journal article by Yu-He Hsiao
政治與社會哲學評論（SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs）, 2022
人文及社會科學集刊（Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy）, 2022
本文藉由對拉克勞與慕芙基進民主理論的探究，闡釋左翼民粹主義在其理論建構中，兩個特有的環節。一方面，作為政治本體論預設的對抗關係，無法轉化成任何具體的敵人形象，另一方面，在實體政治動態上的霸權形構... more 本文藉由對拉克勞與慕芙基進民主理論的探究，闡釋左翼民粹主義在其理論建構中，兩個特有的環節。一方面，作為政治本體論預設的對抗關係，無法轉化成任何具體的敵人形象，另一方面，在實體政治動態上的霸權形構，其效應是通過個殊元素對普遍性的佔位，而以競逐空位的方式來展現。這些理論構思同時也是對於當前自由民主現狀和左翼政治戰略的深刻反思，而分別在本體與實體層次上雙生的間隙，以及兩者之間立即的相互指涉，則讓左翼民粹主義有別於右翼民粹主義，這也回應了部分左翼民粹主義所引起的爭議。
The present article investigates the theory of radical democracy developed by Ernest Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, in hopes of elucidating two theoretical moments in left populism: antagonism and hegemonic formation. On one hand, as a political ontological assumption, antagonism as “the political” cannot be embodied by any concrete enemy. On the other hand, the effect of hegemonic formation in ontic political dynamics is represented by the taking up of universality by particular elements, in which various political forces compete in their efforts to present their particular objectives as those which carry out this filling function. In the theoretical conceptions of radical democracy, the double gaps emerging in ontological and ontic aspects and their immediate mutual reference make left populism totally different from right-wing populism.
哲學與文化（Universitas: Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture）, 2021
臺灣民主季刊（Taiwan Democracy Quarterly）, 2021
本文從檢視阿岡本《王國與榮光》中主權與治理作為「雙元護佑機制」的經典命題開始。對阿岡本來說，現代民主國家憲制基本上繼受了這個自基督教傳統而來的政治治理結構，從神學上的安濟到政治上的安治實踐，證成... more 本文從檢視阿岡本《王國與榮光》中主權與治理作為「雙元護佑機制」的經典命題開始。對阿岡本來說，現代民主國家憲制基本上繼受了這個自基督教傳統而來的政治治理結構，從神學上的安濟到政治上的安治實踐，證成了至高之主（權）對世俗的護佑，在阿岡本看來，盧梭與傅柯對於公共治理的論述都繼受了此一雙元護佑機制。本文通過盧梭與傅柯相關論述的檢視，質疑阿岡本此一命題。對盧梭而言，政府的治理就其本身並沒有任何足以安治政治體的政治理據，治理與主權之間必然存在的張力是總意志與私意志衝突的延伸，安治是主權、法律與政府治理的緊密連鎖，而對於此一緊密連鎖在現實上的可能鬆脫，盧梭透過「想像民主」的構思，增補了一個政府治理作為虛擬主權者的理論環節。傅柯關注的是盧梭刻意忽略的「治安」活動，從市民社會中自發性監管窮人的實踐，以及主權國家權力向市民社會的延伸等等皆構成了「大治理」的特定政治場域。如傅柯所闡述，在十八世紀歐洲所流通關於治安的文獻中，安治的主題一直都是論述國家之「燦爛輝煌」的核心，此即公共治理的政治理據。傅柯以「大治理」說明現代國家形成的趨勢，雙元護佑機制中所涉及的主權法理論述，在其中同樣沒有地位。
This essay examines the thesis of "the double structure of the providential machine" in Agamben's The Kingdom and the Glory. For Agamben, the constitution of modern democracy essentially inherits this political government structure from the Trinitarian paradigm in Christian theology, which, through the mystery of the economy to the practices of government, justifies the providence of the transcendental sovereignty of God. According to Agamben, the modern discourses of public government suggested by Rousseau and Foucault still continue this double structure of sovereignty and government. By investigating the relevant arguments in Rousseau and Foucault, this essay challenges this assertion made by Agamben. For Rousseau, the inevitable tensions between the sovereign and the government reflect the clash between general will and private will, so the practices of government bear no political rationality in itself, and have to be firmly restrained by law under control of sovereignty as general will. Rousseau also conceived ＂imagined democracy＂, the government as the virtual sovereign, to supplement a theoretical moment in this sovereign-law-government chain. The next part of this essay would concentrate on the arguments provided by Foucault. Focusing on the ＂police＂ practices deliberately ignored by Rousseau, Foucault claimed the spontaneous practices of supervising the poor in civil society, combined with the extension of power of the sovereign state into civil society, articulate the specific political field of ＂governmentality＂. As Foucault argued, in the texts on ＂the police＂ circulated in 18th-century Europe, the concerns of public security were constantly the central part of the discourses of the ＂splendor＂ of the state, that is the political rationality of public government. For Foucault, however, in this process of the governmentalization of the state there also holds no place for juridical discourses of sovereignty implicated the double structure of the providential machine.
政治科學論叢, 2021
本文嘗試透過當代兩位重要思想家傅柯與鄂蘭對革命的論述，探究他們共同關切的一個理論問題：如何定位革命？傅柯與鄂蘭都意圖從革命中分離出某種或可稱之為「革命體驗」的東西，傅柯稱之為「靈性政治」，而鄂蘭... more 本文嘗試透過當代兩位重要思想家傅柯與鄂蘭對革命的論述，探究他們共同關切的一個理論問題：如何定位革命？傅柯與鄂蘭都意圖從革命中分離出某種或可稱之為「革命體驗」的東西，傅柯稱之為「靈性政治」，而鄂蘭則稱之為「革命精神」。對他們兩人來說，革命體驗所表述的抵抗，界定了革命，其無法化約成往後任何的革命成就，革命體驗與革命所成就者彼此之間，必然存在某種張力關係。革命體驗是一個無法透過往後的革命成就所窮盡的事件，而其中抵抗與集體性的生成互為表裡。傅柯與鄂蘭對革命的闡述，不只相當具有啟發性，而革命所想望的新政治與集體性潛能，乃是自既有關係網絡中所孕生，則是兩人彼此呼應的主張。
政治與社會哲學評論, 2017
在當代政治理論的系譜中，史賓諾莎對雜眾的論述是極為重要的
智識脈絡，本文探究「雜眾的建構」此一理論論題，首先藉由史賓諾
莎與霍布斯的對比，來說明雜眾的微觀基礎：自然權利（力量）的相
洽。在此基礎... more 在當代政治理論的系譜中，史賓諾莎對雜眾的論述是極為重要的
智識脈絡，本文探究「雜眾的建構」此一理論論題，首先藉由史賓諾
莎與霍布斯的對比，來說明雜眾的微觀基礎：自然權利（力量）的相
洽。在此基礎上，史賓諾莎以雜眾的建構取代了主權肇建。而雜眾的
建構涉及史賓諾莎兩次的理論性換位，第一次換位提出雜眾的現實樣
態與理想樣態，以及兩者之間擺盪與過渡，對Balibar 與史特勞斯來
說，由情動性網絡交織而成雜眾，終究使得這樣的過渡無法完成。此
一表面上的僵局就需要二度的理論性換位，藉由主動性情動的生成，
而非主動情狀對被動情狀的取代，來界定雜眾建構的動力。對情動的
重新評估與對「共同」的著力，會是奈格理詮釋史賓諾莎的兩個主要
線索。
doctoral dissertation by Yu-He Hsiao
國立臺灣大學社會科學院政治學系博士論文, 2018
未修定口試本
conference presentation by Yu-He Hsiao
2023 年中國政治學會年會
「新常態、新政局、新冷戰時代下之民主治理與轉型」國際學術研討會論文
研文行遠論壇（三）─博士級研究人員公開學術演講, 2021
民主與現代性的政治反思：蔡英文教授紀念研討會, 2020
「政治變遷與公民意識學術研討會」學術研討會, 2018
The splendid galley：Hegel and Foucault on “the police”
2018年「政治思想博士生獎助培育計畫研究成果發表會」, 2018
Reclaiming “Political Spirituality”: Foucault and Arendt on Revolution
2017年台灣政治學會年會「民主成長與民主赤字：台灣解嚴三十年的省思」國際學術研討會論文, 2017
第二屆「正義、自由與平等－－現代性規範涵蘊」學術研討會, 2016
2015年政治思想博士生獎助培育計畫研究成果發表會, 2015
人社中心政治思想研究專題中心碩博士培育生成果發表) 中研院人社中心政治思想研究專題中心博士培育生 蕭育和 海德格在再轄域化的道路上迷失了，因為這條路上沒有路標與護欄……他搞錯人 民、大地與鮮血，... more 人社中心政治思想研究專題中心碩博士培育生成果發表) 中研院人社中心政治思想研究專題中心博士培育生 蕭育和 海德格在再轄域化的道路上迷失了，因為這條路上沒有路標與護欄……他搞錯人 民、大地與鮮血，藝術或哲學召喚出來的種族不會是自命純正的種族，而是被壓 迫的、混種的、低下的、無政府的、遊牧的，放棄治療的次等人種，被康德從新 批判的路上驅逐的人種 1 。 壹、無-有例外：無中生有 史特勞斯曾經說「施密特明確主張，就政治狀態來說，一個人喜好政治，還是驗 惡政治無關緊要：政治狀態的意圖『不是好戰或軍國主義者，也非帝國主義論， 更非和平主義者』 ，施密特要的只是理解現實」 2 。在秩序的創建中，敵人總是扮 演一個無法抹去的角色，這個在理論層次上的對抗性(antagonism)要素，存在 於他對浪漫主義的批判、對「政治性」 (the political)理論的陳述、世俗化政治 神學的決斷理論。要成為「施密特主義」者，不管政治光譜左與右，都必須先接 受這個非規範性，在理論層次上本體論的嚴峻「現實」 ： 「政治性」 (the political) 與「政治」 (politics)的區分，前者「構成人類社會中對抗的面向」 ；後者是「在 政治性所提供的衝突脈絡中，一個秩序得以建立並組織人類共存的一套實踐與制 度」 3 。
2014年「政治思想博士生獎助培育計畫研究成果發表會」, 2014
「民主與國族主義：現代性的規範涵蘊」學術研討會, 2013
「紀念盧梭誕生三百周年」學術研討會, 2013
書寫的政治性：德希達論盧梭「反啟蒙」策略 (會議論文初稿) 蕭育和 人只在為存在所宣稱，才本質地在其本質中生發出來。只有從這個宣稱他才『已經』發 現到他的本質居有著，從這個居有著他才已經有了語言... more 書寫的政治性：德希達論盧梭「反啟蒙」策略 (會議論文初稿) 蕭育和 人只在為存在所宣稱，才本質地在其本質中生發出來。只有從這個宣稱他才『已經』發 現到他的本質居有著，從這個居有著他才已經有了語言為家，保留其本質之綻出 (ecstatic) 的家。這樣一種立身於存在中的清整我稱之為人綻出地存在著 (ek-sistence) 。 --海德格， 〈論「人道主義」書簡〉 「對人來說就是為神之在場而敞開的東西；人的習性就是他的(守護)神靈」 (ethos anthropo daimon) ，Daumon 並不單指某個神聖的形象，其字源可回到動詞 daiomai，去 劃破，去分割。 --阿岡本， 《語言與死亡》
Paper for Workshop on Quentin Skinner’s Historiography of Political Thoughts, 2013
"I believe that what advances and makes understanding possible is precisely a forgetfulness of la... more "I believe that what advances and makes understanding possible is precisely a forgetfulness of language, that is, a forgetting of the formal elements in which the discourse or text is enclosed. Only in cases where the process of understanding is disrupted, where understanding is not succeeding, are questions asked about the wording of the text, and only then can the reconstruction of the text become a task in its own right…a vanishing point, a level of texts where we could hardly ever call a set of words a text (Schwundsufe), such as one's notes that prompt one's memory. Here the question of the text is posed only when memory fails and the notes appear alien and incomprehensible…" --Gadamer, "Text and Interpretation"
Uploads
journal article by Yu-He Hsiao
The present article investigates the theory of radical democracy developed by Ernest Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, in hopes of elucidating two theoretical moments in left populism: antagonism and hegemonic formation. On one hand, as a political ontological assumption, antagonism as “the political” cannot be embodied by any concrete enemy. On the other hand, the effect of hegemonic formation in ontic political dynamics is represented by the taking up of universality by particular elements, in which various political forces compete in their efforts to present their particular objectives as those which carry out this filling function. In the theoretical conceptions of radical democracy, the double gaps emerging in ontological and ontic aspects and their immediate mutual reference make left populism totally different from right-wing populism.
This essay examines the thesis of "the double structure of the providential machine" in Agamben's The Kingdom and the Glory. For Agamben, the constitution of modern democracy essentially inherits this political government structure from the Trinitarian paradigm in Christian theology, which, through the mystery of the economy to the practices of government, justifies the providence of the transcendental sovereignty of God. According to Agamben, the modern discourses of public government suggested by Rousseau and Foucault still continue this double structure of sovereignty and government. By investigating the relevant arguments in Rousseau and Foucault, this essay challenges this assertion made by Agamben. For Rousseau, the inevitable tensions between the sovereign and the government reflect the clash between general will and private will, so the practices of government bear no political rationality in itself, and have to be firmly restrained by law under control of sovereignty as general will. Rousseau also conceived ＂imagined democracy＂, the government as the virtual sovereign, to supplement a theoretical moment in this sovereign-law-government chain. The next part of this essay would concentrate on the arguments provided by Foucault. Focusing on the ＂police＂ practices deliberately ignored by Rousseau, Foucault claimed the spontaneous practices of supervising the poor in civil society, combined with the extension of power of the sovereign state into civil society, articulate the specific political field of ＂governmentality＂. As Foucault argued, in the texts on ＂the police＂ circulated in 18th-century Europe, the concerns of public security were constantly the central part of the discourses of the ＂splendor＂ of the state, that is the political rationality of public government. For Foucault, however, in this process of the governmentalization of the state there also holds no place for juridical discourses of sovereignty implicated the double structure of the providential machine.
智識脈絡，本文探究「雜眾的建構」此一理論論題，首先藉由史賓諾
莎與霍布斯的對比，來說明雜眾的微觀基礎：自然權利（力量）的相
洽。在此基礎上，史賓諾莎以雜眾的建構取代了主權肇建。而雜眾的
建構涉及史賓諾莎兩次的理論性換位，第一次換位提出雜眾的現實樣
態與理想樣態，以及兩者之間擺盪與過渡，對Balibar 與史特勞斯來
說，由情動性網絡交織而成雜眾，終究使得這樣的過渡無法完成。此
一表面上的僵局就需要二度的理論性換位，藉由主動性情動的生成，
而非主動情狀對被動情狀的取代，來界定雜眾建構的動力。對情動的
重新評估與對「共同」的著力，會是奈格理詮釋史賓諾莎的兩個主要
線索。
doctoral dissertation by Yu-He Hsiao
conference presentation by Yu-He Hsiao
The present article investigates the theory of radical democracy developed by Ernest Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, in hopes of elucidating two theoretical moments in left populism: antagonism and hegemonic formation. On one hand, as a political ontological assumption, antagonism as “the political” cannot be embodied by any concrete enemy. On the other hand, the effect of hegemonic formation in ontic political dynamics is represented by the taking up of universality by particular elements, in which various political forces compete in their efforts to present their particular objectives as those which carry out this filling function. In the theoretical conceptions of radical democracy, the double gaps emerging in ontological and ontic aspects and their immediate mutual reference make left populism totally different from right-wing populism.
This essay examines the thesis of "the double structure of the providential machine" in Agamben's The Kingdom and the Glory. For Agamben, the constitution of modern democracy essentially inherits this political government structure from the Trinitarian paradigm in Christian theology, which, through the mystery of the economy to the practices of government, justifies the providence of the transcendental sovereignty of God. According to Agamben, the modern discourses of public government suggested by Rousseau and Foucault still continue this double structure of sovereignty and government. By investigating the relevant arguments in Rousseau and Foucault, this essay challenges this assertion made by Agamben. For Rousseau, the inevitable tensions between the sovereign and the government reflect the clash between general will and private will, so the practices of government bear no political rationality in itself, and have to be firmly restrained by law under control of sovereignty as general will. Rousseau also conceived ＂imagined democracy＂, the government as the virtual sovereign, to supplement a theoretical moment in this sovereign-law-government chain. The next part of this essay would concentrate on the arguments provided by Foucault. Focusing on the ＂police＂ practices deliberately ignored by Rousseau, Foucault claimed the spontaneous practices of supervising the poor in civil society, combined with the extension of power of the sovereign state into civil society, articulate the specific political field of ＂governmentality＂. As Foucault argued, in the texts on ＂the police＂ circulated in 18th-century Europe, the concerns of public security were constantly the central part of the discourses of the ＂splendor＂ of the state, that is the political rationality of public government. For Foucault, however, in this process of the governmentalization of the state there also holds no place for juridical discourses of sovereignty implicated the double structure of the providential machine.
智識脈絡，本文探究「雜眾的建構」此一理論論題，首先藉由史賓諾
莎與霍布斯的對比，來說明雜眾的微觀基礎：自然權利（力量）的相
洽。在此基礎上，史賓諾莎以雜眾的建構取代了主權肇建。而雜眾的
建構涉及史賓諾莎兩次的理論性換位，第一次換位提出雜眾的現實樣
態與理想樣態，以及兩者之間擺盪與過渡，對Balibar 與史特勞斯來
說，由情動性網絡交織而成雜眾，終究使得這樣的過渡無法完成。此
一表面上的僵局就需要二度的理論性換位，藉由主動性情動的生成，
而非主動情狀對被動情狀的取代，來界定雜眾建構的動力。對情動的
重新評估與對「共同」的著力，會是奈格理詮釋史賓諾莎的兩個主要
線索。