Chapter 13 Exile Discourse and Ideology

The devil does not conquer the will of man by magic, but by imaginary price worth to tempt the will, to cunningly confuse good and evil, to tempt the will obey it. ——Russian philosopher in exile N. Lossky one The reason why the phenomenon of discourse in exile deserves to be discussed as an important topic in cultural sociology is not because discourse in exile is one of the outstanding representations of twentieth-century culture, but firstly because discourse in exile is the original phenomenon of human culture.Exile is an existential phenomenon of human existence, and exile culture is nothing but its expression.As early as the first prosperous period of human spiritual culture, exile discourse has been prominently presented: Homer's epic "Odyssey" takes exile as the theme; the Old Testament as a whole is a collection of exile discourse; Qu Yuan's "Li Sao" can be It is regarded as the first literary work in exile in Chinese, and Confucius regards exile as a way of survival in an era when the Tao is not obvious-"If the Tao does not work, you can float in the sea by taking a boat".The discourse of exile accompanies the development of human spiritual culture, just as exile accompanies the existence of human beings. Until today, it has not only not decreased, but has become more prominent.

Exile is a dimension of human culture, a unique form of discourse and even a way of human existence or a critical situation. I will not ask questions from the perspective of philosophy, nor will I deal with this topic from the description of historical phenomena, which will be a complicated task.When I intend to examine the discourse of exile in a certain era from the perspective of cultural sociology, instead of turning a blind eye to it, it implies that the question I set is: since the Chinese translation of the word Exil seems to be "exile" ) has almost a twin relationship with human spiritual culture, then, what is the relationship between social existence and knowledge types revealed by this, and what is the existential situation and spiritual situation of human beings shown in the exile discourse? what.

Some—but not all—discourse forms in culture have symptoms of multi-dimensional human existence and spiritual situations, such as complexes, and exile discourse is such a form of discourse.From the perspective of exile discourse in a certain era, it is possible to obtain at least three dimensions of landscape perspective: a. The original political nature of the discourse—political (Politik) is the meaning of the word’s Greek etymology (Politdia) It is used above (that is, it has the meanings of "citizenship", "publicity" and "nationality"), and it is used in the meaning of the word in the current Chinese ideological context; b. The relationship between discourse and individual situations The unique reality of association; c. The historical contextuality of spiritual intentions in discourse.

In this article, I do not intend to deal with the general exile discourse and its historical formation from the standpoint of cultural sociology, but only intend to analyze a specific era——the exile culture of the twentieth century, and then discuss the above three aspects of this era. dimensions.Historically, discourse in exile was the result of political persecution.But I do not discuss this issue from the perspective of political science.Politics is also an act of discourse, and whether national or religious persecution is an act of discourse power.Since neither exile nor exile discourse is a phenomenon unique to the twentieth century, when I examine twentieth-century exile discourse, I must pay attention to the unique context in which it was formed. Therefore, I will focus on exile discourse and another type The relationship between the discourse of ideology and the plenipotentiary discourse of ideology.Since the formation and development of the four main cultural forms in exile (Russia, Germany, Eastern Europe—mainly Poland and the Czech Republic, China) in this century are all related to some kind of totalitarian ideological discourse, my thesis will naturally be It focuses on the relationship and tension between the discourse of exile and the discourse of ideological power.

two Before proceeding with my discursive steps, a general descriptive discussion on the concept of "discourse in exile" is needed. The word Exiled (Exil) in Greek Ψυγη means to escape, avoid, exile, remedy, refuge.Judging from the existential relationship between exile discourse and human spiritual and cultural activities, human spiritual and cultural forms (philosophy, religion, literature and art, ethics, etc.) have a political dimension from the very beginning.The combination of a certain type of discourse and real political power leads to political persecution of another type of discourse, which is also an existential regulation of the discourse itself.Conversely, the existence and form of discourse in exile can just reflect a certain social and political situation and form of human beings, such as the discourse in exile formed by racial persecution and religious persecution in history.

