马拉美对法国诗歌和文学发展做出了不可磨灭的贡献，马拉美非常难懂，这两个原因足以解释为什么象征主义文学艺术偃旗息鼓那么长时间后，象征主义大师马拉美至今还在获得法国乃至世界各国学者持续而耐心的解读。从朗西埃列出的参考文献来看，除了马拉美研究专家的专著与论文，巴迪欧、布朗肖、德里达、拉库– 拉巴尔特、萨特、瓦莱里等法国著名作家或哲学家均写过评论马拉美的文章。而朗西埃的这本《马拉美：塞壬的政治》一面再次说明马拉美是个取之不尽的宝藏，另一面也为其他意图寻宝的人提供了一份简明的地图。
《马拉美：塞壬的政治》意在弄清马拉美作品难解的原因，同时对难解之作展开解读。在朗西埃看来，马拉美的诗歌没有半点精英主义色彩，它只是诗人在深刻认识到自己的“先知”使命后做出的自觉选择：只有不受今日之需求的影响，才能为明日之庆典谱写出真正的颂歌。这就是在海浪中若隐若现的塞壬的政治。

本书是法国当代最有影响力的哲学家朗西埃的哲学奠基之作，其中的思想要点，贯穿了他之后所有的研究。而本书写法，像是讲述故事，讲了一名法国教师雅科托的不凡经历。雅科托依据一本传统的小说课本，创设了他的教学法，他从书中的第一句话开始，教给只字不识的人如何阅读。而其中关键，就是教师自身并不授以具体的知识，鼓励学生运用自己的认识能力，教师只用“验证”学生是否学会。所以这套办法，甚至可以授以贫民父亲，让他们教孩子读书识字，解放智力。这不仅促生了一种社会改良的有效办法，更提出了一种平等的哲学。

Review
'An extremely provocative, original, and engaging book, it raises questions of great relevance and urgency about the process of cultural selection and canonization.'Denis Hollier, Yale UniversityIgnorant Schoolmaster
In The Ignorant Schoolmaster, Rancière uses the historical figure of Joseph Jacotot as a way of discussing human nature, education, pedagogy, ignorance, intelligence, and emancipation. These ideas have profound implications on the nature of schooling and research, and the role that teachers and scholars play. Contents [hide]
1 Joseph Jacotot (1770-1840)
2 Explication
3 Emancipation
4 Ignorance
5 Intelligence
6 Will
7 Language
[edit]
Joseph Jacotot (1770-1840)
Jacotot was a French instructor who taught subjects as far-ranging as French, literature, mathematics, ideology and law (p. 1). He had a profound realization one time when he had to teach a group of Flemish students French. Since he didn’t know Flemish himself, he had the challenge of teaching these students French.
[edit]
Explication
The conventional view of the teacher’s (or master’s, as Rancière calls it), is to “explicate”. But Jacotot noticed that his Flemish students were able to learn French without any explication from him. He had given them a bilingual text of Télémaque; using that, his students were able to eventually under French grammar and spelling, using a text that was aimed for adults, and not “simplified” for school children. Jacotot (or maybe Rancière?) was inspired to ask: Were schoolmaster’s explications superfluous? (p. 4) Rancière believes that explication stultifies learning by short-circuiting the journey that the student is able to make. Teachers who rely on explication inadvertently creates a “veil of ignorance” (p. 6) what the student is expected to learn, thus creating a world of superior (i.e. the master, the explicator) and inferior (i.e. the student, the ignorant). But Rancière believes that all people are capable of learning without explication because they have all acquired their mother tongues without explication (p. 5, 10). They learn, imitate, and correct themselves, and universally, all children will grow up to understand their parents without every spent one day in school. Why do we presume this intelligence goes away?
[edit]
Emancipation
Rancière distinguishes between two human traits: intelligence and will. In Jacotot’s classroom, there are two wills (the students’ and Jacotot’s) and two intelligences (the students’ and the book’s). Students may need to follow the teacher’s will, who guides them towards the subject. But stultification occurs when the students’ intelligences are linked with the teacher’s, when they have to rely on the schoolmaster to explain what they have learned. The opposite of stultification is, therefore, emancipation. But who emancipates? Once again, conventionally, it is the scholar, the philosopher, the wise, the learned, the Teachers College doctoral student. But Rancière believes that the only way to emancipate is when an intelligence obeys only itself even if its will obeys another’s will (p. 13). In reality, universal teaching has existed since the beginning of the world, alongside all the explicative methods...Everyone has done this experiment a thousand times in life, and yet it has never occurred to someone to say to someone else: I’ve learned many things without explanations, I think that you can too... (p. 16)In Jacotot’s class, the students learned using their own methods, not his. And in the end, they learned French, and they have done so using the oldest method in the world: universal teaching.
[edit]
Ignorance
Rancière argues that the “Socratic Method” is a perfected form of stultification, where the role of the Master is to interrogate (demand speech) and verify that intelligence is done with attention (p. 29). Even if these pedagogies are aimed at “empowering” the student, it is still done so after the master has verified it. Thus, it is still the master’s method, not the student’s.
The ignorant schoolmaster does not verify what the student has found, only that the student has searched (p. 31). This means that anyone, including illiterate parents, can teach their children how to read and write. For example, they can question whether they pronounce the same word each time in the same way, or hide it under their hand and ask the student what is under it. This is true not only for re
[edit]
Intelligence
Most people become stultified because they believe in their inferiority (p. 39). And superior minds can only be superior if they can make everyone else inferior. Thus we never break out of that circle, not matter how generous our intentions may be. The word intelligence is often understood as a number, or variable, that describes different people’s capacities to comprehend complex ideas or solve logic problems. But Rancière believes that everyone has the same intelligence (p. 50). He argues that a statement like “Bob is smarter because he produces better work” is a tautological statement that explains nothing. It’s true that people will produce different types of work, but he doesn’t see this as the result of different intelligence, but as a result of not bringing sufficient attention to the work.
[edit]
Will
Intelligence has to do with attention while will has to do with the “power to be moved” (p. 54). Rancière argues that each of us represents a will that is served by an intelligence. We see, analyze, compare, reason, correct, reconsider, on an everyday basis. We do not always learn the same things because we do not pay the same amount of attention to the situation. Furthermore, he suggests that “[m]eaning is the work of the will” (p. 56). He calls “secret” of universal teaching, something that geniuses all know. All humans are capable of anything they want.
[edit]
Language
Jacotot/Rancière believed that truth cannot be told. When it is expressed in language it becomes fragmented (p. 60). Hence, he goes into the arbitrariness of language to suggest that there is no language that is superior than others because they are equally arbitrary. Intelligence does not have a language. As Jacotot argued, we are not intelligent because we speak; we are intelligent because we exist. But this is not a problem. It is precisely because all languages are arbitrary that we employ all we have access to (including but not limited to language) in expressing truth. (p. 62) Rancière calls our expression through language as a form of art, like improvisation. He calls “telling the story” and “figuring things out” the two master operations of intelligence (p. 64). He believes that the artist is the exact opposite of the professor. He argues: “Each one of us is an artist to the extent that he carries out a double process; he is not content to be a mere journeyman but wants to make all work a means of expression, and he is not content to feel something but tries to impart it to others” (p. 70).

