我們翻譯這篇文章的理由
現(xiàn)代人的生活是規(guī)律的：幾點上班、幾點休息吃飯、幾點可以回家，一張「日程表」指導(dǎo)著城市的運作，規(guī)定著生活的「常態(tài)」，并保證你足夠「繁忙」?，F(xiàn)代人的生活是赤裸的：攝像頭、定位、聊天記錄、支付數(shù)據(jù)、網(wǎng)頁點擊……一言一行都轉(zhuǎn)化成數(shù)據(jù)，供「圓形監(jiān)獄」中心塔上的看守者使用——他看得到你，而你看不到他?，F(xiàn)代生活的權(quán)力網(wǎng)絡(luò)如毛細血管：細密豐富、無微不至。同時又是隱而不顯的，讓你以「舒服」、「自愿」、「習(xí)慣」、「默認」的姿態(tài)去服從……理解?？?，就是理解我們的現(xiàn)代生活。
——伍豪
??
簡析?？?/strong>
作者：Colin Koopman
譯者：黃倩霞 & 何翔宇 & 張力文
校對：伍豪
策劃：伍豪
Why Foucault’s work on power is more important than ever
可能是最需要?？碌臅r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’.
想象此刻你接到一個任務(wù)，要寫一本極簡哲學(xué)史?；蛘吣阋呀邮苓^類似挑戰(zhàn)，要用幾條推特來講明不可思議、復(fù)雜多樣的哲學(xué)本身。找一個詞來概括各位大哲學(xué)家的觀點，不失為一個好辦法。柏拉圖的關(guān)鍵詞是“形式”，勒內(nèi)·笛卡爾的是“心靈”，約翰·洛克則是“觀念”。而后是約翰·斯圖亞特·密爾的“自由”。到更當(dāng)代的哲學(xué)，雅克·德里達的關(guān)鍵詞是“文本”，約翰·羅爾斯的是“正義”，而朱迪思·巴特勒的關(guān)鍵詞自然是“性別”。按照這個客廳小游戲的規(guī)則，米歇爾·福柯的詞肯定是“權(quán)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.
以引用次數(shù)衡量，?？乱恢笔?0世紀最負盛名的思想家之一。根據(jù)某些榜單的排名，?？率侨宋膶W(xué)科與社會科學(xué)領(lǐng)域被引用次數(shù)最多的作者。1975年出版的《規(guī)訓(xùn)與懲戒：監(jiān)獄的誕生》和1976年出版的《性史》第一卷是他被引用次數(shù)最多的兩部作品，也是?？聶?quán)力分析的理論源泉。有意思的是，福柯行走江湖，并不是只靠“權(quán)力”二字。1966年《事物的秩序》首次出版的時候，福柯就獲得了巨大的影響力。最初的法語標題更能道出當(dāng)時的學(xué)術(shù)風(fēng)尚：Les mots et les choses，意思就是《詞與物》。20世紀60年代的哲學(xué)思想，尤其是福柯在巴黎那些學(xué)術(shù)同輩的哲學(xué)思考，完全是由“語詞”主導(dǎo)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，德里達熱切地斷言“文本之外別無他物”，雅克·拉康通過“無意識是像語言那樣結(jié)構(gòu)起來”這樣的論斷將精神分析轉(zhuǎn)化為語言學(xué)。這一學(xué)術(shù)風(fēng)潮不限于法國。1967年，理查德·羅蒂，他那一代最為聲名可怖的美國哲學(xué)家，用散文選集《語言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向》，以醒目的標題總結(jié)了這一新思想潮流。同年，尤爾根·哈貝馬斯發(fā)表了作品， 開始了“將社會科學(xué)在一種語言理論中扎根”的嘗試，并很快成為了德國最重要的哲學(xué)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).
?？碌乃枷胪厒冊诖撕蟮臄?shù)十年里持續(xù)著對語言的癡迷。哈貝馬斯1981年的巨著《交際行動理論》仍然致力于探索理性的語言學(xué)前提條件。英美哲學(xué)遵循同樣的路線，大多數(shù)法國哲學(xué)家也是如此（只有一點不同，他們致力于研究語言非理性的本質(zhì)）。
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.