The primary meaning of exile discourse in this article therefore does not refer to the exile theme (Exil als Thema der Literatur) that has been expressed in literary works from ancient times to the present, which is at best a typological theme in literature and art.The definition of discourse in exile can be: a form of life (Exil als Lebensfom) that is separated from the individual or group’s own existential and spiritual situation, the form of discourse and the type of discourse or spiritual orientation it constructs.The first is separation from the territory of being: discourse has its own existential land element, discourse in exile is a discursive activity that is forcibly separated from its own land presence; It also has its own spiritual territory, and exile discourse can be regarded as a form of discourse in which the spirit is in a state of alienation.Regardless of whether it is the living area or the spiritual area, in the traditional phenomenon of discourse in exile, ethnic political conflicts are often involved.The unique tension between the language of living territory and spiritual territory in the discursive form of sexuality and exile is the most important aspect.

When discussing the phenomenon of discourse in exile, it is necessary to treat the living region and the spiritual region as the two most basic factors to a certain extent.Only in this way can we not only avoid ignoring a kind of exile discourse phenomenon that can be called internal from the beginning, but also extend the problem to a more basic level of the phenomenon——the exile of survival ontology. Starting from the brief description above, the phenomenon of exile discourse in the twentieth century has the following characteristics: they are related to the process of modern political democracy, and they are in the conflict between traditional culture and modern culture; they are related to the separation of existence and spiritual territory. Look, it is manifested as the loss of national territory—most of the exile discourses in the past history were still within the territory of the nation (such as the "exile" poems and prose in China. Russia's domestic exile literature in the nineteenth century), although European The situation is slightly different; subsequently, it is also manifested as the loss of one's own living context—most exile discourses in past history were also within one's own living context.The discourse in exile in the twentieth century is not only international, but also intensified due to the loss of its own nationality and language status.

three The year 1922 was a sobering mark on the scale of twentieth-century exile culture.Although after the Russian Revolution in 1917, many Russian literati and scholars had been exiled abroad, but until 1921, the new regime had not taken into account the comprehensive cleansing and proletarianization of the cultural field, so that A free thinker like N.A. Berdjajev was able to establish the "Cultural Institute of Free Spirits" in 1919, giving public lectures on philosophy to audiences including Red Army officers and workers.In 1922, the new regime suddenly arrested more than 120 famous scholars, literati and scientists throughout Russia, including Berdyaev, N. Losskij, Frank (S.Frank) and other world-renowned Famous scholars, deport them (together with their families) together.

At this point it should be asked, what type of consciousness or knowledge underlies such widespread discursive persecution that sometimes even intellectuals, such as natural scientists, who can serve the new regime, are forced into exile?Dictatorship is certainly the obvious reason for exile. However, the legitimacy of dictatorship, from a sociological point of view, still requires a set of knowledge-value systems to support it. Otherwise, the legitimacy and implementation of dictatorship are difficult to establish.More importantly, it is difficult for people to understand and explain the situation in which the totalitarian dictatorship was initially supported and enthusiastically dedicated by a considerable number of intellectuals.For example, the thorough cleansing in the field of culture and education is carried out under the premise of a theoretically reasonable (rather than irrational) discourse, that is, some powerful political forces misunderstand moral rationality with ideological discourse. It is not carried out without unreasonable support.Whether it is the so-called "purification of classes" (Russia) - the occupation of cultural and educational positions by proletarian red professors and literati, or the so-called "purification of races" (Germany) - intellectuals with national blood Occupying the field of culture and education, without exception, is: first a set of ideological discourse is established, and then this discourse is transformed into social action.Even if mass arrests and expulsions like those in 1922 and 1934 had not occurred, a culture of exile would have been inevitable.Once a certain discourse is ideologueized, there is no place for individual discourse.

