What is the relationship between drama aesthetic education and public life?

Your questions are so professional. I really admire you. I will answer one more question. I will leave the other questions to people who love drama. I have learned a lot from your questions and I really admire you. !

Drama Aesthetic Education and Public Life - On the Drama Controversy between Rousseau and Diderot

Fan Yun

Source: "Journal of Aesthetic Education" Issue 6, 2012

Content summary: The dispute between Rousseau and Diderot about drama in the Age of Enlightenment was superficially reflected as a disagreement on the level of aesthetic education. In fact, it involved the two men’s disagreements over the issues of Enlightenment politics and human nature education. Differences in stance. Rousseau criticized actors' hypocritical performances, believing that this would lead to the alienation of human nature and the corruption of social morals; while Diderot supported the form of dramatic performance in a high-profile manner, believing that it contributes to the formation of social culture and modern public life. of construction. Fully understanding the deep social and political connotations behind this disagreement is of great significance to the construction of aesthetic education in contemporary society.

Keywords: Drama, Rousseau, Diderot, Aesthetics, Principle ***Life

“In all human states, it is games and only games that make people fully human.” Schiller's important point of view in "Books on Aesthetic Education" had a profound impact on the development and maturity of aesthetic education in later generations. Inspired by it, most aesthetic education theories regard the soundness and perfection of personality as the key to art education. core goals. The basic presupposition of Schiller and his followers is that when everyone's personality is perfected, the society composed of individuals will also move towards morality and justice. However, this presupposition is questionable, because there are other aesthetic education thoughts that believe that the education of people should be distinguished from the education of citizens. For the sake of social justice and the perfection of fair life, some kind of impersonal education is needed. Aesthetic education (drama education). Before Schiller, French Enlightenment thinkers (such as Rousseau and Diderot) were all aware of this problem. A deeper understanding of their understanding of this issue is of great significance to the improvement and development of contemporary aesthetic education theory.

1. Introduction: A Debate on Drama

In 1758, the French Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau published an essay entitled "To D'Alembert on Drama" The essay "Letter to D'Alembert on the Theatre" disclosed his differences with the Enlightenment camp. In the opinion of cultural historian Peter Gay, "It is Rousseau's most Platonic, most Genevan and most paradoxical work"[1]320. On the surface, this paper was a debate with d'Alembert on whether to build a theater in Geneva, but in reality it exposed the deep rift between him and the entire Enlightenment camp.

The incident originated when d'Alembert was preparing to write an entry on "Geneva" for the "Encyclopedia". Voltaire persuaded him to insert a paragraph in it suggesting that Geneva should have a theater in order to achieve customs, customs and publicity. Activate the effect of people's wisdom. D'Alembert wrote this explanation in the entry:

Drama was not tolerated in Geneva. This is not because they do not support drama itself, but because they are worried that actors will spread exaggerated, wasteful and debauched tastes among young people. Is it not possible, however, to remedy these difficulties with strict rules to which actors must abide? In this way, Geneva has both theater and fashion, and enjoys the best of both worlds. Theatrical performances will cultivate civil taste and teach good manners and subtle feelings, which are difficult to achieve without the help of drama; literature will be beneficial without indulgence, and Geneva will Sparta The prudence of Athens was combined with the elegance of Athens. [2]4

D'Alembert's proposal represents the views of the vast majority of literati in the entire Enlightenment camp. They all regard art as an indispensable tool and means to advance this great cause. Because art is of great significance in breaking down religious superstitions, resisting political authority, and promoting secular happiness and happiness in life. But Rousseau held a completely different view. D'Alembert's entry aroused his anger. He strongly opposed the proposal to build a theater in Geneva, believing that this would be detrimental to the good morals of the city-state. Rousseau's letter continues the point he made in his treatise: science and art do not contribute to the improvement of morals and morals.

Rousseau's letter not only questioned d'Alembert and challenged Voltaire, but also ended his friendship with Diderot.

