(::)(:)Tiqqun :: 作为现象的花季少女
The Young-Girl is old insofar as she is known to be young. There is therefore no question for her of benefiting from this reprieve, which is to say of committing the few reasonable excesses, of experiencing the few “adventures” expected of people her age, and all this with an eye to the moment when she will have to settle down into the ultimate void of adulthood. Thus, during the time it takes for youth to decay, social law contains its own violations, which are in the end just exemptions.
The masculine Young-Girl is paradoxical in that she’s the product of a sort of “alienation by contagion.” Although the feminine Young-Girl appears as the incarnation of a certain alienated masculine imaginary, there is nothing imaginary about the alienation of this incarnation. It is altogether concretely that she has eluded those whose fantasies she populates in order to face and dominate them. As the Young-Girl emancipates herself, blossoms, and multiplies, the dream turns into an all-consuming nightmare. It’s at this point that her former slave returns to tyrannize yesterday’s master. In the end, we witness an ironic epilogue in which the “male sex” becomes both the victim and the object of its own alienated desire.
男性化的花季少女是一种“传染病般的异化”的矛盾产物。尽管女性化的花季少女是作为一个确定、异化的男性想象的化身而出现的，其中化身的异化没有任何虚构的成分。这完全是具体化的，她躲开了那些人，也居住于其幻想之中，为了面对和支配他们。（Although the feminine Young-Girl appears as the incarnation of a certain alienated masculine imaginary, there is nothing imaginary about the alienation of this incarnation. It is altogether concretely that she has eluded those whose fantasies she populates in order to face and dominate them.）当花季少女解放自己，绽放，结果时，梦境变成一场无休止的噩梦。这时，她以前的奴隶来欺压昨日的主人。最后，我们见证了一场讽刺的结局，“男性”masculine sex在变成受害者的同时也成为其异化欲望的对象。
The Young-Girl is the figure of the total and sovereign consumer; she carries herself as such in every domain of existence.
The Young-Girl knows so very well the value of things.
Often, before her decay has become too obvious, the Young-Girl gets married.
The Young-Girl is only good for consuming, pleasure or work, it doesn’t matter.
The intimacy of the Young-Girl, now equivalent to all intimacy, has become something anonymous and exterior, an object.
The Young-Girl never creates anything; All in all, she only recreates herself.
By investing young people and women with an absurd symbolic surplus value, by making them the exclusive carriers of the two new kinds of esoteric knowledge proper to the new social order-consumption and seduction-Spectacle has effectively emancipated the slaves of the past, but it has emancipated them AS SLAVES.
The most extreme banality of the Young-Girl is to take her/himself for an original.
The stunted quality of the Young-Girl’s language, although it implies an incontestable narrowing of the field of experience, in no way constitutes a practical handicap, because it was not made to talk with, but rather to please and to repeat.
Chatter, curiosity, equivocation, hearsay, the Young-Girl incarnates the fullness of improper existence, whose categories Heidegger identified.
When Spectacle’s proclaims that woman is the future of man, it is naturally speaking of the Young-Girl, and the future it predicts recalls only the worst cybernetic slavery.
The Young-Girl manages to live with a dozen unarticulated concepts, as her only philosophy, that immediately become moral categories, meaning that the whole of her vocabulary can be definitively reduced to the Good/Evil binary. It goes without saying that, in order to consider the world, it must be sufficiently simplified, and in order to permit her to live in it happily, the world must make many martyrs, starting with herself.
“Highly visible physical imperfections, even if they have no effect on aptitude for work, weaken people socially, transforming them into the involuntary invalids of work.”
(Dr. Julius Moses,Afa-Bwideszeitung, Febrnrary 1929)
(Dr. Julius Moses,Afa-Bwideszeitung, Febrnrary 1929)
In the Young-Girl, what is sweetest is also the cruelest, what is most “natural” is most feigned, what is most “human’’ is most machine-like.
Adolescence is a recent category created according to the demands of mass consumption.
The Young-Girl invariably calls “happiness” everything to which THEY chain her.
