第123集 ... 米歇尔·福柯 第三部分 - 权力

你好。如果你将这档节目视为教育资源，并希望参与其中，让哲学在未来多年里继续向所有人开放，请在patreon.com/philosophize上支持我们。希望你会喜欢今天的节目。上次我们结束时，比较了米歇尔·福柯与伊曼努尔·康德的研究项目。福柯实质上抓住了康德著作中的一个核心关注点，并彻底颠覆了它。

Hello. If you value the show as an educational resource and you wanna be a part of keeping philosophy available for everybody out there for years to come, support the show at patreon.com/philosophize this. Hope you'll love the show today. So we ended last time by comparing the projects of Michel Foucault and Immanuel Kant. Foucault essentially taking one of the main focus points of Kant's work and turning it on its head.

正如我们讨论过的，康德试图从世界中提取主观且偶然的部分进行分析研究，以期得出关于事物本质的必然真理。而福柯则相反，他选取那些被大众视为必然真理的事物，揭示它们本质上是主观的、偶然的，并植根于历史。他向我们展示：所谓的真理往往不过是我们所处时代的主导叙事。上期节目中，我们探讨了知识型与范式——福柯对科学主义主导叙事的质疑，即科学作为中立工具能揭示事物真相或本质的观点。

As we talked about, while Kant wanted to take the subjective and contingent of the world, analyze it, study it, and hopefully arrive at necessary truths about the way that things are. Foucault, on the other hand, wanted to take things that most people assumed were necessary truths and show how ultimately they were subjective, contingent, and rooted in history. To show how what we think of as the truth is often nothing more than just the dominant narrative of the time we're living. Now last episode, we talked about epistemes and paradigms. Foucault questioning the dominant narrative of scientism, of science being this disinterested vehicle for arriving at the truth about things or facts about the way that things are.

两期前我们讨论《规训与惩罚》时，福柯质疑了这种主流叙事：人类曾是对囚犯施以酷刑的野蛮人，后经伦理进化认识到错误，如今以更人道的方式对待他们。当我告诉你这些并非福柯一生中唯二质疑的叙事时，你大概不会惊讶。事实上，福柯几乎所有重要著作都在挑战某些关于世界本质的公认叙事——那些他认为换个角度审视就会暴露出狭隘性、任意性，并对相关人群造成潜在伤害的叙事。例如他1961年的著作《疯癫与文明》。

Two episodes ago, we talked about the book Discipline and Punish, Foucault questioning the dominant narrative that we used to be these barbaric savages that tortured our prisoners, but then we evolved ethically to the point we've seen the error of our ways, and now we treat them in a way that's much more humane. Well, it'll probably come as no surprise when I tell you these aren't the only two narratives that Foucault questioned in his lifetime. In fact, pretty much every major work Foucault produced is taking aim at some widely accepted narrative about the way that things are. Narratives that he thinks, when looked at from a different angle, show themselves to be narrow, arbitrary, and potentially damaging to the people caught in the mix that that narrative is referencing. For example, take Foucault's 1961 work Madness and Civilization.

《规训与惩罚》剖析我们几个世纪来对待罪犯的方式，而《疯癫与文明》则审视社会对待所谓疯人的历史。福柯发现：生于二十世纪的人很容易想当然地认为，对待精神疾病患者就该将其禁锢，由专家研究制定治疗方案，通过药物和强化治疗使其恢复'正常人'状态。但这从来不是社会对待疯人的唯一方式。事实上，将这些人集中关押在精神病院的做法非常晚近——比如在古希腊，被视为疯癫者常被认为受到神祇触碰。

Discipline and punish is to the way we've treated criminals over the centuries as madness and civilization is to the way we've treated people over the centuries that society deems to be mad. See, Foucault realizes that it's easy to be born into the world in the twentieth century and to take for granted that if someone's mentally ill, what you should do is lock them up, have a bunch of experts study them, come up with a treatment plan for them, and then medicate them and give them intensive therapy until they start to act like a, quote, normal person again. But this hasn't always been the way society treats the mentally ill. In fact, the whole idea of rounding these people up and locking them in an asylum is actually a very recent thing. For example, in former societies, in ancient Greece, for example, it wasn't an uncommon attitude at the time to see people considered to be mad as touched by the gods in some way.

