文：何穎雅
西蒙．克里奇利(Simon Critchley)描述哲學與倫理學的主體性宗譜源自於「失望感」，而當我們失去信仰，我們便無法在這個讓大家失望的世界中尋得意義，或者發現它的不公。然而，一種問題的形式於這裡油然而生，要從這裡開始打開對話，也是一種哲學的過程。顯然各種社會、政治、宗教及／或倫理系統的構成與哲學思考並行，已經是嘗試解答這些問題的行動。無可置疑，人類是群體動物；因為我們在對方身上互相找到意義，因為當我們集結起來並肩作戰，更能打敗不公不義，因為我們壓根兒在尋找我們的上帝，組織亦因此產生 。所以，也許，問題已經不在於「我們能否共同生活？」，而是「我們如何能共同生活？」
自發組織 （或譯自我組織）（self-organization) 一方面以活躍的哲思堵住失望的思緒，同樣也試著解答這些問題。又因為我們對身邊的架構和制度充斥著不滿，所以我們抱著希望與理想，試著更有效地組織起來，建立自己的理想狀態。不過，儘管自發組織企圖探討協作共生這個社會性的問題，它作為界定我們與他人之間的本質，本身是一種內在矛盾。不論這個他者是藝術圈的體制、行政管治抑或市場，以上體制與自發組織的組織性（包括兩者的手段）已被執行；要達到自發組織，意味著一個能重新劃定界限的主體，一個能自我反省的主體。言下之意，自發組織可以是社會上的實體，也是一個過程。我們以藝術家的實踐，能獨有地感知這個新主體性的雛形。可是，我們似乎面對著又一令人迷惘的問題──一個類似「在要求公帑同時，一個在包羅萬象的資本影響底下的幽靈方案 」的矛盾。參透著戴卓爾夫人在新自由主義之大觀園的遠景，我們無可避免看到大家的自發組織依舊被政府層層蛛網牽引著，並且泥足深陷──受資助的官僚制度或者把自發組織看成創業（正如戴卓爾夫人所教導我們達到自力更生的關鍵！）。自由一詞在新自由主義的道理是「自己動手」（Do it yourself！）──因為國家再不會為人民做任何事。所以，我們現在反而向中國大陸的叔叔們學習；學習那近乎後共產、國家資本主義，像藝術家奧拉夫尼古拉（Olaf Nicolai）描述的「黑幫經濟」；往往自發組織試著完成一件事情，則需要令自己欠債於人（試想像：人情關係、貪污勾結等）。那我們又在以上哪個區塊？在沒有社會福利和欠債的情況底下，繼續空想，然後失落地實行自發組織。
抱歉，我可能有點誇誇其辭，但我快試驗完自發性組織實踐中的種種術語。在2008年， 我發起，並與多位北京藝術家共同營運的一個「非主流」、「獨立」空間──「家作坊」，其後於2013年底關閉。與此同時，我們位於香港的姊妹組織「活化廳」亦因為削減資助，現時處於含糊不清的狀態，「佔領」著他們原本的空間，既灰心又毫無把握，我暫且只能獨自行事。
不過，這不等於我又重回工作室這種典型的藝術家窩子裡（儘管我從來都負擔不起香港的工作室！），又或即使閣下的自發組織的狀態再多分裂，也不等於需要有排除社會大眾的念頭。正如Jan Verwoert所寫「現在的重點在於公開堅持社會已不屬於人民，也不是個人，甚至一個羣體性。」。他呼籲我們應將「社會大眾」的概念糾正過來，並藉此期望藝術家能推使他們的作品到一個能塑造思想、理念和主體性的領域。聽起來可能抽象，但無庸置疑這不也正是現實？在政府管割範圍內──一個在九十年代末，由藝術家自己組織的地方，卻又在這被政府趕走的場地中──展示作品。如今我們被邀回來，少了自發性，卻更像被用作政府和社區的中間人，讓社區能夠在共同生活這個問題中找到核心。若果我聽起來有點失落，那是因為事到如今，我只能抱著一些象徵性的插圖參於其中。
不過，請你放心！思緒正在重新組織中，請稍候片刻！
---
ORGANISATION-AT-LARGE
Text: Elaine W. Ho
Simon Critchley describes a subjective genealogy of philosophy and ethics that begins from the feeling of disappointment. It is when we lose faith in God and being unable to find meaning or discover unjustness in the world. A form of questioning begins from there. To begin the dialogue that emerges from such questions is a process of philosophy. Formation of various social, political, religious and/or ethical systems actually parallels to philosophy’s thinking. It is obviously an attempt trying to answer these questions. Organisation occurs when we look for our own God, we find meaning within one another and we can fight unjustness better together. The question of humans as social beings is undoubtable, so perhaps it is not so much a question of ‘Can we live together?’ but ‘How can we live together?’
Self-organisation likewise tries to answer this question, and as an active process of philosophical thinking, stems ultimately from a feeling of disappointment. It is because of dissatisfaction with the structures and systems around us that we try to do it on our own, with the hopes and ideals that we can organise things better ourselves. There is thus an internally contradictory nature to self-organisation, which for all that it may attempt to address the sociopolitical questions of being together, does so in secession from some preexisting we or other. Whether this other is an art institution, a mode of governance or the market, to self-organise implies a reflexive subject who redraws the parameters, both of the particular selves which are organising and the means by which the organising is carried out. What we mean by ‘self-organisation’ then is both an social entity and a process. Our practices as artists are uniquely attuned to this formation of new subjectivities, but the overwhelming problem we seem to be facing is the paradoxical position of ‘representing a phantom alternative to the all-encompassing effects of capital, while demanding public money’. Looking from the perspective of Thatcher’s neoliberal playground, we see ourselves mired in the ruts of self-organisation, unavoidably still implicated in the webs of government-funded bureaucracy or confused about self-organisation as self-entrepreneurship (the key to independence just as Thatcher instructed us!). Freedom, in the neoliberal sense, means ‘do it yourself’, too — precisely because the State will not do it for you anymore. So now we learn from Big Uncle instead, in that manner similar to the post-communist turbo-capitalist ‘godfather economies’ described by artist Olaf Nicolai, where self-organisation means indebting yourself to others while trying to get things done (think about the guanxi system, organised corruption, etc). And where are we now? Self-organisation as thinking and working in disappointment, without welfare and in debt.
Excuse my melodrama. This comes at the tail end of my own experiments with the buzzwords of self-organised practice. HomeShop, the ‘artist-run’, ‘alternative’ and ‘independent’ project space I initiated and co-organised in Beijing from 2008 to 2013, is now closed. WooferTen, our sister organisation in Hong Kong, is steeped in the nebulousness of ‘occupying’ their own space after funding cuts. So for the time being, discouraged and uncertain, I am working alone.
But this does not mean the classical cave of the artist’s studio is available for retreat (of course I could never afford it in Hong Kong!), nor does it preclude an idea of society at large, no matter how secessionary your particular mode of self-organisation is. As Jan Verwoert writes, ‘The point now would be to insist publicly that society is neither the people, nor the person, nor even the social.’ His call to reclaim the concept of ‘society at large’ begs a kind of thinking that pushes our work as artists into another realm of shaping thoughts, ideas and subjectivities. It sounds abstract, but perhaps it is no more out of the question than trying to cope with the realities of exhibiting work in a government-managed extension that had once evicted the artists who had organised themselves there in the 90s. We are called back now, less than self-organised. But being utilised as a mediator between government and community inserts oneself into the heart of the question of how we can live together. If I sound disappointed, it is because at this point I can only participate with the illustration of metaphors.
But the thoughts are being re-organised, don’t worry. Please come back later!