但福柯沒有停留在語言里，相反他向前趕路，在那一代人中顯得相對孤立。在20世紀70年代，他離開了語言，轉(zhuǎn)而將哲學(xué)關(guān)注點移向了權(quán)力。在?？驴磥?，“權(quán)力”這一概念很有希望能夠解釋清楚語詞（或其他類似的東西）究竟是以何種方式構(gòu)建了事物的秩序。福柯的理論之所以經(jīng)久不衰，不是因為他找到了一個新的“中心概念”來統(tǒng)領(lǐng)其他所有概念。福柯理論中，“權(quán)力”不是眾神之王。對于權(quán)力，?？伦钪匾闹鲝埵俏覀儽仨毦芙^哲學(xué)家們的一貫做法，拒絕將某個核心概念視作一個歸一、同質(zhì)的東西，拒絕這種自圓其說到能夠解釋一切的錯覺。
***
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?
?？聸]有打算要圍繞他的標志性概念構(gòu)建一個哲學(xué)堡壘。他親眼目睹了語言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向時期的哲學(xué)家們，當(dāng)他們用形式用詞的方法分析越來越多的東西，他們的論斷就愈發(fā)脆弱而站不住腳。因此，福柯自己明確拒絕發(fā)展一套能夠解釋一切的權(quán)力理論。采訪者有時會催促他給出一個統(tǒng)一的理論，但他從未同意。他說，這樣的理論根本不是他的哲學(xué)目標。福柯以權(quán)力分析而聞名，實際上對大多數(shù)知識分子來說，?？碌拿謳缀鹾汀皺?quán)力”這個詞是同義詞。但他本人并沒有提出過權(quán)力哲學(xué)。何以為之？
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.
這就是?？抡軐W(xué)的豐富性和挑戰(zhàn)性所在。?？碌恼軐W(xué)是一種去處理權(quán)力的方法：以各種創(chuàng)新的、精細的、有時讓人困惑的、又常常是炫目的手段，將權(quán)力政治化。?？虏]有用哲學(xué)的手段將權(quán)力凝固成一種永恒的本質(zhì)，沒有去用這一本質(zhì)來統(tǒng)攝世界上一切權(quán)力現(xiàn)象，而是試圖解放哲學(xué)，使它不再是一種冰冷的、捕捉事物本質(zhì)的凝視。他希望解放哲學(xué)，用哲學(xué)去跟蹤權(quán)力如何運動，追蹤權(quán)力是如何用灼熱與狂暴去構(gòu)建事務(wù)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?？路椒ǖ脑瓌?chuàng)性，對比之前的政治哲學(xué)來看會有所幫助。在福柯之前，政治哲學(xué)家都認為權(quán)力都有一個本質(zhì)：是主權(quán)、統(tǒng)治權(quán)或是集權(quán)。德國社會理論家馬克斯韋伯（1864-1920）的著名論斷是國家權(quán)力來自“對暴力之合法使用的壟斷”。托馬斯·霍布斯（1588-1679），英國哲學(xué)家、國家權(quán)力理論的開山鼻祖，將權(quán)力的本質(zhì)視為國家主權(quán)?；舨妓拐J為，一元獨尊的國家主權(quán)是最佳、最純粹的權(quán)力運行形式。他稱之為“利維坦”。
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.
?？聫奈捶裾J霍布斯式的國家權(quán)力現(xiàn)實。但他的政治哲學(xué)源于他對這一假設(shè)的懷疑：主權(quán)是唯一真正的權(quán)力（在?？绿岢鲑|(zhì)疑之前，并沒有什么人重視這一假設(shè)）。?？鲁姓J世界上確實有各種形式的暴力，而且不止于國家暴力。也有資本大量聚集而涌現(xiàn)出的企業(yè)暴力，父權(quán)制社會下的性別暴力，以及在奴隸貿(mào)易、房貸歧視、大規(guī)模監(jiān)禁中若隱若現(xiàn)的白人霸權(quán)暴力。福柯的哲學(xué)肯定這類權(quán)力是主權(quán)的顯現(xiàn)，都是利維坦的同類。但他所懷疑的是，這一簡明好懂的權(quán)力觀念，并不足以推出以下更復(fù)雜的結(jié)論：世界上的一切權(quán)力都是利維坦這種形式的。
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.
?？律钊胩骄苛讼胂笾心欠N一元質(zhì)地的權(quán)力（譯者注：即唯一采取利維坦形式的權(quán)力），最終發(fā)現(xiàn)完全能夠想象一種權(quán)力與權(quán)力之間相互抵觸、相互反對的場景。他提出了這樣的假設(shè)并對此展開研究：權(quán)力可能不總是僅僅呈現(xiàn)一種形式，由此，一種特定形式的權(quán)力可以與其他形式的權(quán)力并存，甚至?xí)舜碎g沖突。當(dāng)然，這種共存和沖突并非僅存在于思辨探究中的問題，而是人們需要通過實證分析去理解的東西。
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.