他们与其他民众过着无异的生活，只要不伤害他人，其特立独行的思维方式会被接纳。许多希腊戏剧中，主角常被其他角色视为疯癫的人物点醒。在某些社会，疯人被视为社会机器的重要齿轮——他们荒诞的言语帮助周围人辨识理性的边界。福柯再次指出：二十世纪出生的人容易假设数千年来这些未受药物治疗的人生活在痛苦中，而如今他们被专家监护、服用规训药物后生活更美好——这种假设同样值得质疑。

They lived pretty normal lives among the rest of the population and were accepted as just different by people with, you know, a sort of outside of the box way of looking at things as long as they weren't hurting anybody. There are many Greek plays where the protagonist is informed by somebody that everybody else in the play would see as crazy. In other societies, the mad were seen as an important cog in the whole machine of society because through the crazy stuff they said, they helped everyone around them identify the limits of reason. Foucault would recognize once again the assumption that's easy to make being born into the twentieth century is that for thousands of years, these people were unmedicated, untreated, living their lives, and abject suffering. And that nowadays, now that we have them in custody, now that they're in front of a panel of experts and on the right pill that makes them act normal, that their lives are better.

但福柯不会让你就此脱身。他可能会追问：究竟是什么具体因素导致了我们社会对待精神病患者态度的突然转变？福柯无疑会认为，这在很大程度上要归因于科学及其围绕精神疾病概念所产生的话语体系。因为就在不久前的历史上，人类首次将疯狂作为科学研究的对象。多年来，随着科学不断对所谓精神病患者进行诊断、分类和药物治疗，这些人反而被愈加非人化，沦为科学研究的客体。

But Foucault wouldn't let you off the hook there. He'd probably ask you the question, what specifically is responsible for this sudden change in our attitudes towards how we treat the mentally ill in our societies? Foucault would no doubt think that it's in large part due to science and the discourse science produces surrounding the concept of mental illness. Because it's just been in the recent past that for the first time in human history, madness has become the object of scientific inquiry. And over the years, as science has progressively diagnosed, categorized, and medicated people that society deems to be mentally ill, the more they've dehumanized these people and turned them into objects that exist for the sake of science being able to study them.

他们成了研究对象而非活生生的人。科学越是试图理解这些客体并将其改造成看似正常的人，就越让这些人承受更多折磨。几年前我看的福柯纪录片里有句精彩的话：'关怀越多，治愈越少；干预越深，压迫越重。'

Objects of study rather than human beings. The more that science worked to understand these objects and turn them into something that looks like a normal person, the more torture they put these people through. There was a great quote on a Foucault documentary I watched a couple years ago. It went, the more people cared, the less people cured. The more they intervened, the more they oppressed.

这句话完美捕捉了福柯在《疯癫与文明》中的核心观点。不过你也看得出来，这本书再次展现了福柯如何质疑时代主流叙事并提供另类解读。但如果没有采用某种另类历史研究方法，这些颠覆性观点根本不可能诞生。记住，福柯写的不是传统历史著作——除了少数例外，他根本不会用'历史'这个词来描述自己的研究。

That quote just captures the essence of what Foucault was saying in Madness and Civilization so well. Nonetheless, I mean, you could see how this book is yet another example of Foucault questioning a dominant narrative of his time and offering an alternative take on things. But none of these alternative takes would ever be possible if Foucault wasn't looking at history with some sort of alternative method. Remember, Foucault's not writing a history of this stuff. I mean, outside of a couple exceptions, he'd never use the word history to describe what he's doing here at all.

对于他的前三部著作——《疯癫与文明》《临床医学的诞生》和《词与物》，他都称之为'考古学'。这个命名有非常特殊的原因。试想考古学家的工作：当考古学家进行挖掘时，当天的任务可能是从深埋地下的十六世纪土层中发掘某个花瓶。

When it comes to three early books of his, madness and civilization, birth of the clinic, and the order of things, he would call them all archaeologies. And there are very specific reasons for why he would call them archaeologies. Think about the job of an archaeologist for a second. When an archaeologist goes on a dig, and maybe the task of the day is to excavate some vase from the 15 hundreds buried deep underground. Okay.