Although there are many personal factors in this breakup, it is also obvious that the two are drifting apart ideologically. Regarding the issue of drama education alone, the two men had very different views: Diderot held an optimistic attitude towards drama education. In his view, there is no doubt about the moral effect of excellent drama: “Here, bad people will feel uneasy about the evil deeds they may have committed, will feel sympathy for the pain they have caused to others, and will feel sympathy for a person who has the characteristics of A man of his character expresses indignation," and by the time the bad guy walks out of the box, he is "less inclined to do evil, which is far more effective than being chewed out by a harsh and blunt preacher." In Rousseau's view, people will not become kind after watching a play. "The tyrant in Fehe once hid in a corner in the theater to watch the play because he was afraid of being seen with Andromache. Weeping with Pulian, he was deaf and indifferent to the cries of the many innocent people he ordered to be executed every day.” [2]25

It can be seen that both Rousseau and Diderot paid full attention to the aesthetic education of drama at that time, but came to completely different conclusions. Behind this difference seems to reflect the relationship between Rousseau and Diderot. Encyclopedia School’s different views on dramatic aesthetic education. Therefore, the important thing is not to make a choice between Rousseau and Diderot, but to explore the deep political and social factors and concepts of human nature behind this superficial difference. What were the differences between Rousseau and Diderot regarding drama? What specific social factors and political ideas have caused this disagreement? How to understand this difference and what enlightenment will it provide to our understanding of aesthetic education in modern society today?

In the current related research in China, there have been many results on the dramatic aesthetics of Diderot and Rousseau. However, due to limitations in research perspectives and methods, the aesthetics of the Enlightenment Era have not been placed in a more comprehensive perspective. To provide insights from a broad political and social theoretical perspective. ① Rousseau and Diderot were not just aestheticians in the sense of modern disciplines, but thinkers who were full of worries about the fate of mankind. Therefore, the limitations of their vision may have obscured their deeper political thinking and concern for human nature. To this end, this article attempts to present the complex social and life issues behind the dramatic debates between the two thinkers from an interdisciplinary perspective.

2. Performance and Alienation: Rousseau’s Resistance to Drama

Taking advantage of the opportunity of his debate with d’Alembert, Rousseau systematically elaborated on his views on drama. Not only did he point out in a general sense that drama has no possibility of improving social customs, but he also demonstrated the potential threat that drama would pose to this city-state from a specific perspective in Geneva; It evaluates the influence of theater at all levels, and also criticizes the harm of theater from multiple perspectives such as scripts, actors, and audiences. Although he himself has created plays and achieved a lot, and although he has also put forward the view that plays are "good for good people and harmful to bad people", as far as the whole work is concerned, the drama brings The dangers and evils of drama remained the focus of his argument, countering the optimistic view of drama of his Enlightenment colleagues.

Many commentators believe that this essay on drama is almost a rewrite of Book 10 of Plato's "The Republic". It is nothing more than a repetition of classical moral criticism and seems to have no new ideas. [3] 258 However, although he tried his best to be in line with the ancients in his speech, in the context of the era of drastic changes in Western society, Rousseau's intention was probably not limited to this. It not only involves Platonic "soul justice", but also involves more issues of "social justice". As Alain Bloom said: "Letter to D'Alembert on the Theater" becomes a comprehensive theoretical work, which looks at civil society from a most provocative perspective, that is, the relationship between civil society and the soul. The relationship between works." [3] 255 Thinking about the public and political issues behind Rousseau's dramatic aesthetics will undoubtedly be a key to accurately grasping his aesthetic thoughts.

Rousseau saw that the introduction of theater would corrode and destroy political unity. The reason why Rousseau regarded political unity as so important was that This is because he recognized the educational function of the state on individuals, because a just city-state is conducive to cultivating virtuous citizens. In a city-state with good customs, drama cannot play any role in consolidating and improving morality. On the contrary, it may cater to the bad tastes among the people and hinder the country's normal education of citizens. Among them, the issue of dramatic performance raised by Rousseau is quite eye-catching.

He wrote:

What is the talent of an actor? It is the art of pretending to be oneself, imitating other people's characters instead of one's own, not showing others what one is, appearing passionate but actually being cold-blooded, being so naturally duplicitous, as if he really thinks so, and finally, completely forgetting about one's own To occupy someone else's position. What is the profession of an actor? This is a transaction, performed for money. ...What kind of spirit does the profession of actor instill in actors? That mixture of meanness, deceit, absurd pretensions, and pitiable resignation which made him fit for all kinds of roles, except those of the noblest of them all, because they gave up. [2]79－80

What kind of person is an actor? In Rousseau's view, he is a person who gives up himself to perform for others. On stage, he lived the life of others rather than his own. He is good at imitating the emotions of others through effective techniques and provocative actions and lines, and they have also won generous rewards through this "hypocritical" performance. This kind of person lives for others and lives by playing a role. They have no authentic self, they are hypocrites, and they have become "alienated" because of their loss of authenticity. Rousseau was the first thinker to criticize the alienation of human nature under the conditions of modern civilization. Later, the alienation theory proposed by Marx in the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" was largely inspired by Rousseau.