Originally, any kind of discourse is individual, and the most fascinating question is why some individual discourse is misunderstood as a general, sovereign moral discourse, and even forms an ideological form of discourse.In fact, the exile discourses of this century are all related to some kind of knowledge-value discourse called a certain "ism".Of course, there are different types of knowledge-values ​​under the name of "ism", and not all "ism" discourses will necessarily lead to the legitimacy of totalitarian dictatorship.But it is also obvious that there must be some discourse types of "isms" that will inevitably lead to the establishment of the legitimacy of the dictatorship of the totalitarian ideology.Thus, the epistemological-axiological basis behind such overarching discourses is worth examining.

Practitioners of modern totalitarian dictatorships all believe that such totalitarian dictatorship has historical and rationality of existence, and has a knowledge-value basis that conforms to the law of historical development, because they represent the value or interests of a certain overall, even though the person in charge of this overall may a certain race or class.However, once the race or class itself is viewed as an absolute totality, they are endowed with absolute consciousness or absolute value.A form of belief emerges from the transition from the individual to the totality.Total dictatorship and the elimination or expulsion of a certain type of people in this form are the practice or manifestation of a belief.Hence the zealous implementation of dictatorship by persons—often even by intellectuals.The persecutors sincerely believe that they are doing good, saving people, and saving the world.L. Kolakowski, a Polish exiled philosopher, noted that the demons claim that they do evil to you out of great love. They want to liberate you, provide you with spiritual help, and bring you great doctrines. Open up your souls.When persecutors claim this, they are not lying. They believe they are angelic and have long intended to die for their noble cause. Such spiritual power comes from the arbitrary objective rationality of the knowledge-value discourse on which it is based, and this arbitrary objective rationality is produced in a wonderful combination of a certain scientific theory and value teleology. At the beginning of its birth, the discourse of plenipotentiary "ism" has a strong will to value, to explore the most basic realistic factors for human society and its development, and to provide the most convincing basis for the possibility of human society to obtain happiness.My use of the word "ism" is: an act of speech that transforms individually valid discourse into collectively valid discourse.This behavior has existed since ancient times.The legitimacy argumentation of various modern "isms" is characterized by the introduction of empirical science.Just because some individuals think that their ideas are verifiable, objectively necessary, and universally valid, they should have political power as a matter of course.Certain thinkers of the last century have struggled to find the fundamental driving forces of human existence.Some have found the mechanism of productivity and production relations and their history, while others have found biological elements such as race.It should be said that this kind of "root-seeking" will probably trigger the professionalism of sociologists to continue to pursue. Otherwise, why would W. Sombart (W. happy with the merger? Once the basic facts found by sociologists or other scientists with their "insights" become objective observations and are combined with the subjective will to save the world, the discourse of "ism" with full authority will naturally emerge.As many basic facts as there are "insights", there will be as many "ism" discourses with full powers, and political surgery will be performed. There is actually another element of metaphysics in the well-known condemnation of metaphysics by sociologists in search of historical rationality—Weber saw this, and therefore he endeavored to purge sociology of this "hidden metaphysics" . Importantly for the purposes of this essay, there emerges a type of discourse that converts subjective consciousness into objective facts (or laws) in the form of scientific formulations—and at the same time, the transformation of individual discourses into overall discourse.Habermas saw that the dissolution of an old ideology is accomplished by establishing another ideology.But the new ideology is no longer just an ideology, it has to become the substructure, the social existence itself.Some sociologists say that social existence determines spiritual consciousness, and people later discovered that the situation can also be reversed.Otherwise, it will not only be difficult to understand the assertion that history is moving towards the good in its objective and inevitable development, but also difficult to understand some things that happened later, such as: why ideology has instead become a substructure, while social existence has instead become a consciousness. form.Relatedly, once the moral is transformed into the natural, and