The Young-Girl is never simply sad, she is also sad that she’s sad.
Ultimately, the Young-Girl’s ideal is domestic.
Bloom is the crisis of classic sexuation and the Young-Girl is the offensive by which market domination has responded to this crisis.
There is no more chastity in the Young-Girl than there is debauchery. The Young-Girl simply lives as a stranger to her desires, whose coherence is governed by her market-driven superego. The ennui of abstraction flows into this come.
There is nothing, neither poetry nor ethnology, neither Marxism nor metaphysics, that the Young-Girl cannot fit into the closed horizon of her vapid quotidian.
“Albertine comesfrom nowhere, and is very modern in that way: she flutters, comes and goes, from her absence of attachments she derives the instability and the unpredictable quality which give her her power offreedom”
(Jacques Dubois, For Albertine: Proust and the Sense ofthe Social).
(Jacques Dubois*, For Albertine: Proust and the Sense of the Social).*
When it addresses itself distinctly to the Young-Girl, the Spectacle is not above a bit of bathmology. This is why the entire significance of boy-bands and girl-bands comes from making a show of the very fact of making a show. The lie consists, here-by means of crude irony-in presenting as a lie what is on the contrary the truth of the Young-Girl.
The Young-Girl is struck by sudden vertigo whenever the world stops revolving around her.
The Young-Girl sees herself as the holder of a sacred power: the power of commodities.
The mother and the whore, as Weininger understands them, are equally present in the Young-Girl. But the one hardly renders her any more worthy of praise than the other makes her worthy of blame. In fact, over time, a curious reversibility between the two can be observed.
The Young-Girl is fascinating in the manner of all things that exhibit a closing-in-on-themselves, a mechanical self-sufficiency or an indifference to the observer, like the insect, the infant, the automaton, or Foucault’s pendulum.
Why must the Young-Girl always feign some activity or other? To remain unassailable in her passivity.
The “freedom’’ of the Young-Girl rarely goes beyond the ostentatious cult of the most pathetic of the Spectacle’s productions. Essentially, it consists in opposing a lack of zeal with the necessities ofalienation.
THE FUTURE OF THE YOUNG-GIRL: THE NAME OF A GROUP Of “COMMUNIST” GIRLS. ORGANIZED IN THE SOUTHERN SUBURBS OF PARIS IN 1936 FOR THE “ENTERTAINMENT. EDUCATION. ANO THE DEFENSE OF THBR INTERESTS.”
The Young-Girl wants to be desired without love or loved without desire. There is no threat, in either case, to her unhappiness.
It is enough to recall what she classifies as “adventure” to get a good idea ofjust how much the Young-Girl fears the possible.
The old age of the Young-Girl is no less hideous than her youth. From one end to the other, her life is nothing but a progressive shipwreck in formlessness, and never an irruption of becoming. The Young-Girl wallows in the limbo of time.
As for the face of the Young-Girl, differences in age, like difference in gender, are insignificant. There is no age to be struck by youthitude, nor is there a gender that forbids itself a dash of femininitude.
Just like the magazines THEY intend for her and which she devours so painfully, the life of the Young-Girl is divided and organized into so many columns, between which the greatest separation reigns.
THE YOUNG-GIRL IS THAT WHICH, BEING ONLY THIS, SCRUPULOUSLY OBEYS THE AUTHORITARIAN DISTRIBUTION OF ROLES.
What THEY continue to call virility is nothing more than the infantilism of men and femininity the infantmsm of women. Moreover, perhaps one ought to speak of virilism and of “feminism” when so much voluntarism is mixed into the acquisition of an identity.
The same disabused stubbornness that characterized the traditional woman, assigned to the home with the duty of ensuring survival, blossoms, at present, in the Young-Girl, now emancipated from the domestic sphere and from all sexual monopoly. She will from now on express herself everywhere: in her irreproachable affective impermeability at work, in the extreme rationalization she imposes on her “emotional life,” in her every step, so spontaneously military, in the way she fucks, carries herself, or taps away on her computer—which is no different from the way she washes her car.