Marshall McLuhan once said, "The medium is the message." This sentence means that the medium is not just a means of conveying information, as people think. In many cases, it is information itself. In the process of information dissemination and exchange, the communication medium itself will also have a decisive impact on the formation of the center of gravity of the entire cultural spirit: "The form of the media favors certain special contents, which can ultimately control culture." [4] 10 Neil · Postman accepted and developed McLuhan's view that media is more like a metaphor, "defining the real world with a hidden but powerful suggestion." [4]12 It can be seen that the uniqueness of the media is that although it guides the way people see and understand things, its intervention is often silent and subtle. From clocks and the written word to the telegraph, microscope and television, different media have a hidden potential influence on the fashions of every era. In this sense, the same goes for drama. In the transformation process of modern civilization, drama actually plays an extremely important role.

Looking back at history, the 18th century was an era of drama. This not only refers to the fact that drama was the most important art in the public world of European countries at that time, but also involves the profound impact of drama as a medium on the environment of the times. Looking at the historical and literary works at that time, we can see how deeply rooted the concept of "life is like a play" was in the hearts of the people at that time. Fielding once wrote in "Tom Jones": "The world is often compared with the theater... This idea has a long history and is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. Some dramatic expressions can only be applied through extended metaphors at first. in the world, but now they can be directly applied to both without distinction: so when we talk about daily life, we often use words such as stage and scenery fluently, as if we are talking about Dramatic performance..." [5] 136-137 As an art type, drama affects people's daily life in a subtle way. Life in big cities like London and Paris has gradually taken on dramatic characteristics. Interactions between strangers are like actors performing on a theatrical stage.

It can be seen that Rousseau’s view of drama is based on his entire educational philosophy. He saw that the threat of theatrical performance was not only that its content was immoral, but also that the form of theatrical performance created a staged and masked society. Through drama, people learn to play other people, and learn to play various roles in complex situations. In a society where everyone wears a mask, they are at home like a duck in water. Rousseau hated such people because they were corrupt people who no longer had their natural nature. They are pretentious and hypocritical, but they are never willing to reveal themselves sincerely. In a sense, Rousseau's "Confessions" embodies an autobiographical aesthetics that opposes dramatic aesthetics; because only in autobiography can the author get rid of the hypocritical mask and reveal his sincere soul.

Regarding education, Rousseau once deliberately distinguished human education from citizen education: human education pursues the maintenance of human nature, while citizen education sets its goal at the fulfillment of political obligations. But these two distinctions do not mean that Rousseau's educational philosophy can be understood as two levels. On the contrary, personality and politics should maintain a high degree of unity. "Those who want to discuss politics and morality separately will get nothing from either." Rousseau based political justice on the basis of personality, whether he is a natural person or a citizen of a city-state, as long as he is Sincere (or according to Starobinski, "transparent"), rather than hypocritical and bourgeois, then politics based on sincere personality will also be just.

Based on this reason, Rousseau’s criticism of drama has theoretical rationality. Because the performance form of drama is depriving people of sincerity, and this sincerity is the basis of Rousseauian political justice. But Rousseau did not seem to realize that there is no natural unity between individual life and public politics. Sincere personality does not necessarily promote political justice, but in order to promote political justice, it seems that a more special kind of civic education is needed to distinguish it from this kind of personality education. Diderot obviously saw something more on this issue.

