Skip to content

简析福柯

简析福柯

我们翻译这篇文章的理由

现代人的生活是规律的:几点上班、几点休息吃饭、几点可以回家,一张「日程表」指导着城市的运作,规定着生活的「常态」,并保证你足够「繁忙」。现代人的生活是赤裸的:摄像头、定位、聊天记录、支付数据、网页点击……一言一行都转化成数据,供「圆形监狱」中心塔上的看守者使用——他看得到你,而你看不到他。现代生活的权力网络如毛细血管:细密丰富、无微不至。同时又是隐而不显的,让你以「舒服」、「自愿」、「习惯」、「默认」的姿态去服从……理解福柯,就是理解我们的现代生活。

——伍豪

👇

简析福柯

作者:Colin Koopman

译者:黄倩霞& 何翔宇 &张力文

校对:伍豪

策划:伍豪

Why Foucault’s work on power is more important than ever

可能是最需要福柯的时代

Imagine you are asked to compose an ultra-short history of philosophy. Perhaps you’ve been challenged to squeeze the impossibly sprawling diversity of philosophy itself into just a few tweets. You could do worse than to search for the single word that best captures the ideas of every important philosopher. Plato had his ‘forms’. René Descartes had his ‘mind’ and John Locke his ‘ideas’. John Stuart Mill later had his ‘liberty’. In more recent philosophy, Jacques Derrida’s word was ‘text’, John Rawls’s was ‘justice’, and Judith Butler’s remains ‘gender’. Michel Foucault’s word, according to this innocent little parlour game, would certainly be ‘power’.

想象此刻你接到一个任务,要写一本极简哲学史。或者你已接受过类似挑战,要用几条推特来讲明不可思议、复杂多样的哲学本身。找一个词来概括各位大哲学家的观点,不失为一个好办法。柏拉图的关键词是“形式”,勒内·笛卡尔的是“心灵”,约翰·洛克则是“观念”。而后是约翰·斯图亚特·密尔的“自由”。到更当代的哲学,雅克·德里达的关键词是“文本”,约翰·罗尔斯的是“正义”,而朱迪思·巴特勒的关键词自然是“性别”。按照这个客厅小游戏的规则,米歇尔·福柯的词肯定是“权力”了。

Foucault remains one of the most cited 20th-century thinkers and is, according to some lists, the single most cited figure across the humanities and social sciences. His two most referenced works, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975) and The History of Sexuality, Volume One (1976), are the central sources for his analyses of power. Interestingly enough, however, Foucault was not always known for his signature word. He first gained his massive influence in 1966 with the publication of The Order of Things. The original French title gives a better sense of the intellectual milieu in which it was written: Les mots et les choses, or ‘Words and Things’. Philosophy in the 1960s was all about words, especially among Foucault’s contemporaries.

以引用次数衡量,福柯一直是20世纪最负盛名的思想家之一。根据某些榜单的排名,福柯是人文学科与社会科学领域被引用次数最多的作者。1975年出版的《规训与惩戒:监狱的诞生》和1976年出版的《性史》第一卷是他被引用次数最多的两部作品,也是福柯权力分析的理论源泉。有意思的是,福柯行走江湖,并不是只靠“权力”二字。1966年《事物的秩序》首次出版的时候,福柯就获得了巨大的影响力。最初的法语标题更能道出当时的学术风尚:Les mots et les choses,意思就是《词与物》。20世纪60年代的哲学思想,尤其是福柯在巴黎那些学术同辈的哲学思考,完全是由“语词”主导的。

In other parts of Paris, Derrida was busily asserting that ‘there is nothing outside the text’, and Jacques Lacan turned psychoanalysis into linguistics by claiming that ‘the unconscious is structured like a language’. This was not just a French fashion. In 1967 Richard Rorty, surely the most infamous American philosopher of his generation, summed up the new spirit in the title of his anthology of essays, The Linguistic Turn. That same year, Jürgen Habermas, soon to become Germany’s leading philosopher, published his attempt at ‘grounding the social sciences in a theory of language’.