the natural into the moral, cruelty can become a virtue, not just a rationality. Four The substructuring of ideology and the ideology of social being have brought a new result to the relationship between social being and discourse types: the integration of social consciousness.Totalizing, individual discourse cannot exist in such a situation.If a certain individual discourse still wants to reserve a little space for its individual existence, it has no choice but to go into exile. The exile culture of the twentieth century shows that ideology is not only a false dominant consciousness as Marx called it and a distorted communication as Habermas called it, but also a pattern of social organism.However, we can understand some deficiencies in the critical theory of ideology of Marx and Habermas, because neither of them actually experienced the social existence as ideology. What should be asked is how ideology became a social existence.This question is interesting but complex, and I can only briefly discuss it here.Any mode of social existence is a mode of language, therefore, we can look at this problem through the investigation of a certain ideological discourse: for example, the so-called "self-isolation from the people". The word "people" has great moral persecution power, and those who cannot be identified as "people" are individual existences that should be eliminated. The moral persecuting power of the word "people" is not derived from its quantitative incalculability, but its moral color and totality. It is these two characteristics that characterize the general style of ideological discourse in a totalitarian society. It should be asked: Who are the "people"?But no one has ever asked who the "people" are, and everyone seems to know who it is.Every individual "I" thinks it is "the people", but may be called "the enemy of the people" at any time. "People" sounds like it naturally has the moral legitimacy of affirmative value, so individuals have to agree with it; and because the word "people" has a totality, each individual thinks he belongs to it (in fact, he does not belong to it) ).In the title of "people", the person himself - the physical existence of each individual is not present.It is this kind of situation that makes individual existence quietly lose the legitimacy and presence of existence.Exile means breaking away from the "people", "excluding yourself from the people", and becoming an individual existence.Therefore, the word "people" can give an explanation of what is meant by a totalitarian ideological discourse: people (every individual) speak for themselves in a discourse system that does not belong to them or is absent from the "people" discourse, and the individual speaks Instead of indicating the speaker's own presence and presence, it indicates a non-existent totality.This totality was originally constructed by a few intellectuals, and it only has the characteristics of individual speech, but now the situation is reversed.Therefore, in the overall discourse of the totalitarian ideology, the individual thinks that he is speaking of himself, but in fact it is the totality that is speaking of himself. G. Simmel pointed out that when historical rationalism absolutized productive forces into independent changes in the historical process, it endowed the economic field with a mysterious self-movement equivalent to the logical dialectics of Hegel's spiritual development.The inadequacy of this explanation lies in the fact that he failed to notice that the historical process is attached with a kind of moral legitimacy in historical rationalism, and this legitimacy cannot be examined theoretically.What is important is the power of discourse produced by the connection between the historical process of social existence—according to historical rationalism, which is objectively necessary—and the legitimacy of justice: not only in terms of objective laws, but also in terms of morality. In theory, each individual must disappear in this historical process and become its flesh and blood; in moral terms, the discourse of each individual must be the discourse of the whole, otherwise it is immoral, and of course it is Evil, reactionary—history necessarily moves, so-and-so does not, so they must be eliminated.Marx opposed Hegel's theory of consciousness from the very beginning, claiming that there is no separate consciousness, and that consciousness is always the consciousness of man's social existence.This is indeed very insightful. The construction of the totalitarian ideology discourse and the establishment of the possibility of its subconstruction seem to be derived from the absolute thesis of the highest comprehensive consciousness, which inherits Hegel's totality view of consciousness and dialectical development.The premise is that it needs to be turned upside down slightly, so that a certain consciousness becomes historical—of course, the highest consciousness of moral justice, and then it is described as the appearance of social existence, and the overall characteristics may follow this Consciousness enters social existence at the same time, and of course the political means of entry need