3. Performance and Reception: Diderot’s Drama Complex

Unlike Rousseau’s anti-social and withdrawn personality, Diderot was better able to adapt to urban society and the rise of modern civilization. Therefore, he also has a more positive attitude towards drama. In his "Paradoxe sur le comdeien" ("On the Actor's Paradox") written in 1769, he compared society to the stage in a theater: "The stage is like a well-ordered society, in which everyone must serve the whole and the whole." Sacrificing some of one's own rights for the interests of the overall situation." [6] 293 In addition to creating a large number of dramatic works (such as "The Bastard", "Head of the Family" and "The Engaged Girl"), Diderot also devoted himself to it for a long time. He specializes in drama theory research and has achieved high attainments. The contemporary German thinker Lessing once made this evaluation: "Since Aristotle, there has never been a philosopher as concerned about drama as he (Diderot)." [1] 312

Among the many theoretical contributions to dramatic aesthetics, Diderot’s criticism of neoclassicism and the theoretical creation of “citizen drama” are undoubtedly issues of concern to most researchers of Diderot’s aesthetic thought. This article discusses this Without going into too much discussion, we will instead focus on Diderot’s views on dramatic performance. It was on this important issue of dramatic aesthetic education for public life that he came to the opposite conclusion from Rousseau. .

Diderot discovered the boundary between art and nature in the art type of drama: "With only nature and no art, how can a great actor be created? Because the plot on the stage is Development is not exactly as it is in nature, and dramatic works are written according to a certain system of principles." [6] 279 Diderot's core view in the work "On the Actor's Paradox" is that if an actor wants to For a successful performance, if the person in the play is to effectively express the emotions, anger, sorrow, and joy of the person in the play, he must remain calm and restrained and not be too excited. Because:

That is the fundamental quality that a great actor must possess. I require a great actor to have a high sense of judgment, for me he must be a calm, settled spectator, and therefore I require him to be insightful, impersonal, master of the art of imitating everything, or to put it another way, It's hard for Yu Yu to perform various characters and roles. [6]280-281

On the other hand, an actor who lacks training and is prone to emotion will often not succeed:

Actors who act based on emotion are always good or bad. . You can't expect to see any consistency in their performances; their performances alternate between strong and weak, hot and cold, mediocre and brilliant. What you did well today will fail tomorrow, and what you failed yesterday will be very successful again today. [6]281

In Diderot's dictionary of actors, a good actor needs to have "rich imagination", "superior judgment", "fine tact in handling things" and " accurate taste" and, of course, "they are the most unsentimental people in the world." In his opinion, “an actor crying is like an unbelieving priest preaching about the Passion of Jesus.

It is also like a lecher who kneels down to a woman even though he does not love her in order to seduce her. It can also be compared to a beggar who insults you on the street or in church because he has no hope of impressing your compassion. Or it can be compared to a prostitute. , she fainted in your arms, but she actually had no true feelings." [6] 287-288. Actors rely on acting skills to conquer people on stage, rather than relying on true feelings to impress people.

This way Rousseau obviously cannot agree with this view. Such blatant defense of actors and such blatant tolerance and praise of hypocritical performances are also something that the latter cannot understand in formal theatrical performances. "Sincerity" is out of place. Performance is not about showing true feelings, but creating the illusion of true feelings: "The actor's tears flow down from his head; the tears of an emotional person flow up from his heart." "[6] 287 In order to achieve good performance results, a truly outstanding actor needs to rely on his study of human nature, his observation of human beings, and the comparison and speculation of each performance. It is in this continuous research process , the actor's performance level can achieve a high level of achievement. Lessing also recognized this view. Although the actor seems to be indifferent during the performance, it is far better on the stage than the emotionally intense performance [7]. From a theoretical perspective, Diderot made a great contribution. He "put forward a powerful defense for the importance of intelligence in artistic creation and the autonomy of art" [1] 346 (Peter Gay), and he was also the "first A person who believes that performance itself is an art form that has nothing to do with the content of the performance" [5] 139 (Richard Sennett).

So, why did Diderot think that there is no emotion? What is the true meaning of performance? What perspective made him think this way? This involves Diderot’s thinking on modern society and political issues. Rousseau was more sober because he saw that in French social life in the 18th century, people needed to live as actors. With the development of modern society and the rise of big cities since the 17th century, the relationship between people changed. It was at that time that people began to notice something called "society". In the space of "society", there were a large number of strangers who did not know each other, which required people to re-explore. The way of interpersonal communication. Theater performance at that time provided guidance and guidance for the establishment of this new way of communication.