“One piece of information that I obtain in a well-known Berlin department store is particularly instructive: ‘When taking on sales and office staff,’ says an influential gentleman from the personnel department, ‘we attach most importance to a pleasant appearance.’ From a distance he looks a bit like Reinhold Schunzel in early films. I ask him what he understands by ‘pleasant’-saucy or pretty. ‘Not exactly pretty. What’s far more crucial is . . . oh, you know, a morally pink complexion.’
I do know. A morally pink complexion-this combination of concepts at a stroke renders transparent the everyday life that is fleshed out by window displays, salary-earners, and illustrated papers. Its morality must have a pink hue, its pink a moral grounding. That is what the people responsible for selection want. They would like to cover life with a varnish concealing its far-from-rosy reality. But beware, if morality should penetrate beneath the skin, and the pink be not quite moral enough to prevent the eruption of desires! The gloom of unadorned morality would bring as much danger to the prevailing order as a pink that began to flare up immorally. So that both may be neutralized, they are tied to one another. The same system that requires the aptitude test also produces this nice, friendly mixture; and the more rationalization progresses, the more the morally pink appearance gains ground. It is scarcely too hazardous to assert that in Berlin a salaried type is developing, standardized in the direction of the desired complexion. Speech, clothes, gestures, and countenances become assimilated and the result of the process is that very same pleasant appearance, which with the help of photographs can be widely reproduced. A selective breeding that is carried out under the pressure of social relations, and that is necessarily supported by the economy through the arousal of corresponding consumer needs.
Employees must join in, whether they want to or not. The rush to the numerous beauty salons springs partly from existential concerns, and the use of cosmetic products is not always a luxury. For fear of being withdrawn from use as obsolete, ladies and gentlemen dye their hair, while forty-year-olds take up sports to keep slim. ‘How Can I Become Beautiful?’ runs the title of a booklet recently launched on to the market; the newspaper advertisements for it say that it shows ways ‘to look young and beautiful both now and forever.’ Fashion and economy work hand in hand. Most people, of course, are in no position to consult a specialist. They fall prey to quacks or have to make do with remedies as cheap as they are dubious. For some time now the above-mentioned deputy Dr. Moses has been fighting in their interest in parliament, for incorporating proper provision for disfigurement into social security. The young Working Community of Cosmetic Practitioners of Germany has associated itself with this legitimate demand” (Siegfried Kracauer, The Salaried Masses: Duty and Distraction in Wi:imar Germany, 1930).
雇员必须加入，无论想还是不想。冲向众多美容院的激流，部分起源于存在主义意义上的担忧，以及装饰品的使用并不总是奢侈的。因恐惧被过时的使用所隔绝于世，当四十岁的人们开始运动来保持苗条时，绅士们和女士们染起了发。‘如何能使我变得美丽？’成为了最近市场推出的小册子的标题；报纸广告对此的说法则是展现‘显得年轻又美丽，无论是现在还是永远’。时尚与经济携手运作。多数人，当然，是没有资格向专家咨询的。他们成为了江湖骗子或只能将就着便宜到可疑的疗法的牺牲品。一段时间后，上述的代表摩西博士一直在议会捍卫他们的利益，为了将有关毁容的合适条款纳入社会保障。德国美容医师的年轻劳动群体将自己和合法的要求联系起来。(Siegfried Kracauer, The Salaried Masses: Duty and Distraction in Wi:imar Germany, 1930).
The loss of metaphysical direction is not distinct, in the Young-Girl, from the “loss of the sensory” (Arnold Gehlen) in which the extreme modernity of her alienation is verified.
The Young-Girl moves in the oblivion of Being, no less than in that ofthe event.
The incompressible agitation of the Young-Girl, in the image of this society at its every point, is governed by the hidden demand to render effective a false and pathetic metaphysics, whose most immediate substance is the negation of the passage of time, and the obscuring of human finitude.