在巴黎另一端,德里达热切地断言“文本之外别无他物”,雅克·拉康通过“无意识是像语言那样结构起来”这样的论断将精神分析转化为语言学。这一学术风潮不限于法国。1967年,理查德·罗蒂,他那一代最为声名可怖的美国哲学家,用散文选集《语言学转向》,以醒目的标题总结了这一新思想潮流。同年,尤尔根·哈贝马斯发表了作品, 开始了“将社会科学在一种语言理论中扎根”的尝试,并很快成为了德国最重要的哲学家。

Richard Rorty :

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Foucault’s contemporaries pursued their obsessions with language for at least another few decades. Habermas’s magnum opus, titled The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), remained devoted to exploring the linguistic conditions of rationality. Anglo-American philosophy followed the same line, and so too did most French philosophers (except they tended toward the linguistic nature of irrationality instead).

福柯的思想同辈们在此后的数十年里持续着对语言的痴迷。哈贝马斯1981年的巨著《交际行动理论》仍然致力于探索理性的语言学前提条件。英美哲学遵循同样的路线,大多数法国哲学家也是如此(只有一点不同,他们致力于研究语言非理性的本质)。

For his part, however, Foucault moved on, somewhat singularly among his generation. Rather than staying in the world of words, in the 1970s he shifted his philosophical attention to power, an idea that promises to help explain how words, or anything else for that matter, come to give things the order that they have. But Foucault’s lasting importance is not in his having found some new master-concept that can explain all the others. Power, in Foucault, is not another philosophical godhead. For Foucault’s most crucial claim about power is that we must refuse to treat it as philosophers have always treated their central concepts, namely as a unitary and homogenous thing that is so at home with itself that it can explain everything else.

但福柯没有停留在语言里,相反他向前赶路,在那一代人中显得相对孤立。在20世纪70年代,他离开了语言,转而将哲学关注点移向了权力。在福柯看来,“权力”这一概念很有希望能够解释清楚语词(或其他类似的东西)究竟是以何种方式构建了事物的秩序。福柯的理论之所以经久不衰,不是因为他找到了一个新的“中心概念”来统领其他所有概念。福柯理论中,“权力”不是众神之王。对于权力,福柯最重要的主张是我们必须拒绝哲学家们的一贯做法,拒绝将某个核心概念视作一个归一、同质的东西,拒绝这种自圆其说到能够解释一切的错觉。

***

Foucault did not attempt to construct a philosophical fortress around his signature concept. He had witnessed first-hand how the arguments of the linguistic-turn philosophers grew brittle once they were deployed to analyse more and more by way of words. So Foucault himself expressly refused to develop an overarching theory of power. Interviewers would sometimes press him to give them a unified theory, but he always demurred. Such a theory, he said, was simply not the goal of his work. Foucault remains best-known for his analyses of power, indeed his name is, for most intellectuals, almost synonymous with the word ‘power’. Yet he did not himself offer a philosophy of power. How could this be possible?

福柯没有打算要围绕他的标志性概念构建一个哲学堡垒。他亲眼目睹了语言学转向时期的哲学家们,当他们用形式用词的方法分析越来越多的东西,他们的论断就愈发脆弱而站不住脚。因此,福柯自己明确拒绝发展一套能够解释一切的权力理论。采访者有时会催促他给出一个统一的理论,但他从未同意。他说,这样的理论根本不是他的哲学目标。福柯以权力分析而闻名,实际上对大多数知识分子来说,福柯的名字几乎和“权力”这个词是同义词。但他本人并没有提出过权力哲学。何以为之?

Herein lies the richness and the challenge of Foucault’s work. His is a philosophical approach to power characterised by innovative, painstaking, sometimes frustrating, and often dazzling attempts to politicise power itself. Rather than using philosophy to freeze power into a timeless essence, and then to use that essence to comprehend so much of power’s manifestations in the world, Foucault sought to unburden philosophy of its icy gaze of capturing essences. He wanted to free philosophy to track the movements of power, the heat and the fury of it working to define the order of things.