The purpose of theater performance is to convey emotions to the audience. The effectiveness of communication does not depend on sincerity, but on skills. In a strange big city, effective communication and interaction between people also rely on this kind of impersonal skills, "on the stage and in social circles." In the same way, emotional impulse can only bring harm." Diderot believed that an actor's true feelings on the stage may not cause the audience to scream. On the contrary, the emotions deliberately created by the actor on the stage can. Stimulate the audience's emotions more effectively. "If you copy your friendly tone, simple expressions, daily gestures, and natural behavior to the stage, you will see that you will become weak and pitiful. No matter how many tears you shed, it will be in vain. You will become ridiculous and others will laugh at you. "[6] 288 Therefore, in modern social life, only by controlling emotions and playing roles like actors on stage can we achieve good interpersonal interaction. As American scholar Erving Goffman wrote in "Self-Presentation in Daily Life" As pointed out in: “If every interaction between two individuals required the exchange of human experiences, worries and secrets, then urban life would become an unbearable torture for us. "[8] 40 Diderot saw the important value of "the actor as an actor" to the life of the public. For this reason, Richard Sennett said frankly, "Diderot was the first to treat acting as an actor. A great theoretician who engages in secular activities." [5] 139

IV. From man to citizen: the public dimension of aesthetic education

It can be seen from this that Diderot's interest in drama The understanding of aesthetic education has gone beyond the level of personality education. He sees more of the value of drama as a special art type in providing principles of interpersonal communication and shaping the order of public life, just like the Japanese scholar Yamazaki. As Zhenghe said, people behave in social situations completely differently from their daily private lives. In social situations, people need to act like they are in a drama.

The biggest taboo in social situations is "getting the wrong situation and being unable to grasp your own situation and role intuitively. Such people will be excluded from the drama"[9]18. Etiquette is equivalent to the performance rules on the social stage. It is the appropriate criterion for people's words and deeds in public life. Elias described in detail the development of etiquette in modern Western civilization in "The Process of Civilization" and believed that it regulates and controls human nature. It is this control of emotions that enhances social interaction between people. Diderot saw that dramatic art teaches people how to act, learn how to control their own emotions, and learn how to consciously create artificial emotions. This emotion will help the communication partner to effectively accept it. Dramatic art can indeed serve as a teacher of life. It teaches people how to get along in a public space in a subtle way.

Rousseau’s followers will inevitably question this: Why do people need social interaction? Isn’t social interaction some kind of alienation of human nature? Here, there are roughly two reasons to respond to this doubt. First, many commentators believe that social interaction is also human nature and there is no problem of alienation. According to legend, it was the memory of the grandmother of the French writer George Sand. People in the 18th century believed that living in the world and meeting others was the greatest purpose of life. [9]7 Sociologist Georg Simmel believes: "Social interaction is not just about killing time or extravagance, but an indispensable activity for people to survive as a human being." [9] 34 Santayena This socialized personality is even considered to be more real: “With our professed creeds and oaths, we must go to great lengths to conceal all inconsistencies between our emotions and conduct. This is not hypocrisy, because we carefully and deliberately act The role is a more real self than our involuntary dreams.” [8] 46 Whether from the historical or sociological level, it seems difficult for us to easily come to the view that “social interaction is the alienation of human nature”.

Second, thinkers represented by Diderot believe that the "impersonality" of social interaction is extremely necessary for modern society, and its value lies in its ability to open up and defend political fairness. field. Interpersonal socialization guided by the theater model will take people away from their narcissistic self and lead them into a public space of diversity and difference. It effectively prevents people from viewing political figures and social events in an emotional and personal manner. It will become a barrier to effectively prevent society from sliding towards totalitarianism, and it will also become a force to promote social fairness and justice. ②

On the contrary, Rousseau, who hated social interaction, identified the evil of "impersonal" society from the beginning, which caused "obstacle" to "transparent" personality. Throughout his life, he devoted all his energy to the cause of lifting the veil that covered nature and nature. As a self, he can take off his own veil in "Confessions" to highlight his personality; but how can he take off the veil of others, how can he take off the veil of politics, and realize the sincerity and personification of all this? Sennett pointed out that Rousseau was reactionary after all in this regard. He actually came to the conclusion that only by imposing a political despotism on human beings can people have interpersonal relationships in big cities. The opposite – a genuine relationship. In the French Revolution that followed, Rousseau's "sincerity" eventually evolved into bloody horrors. The reason why revolutions continue to kill people is that people can find insincere people anytime and anywhere. [10] Because he cannot see the difference between morality and politics, and the difference between the public and private spheres, there is a huge danger hidden in his thoughts.