花季少女那不可压缩的焦虑不安，在这个社会图景中的每一个要点中，是被隐藏需求所驱动的虚假而又可悲的形而上学而统治的–其最直接的实质是对时间推移（passage of time）的否定和对人类有限性的模糊。
Insofar as her appearance entirely exhausts her essence, as her representation does her reality, the Young-Girl is that which is entirely expressible, perfectly predictable, and absolutely neutralized.
The Young-Girl exists only in proportion to the desire that THEY have for her, and knows herself only by what THEY say she is.
The Young-Girl appears as the product and the principal outcome of the formidable surplus crisis of capitalist modernity. She is the proof and the support of the limitless pursuit of the process of valorization when the process of accumulation proves limited (by the limits of the planet itself, ecological catastrophe, or social implosion).
The Young-Girl is content to cover over with a falsely provocative hidden sense the actual economic sense of her motivations.
All the freedom of movement the Young-Girl enjoys in no way prevents her from being a prisoner, from manifesting, in every circumstance, the automatisms of the shut-in.
The way to be the Young-Girl is to be nothing.
Managing to “succeed in her sentimental and professional life at the same time”: certain Young-Girls proclaim this as an ambition worthy of respect.
The “love” of the Young-Girl is just a word in the dictionary.
The Young-Girl requires not only
that you protect her,
she also wants the power to educate you.
The eternal return of the same styles in fashion is enough to convince: The Young-Girl does not play with appearances. It is appearances that play with her.
Even more than the feminine Young-Girl, the masculine Young-Girl, with his fake muscles, absurdity, which is to say, suffering, in what Foucault called “the discipline of bodies”:
“Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience). In short, it dissociates power from the body; on the one hand, it turns it into an ‘aptitude, ‘ a ‘capacity, ‘ which it seeks to increase; on the other hand, it reverses the course of the energy, the power that might result from it, and turns it into a relation of strict subjection” (Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish) .
“Oh, a girl, that receptacle of shame under beauty’s lock and key!” (Witold Gombrowicz, Ferdydurke, 1937)
“噢，女孩，就是那花容月貌的锁和钥匙下的遮羞布！”（”Oh, a girl, that receptacle of shame under beauty’s lock and key!” ）(Witold Gombrowicz, Ferdydurke, 1937)
There is surely no place where one feels as horribly alone as in the arms of a Young-Girl.
When the Young-Girl gives in to her own insignificance, she still manages to find glory in it, because she is “having fun.”
“This was precisely what captivated me-the maturity and autonomy of her youth, the selfassurance of her style. While we, in school, had our blackheads, constantly broke out in pimples and ideals, while our movements were gawky and each step was a gaffe, her exterior was entrancingly polished. Youth, for her, was not a transitional age-for this modern one, youth was the only time befitting a human being. [ … ] Her youth had no need of ideals, it was in and of itself an ideal” (Witold Gombrowicz, Ferdydurke).
“这正是吸引我的地方——她青春期的成熟和自主性，她那自信的风格。当我们在学校带着黑头粉刺，时常突然长出青春痘和理想时，当我们的动作笨拙，每一步都是过失时，她的外表令人神魂颠倒的优美。对她来说，青春期，并非是个过度阶段——对现代人来说，青春期则是唯一与人相适的时期。【。。。】她的青春无需理想，其自身便是理想“(Witold Gombrowicz, Ferdydurke).
The Young-Girl never learns anything. That’s not why she’s here.
The Young-Girl knows all too well what she wants in detail to want anything in general.
The triumph of the Young-Girl originates in the failure of feminism.
The Young-Girl does not speak. On the contrary, she is spoken by the Spectacle.
The Young-Girl wears the mask of her face.
The You ng-Girl red uces all grandeur
t o t h e l e v e l o f h e r a s s.
和 她 屁 股 一 个 等 级。
The Young-Girl is a purifier of negativity, an industrial profiler of unilaterality. In all things, she separates the negative from the positive, and generally retains only one of the two. No surprise that she doesn’t believe in words, which in fact have no meaning in her mouth. Let it suffice, for us to be convinced, to see what she means by “romantic” which after all has little to do with Hölderlin.
“We must hence envisage the birth of the ‘young girl’ as the construction of an object in which different disciplines compete (from medicine to psychology, from physical education to morality, from physiology to hygiene)” (Jean-Claude Caron, The Body of Young Girls).
(Jean-Claude Caron, The Body of Young Girls)
The Young-Girl would like for the simple word “love” not to imply the project of destroying this society.
“Don’t confuse your job with your feelings!” In the life of the Young-Girl, inactivated opposites thrust into nothingness complement each other, and never contradict.
The Young-Girl’s sentimentalism and materialism, however opposed they may appear, are really in solidarity: two aspects of her central void.
The Young-Girl is happy to speak of her childhood with emotion, in order to give the impression that she has not gotten over it, that at bottom, she is still naive. Like all whores, she dreams of candor. But unlike whores, she insists that we believe her, and that we believe her sincerely. Her infantilism, which is ultimately just a childlike fandamentalism, makes her the wiliest vector of general infantilization.
The pettiest sentiments still retain, for the Young-Girl, the prestige of their sincerity.
The Young-Girl loves her illusions the same way she loves her reification: by proclaiming them.
The Young-Girl knows everything as devoid of consequences, even her own suffering. Everything is funny, nothing’s a big deal. Everything is cool, nothing is serious.
The Young-Girl wants to be recognized not for what she might be, but for the simple fact of her being. She wants to be recognized in the absolute.
The Young-Girl not here to be criticized.
When the Young-Girl arrives at the age limit of infantilism, where it becomes impossible not to ask oneself the question of ends for fear of finding oneself suddenly in search of means (which, in this society, can arrive very late), she reproduces. Paternity and maternity constitute one method among others, no less devoid of substance than all the rest, of holding out
UNDER THE EMPIRE OF NECESSITY.
当花季少女到达了幼稚症的极限年龄，变得不可能的地方在于，不去询问自身何时能结束发现自己突然陷入到寻找意义（在这个社会， 能 到 得 很 晚）中的恐惧，她的再现（she reproduces）。
THE YOUNG-GIRL DOESN’ T KISS YOU, SHE DROOLS OVER YOU THROUGH HER TEETH. MATERIALISM OF SECRETIONS.
The Young-Girl adopts above all the point of view of psychology, about herself as much as the course of the world. This is how she manages to present a certain consciousness of her own reification, a consciousness that is itself reified, as it’s cut off from all gesture.
The Young-Girl knows the standard perversions.
The Young-Girl’s aim is balance. Not the balance of a ballerina, but of an accountant.
The smile has never served as an argument. There is also the smile of skulls.
The Young-Girl’s affectivity is made only of signs, and occasionally, mere signals. Wherever ethos is lacking or decomposing, the Young-Girl appears as the bearer of the fleeting and discolored mores of the Spectacle.
The Young-Girl is not expected to understand you.
The Young-Girl’s predilection for actors and actresses can be explained according to the laws of elementary magnetism: whereas they are the positive absence of any quality, the void that takes all forms, she is but the negative absence of quality. Thus, like his reflection, the actor is the same as the Young-Girl, whose negation he also is
THE YOUN6-GIRL CONCEIVES LOVE AS ONE SPECIFIC KIND OF ACTIVITY.
The Young-Girl’s laughter rings with the desolation of nightclubs.
The Young-Girl is the only insect that consents to the entomology of women’s magazines.
Identical, in this, to misery, a Young-Girl never shows up alone.
Thus wherever Young-Girls dominate, their taste must also dominate; this is what determines the tastes of our time. The Young-Girl is the purest form of reified relations; she is their truth. The YoungGirl is the anthropological concentrate of reification.
The Spectacle amply remunerates, though indirectly, the conformity of the Young-Girl.
In love more than anywhere else, the Young-Girl behaves like an accountant, always suspecting that she loves more than she is loved, and that she gives more than she receives.
Among Young-Girls there is a community of gesture and expression that is anything but moving.
The Young-Girl is ontologically virgin,
virgin of all experience.
The Young-Girl can display solicitude, provided one is truly miserable. This is one aspect of her resentment.