考古学家的工作就是梳理从十六世纪至今数百年间堆积的层层沉积物。最终目标是要捕捉某个时间切面的快照。换言之，考古学家不关心花瓶的制作工艺、当时工匠的创作思路或该设计如何从前代花瓶演变而来。他们的任务是通过层层挖掘，让这个特定时刻的花瓶重见天日——犹如截取时间长河中的某个瞬间切片。

The job of the archaeologist is to comb through layers and layers of sediment left behind by the hundreds of years in between the 15 and today. And at the end of the job, the goal of the archaeologist is to capture a snapshot in time. In other words, the archaeologist isn't concerned with how the vase was made, the way vase makers were thinking about their craft at the time, how the design of the vase evolved out of the vase designs that came before it. No. The task of the archaeologist is to dig through the layers to uncover this vase in this moment, a snapshot of a very specific point in time.

这与福柯在我刚列出的三本书中试图做的事情类似。他梳理了几百年来的思想，试图揭示并拂去那些事物曾与众不同的时刻。那些时代快照中，关于这些话题的论述和对话同样有效地为人们生产知识，但人们看待主题的方式与今日截然不同。理解福柯这一点很重要，却常被忽视。人们以为，好吧。

Well, this is similar to what Foucault was trying to do in the three books I just listed. He's sifting through hundreds of years of ideas, trying to uncover and dust off moments when things were different. Snapshots in time when the discourse and conversations about these topics were just as effective at producing knowledge for people, but people looked at the subjects in an entirely different way than we do today. See, this is an important point to understand about Foucault that a lot of people miss out on. They think, okay.

福柯在此质疑关于这些事物的主流叙事，并提出另一种历史版本。只要我能指出他叙事中的漏洞，再构建更好的叙事，福柯就只能在角落畏缩认输——我就赢了。但福柯完全欢迎这个过程，他从不希望自己的叙事被视为终极真理。

Here's Foucault. He's questioning the dominant narrative about these things, and he's offering an alternative narrative about what went down. If only I can point out the flaws in his narrative and then make a better narrative of my own, then Foucault will have no choice but to cower in the corner and admit defeat. I win. But Foucault absolutely welcomed this process, and he had no desires of his narrative being seen as the ultimate way of looking at things.

某种意义上，他工作的真正要义是：我们必须彻底摆脱那种思维模式——我们永远只能接触在社会中争夺主导地位的各种叙事，它们都不包含事物的真相，只是略微不同的视角和理解世界的方式。完成那三本书后，福柯最终发现其早期使用的考古学方法极具局限性。当你的工作仅是揭示历史中的片段时，你只能比较不同时期围绕某个主题的论述，无法谈论一个时期如何导致另一个时期。描述这些转变如何发生，最终成为他后期工作的核心。为此，福柯引入了另一种解构历史叙事的新方法——谱系学。

There's a sense in which the actual point he's trying to make with his work is that we need to get away from that kind of thinking altogether, that all we'll ever have access to are narratives constantly in competition for the dominant position within a society, none of which containing anything close to the truth about things, just a slightly different angle and a slightly different way of making sense of the world. But, anyway, after those three books, eventually, Foucault found the whole archaeology method that he used all throughout his early career to be extremely limiting. He found that when you're in the business of just uncovering moments in time throughout history, all you can ever do is compare the discourse surrounding a subject in one period to the discourse of another period. In other words, there can be no talk about how one period led to another, just comparisons, and describing how these shifts took place would eventually become an extremely important part of his later work. It is for this reason that Foucault introduces yet another new method of demystifying the narratives of the past, something he calls a genealogy.

想象一下谱系学。比如将你的家谱追溯到十六世纪的某位祖先。你不仅会看到这个人的快照，还能观察到从他们的世界到你的世界的完整演变。这种分析方式更接近我们在系列第一集中对《规训与惩罚》的探讨。

You can picture a genealogy. Right? Picture tracing your family tree all the way back to somebody that lived in the fifteen hundreds. Not only would you have a snapshot of the person, you'd also have the entire evolution that took place from their world to your world. This type of analysis is more in line with what we did on episode one of this series with the book Discipline and Punish.

