昂利．列斐伏爾（Henri Lefebvre，1901-1991），當代法國思想大家，是西方馬克思主義日常生活批判流派的代表人物，也是西方學界公認的「日常生活批判理論之父」、「現代法國辯證法之父」，及城市社會學理論的重要奠基者，一生致力於日常生活批判與建構。列斐伏爾與許多同樣關注日常生活的理論家們不同的地方在於，他不僅直接關注日常生活，並將日常生活當作是一種問題意識來探討（everyday as a problematic），認為假若（左派的）革命還需要的話，其所需要改變的已經不是特殊的政治（與經濟）制度或人事而已，而是回歸到人們的每日生活世界裡，由改變具體的事物做起，也就是對人們的每日生活場域進行質性的根本翻轉。
本文即針對列斐伏爾以現代日常生活，作為馬克思之「異化」理論的延伸場域，及其對資本主義下所產生的諸多消費異化現象（「消費受控制的科層社會」）的看法與批判，作一番粗淺地梳理與探析，希望更多的人能對自己所處的日常世界，有著更進一步的認識與更深一層的透視，藉由列氏對日常生活的批判眼光與獨特洞見，反思我們自身日常生活經驗之種種。同時筆者也想藉著分析列斐伏爾的日常生活批判理論與禪宗思想做若干比較：（1）列斐伏爾的「日常生活」與禪宗的「日常生活」；（2）列斐伏爾的「總體的人」與禪宗的「頓悟的人」；（3）列斐伏爾的「辯證法」與禪宗的「辯證法」。希冀透過基本概念與實踐方法的分析討論，能看出這位法國左派的馬克思主義者與禪宗之間，對於日常生活和人性的差異觀點所在。正是此差異處，說明了禪宗思想可以彌補列斐伏爾對於宗教生活論述的不足之處。

Henri Lefebvre (1901-1991), the great contemporary philosopher of France, was the representative of “the school of the critique of everyday life” in the Western Marxism. He also enjoyed a good reputation as “the Father of critique of everyday life” and “the Father of Dialectics” in the western academic circle; meanwhile, he was an important founder of the urban sociology. In fact, Lefebvre dedicated his whole life to the critique and reconstruction of everyday life. Varied from many other philosophers concerned about this subject, Lefebvre not only paid close attention to everyday life, but also regarded everyday as a problematic. He took that if the leftist required a revolution, what it needed was not merely the transformation of specific political and economic institutions, but the basic everyday life. That is to say, change from the concrete things and make a radical turnover in quality of everyday life.
This article is aimed to analyze and discuss Lefebvre’s philosophy that everyday life in the modern world was viewed as the extended field based on the theory of Marx’s alienation as well as everyday life was seen as “the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption”, which means lots of colonized phenomena (alienation ) by the commodity under capitalism. With Lefebvre’s criticism and insight to everyday life, in other words, the ubiquity of alienation in everyday world, the necessity of revolt, to reflect the varieties of experience in our daily life. Sincerely hoping we could have a further understanding and comprehensive perspective about daily life. In addition, I want to observe between Lefebvre and Zen, mainly from three dimensions: 1. “everyday life” between the two; 2. “the total man” and “the enlightened man”; 3. “the dialectics”. Through above-mentioned comparison, we could know more the different viewpoints of everyday life and of humanity. These differences indicate that Zen could compensate the inadequate analysis of Lefebvre about religious life.