在什么方面平等与不平等呢？这是不容忽视的问题，因为这正是难题之所在，也是政治哲学之所在。
——亚里士多德
歧义并非错误认识，因此不需要知识的补遗；歧义亦非错误理解，因此并不要求词语净化。歧义的情况是，在争执说话内容的意义时，已经构成了话语情境之理性本身。
“话语之可能性条件”的整体，说明了人之所以是政治动物的基础。
——朗西埃
朗西埃强调治安和真正的政治间的分界线为何总是模糊混淆而备受争议的。比如说，在马克思主义的传统中，“无产阶级”可以被解读为“没有分的组成份子”的主体化，其将自身所遭遇的不正义提升并且接受普遍性的终极检验；同时，它也可以被解读为将促成“后－政治”理性社会之创制的操作者。我们的欧洲传统中包含了一系列对此政治时刻的否认──对于政治冲突之真正逻辑的否认。朗西埃在《歧义》一书中发展了对于这些否认的辨识方式，而这本书可以被视为他最杰出的政治思想著作。
——齐泽克

-编辑推荐-
★ 2013年，七十高龄的法国著名哲学家雅克•朗西埃到国内诸多知名高校巡回演讲，掀起了一波学术研究的热潮。近十年来，他的主要著作已在国内大量出版。如何消化并吸收这位至今仍笔耕不辍的写作者的所思所想，成为了摆在国内学人面前的重要课题。
★ 本书汇集了国际学术界重要的朗西埃研究者所写的专题文章，力求全面梳理朗西埃在过去四十多年的著作中所发展的关键概念。
★ 这些概念闪耀在朗西埃著作的字里行间，有待大家去发现他思想丰富和精深的内涵。
-内容简介-
本书从哲学、政治、诗学和美学四个部分系统地回顾了朗西埃的思想历程：从早期对激进平等的肯定，到将这一基本的“公理”运用于社会科学的诸多方面（如劳工运动的历史和社会学、历史学、教育学、政治学）。他最近十年间出版的一系列具有重要影响的著作（《歧义》、《电影寓言》、《影像的命运》）也是本书的主要着墨点。朗西埃的兴趣横跨人文社会科学诸多领域，他是这些领域的研究者和学习者无法绕开的一个重要思想资源，本书对朗西埃每个关键概念的深入分析为他们提供了一个理想的参照点。