?？聦?quán)力的懷疑性猜想促使他對權(quán)力的實際功能做了細致的研究。研究的結(jié)果很令人戰(zhàn)栗：權(quán)力是最狡猾的。在我們嘗試擺脫控制、解放自我時，權(quán)力會悄悄改變自己的基本形式，用以應(yīng)對我們的努力。舉一個例子，?？绿岬搅说湫偷闹鳈?quán)空間如法院在其訴訟程序中對待醫(yī)療專家和精神專家證詞的方式，這些專家的權(quán)威和權(quán)力不需要以主權(quán)暴力的方式就能夠行使。100年前某位專家對“精神失常 ”或“變態(tài)”診斷可以影響到今天一次司法判決的輕重。
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.
?？抡故玖死S坦式的主權(quán)（請想象王位、議會和資本）在過去的200年中是如何碰上了兩種新形式的權(quán)力：規(guī)訓(xùn)權(quán)力（他也稱之為解剖政治，因為它密切關(guān)注訓(xùn)練人的身體）和生命政治。生命政治也是?？隆缎允贰返谝痪碇械闹黝}。而規(guī)訓(xùn)的力量，身體的解剖政治，是福柯在《規(guī)訓(xùn)與懲戒》中的關(guān)注點。
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.
《規(guī)訓(xùn)與懲戒》這本著作最能展現(xiàn)出?？碌臉酥拘燥L(fēng)格：對真實權(quán)力機制的精細探究。最近法蘭西學(xué)院（可能是世界上最負盛名的學(xué)術(shù)機構(gòu)，?？聫?970年到1984年在此開設(shè)講座）出版了一套接近完整的?？轮v演錄，從這套書中可以看出，《規(guī)訓(xùn)與懲戒》是通過至少五年密集的檔案研究得出的成果。在寫這本書時，?？律钊胙芯苛讼嚓P(guān)材料，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)研討會，并召開了大量的公開講座?，F(xiàn)在這些講座被安上了《懲戒的社會，病態(tài)的權(quán)力》這類標題，分門別類地出版。他研究的材料范圍很廣，從現(xiàn)代犯罪學(xué)的誕生到精神病學(xué)中癔癥的性別化建構(gòu)。講座展現(xiàn)出了?？碌乃枷氚l(fā)展，提供了對?？抡軐W(xué)轉(zhuǎn)型過程的洞見。當(dāng)他最終將檔案材料編成一本書時，就形成了更有力且有效的論證，也就是《規(guī)訓(xùn)與懲戒》。
***
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’.
根據(jù)?？碌臍v史和哲學(xué)分析，規(guī)訓(xùn)是一種權(quán)力形式，通過誘使人們將自己“正常”化來規(guī)訓(xùn)他們的行動。這種權(quán)力以“糾正性訓(xùn)練”的形式出現(xiàn)。規(guī)訓(xùn)并沒有遵循主權(quán)的方式打擊它針對的主體。規(guī)訓(xùn)更加巧妙，有時甚至精心呵護，來制造出順從的人。?？聦@些順從、標準化的產(chǎn)物有一個著名的叫法——“順民”。
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.
監(jiān)獄是“規(guī)訓(xùn)權(quán)力“ 存在的典型場景。在福柯看來，監(jiān)獄作為現(xiàn)代社會中最普遍的懲戒場所（實際上收監(jiān)這一懲罰方式在18世紀以前并不存在），重要之處并不在于其武力關(guān)押罪犯的方式——這一現(xiàn)代監(jiān)獄中依然存在的統(tǒng)治性因素本質(zhì)上與最古老的國家主權(quán)對罪犯，流放者，奴隸和俘虜施加暴力并無二致。?？聮侀_這種明顯的外在表征，深入探究監(jiān)獄這種精妙的設(shè)計。為什么在現(xiàn)代化的進程中，昂貴且設(shè)計復(fù)雜的監(jiān)獄逐漸取代了花銷較少的酷刑和死刑？人們習(xí)慣于認為原因是18世紀人類開始變得更人道主義，真的僅僅是因為這樣嗎？?？抡J為這種觀點會忽略在酷刑轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槊詫m般監(jiān)獄的過程中權(quán)力形式之根本性轉(zhuǎn)變。
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.