to be stipulated separately.The result is three-fold: a. A certain kind of consciousness thus acquires the power of objective reality (not only is it not subjective, but it is historically objective and inevitable, social existence); b. Social existence acquires the subjective state of consciousness -becoming an expression of total consciousness; c. individual being and consciousness are replaced by total being and consciousness.The more wonderful result is that, according to this type of knowledge, a certain individual who possesses power can transform his own discourse into the people's discourse and his own consciousness into the people's consciousness, because of the high morality of this discourse and consciousness. The tone of voice and the overall way of speaking in history, so that you individuals really think that it is your own words and consciousness, just as the words and consciousness of a certain class are not mastered by countless individuals of this class, but by a few people who do not belong to this class. as understood by intellectuals.But by adopting this kind of knowledge type and discourse form, they also dare to put themselves in the position of the whole class and even the whole historical law, and speak for them. What do these discussions have to do with exile culture?Exile is being exiled, being forced to leave the place where one is. Exile discourse is a discourse that is not at home, while plenipotentiary discourse is at home.What is in exile is individual, and its opposite is totality. The form of discourse in exile is that the individual speaks of the individual itself, not the individual speaks of the whole.Originally, any utterance is an individual utterance, and it can only speak about the individual itself. No matter how moral or scientific the utterance is, the speaker and his utterance do not become total.One of the wonderfully created types of knowledge and its discursive form of this century is the totality of the individual speech, which bursts into total speech, once this speech is mastered by the "people" through practice - the correct word should be through the mastery of the "people" If it becomes a practice, it will produce infinite power, and a certain individual consciousness and discourse will inevitably be separated or cleared out and exiled, otherwise there will only be a discourse that is willing to become the discourse of the people.The exiled writer M. Kundera even saw how the most personal form of discourse, "sexual" discourse, was totalized.Discourse in exile is a result of the social existentialization of discourse in general, whether it is nation, country, history, class, or "people". Fives At the beginning of the people’s ideological discourse entering society, intellectuals are faced with a self-decision whether to abandon individual speech and identify with the overall ideological discourse, which is to decide whether to go into exile—whether it is external exile or internal exile . As far as history is concerned, there are at least three different types of intellectuals: a. Intellectuals who identify with and even devote themselves to the ideological discourse of the people (philosophers, writers, or other humanities, as well as natural scientists and general intellectuals other people); b. the intellectual who hovers between the two; c. the intellectual who is determined not to give up individual speech. The first type of intellectuals, to a large extent, are not necessarily confused by the morality of ideological discourse or similar scientific residences, and voluntarily give up individual speech.It is also often the case that intellectuals themselves often have a kind of instinctive impulse to make their individual speech become the collective speech, or they want to join the gang when the individual speech cannot be fully expressed.For example, the cases of Mayakovsky and Hu Feng.They fail to distinguish the fundamental difference between the speech of the people and the speech of individuals, even on a moral level, thinking that the speech of the people can be a better expression of the speech of individuals. Intellectuals of the second type are fundamentally incapable of making such a distinction, or else they would have no illusions.Often, however, such intellectuals may be drawn to the morality and ideals of the people.This is probably related to the problem of people's disease in the twentieth century.Feng Youlan recalled that he discussed with Zhu Guangqian and other intellectuals almost every day whether to leave.There is also the case of E. Bloch—until he himself became a member of the social existence of the people's ideology, he found that there was no room for individual speech, and he had to go into exile for the second time. The third type of intellectuals have a relatively clear understanding of individual speech—Russian Christian thinker and philosopher L. Shestov (L. Shestov) has always regarded philosophy as an individual life and death issue, which is only related to the individual, so it did not wait until drive him away, and he goes into exile.But such intellectuals are not in the majority proportionately.This