有自己的人生：日记 1934-1969》（格蕾琴·杜契克编），科隆：基彭霍伊尔与维茨出版社。
Dworkin, D.L. (1997) Cultural Marxism and Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies, Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press. 德沃金，D.L.（1997）《文化马克思主义与战后英国：历史、新左派与文化研究的起源》，北卡罗来纳州达勒姆及伦敦：杜克大学出版社。
Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (eds) (1993a) Views beyond the Border Country: Raymond Williams and Cultural Politics, London and New York: Routledge. 德沃金，D.L.与罗曼，L.G.（合编）（1993a）《超越边界之地的视野：雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化政治》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (1993b) ‘The cultural politics of location’, in Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (eds) Views beyond the Border Country, London and New York: Routledge. 德沃金，D.L.与罗曼，L.G.（1993b）《定位的文化政治》，收录于德沃金，D.L.与罗曼，L.G.（合编）《超越边界之地的视野》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Eagleton, T. (1988) ‘Resources for a journey of hope: the significance of Raymond Williams’, New Left Review 168: 3-11. 伊格尔顿，T.（1988）《希望之旅的资源：雷蒙德·威廉斯的意义》，《新左派评论》168 期：3-11 页。
(1998) ‘Raymond Williams, communities and universities’, Key Words: A Journal of Cultural Materialism, 1: 28-34. (1998)《雷蒙德·威廉斯、社群与大学》，载《关键词：文化唯物主义期刊》第 1 期，第 28-34 页。
(2000) The Idea of Culture, Blackwell: Oxford. (2000)《文化的观念》，布莱克威尔出版社：牛津。
Eldridge, J. and Eldridge, L. (1994) Raymond Williams: Making Connections. London and New York: Routledge. 埃尔德里奇，J.与埃尔德里奇，L.（1994）《雷蒙德·威廉斯：建立关联》。伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Ellsworth, E. (1989) ‘Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy’, Harvard Educational Review, 59: 297-324. 埃尔斯沃思，E.（1989）《为何这感觉不到赋权？——批判教育学压抑性迷思的破解》，载《哈佛教育评论》第 59 期，第 297-324 页。
Engels, F. (1973) Dialectics of Nature (trans. Dutt., C.), New York: International Publishers. 恩格斯, F. (1973) 《自然辩证法》(Dutt, C. 译), 纽约: 国际出版社.
Fassett, D.L. and Warren, J.T. (2006) Critical Communication Pedagogy, London/ Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. 法塞特，D.L.与沃伦，J.T.（2006）《批判性传播教育学》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：塞奇出版社。
Faundez, A. and Freire, P. (1992; 1st edn 1985) Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation. Trans. Tony Coates. New York: Continuum. 方德兹, A. 和弗莱雷, P. (1992; 初版 1985) 《学会提问: 解放教育学》. 托尼·科茨 译. 纽约: 康提纽姆出版社.
Fieldhouse, R. (1993) ‘Oxford and adult education’, in Morgan, W.J. and Preston, P. (eds) Raymond Williams: Politics, Education, Letters, Houndmills: The Macmillan Press. 菲尔德豪斯, R. (1993) 《牛津与成人教育》, 载摩根, W.J. 和普雷斯顿, P. (编) 《雷蒙德·威廉斯: 政治、教育、书信》, 汉普郡: 麦克米伦出版社.
Fiske, J. (1993) Power Plays - Power Works, London and New York: Verso. 菲斯克, J. (1993)《权力博弈 - 权力运作》, 伦敦与纽约: 维索出版社.
(1995) Media Matters: Everyday Culture and Political Change, London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (1995)《媒体事务: 日常文化与政治变革》, 伦敦与明尼阿波利斯: 明尼苏达大学出版社.
Fiske, J. and Hartley, J. (2003; 1st edn 1978) Reading Television, London and New York: Routledge. 菲斯克, J. 与哈特利, J. (2003; 首版 1978)《解读电视》, 伦敦与纽约: 劳特利奇出版社.
Foucault, M. (1997) ‘What is enlightenment’, in Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth, New York: New Press. 福柯, M. (1997)《什么是启蒙》, 收录于《伦理学、主体性与真理》, 纽约: 新出版社.
(2003) Society Must Be Defended, New York: Picador. (2003)《必须保卫社会》，纽约：皮卡多出版社。
Freedman, L. (2002) “'A technological idiot”? Raymond Williams and communications technology’, Information, Communication & Society 5(3): 425-42. 弗里德曼，L.（2002）《“技术白痴”？雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与传播技术》，《信息、传播与社会》5(3): 425-42。
Freire, A.M.A. and Macedo, D. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in Freire, A.M.A. and Macedo, D. The Paulo Freire Reader, New York: Continuum. 弗雷勒，A.M.A. 与 马塞多，D.（2000）《导言》，载于弗雷勒，A.M.A. 与 马塞多，D. 编《保罗·弗雷勒读本》，纽约：康提纽姆出版社。
Freire, P. et al.(1985) Por uma pedagogia de pergunta, Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. 弗莱雷，P.等（1985）《提问式教育学》，里约热内卢：和平与大地出版社。
Freire, P. (1998) Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 弗莱雷, P. (1998) 《作为文化工作者的教师：致敢于教学者的信》, 博尔德, 科罗拉多州: 西景出版社.
(2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York and London: Continuum. (2000) 《被压迫者教育学》. 纽约与伦敦: 连续体出版社.
Gallagher, C. (1995) ‘Raymond Williams and cultural studies’, in Prendergast, Ch. (ed.) Cultural Materialism: On Raymond Williams, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 加拉格尔, C. (1995) 《雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化研究》, 载普伦德加斯特, Ch. (编) 《文化唯物主义：论雷蒙德·威廉斯》, 明尼阿波利斯: 明尼苏达大学出版社.
Gaonkar, D.P. (2001) ‘On alternative modernities’, in Gaonkar, D.P. (ed.) Alternative Modernities, Durham: Duke University Press. 高恩卡，D.P.（2001）《论另类现代性》，载高恩卡，D.P.（编）《另类现代性》，达勒姆：杜克大学出版社。
Gergen, K. J. (1999) An Invitation to Suctal Construction, London/Thousand Oaks/ New Delhi: Sage. 格尔根，K. J.（1999）《社会建构论导引》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：塞奇出版社。
Gilbert, J. (2006) ‘Cultural studies and anti-capitalism’ in Hall, G. and Birchall, C. (eds) New Cultural Studies: Adventares in Theory, Edinhurgh: Edinburgh [Iniversity Press. 吉尔伯特，J.（2006）《文化研究与反资本主义》，收录于霍尔，G. 和伯查尔，C.（编）《新文化研究：理论探索》，爱丁堡：爱丁堡大学出版社。
Gilroy, P. (1987) ‘There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack’: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation, London: Hutchinson. 吉尔罗伊，P.（1987）《联合旗上没有黑色：种族与民族的文化政治》，伦敦：哈钦森出版社。
(2000) Against Race, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. （2000）《反对种族》，剑桥：哈佛大学出版社。
Giroux, H.A. (1992) ‘Resisting difference: cultural studies and the discourse of critical pedagogy’, in Grossberg L., Nelson, C. and Treichler, P. (eds) Cultural Studies, London and New York: Routledge. 吉鲁，H.A.（1992）《抵制差异：文化研究与批判教育学话语》，载格罗斯伯格 L.、纳尔逊 C.和特莱希勒 P.编《文化研究》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(2004) ‘Cultural studies and the politics of public pedagogy: making the political more pedagogical’, Parallax 10(2): 73-89. （2004）《文化研究与公共教育学的政治：使政治更具教学性》，《视差》10(2): 73-89。
Goldmann, L. (1975) Towards a Sociology of the Norel (trans. Sheridan, A.), London and New York: Tavistock. 戈德曼，L.（1975）《走向小说社会学》（谢里丹 A.译），伦敦与纽约：塔维斯托克出版社。
(1976) Cultural Creation in Modern Society (intr. Maryl, W.; trans. Grahl, B.), New York: Telos. （1976）《现代社会中的文化创造》（玛丽尔，W. 序；格拉尔，B. 译），纽约：泰洛斯出版社。
Gorak, J. (1988) The Alien Mind of Raymond Willums. Columbus: L’niversity of Missouri Press. 戈拉克，J.（1988）《雷蒙德·威廉斯的异化思维》。哥伦布：密苏里大学出版社。
Göttlich, U. (1996) Kritik der Medien: Reflextonsstufen krittsch materulistischer Medientheorien am Beispiel von Leo Löwenthal und Raymond Williams, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 格特利希，U.（1996）《媒体批判：以利奥·洛文塔尔和雷蒙德·威廉斯为例的批判唯物主义媒体理论反思阶段》，奥普拉登：西德意志出版社。
(2006) ‘Cultural studies und das Konzept der “mobilen Privatisierung” im Spiegel der Medien-und Offentlichkeitskritik’, in Becker, B. and W’ehner, J. (eds) Kulturindustrie Reviewed: Ansätze zur kritischen Reflexion der Mediengesellschaft, Bielefeld: Transcript. （2006）《文化研究与"移动私有化"概念在媒体与公共领域批判中的镜像》，载贝克尔，B.与韦纳，J.（编）《重审文化工业：批判性反思媒体社会的路径》，比勒费尔德：成绩单出版社。
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (eds & trans. Hoare, Q. and Smith, G.N.), London: Lawrence & Wishart. 葛兰西(A. Gramsci)(1971)《狱中札记选》(霍亚尔(Q. Hoare)与史密斯(G.N. Smith)编译)，伦敦：劳伦斯与威沙特出版社。
(2009; 4th edn) ‘Hegemony, intellectuals, and the state’, in Storey, J. (ed) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, London: Pearson. (2009 年第四版)《霸权、知识分子与国家》，载斯托里(J. Storey)编《文化理论与大众文化》，伦敦：培生教育集团。
Gray, A. (2003) ‘Cultural studies at Birmingham: the impossibulity of critical pedagogy’, Cultural Studies, 17: 767-82. 格雷，A.（2003）《伯明翰的文化研究：批判教育学的不可能性》，《文化研究》，17：767-82。
Grimes, K. M. (2005) ‘Changing the rules of trade with global partnerships: the Fair Trade movement’ in Nash, J. (ed.) Social Movements, Oxford: Blackwell. 格莱姆斯，K. M.（2005）《通过全球伙伴关系改变贸易规则：公平贸易运动》，载纳什，J.（编）《社会运动》，牛津：布莱克威尔出版社。
Grossherg, L. (1997) ‘Cultural studies, modern logics, and theories of globalisation’. in McRobbie, A. (ed.) Back to Reality? Social Experience and Cultural Studies, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. 格罗斯伯格，L.（1997）《文化研究、现代逻辑与全球化理论》，载麦克罗比，A.（编）《回归现实？社会经验与文化研究》，曼彻斯特与纽约：曼彻斯特大学出版社。
(2006) ‘Does cultural studies have futures? Should it? (or What’s the matter with New York?): Cultural studies, contexts and conjunctures’, Cultural Studies 20 (1): 1-32. （2006）《文化研究有未来吗？应该有吗？（或纽约怎么了？）：文化研究、语境与接合》，《文化研究》第 20 卷（1）：1-32 页。
(2007) ‘Cultural Studies auf der Suche nach anderen Modernen’, in Winter, R. (ed.) Die Perspektiven der Cultural Studies. Der Lawrence Grossberg Reader, Köln: Herbert von Halem. （2007）《文化研究在寻找其他现代性》，载于温特，R.（编）《文化研究的视角：劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格读本》，科隆：赫伯特·冯·哈勒姆出版社。
Grossman, L. (2006) ‘Time’s person of the year: you’, Time, 25 December 2006. 格罗斯曼，L.（2006）《时代周刊年度人物：你》，《时代周刊》，2006 年 12 月 25 日。
Guilherme, M. (2006) ‘Is there a role for critical pedagogy in language/culture studies? An interview with Henry A. Giroux’, Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(2): 163-75. 吉尔赫姆，M.（2006）《批判教育学在语言/文化研究中的作用？亨利·A·吉鲁访谈录》，《语言与跨文化交际》，6(2): 163-75。
Habermas, J. (1963) Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, Neuwied: Luchterhand. 哈贝马斯，J.（1963）《公共领域的结构转型》，新维德：卢赫特汉德出版社。
(1991: 1st edn 1962) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. （1991 年，初版 1962 年）《公共领域的结构转型：一项关于资产阶级社会范畴的研究》，马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社。
Hall, S. (n.d.) ‘Modernity and its others’, unpublished manuscript. 霍尔，S.（无日期）《现代性及其他者》，未发表手稿。
(1973) ‘Encoding and decoding in the television discourse’ CCCS Stencilled Occasional Paper, 11. （1973 年）《电视话语中的编码与解码》，CCCS 油印不定期论文，第 11 期。
(1977) ‘Über die Arbeit des Centre for Cultural Studies’, Gulliver: DeutschEnglische Jahrbücher 2: 54-67. (1977)《论文化研究中心的学术工作》，载《格列佛：德英年鉴》第 2 期：54-67 页。
(1980a) ‘Cultural studies and the centre: some problematics and problems’, in Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. and Willis, P. (eds) Culture, Media, Language, London and New York: Routledge. (1980a) 《文化研究与中心：若干问题与难题》，载霍尔(S. Hall)、霍布森(D. Hobson)、洛(A. Lowe)和威利斯(P. Willis)编《文化、媒体、语言》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(1980b) ‘Cultural Studies: two paradigms’, Media, Culture & Society 2: 57-72. (1980b) 《文化研究的两种范式》，《媒体、文化与社会》第 2 期：57-72 页。
(1989) ‘Politics and letters’, in Eagleton, T. (ed.) Raymond Williams: Critical Perspectives, Boston: Northeastern University Press. (1989) 《政治与文学》，载伊格尔顿(T. Eagleton)编《雷蒙德·威廉斯：批评视角》，波士顿：东北大学出版社。