?？抡J為，如果觀察監(jiān)獄的運作方式（即運行機制），監(jiān)獄的設(shè)計很明顯不僅是為了關(guān)押罪犯，更是為了訓(xùn)練他們，讓他們變得溫順。監(jiān)獄絕不是監(jiān)禁場所，而是人類改造之地。監(jiān)獄的核心不是一間間牢房，而是管理囚犯日常生活的作息時間表。規(guī)訓(xùn)囚犯的途徑包括清晨檢查、受監(jiān)管的用餐、輪班工作制度，甚至是在全副武裝的警衛(wèi)和做著記錄的心理學(xué)家監(jiān)視下放風(fēng)。
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監(jiān)獄監(jiān)控中的各個環(huán)節(jié)。這就是為什么福柯的法文書名Surveiller et punir（字面意思是“監(jiān)視與懲罰”）很到位。囚犯知道他們會受到持續(xù)的監(jiān)督。持續(xù)監(jiān)視的不是為了恐嚇想要逃跑的囚犯，而是要迫使他們認為自己是需要接受改造的個體。從清晨起床到夜晚熄燈，囚犯們會受到無休止的行為監(jiān)視。
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.
監(jiān)禁的關(guān)鍵在于引導(dǎo)犯人學(xué)會如何監(jiān)視、管理和改造自己。通過精心有效的設(shè)計，囚犯不再需要監(jiān)督人員，他們會自己監(jiān)管自己。這就是馴化的過程。
***
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.
?？略凇兑?guī)訓(xùn)與懲罰》中使用了一現(xiàn)已名揚天下的概念來闡釋這種獨特的現(xiàn)代的權(quán)力。?？聫臍v史檔案中提取了英國經(jīng)典道德哲學(xué)家杰里米·邊沁（Jeremy Bentham）幾乎被世人忘記的設(shè)想。邊沁提出監(jiān)督最大化的監(jiān)獄——他命名為“全景監(jiān)獄”。邊沁思想的核心是一種為“糾正”而作的設(shè)計。在全景監(jiān)獄中，監(jiān)督者無形的目光監(jiān)控囚犯一舉一動，形成令人窒息的氛圍，這些元素遠比大塊石和金屬柵欄帶來的威嚴感以及身體上的監(jiān)禁來得重要。
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(chǎn) mill for grinding rogues honest’.
全景監(jiān)獄的設(shè)計很簡單。一圈環(huán)形牢房圍繞著中心瞭望塔。每個牢房都正對著瞭望塔，牢房背面是個很大的窗戶，可以透光。人在塔內(nèi)可以直接看到牢房，對囚犯的一舉一動了然于胸。囚犯也能清楚看到瞭望塔，但是因為精心設(shè)計的暗窗，他們不能看到塔內(nèi)的情況，因而不清除自己是否正在被監(jiān)視。這就是一種不間斷監(jiān)視的設(shè)計。正如邊沁的所說，這樣的建筑不是為了監(jiān)禁人，而是一種“將流氓改造為老實人的工廠”。
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.
全景監(jiān)獄仍舊是個夢想。雖然有些監(jiān)獄與邊沁的設(shè)想較為接近，但沒有一個是真正如法炮制的。其中一個類似的是1922年啟用的伊利諾伊州斯泰茨維爾的“F屋”，它于2016年11月底被關(guān)閉。全景監(jiān)獄的重要性在于這一概念的普適性。人們不是只有被關(guān)押在監(jiān)獄牢房中才會接受規(guī)訓(xùn)?！兑?guī)訓(xùn)與懲罰》中最令人害怕的觀點是“全景監(jiān)獄”一節(jié)的最后一句，福柯挖苦地向世人發(fā)問：“監(jiān)獄類似工廠、學(xué)校、兵營、醫(yī)院，這令人吃驚么？這些場所不都是一種監(jiān)獄嗎？”如果事實如?？滤?，當(dāng)我們被困于學(xué)校課堂、處于流水線上、或者在現(xiàn)代社會非常流行的工作場所——大部分人身處精心設(shè)計的小隔間和開放式辦公室中，我們都在受到權(quán)力的規(guī)訓(xùn)。
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.
規(guī)訓(xùn)訓(xùn)練當(dāng)然不是主權(quán)暴力，但它是權(quán)力。通常來講，權(quán)力通過暴力或威逼的方式形成，其本質(zhì)上是物理暴力。但規(guī)訓(xùn)卻不一樣。規(guī)訓(xùn)以一種不同的方式控制我們，它并沒有像利維坦一直威脅的那樣抓住我們的軀體并予以摧毀。相反，規(guī)訓(xùn)培訓(xùn)、訓(xùn)練我們的軀體，并（用?？伦钕矚g的詞來說）使它們“正常化“。在福柯看來，所有的這些意味著一個極其晦暗又嚴格的權(quán)力形式。拒絕把這樣的規(guī)訓(xùn)認定成權(quán)力的一種形式，就是在否定人類生活之所以能成型并延續(xù)的方式。倘若我們只愿意將統(tǒng)治者暴力認定為權(quán)力的形式，那么我們對當(dāng)下權(quán)力的利害關(guān)系的理解就太過狹隘了。如若不能看到權(quán)力的其他形式，我們將無法抵抗所有借以其他形式塑造我們的權(quán)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.
