傅柯「自我的技術」初探

終於把文化研究碩士的最後一份功課寫完了。是為對運動的曲線支持。

在這種脈絡下看,在網上發動群眾十一月一日包圍禮賓府的青年人,發動的就是為了打破謊言的行動。用策劃者Bill的說法,他與同代朋友的親身經歷, 讓他們完全無法理解當權者常掛在口邊的知識型經濟終身學習所謂何物。咩野副學士,都係政府搞出等失業率唔好咁高,邊個高官仔女會讀?有無認 受性?」「我想做電工之嘛,有牌有經驗,仲點進修?短短兩句話,道出的真實遠比政府有關知識型經濟的文件多。也只有在這樣的脈絡下,我們才能明白當天為 何有比參加者多數倍以上的警察在守候他們;當《將臨的起義》被翻譯成英文在美國出版,霍士新聞頻道的主持人Glenn Beck在節目中,用了整整七分鐘怒責那是最危險的書。當真相被道出,自然是要千方百計封殺的,這是我們看Matrix就能知曉的事。《將臨的起義》還沒 被譯成中文,但那種情緒已來到我城。縱然傳媒都只報道說這是一次「倒曾」行動,但只要稍到他們的facebook群組一看,就會見到他們第一項理念就是要 批判曾蔭權漠視貧富懸殊﹕這是從所謂「失落的第四代」出發,伸張開來的公義綱領,恰恰呼應歐洲各國青年的行動。」(黃宇軒:「青年人,將臨的起義」。2009116日,《明報》「星期日生活」。 )

一、管治(governmentality)

管治不是鐵板一塊

“An analysis of government, by contrast, assumes that discourses on government are an integral part of the workings of government rather than simply a means of its legitimation, that government is accomplished thorough multiple actors and agencies rather than a centralized set of state apparatuses, and that we must reject any a priori distribution and divisions of power and authority. " (Dean p.26)

傅柯反覆強調他不是結構主義者,搞的更不是分析哲學(“Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth" p 176),受胡塞爾影響也更說不上(“Polemics, Politics, and Problematizations")。因為不再視權力為壓迫/被壓迫的鐵板一塊,故亦有把他列入反馬克斯主義行列。對管治的理解,傅柯認為我們經常落入兩種假想:1. (國家)管治為內聚的核心與完整的單一系統,並與被管治者、人性化的「我們」對立起來;2. (國家)管治為純粹由資本主義生產關係申延而成的功能。二者不是高估就是低估了管治的權力,把管治的效果(composite reality )或神話化的抽像(mythicized abstraction)當成了管治的本質(Dean 26)。站在反抗政治的立場,無寧是長他人志氣。傅柯的顛覆性在於主將透過思想與評論「持續革命」。所謂思想,並不是純粹的腦袋活動,而是身體力行的「外在物」(thought as object)( “Polemics, Politics and Problematizations" 117)以其對權力的動態理解來補足馬克斯主義式教條的不足(“Polemics, Politics and Problematizations" 115),並質疑知識的客觀性,顛覆因而化整為零,處處火頭、且戰且走(“workings")

“I thus want to insist that an analytics of government marks out a space to ask questions about government, authority and power, without attempting to formulate a set of general principles by which various forms of the “conduct of conduct" could be reformed. The point of doing this, however, is not to constitute a “value-neutral" social science. Rather it is to practice a form of criticism. " (Dean p.36)

沒有宏大與可以「一舖清袋」的革命承諾:

“It is true that my attitude isn’t a result of the form of critique that claims to be a methodical examination in order to reject all possible solutions except for the one valid one. It is more on the domain of acts, practices, and thoughts that seem to me to pose problems for politics. For example, I don’t think that in regard to madness and mental illness there is any “politics" that can contain the just and definitive solution." (Dean 114) Continue reading “傅柯「自我的技術」初探"

廣告