(1990) ‘The emergence of cultural studies and the crisis in the humanities’, October 53: 11-23. (1990) 《文化研究的兴起与人文学科的危机》，《十月》第 53 期：11-23 页。
(1992) ‘Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies’, in Cultural Studies, ed. Grossberg, Lawrence et al., London and New York: Routledge. (1992)《文化研究及其理论遗产》，载于劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格等编《文化研究》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(1995; 1st edn 1980) ‘Cultural studies: two paradigms’ in Munns, J. and Rajan, G. (eds) A Cultural Studies Reader: History, Theory, Practice, New York: Addison Wesley Longman. (1995；初版 1980)《文化研究的两种范式》，载于 J.芒斯与 G.拉詹合编《文化研究读本：历史、理论、实践》，纽约：艾迪生-韦斯利朗文出版社。
– (1997a) ‘Culture and power: interview with Stuart Hall. Interviewed by Peter Osborne and Lynne Segal’, Radical Philosophy 86: 25. ——(1997a)《文化与权力：斯图亚特·霍尔访谈录》，彼得·奥斯本与林恩·西格尔采访，《激进哲学》第 86 期：25 页。
(1997b) ‘Introduction’, in Hall, S. (ed.), Representation, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. (1997b)《导论》，载于斯图亚特·霍尔编《表征》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：塞奇出版社。
(2009; 4th edn) ‘The rediscovery of ideology: return of the repressed in media studies’, in Storey, J. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, London: Pearson. （2009 年；第 4 版）《意识形态的再发现：媒介研究中被压抑者的回归》，载于斯托里（J. Storey）编《文化理论与大众文化》，伦敦：皮尔森出版社。
Hall, S., Williams, R., and Thompson, E. (eds) (1967; repr. 1968) 1967 New Left May Day Manifesto, London; Williams, R. (ed.) May Day Manifesto 1968. 霍尔（S. Hall）、威廉斯（R. Williams）与汤普森（E. Thompson）合编（1967 年；1968 年重印）《1967 年新左派五一宣言》，伦敦；威廉斯（R. Williams）独编《1968 年五一宣言》。
Hardt, H. (1992) Critical Communication Studies, London and New York. Routledge. 哈特（H. Hardt）（1992 年）《批判性传播研究》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Harootunian, H. (2000) History’s disquiet, New York: Columbia University Press. 哈鲁图尼安，H.（2000）《历史的不安》，纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社。
Head, D. (2002a) The Cambridge Introduction to Modern British Fiction, 1950-2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 黑德，D.（2002a）《剑桥现代英国小说导论：1950-2000》，剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
(2002b) ‘Beyond 2000: Raymond Williams and the ecocritic’s task’, in Parham, J. (ed.) The Environmental Tradition in English Literature, Aldershot: Ashgate. （2002b）《超越 2000 年：雷蒙德·威廉斯与生态批评家的任务》，载帕勒姆，J.（编）《英国文学中的环境传统》，奥尔德肖特：阿什盖特出版社。
Hegel, G.W.F. (1975) Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences Vol 1: The Science of Logic (trans. William Wallace), Oxford: Clarendon Press. 黑格尔，G.W.F.（1975）《哲学科学百科全书 第一卷：逻辑学》（威廉·华莱士 译），牛津：克拉伦登出版社。
Higgins, J. (1995) ‘Forgetting Williams’, in Prendergast, Ch. (ed.) Cultural Materialism: On Raymond Williams, Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. 希金斯，J.（1995）《遗忘威廉斯》，载普伦德加斯特，Ch.（编）《文化唯物主义：论雷蒙德·威廉斯》，明尼阿波利斯：明尼苏达大学出版社。
(1999) Raymond Williams: Literature, Marxism and Cultural Materialism; London and New York: Routledge. (1999)《雷蒙德·威廉斯：文学、马克思主义与文化唯物主义》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(ed.) (2001) The Raymond Williams Reader, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. （编）（2001）《雷蒙德·威廉斯读本》，牛津：布莱克威尔出版社。
(2004) ‘Superseding Williams: critical literacy in Williams and Said’, The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 26: 3-4. (2004)《超越威廉斯：威廉斯与萨义德批评中的批判性读写能力》，《教育评论、教育学与文化研究》第 26 卷第 3-4 期。
(2008) ‘Raymond Williams and deconstruction’, in McQuillan, M. (ed.) Deconstruction Reading Politics, New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (2008)《雷蒙德·威廉斯与解构主义》，载麦奎兰编《解构阅读政治》，纽约与贝辛斯托克：帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦出版社。
Higgins, J. (ed.) (2001) The Raymond Williams Reader, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 希金斯（编）（2001）《雷蒙德·威廉斯读本》，牛津：巴兹尔·布莱克威尔出版社。
Hoggart, R. (2004) Mass Media in a Mass Society: Myth and Reality, London and New York: Continuum. 霍加特，R.（2004）《大众社会中的大众传媒：神话与现实》，伦敦与纽约：康提纽姆出版社。
Hörning, K.H. and Reuter, J. (eds) (2004) Doing Culture: Neue Positionen zum Verhältnis von Kultur und sozialer Praxis, Bielefeld: Transcript. 赫尔宁与罗伊特（编）（2004）《践行文化：文化与社会实践关系新论》，比勒费尔德：成绩单出版社。
Inglis, F. (1993) Cultural Studies, Oxford: Blackwell. 英格利斯（1993）《文化研究》，牛津：布莱克威尔出版社。
(1995) Raymond Williams, London and New York: Routledge. (1995) 雷蒙德·威廉斯，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Inwood, M. (2003) A Hegel Dictionary, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 英伍德，M. (2003) 《黑格尔辞典》，牛津：巴兹尔·布莱克威尔出版社。
Jakobson, R. (1960) ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) Style in Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 雅各布森，R. (1960) "结束语：语言学与诗学"，载于西比奥克，T.A. (编)《语言风格》，剑桥(马萨诸塞州)：麻省理工学院出版社。
Jameson, F. (2002) A Singular Modernity, London and New York: Verso. 詹明信（2002）《独特的现代性》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
Jardine, L. and Swindells, J. (1989) ‘Homage to Orwell: the dream of a common culture, and other minefields’, in Eagleton, T. (ed.), Raymond Williams. Critical Perspectives, Cambridge: Polity Press. 贾丁，L. 和斯温德尔斯，J.（1989）《致敬奥威尔：共同文化之梦及其他雷区》，收录于伊格尔顿，T.（编），《雷蒙德·威廉斯：批判视角》，剑桥：政体出版社。
Jay, M. (1998) Cultural Semantics: Keywords of Our Time Amherst, MA: L’niversity of Massachusetts Press. 杰伊，M.（1998）《文化语义学：我们时代的关键词》，阿默斯特，马萨诸塞州：马萨诸塞大学出版社。
Jefferies, R. (1938; wr. 1883) ‘On the Downs’, in Looker. S.J. (ed.) Jefferies’ England: Nature Essays, New York: Doubleday. 杰弗里斯，R.（1938；作于 1883）《在丘陵上》，收录于卢克，S.J.（编）《杰弗里斯的英格兰：自然散文集》，纽约：双日出版社。
Jones, P. (2004) Raymond Williams’s Sociology of Culture. A Critical Reconstruction, London: Palgrave. 琼斯，P.（2004）《雷蒙德·威廉斯的文化社会学：批判性重构》，伦敦：帕尔格雷夫出版社。
Kahn, R. and Kellner, D. (2005) ‘Internet subcultures and political activism’ in Leistyna, Pepi (ed.) Cultural Studies: From Theor to Acton, Oxford: Blackwell. 卡恩，R. 和凯尔纳，D.（2005）《互联网亚文化与政治行动主义》，载于莱斯特纳，佩皮（编）《文化研究：从理论到行动》，牛津：布莱克威尔出版社。
Kellner, D. (1989) Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernits, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. 凯尔纳，D.（1989）《批判理论、马克思主义与现代性》，巴尔的摩：约翰霍普金斯大学出版社。
(1995a) ‘Media communications vs. cultural studies: overcoming the divide’, Communication Theory 5(2): 162-77. （1995a）《媒介传播与文化研究：跨越鸿沟》，《传播理论》第 5 卷第 2 期：162-77 页。
(1995b) Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Polatios betueen the Modem and the Postmodern, London and New York: Routledge. （1995b）《媒介文化：文化研究、身份认同与现代与后现代之间的政治》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Kincheloe, J. L. and McLaren, P. (2005) ‘Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. 金奇洛，J. L. 和麦克拉伦，P.（2005）《重新思考批判理论与质性研究》，载于邓津，N. K. 和林肯，Y. S.（编）《Sage 质性研究手册》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：Sage 出版社。
Klaus, H.G. (1983) ‘Uber Raymond Williams’, in Williams, R. Innovatonen: Uber den Prozesscharakter von Literatur und Kultur, Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. 克劳斯，H.G.（1983）《论雷蒙德·威廉斯》，载威廉斯，R.《创新：论文学与文化的进程性》，法兰克福/美因河畔：祖尔坎普出版社。
(2002) ‘Material grounds: horder and place in Raymond W’illiams’s fiction’, in Juraga, D. and Booker, M1.K. (eds) Socialist Cultures East and West: A Post-Cold War Reassessment, Westport: Praeger. （2002）《物质基础：雷蒙德·威廉斯小说中的边界与场所》，载于尤拉加，D. 和布克，M1.K.（编）《东西方社会主义文化：冷战后重估》，西港：普雷格出版社。
Laclau, E. (1979) Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory, London and New York: Verso. 拉克劳，E.（1979）《马克思主义理论中的政治与意识形态》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2001; 1st edn 1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London and New York: Verso. 拉克劳，E. 与墨菲，C.（2001 年；初版 1985 年）《霸权与社会主义策略》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(2009; 3rd edn) ‘Marxism without apologies’, in Storey, J. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, London: Pearson. （2009 年；第三版）《无需道歉的马克思主义》，收录于斯托里，J.（编）《文化理论与大众文化》，伦敦：培生教育出版集团。
Large Door Productions (1988) Raymond Wrilliams: A Tribute, Channel 4, 28 February 1988. 大門制作公司（1988 年）《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯：致敬》，第四频道，1988 年 2 月 28 日。
Lasch, C. (1979) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life man Age of Diminishing Expectations, New York: Norton. 拉希，C.（1979 年）《自恋主义文化：期望递减时代的美国生活》，纽约：诺顿出版社。
Leistyna, P. (ed.) (2005) Cultural Studies. From Theny to Actor, Oxford: Blackwell. 莱斯特纳，P.（编）（2005）《文化研究：从理论到实践》，牛津：布莱克威尔出版社。
Libération (2008) ‘Vive la télé sans pub?’ 13 February 2008, No. 8327: 1-4. 《解放报》（2008）《无广告电视万岁？》，2008 年 2 月 13 日，第 8327 期：1-4 版。
Lloyd, (G. (2005) ‘Education’, in Bennett, T., Grossberg, L. and Morris, M. (eds) (2005) New Keywords: A Reqused Vocubulary of Culture and Society, Malden, MA: Blackwell. 劳埃德，G.（2005）《教育》，载于本尼特，T.、格罗斯伯格，L.和莫里斯，M.（编）（2005）《新关键词：文化与社会修订词汇表》，马萨诸塞州莫尔登：布莱克威尔出版社。
McGuigan, J. (1992) Cultural Populism, London and New York: Routledge. 麦圭根，J.（1992）《文化民粹主义》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
McIlroy, J. (1990) ‘Border country: Raymond Williams in adult education Part I’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 22: 129-67. 麦基尔罗伊，J.（1990）《边界之地：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的成人教育生涯（第一部分）》，《成人教育研究》第 22 卷：129-167 页。
(1991) ‘Border country: Raymond Williams in adult education Part II,’ Studies in the Education of Adults 23: 1-24. （1991）《边界之地：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的成人教育生涯（第二部分）》，《成人教育研究》第 23 卷：1-24 页。
(1993) ‘Teacher, critic, explorer’, in Morgan, W.J. and Preston, P. (eds) Raymond Williams: Politics, Education, Letters, Great Britain: The Macmillan Press. （1993）《教师、批评家与探索者》，载摩根，W.J.与普雷斯顿，P.（编）《雷蒙德·威廉斯：政治、教育、书信》，英国：麦克米伦出版社。
McLuhan, M. (1998; 1st edn 1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, London: MIT Press. 麦克卢汉，M.（1998；初版 1964）《理解媒介：论人的延伸》，伦敦：麻省理工学院出版社。
McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. 麦奎尔，D.（1994）《大众传播理论》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：塞奇出版社。
Marcuse, H. (2004; 1st edn 1937) ‘Über den affirmativen Charakter der Kultur’, in Aufsätze aus der Zeitschrift fiir Sozialforschung 1934-1941, Schriften Band 3, Lüneburg: zu Klampen. 马尔库塞，H.（2004 年；初版 1937 年）《论文化的肯定性特征》，载于《社会研究期刊论文 1934-1941》，著作第三卷，吕讷堡：祖·克兰彭出版社。
Marx, K. (1976) Capital, vol. 1, Harmondsworth: Penguin. 马克思，K.（1976 年）《资本论》第一卷，哈蒙兹沃斯：企鹅出版社。
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1998) The German Ideology, New York: Prometheus Books. 马克思, K. 与 恩格斯, F. (1998) 《德意志意识形态》, 纽约: 普罗米修斯图书公司.