?？碌淖髌繁砻鳎谶^去幾百年間權(quán)力逐漸演變出多種形式，而規(guī)訓(xùn)權(quán)力正是其中的一種。規(guī)訓(xùn)解剖政治學(xué)與統(tǒng)治者暴力、生命政治學(xué)的威力一并存在。?？略谒牧硪槐緯缎允贰分兄赋?，生命政治學(xué)能幫助我們理解，旺盛的性欲是如何在一個經(jīng)常告訴自己真正的性欲正被壓抑的文化中存在。生命權(quán)力并不禁止性欲，而是在對繁衍、家庭和健康的具體概念進行利益最大化的前提下管制性欲，它是一種為19世紀的精神病醫(yī)生掌控的生命權(quán)力。生命權(quán)力借以同性戀不能使性行為囿于健康的家庭繁衍之中為由，把同性戀變成了“反常態(tài)”。然而這一目的不太可能會通過直接暴力管制的國家統(tǒng)治行為來達成，以同性戀行為是為一己私利為借口，組成醫(yī)護軍團幫病人改邪歸正會更有效。
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.
其他權(quán)力的形式仍存在于我們中間。有些人認為數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)力（也就是社交媒體、數(shù)據(jù)分析和不間斷算法評估的信息權(quán)力）是自?？?984年去世后的涌現(xiàn)出的最顯著的一種權(quán)力。
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.
福柯在哲學(xué)上的地位很重要，他能幫我們在界定并巧妙地分析當(dāng)代權(quán)力機制的同時，避免將發(fā)展出一套單一且統(tǒng)一的權(quán)力本質(zhì)理論。?？碌乃枷敫灿诖潭恼軐W(xué)懷疑主義，但沒有導(dǎo)向一種對哲學(xué)用于權(quán)力分析的反對。其實，福柯所懷疑的是哲學(xué)能夠、且一定要展露事物隱藏的本質(zhì)的這一逞能想法。這意味著，福柯的標志性詞語——“權(quán)力——并不是他所提取出的一種事物本質(zhì)的名稱，而是對一整個領(lǐng)域進行分析的索引。而這個領(lǐng)域需要人們繼續(xù)去開展哲學(xué)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.
那些認為哲學(xué)仍舊需要找出恒久不變的本質(zhì)的人，會發(fā)現(xiàn)?？碌挠^點特別缺乏說服力。但有些人認為，現(xiàn)在對我們來說是恒久不變的事情會因年代和地域的變化而發(fā)生改變，對這些人來說，他們更可能從?？碌姆椒ㄖ蝎@得啟發(fā)?？紤]到政治哲學(xué)的中心思想（也就是權(quán)力和自由這對概念），?？麓蛸€，人們很可能會通過拒絕提前界定自由的所有可能形式來贏得更多的自由。同樣，這意味著人們將開始拒絕固守某一靜態(tài)的權(quán)力定義。只有在權(quán)力運作的每個地方都去追蹤權(quán)力的腳步，自由才有機會蓬勃發(fā)展。只有像?？履菢臃治鰴?quán)力的多樣性，我們才有機會增加自由的多樣性。權(quán)力對我們能夠成為什么樣的人進行定義并設(shè)限，而自由將幫助我們對抗權(quán)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.
諷刺的是，有人認為會有一種哲學(xué)能將權(quán)力一次性徹底定義，但這會因此為自由畫界，讓自由變得完全不自由。那些為自由的不可預(yù)見性而擔(dān)憂的人發(fā)現(xiàn)?？绿ｋU了。但那些不愿今日所定義之物將決定明日之自由的人會發(fā)現(xiàn)，至少在我們的哲學(xué)層面來看，?？碌挠^點是具有解放性意義的。因此，?？陆鈽?gòu)權(quán)力與自由的方法不僅僅使哲學(xué)學(xué)科本身受益。在事物秩序正在變化，而我們正在變化中找尋自我的當(dāng)下，?？碌恼軐W(xué)有著更重要的意義。
?
本文原載于 Aeon
原文鏈接：https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever
?