fact shows to a considerable extent not only that: in this century, the historical fate experienced by intellectuals is to regard the speech that enters the ideological discourse of the people as the expression of individual speech (but also shows: intellectuals are inherently It is not difficult to understand one of the reasons why the knowledge type of people's discourse has a wide range of power. However, no matter where, after all, some intellectuals can see the importance of maintaining individual speech.What is striking is the turn and thoroughness of some intellectuals who initially endorsed the type of people-spoken knowledge.Christian thinkers Berdyaev, Bulgakov (S.Bulgakov) and Frank were all quite radical Marxists in the early days, and Bulgakov was also an outstanding Marxist economist.There is a process of transformation from positivism to idealism.In addition, famous anti-Nazi theologians like M. Niemoller initially supported Hitler's socialist ideas. The normative force of the people's ideological discourse on consciousness is super strong, even without considering other means of political coercion used for it.The attempt to preserve individual discourses within the general discourse of the people's ideology proved to be a failure.We have seen that intellectuals such as Feng Youlan, Zhu Guangqian, and Liang Shuming were close to the "second type of loyalty" in their later years, and Xiong Shili was about to use "original Confucianism" to argue for "ism". Intellectuals' discursive choice is a rather complicated topic, which deserves a case study.The question of the type of intellectual is by no means irrelevant, considering that it was intellectuals who contributed theory and technology to Hitler's massacres and wisdom to Stalin's persecution, not to mention those who paved the way for the construction of ideologically authoritarian discourses They are gone.For example, Berdyaev pointed out the inherent connection between the old Tolstoy’s moral theory and the later people’s moral theory; the German exiled philosopher K. Lowith pointed out the symbolic poet Georg and his circle’s The contribution of the National Socialist (Nazi) ideology.Of course, the question of the type of intellectuals must be considered in relation to the question of the type of knowledge itself. six If you neither agree with the type of knowledge of the general discourse, nor are you willing to leave your homeland, there is only inner exile.This situation is even more important in the history of exile culture, because since they refuse to speak in the form of overall discourse, of course it is impossible to get the opportunity for individual speech in such a form of social existence, and it is difficult to be like external exile. Express it openly.The inner discourse of exile is also present from the beginning.It's just that they got the name of the so-called "underground culture" (underground literature, art, philosophy) only in modern times, thanks to the development of modern printing technology.However, the difference between the discourse of external exile and the discourse of internal exile is first of all land-based.In the era of national socialism (Nazi), German writers E.Barlach and J.klepper called their creative activities "spiritual exile" (Geisies Exil), "life of exiles in the motherland" (Emigrantenleben im Vaterlande).In fact, the phenomenon of internal exile is much wider than external exile. No matter in the form of existence or the form of discourse, the internal exile is significantly different from the external exile. Surviving in an ideological social existence does not even have the right to wander.The philosopher Bloch and the dramatist Brecht (B. Brecht) have experienced both external exile and internal exile, and they must have a deep understanding. The internal exile first highlights the spiritual orientation and existential decision-making of intellectuals, which has two factors of land and language.On the one hand, the existential relationship (rather than the anthropological relationship) between land and thinking, as well as the relationship between individual occasional existence and thinking, involves the decision of exile, and some emotional feeling precedes the judgment of suffering, so that feeling has A cognitive function beyond the reach of thinking.On the other hand, when it comes to language, a language is a way of being, thinking and feeling. Therefore, TWAdorno, a philosopher in exile, felt that he could not deepen his philosophical thinking in the English-speaking world.Unless they are expelled, many writers and philosophers prefer to endure the suffering of inner exile - Solzhenitsyn's example - not without reason.The roots of individual speech are planted a little deeper in inner exile. The individual speech of inner exile appears more individual.Taking Russia as an example, Akhmatova's "Epic" and Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago", Hekin's prose and "Russian Da Vinci and Pascal" Florensky (PAFkirebsjuh)'s theological, aesthetic works and poems all show the strength of individual speech.In addition, in terms of language form alone, it is definitely difficult to maintain the ego of individual speech in a speech context manipulated by the ideological discourse of the people.This in itself requires the extraordinary autonomy of the individual spirit, and the loss of this autonomy is nowhere more serious than in the Chinese environment.The inner discourse of exile fully reveals the function of form as resistance (Formals Protest) and the dimensions to which individuality can be extended.Of course, the form of external discourse in exile also has its own expression and uniqueness—for example, Bunin's late novels.The obvious difference between Russian poet Brodsky's poems in internal exile and his external exile reveals the different spiritual intentions of the individual's presence in the two voices of exile. There are various forms of individual speech in inner exile, such as the philosophical essays of the Polish philosopher Kolakowski before his exile, the film works of the screenwriter and director K.kieslowski, etc. .For us, an in-depth examination of the inner “discourse in exile” may fully reveal the tension between individual speech and the discourse of people’s ideology, but this is a topic for another dedicated study. seven Another striking phenomenon of the exile culture in this century is that the individual cooperative academic activities in external exile, the ideological orientation shown in it, the schools formed and their academic traditions are quite problematic. As a representative of Russian intellectuals in exile, Berdyaev established and led the "Philosophy-Religious Research Institute" ( 1922, Berlin) and the "Russian Institute of Philosophy of Religion" (1924, Paris), founded the ideological and academic magazines "Road" and "East and West", successively gathered Shestov, Boer Gakov, Frank, Yin Lin (IAIlin), Lazarev (Lazarev), Lure (Lure), Remizov (Remizov) and other famous thinkers.Bulgakov also formed the "Institute of Russian Orthodox Theology", leading its research until his death - VV Zennkovskij continued to lead the academic research program.The writer and theologian Merezhkovsky and his wife, the symbolist poet Gibius, have hosted the "Literature and Philosophy of Religion" salon in Paris for many years, and they have also produced a lot.From the 1920s to the 1940s, the foreign academic activities of Russian intellectuals in exile flourished surprisingly (the catalog of Russian works in exile compiled from the 1920s by the Slavic Institute in Paris, France, has more than 600 pages).In addition to the above-mentioned academic institutions, there are also short-term institutions such as the "Russian Institute of Science" in Paris and the "Russian University" in Prague, as well as academic magazines such as "Russian Bell" and "Voice of Russia".The contributions of linguist R. Jakobson, sociologist Sorokin, and writer Bunin are also well known. From the point of view of schools and ideological traditions, the Russian thinkers in exile formed the Russian Christian existential philosophy and inherited and advanced the Orthodox theology; from the perspective of ideological orientation, the Russian thinkers in exile started from the historical suffering of their own nation and went deep into the existence of human beings. general ontological domain.This is manifested in the development and advancement of two aspects: on the one hand, philosophically reflect deeply on the ideological roots of the successful establishment of the people's ideology in Russia (such as Berdyaev's "The Origin of Russian Communism").The critique of the nihilistic nature of historical rationalism wrapped up in the appearance of value deontology began long before the Russian Revolution—for example, Frank's Ethics of Nihilism (1909), Bulgakov "Vekhi" (1909) and "The Spiritual Crisis of Intellectuals" (1910) by Perjanaguan.After Berdyaev was in exile, he edited the "Road" magazine for 20 years. It got its name from the anthology "Road" jointly published by the three early Marxists in 1913. .The collection of essays openly demonstrates the reasons for its intellectual turn.After exile, this group of thinkers made more in-depth philosophical reflections on this issue.An unexpected bonus is that the philosophical and theological depth of Dostoevsky's thought has been overshadowed by the philosophical and theological depth of Dostoyevsky's thought, which has been repeatedly revisited by philosophers in exile because of Dostoevsky's prophetic vision of nihilistic thought. revealed.After going into exile, these Russian philosophers brought Dostoyevsky's thoughts to Europe, and further deepened the philosophical and theological interpretation of Dostoyevsky's thoughts, so that they had a great impact on Western European philosophy, theology, and literature. Extremely broad, far-reaching and long-lasting impact. From this point of view, the philosophical and theological criticism of the people's ideology and its nihilistic essence must be extended to the issue of belief, which leads to the ideological orientation of Christian ontology.In this orientation, there is reason for the emphasis on the freely determined Christ confession of the individual.Indeed, as Habermas sees it, the dismantling of ideological discourse cannot be to replace the original ideology with another set of ideologies, but the key lies in rebuilding the distorted self-understanding of individuals.However, if it is limited to this level, and self-criticism and social criticism are not carried out at the same time on the level of belief theory, it will be difficult to obtain a solid foundation for the reconstruction of individual self-understanding.The "Enlightenment of Enlightenment" proposed in the current postmodern discussion is quite illustrative. We already know a great deal about the joint study of personality in the United States by German émigré philosophers and psychologists and the eventual formation of the Frankfurt School.What attracts attention is its research direction: the deep psychological basis of the masses for the rise of national socialism and the social and ideological roots of the formation of totalitarian rule and authority.What is fruitful is not only the analytical orientation extending from the existential experience and situation of the nation to the existential level, but also the full use of the achievements of psychology, sociology, and linguistics in this century to explore all aspects of the totalitarian ideology. The analysis method. The formation of the contemporary Confucian school in Hong Kong and the establishment of the New Asia College can be regarded as an attempt of cooperative ideological orientation of Chinese scholars in exile.If we compare it with the similar situation in Russia and Germany, it also has both situational introspection and revival of national ideological tradition: the reinterpretation and development of Confucian ideological tradition.However, if it is not quite strange, at least it is puzzling: in terms of national encounters and the relationship between situations and problems at the general ontological level, contemporary Confucianism not only appears to lack self-awareness, but also has a clear tendency towards narrow cultural nationalism.As for exile literature, there are almost no masterpieces worth mentioning (until the 1980s). Eight As a unique form of individual speech, discourse in exile has always been directly related to the political situation, but discourse in exile does not necessarily have the function of political discourse.Moreover, as a solution to the overall discourse of people's ideology, discourse in exile is almost ineffective because it does not take place in the context of the existence of people's ideology, so it only has a certain existential significance.Importantly, the question of the reconstruction of individual utterances has the potential to be revisited.All the important thinkers and writers in exile in this century have expressed concern about the reconstruction of individual speech in their own way.It is precisely this point that makes the exile discourse have a certain connection point with the so-called modernity and postmodernity themes. In this regard, another kind of exile that actually exists in this century should be mentioned. It is not the exile mentioned above, that is, it is not the exile of a language, a spirit, a culture, or an individual, but the language, spirit , culture, and the exile of the individual (ontological person) itself can be called the ontological exile (exil ontologique).Exile in this sense was first revealed by the Greeks in the form of tragedy through the myth of Oedipus.Exile is originally a kind of escape—refuge, but ontological exile cannot be escaped, just like Oedipus King tried to escape bad luck through exile, and the result is well known.M. Heidegger once used the wandering of "homelessness" to mark the existential symptom of this century, and the situation of "homelessness" is exile.Thought is not at home, spirit is not at home, emotion is not at home, individual body is not at home, all of these can be summed up as language is not at home, language does not speak itself. This wave of exile began as early as the last century. It is neither national nor global, but individual.From this, it is not difficult to understand why the spiritual intentions of some important philosophers, theologians, poets, novelists, artists, and musicians in this century are all in exile.As illustrations I can mention the notion of en-route, which both Karl Barth and Heidegger were fascinated by, and the theme of sexual wandering in Kundera's novels as two prominent examples.It is worthy of further consideration: maybe people do not have a home at all, and homeland is just an ancient imaginary concept. People are always on their way home——Old Testament Genesis told this earlier, and people used to think that they were at home. The thought of the century is nothing more than rediscovering a fact and. What fascinates me, however, is the question: Is it this little-conscious exile that drove the once-so-enthusiasm construction of a totalitarian ideological discourse? ——Don’t forget that the classic writers of the people’s discourse conceived the overall-absolute historical consciousness and the overall discursive form of individual speech in exile. March 1990 Chicago