自我的科技 06

Technologies of the Self 自我的科技

Michel Foucault 傅柯

Summary 結語

To prove suffering, to show shame, to make visible humility and exhibit modesty – these are the main features of punishment. Penitence in early Christianity is a way of life acted out at all times by accepting the obligation to disclose oneself. It must be visibly represented and accompanied by others who recognize the ritual. This approach endured until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

證明痛苦，表現羞愧，彰顯謙卑，表示溫恭，這些都是懲罰的特色。在早期基督教，悔罪是一種無時無刻都在演出的生活，方式是接受表白自己的義務。還要有其他人出席代表跟陪伴，這樣儀式才能被承認。這個方法一直持續到十五及十六世紀。

Tertullian uses the term publicatio suito characterize exomologesis. Publicatio sui is related to Seneca’s daily self-examination, which was, however, completely private. For Seneca, exomologesis or pulicatio sui doesn’t imply verbal analysis of deeds or thoughts; it is only a somatic and symbolic expression. What was private for the Stoics was public for the Christians.

帖圖里安使用公開審察來表現自我省察的特色。公開審察跟西尼卡的日常自我省察有密切關係，只是後者完全私下而為。對於西尼卡，自我省察或公開審察並不意味著以文詞分析行為或思想，它只是一種身體跟符號的表達。禁欲學派私下所為的，基督教公開來做。

What were its functions? First, this publication was a way to rub out sin and to restore the purity acquired by baptism. Second, it was also to show a sinner as he is. That’s the paradox at the heart of exomologesis; it rubs out the sin and yet reveals the sinner. The greater part of the act of penitence was not telling the truth of sin but showing the true sinful being of the sinner. It was not a way for the sinner to explain his sins but a way to present himself as a sinner.

它的功用是什麼？首先，公開儀式是一種藉由浸禮來消除原罪，恢復清淨的方式。其次，它也顯示原罪者的真實面貌。那就是自我省察核心的弔詭：它消除原罪，卻顯露原罪者。悔罪的大部份過程不是道出原罪的真相，而是顯露原罪者的真實的原罪人生。它不是一種讓原罪者解釋自己原罪的方式，而是一種表現自己是原罪者的方式。

Why should showing forth efface the sins? Exposé is the heart of exomologesis. In the Christianity of the first centuries, Christian authors had recourse to three models to explain the relation between the paradox of rubbing out sins and disclosing oneself.

為什麼顯露可以消除原罪？暴露就是自我省察的核心。在紀元後的最先的幾世紀的基督教，基督教作者曾採用三種模式，來解釋消除原罪跟顯露自己之間的弔詭關係。

The first is the medical model: One must show one’s wounds in order to be cured. Another model, which was less frequent, was the tribunal model of judgement. One always appeases one’s judge by confessing faults. The sinner plays devil’s advocate, as will the devil on the Day of Judgement.

第一種是醫藥模式。我們必須顯露傷痕，才能療治。第二種較少採用，是法官判決模式。我們總是以坦白認罪，來求得法官寬恕。原罪者扮演魔鬼的辯護士，如同魔鬼在世界末日的審判時所為。

The most important model used to explain exomologesis was the model of death, of torture, or of martyrdom. The theories and practices of penance were elaborated around the problem of the man who prefers to die rather than to compromise or abandon the faith. The way the martyr faces death is the model for the penitent. For the relapsed to be reintegrated into the church, he must expose himself voluntarily to ritual martyrdom. Penance is the affect of change, of rupture with self, past and world. It’s a way to show that you are able to renounce life and self, to show that you can face and accept death. Penitence of sin doesn’t have as its target the establishing of an identity but serves instead to mark the refusal of the self, the breaking away from self: Ego non sum, ego. This formula is at the heart of publicatio sui. It represents a break with one’s past identity. These ostentatious gestures have the function of showing the truth of the state of being the sinner. Self-revelation is at the same time self-destruction.