The Young-Girl does not perceive the passage of time any more than she is moved by its “consequences.” Otherwise, how else could she speak of aging with such indignation, as though it were a crime committed against her?
Even when she isn’t trying to seduce. the Young-Girl acts like a seductress.
There is something prefessional about everything the Young-Girl does.
The Young-Girl will never stop flattering herself for having “Common Sense.”
In the Young-Girl, even the most insipid moralisms have the air of prostitution.
The Young-Girl possesses all the severity of the economy. However, the Young-Girl is more ignorant of abandon than anything else.
The Young-Girl is the entire reality of the Spectacle’s abstract codes.
The Young-Girl occupies the central node of the present system of desire.
The Young-Girl’s every experience is drawn back incessantly into the preexisting representation she has made for herself All the overwhelming concreteness, the living part of the passage of time and of things are known to her only as imperfections, as alterations of an abstract model.
There are beings that give you the desire to die slowly before their eyes, but the Young-Girl only excites the desire to vanquish her, to take advantage of her.
THE YOUNG-GIRL DOES NOT COUPLE IN TRANSPORT TOWARD THE OTHER, BUT IN ORDER TO ESCAPE HER UNBEARABLE NULLITY.
The supposed liberation of women did not consist in their emancipation from the domestic sphere, but rather in the total extension of the domestic into all of society.
In the face of any person who would seek to make her think, the Young-Girl will always pride herself on being a realist.
Insofar as what she hides is not her secret, but rather her shame, the Young-Girl hates the unexpected, especially when it is not prograrnrned.
The Young-Girl never stops repeating it: She wants to be loved for who she is, which is to say for the non-being she is.
The Young-Girl is the living and continual introj ection of all repression.
The “self” of the Young-Girl is as thick as a magazine.
Nothing, in the conduct of the Young-Girl, has a reason in itself. Everything is ordered by the dominant definition of happiness. The Young-Girl’s estrangement from herself borders on mythomania.
As a last resort, the Young-Girl fetishizes “love” so as to avoid an awareness of the entirely conditioned nature of her desires.
“THE CHEMISTRY OF PASSION: Today, everything is explainable, even the fact of fal l ing in love! Farewell romanticism, since the ‘phenomenon’ is just a series of chemical reactions.”
In their divorce, the Young-Girl’s heart and ass have become two empty abstractions.
‘The ghostly image of the cinema hero model[s] the embraces of adolescents, and later adultery” (Max Horkheimer/ Theodor W. Adorno, The Dialectic of Enlightenment).
“电影英雄幽灵般的影像塑造了青春期的拥抱（embraces），以及之后的通奸行为。”(Max Horkheimer/ Theodor W. Adorno, The Dialectic of Enlightenment).
The Young-Girl is steeped in déjà-vu. For her, the first-time experience is always a second time in representation.
Naturally, nowhere has there been a “sexual liberation” -that oxymoron!-but only the pulverization of everything that slowed the total mobilization of desire in view of the production of merchandise. The “tyranny of pleasure” does not incriminate pleasure, but tyranny.
The Young-Girl knows how to take feelings into account.
In the world of Young-Girls, coitus appears as the logical sanction of all experience.
The Young-Girl is “satisfied with life,” at least that’s what she says.
The Young-Girl only establishes relationships based on the strictest reification and on false substantiality, where THEY can be sure that what unites in fact only separates.
The Young-Girl is optimistic, thrilled, positive, happy, enthusiastic, joyful;
in other words,* she suffers.*
The Young-Girl is produced wherever nihilism begins to speak of happiness.
There is nothing special about the Young-Girl; that is her “beauty.”
The Young-Girl is an optical illusion. From afar, she is an angel, and up close, she is a beast.
The Young-Girl doesn’t age.
We know, in general,
what the Young-Girl thinks of worrying.
The Young-Girl’s education is the inverse of all other forms of education: First the immediate innate perfection of youth, then the effort to maintain herself at the height of this primary nullity, and finally, collapse in the face of the impossibility of returning to this side of time.
Viewed from afar, the Young-Girl’s nothingness appears relatively habitable, at certain moments even comfortable.