Masterman, L. (1998) ‘The media education revolution’, in Hart, A. (ed.), Teaching the Media: International Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 马斯特曼，L.（1998）《媒体教育革命》，载于哈特，A.（编），《国际视野中的媒体教学》，新泽西州马瓦：劳伦斯·厄尔鲍姆出版社。
Maton K. and Wright, H.K. (2002) ‘Returning cultural studies to education’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(4): 379-92. 马顿，K. 与赖特，H.K.（2002）《将文化研究回归教育》，《国际文化研究杂志》，5(4): 379-92。
May Day Manifesto Bulletin, issues 1-22/23, August 1967 - May/June 1970. 《五一宣言公报》，第 1-22/23 期，1967 年 8 月 - 1970 年 5/6 月。
Meyrowitz, J. (1993) ‘Images of media: hidden ferment - and harmony - in the field’, Journal of Communication 43(3): 55-66. 梅罗维茨，J.（1993）《媒体形象：领域内隐藏的发酵与和谐》，《传播学杂志》，43(3): 55-66。
Miermeister, Jürgen (1986) Rudi Dutschke, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. 米尔迈斯特，于尔根（1986 年）《鲁迪·杜契克》，汉堡赖因贝克：罗沃尔特出版社。
Miles, R. and Phizacklea, A. (1984) White Man’s Country, London: Pluto Press. 迈尔斯，R. 与菲扎克利，A.（1984）《白人的国度》，伦敦：冥王星出版社。
Milner, A. (2002) Re-Imagining Cultural Studies: The Promise of Cultural Materialism, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. 米尔纳，A.（2002）《文化研究的再想象：文化唯物主义的承诺》，伦敦/千橡市/新德里：塞奇出版社。
Moraña, M. (eds) (2000) Nuevas perspectivas desde, sobre AmǑrica Latina: el desafÚo de los estudios culturales, Providencia, Santiago: Editorial Cuarto Propio; Instituto Internacional de Literatura Iberoamericana. 莫拉尼亚，M.（编）（2000 年）《拉丁美洲的新视角：文化研究的挑战》，普罗维登西亚，圣地亚哥：自家出版社；伊比利亚美洲国际文学研究所。
More, T. (1910; 1st ed. 1551) Utopia, Book I (trans. Robinson, R.), London: Dent. 莫尔, T. (1910; 初版 1551 年) 《乌托邦》第一卷 (罗宾逊, R. 译), 伦敦: 登特出版社。
Moriarty, M. (1995) “The longest cultural journey”: Raymond Williams and French theory’, in Prendergast, Ch. (ed) Cultural Materialism: On Raymond Williams, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 莫里亚蒂, M. (1995) "'最漫长的文化之旅': 雷蒙德·威廉斯与法国理论", 收录于普伦德加斯特, Ch. (编) 《文化唯物主义: 论雷蒙德·威廉斯》, 明尼阿波利斯: 明尼苏达大学出版社.
Morreale, S.P. and Pearson, J.C. (2008) ‘Why communication education is important: the centrality of the discipline in the 21st century’, Communication Education, 57(2): 224-40. 莫雷亚莱, S.P. 与皮尔逊, J.C. (2008) "为何传播教育至关重要: 该学科在 21 世纪的核心地位", 《传播教育》, 57(2): 224-40.
Mouffe, C. (2005) On the Political, London and New York: Routledge. 墨菲, C. (2005) 《论政治》, 伦敦与纽约: 劳特利奇出版社.
Mulhern, F. (1989) ‘Towards 2000, or news from you-know-where’, in Eagleton, T. (ed.) Raymond Williams: Critical Perspectives, Oxford: Polity. 马尔赫恩，F.（1989）《迈向 2000 年，或来自你知何处的消息》，载伊格尔顿，T.（编）《雷蒙德·威廉斯：批判视角》，牛津：政体出版社。
National Communication Association (2008) Communication Scholarship and the Humanities: A White Paper, Washington, DC: NCA. 美国国家传播协会（2008）《传播学术与人文科学：白皮书》，华盛顿特区：NCA。
Neate, P. and Platt, D. (eds) (2006) Culture is Our Weapon: AfroReggae in the Favelas of Rio, London: Latin America Bureau. 尼特，P. 与普拉特，D.（编）（2006）《文化是我们的武器：里约贫民窟的非洲雷鬼乐》，伦敦：拉丁美洲局。
Nelson, C. (1996) ‘Always already cultural studies: academic conferences and a manifesto’, in What is Cultural Studies? A Reader, Storey, J. (ed.) New York: Arnold. 纳尔逊，C.（1996）《永远已是文化研究：学术会议与宣言》，载《何为文化研究？读本》，斯托里，J.（编）纽约：阿诺德出版社。
Notes from Nowhere (eds) (2003) We are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anticapitalism, London and New York: Verso. 《无处笔记》编委会（2003）《我们无处不在：全球反资本主义运动的不可阻挡崛起》，伦敦与纽约：Verso 出版社。
O’Brien, B. (2004) Blogging America: Political Discourse in a Digital Nation, Wilsonville, Or.: William, James & Co. 奥布莱恩，B.（2004）《博客美国：数字国度的政治话语》，威尔逊维尔：威廉·詹姆斯出版公司。
O’Connor, A. (1989) Raymond Williams: Writing, Culture, Politics, New York: Basil Blackwell. 奥康纳, A. (1989) 《雷蒙德·威廉斯：写作、文化与政治》, 纽约: 巴兹尔·布莱克威尔出版社。
Ong, W.J. (1982) Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, London: Methuen. 翁，W.J.（1982）《口语文化与书面文化：词语的技术化》，伦敦：梅休因出版社。
Osborne, P. (1995) The Politics of Time, London and New York: Verso. 奥斯本, P. (1995) 《时间的政治》, 伦敦与纽约: 维索出版社.
Parrinder, P. (1987) ‘Utopia and negativity in Raymond W’illiams’, in Parrinder, P. The Failure of Theory, Brighton: Harvester Press. 帕林德, P. (1987) 《雷蒙德·威廉斯作品中的乌托邦与否定性》, 收录于帕林德, P. 《理论的失败》, 布赖顿: 哈维斯特出版社.
Patterson, A. (2005) ‘Keywords: Raymond Williams and others’, English Sundies in Canada (ESC) 30(4): 66-80. 帕特森, A. (2005) 《关键词: 雷蒙德·威廉斯及其他》, 《加拿大英语研究》(ESC) 30(4): 66-80.
Pensky, M. (ed.) (2005) Globalizing Critical Theory, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. 彭斯基, M. (编) (2005) 《全球化批判理论》, 兰哈姆: 罗曼与利特菲尔德出版社.
Peters, J.D. (1999) Speaking into the Air: A Histor of the Idea of Communication, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 彼得斯，J.D.（1999）《对空言说：传播观念史》，芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社。
Pickering, M. (1997) History, Experience and Cultural Studies, London: Macmillan Press. 皮克林，M.（1997）《历史、经验与文化研究》，伦敦：麦克米伦出版社。
Piglia, R. (1965) ‘Literatura y sociedad’, Literatura y sociedad, Buenos Aires1 (OctDec 1965), trans. Masnatta, C. 皮格利亚, R. (1965) 《文学与社会》, 载《文学与社会》杂志, 布宜诺斯艾利斯 1 (1965 年 10-12 月), 马斯纳塔, C. 译。
Pina, Á. (2000) ‘Williams’s cultural studies project, and Grossberg’s critique: an exploration’. Online. Available at <http://uww.comm.umn.edu -grodman/cultstud/ columns/ap-07-08-00.html> (accessed 20 March 2009). 皮纳，Á.（2000）《威廉姆斯的文化研究项目与格罗斯伯格的批评：一项探索》，在线。网址：<http://uww.comm.umn.edu -grodman/cultstud/columns/ap-07-08-00.html>（2009 年 3 月 20 日访问）。
Pinkney, T. (1991) Raymond Williams, Bridgend: Seren. 平克尼, T. (1991) 《雷蒙德·威廉斯》, 布里真德: 塞伦出版社。
Precarias a la Deriva (n.d.) A la deriva por los circuitos de la precariedad femenima, Madrid: Traficantes de Suenos. 《漂泊的临时工》（出版日期不详）《女性临时工的漂泊之路》，马德里：Traficantes de Suenos 出版社。
Probyn, E. (1993) Sexing the Self, London and New York: Routledge. 普罗宾, E. (1993) 《性别化的自我》, 伦敦与纽约: 劳特利奇出版社.