这就是福柯哲学的丰富性和挑战性所在。福柯的哲学是一种去处理权力的方法:以各种创新的、精细的、有时让人困惑的、又常常是炫目的手段,将权力政治化。福柯并没有用哲学的手段将权力凝固成一种永恒的本质,没有去用这一本质来统摄世界上一切权力现象,而是试图解放哲学,使它不再是一种冰冷的、捕捉事物本质的凝视。他希望解放哲学,用哲学去跟踪权力如何运动,追踪权力是如何用灼热与狂暴去构建事务秩序的。

To appreciate the originality of Foucault’s approach, it is helpful to contrast it to that of previous political philosophy. Before Foucault, political philosophers had presumed that power had an essence: be it sovereignty, or mastery, or unified control. The German social theorist Max Weber (1864-1920) influentially argued that state power consisted in a ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force’. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the English philosopher and original theorist of state power, saw the essence of power as state sovereignty. Hobbes thought that at its best and purest power would be exercised from the singular position of sovereignty. He called it ‘The Leviathan’.

要理解福柯方法的原创性,对比之前的政治哲学来看会有所帮助。在福柯之前,政治哲学家都认为权力都有一个本质:是主权、统治权或是集权。德国社会理论家马克斯韦伯(1864-1920)的著名论断是国家权力来自“对暴力之合法使用的垄断”。托马斯·霍布斯(1588-1679),英国哲学家、国家权力理论的开山鼻祖,将权力的本质视为国家主权。霍布斯认为,一元独尊的国家主权是最佳、最纯粹的权力运行形式。他称之为“利维坦”。

Foucault never denied the reality of state power in the Hobbesian sense. But his political philosophy emanates from his skepticism about the assumption (and it was a mere assumption until Foucault called it into question) that the only real power is sovereign power. Foucault accepted that there were real forces of violence in the world, and not only state violence. There is also corporate violence due to enormous condensations of capital, gender violence in the form of patriarchy, and the violences both overt and subtle of white supremacy in such forms as chattel slavery, real-estate redlining, and now mass incarceration. Foucault’s work affirmed that such exercises of force were exhibits of sovereign power, likenesses of Leviathan. What he doubted was the assumption that we could extrapolate from this easy observation the more complex thought that power only ever appears in Leviathan-like form.

福柯从未否认霍布斯式的国家权力现实。但他的政治哲学源于他对这一假设的怀疑:主权是唯一真正的权力(在福柯提出质疑之前,并没有什么人重视这一假设)。福柯承认世界上确实有各种形式的暴力,而且不止于国家暴力。也有资本大量聚集而涌现出的企业暴力,父权制社会下的性别暴力,以及在奴隶贸易、房贷歧视、大规模监禁中若隐若现的白人霸权暴力。福柯的哲学肯定这类权力是主权的显现,都是利维坦的同类。但他所怀疑的是,这一简明好懂的权力观念,并不足以推出以下更复杂的结论:世界上的一切权力都是利维坦这种形式的。

Power is all the more cunning because its basic forms can change in response to our efforts to free ourselves from its grip
权力是最狡猾的。在我们尝试摆脱控制、解放自我时,权力会悄悄改变自己的基本形式,用以应对我们的努力。

In seeing through the imaginary singularity of power, Foucault was able to also envision it set against itself. He was able to hypothesise, and therefore to study, the possibility that power does not always assume just one form and that, in virtue of this, a given form of power can coexist alongside, or even come into conflict with, other forms of power. Such coexistences and conflicts, of course, are not mere speculative conundrums, but are the sort of stuff that one would need to empirically analyse in order to understand.