如果你记得，福柯阐述了从1750年代到1830年代，从君主时代到规训时代的演变过程。这类分析占据了他几乎全部的后期作品。若你怀有福柯后期工作的目标，谱系学至关重要。若你想质疑许多人持有的历史观——认为历史只是理性推动进步的漫长进程——谱系学能展示不同时期如何因非理性原因相互催生。

Because if you remember, Foucault lays out how the evolution took place from the seventeen fifties to the eighteen thirties, from the sovereign age to the disciplinary age. And it's this type of analysis that's gonna occupy almost all of his later work. The genealogy is crucial if you have the goals of Foucault and his later work. It's absolutely crucial if you wanna call into question this assumption that so many people make, that history has just been a long succession of progress where we use rationality to make things better. The genealogy can show how different periods can give rise to each other for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality.

福柯常说：构建谱系时，要选择那些看似已有共识的主题，人们认为无需进一步讨论就能理解其运作的主题。这就是为什么福柯总出现在监狱、学校、医院等非常规领域。他以无人尝试的方式审视这些事物。这也解释了为何在其最终作品中，他决定质疑关于人类性行为的主流叙事。可惜福柯未能完成这部作品。

Now one thing Foucault always said was that if you're gonna make one of these genealogies, always make it about a subject where there seems to be a lot of people agreeing about the way that things are, subjects where there doesn't seem to be any further discussion required for us to understand how they work. This is why Foucault always seems to end up in weird places like prisons and schools and hospitals. Nobody's ever looked at this stuff before like he does. And it's also the reason why in his final work, he decides to question the dominant narratives that exist around the topic of human sexuality. Now Foucault never finished this work.

1984年他因艾滋病去世，来不及完成创作。关于他若在世会如何发展这一课题的猜测很多，但无人质疑的是：这部作品的开篇延续了他一贯的风格——质疑那些在我们时代看来不言自明、近乎刻入石板的常识性主流叙事。《性经验史》第一卷瞄准的叙事被称为'压抑假说'，其核心论点是：整个17-18世纪，权力者一直在压抑人们关于性行为的思想和行为。

He died of AIDS in 1984 and just didn't have time to finish it. There's a lot of speculation about where he would have went had he lived long enough to write the rest of it. But one thing nobody questions is that the beginning of this work mirrors the rest of his work and that he's calling into question dominant narratives that seem to us in our time to be so obvious and based in common sense that they're practically chiseled into stone. The narrative he takes aim at in the history of sexuality volume one is something known as the repressive hypothesis. The main argument of the repressive hypothesis is that all throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, people's thoughts and behaviors surrounding the topic of sexuality have been repressed by people in power.

人们对压抑动机的解释五花八门：宗教原因、政治利益、经济考量——资本主义要成功，就需要人们专注于工作而非探索性行为这种闲事。

The motives people assign for why this happened range considerably. Some people say it happened for religious reasons. Some say for political gain. Some say it was for economic reasons. That for capitalist society to succeed in the way that it did, we needed people focused on work rather than the idle task of exploring their sexuality.

无论何种原因，20世纪末的主流叙事认为：17-18世纪的性行为被规则束缚——不可谈论、应当羞耻、事后愧疚。20世纪的人们主张：若让性更自然、更少受文化规范约束，人们将更少压抑、更加快乐。但福柯不这么看。他强烈反对存在某种天生的性本质或可被发现的科学性真理的观点。

Whatever the reason, though, the dominant narrative towards the end of the twentieth century was that sexuality in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds was punctuated by rules. Rules where you can't talk about it, you are to be ashamed of it, you are to feel guilty afterwards for having done it. People in the twentieth century were making the case that if we allowed sex to be more natural and less constrained by cultural norms, people would be a lot less repressed and a lot more happy. But Foucault didn't see it that way. Foucault would strongly disagree with the idea that there's some natural type of sexuality that's installed in us or some scientific truth about the nature of sex that can even be arrived at.