5. Conclusion

The controversy between Rousseau and Diderot regarding dramatic performance is indeed a long-standing topic. In today's drama schools and performing arts circles, two completely different views are still maintained. However, in the process of examining these two important representatives of the French Enlightenment, we can see that the differences between them are not only differences in aesthetic education concepts, but also a deviation in political and social understanding. The aesthetics of Enlightenment thinkers cannot be what was later called “pure” aesthetics, but must be linked to the transformation of the entire modern civilization and the emerging ideological enlightenment.

The dispute between Rousseau and Diderot on drama aesthetic education is rooted in the distinction between individual personality education and social citizenship education.

In Rousseau's sense, he wanted to replace the politics of public imitation with the politics of individual sincerity; and in Diderot's sense, individuality is individuality and publicity is public* **, the two belong to different fields. Rousseau's ideological criticism aims to erase the boundaries between private life and public life, because it is the isolation of the two areas of life that leads to the alienation of modern personality. How people live in private life should also be how they live in public life. This kind of life is the natural and real life of people. For this reason, he opposed all acting and all imitation. He hoped that all societies could be built on the basis of natural personality without distortion. On the contrary, Diderot clearly separated private life from public life. He set completely different principles for private life and public life, and diametrically opposed nature and art. He also advocates nature in private life, but in public life, it is precisely unnatural behavior that makes interactions and communication between people possible.

Of course, the important thing is not to choose between Diderot and Rousseau. Diderot's keen insight into the lives of public servants and Rousseau's sharp criticism of the alienation of human nature in modern society are both worthy of people's attention today. In today's era of prevalent consumerism and highly developed media, theatrical performances have long since faded away, replaced by the rise of the new media kingdom. On the one hand, people are becoming more and more distant from the public world and falling into narcissism in the process of facing television, computers, mobile phones and other media; on the other hand, when sincerity becomes the only moral standard in this era, it does not Not many people truly love this value. Therefore today, we can still gain a profound insight into the nature of human citizen life through Diderot's brain, and we can still feel the corruption and depravity of this era through Rousseau's soul. The drama infused by their spirit Times, after all, leave people with infinite thoughts and nostalgia.

　Notes

　①Existing research on the two men’s theatrical aesthetics mainly emphasizes that Diderot replaced the mainly feudal drama of the 17th century with “civilian dramas that conformed to bourgeois ideals”. Neoclassical drama of court service as a weapon in the anti-feudal struggle." See Zhu Guangqian: "History of Western Aesthetics", Beijing: People's Literature Publishing House, 1964, p. 254.

　②On this point, see the works of Habermas, Hannah Arendt and Richard Sennett.

References

[1]Peter Gay. Enlightenment Movement[M]. Translated by Liang Yongan. Taipei: Lixu Cultural Enterprise Co., Ltd., 2002.

　[2]Rousseau. Politics and the Arts: Letter to D'Alembert on the Theater[M]. New York: Cornell University Press, 1960.< /p>

　[3]Bloom. Introduction to "Politics and Art"[M]//Giants and Dwarfs: The Collected Works of Bloom. Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House, 2003.

[4] Neil Postman. Entertainment to Death[M]. Translated by Zhang Yan. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press, 2004.

[5]Richard Sonnett. The Decline of the Duke[M]. Translated by Li Jihong. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2008.

[6] Diderot. Selected Essays on Diderot's Aesthetics[M]. Translated by Shi Kangqiang. Beijing: People's Literature Publishing House, 1984.

[7] Lessing. Hamburg Drama Review[M]. Translated by Zhang Li. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1998: 17.

　[8] Erving Goffman. Self-presentation in daily life[M]. Translated by Feng Gang. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2008.

[9] Yamazaki Masakazu. Social person[M]. Translated by Zhou Baoxiong. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2008.

[10] Hannah Arendt. On Revolution[M]. Translated by Chen Zhouwang. Nanjing: Yilin Publishing House, 2007: 89-90.

(The author is a lecturer at the School of Media and International Culture, Zhejiang University)

?