福柯深入探究了想象中那种一元质地的权力(译者注:即唯一采取利维坦形式的权力),最终发现完全能够想象一种权力与权力之间相互抵触、相互反对的场景。他提出了这样的假设并对此展开研究:权力可能不总是仅仅呈现一种形式,由此,一种特定形式的权力可以与其他形式的权力并存,甚至会彼此间冲突。当然,这种共存和冲突并非仅存在于思辨探究中的问题,而是人们需要通过实证分析去理解的东西。

Foucault’s skeptical supposition thus allowed him to conduct careful enquiries into the actual functions of power. What these studies reveal is that power, which easily frightens us, turns out to be all the more cunning because its basic forms of operation can change in response to our ongoing efforts to free ourselves from its grip. To take just one example, Foucault wrote about the way in which a classically sovereign space such as the judicial court came to accept into its proceedings the testimony of medical and psychiatric experts whose authority and power were exercised without recourse to sovereign violence. An expert diagnosis of ‘insanity’ today or ‘perversity’ 100 years ago could come to mitigate or augment a judicial decision.

福柯对权力的怀疑性猜想促使他对权力的实际功能做了细致的研究。研究的结果很令人战栗:权力是最狡猾的。在我们尝试摆脱控制、解放自我时,权力会悄悄改变自己的基本形式,用以应对我们的努力。举一个例子,福柯提到了典型的主权空间如法院在其诉讼程序中对待医疗专家和精神专家证词的方式,这些专家的权威和权力不需要以主权暴力的方式就能够行使。100年前某位专家对“精神失常 ”或“变态”诊断可以影响到今天一次司法判决的轻重。

Foucault showed how the sovereign power of Leviathan (think crowns, congresses and capital) has over the past 200 years come to confront two new forms of power: disciplinary power (which he also called anatomo-politics because of its detailed attention to training the human body) and bio-politics. Biopower was Foucault’s subject in The History of Sexuality, Volume One. Meanwhile the power of discipline, the anatomo-politics of the body, was Foucault’s focus in Discipline and Punish.

福柯展示了利维坦式的主权(请想象王位、议会和资本)在过去的200年中是如何碰上了两种新形式的权力:规训权力(他也称之为解剖政治,因为它密切关注训练人的身体)和生命政治。生命政治也是福柯《性史》第一卷中的主题。而规训的力量,身体的解剖政治,是福柯在《规训与惩戒》中的关注点。

More than any other book, it is Discipline and Punish in which Foucault constructs his signature, meticulous style of enquiry into the actual mechanisms of power. The recent publication of a now nearly complete set of Foucault’s course lectures at the Collège de France in Paris (probably the most prestigious academic institution in the world, and where Foucault lectured from 1970 to 1984) reveals that Discipline and Punish was the result of at least five years of intensive archival research. While Foucault worked on this book, he was deeply engaged in its material, leading research seminars and giving huge public lectures that are now being published under such titles as The Punitive Society and Psychiatric Power. The material he addressed ranges broadly, from the birth of modern criminology to psychiatry’s gendered construction of hysteria. The lectures show Foucault’s thought in development, and thus offer insight into his philosophy in the midst of its transformation. When he eventually organised his archival materials into a book, the result was the consolidated and efficient argumentation of Discipline and Punish.

《规训与惩戒》这本著作最能展现出福柯的标志性风格:对真实权力机制的精细探究。最近法兰西学院(可能是世界上最负盛名的学术机构,福柯从1970年到1984年在此开设讲座)出版了一套接近完整的福柯讲演录,从这套书中可以看出,《规训与惩戒》是通过至少五年密集的档案研究得出的成果。在写这本书时,福柯深入研究了相关材料,领导研讨会,并召开了大量的公开讲座。现在这些讲座被安上了《惩戒的社会,病态的权力》这类标题,分门别类地出版。他研究的材料范围很广,从现代犯罪学的诞生到精神病学中癔症的性别化建构。讲座展现出了福柯的思想发展,提供了对福柯哲学转型过程的洞见。当他最终将档案材料编成一本书时,就形成了更有力且有效的论证,也就是《规训与惩戒》。

***

Discipline, according to Foucault’s historical and philosophical analyses, is a form of power that tells people how to act by coaxing them to adjust themselves to what is ‘normal’. It is power in the form of correct training. Discipline does not strike down the subject at whom it is directed, in the way that sovereignty does. Discipline works more subtly, with an exquisite care even, in order to produce obedient people. Foucault famously called the obedient and normal products of discipline ‘docile subjects’.

根据福柯的历史和哲学分析,规训是一种权力形式,通过诱使人们将自己“正常”化来规训他们的行动。这种权力以“纠正性训练”的形式出现。规训并没有遵循主权的方式打击它针对的主体。规训更加巧妙,有时甚至精心呵护,来制造出顺从的人。福柯对这些顺从、标准化的产物有一个著名的叫法——“顺民”。

The exemplary manifestation of disciplinary power is the prison. For Foucault, the important thing about this institution, the most ubiquitous site of punishment in the modern world (but practically non-existent as a form of punishment before the 18th century), is not the way in which it locks up the criminal by force. This is the sovereign element that persists in modern prisons, and is fundamentally no different from the most archaic forms of sovereign power that exert violent force over the criminal, the exile, the slave and the captive. Foucault looked beyond this most obvious element in order to see more deeply into the elaborate institution of the prison. Why had the relatively inexpensive techniques of torture and death gradually given way over the course of modernity to the costly complex of the prison? Was it just, as we are wont to believe, because we all started to become more humanitarian in the 18th century? Foucault thought that such an explanation would be sure to miss the fundamental way in which power changes when spectacles of torture give way to labyrinthine prisons.

监狱是“规训权力“ 存在的典型场景。在福柯看来,监狱作为现代社会中最普遍的惩戒场所(实际上收监这一惩罚方式在18世纪以前并不存在),重要之处并不在于其武力关押罪犯的方式——这一现代监狱中依然存在的统治性因素本质上与最古老的国家主权对罪犯,流放者,奴隶和俘虏施加暴力并无二致。福柯抛开这种明显的外在表征,深入探究监狱这种精妙的设计。为什么在现代化的进程中,昂贵且设计复杂的监狱逐渐取代了花销较少的酷刑和死刑?人们习惯于认为原因是18世纪人类开始变得更人道主义,真的仅仅是因为这样吗?福柯认为这种观点会忽略在酷刑转变为迷宫般监狱的过程中权力形式之根本性转变。

The purpose of constant surveillance is to compel prisoners to regard themselves as subject to correction
不断监视的目的是迫使犯人把自己当作需要改造的对象。

Foucault argued that if you look at the way in which prisons operate, that is, at their mechanics, it becomes evident that they are designed not so much to lock away criminals as to submit them to training rendering them docile. Prisons are first and foremost not houses of confinement but departments of correction. The crucial part of this institution is not the cage of the prison cell, but the routine of the timetables that govern the daily lives of prisoners. What disciplines prisoners is the supervised morning inspections, the monitored mealtimes, the work shifts, even the ‘free time’ overseen by a panoply of attendants including armed guards and clipboard-wielding psychologists.

福柯认为,如果观察监狱的运作方式(即运行机制),监狱的设计很明显不仅是为了关押罪犯,更是为了训练他们,让他们变得温顺。监狱绝不是监禁场所,而是人类改造之地。监狱的核心不是一间间牢房,而是管理囚犯日常生活的作息时间表。规训囚犯的途径包括清晨检查、受监管的用餐、轮班工作制度,甚至是在全副武装的警卫和做着记录的心理学家监视下放风。

Importantly, all of the elements of prison surveillance are continuously made visible. That is why his book’s French title Surveiller et punir, more literally ‘Surveil and Punish’, is important. Prisoners must be made to know that they are subject to continual oversight. The purpose of constant surveillance is not to scare prisoners who are thinking of escaping, but rather to compel them to regard themselves as subject to correction. From the moment of morning rise to night’s lights out, the prisoners are subject to ceaseless behavioural inspection.

重要的是,囚犯可以清楚地了解到监狱监控中的各个环节。这就是为什么福柯的法文书名Surveiller et punir(字面意思是“监视与惩罚”)很到位。囚犯知道他们会受到持续的监督。持续监视的不是为了恐吓想要逃跑的囚犯,而是要迫使他们认为自己是需要接受改造的个体。从清晨起床到夜晚熄灯,囚犯们会受到无休止的行为监视。

The crucial move of imprisonment is that of coaxing prisoners to learn how to inspect, manage and correct themselves. If effectively designed, supervision renders prisoners no longer in need of their supervisors. For they will have become their own attendant. This is docility.