被用來解釋自我省察的最重要的模式，是死亡模式，又稱為苦刑及烈士模式。悔罪的理論跟做法的建構，繞著寧可死亡，也不願妥協或放棄信仰的人所面臨的問題。烈士面臨死亡的方式就是悔罪的模式。原罪的累犯者必須要自願接受烈士儀式的考驗，才能被接受重回教堂。悔罪就是悔改的誠意，跟自我、過去及世俗的一切做一了斷。這是一種方式表示你能夠放棄生命跟自我，顯示你能夠面對及接受死亡。原罪的悔罪並不以建立一種身份作為它的目標，而是用來表示拒絕原有自我，與之脫離。這種公式是公開審察的核心。它代表一種跟過去的身份的脫離。這些誇張的姿態的功用是顯露原罪者的存在真相。自我顯露同時也是自我毀滅。

The difference between Stoic and Christian traditions is that in the Stoic tradition examination of the self, judgement, and discipline show the way to self-knowledge by superimposing truth about self through memory, that is, by memorizing the rules. In exomologesis, the penitent superimposes truth about self by violent rupture and dissociation. It is important to emphasize that this exomologesis is not verbal. It is symbolic, ritual, and theatrical.

禁欲學派跟基督教傳統之間的不同是，禁欲學派對於自我的審察、判決與懲戒可以導致了解自己，因為透過記憶，而將自我的真相層層揭露，換言之，記著層層規範。在自我省察時，悔罪者將有關自我的層層真相一刀劈開地揭露。要強調的是，這種自我省察不是文詞上，而是象徵符號、儀式跟戲劇化。

VI 第六章

During the fourth century we find a very different technology for the disclosure of the self, exagoreeusis, much less famous than exomologesis but more important. This one is reminiscent of the verbalizing exercises in relation to a teacher/master of the pagan philosophical schools. We can see the transfer of several Stoic technologies of the self to Christian spiritual techniques.

在第四世紀，我們找到一種新的科技來做自我的顯露，這種科技不像自我省察那麼著名，但是更加重要。它讓人回想起在異教徒學派的有關長老的文辭辯論。我們能看到好幾種禁欲學派自我的科技，轉移成基督教精神的技巧。

At least one example of self-examination, proposed by John Chrysostom, was exactly the same form and the same administrative character as that described by Seneca in De Ira. In the morning we must take account of our expenses, and in the evening we must ask ourselves to render account of our conduct of ourselves, to examine what is to our advantage and what is prejudicial against us, with prayers instead of indiscrete words. That is exactly the Senecan style of self-examination. It also important to note that this self-examination is rare in Christian literature.

至少有一個自我省察的例子，由約翰、克萊梭思頓所提出，跟帖依拉的西尼卡所描述的形式完全相同，實行程序也一樣。在夜晚，我們必須要求自己將我們自己的行為描述一遍，以省察什麼對自己有利，什麼是對我們不利的偏見，用禱告而不是攏統的文詞。這確實是西尼卡自我省察的方式。值得注意的是，這種自我省察在基督教的記載中甚為少見。

The well-developed and elaborated practice of the self-examination in monastic Christianity is different from the Senecan self-examination and very different from the Chryssostom and from exomologesis. This new kind of practice must be understood from the point of view of two principles of Christian spirituality : obedience and contemplation.

在基督教修道院，自我省察的做法，已經充份發展和精心建造，不同於西尼卡的自我省察，更不同於克萊梭思頓及自我修行。要了解這種新的西尼卡的自做法，必須從基督教精神的兩個原理：服從跟沉思。

In Seneca, the relationship of the disciple with the master was important, but it was instrumental and professional. It was founded on the capacity of the master to lead the disciple to a happy and autonomous life through good advice. The relationship would end when the disciple got access to that life.

在西尼卡，門徒跟老師的關係非常重要，但那是工具性跟專業性。這關係的基礎建立於老師有能力透過循循善誘，領導門徒過快樂而自主的生活。當門徒得以接近那種生活時，那個關係就告結束。

For a long series of reasons, obedience has a very different character in monastic life. It differs from the Greco- Roman type of relation to the master in the sense that obedience isn’t based just upon a need for self-improvement but must bear on all aspects of a monk’s life. There is no element in the life of the monk which may escape from this fundamental and permanent relation of total obedience to the master. John Cassian repeats an old principle from the oriental tradition: “Everything the monk does without permission of his master constitutes a theft.” Here obedience is complete control of behavior by the master, not a final autonomous state. It is a sacrifice of the self, of the subject’s own will. This is the new technology of the self.