Pyle, F. (1993) ‘Raymond Williams and the Inhuman Limits of Culture’, in Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (eds) Views beyond the Border Country, London and New York: Routledge. 派尔, F. (1993) 《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与文化的非人界限》, 载德沃金, D.L. 与罗曼, L.G. (编) 《超越边界的风景》, 伦敦与纽约: 劳特利奇出版社.
Radhakrishnan, R. (1993) ‘Cultural theory and the politics of location’ , in Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (eds) Views beyond the Border Country, London and New York: Routledge. 拉达克里希南，R.（1993）《文化理论与定位政治》，载于德沃金，D.L.与罗曼，L.G.（编）《超越边界的风景》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Radway, J. (1992) ‘Mail-order culture and its critics: the book-of-the-month club, commodification and consumption, and the problem of cultural authority’, in Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., Treichler, P. A., Baughman, L., and Macgregor, Wise J. (eds) Cultural Studies, London and New York: Routledge. 拉德威，J.（1992）《邮购文化及其批评者：每月一书俱乐部、商品化与消费及文化权威问题》，载于格罗斯伯格，L.、纳尔逊，C.、特莱希勒，P.A.、鲍曼，L.与麦格雷戈·怀斯，J.（编）《文化研究》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Ramirez, J. (2008) ‘The big picture’, Newsweek, 10 November 2008. 拉米雷斯，J.（2008）《全景图》，《新闻周刊》，2008 年 11 月 10 日。
Readings, B. (1996) The Umeonsty m Rums. Cambridge, AiA: Harvard University Press. 里丁斯，B.（1996）《废墟中的大学》，马萨诸塞州剑桥市：哈佛大学出版社。
Rizvi, F. (1993) ‘Williams on democracy and the governance of education’, in Dworkin, D. (ed.) Vieus Beyond the Border Commary: Raymond Williams and Cultaral Politics, London and New York: Routledge. 里兹维，F.（1993）《威廉斯论民主与教育治理》，载于德沃金，D.（编）《跨越边界的视野：雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化政治》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Roberts, M.M. (2002) ‘Commancition Eduction and communication education: on editing and teaching’, Communication Education, 51(4): 360-63. 罗伯茨，M.M.（2002）《传播教育与传播教学：论编辑与教学》，《传播教育》第 51 卷第 4 期，第 360-363 页。
Roman, L.(i. (1993) “'O) the ground” with anti-racist pedagogy and Raymond Williams’s unfinished project’, in Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (eds) Views beyond the Border Country, London and New York: Routledge. 罗曼，L.G.（1993）《反种族主义教育学与雷蒙德·威廉斯未竟项目的"实地"实践》，载于德沃金，D.L.与罗曼，L.G.（合编）《超越边界的视野》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Rosenherg, B. and D.M. White (eds) (1957) Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America, New York: The Free Press. 罗森伯格，B.与怀特，D.M.（合编）（1957）《大众文化：美国的流行艺术》，纽约：自由出版社。
Roszak, T. (1978) Person/Planet: The Creative Disintegration of Society, New York: Anchor Press. 罗萨克, T. (1978) 《人/星球：社会的创造性解体》, 纽约: 锚出版社。
Rubin, D.L. (2002) ‘Binocular vision for communication education’, Communication Education, 51(4): 412-19. 鲁宾，D.L.（2002）《传播教育中的双眼视觉》，《传播教育》第 51 卷第 4 期：412-19 页。
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, Harmondsworth: Penguin. 萨义德，E.（1978）《东方学》，哈蒙兹沃斯：企鹅出版社。
(1988) ‘Edward W. Said’, The Nation: 312-14. （1988）《爱德华·W·萨义德》，《国家》杂志：312-14 页。
(2002) ‘In the shadow of the West’, in Said, E., Power, Politics and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said, New York: Vintage. （2002）《在西方阴影下》，载赛义德，E.，《权力、政治与文化：爱德华·W·赛义德访谈录》，纽约：Vintage 出版社。
Sarlo, B. (1979) ‘Raymond Williams y Richard Hoggart: sobre cultura y sociedad’, Punto de Vista 2(6). 萨洛，B.（1979）《雷蒙德·威廉斯与理查德·霍加特：论文化与社会》，《观点》第 2 卷第 6 期。
– (2002) ‘The new Latin Americanism: cultural studies’, paper presented at New Latin Americanism Conference (The University of Manchester), June 2002. Online. Available at <http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/clacs/events/past/ Conferences/new-latinamericanism/NewLatinAmericanismConferencePapers/ Sarlo/ >. ——（2002）《新拉美主义：文化研究》，提交于新拉美主义学术会议（曼彻斯特大学）的论文，2002 年 6 月。网络版。访问地址：<http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/clacs/events/past/Conferences/new-latinamericanism/NewLatinAmericanismConferencePapers/Sarlo/>。
Schmidt, S.J. (1992a) ‘Medien, Kultur: Medienkultur: Ein konstruktivistisches Gesprächsangebot’, in Schmidt, S.J. (ed.) Kognition und Gesellschaft: Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus 2, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. 施密特, S.J. (1992a) 《媒介、文化：媒介文化：一份建构主义的对话邀约》，载施密特, S.J. (编) 《认知与社会：激进建构主义话语(第二卷)》，法兰克福/美因：苏尔坎普出版社。
(1992b) ‘Media, culture: media culture: a constructivist offer of conversation’, Poetics 21: 191-210. (1992b) 《媒介、文化：媒介文化：建构主义的对话提议》，载《诗学》第 21 期：191-210 页。
Schulze, G. (1995) ‘Das Medienspiel’, in Müller-Doohm, S. and Neumann-Braun, K. (eds) Kulturinszenierungen, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. 舒尔策, G. (1995) 《媒介游戏》，载米勒-杜姆, S. 与诺伊曼-布劳恩, K. (合编) 《文化展演》，法兰克福/美因：苏尔坎普出版社。
Schwarz, R. (1996) ‘Un seminario de Marx’, Punto de Vista 54. 施瓦茨, R. (1996) 《马克思研讨会》，载《观点》第 54 期。
Scott, D. (2004) Conscripts of Modernity, Durham: Duke University Press. 斯科特，D.（2004）《现代性的征召》，达勒姆：杜克大学出版社。
Shapiro, H. S. (1982) ‘Society and education in the work of Raymond Williams: aspects of the theory of the long revolution’, Journal of Thought 17(4): 39-55. 夏皮罗，H.S.（1982）《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯作品中的社会与教育：长期革命理论的若干方面》，《思想期刊》17(4): 39-55.
Shiach, M. (1995) ‘A gendered history of cultural categories’, in Prendergast, Ch. (ed.) Cultural Materialism: On Raymond Williams, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 希亚克，M.（1995）《文化类别的性别化历史》，载普伦德加斯特，Ch.（编）《文化唯物主义：论雷蒙德·威廉姆斯》，明尼阿波利斯：明尼苏达大学出版社.
Sinfield, A. (1992) Faultines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissent Reading. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 辛菲尔德，A.（1992）《断层线：文化唯物主义与异议政治阅读》，牛津：克拉伦登出版社.
Skinner, Q. (1988) ‘Language and social change’, in Tully, J. (ed.) Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics, Cambridge: Polity Press. 斯金纳，Q.（1988）《语言与社会变革》，载塔利，J.（编）《意义与语境：昆汀·斯金纳及其批评者》，剑桥：政体出版社.
Smith, D. (2008) Raymond Williams: A Warrior’s Tale, Aberteifi, Caerfyrddin: Parthian. 史密斯，D.（2008）《雷蒙德·威廉姆斯：一个战士的故事》，阿伯蒂菲，卡马森：帕西安出版社。
Spivak, G.C. (2003) The Death of a Discipline, New York: Columbia University Press. 斯皮瓦克, G.C. (2003) 《学科的消亡》, 纽约: 哥伦比亚大学出版社。
Sprague, J. (1999) ‘The goals of communication education’, in Vangelisti A.L., Daly, J.A. and Friedrich, G.W. (eds) Teaching Communication: Theory, Research and Methods, Mahavah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 斯普拉格, J. (1999) 《传播教育的目标》, 收录于范杰利斯蒂 A.L., 戴利, J.A. 与弗里德里希, G.W. (编) 《传播教学：理论、研究与方法》, 马瓦: 劳伦斯·厄尔鲍姆出版社。
(2002; 1st edn 1990) ‘The goals of communication education’, in Vangelisti, A. L., Daly, J. A. and Friedrich, G.W. (eds) Teaching Communication: Theory, Research, and Methods, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. (2002; 初版 1990) 《传播教育的目标》, 收录于范杰利斯蒂, A. L., 戴利, J. A. 与弗里德里希, G.W. (编) 《传播教学：理论、研究与方法》, 马瓦: 劳伦斯·厄尔鲍姆出版社。
Starr, A. (2005) Global Revolt: A Guide to the Movements Against Globalisation, London and New York: Zed Books. 斯塔尔, A. (2005) 《全球反抗：反全球化运动指南》, 伦敦与纽约: Zed 出版社.
Steele, T. (1996) ‘Book reviews: Raymond Williams: our best man’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 28. 斯蒂尔, T. (1996) 《书评：雷蒙德·威廉斯：我们最优秀的人》,《成人教育研究》, 28.
(2008; 1st edn 1996) ‘Book reviews: Raymond Williams: our best man’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 28; National Communication Association, Communication Scholarship and the Humanites: A White Paper, Washington, D.C.: NCA: 2-3. (2008; 初版 1996) 《书评：雷蒙德·威廉斯：我们最优秀的人》,《成人教育研究》, 28; 美国国家传播协会,《传播学奖学金与人文学科：白皮书》, 华盛顿特区: NCA: 2-3.
Steiner, G. (1961) The Death of Tragedy, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 斯坦纳, G. (1961) 《悲剧之死》, 纽约: 阿尔弗雷德·A·克诺夫出版社.
Stevenson, N. (1997) ‘Rethinking human nature and human needs: Raymond Williams and mass communications’, in Wallace, Jones, J.R. and Nield, S. (eds), Raymond Williams Now, New York: St. Martin’s Press. 史蒂文森，N.（1997）《重新思考人性与人类需求：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯与大众传播》，载于华莱士、琼斯，J.R.与尼尔德，S.（编），《今日雷蒙德·威廉姆斯》，纽约：圣马丁出版社。
Storey, J. (1993) An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, Athens/ GA: University of Georgia Press. 斯托里，J.（1993）《文化理论与通俗文化导论》，雅典/佐治亚州：佐治亚大学
(ed.) (1996) What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. New York: Arnold （编）（1996）《何谓文化研究？读本》，纽约：阿诺德出版社
(2001) ‘The social life of opera’, in European Journal of Cultural Studies 6(1): 5-35. （2001）《歌剧的社会生活》，载于《欧洲文化研究期刊》6(1): 5-35。
(2002) ‘Expecting rain: opera as popular culture’, in Collins, J. (ed.) High-Pop, Oxford: Blackwell. (2002)《期待雨落：作为流行文化的歌剧》，载柯林斯(J. Collins)编《高雅流行》，牛津：布莱克威尔出版社。
(2006) ‘Inventing opera as art in nineteenth-century manchester’ International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(4): 435-56. (2006)《十九世纪曼彻斯特歌剧艺术化的发明》，《国际文化研究期刊》第 9 卷第 4 期：435-456 页。
(2009a) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, London: Pearson. (2009a)《文化理论与大众文化》，伦敦：皮尔森出版社。
(2009b; 4th edn) ‘Rockin’ hegemony: West Coast rock and America’s war in Vietnam’, in Storey, J. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, London: Pearson. (2009b；第四版)《摇滚霸权：西海岸摇滚乐与美国的越南战争》，载斯托里(J. Storey)编《文化理论与大众文化》，伦敦：皮尔森出版社。
Suoranta, J. and Vadén, T. (2007) ‘From social to socialist media: the critical potential of the wikiworld’, in McLaren, P. and Kincheloe, J.L. (eds) Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now? New York: Peter Lang. 苏兰塔与瓦登（2007），《从社会媒体到社会主义媒体：维基世界的批判潜力》，载麦克拉伦与金奇洛编《批判教育学：我们身在何处？》，纽约：彼得·朗出版社。
Takeuchi, Y. (2005), What is Modernity? (trans. Richard Calichman), New York: Columbia. 竹内洋（2005），《何谓现代性？》（理查德·卡利奇曼英译），纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社。
Thomas, C. (2005) Border Crossing: The Journe’s of Raymend W’lliams, BBC4, in January 2005. 托马斯（2005），《跨越边界：雷蒙德·威廉斯的旅程》，英国广播公司第四频道，2005 年 1 月播出。
Thompson, D. (1983) Over Our Dead Bodies, London: Virago. 汤普森，D.（1983）《踏过我们的尸体》，伦敦：维拉戈出版社。
Thompson, E.P. (1968) The Making of the Englash Working Class, Harmondsworth: Penguin. 汤普森，E.P.（1968）《英国工人阶级的形成》，哈蒙兹沃思：企鹅出版社。
Tribune, 28 April 1967. 《论坛报》，1967 年 4 月 28 日。
Viswanathan, G. (1993) ‘Raymond Williams and British colonialism: the limits of metropolitan cultural theory’, in Dworkin, D.L. and Roman, L.G. (eds) Views beyond the Border Country, London and New York: Routledge. 维斯瓦纳坦，G.（1993）《雷蒙德·威廉斯与英国殖民主义：大都市文化理论的局限》，载于德沃金，D.L.与罗曼，L.G.（合编）《超越边界之地的视野》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
Volosinov, V.N. (1986; 1st edn 1973) Matrism and the Philosophy of Language; trans. Matejka, L. and Titunik, I. R., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 沃洛希诺夫，V.N.（1986 年；初版 1973 年）《马克思主义与语言哲学》；马特伊卡，L. 和蒂图尼克，I.R. 译，剑桥，马萨诸塞州：哈佛大学出版社。
Wall, D. (2005) Babylon and Beyond: The Economics of Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Globalist and Radical Green Movements, London: Pluto Press. 沃尔，D.（2005）《巴比伦及其远方：反资本主义、反全球化与激进绿色运动的经济学》，伦敦：冥王星出版社。
Walton, P. and Hall, S. (1972) ‘Introduction’, in Hatl, Stuatt and W’alton, Paul (eds) Situating Marx, London: Human Context Books. 沃尔顿，P. 与霍尔，S.（1972）《导论》，收录于哈特尔，斯图亚特与沃尔顿，保罗（编）《定位马克思》，伦敦：人文语境出版社。
Williams, D. (2003) Who Speaks for Wales?, University of Wales Press. 威廉斯，D.（2003）《谁为威尔士发声？》，威尔士大学出版社。
Williams, J. (1992) ‘Postscript’, in W’illiams, R. People of the Black Mountains, I’ol. II, London: Paladin. 威廉斯，J.（1992 年）《后记》，载于威廉斯，R. 《黑山人》第二卷，伦敦：帕拉丁出版社。
Williams, R. (1947) ‘Some experiments in literature teaching’, Rewley House Papers 11: 9) 15. 威廉姆斯，R.（1947）《文学教学中的若干实验》，载《Rewley House 论文集》第 11 期：9-15 页。
(1948) ‘A note on Mr Hoggart’s appendices’ Adult Education 21: 96-8. （1948）《关于霍加特先生附录的说明》，载《成人教育》第 21 期：96-98 页。
(1953a) ‘Film as a tutorial subject’, Rewley House Papers 3:2: 27-37; reprinted in Mellroy, I. and Westword. S. (eds) (1993) Border Comm: Raymond Williams in Adult Educatom. Leicester: National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education. （1953a）《电影作为辅导课学科》，载《Rewley House 论文集》第 3 卷第 2 期：27-37 页；后收录于梅尔罗伊，I.与韦斯特伍德，S.（编）（1993）《边界交流：雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的成人教育实践》，莱斯特：国家成人及继续教育研究所。
(1953b) ‘The teaching of public expression’, The Highway, April: 42-8. （1953b）《公共表达教学》，载《大道》四月刊：42-48 页。
(1958) Culture and Society, 1780-1950, London and New York: Columbia University Press. (1958)《文化与社会：1780-1950》，伦敦与纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社。
(1959) ‘The press and popular education’, The Highway: 183-88. (1959)《报刊与大众教育》，《公路》杂志：183-88 页。
(1971a) ‘Downhill to Dutschke’, The Nation Feb 15: 210-12. (1971a) 《走向杜契克的下坡路》，载《国家》2 月 15 日刊：210-212 页。
(1971b) ‘Dutschke and Cambridge’, Cambridge Review Jan 29: 94-95. （1971 年 b）《杜契克与剑桥》，《剑桥评论》1 月 29 日刊：94-95 页。
-. (1971c) ‘Literature and sociology: in memory of Lucien Goldmann’, New Left Review 67: 3-18. -.（1971c）《文学与社会学：纪念吕西安·戈德曼》，《新左翼评论》第 67 期：3-18 页。
(1973a) ‘Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory’, New Left Review 82: 3-16. （1973a）《马克思主义文化理论中的基础与上层建筑》，《新左翼评论》第 82 期：3-16 页。
(1973b) The Country and the City, London: Chatto & Windus. （1973b）《乡村与城市》，伦敦：查托与温达斯出版社。
(1973c) The Country and the City, St Albans: Paladin. （1973c）《乡村与城市》，圣奥尔本斯：帕拉丁出版社。
(1973d; 1st edn 1968) Drama from Ibsen to Brecht, Harmondsworth, Penguin. （1973 年修订版；初版 1968 年）《从易卜生到布莱希特的戏剧》，哈蒙兹沃思，企鹅出版社。
(1974) ‘Communications as cultural science’, Journal of Communication, 24: 17-25. (1974)《作为文化科学的传播》，《传播学刊》24 期：17-25 页。
(1979b) The Fight for Manod, London: Chatto & Windus. (1979b) 《为马诺德而战》，伦敦：查托与温达斯出版社。
(1979c) ‘The growth and role of the mass media’, in Gardner, C. (ed.) Media, Politics and Culture, London: Macmillan. (1979c)《大众媒体的发展与作用》，载于加德纳(C. Gardner)编《媒体、政治与文化》，伦敦：麦克米伦出版社。
-_ (1979d) Politics and Letters: Interviews with New Left Review. London: New Left Books. (1979d)《政治与文学：新左派评论访谈录》，伦敦：新左派书局。
(1979e) Politics and Letters: Interviews with New Left Review, London and New York: Verso. (1979e)《政治与文学：新左派评论访谈录》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1979f) Politics and Letters: Interviews with New Left Review, Thetford, Northfolk: Lowe and Brydone Printers Limited. (1979f)《政治与文学：新左派评论访谈录》，诺福克郡塞特福德：洛与布莱登印刷有限公司。
(1980a; 1st edn 1973) ‘Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory’, in Problems in Materialism and Culture, London and New York: Verso. （1980a；初版 1973 年）《马克思主义文化理论中的基础与上层建筑》，载《唯物主义与文化问题》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1980b; 1st edn 1972) ‘Ideas of nature’, in Problems in Materialism and Culture, London and New York: Verso. （1980b；初版 1972 年）《自然观念》，载《唯物主义与文化问题》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1980c) Problems in Materialism and Culture, London and New York: Verso. （1980c）《唯物主义与文化问题》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1981a) ‘Communication technologies and social institutions’, in Williams, R. (ed.) Contact: Human Communication and Its History, London: Thames & Hudson. （1981a）《传播技术与社会制度》，载威廉姆斯主编《接触：人类传播及其历史》，伦敦：泰晤士与哈德逊出版社。
(1981b) Culture, London and Glasgow: Fontana. (1981b) 《文化》，伦敦与格拉斯哥：丰塔纳出版社。
(1982) Sociology of Culture, New York: Shocken. (1982)《文化社会学》，纽约：肖肯出版社。
(1983a) Cobbett, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1983a)《科贝特》，牛津：牛津大学出版社。
(1983b; 1st edn 1976) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Flamingo. (1983b；首版 1976)《关键词：文化与社会的词汇》，伦敦：火鸟出版社。
(1983c; 1st edn 1976) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Oxford University Press. （1983c；初版 1976）《关键词：文化与社会的词汇》，伦敦：牛津大学出版社。
(1983d; 1st edn 1976) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, London and Glasgow: Fontana. （1983d；初版 1976）《关键词：文化与社会的词汇》，伦敦与格拉斯哥：丰塔纳出版社。
(1983e) ‘Marx on Culture’, in Williams, R., What I Came To Say, London: Hutchinson Radius （1983e）《马克思论文化》，收录于威廉姆斯《我欲言之语》，伦敦：哈钦森半径出版社
(1983f) Towards 2000, London: Chatto and Windus. （1983f）《迈向 2000 年》，伦敦：查托与温达斯出版社
(1984a; 1st edn 1981) ‘Crisis in English Studies’ in Writing in Society, London and New York: Verso. (1984a；初版 1981 年)《英语研究的危机》，收录于《社会中的写作》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1984b; 1st edn 1970) The English Novel from Dickens to Laurence. London: Hogarth. (1984b；初版 1970 年)《从狄更斯到劳伦斯的英国小说》，伦敦：霍加斯出版社。
(1985a; 1st edn 1973) The Country and the City, London: Hogarth. (1985a；初版 1973 年)《乡村与城市》，伦敦：霍加斯出版社。
(1987) ‘Country and city in the modern novel’, University College of Swansea. (1987)《现代小说中的乡村与城市》，斯旺西大学学院。
(1989a) ‘Communications and community’, in Gable, R. (ed.) Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy and Socialism, London and New York: Verso. (1989a)《传播与共同体》，载于加布尔编《希望的资源：文化、民主与社会主义》，伦敦及纽约：维索出版社。