当然，性、怀孕、夫妻性生活这些话题自古有之，但历史上从未将其称为个人的'性取向'。福柯论证道：回溯历史会发现，'人拥有构成其个人性取向的特质'这一概念，实际始于19世纪——那时科学首次将目光投向性行为并试图研究分类。细想颇为怪异：直到19世纪前，没人认为自己属于异性恋、同性恋或其他任何性取向类别。

I mean, sure, sex, pregnancy, the sexual lives of married couples, these are things that have been talked about almost since the beginning of recorded history. But these things were never referred to over the years as an individual's, quote, sexuality. Foucault makes the case that if you look back at history, the idea that people possess a set of qualities that make up their own personal sexuality really is something that's only existed since about the nineteenth century when science for the first time in human history directed its gaze towards sex and tried to study it and categorize it. It's actually kinda weird to think about. Up until around the nineteenth century, nobody ever thought of themselves as heterosexual versus homosexual versus any other form of sexuality.

历史上有人曾参与某些行为。若他们生活在宗教氛围浓厚的社会，或许会被视为犯有鸡奸之罪，但从未像当今世界这般频繁地给人贴标签。他们不会采纳科学提出的分类标签来向他人定义一个人的本质。当时的科学也未曾试图研究并宣称关于性欲的真理，或何种性取向符合所谓人性。因此福柯会反驳说，几个世纪以来性欲从未被压抑过。

There were people that engaged in certain behaviors. If if they lived in a particularly religious society, maybe they were guilty of the sin of sodomy, But there was never any labeling like we do in today's world so much. They didn't take the labels and ways of categorizing people that science came up with and then use them to describe to others who they are as a person. There was no attempt by the science of their time to study and proclaim the truth about sexuality or what type of sexuality corresponds with human nature, whatever that means. So on the contrary, Foucault would say, sexuality hasn't been repressed over the centuries.

人类历史上从未有过如此频繁研究或讨论性的时期。只是这些讨论不能公开进行，而是发生在私下场合——当你与治疗师、医生或其他自封的性学权威交谈时。福柯称之为'政治、经济和技术对谈论性的刺激'。他实际上将这种与医生或心理学家的密室谈话比作现代版的忏悔室。

There's never been a period in our history where sex was studied or talked about more. It just can't happen in public. It happens in private when you're talking to your therapist or your doctor or some other self appointed authority on the topic of sexuality. There's been what Foucault calls a, quote, political, economic, and technical incitement to talk about sex, end quote. He actually compares these backroom meetings with our doctors or psychologists to a modern day confessional booth.

正如过去人们被要求在阴森的忏悔室里向神父详细坦白性事来赎罪，今天我们同样要求人们向研究他们的科学家或医生提供相同信息，由后者判定其行为是否正常。就像神父掌控着性话题的话语权及正常性行为的最终裁决权，现代科学家、心理学家和医生也控制着我们的话语体系。而当你掌控了围绕某种行为的话语权，你实质上就控制了行为本身。我们不仅置身于这些科学'忏悔室'被研究评判是否需要矫正，同时还会内化科学给予的规范，将其视为应然标准，并主动监督自己是否符合要求。仅这些观点就足以与坚信三百年来我们一直受压抑的人展开精彩辩论。

Because in the same way people were asked to atone for their sins by privately talking about their sexuality in explicit detail to a priest in a creepy booth, so too do we ask people in our modern day to give that same information to a scientist or a doctor whose job it is to study them and then tell them whether what they do is normal or abnormal. In the same way the priest controls the discourse surrounding sex, along with it, the final judgment on what normal sexual behavior is, so too do scientists, psychologists, doctors control our modern discourse. And when you control the discourse that surrounds a behavior, you control the behavior itself, difficult. Not only do we have these scientific confessional booze where we're studied and told whether we're in need of fixing, but simultaneously, we internalize norms given to us by the sciences, accept them as the way we should be, and then we actually monitor ourselves to make sure we conform to that standard. Now these points alone could spark some pretty interesting conversation with someone who believes we've been repressed for the last three hundred years.

但福柯认为压抑假说最大的弱点与这些无关。回到后结构主义思想家们的共同主题——该假说的问题在于其整个理论建立在一种对权力运作方式的天真过时认知之上，以当今视角继续如此理解权力堪称荒谬。福柯指出多数人对权力的认知过于简单化，仍停留在十四世纪君主制时期的思维：认为权力来自单一源头，无论是国王、总统还是国会，这种权力只会禁止或强迫。福柯在其著作中以多种术语指代这种权力：契约压迫、主权权力、压制性权力。

But the biggest weakness of the repressive hypothesis to Foucault has nothing to do with any of this stuff. And, mean, just to come back to a theme common among these poststructuralist thinkers, the problem with the repressive hypothesis has to do with the fact that the entire theory is built on top of an understanding of the way power works that is naive, outdated, and to continue looking at power in this way knowing what we know now would be delusional. Foucault would say that most people, when they think of power, look at it in an overly simplistic way. Most people look at power in the same way we looked at it back when we were living in monarchies in the thirteen hundreds, As though power is executed from a single source, be it a king, a president, the halls of congress, the type of power that says no to things, the type of power that forces you to do things you don't want to do. Foucault calls this type of power a bunch of different things throughout his work, contract oppression, sovereign power, repressive power.

最关键在于理解这是种能终极剥夺你一切的权力——从税收到商品服务，乃至你的时间，必要时甚至可剥夺生命。但福柯认为尽管历史上此类权力很普遍，在现代社会我们已不再直面这种权力。他会问：真正触及并影响你生活的究竟是何种权力？是你与特朗普的直接关系吗？

The most important thing to understand is that this is the type of power that has ultimate authority to take things from you, from taxes to goods and services to your time. They can even take your life should they deem it to be necessary. But Foucault thinks despite how common this type of power has been in the past, when it comes to our modern societies, this is just not the kind of power we come face to face with anymore. Foucault would ask, what are the types of power that actually touch you and affect you in your life? Is it your direct relationship with Donald Trump?

是你每天与最高法院大法官的辩论吗？这些是你日常最常接触的权力形态吗？非也。福柯认为过去几百年西方权力已发生根本性转变。现代社会的权力不再是有稳定中心、可被轻易识别阻止的事物。

Is it a debate you're having daily with Supreme Court justices? Is that the type of power that affects you most on a daily basis? No. Power to Foucault has undergone a fundamental transformation in the West throughout the last couple hundred years. Power in our modern societies is not something with a stable center that can be identified and stopped like that.

福柯将现代社会的权力称为毛细血管式权力。在他看来，权力是不稳定的网络，同时从各点向所有方向流动。无论是否意识到，我们每天都在通过持续监视、文化规范、广告宣传、行为劝导、对特定行为的鼓励或制止（包括你在脸书的点赞分享），不断定义、重构和强化关于正常与异常的标准，决定谁该被接纳倾听、谁该被消音忽视。如此理解的权力极度弥散，绝非存在于你与国王或特朗普的二元关系中。

Power in our modern societies is what he calls capillary. To Foucault, power is an unstable network flowing in all directions from every point at once. We all, whether we realize we're doing it or not, we're all exerting our power over everyone else around us every single day through constant surveillance, cultural norms, advertisements, persuasion, suggestion, encouragement and discouragement of certain behaviors we approve or disapprove of, even down to the things you like and share on Facebook, you are constantly defining, redefining, and reinforcing the standard of what is normal and what is abnormal, who should be accepted and listened to, and who should be silenced and considered not worthy of being taken seriously. Power in this way is incredibly diffuse. Power is not something that lies in the relationship between you and a king or you and Donald Trump.

不。在现代社会，权力运作于所有社会层面：既在影响众人的公共政策层面，也在仅关乎你个人的微观层面，限定着你必须应对的狭窄选择范围。权力确实部分存在于你与政府之间，但更贴近日常的是你与治疗师、上司、医生、老师、父母、朋友、家人、同事乃至可能公开评判你的陌生人之间的权力关系。

No. In our modern societies, power is something that operates at all levels of society. Yes. At the level of public policy that affects everyone, but at the same time at an individual level that only affects you, and it dictates the narrow set of choices you have to navigate. Power is between you and your government to a certain degree, but more relevant to your everyday life, it's between you and your therapist, your boss, your doctor, your teachers, your parents, your friends, your family, your coworkers, the strangers that may judge you in public.