因為各種理由，修道院的服從性質大不相同。它不同於希臘及羅馬時代，那種門徒跟長老的關係，因為服從不是建立在自我改進的需求上，而是跟僧侶生活的各方面有關。在僧侶的生活，對長老的絕對服從是根本而永遠，舉止投足，莫不牽連。約翰、凱西安曾一再強調東方傳統的一個古老原理：「僧侶所做所為，若無長老允許，形同盜竊。」在此，服從是由長老完全控制其行為，而非最後的自主狀態。這是自我的犧牲，出於個人自己的自願。這就是自我的新科技。

The monk must have the permission of his director to do anything, even die. Everything he does without permission is stealing. There is not a single moment when the monk can be autonomous. Even when he becomes a director himself, he must retain the spirit of obedience. He must keep the spirit of obedience as a permanent sacrifice of the complete control of behavior by the master. The self must constitute self through obedience.

僧侶必須得到他執事的允許，才能做任何事，甚至是死亡。若無允許，他所做的任何事都視同盜竊。沒有一個時刻，僧侶能夠獨立自主。即使當他自己成為執事，他必須保持服從的精神。他必須維持服從的精神，當著是行為完全由長老支配的永遠犧牲。

The second feature of monastic life is that contemplation is considered the supreme good. It is the obligation of the monk to turn his thoughts continuously to that point which is God and to make sure that his heart is pure enough to see God. The goal is permanent contemplation of God.

修道院生活的第二個特徵是，沉思被認為是最崇高的善。僧侶有義務要將他的思想轉向上帝的恩典，並確定他的心是足夠純淨見到上帝。目標是永遠的沉思上帝。

The technology of the self, which developed from obedience and contemplation in the monastery, presents some peculiar characteristics. Cassian gives a rather clear exposition of this technology of the self, a principle of self-examination which he borrowed from the Syrian and Egyptian monastic traditions.

從修道院的服從跟沉思所發展出來的自我的科技，有好幾個特徵。凱西安對於這自我的科技，說明得非常清楚，他從敘利亞跟埃及的修道院傳統借用過來一個自我省察的原理。

This technology of self-examination of Oriental origins, dominated by obedience and contemplation, is much more concerned with the thought than with action. Seneca had placed his stress on action. With Cassian the object is not past actions of the day; it’s the present thoughts. Since the monk must continuously turn his thoughts toward God, he must scrutinize the actual course of his thought. This scrutiny thus has as its object the permanent discrimination between thoughts which lead toward God and those which don’t. This continual concern with the present is different from the Senecan memorization of deeds and their correspondence with rules. It is what the Greeks referred to with a pejorative word: logismoi (“cogitations, reasoning, calculating thought”).

起源於東方的自我省察的科技，受到服從跟沉思的支配，關心思想勝過於行動。西尼卡曾經強調行動。對於凱西安，目標不是當天所發生過的行動，而是目前的思想。因為僧侶必須不斷地將他的思想轉向上帝，他必須審察他思想的過程。這種審察的目標，因此是要不斷地區別，何者是朝向上帝的思想，何者是偏離。這種不斷地關心到目前，是相當不同於西尼卡對於行為的記憶及對於規範的認同。希臘人提到他們常用貶抑的字眼：老謀深算（計謀、暗算、算計的思想）。

There is an etymology of logismoi in Cassian, but I don’t know if it’s sound co-agitationes. The spirit is polukinetos, “perpetually moving” (First Conference of Abbot Serenus 4). In Cassian, perpetual mobility of spirit is the spirit’s weakness. It distracts one from contemplation of God (First Conference of Abbot Nesterus 13)

凱西安的這個老謀深算有其字源，但是我不認為此字聽起來有何煽動之意。其精神是變動不已「不斷地變換」。就而言卡西安，精神的不斷流動是精神的弱點。它擾亂我們無法沉思上帝。

The scrutiny of conscience consists of trying to immobilize consciousness, to eliminate movements of the spirit that divert one from God. That means that we have to examine any thought which presents itself to consciousness to see the relation between act and thought, truth and reality, to see if there is anything in this thought which will move our spirit, provoke our desire, turn our spirit away from God. The scrutiny is based on the idea of a secret concupiscence.

良心的審察就是要設法將意識穩定下來，減少精神的流動擾亂我們偏離上帝。這意味著我們必須檢查出現在意識的任何思想，才能看出行動跟思想、真理及現實之間的關係，看出是否思想中有任何事情，觸動我們的精神，激發我們的欲望，使我們的精神偏離上帝。這種審察的基礎是我們有蠢蠢欲動的秘密雜念。

There are three major types of self-examination: first, self-examination with respect to thoughts in correspondence to reality (Cartesian); second, self-examination with respect to the way our thoughts relate to rules (Senecan), third, the examination of self with respect to the relation between the hidden thought and an inner impurity. At this moment begins the Christian hermeneutics of the self with its deciphering of inner thoughts. It implies that there is something hidden in ourselves and that we are always in a self-illusion which hides the secret.

