布爾迪厄對康德的美學進行了「通俗批判」，他以社會學方法駁斥了無關乎利害等美學思想，主張品味的形塑與社會的構成有高度關係，而個體透過「幻化－遊戲感」在社會場域中實踐。但在洪席耶看來，布爾迪厄的理論將主體的品味與自主性限縮在社會框架裡，忽視了人在事物前得以「懸置」，在「警治」內得以「政治」的「自由遊玩」的美學可能性。兩人看法的差異，涉及結構觀點與行動視角的多重辯證，也有哲學美學與社會學美學不同側重的角力。本文試圖釐清兩者的主張，並透過「幻化遊戲」及「懸置遊玩」這組概念，與三種層次的自主性去解釋他們進路的差異。

Pierre Bourdieu takes a “vulgar” position to criticize Immanuel Kant’s aesthetics. Bourdieu refutes Kant’s philosophical concept of “disinterestedness,” and insists that taste is highly related to social construction and formation. Bourdieu also claims that subjectivity is realized through games of “illusio.” However, Jacques Rancière argues that Bourdieu restricts the subject’s taste and autonomy inside the social frame and overlooks the possibility of “free play” and “suspension” within “the police order.” The two academics’ debate is a dialectic between contrasting perspectives of structure and agency. This article attempts to unravel these two perspectives with the concepts of “illusio game,” “play with suspension,” and the three distinct levels of autonomy.