监禁的关键在于引导犯人学会如何监视、管理和改造自己。通过精心有效的设计,囚犯不再需要监督人员,他们会自己监管自己。这就是驯化的过程。

***

To illustrate this distinctly modern form of power, Foucault used an image in Discipline and Punish that has become justly famous. From the archives of history, Foucault retrieved an almost-forgotten scheme of the canonical English moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Bentham proposed a maximal-surveillance prison he christened ‘The Panopticon’. Central to his proposal was that of an architecture designed for correction. In the Panopticon, the imposing materiality of the heavy stones and metal bars of physical imprisonment is less important than the weightless elements of light and air through which a prisoner’s every action would be traversed by supervision.

福柯在《规训与惩罚》中使用了一现已名扬天下的概念来阐释这种独特的现代的权力。福柯从历史档案中提取了英国经典道德哲学家杰里米·边沁(Jeremy Bentham)几乎被世人忘记的设想。边沁提出监督最大化的监狱——他命名为“全景监狱”。边沁思想的核心是一种为“纠正”而作的设计。在全景监狱中,监督者无形的目光监控囚犯一举一动,形成令人窒息的氛围,这些元素远比大块石和金属栅栏带来的威严感以及身体上的监禁来得重要。

The design of the Panopticon was simple. A circle of cells radiate outward from a central guard tower. Each cell is positioned facing the tower and lit by a large window from the rear so that anyone inside the tower could see right through the cell in order to easily apprehend the activities of the prisoner therein. The guard tower is eminently visible to the prisoners but, because of carefully constructed blind windows, the prisoners cannot see back into the tower to know if they are being watched. This is a design of ceaseless surveillance. It is an architecture not so much of a house of detention as, in Bentham’s words, ‘a mill for grinding rogues honest’.

全景监狱的设计很简单。一圈环形牢房围绕着中心瞭望塔。每个牢房都正对着瞭望塔,牢房背面是个很大的窗户,可以透光。人在塔内可以直接看到牢房,对囚犯的一举一动了然于胸。囚犯也能清楚看到瞭望塔,但是因为精心设计的暗窗,他们不能看到塔内的情况,因而不清除自己是否正在被监视。这就是一种不间断监视的设计。正如边沁的所说,这样的建筑不是为了监禁人,而是一种“将流氓改造为老实人的工厂”。

The Panopticon might seem to have remained a dream. No prison was ever built according to Bentham’s exact specifications, though a few came close. One approximation, the Stateville ‘F’ House in Illinois, was opened in 1922 and was finally closed down in late November 2016. But the important thing about the Panopticon was that it was a general dream. One need not be locked away in a prison cell to be subject to its designs of disciplinary dressage. The most chilling line in Discipline and Punish is the final sentence of the section entitled ‘Panopticism’, where Foucault wryly asks: ‘Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?’ If Foucault is right, we are subject to the power of correct training whenever we are tied to our school desks, our positions on the assembly line or, perhaps most of all in our time, our meticulously curated cubicles and open-plan offices so popular as working spaces today.

全景监狱仍旧是个梦想。虽然有些监狱与边沁的设想较为接近,但没有一个是真正如法炮制的。其中一个类似的是1922年启用的伊利诺伊州斯泰茨维尔的“F屋”,它于2016年11月底被关闭。全景监狱的重要性在于这一概念的普适性。人们不是只有被关押在监狱牢房中才会接受规训。《规训与惩罚》中最令人害怕的观点是“全景监狱”一节的最后一句,福柯挖苦地向世人发问:“监狱类似工厂、学校、兵营、医院,这令人吃惊么?这些场所不都是一种监狱吗?”如果事实如福柯所想,当我们被困于学校课堂、处于流水线上、或者在现代社会非常流行的工作场所——大部分人身处精心设计的小隔间和开放式办公室中,我们都在受到权力的规训。