(1989b; 1st edn 1958) ‘Culture is ordinary’, in Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, and Socialism, London and New York. Verso. (1989b；初版 1958)《文化是平常的》，载于《希望的资源：文化、民主与社会主义》，伦敦及纽约：维索出版社。
(1989c; 1st edn 1986) ‘The future of cultural studies’, in The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists (ed. Pinkney, T.), London and New York: Verso. (1989c；初版 1986)《文化研究的未来》，载于平克尼编《现代主义的政治：反对新墨守成规者》，伦敦及纽约：维索出版社。
(1989d; 1st edn 1968) ‘The idea of a common culture’, in Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, and Socialism, London and New York. Verso. （1989d；初版 1968 年）《共同文化的理念》，载于《希望的资源：文化、民主与社会主义》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1989e; 1st edn 1983) ‘Marx on culture’, in What I Came to Say, London: Hutchinson Radius. （1989e；初版 1983 年）《马克思论文化》，载于《我欲言之语》，伦敦：哈钦森半径出版社。
(1989f) The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists, ed. Pinkney, T., London and New York: Verso. （1989f）《现代主义的政治：反对新循规蹈矩者》，平克尼编，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1989g) Raymond Williams on Television: Selected Writings, ed. O’Connor, A., London and New York: Routledge. （1989g）《雷蒙德·威廉斯论电视：文选》，奥康纳编，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(1989h) Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, and Socialism, London and New York: Verso. (1989h) 《希望的资源：文化、民主与社会主义》，伦敦与纽约：沃索出版社。
(1989i; 1st ed. 1982) ‘Socialism and ecology’, in Williams, R. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialson (od. Robin (iable), London and New York: Verso. (1989i；初版 1982) 《社会主义与生态学》，收录于威廉姆斯, R. 《希望的资源：文化、民主、社会主义》（罗宾·盖布尔编），伦敦与纽约：沃索出版社。
(1989j) ‘When was modernism?’, in The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists (ed. Pinkney, T.), London and New York: Verso. (1989j) 《现代主义始于何时？》，收录于《现代主义的政治：反对新墨守成规者》（托尼·平克尼编），伦敦与纽约：沃索出版社。
(1989k) ‘The uses of cultural theory’, in Pinkney T. (ed.) The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists, London and New York: Verso (1989k) 《文化理论的用途》，收录于托尼·平克尼编《现代主义的政治：反对新墨守成规者》，伦敦与纽约：沃索出版社
(1990a; 1st edn 1987) ‘Foreword to 1987 edition’, in Williams, R. Culture and Society, London: Hogarth. （1990a；初版 1987）《1987 年版序言》，载威廉斯，R.《文化与社会》，伦敦：贺加斯出版社。
(1990b; 1st edn 1989) People of the Black Mountains, Vol. I: The Beginning, London: Paladin. （1990b；初版 1989）《黑山人民·第一卷：起源》，伦敦：帕拉丁出版社。
(1990c; 1st edn 1975) Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London and New York: Routledge. （1990c；初版 1975）《电视：技术与文化形式》，伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(1991; 1st edn 1983) Writing in Society, London and New York: Verso. （1991；初版 1983）《社会中的写作》，伦敦与纽约：维索出版社。
(1992; 1st edn 1961) The Long Revolution, London: Hogarth. (1992；初版 1961)《漫长的革命》，伦敦：霍加斯出版社。
(1993; 1st edn 1973) The Country and the City, London: Hogarth, 1993. （1993 年；初版 1973 年）《乡村与城市》，伦敦：霍加斯出版社，1993 年。
(1997; 1st ed. 1958) ‘Culture is ordinary’, in Gray, A. and McGuigan, J. (eds) Studying Culture: An Introductory Reader, London and New York: Arnold. （1997 年；初版 1958 年）"文化是寻常的"，收录于格雷与麦圭根（编）《文化研究导论读本》，伦敦与纽约：阿诺德出版社。
(2001; 1st edn 1973) ‘Prefatory note: Lucien Goldmann and Marxism’s alternative tradition’, in Higgins, John (ed.) The Raymond Williams Reader, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. （2001 年；初版 1973 年）"序言注释：吕西安·戈德曼与马克思主义的另类传统"，收录于约翰·希金斯（编）《雷蒙德·威廉斯读本》，牛津：巴兹尔·布莱克威尔出版社。
(2003) Television: Technology and Cultural Form (ed. Williams, E.), London and New York: Routledge. (2003)《电视：技术与文化形式》（威廉姆斯，E.编），伦敦与纽约：劳特利奇出版社。
(2006; 1st edn 1961) ‘The analysis of culture’, in Storey, J. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, London: Pearson. (2006；初版 1961)《文化分析》，收录于斯托里，J.（编）《文化理论与大众文化》，伦敦：培生教育。
Williams, R. and Orrom, M. (1954) Preface to Film. London: Film Drama. 威廉姆斯，R.与奥罗姆，M.（1954）《电影序言》。伦敦：电影戏剧出版社。
Winograd, M. and Hais, M.D. (2008) Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 威诺格拉德，M.与海斯，M.D.（2008）《千禧一代的变革：MySpace、YouTube 与美国政治的未来》，新泽西州新不伦瑞克：罗格斯大学出版社。
Winter, R. (2001) Die Kunst des Eigensinns: Cultural Studies als Kritik der Macht, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. 温特, R. (2001) 《固执的艺术：文化研究作为权力批判》，魏勒斯维斯特：维尔布吕克学术出版社。
(2005) ‘Critical pedagogy’ in Ritzer, G. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Vol. I, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage. （2005）《批判教育学》，载于里策，G.（编）《社会理论百科全书》第一卷，千橡/伦敦/新德里：塞奇出版社。
Winter, R. and Zima, P. V. (eds) (2007) Kritische Theorie heute, Bielefeld: transcript. 温特, R. 与齐玛, P. V. (合编) (2007) 《今日批判理论》，比勒费尔德：成绩单出版社。
Woodhams, S. (1999) ‘Adult education and the history of cultural studies’, Changing English, 6: 237-49. 伍德汉姆斯，S.（1999）《成人教育与文化研究史》，《变革中的英语》第 6 期：237-249 页。
-. (2001) History in the Making, London: Merlin Press. - . (2001) 《创造中的历史》，伦敦：梅林出版社。
Worsley, P. (1967; 1st edn 1964) The Third World, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 沃斯利, P. (1967; 初版 1964) 《第三世界》，伦敦：韦登菲尔德与尼科尔森出版社。
Wright, H.K. (1998) ‘Dare we de-centre Birmingham? Troubling the “origin” and trajectories of cultural studies’, European Journal of Cultural Studies 1(1): 33-56. 赖特, H.K. (1998) 《我们敢让伯明翰去中心化吗？——文化研究的"起源"与轨迹之困》，《欧洲文化研究期刊》1(1): 33-56。
Young, R. J. C. (1996) ‘The dialectics of cultural criticism’, Angelaki 2:2: Authorizing Culture: 9-24. 杨, R. J. C. (1996) 《文化批评的辩证法》，《安杰拉基》2:2: 文化授权专题: 9-24。
Ziegler, J. (2005) Die neuen Herrscher der Welt und ihre globalen Widersacher, Munich: Goldmann. 齐格勒, J. (2005) 《世界的新统治者及其全球对手》，慕尼黑：戈德曼出版社。
Index 索引
Page references to endnotes will have the letter ’ nn ’ following the number. ’ RWR W ’ stands for Raymond Williams 尾注页码后会有' nn '标记。' RWR W '代表雷蒙德·威廉姆斯
abstract romanticism, 115 抽象浪漫主义, 115 页
action, 161-64 动作，161-64
Adorno, Theodor, 53, 139 西奥多·阿多诺，53, 139
adult literacy, 82, 86 成人识字率，82, 86
Al Jazeera, 100 半岛电视台，100
Altamirano, Carlos, 135 阿尔塔米拉诺，卡洛斯，135
Althusser, Louis, 13, 19, 69 阿尔都塞，路易，13, 19, 69
Anderson, Perry, 4, 58, 141 安德森，佩里，4, 58, 141
Anker, Elisabeth, 101, 103 安克尔，伊丽莎白，101, 103
anti-authoritarian movement, Germany, 1 德国反威权运动，1
anti-capitalist movement, 53, 54 反资本主义运动，53, 54
Argentina, cultural materialism in, 133 阿根廷的文化唯物主义研究，133
Arnold, Matthew, 4, 34 马修·阿诺德，4, 34
art, 85 艺术，85
Asad, Talad, 30 阿萨德，塔拉德，30
Assmann, Aleida, 96 阿斯曼，阿莱达，96
Auerbach, Frank Helmut, 135-36 奥尔巴赫，弗兰克·赫尔穆特，135-36
autonomy, 19 自主性，19
Bacon, F., 142 培根，F.，142
banking concept of education, 88-90,92 教育的储蓄式概念，88-90,92
Barbero, Jesús Martín, 130 巴尔贝罗，赫苏斯·马丁，130
Barnett, Anthony, 4, 141 巴尼特，安东尼，4，141
Barthes, Roland, 11, 131, 137 巴特，罗兰，11，131，137
Base-Superstructure Model, 13, 37, 51-52 基础-上层建筑模型，13, 37, 51-52
Bate, Jonathan, 148 乔纳森·贝特，148
Baudelaire, Charles, 28, 29, 33n 夏尔·波德莱尔，28, 29, 33n
Benghiat, Suzy, 60 苏西·本吉亚特，60
Benjamin, W., 13, 56n, 131; and disremembering, 117, 125, 127; and modernity theory, 28, 29, 31, 33n 本雅明，W.，13, 56n, 131；与记忆缺失，117, 125, 127；与现代性理论，28, 29, 31, 33n
Bérubé, Michael, 159 贝鲁贝，迈克尔，159
Blackburn, Robin, 60 布莱克本，罗宾，60
books, 38, 47, 155, 156 书籍，38，47，155，156
Border Country (Williams), 84 《边境乡村》（威廉姆斯著），84
Labour Party, 57, 58, 63, 91 工党，57, 58, 63, 91
Lacan, Jacques, 137 雅克·拉康，137
Laclau, Ernesto, 40-41 厄内斯托·拉克劳，40-41
Laing, R.D., 60 莱恩，R.D.，60
language theories, 11,13,52,16911,13,52,169 语言理论， 11,13,52,16911,13,52,169
Lasch, Christopher, 98 拉希，克里斯托弗，98
Latin America, cultural studies in, 130 拉丁美洲文化研究，130
Lawrence, D.H., 172 劳伦斯，D.H.，172
Leavis, F.R., 4, 45, 47, 49, 75 利维斯，F.R.，4, 45, 47, 49, 75
Leavisite definition of culture, 34, 35 利维斯派对文化的定义，34, 35
Left Book Club, 57 左翼读书俱乐部，57
Levi-Strauss, Claude, 11 列维-斯特劳斯，克劳德，11
liberal humanism, 4 自由人文主义，4
The Limits of Growth (Club of Rome), 142 《增长的极限》（罗马俱乐部），142 页
literary criticism, 74 文学批评，74
literary tradition, 49 文学传统，49 页
literature, and knowable communities, 165-75 文学与可知社群，165-175 页
London Review of Books, 129 《伦敦书评》，129
The London Review of Books (Colley), 118 《伦敦书评》（科利著），118
The Long Revolution (Williams), 7, 8, 9, 10, 48, 85, 116, 135, 166; and culture as signifying system, 37, 38-39, 43 《漫长的革命》（威廉斯著），7, 8, 9, 10, 48, 85, 116, 135, 166；及作为表意系统的文化，37, 38-39, 43
Löwenthal, Leo, 2 利奥·洛文塔尔，2
Lukács, Georg, 1, 3, 12, 13, 52, 137 格奥尔格·卢卡奇，1, 3, 12, 13, 52, 137
The Making of the English Working Class (Thompson), 3 《英国工人阶级的形成》（汤普森著），3
Manifesto Conference, London (1968), 64, 65 伦敦《宣言》会议（1968 年），64, 65
Marcuse, Herbert, 55n 赫伯特·马尔库塞，55n
market, modernity as (Germany), 21 作为市场的现代性（德国），21
Marx, Karl, 37, 51, 127n, 131 卡尔·马克思，37, 51, 127n, 131
Marxism, 4, 144; base and superstructure in, 13, 37, 51-52; ‘Western’, 2, 3, 11, 50 马克思主义，4, 144；其中的基础与上层建筑，13, 37, 51-52；"西方"马克思主义，2, 3, 11, 50
Marxism and Literature (Williams), 8, 11, 12, 23, 37, 50, 123, 125, 138 《马克思主义与文学》（威廉斯著），8, 11, 12, 23, 37, 50, 123, 125, 138
