知识、权力、伦理与个性解放

【作者】 刘永策；

【导师】 韩民青；

【作者基本信息】 山东师范大学 ， 外国哲学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 福柯哲学基本上可以说是一种后现代哲学，但在汹涌的后现代浪潮中，他又是一位独树一帜的人物。本文分别概括总结了福柯思想的三个主要的方面，即考古学、系谱学和伦理学，并在此基础上探讨了福柯哲学的宗旨，目的是加深我们对福柯哲学的了解。文章述与议结合，并没有在二者之间作明确的区分，共有四个部分，略述如下： 第一部分“破译知识密码”，概述了从二十世纪六十年代初到七十年代初的十年中，福柯应用知识考古学方法，对文本、话语和知识进行考察所得出的一系列观点及其考古学方法。分析了他这一时期的主要著作《疯癫与文明》、《诊所的诞生》、《词与物》以及《知识考古学》。福柯这段时间的工作，从总体上解构了西方的思想传统，即从柏拉图以来的理性传统。他揭露了理性对非理性话语的压制：考察了理性取得霸权地位的荒诞经过；分析了理性知识自身演进过程中的断裂和转移，从而敲响了西方现文化的丧钟。“人死了”是福柯惊骇世俗的一句口号，这意味着现代西方主体性充溢、以人为中心的知识型的破产。我认为，福柯这段时间的工作也是一种建构工作，在消解传统的理性和知识霸权的同时，他在重树个体的自主的主体性，力图使个体的理论个性的生成摆脱传统知识的压制和同化，是在为个性解放制作一个理论和知识的基础。 第二部分“解读权力规训”，综述了福柯在七十年代运用系谱学方法对权力进行分析所得出来的一系列成果。概括了他这段时间的主要著作《话语的秩序》、《规训与惩罚》和《性史》第一卷《求知之志》的主要内容。福柯分析了权力对话语的压制和生产；通过对刑罚史的演变的考察，揭露了社会权力对个人身体的规训；通过对性话语的分析，揭示了公共权力对性领域的入侵；发现了权力与知识之间的相互依附关系；在此基础上研究了权力、知识、身体和知识分子之间的复杂关系。福柯的研究表明，现代社会本身是权力机制运作的产物，所谓文明进步只是权力统治技术的进步，是政治仪式的变换。现代社会中的人，既是权力规训的对象，也是权力规训的产物。因而，福柯倡导人们随时随地地进行反抗，所有的人对所有的人开战，去拒绝我们成为权力所要求的产品。我认为，福柯对权力的分析，一方面是消解社会权力对人的塑造，瓦解其权威性、主导性。另一方面是从反面张扬人的社会个性。即要求人的个性的不同的层面从社会的普遍规训之网中挣脱出来，争取自我塑造的权力，获得一种自由的发展状态。福柯的努力意在证明，社会约束技术的发展，正在吞噬个人的独特个性，人自身面临着危机，我们必须采取拯救自己的行动。 第三部分“伦理的涅槃”，选述了八十年代后，福柯晚年对古希腊和罗马性 道德发展史的研究成果。概括了《性史》第二卷《快感的享用》和第三卷《自 我的呵护》的主要内容。福柯考察了古希腊和罗马思想中人们把性当成一个美 学欣赏领域和道德欣赏领域的史实：阐述了历史上性关注点的两次转移；介绍 了古代人对自我的关注和拥有自我的技术：对比了古代东方的性艺术与现代西 方的性科学；探讨了古代人对同性恋的态度。他的研究表明，相对于现代人来 说，古代人的性是一个无限广阔的领域；性成为道德评价的依据是一个很成问 题的传统：性领域中对“他者”的排斥是一种文化整体运动的结果。我认为， 福柯的目的并不是要复兴古代的性伦理，而是要为现代社会建构一种新的伦理， 而这种新伦理带有仿佛向古代回归的色彩。其最直接的目的是解放人的伦理个 性，提高人在社会中伦理行为的自由度。 第四部分“福柯哲学的个性向度”，综合福柯的主要思想，将福柯的哲学定 格为一种宣扬个性、开发个性以对抗共性和齐一性的学说。我认为，福柯考察 癫狂史、思想史、监狱史和性史的主要目的是揭露和控诉近代西方理性和权力 对“他者”的压制，争取多元个性的和平共存，他一生关注和追求的是自由， 他的哲学同样如此。进而，我论述了个性解放与人的全面而自由的发展的关系， 认为，个性解放是自由实现的前提条件。最后，从哲学研究自身来说，我认为， 福柯的理性“他者”之路并非边缘，而是一条实证路线，是哲学的康庄大道。更多还原