It was a bio-power wielded by psychiatrists and doctors that turned homosexuality into a ‘perversion’
精神分析师和医生拥有的生命权力可以将同性恋变成“反常的变态”。

To be sure, disciplinary training is not sovereign violence. But it is power. Classically, power took the form of force or coercion and was considered to be at its purest in acts of physical violence. Discipline acts otherwise. It gets a hold of us differently. It does not seize our bodies to destroy them, as Leviathan always threatened to do. Discipline rather trains them, drills them and (to use Foucault’s favoured word) ‘normalises’ them. All of this amounts to, Foucault saw, a distinctly subtle and relentless form of power. To refuse to recognise such disciplining as a form of power is a denial of how human life has come to be shaped and lived. If the only form of power we are willing to recognise is sovereign violence, we are in a poor position to understand the stakes of power today. If we are unable to see power in its other forms, we become impotent to resist all the other ways in which power brings itself to bear in forming us.

规训训练当然不是主权暴力,但它是权力。通常来讲,权力通过暴力或威逼的方式形成,其本质上是物理暴力。但规训却不一样。规训以一种不同的方式控制我们,它并没有像利维坦一直威胁的那样抓住我们的躯体并予以摧毁。相反,规训培训、训练我们的躯体,并(用福柯最喜欢的词来说)使它们“正常化“。在福柯看来,所有的这些意味着一个极其晦暗又严格的权力形式。拒绝把这样的规训认定成权力的一种形式,就是在否定人类生活之所以能成型并延续的方式。倘若我们只愿意将统治者暴力认定为权力的形式,那么我们对当下权力的利害关系的理解就太过狭隘了。如若不能看到权力的其他形式,我们将无法抵抗所有借以其他形式塑造我们的权力。

Foucault’s work shows that disciplinary power was just one of many forms that power has come to take over the past few hundred years. Disciplinary anatomo-politics persists alongside sovereign power as well as the power of bio-politics. In his next book, The History of Sexuality, Foucault argued that bio-politics helps us to understand how garish sexual exuberance persists in a culture that regularly tells itself that its true sexuality is being repressed. Bio-power does not forbid sexuality, but rather regulates it in the maximal interests of very particular conceptions of reproduction, family and health. It was a bio-power wielded by psychiatrists and doctors that, in the 19th century, turned homosexuality into a ‘perversion’ because of its failure to focus sexual activity around the healthy reproductive family. It would have been unlikely, if not impossible, to achieve this by sovereign acts of direct physical coercion. Much more effective were the armies of medical men who helped to straighten out their patients for their own supposed self-interest.

福柯的作品表明,在过去几百年间权力逐渐演变出多种形式,而规训权力正是其中的一种。规训解剖政治学与统治者暴力、生命政治学的威力一并存在。福柯在他的另一本书——《性史》中指出,生命政治学能帮助我们理解,旺盛的性欲是如何在一个经常告诉自己真正的性欲正被压抑的文化中存在。生命权力并不禁止性欲,而是在对繁衍、家庭和健康的具体概念进行利益最大化的前提下管制性欲,它是一种为19世纪的精神病医生掌控的生命权力。生命权力借以同性恋不能使性行为囿于健康的家庭繁衍之中为由,把同性恋变成了“反常态”。然而这一目的不太可能会通过直接暴力管制的国家统治行为来达成,以同性恋行为是为一己私利为借口,组成医护军团帮病人改邪归正会更有效。

Other forms of power also persist in our midst. Some regard the power of data – that is the info-power of social media, data analytics and ceaseless algorithmic assessment – as the most significant kind of power that has emerged since Foucault’s death in 1984.

其他权力的形式仍存在于我们中间。有些人认为数据权力(也就是社交媒体、数据分析和不间断算法评估的信息权力)是自福柯1984年去世后的涌现出的最显著的一种权力。

Those who fear freedom’s unpredictability find Foucault too risky
那些为自由的不可预见性而担忧的人会发现,福柯很危险。

For identifying and so deftly analysing the mechanisms of modern power, while refusing to develop it into a singular and unified theory of power’s essence, Foucault remains philosophically important. The strident philosophical skepticism in which his thought is rooted is not directed against the use of philosophy for the analysis of power. Rather, it is suspicious of the bravado behind the idea that philosophy can, and also must, reveal the hidden essence of things. What this means is that Foucault’s signature word – ‘power’ – is not the name of an essence that he has distilled but is rather an index to an entire field of analysis in which the work of philosophy must continually toil.

福柯在哲学上的地位很重要,他能帮我们在界定并巧妙地分析当代权力机制的同时,避免将发展出一套单一且统一的权力本质理论。福柯的思想根植于刺耳的哲学怀疑主义,但没有导向一种对哲学用于权力分析的反对。其实,福柯所怀疑的是哲学能够、且一定要展露事物隐藏的本质的这一逞能想法。这意味着,福柯的标志性词语——“权力——并不是他所提取出的一种事物本质的名称,而是对一整个领域进行分析的索引。而这个领域需要人们继续去开展哲学工作。

Those who think that philosophy still needs to identify eternal essences will find Foucault’s perspective utterly unconvincing. But those who think that what feels eternal to each of us will vary across generations and geographies are more likely to find inspiration in Foucault’s approach. With respect to the central concepts of political philosophy, namely the conceptual pair of power and freedom, Foucault’s bet was that people are likely to win more for freedom by declining to define in advance all the forms that freedom could possibly take. That means too refusing to latch on to static definitions of power. Only in following power everywhere that it operates does freedom have a good chance of flourishing. Only by analysing power in its multiplicity, as Foucault did, do we have a chance to mount a multiplicity of freedoms that would counter all the different ways in which power comes to define the limits of who we can be.

那些认为哲学仍旧需要找出恒久不变的本质的人,会发现福柯的观点特别缺乏说服力。但有些人认为,现在对我们来说是恒久不变的事情会因年代和地域的变化而发生改变,对这些人来说,他们更可能从福柯的方法中获得启发。考虑到政治哲学的中心思想(也就是权力和自由这对概念),福柯打赌,人们很可能会通过拒绝提前界定自由的所有可能形式来赢得更多的自由。同样,这意味着人们将开始拒绝固守某一静态的权力定义。只有在权力运作的每个地方都去追踪权力的脚步,自由才有机会蓬勃发展。只有像福柯那样分析权力的多样性,我们才有机会增加自由的多样性。权力对我们能够成为什么样的人进行定义并设限,而自由将帮助我们对抗权力的所有不同形式。

The irony of a philosophy that would define power once and for all is that it would thereby delimit the essence of freedom. Such a philosophy would make freedom absolutely unfree. Those who fear freedom’s unpredictability find Foucault too risky. But those who are unwilling to decide today what might begin to count as freedom tomorrow find Foucault, at least with respect to our philosophical perspectives, freeing. Foucault’s approach to power and freedom therefore matters not only for philosophy, but also more importantly for what philosophy can contribute to the changing orders of things in which we find ourselves.

讽刺的是,有人认为会有一种哲学能将权力一次性彻底定义,但这会因此为自由画界,让自由变得完全不自由。那些为自由的不可预见性而担忧的人发现福柯太危险了。但那些不愿今日所定义之物将决定明日之自由的人会发现,至少在我们的哲学层面来看,福柯的观点是具有解放性意义的。因此,福柯解构权力与自由的方法不仅仅使哲学学科本身受益。在事物秩序正在变化,而我们正在变化中找寻自我的当下,福柯的哲学有着更重要的意义。

简析福柯

  • 本文原载于Aeon

  • 原文链接:https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever

一、了解取经号 | 我们是谁,在做什么,如何加入

二、学习贴士| 如何打印输出PDF如何使用微信读书订阅取经号

三、翻译服务| 咨询邮箱:[email protected]

四、社交媒体 |微信公众号:取经号;微博:取经号JTW

五、译文归档 | 访问网站:qujinghao.com

六、学习社群 | 翻译社(暂停中)

简析福柯

Be First to Comment

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注