mass civilization, 34,47 大众文明，34,47
mass culture, 6, 108 大众文化，6, 108
mass media, growth, 115 大众媒体，发展，115
materialism, 19 唯物主义，19
Maxim Gorky Training Centre for teachers, Có, 90 马克西姆·高尔基教师培训中心，Có，90 页
May Day Manifesto (1968), 2, 57-67; Caxton Hall launch (1967), 59, 60; ‘Main Resolution Adopted’, 65 《五一宣言》（1968 年），第 2、57-67 页；卡克斯顿厅发布会（1967 年），第 59、60 页；"通过的主要决议"，第 65 页
McCarthyism, 80n 麦卡锡主义，80 页注释
McEwan, Ian, 172-74 伊恩·麦克尤恩，172-74 页
McGuigan, J., 106 J·麦圭根，106 页
McLuhan, M., 96 麦克卢汉，M.，96
McQuail, Denis, 109 麦奎尔，丹尼斯，109
McRobbie, Angela, 15 麦克罗比，安吉拉，15
Media Culture (Kellner), 110-11 《媒体文化》（凯尔纳著），110-11
media culture/media cultural studies, 6-7, 106-16; culture of media as media culture, 109-11; in Germany, 109-10; metaphors, media, 109; passageways, media as, 106,111,112,113106,111,112,113; public media and common culture, 114-16 媒介文化/媒介文化研究，6-7，106-16；作为媒介文化的媒体文化，109-11；在德国的发展，109-10；媒介隐喻，109；作为通道的媒介， 106,111,112,113106,111,112,113 ；公共媒体与共同文化，114-16
media hegemony, 99 媒介霸权，99
media research, 113 媒体研究，113 页
mediation, 22, 23 中介化，22，23
melodrama, 101 情节剧，101
memory, 33n 记忆，33n
Merlin Press, 60 梅林出版社，60
middle-class culture, 4 中产阶级文化，4
Milar, Henry, 60 米勒，亨利，60
Miliband, Ralph, 58 米利班德，拉尔夫，58
Milner, A., 49, 111 米尔纳，A.，49, 111
minority culture, 34 少数文化，34
mobile privatisation, 96, 113 移动私有化，96, 113
modernity theory, 11, 18-33; avantgardist aesthetic view, 25; and change, 27-29; chronotopes, 25-30; common-sense view, 25-27; emergent modernities, 25; national contexts, 21; residual modernities, 25 ; social relations/sociological view, 25, 26; and structure of feeling, 18-24, 30, 31; topological view, 26, 27-28 现代性理论，11, 18-33；先锋派美学观点，25；与变革，27-29；时空体，25-30；常识观点，25-27；新兴现代性，25；民族语境，21；残余现代性，25；社会关系/社会学观点，25, 26；与情感结构，18-24, 30, 31；拓扑学观点，26, 27-28
More, Thomas, 147 莫尔，托马斯，147
Mouffe, Chantal, 40-41, 95, 104, 105 墨菲，尚塔尔，40-41, 95, 104, 105
Movement for Colonial Freedom, 66 殖民地自由运动，66
Movement for Popular Culture, 82, 84 大众文化运动，82, 84
Mulhern, Francis, 4, 141 穆尔赫恩，弗朗西斯，4，141
multi-accentuality of the sign, 42 符号的多重可解读性，42
multi-tasking, 96 多任务处理，96
Murdoch, Iris, 60 默多克，艾瑞斯，60
Murdoch, Rupert, 99-100 默多克，鲁珀特，99-100
naming of people, 150 人物命名，150
naming of places, 148-49148-49 地名命名， 148-49148-49
The Nation (American weekly), 2, 68 《国家》（美国周刊），2，68
National Convention of the Left, 57, 64, 66 左翼全国代表大会，57，64，66
National Council for Civil Liberties, 2 nature, 54, 142, 144 全国公民自由委员会，2 种性质，54, 142, 144
Nelson, Cary, 161 卡里·纳尔逊，161
neo-liberalism, 53 新自由主义，53
neo-Marxism, 12 新马克思主义，12
Newens, Stan, 59 斯坦·纽恩斯，59
New Left, 3, 11, 54 新左派，3, 11, 54
New Left Review, 4, 12, 87, 141, 171-72; and May Day Manifesto (1968), 57, 59; and radical democracy, 49, 50 《新左评论》，4, 12, 87, 141, 171-72；与《五一宣言》（1968 年）的关系，57, 59；与激进民主的关联，49, 50
new media, 77 新媒体，77
New Revisionism, 106 新修正主义，106
9/11, and communications technology, 7, 95, 98, 101-3; tragedy of 9/11, 102 9/11 事件与通信技术，7, 95, 98, 101-3；9/11 悲剧，102
‘Noch-Nicht-Seins’, 47 "尚未存在"（Noch-Nicht-Seins），47
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 54 北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA），54
novels: English, nineteenth century, 168,175 n168,175 n; reading as knowable communities, 165-75 小说：英国，十九世纪， 168,175 n168,175 n ；作为可知社区的阅读，165-75
now as event, notion of, 28-29 当下作为事件的概念，28-29
Nowell Smith, Geoffrey, 12 nuclear weapons, 58 杰弗里·诺埃尔-史密斯，12 核武器，58
Obama, Barack, 103, 104 奥巴马，巴拉克，103, 104
O’Connor, Alan, 80n, 172 奥康纳，艾伦，80n, 172
oikos, 145 家庭（oikos），145
Ong, Walter J., 96 翁，沃尔特·J.，96
Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act (1997), 98 《在线版权责任限制法案》（1997 年），98
online video, 94-105 在线视频，94-105
Open University, 91, 92 开放大学，91, 92
opera, 44n 歌剧，44n
ordinariness of culture/cultural studies, 38, 47, 153-64 文化的日常性/文化研究的日常性，38, 47, 153-64
organic intellectual, 162, 163 有机知识分子，162, 163
Orientalism: In the Shadow of the West (Said), 120, 121 《东方主义：西方阴影下的他者》（萨义德），120, 121
Osborne, P., 27, 33n 奥斯本，P.，27, 33n
overdetermination, 13 多元决定，13
Para ler Raymond Williams (Cevasco), 134 《解读雷蒙德·威廉斯》（塞瓦斯科著），134
parody-phrase, 119 戏仿短语，119
Parrinder, Patrick, 125, 126 帕林德，帕特里克，125，126
participatory democracy, 111 参与式民主，111
participatory panopticon, 101 参与式全景监控，101
Partisan Club, 58, 60 党派俱乐部，58, 60
passageways, media as, 106,111,112,113106,111,112,113 作为通道的媒体， 106,111,112,113106,111,112,113
pedagogy, 160-61; of cultural materialism, 81-93; didactic approach of RW to, 72; see also critical pedagogy 教育学，160-61；文化唯物主义的教育学，81-93；RW 对此的教学法取向，72；另见批判教育学
Pedagogy of the City (Freire), 86 《城市教育学》（弗莱雷），86
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire) 85, 88, 92 《被压迫者教育学》（弗莱雷）85, 88, 92
People of the Black Mountains (Williams), 147, 149, 150-51 《黑山人》（威廉斯），147, 149, 150-51
people’s universities, 89-90, 91 人民大学，89-90, 91
Pernambuco, State Council on Education, 82 伯南布哥州教育委员会，82
Pew Research Center, 97 皮尤研究中心，97
phatic communication, 97 寒暄交流，97
Pickering, Michael, 166 迈克尔·皮克林，166
Piglia, Ricardo, 137-38 里卡多·皮格利亚，137-38
Pinkney, Tony, 151 平克尼，托尼，151
place-names, 14849 地名，14849
Platt, Jennifer, 62 普拉特，詹妮弗，62
political activism, and culture, 53 政治行动主义与文化，53
political humanism, 20 政治人文主义，20
political principles, 76-78 政治原则，76-78
Politics and Letters (Williams), 21, 23, 56n, 60-61, 87, 88 《政治与文学》（威廉斯著），21, 23, 56n, 60-61, 87, 88
The Politics of Modernism (Williams), 24, 117, 139 《现代主义的政治》（威廉斯），24, 117, 139 页
popular culture, 44n 大众文化，44n
Population, Resources, Environment (Ehrlich), 142 《人口、资源、环境》（埃利希著），142
post-modernism, 55n 后现代主义，55n
post-structuralism, 3 后结构主义，3
post-war conjuncture, 20 战后局势，20
power, 39, 40, 43, 77 权力，39, 40, 43, 77
practical criticism, 74-76, 79 实用批评，74-76, 79
practices and agency, 51-53 实践与能动性，51-53
present, notion of, 24, 28-29, 31 当下的概念，24，28-29，31
problem-posing education, 89 问题提出式教育，89
production, 52 生产，52
proletarian culture, 4 无产阶级文化，4
The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (Freud), 123 《日常生活的心理病理学》（弗洛伊德著），第 123 页
public media, and common culture, 114-16 公共媒体与大众文化，第 114-116 页
Public Spaces, Private Lives: Democracy Beyond 9/11 (Giroux), 103 《公共空间，私人生活：9/11 之后的民主》（吉鲁），103
Punto de Vista, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139 《观点》杂志，第 133、134、135、136、139 页
Pyle, Forest, 122 福雷斯特·派尔，第 122 页
racism, 27 种族主义，第 27 页
Radhakrishnan, R., 122 拉达克里希南，R.，122
radical democracy perspectives, 45-55 激进民主视角，45-55
Radical Philosophy, 15 《激进哲学》，15
Radway, Jan, 161, 162 拉德威，简，161，162
Rama, Angel, 130 拉马，安赫尔，130
Readings, Bill, 162 比尔·雷丁斯，162
refeudalization of public sphere, 95 公共领域的再封建化，95
reformism, left-wing, 45 左翼改良主义，45
Reganism, 120 里根主义，120
regional tradition, 131 地域传统，131
research, 113, 114, 159-60 研究，113, 114, 159-60
residual cultural force, 14 残余文化力量，14
resources of hope, 5 希望的资源，5
Resources of Hope (Williams), 53 《希望的源泉》（威廉斯著），第 53 页
Richards, I.A., 75 理查兹，I.A.，75
Rizvi, Fazal, 89 里兹维，法扎尔，89
Robbins, Bruce, 134 罗宾斯，布鲁斯，134
Robinson, Joan, 1 罗宾逊，琼，1
Robinson, Ralph, 152n 拉尔夫·罗宾逊，152n
Roman, Leslie, 120-21, 122, 123 莱斯利·罗曼，120-21, 122, 123
Roosevelt, F.D., 104 富兰克林·D·罗斯福，104
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio, 13 费鲁乔·罗西-兰迪，13
Rowthorne, Bob, 62 罗索恩，鲍勃，62
rule by consent, 39 共识统治，39
Rural Rides (Cobbett), 119 《乡村骑行》（科贝特著），119
Rustin, Michael, 60 拉斯廷，迈克尔，60
Said, Edward, 68, 120-24, 126, 136 萨义德，爱德华，68, 120-24, 126, 136
Sarlo, Beatriz, 131, 133, 134, 136 萨尔洛，比阿特丽斯，131, 133, 134, 136
Sarmiento, Domingo F., 132 萨米恩托，多明戈·F.，132
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 3, 13, 45, 131 萨特，让-保罗，3, 13, 45, 131
Saturday (McEwan), 172-74 《星期六》（麦克尤恩著），172-74
Saussure, Ferdinand de, 13, 52, 56n, 137 索绪尔，费迪南·德，13, 52, 56n, 137
Saville, John, 58 萨维尔，约翰，58
Schmidt, S. J., 109 施密特，S. J.，109
scholarship, dismissal of relevance of Williams’ contribution to, 9-10 奖学金，对威廉姆斯相关贡献的忽视，9-10
Schwarz, Roberto, 131 施瓦茨，罗伯托，131
science, as challenge to humanities, 20 科学，对人文学科的挑战，20
Scott, David, 20 戴维·斯科特，20
secondary orality, 96 次生口语性，96
semiotics, 13 符号学，13
Shiach, Morag, 152n 莫拉格·希亚克，152n
signification, 14, 34-44; cultural practice in, 111-12; multiaccentuality of the sign, 42 意指实践，14, 34-44；其中的文化实践，111-12；符号的多重音调性，42
Silent Spring (Carson), 141-42 《寂静的春天》（卡森著），141-42
Situating Marx (Williams), 11 《定位马克思》（威廉斯著），11
Skinner, Quentin, 125, 126 昆廷·斯金纳，125, 126
social activities, and culture, 36 社会活动与文化，36
social definition of culture, 8, 34-35 文化的社会定义，8, 34-35
socialist Leavisism, 4 社会主义利维斯主义，4
Socialist Register, 58 社会主义纪事，58
social justice movement, 46 社会正义运动，46
socially engaged citizenship, 103 社会参与型公民身份，103
sociology of literature, 12 文学社会学，12
sousveillance, 101 反向监控，101
South Atlantic, cultural studies in, 10, 129-40 南大西洋文化研究，10，129-40
The Speech Communication Teacher (later Communication Teacher), 70 《言语传播教师》（后更名为《传播教师》），70
