This article on the French May ’68 addresses the gap between the immediacy of the event and the series of consequences that are supposed to have followed from it. In the eyes of the critics of May ’68 from all sides of the political spectrum, the events in France have been considered as having no consequence at all, as having no political but merely cultural consequences, or as producing political consequences that were opposite to the intentions of their actors. To these interpretations, which all account for the distance between the event and its consequences by means of completely disjointing the latter from the former, the article opposes two reflections on May ’68 – those by Alain Badiou and Jacques Rancière – that attempt to examine the consequences of the very immediacy of the politics practised by the actors of the events, a politics that operates at a distance from mediation, representation and postponement. Badiou and Rancière propose some similar conclusions, but also two very different ways of reading the immediacy of the event.

这篇关于法国 68 年 5 月的文章解决了事件的直接性与应该由此产生的一系列后果之间的差距。在 68 年 5 月的政治光谱各方面的批评者眼中，法国的事件被认为根本没有后果，没有政治后果而只是文化后果，或者产生了与政治相反的政治后果。他们演员的意图。对于这些解释，这些解释都通过将后者与前者完全脱节来解释事件及其后果之间的距离，文章反对 68 年 5 月的两种反思——阿兰·巴迪欧和雅克·朗西埃——试图检验事件参与者所采取的直接政治的后果，一种远离调解、代表和拖延的政治。巴迪欧和朗西埃提出了一些类似的结论，但也提出了两种截然不同的解读事件即时性的方式。