请暂停片刻，认真感受这些人对你人格的塑造力。对福柯而言权力无处不在，但对多数人却隐不可见。这种权力体系改变行为的方式已精妙至极——权力的微观策略在你的世界如此常态化，多数人甚至察觉不到自己正被逐渐塑造成'正常人'模具，就像新兵训练营的士兵或牢房里的囚犯。不妨设想自己是名囚犯。

Really stop for a second and try to get a sense of just how much these people shape who you are as a person. Power is everywhere to Foucault, but to most people, power is invisible. The ability for this power system to change your behavior has become so subtle. The microtactics of power have become so normalized in your world that most people don't even notice themselves gradually being shaped into a mold of normalcy like a soldier in boot camp or a prisoner in a cell. In fact, think of yourself as a prisoner for a second.

想象自己置身本系列第一集讨论的圆形监狱（Panopticon）——杰里米·边沁设计的理论监狱，中央塔楼的守卫可监视所有牢房，囚犯却不知是否正被观察。福柯指出，若能通过社会化使囚犯相互监视，建立规范期望体系，形成偏离常规就会遭排斥的反馈机制，甚至不再需要中央塔楼的守卫。

Picture yourself in the Panopticon we talked about on episode one of this series. Real quick, you don't remember, that was the hypothetical prison devised by Jeremy Bentham, where a single guard in the middle can see what the prisoners are doing inside of every cell, the prisoners can't even know that they're being watched. They can't see outside. What Foucault is saying is that if you could somehow get the prisoners to be socialized in such a way that they watched each other, they created systems of norms and expectations, they had some form of feedback where the prisoners felt judged and rejected when they get out of line. You wouldn't even need a guard in the center of the Panopticon.

那个人之所以能去度假，是因为在那个世界的现实中，对福柯而言，囚犯们会相互监督，其效果远胜过任何依靠强制力实施的制度。如果你能让人们自愿去做你原本要强迫他们做的事，就无需动用压制性权力逼迫他们。记住，对福柯来说，知识与权力本质相连。当中心有一个掌握所有人行为全知的看守，而牢房里的囚犯连外界都看不见时，这就造成了知识与权力的巨大失衡。囚犯们自身反而成为压迫他们的系统的积极参与者和支持者。

That guy could go on vacation because the reality of that world would be to Foucault that the prisoners themselves would police each other far better than any system you could come up with that was implemented by force. You don't need to use repressive power and force people to do anything if you can get them to want to do on their own what you were otherwise going to force them to do. Remember, knowledge to Foucault is intrinsically connected to power. And when you have one guard in the center that has access to complete knowledge of everyone's actions and a bunch of prisoners in a cell that can't even see the outside world, this creates a massive imbalance of knowledge and along with it, a massive imbalance of power. The prisoners themselves become active, supportive participants in the very system that suppresses them.

对米歇尔·福柯而言，这个例子比任何王座上的国王审判人民更能体现我们现代社会面临的权力模式，也更具效力。正如我先前所说，福柯认为西方权力运作方式已发生根本转变。我们已从这种过时的君主权力形式，迈入了他所称的'生命权力'所定义的新时代。为何要创造这样一个巧妙的名字？为何是'生命权力'？'生命'前缀是否与生命有关？确实如此。

To Michel Foucault, this example is far more comparable to the power model we face in our modern societies and far more effective than any king on a throne sentencing people to Like I mentioned earlier, to Foucault, there's been a fundamental shift in the way power is exercised in the West. We've moved from this outdated style of sovereign power into a new age that's defined by what he calls biopower. Now why come up with a clever little name like that, and why biopower? Doesn't bio mean it has something to do with life? Well, yes.

没错。福柯所讨论的与我们上期节目末尾谈及的内容相似。近三百年来，随着科学将社会作为研究对象，科学家们发展出两种策略：一是优化生命与生产力，二是对社会人群进行分类。由于科学及其组织世界的方式，人类历史上首次出现了全新的客体化手段——那些我们从未深入思考过的概念：人口规模、出生死亡率、高级人口统计学、疾病流行率、幸福指数等约50项被当代科学话语接受的指标，而后我们悄然用这些指标定义自我及在宏观图景中的位置。

Yes. It does. What Foucault's talking about is similar to what we started to talk about towards the end of last episode. Throughout the last three hundred years or so, the more science has made society the object of scientific study, the more tactics scientists have come up with to, one, optimize life and productivity, and two, categorize people within a society. Because of science and the way it tries to organize the world, for the first time in our history, we are looking at brand new ways of objectifying people, things we've never really thought about much before, things like the population, birth and death rates, advanced demographics, the prevalence of disease, the happiness index, and about 50 other things that we accept as the scientific discourse of our day, and then quietly use these metrics to determine who we are and how we fit into the bigger picture.

这就是为何福柯认为压制假说是错误的。在现代世界，权力并非压制性的，而是生产性的。它不会压制或消除我们内心深处某种真实或自然的性本质。不。

This is why the repressive hypothesis is wrong to Foucault. Power is not repressive in our modern world. Power is productive. It doesn't repress and do away with some true or natural sexuality that we all possess deep down. No.

权力是生产性的。它通过文化规范和科学话语，生产出我们用以识别和构想自身性本质的方法。但疯狂之处在于：这不仅关乎性——关键点就在这里。对福柯而言，真正的掌权者是科学界的思潮引领者，他们掌控着关于宇宙本质的主流叙事。

Power is productive. It produces, through cultural norms and scientific discourse, the very methods we use to even be able to identify and conceive of our sexuality. But here's the crazy part. It's not just our sexuality because it's right here. This is a big reason why, to Foucault, the people that are truly in power are the thought leaders within the sciences that control the dominant narratives about the way that things are in the universe.

知识与权力本质相连，而他们正是所有知识的生产者。他们掌控参数、语言、概念，掌控着每个人用以定义自我、关注事项和价值取向的整套话语体系。福柯称之为'生命权力'，因为'对生命体的权力行使不再以死亡为威胁，而是接管了人们的生活'。换言之，生命权力。

Knowledge is intrinsically connected to power, and they're the ones that produce all the knowledge. They control the parameters, the language, the concepts. They control the entire discourse that everyone uses to determine who they are, what they care about, and what things are worth spending effort on. Foucault calls this biopower because, quote, the exercise of power over living beings no longer carries the threat of death, but instead takes charge of people's lives, end quote. In other words, biopower.

当今已完全无需以死亡威胁强迫人们行事。这种方法不仅过时低效，在识别掌权者方面也完全透明。某种意义上，生命权力劫持了毫无戒心者的生活，利用当代科学话语和文化规范使其成为自愿参与者。生命权力正是日常生活中切实影响我们的权力形式。若你听闻此言便想消灭这种权力，福柯可能会劝你重新思考策略。

There is no need anymore whatsoever to threaten people and force them to do things under penalty of death. Not only is that method outdated and inefficient, it's also entirely transparent when it comes to identifying who's in power. Biopower, in a sense, hijacks the lives of unsuspecting people and uses the current period scientific discourse and cultural norms to turn them into willing participants. Biopower is the type of power that actually affects us in our daily lives. Now if there's any part of you that hears this and thinks the obvious next step is to try to do away with this biopower, Foucault would probably ask you to rethink your strategy.

权力动力学已成为我们世界中不可分割的部分。你永远无法消除它们。无论你如何抵抗权力的微观策略，如何质疑时代的主流叙事，对福柯而言，至多只能期待一个稍微更可容忍的世界。长远来看，我们所能期待的或许只是另一套可能压迫更多人的新主流叙事。你可以尽情对抗权力、对抗叙事、对抗元叙事。

Power dynamics at this point are an inexorable part of the world we live in. You're never gonna get rid of them. No matter how much you resist the micro tactics of power, no matter how much you question the dominant narratives of your time, all you can ever hope for, to Foucault, is a world that's a little more tolerable. All you can ever hope for is a different set of dominant narratives that may, for all we know in the long run, oppress more people than the current set of dominant narratives. Fight all you want against power, against narratives, against meta narratives.

尽管去抗争。但在行动前，福柯希望我们都暂停片刻，想清楚你准备用何种元叙事来替代现有体系。感谢收听，我们下期再会。

Fight all you want. But before you do, Foucault would want us all to take a second to stop and understand what you're replacing those metanarratives with. Thank you for listening. I'll talk to you next time.