The Young-Girl’s “beauty” is never a particular beauty, or one that might belong to her. On the contrary, hers is a beauty without content, an absolute beauty free of any personality. The Young-Girl’s “beauty” is but the form of a void, the spectral form of the Young-Girl.
And this is why she can, without choking on her words, speak of “beauty,” because her own is never the expression of a substantial singularity, but a pure and ghostly objectivity.
“Indeed, only now does [the basic ideological confusion between woman and sexuality] assume its full scope since women, once subjugated as a sex, are today ‘liberated’ as a sex [ … ] Women, young people and the body-the emergence of all of which after thousands of years of servitude and forgetting in effect constitutes the most revolutionary potentiality-and, therefore, the most fundamental risk for any social order whateverare integrated and recuperated as a ‘myth of emancipation.’ Women are given Woman to consume, the young are given the Young and, in this formal and narcissistic emancipation, their real liberation is successfully averted” (Jean-Trissotin Baudrillard, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures).
“既然女性和身体在奴役中曾联结在一起，那么女性的解放和身体的解放的联系也是合乎逻辑且合乎历史的。（出于相近的原因，青年的解放也和它们发生在同一时代。）但是我们看到这种同步的解放是在女性与性欲之间的基本意识形态混淆根本尚未廓清的情形下 进行的——清教的障碍依然纹丝不动。最合适的说法是：女性，既然她以前作为性被奴役，今天作为性被“解放 ”（LIBÉRÉE），那么她只是到今天才获得了充分发展。以至于此后我们看到这种几乎是不可逆的混淆以各种形式加深着，因为正是随着她的一步步解放，女性越来越被混同于自己的身体 。但前提条件是：实际上，表面上解放了的女性被混同于表面上解放了的身体。对女人就像对身体一样，就像对青年以及一切其解放构成了当代民主社会的主题范畴一样，可以说：一切在名义上被解放的东西——性自由、色情、游戏，等等——都是建立在“监护 ”价值体系之上的。这些同时引导着消费以及社会放逐行为的价值是“不负责任”的——这甚至是一种称赞，对名誉的过度强调阻隔了真实的社会经济责任。女人、青年、身体，他们在被奴役、被遗忘了几千年之后的浮现，实际上构成了最具革命性的可能，并因而构成了对任何一种既成秩序的最根本威胁——他们被一体化、回收成为“解放的神话”。把本属于女性的提供给女人们消费、把本属于青年的提供给年轻人消费，这种自恋式的解放成功地抹煞了他们的真正解放。”
(Jean-Trissotin Baudrillard, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures).5
The Young-Girl offers an unequivocal model of the metropolitan ethos: a refrigerated consciousness living in exile in a plasticized body.
“Too cool!!!” Instead of saying “very” the Young-Girl says “too,” while in fact, she is so very little.
- 1.本文翻译部分参照豆瓣用户@未来的 ↩
- 2.已有导言翻译 ↩
- 3.借用了乔伊斯小说《尤利西斯》的主人公利奥波德·布鲁姆的名字。布鲁姆（Bloom）是 Tiqqun 著 作中一个重要的概念人物。在 Tiqqun 的《布鲁姆理论》（Paris:La Fabrique,2004）中，Bloom 被描述为：“末人，大街上的人，人群中的人，大众的一员，大众-人，这就是他们何以让 Bloom 来代表我们：作为一个群氓时代的悲哀产品，作为工业时代和魔法终结时的灾难之子。尽管有如此专横的指认，我们仍能感觉到他们在无限神秘的普通人面前瑟瑟发抖。每个人都感觉到他的本质的剧场遮蔽了他的纯粹潜力：我们对这种纯粹的力量一无所知。”（16-17）摘自内战导论（Introduction to Civil War）（此书为沙织译注） ↩
- 4.参考译本 规训与惩罚(修订译本)(第4版) 生活·读书·新知三联书店 ↩
- 5.消费社会／（法）鲍德里亚著；刘成富，全志钢译.--南京：南京大学出版社，2014.10 ↩