The Speech Teacher (later Communication Education), 69-70 《言语教师》（后更名为《传播教育》），69-70
Spivak, Gayatri, 127n 斯皮瓦克，加亚特里，127n
Steele, Tom, 73 斯蒂尔，汤姆，73
Steiner, George, 102 斯坦纳，乔治，102
Storey, John, 155 斯托里，约翰，155
structuralism, 11, 12, 15 结构主义，11，12，15
structure of feeling: concept/ definitions, 22, 24, 25, 50, 55; and functions of culture, 8-9; and genetic structuralism, 12; importance in cultural analysis, 9; and knowable communities, 165, 166; and modernity theory, 18-24, 30, 31; reformulation of, 11 情感结构：概念/定义，22, 24, 25, 50, 55；与文化功能的关系，8-9；与遗传结构主义的关联，12；在文化分析中的重要性，9；与可知社区的联系，165, 166；与现代性理论的结合，18-24, 30, 31；其重构形式，11
student-centred learning, 78 以学生为中心的学习，78
supersession, 119-24, 127n 取代过程，119-24, 127n
Swann, Charles, 60 查尔斯·斯旺，60
Takeuchi, H., 28-29 竹内洋，28-29
technological determinism, 104 技术决定论，104
technology, communications, 94-105; and 9//11,7,95,98,101-39 / 11,7,95,98,101-3 技术、传播，94-105；与 9//11,7,95,98,101-39 / 11,7,95,98,101-3
Television, Technology and Cultural Form (Williams), 116 《电视、技术与文化形式》（威廉斯著），116
television, 100, 101 see also mass culture/mass cultural studies 电视，100-101 页（另见大众文化/大众文化研究）
texts/textbooks, cultural, 47, 155, 156 文化文本/教材，47, 155, 156
Thatcherism, 2, 15, 120 撒切尔主义，2, 15, 120
theory, 158-59 理论，158-59
The Third World (Worsley), 62 《第三世界》（沃斯利著），62
Thomas, Colin, 59 科林·托马斯，59
Thomas, Edward, 142 爱德华·托马斯，142
Thompson, Edward P., 3, 4, 21, 58, 59, 75 汤普森，爱德华·P.，3, 4, 21, 58, 59, 75
Time magazine, 99 《时代》杂志，99
time-space distanciation, 26, 27 时空延展，26, 27
totality, 19, 20, 111 总体性，19, 20, 111
Towards 2000 (Williams), 53, 145 《迈向 2000 年》（威廉姆斯著），53, 145
tragedy, nature of, 94, 95, 102-3 悲剧的本质，94, 95, 102-3
transmitters and receivers, 92 发射器与接收器，92
Transport and General Workers’ Union, 58 运输与普通工人工会，58
Tribune (left paper), 59 《论坛报》（左翼报纸），59
‘two cultures’ debate, 20 关于“两种文化”的辩论，20
universities, 157, 162-63; ‘hard’, 92; people’s, 89-90, 91; see also Cambridge 大学，157，162-63；"硬性"的，92；人民的，89-90，91；另见剑桥
Universities and Left Review, 65-66 《大学与左派评论》，65-66
The Uses of Literacy (Hoggart), 3 《识字的用途》（霍加特著），3
utilitarianism, 53 功利主义，53
Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC), 59 越南团结运动（VSC），59 页
Vietnam War, 45, 57, 59 越南战争，45 页，57 页，59 页
video, online, 94-105 视频，在线，94-105 页
Views Beyond the Border Country: Raymond Williams and Cultural Politics (Dworkin and Roman), 12021, 124 《边境之外的观点：雷蒙德·威廉斯与文化政治》（德沃金与罗曼），2021 年，第 124 页
Viswanathan, Gauri, 121-22 维斯瓦纳坦，高里，121-22 页
Vološinov, V. N., 13, 42, 52 沃洛希诺夫，V. N.，13, 42, 52
war on terror, 98, 101 反恐战争，98, 101
Web 2.0 media, 101 Web 2.0 媒体，101
web-sharing platforms, 95 网络共享平台，95
Wedderburn, Dorothy, 62, 65 韦德伯恩，多萝西，62, 65
‘Western’ Marxism, 2, 3, 11, 50 "西方"马克思主义，2, 3, 11, 50
What is Cultural Studies? (Storey), 155 什么是文化研究？（斯托里），155
Whesker, Arnold, 60 韦斯克，阿诺德，60
Williams, Gwyn Alf, 57 威廉姆斯，格温·阿尔夫，57
Williams, Harry (father of Raymond), 57 威廉斯，哈里（雷蒙德之父），57
Williams, Joy (wife of R.W.), 148 威廉斯，乔伊（R.W.之妻），148 页
Williams, Raymond: and the absent modernity see modernity theory; and beginnings of cultural studies, 3-103-10; and cultural materialism, 11-16, 81; and culture as signifying system, 34 44; democracy perspectives, 45-55, 83, 85; and ecology, 54, 141-51; and educational communications see educational communication: education/career, 83-84; and Freire, 81-93; and media and communication, 111-14; as novelist, 84; political engagement see May Day Manifesto (1968); significance of work for critical social theory, 45-56; and South Atlantic, 10, 129-40; Welsh identity, 83 ; work of already-read, 118 威廉斯，雷蒙德：与缺席的现代性参见现代性理论；与文化研究的开端， 3-103-10 ；与文化唯物主义，11-16 页，81 页；与文化作为表意系统，34 页，44 页；民主观点，45-55 页，83 页，85 页；与生态学，54 页，141-51 页；与教育传播参见教育传播：教育/职业生涯，83-84 页；与弗莱雷，81-93 页；与媒体及传播，111-14 页；作为小说家，84 页；政治参与参见《五一宣言》（1968）；其著作对批判社会理论的意义，45-56 页；与南大西洋，10 页，129-40 页；威尔士身份认同，83 页；已读文本的运作，118 页
Willis, Paul, 15 威利斯，保罗，15 页
Winter, Rainer, 5 温特，雷纳，5 页
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 13, 52 维特根斯坦，路德维希，13 页，52 页
Wordsworth, William, 148 华兹华斯，威廉，148
‘workers’ culture’, 4 "工人文化"，4
Workers’ Education Association, 74, 76 工人教育协会，74, 76
working-classes, and mass culture, 6 工人阶级与大众文化，6
World Council of Churches, 83 世界基督教协进会，83
World Social Forum, Porto Alegre, 54 世界社会论坛，阿雷格里港，54
Worsley, Peter, 62 沃斯利，彼得，62
Wright, Reverend Jeremiah, 104 赖特，杰里迈亚牧师，104
YouTube, 7, 94-105; as a social genealogy, 97-101; State of the Union Address on (Bush), 103 YouTube，7 页，94-105 页；作为社会谱系的呈现，97-101 页；布什总统国情咨文中的提及，103 页
Yúdice, George, 130 尤迪斯，乔治，130
Zapatista uprisings, Mexico, 53-54 萨帕塔起义，墨西哥，53-54
@방합에
A library at your fingertips! 触手可及的图书馆！
eBooks are electronic versions of printed books. You can store them on your PC/laptop or browse them online. 电子书是印刷书籍的电子版本。您可以将它们存储在个人电脑/笔记本电脑上，或在线浏览。
They have advantages for anyone needing rapid access to a wide variety of published, copyright information. 对于需要快速获取各类已出版、受版权保护信息的人士而言，电子书具有显著优势。
eBooks can help your research by enabling you to bookmark chapters, annotate text and use instant searches to find specific words or phrases. Several eBook files would fit on even a small laptop or PDA. 电子书能通过章节书签、文本批注和即时搜索特定字词功能助力您的研究工作。即使小型笔记本电脑或掌上电脑也能存储多部电子书文件。
NEW: Save money by eSubscribing: cheap, online access to any eBook for as long as you need it. 新优惠：通过电子订阅节省开支——以低廉价格在线获取所需电子书，使用时长无限制。
Annual subscription packages 年度订阅套餐
We now offer special low-cost bulk subscriptions to packages of eBooks in certain subject areas. These are available to libraries or to individuals. 我们现针对特定学科领域的电子书合集提供优惠的批量订阅方案，机构与个人用户均可享受。
We’re continually developing the eBook concept, so keep up to date by visiting the website. 我们正在不断完善电子书的概念，请访问网站以获取最新动态。
www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk
About Raymond Williams represents the overdue critical acclaim of Williams’ lasting influence and unbroken repercussions in critical thought. His writings have effectively shaped the ways in which people understand the complexity of the notion of ‘culture’ and many of the ways it has been taken up in scholarly practice. 《关于雷蒙德·威廉姆斯》标志着对威廉姆斯持久影响力及其在批判思想中持续回响的迟来认可。他的著作深刻塑造了人们对"文化"概念复杂性的理解方式，以及该概念被运用于学术实践的多种路径。
This international collection of contemporary revisitings and new applications of the work of Raymond Williams both historicizes and contextualizes his theories. Essays combine biographical information, from his roots in the 1960s Leftist movement to his democratic pedagogical commitment, with explorations of the development of some of his major concepts and theories, while others consider current phenomena and questions by means of Williams’ analytical tools. Exploring and making his concepts applicable in the most diverse areas and localities, the contributors testify to the impressive breadth of his influence even twenty years after his death. 这部国际论文集通过当代重审与新应用，既历史化又语境化地呈现了雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的理论。部分文章结合传纪元素——从他 1960 年代左翼运动的根源到其民主教学承诺，探究其重要概念与理论的发展脉络；另一些则运用威廉姆斯的分析工具审视当下现象与问题。撰稿者们通过在最多元领域与地域中探索并应用其概念，印证了这位思想家逝世二十年后仍令人惊叹的广泛影响力。
Contributions from a variety of countries, disciplines, generations and traditions, including essays from: Georgiana Banita, Ana Clara Birrento, Hywel Rowland Dix, Udo Göttlich, Lawrence Grossberg, John Higgins, Roman Horak, H. Gustav Klaus, Clara Masnatta, Gilbert B. Rodman, Monika Seidl, John Storey, Christopher Joseph Westgate, Rainer Winter, Stephen Woodhams. 来自多个国家、学科、世代和传统的贡献者，包括以下作者的论文：乔治亚娜·巴尼塔、安娜·克拉拉·比伦托、海威尔·罗兰·迪克斯、乌多·格特利希、劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格、约翰·希金斯、罗曼·霍拉克、H·古斯塔夫·克劳斯、克拉拉·马斯纳塔、吉尔伯特·B·罗德曼、莫妮卡·赛德尔、约翰·斯托里、克里斯托弗·约瑟夫·韦斯特盖特、雷纳·温特、斯蒂芬·伍德汉姆斯。
In times of change and transformation the reassessment of his political vision provides a useful resource and presents a unique and valuable picture of both the state of cultural studies and of the important contributions of Raymond Williams. 在变革与转型的时代，对其政治愿景的重新评估提供了宝贵的资源，并呈现出文化研究现状与雷蒙德·威廉斯重要贡献的独特图景。
Monika Seidl is Professor of Cultural Studies and Director of Studies at the English Department of Vienna University, Austria 莫妮卡·赛德尔是奥地利维也纳大学英语系文化研究教授兼学术主任
Roman Horak is Head of Sociology of Art and Cultural Sociology at the Institute of Aesthetics and Cultural Studies/Art Pedagogy, University of Applied Arts Vienna, Austria. 罗曼·霍拉克是奥地利维也纳应用艺术大学美学与文化研究/艺术教育学系艺术社会学与文化社会学学科负责人。
Lawrence Grossherg is Morris Davis Professor of Communication Studies, Chair of the Executive Committee of the University Program in Cultural Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. Grossberg is co-editor (with Della Pollock) of the journal Cultural Studies. 劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格是美国北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校传播学莫里斯·戴维斯教授，兼任文化研究课程执行委员会主席。格罗斯伯格与德拉·波洛克共同担任《文化研究》期刊的编辑。