【Abstract】 Michiel Foucault’s philosophy theory is basically a sort of postmodern philosophy. But in the onrushing tide wave of postmodern theories, he developed a school of his own. The author respectively summarized three aspects of Foucault’s thought, including his Archaeology, Genealogy and Ethnics, and discussed his tenet. The purpose is to make a progress in our understanding of Foucault’s philosophy. The article combined narration and discussion without making a distinguishment between them. This article is divided into four parts as following:The first part is about the interpreting of the code of knowledge. The part summarized his ten years works from early 60’s to early 70’s of the last century. During this period, Foucault used Archaeology methods to review text, discourse and knowledge, his viewpoint about them, and his Archaeology methods. The author analyzed his primary works, including ’.Insane and Civilization, the Birth of the Clinic, the Order of the Things and the Archaeology of Knowledge. His work in this period as a whole discomposed the western ideological tradition, i.e. the logos tradition from Plato. He disclosed the suppression of sense to nonsense, probed the absurd course of logos’s hegemony position and analyzed the snap and diversion of sense knowledge procession, which knolled the passing bell of modern western culture. Human being is in the dust, is a slogan which Foucault made to horrify the mundane. That means the overflowing of subjects in western and the modern episteme which take human being as its center burst up. It is my opinion that Foucault’s work in this period is also a sort of construction. When clearing up traditional hegemonic of sense and knowledge, he reconstructed the independent individual subject. He tried hard to make the theoretical selfhood break away from the suppression from traditional knowledge so that he set a theoretical and intellective basis for the unbinding of selfhood.The second part is about the unscrambling of the rule of puissance. The part summed up Foucault’s progeny in the 1970’s when he used the genealogy methods to analyze potence. The author draws his primary works during this period, including the Discipline and Punish, the Order of the things and the first volume of the History of sexuality: the Will to truth. Foucault analyzed the suppression of potency to discourse. Through the seeing about the evolution of the punishment history, he revealed the rule to individual’s body by social force. By analyzing the sexual discourse, Foucault opened up the inbreaking of common power to sexuality and discovered the adheringconnection between power and knowledge. Hereon, he investigated the complex relations between power, knowledge, body and intellectual. His investigation indicates that the modem society is a production in which the power mechanism operates. What is called civilization and progression is just the power govern techniques, just a counter change of political churchy. So human in modern society becomes a powertraining object by the rule. As a result, Foucault sparked and pluged people to resist at every moment and everywhere. All people should dig up the hachet to every people and refuse to be the manufacture of power. To my viewpoint, On the one hand, Foucault’s analysis is to clear up the molding of social power to human and overthrow its authority and domination. On the other hand, Foucault stinked man’s social selfhood, apped the diverse lay of human bardian to break loose from the all over rule of social teaching to strive for the potency of self-plastic to obtain a sort of uncontrolled developing state. Foucault’s efforts intented to attest that the developing of social obligation technique is licking up individual’s special personality. Human is facing crisis, we must take action to save ourselves.The third part is about reliving of ethics. The part focused on the narration of Foucault’s research on ancient Greece and Rome’s sexual ethnic in his late years in the 1980’s. The author generalized the second and the third volume of更多还原