自我省察有三種主要的形式：首先，有關思想的自我省察，要跟現實一致（笛卡爾）；其次，有關思想跟規則的關係的自我省察。第三、有關隱密思想跟內在的雜念的關係的自我省察。笛卡爾對於自我的解釋學及其內在思想的詮釋，就是在此刻開始。它意味著，我們內在有隱密的東西，我們總是處於自我幻想，因此秘密隱而不宣。

In order to make this kind of scrutiny, Cassian says we have to care for ourselves, to attest our thoughts directly. He gives three analogies. First is the analogy of the mill (First Conference of Abbot Moses 18). Thoughts are like grains, and consciousness is the mill store. It is our role as the miller to sort out amongst the grains those which are bad and those which can be admitted to the mill store to give the good flour and good bread of our salvation.

為了從事這種審察，凱西安說，我們必須照顧自己，直接檢視我們的思想。他提供三個比喻：第一、磨坊的比喻。思想像穀物，意識是磨坊間。我們磨坊主人的角色就是要在那些穀物當中分配，哪些是壞的，哪些是能夠允許進入磨坊間，磨成麵粉，製成我們救贖的麵包。

Second, Cassian makes military analogies (First Conference of Abbot Serenus 5). He uses the analogy of the officer who orders the good soldiers to march to the right, the bad to the left. We must act like officers who divide soldiers into two files, the good and the bad.

第二、凱西安以軍事做比喻。他比喻軍官命令守規矩的士兵站到右邊，不守規矩的士兵站到左邊。我們必須像軍官，將士兵分成守規矩跟不守規矩兩種行列。

Third, he uses the analogy of a money changer (First Conference of Abbot Moses 20 – 22). Conscience is the money changer of the self. It must examine coins, their effigy, their metal, where they came from. It must weigh them to see if they have been ill used. As there is the image of the emperor on money, so must the image of God be on our thoughts. We must verify the quality of the thought: This effigy of God, is it real? What is its degree of purity? Is it mixed with desire or concupiscence? Thus, we find the same image as in Seneca, but with a different meaning.

第三、他以錢幣兌換者做比喻。良心是自我的兌換者。它必須檢視錢幣、肖像跟金屬，以及錢幣的來源。它必須秤錢幣重量，看看是否足夠成份。正如錢幣上有皇帝肖像，我們的思想亦須有上帝形象。我們必須驗證我們思想的品質。這個上帝的肖像，是否是真實？他純淨的程度到哪裡？他有混雜欲望跟雜念嗎？因此，我們發現有跟西尼卡相同的形像，但是意義不一樣。

Since we have as our role to be a permanent money changer of ourselves, how is it possible to make this discrimination and recognize if a thought is of good quality? How can this “discrimination” actively be done? There is only one way: to tell all thoughts to our director, to be obedient to our master in all things, to engage in the permanent verbalization of all our thoughts. In Cassian, self-examination is subordinated to obedience and the permanent verbalization of thoughts. Neither is true of Stoicism. By telling himself not only his thoughts but also the smallest movements of consciousness, his intentions, the monk stands in a hermeneutic relation not only to the master but to himself. This verbalization is the touchstone or the money of thought.

既然我們以自己充當永遠的錢幣兌換者自居，我們要如何做此區別，並認出是否我們的思想是好的品質。我們如何主動地從事此「區別」？只有一個方法：將我們所有的思想都告訴執事，凡事服從我們的長老，將我們的思想不斷地用文詞表達出來。這兩種在禁欲學派不曾見過。僧侶不但表達他的思想，而且連意識的細微末節，他的意圖，這樣不但是跟長老，而且也是跟自己，處於解釋的關係。

Why is confession able to assume this hermeneutical role? How can we be the hermeneuts of ourselves in speaking and transcribing all of our thoughts? Confession permits the master to know because of his greater experience and wisdom and therefore to give better advice. Even if the master, in his role as a discriminating power, doesn’t say anything, the fact that the thought has been expressed will have an effect of discrimination.

為什麼告解能夠扮演解釋的角色？我們如何在言談及描述我們的思想之際，成為我們自己的解釋者？告解使長老了解我們，這樣他才能以其豐富的經驗跟智慧，給予金玉良言。即使長老在扮演區別是非的角色時沒說什麼，思想已經被表達出來的本身，就具有區別是非的效果。

Cassian gives an example of the monk who stole bread. At first he can’t tell. The difference between good and evil thoughts is that evil thoughts can’t be expressed without difficulty, for evil is hidden and un-stated. Because evil thoughts cannot be expressed without difficulty and shame, the cosmological difference between light and dark, between verbalization and sin, secrecy and silence, between God and the devil, may not emerge. Then the monk prostrates himself and confesses. Only when he confesses verbally does the devil go out of him. The verbal expression is the crucial moment (Second Conference of Abbot Moses II). Confession is a mark of truth. This idea of the permanent verbal is only an ideal. It is never completely possible. But the price of permanent verbal was to make everything that couldn’t be expressed into a sin.

凱西安舉一個僧侶偷竊麵包的例子。起初，他遲遲無法啟口。善惡思想之間的區別是，邪惡的思想表達頗為困難，因為惡念總是隱而不宣。既然邪惡的思想表達頗為困難，而且令人羞愧，光明跟黑暗，文詞表達跟原罪，秘密跟沉默，上帝跟惡魔，就無法出現舉世皆準的區別。

In conclusion, in the Christianity of the first centuries, there are two main forms of disclosing self, of showing the truth about oneself. The first is exomologesis, or a dramatic expression of the situation of the penitent as sinner which makes manifest his status as sinner. The second is what was called in the spiritual literature exagoresis. This is an analytical and continual verbalization of thoughts carried on in the relation of complete obedience to someone else. This relation is modelled on the renunciation of one’s own will and of one’s own self.

總而言之，在紀元後，前幾世紀的基督教，有兩種主要的表露自己，表達有關自我的真理的方式。第一種是自我省察，也就是悔罪者充當著罪犯者，聲嘶力竭地表達的情境，這使他充當原罪者的地位甚為顯著。第二種是以前所謂精神文字的自我修行。這是一種藉著分析及不斷以文詞表達思想，來表示對於某個人絕對的服從。這個關係以捨棄自我意志及自我本身為模範。

There is a great difference between exomologesis and exagoreusis; yet we have to underscore the fact that there is one important element in common: You cannot disclose without renouncing. Exomologesis had as its model martyrdom. In exomologesis, the sinner had to “kill” himself through ascetic macerations. Whether through martyrdom or through obedience to a master, disclosure of self is the renunciation of one’s own self. In exagoresis, on the other hand, you show that, in permanently obeying the master, you are renouncing your will and yourself. This practice continues from the beginning of Christianity to the seventeenth century. The inauguration of penance in the thirteenth century is an important step in its rise.

在自我省察跟自我修行之間有一個很大的差異。可是不可諱言的是，有一個重要的因素是相同的。表露跟捨棄息息相關。自我省察有烈士情操充當榜樣。在自我省察，原罪者必須透過禁欲的凌虐來「殺死」自己。無論是憑藉烈士情操或透過服從長老，自我的表露等於就是自我的捨棄。另一方面，在自我修行時，你表現出你永遠地服從長老，事實上就是捨棄了你的意志跟你自己。這種做法從基督教開始延續到十七世紀。悔罪的做法在十三世紀開始，是其興盛的重要的開端。

This theme of self-renunciation is very important. Throughout Christianity there is a correlation between disclosure of the self, dramatic or verbalized, and the renunciation of self. My hypothesis from looking at these two techniques is that it’s the second one, verbalization, which becomes more important. From the eighteenth century to the present, the techniques of verbalization have been reinserted in a different context by the so called human sciences in order to use them without renunciation of the self but to constitute, positively, a new self. To use these techniques without renouncing oneself constitutes a decisive break.

自我捨棄的主題是非常重要的。在基督教，自我的表露，無論是戲劇化或文詞化，跟自我的捨棄，彼此密不可分。我觀察這兩種技巧所得到的結論是，第二種，也就是文詞化的表露，變得更加重要。從十八世紀到現在，文詞表露的技巧曾經透過各種學科，一再地被鑲嵌在不同的文本，這樣他們才能夠表露自我，而不必捨棄自我。代替的，他們因此積極地創造了一個新的自我。使用這些技巧而沒有捨棄自我，形成關鍵性的突破。

From: Martin, L.H. et al (1988) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. London: Tavistock. pp.16-49.

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw