自我的科技

Technologies of the Self 自我的科技

Michel Foucault 傅柯

I

When I began to study the rules, duties, and prohibitions of sexuality, the interdictions and restrictions associated with it, I was concerned not simply with the acts that were permitted and forbidden but with the feelings represented, the thoughts, the desires one might experience, the drives to seek within the self any hidden feeling, any movement of the soul, any desire disguised under illusory forms. There is a very significant difference between interdictions about sexuality and other forms of interdiction. Unlike other interdictions, sexual interdictions are constantly connected with the obligation to tell the truth about oneself.

當我開始研究性的規則、責任、與禁制,及跟性相關的禁忌及限制,我不僅關心到被允許及被禁止的行為,而且關心到性所代表的感覺、思想、我們可能會經驗到的慾望、想在自我內面尋求潛藏感覺的欲念、靈魂的任何舉動,以及偽裝成幻想形式的慾望。在有關性的禁忌跟其它禁忌的形式之間,有一個重大的差異。不同於其它的禁忌,性的禁忌跟自我的真實告白息息相關。

Two facts may be objected: first, that confession played an important part in penal and religious institutions for all offences, not only in sex. But the task of analyzing one’s sexual desire is always more important than analyzing any other kind of sin.

有兩個我們並不樂見的事實:首先,在性行為或在刑事及宗教的機構,不論任何罪行,供詞都舉足輕重。但是性慾望的分析的工作,總是比分析任何其它種類的罪行更加重要。

I am also aware of the second objection: that sexual behavior more than any other was submitted to very strict rules of secrecy, decency, and modesty so that sexuality is related in a strange and complex way both to verbal prohibition and to the obligation to tell the truth, of hiding what one does, and of deciphering who one is.

第二個不樂見的事實,我亦耳熟能詳:性的行為所受到的規定,要隱密、正當、及不能明目張膽,比任何其它行為都來得嚴格。因此,性跟文詞的禁忌,真實自我告白的責任,性行為隱而不宣,做了要能自圓其說等關係,是既微妙又奇怪。

The association of prohibition and strong incitations to speak is a constant feature of our culture. The theme of the renunciation of the flesh was linked to the confession of the monk to the abbot, to telling the abbot everything that he had in mind.

禁忌跟強烈要表達的激勵相關連,是我們文化歷久不衰的特色。肉體的禁慾跟僧侶對修道院院長的懺罪,告訴院長心中綺思妄念,彼此有密切關係。

I conceived of a rather odd project: not the evolution of sexual behavior but the projection of a history of the link between the obligation to tell the truth and the prohibitions against sexuality. I asked: How had the subject been compelled to decipher himself in regard to what was forbidden? It is a question of the relation between asceticism and truth.

我構想一個相當古怪的計畫:不是使性行為進化,而是要投射出真實自我告白的責任,跟性的禁忌相關的歷史。我問:關於性被禁制,人是如何被迫詮釋自己?這個問題牽涉到禁慾跟真理的關係。

Max Weber posed the question: If one wants to behave rationally and regulate one’s action according to true principles, what part of one’s self should one renounce? What is the ascetic price of reason? To what kind of asceticism should one submit? I posed the opposite question: How have certain kinds of interdictions required the price of certain kinds of knowledge about oneself? What must one know about oneself in order to be willing to renounce anything?

馬克、韋伯提出這個問題:假如我們想要理性行為,依照真實原則規範自己的行為,我們應該摒棄哪一部份的自我?因為理性而禁欲所付出的代價是多少?我們應該屈服於什麼種類的禁欲?我則提出相反的問題:某些種類的禁制是如何要求自我了解的某些種類付出代價?關於自己,我們必須了解什麼,我們才願意摒棄欲望?

Thus I arrived at the hermeneutics of technologies of the self in pagan and early Christian practice. I encountered certain difficulties in this study because these practices are not well known. First, Christianity has always been more interested in the history of its beliefs than in the history of real practices. Second, such a hermeneutics was never organized into a body of doctrine like textual hermeneutics. Third, the hermeneutics of the self has been confused with theologies of the soul-concupiscence, sin, and the fall from grace. Fourth, a hermeneutics of the self has been diffused across Western culture through numerous channels and integrated with various types of attitudes and experience so that it is difficult to isolate and separate it from our own spontaneous experiences.

因此,我從異教徒及早期的基督教的做法,尋找到自我的科技的解釋學。我在研究過程遭遇一些困難,因為這些做法並不廣為人知。首先,基督教對於自身的信仰的歷史的興趣,總是勝過於對於實際做法的歷史。其次,這樣一種解釋學永遠無法像文本解釋學那樣,可以組織成為思想的體系。況且,自我的解釋學常常跟渴望靈魂、原罪、及人從上帝恩典墮落的神學混淆不清。最後,自我的解釋學透過無數管道,瀰漫整個西方文化,融入各種態度跟經驗當中,我們很難將它跟我們自己自發的經驗區分出來。

Context of study 研究的內容

My objective for more than twenty-five years has been to sketch out a history of the different ways in our culture that humans develop knowledge about themselves: economics, biology, psychiatry, medicine, and penology. The main point is not to accept this knowledge at face value but to analyze these so-called sciences as very specific “truth games” related to specific techniques that human beings use to understand themselves.

過去二十五多年來,我的目標是要描繪出在我們文化的歷史,人類是如何百花齊放地發展有關自己的知識:經濟學、生物學、精神分析學、醫學、及刑罰學。要點不是要按照表面價值接受這個知識,而是要分析這些所謂的科學,當著明確的「真理遊戲」,因為它們跟人類用來了解自己的明確科技密不可分。

As a context, we must understand that there are four major types of these “technologies,” each a matrix of practical reason: (I) technologies of production, which permit us to produce, transform, or manipulate things; (2) technologies of sign systems, which permit us to use signs, meanings, symbols, or signification; (3) technologies of power, which determine the conduct of individuals and submit them to certain ends or domination, an objectivizing of the subject; (4) technologies of the self, which permit individuals to effect by their own means or with the help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality.

做為文本,我們必須了解,這些「科技」主要有四種,各有實用理由的基型:第一,生產的科技,使我們能夠產生、轉換、或操作物品。第二,符號系統的科技,使我們能夠使用符號、意義、象徵、或涵義。第三、權力的科技,決定個人的行為,使他們隸屬於某種目的或支配,也就是人被物化。第四、自我的科技、使個人能夠自力救濟,或憑藉他人幫助有所作為,不論是對自己的身體跟靈魂、思想、行為、及存在方式,以便轉變自己,為了獲得某種快樂、純淨、智慧、完美、或永恆的境界。

These four types of technologies hardly ever function separately, although each one of them is associated with a certain type of domination. Each implies certain modes of training and modification of individuals, not only in the obvious sense of acquiring certain skills but also in the sense of acquiring certain attitudes. I wanted to show both their specific nature and their constant interaction. For instance, one sees the relation between manipulating things and domination in Karl Marx’s Capital, where every technique of production requires modification of individual conduct not only skills but also attitudes.

這四種科技甚少分別運作,儘管他們各自跟某種支配密不可分。每種科技都潛含某種的訓練的模氏跟個人的轉變,不但在獲得某種技巧時言之鑿鑿,在習得某種態度方面也是再三強調。我要做的就是指出他們明確的特性及其經常的互動。例如,在馬克思的資本論,我們看到操作物品及支配的關係,每種生產的技巧都要求個人行為的轉變,不僅在技巧方面,而且在態度方面。

Usually the first two technologies are used in the study of the sciences and linguistics. It is the last two, the technologies of domination and self, which have most kept my attention. I have attempted a history of the organization of knowledge. with respect to both domination and the self. For example, I studied madness not in terms of the criteria of formal sciences but to show how a type of management of individuals inside and outside of asylums was made possible by this strange discourse. This contact between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self I call governmentality.

通常,前兩種科技被運用在科學跟語言學。最吸引我的注意的是後兩種,支配自我的科技。我曾經企圖描繪有關支配及自我的知識的組織史,。例如,我研究瘋狂時,不是採用正式科學的標準用詞,而是要指出,這種怪異的學問,是如何使精神病院裡裡外外的個人的管理成為可能。這種對於別人的支配及對自我的支配的科技之間的連繫,我稱之為政府威權。

Perhaps I’ve insisted too much in the technology of domination and power. I am more and more interested in the interaction between oneself and others and in the technologies of individual domination, the history of how an individual acts upon himself, in the technology of self.

也許,我過於強調支配跟權力的科技。我對於自我跟別人之間的互動,對於支配個人的科技,對於個人如何自力救濟,以及自我的科技,越來越感興趣。

The development of technologies of the self

自我科技的發展

I wish to sketch out the development of the hermeneutics of the self in two different contexts which are historically contiguous: (1) Greco-Roman philosophy in the first two centuries A.D. of the early Roman Empire and (2) Christian spirituality and the monastic principles developed in the fourth and fifth centuries of the late Roman Empire.

我希望以兩種淵源相鄰的不同的文本,來描繪出自我解釋學的發展:其一、在紀元前兩世紀,早期羅馬帝國時的希臘及羅馬哲學。其二、在第四及第五世紀,羅馬帝國晚期所發展的基督教精神跟修道院禁慾原則。

Moreover, I wish to discuss the subject not only in theory but in relation to a set of practices in late antiquity. These practices were constituted in Greek as epimelesthai sautou, “to take care of yourself”, “the concern with self”, “to be concerned, to take care of yourself”.

除外,我希望討論這個主題,不但在理論上,而且在遠古相關的一套做法。這些做法在希臘形成一種「照顧自己」,「關懷自己」,「關心及照顧自己」等學問。

The precept “to be concerned with oneself” was, for the Greeks, one of the main principles of cities, one of the main rules for social and personal conduct and for the art of life. For us now this notion is rather obscure and faded. When one is asked “What is the most important moral principle in ancient philosophy?” the immediate answer is not, “Take care of oneself” but the Delphic principle, gnothi sauton (“Know yourself”).

「關心自己」的教導,對於希臘人而言,是城市生活的主要原則之一,也是社會及私人行為,及生活藝術的主要規則之一。對我們而言,這個觀念現在相當模糊暗淡。當一個人被問道:「在古代哲學,最重要的道德原則是什麼?」立即的回答不是「照顧自己」,而是當時太陽神廟的原則「了解自己」。

Perhaps our philosophical tradition has overemphasized the latter and forgotten the former. The Delphic principle was not an abstract one concerning life; it was technical advice, a rule to be observed for the consultation of the oracle. “Know yourself” meant “Do not Suppose yourself to be a god”. Other commentators suggest that it meant “Be aware of what you really ask when you come to consult the oracle”.

也許,我們哲學傳統過於強調後者,忘記前者。太陽神廟的原則不是有關人生的抽象原則,而是技術性的勸告,當你墾求預言的諮商時必須要遵守的規則。「了解自己」的意思是「不要以為你自己是神。」還有些評論家說,這意味著:「當你前來墾求預言的諮商時,先搞清楚你真正要問的什麼」

In Greek and Roman texts, the injunction of having to know yourself as always associated with the other principle of having too take care of yourself, and it was that need to care for oneself that brought the Delphic maxim into operation. It is implicit in all Greek and Roman culture and has been explicit since Plato’s Alcibiades . In the Socratic dialogues, in Xenophon, Hippocrates, and in the Neoplatonist tradition from Albinus on, one had to be concerned with oneself. One had to occupy oneself with oneself before the Delphic principle was brought into action. There was a subordination of the second principle to the former. I have three or four examples of this.

在希臘跟羅馬的文本,必須了解自己的指令,總是跟必須照顧自己的原則息息相關。使太陽神廟「了解自己」的箴言可以運作的,就是這個「照顧自己」的需要。在所有希臘跟羅馬的文化,這個需要隱而不宣,自從柏拉圖的阿希比底斯表白以來,這個需要則明目張膽。在蘇格拉底的對話錄,薛諾豐、希波克拉提思、及阿比那思以降的新柏拉圖傳統,我們都必須關心到自己。要實踐太陽神廟的「了解自己」,我們必須要先專注於自己。「了解自己」的原則隸屬於「照顧自己」的原則。我有三四個例子可以證明。

In Plato’s Apology, 29e, Socrates presents himself before his judges as a master of epimeleia heautou. You are “not ashamed to care for the acquisition of wealth and for reputation and honor,” he tells them, but you do not concern yourselves with yourselves, that is, with “wisdom, truth and the perfection of the soul.” He, on the other hand, watches over the citizens to make sure they occupy themselves with themselves.

在柏拉圖的「答辯篇」,蘇格拉底在法官面前表現自己,像個能言善道的大師。「你們喜歡獲得財物、名聲及榮譽,無須羞愧。」他侃侃而談,「但是你們並沒有關心你們自己,換言之,沒關心智慧、真理及靈魂的完美。」在另一方面,他觀察一般市民,以確定他們是否專注於自己。

Socrates says three important things with regard to his invitation to others to occupy themselves with themselves: (1) His mission was conferred on him by the gods, and he won’t abandon it except with his last breath. (2) For this task he demands no reward; he is disinterested; he performs it out of benevolence. (3) His mission is useful for the city more useful than the Athenians military victory at Olympia – because in teaching people to occupy themselves , he teaches them to occupy themselves with the city.

關於激發一般市民專注於自己,蘇格拉底提到三件事情:第一,他的使命感是由於眾神所賜予,只要他一氣尚存,他決不會放棄。第二,從事此使命,他並未要求酬勞,他非為私利,他的所言所為動機均出於悲憫。第三,他的使命對於城邦的用途遠大過於對於雅典在奧林比亞的軍事勝利,因為在教導人民專注於自己時,他教導他們專注於城邦。

Eight centuries later, one finds the same notion and the same phrase in Gregory of Nyssa’s treatise, On Virginity, but with an entirely different meaning. Gregory did not mean the movement by which one takes care of oneself and the city; he meant the movement by which one renounces the world and marriage and detaches oneself from the flesh and, with virginity of heart and body, recovers the immortality of which one has been deprived. In commentating on the parable of the drachma (Luke 15:8 – 10), Gregory exhorts one to light the lamp and turn the house over and search, until gleaming in the shadow one sees the drachma within. In order to recover the efficacy which God has printed on one’s soul and which the body has tarnished, one must take care of oneself and search every corner of the soul (De Virg. 12). We can see that Christian asceticism, like ancient philosophy, places itself under the same sign of concern with oneself. The obligation to know oneself is one of the elements of its central preoccupation. Between these two extremes – Socrates and Gregory of Nyssa – taking care of oneself constituted not only a principle but also a constant practice.

八世紀以後,我們在格雷哥瑞的拿莎論貞潔論文中,發現有相同的觀念跟相同的詞句,但是意義完全不同。格雷哥瑞並沒有提到什麼舉動,我們用來照顧自己跟城邦,他所提到的舉動是放棄世俗的生活、婚姻、摒除肉體的需求,以貞潔的心靈跟身體,恢復我們所喪失的永恆感。在評論希臘銀幣的寓言時,格雷哥瑞勸告我們點亮油燈,走出房屋搜尋,在陰暗的微光中,我們才能看到內在的銀幣。為了要恢復上帝烙印在我們靈魂上,但是卻讓肉體給泯沒的洞察力,我們必須要照顧我們自己,搜索靈魂的每個角落。我們能夠看出,基督教的禁慾論,就像古代的哲學一樣,將自己立場置放在關懷自我的相同符號下。人有了解自己的責任,專注自己的核心元素之一。在蘇格拉底跟格雷哥瑞這兩個極端之間,照顧自己不但形成一個原則,而且也是一個固定的做法。

I have two more examples. The first Epicurean text to serve as a manual of morals was the Letter to Menoeceus (Diogenes Laërtius 10.122 – 38). Epicurus writes that it is never too early, never too late, to occupy oneself with one’s soul. One should philosophize when one is young and also when one is old. It was a task to be carried on throughout life. Teachings about everyday life were organized around taking care of oneself in order to help every member of the group with the mutual work of salvation.

我還有兩個例子。第一個是可充當道德手冊的伊壁鳩魯文本是致門諾西思信札。伊壁鳩魯寫著:專注於自我的靈魂,永不嫌早,也永不嫌晚。年輕時跟年老時,都應該沉思人生哲學。此工作應該終生實行之。有關日常生活的教導就是繞著照顧自己的主題打轉,為了幫忙每位團體的成員,互相救贖。

Another example comes from an Alexandrian text, On the Contemplative Life, by Philo of Alexandria. He describes an obscure, enigmatic group on the periphery of Hellenistic and Hebraic culture called the Therapeutae, marked by its religiosity. It was an austere community, devoted to reading, to healing meditation, to individual and collective prayer, and to meeting for a spiritual banquet (agapä, “feast”). These practices stemmed from the principle task, concern for oneself (De Vita Cont. 36).

另外一個例子來自亞歷山大的文本,菲洛、亞歷山大所寫的「人生沉思錄」。他描述一個罕為人知的神秘團體,處於希臘跟希伯來文化的邊緣,被稱為治療教派,以其特有宗教引人注意。那是一個禁慾苦行的社團,專注於閱讀,於治療的沉思,於個人跟集體的祈禱,於精神誕宴的聚會。這些做法起源於原則的工作,就是關懷自己。

This is the point of departure for some possible analysis for the care of the self in ancient culture. I would like to analyze the relation between care and self-knowledge, the relation found in Greco-Roman and Christion traditions between the care of oneself and the too well-known principle “Know yourself”. As there are different forms of care, there are different forms of self.

對於古代文化自我的照顧,我們分析到這兒暫告一個段落。我想要分析的是照顧跟自我知識的關係,在希臘及羅馬的傳統,尋找到自我的照顧跟眾所周知的原則「了解你自己」之間的關係。因為照顧的種類各有不同,自我的形式也各有不同。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: