Archive for the ‘Foucault 傅柯’ Category

傅柯性史04

October 30, 2009

傅柯性史04
The History of Sexuality by Foucault
Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

It will be said that if many people today affirm this repression, the reason is that it is historically evident. And if they speak of it so abundantly, as they have for such a long time now, this is because repression is so firmly anchored, having solid roots and reasons, and weighs so heavily on sex that more than one denunciation will be required in order to free ourselves from it; the job will be a long one.

有人將會說,今天假如有許多人肯定性壓抑是存在,理由是從歷史來看是太明顯。但是假如他們如此不厭其煩惱提到性,如同長久以來所為,那是因為壓抑是如此的根深柢固,對性的壓力是如此重大,以致他們需要不只一次的抗拒,才能替自己解脫壓抑。這工程將是漫長。

All the longer, no doubt, as it is in the nature of power—to be repressive, and to be especially careful in repressing useless energies, the intensity of pleasures, and irregular modes of behavior. We must not be surprised, then, if the effects of liberation vis-à-vis this repressive power are so slow to manifest themselves; the effort to speak freely about sex and accept it in its reality is so alien to a historical sequence that has gone unbroken for a thousand years now, and so inimical to the intrinsic mechanisms of power, that it is bound to make little headway for a long time before succeeding in its mission.

壓抑的時間將會更漫長,就權力的本質而言是無庸置疑,因為要壓抑無用的精力,強烈的歡樂,及踰矩的行為,需要格外的謹慎。假如跟這種壓抑的力量當面相碰,解放的效果要很慢才能顯現,也就不足為奇。企圖對性肆無忌憚談論,並在現實中坦然接受,從千年來一成不變的歷史內涵來看,是甚為罕見的,而且跟權力的結構本質格格不入。所以一定是費了很長時間無多大進展之後,任務才可能成功。

One can raise three serious doubts concerning what I shall term the “ respressive hypothesis.” First doubt: Is sexual repression truly an established historical fact? Is what first comes into view—and consequently permits one to advance an initial hypothesis—really the accentuation or even the establishment of a regime of sexual repression beginning in the seventeenth century? This is a properly historical question.

對於我所提出「壓抑的假設」這個命題,我們可提出三個疑問:第一個疑問:性壓抑真的是經過證實的歷史事實嗎?我們首先看到的,結果使我們能夠提出最初的假設,真的就是開始於十七世紀性壓抑體制所強化,甚至是所建立嗎?這是歷史是否符合的問題。

Second doubt: do the workings of power, and in particular those mechanisms that are brought into play in societies such as ours, really belong primarily to the category of repression? Are prohibition, censorship, and denial truly the forms through which power is exercised in a general way, if not in every society, most certainly in our own? This is a historico-theoretical question.

第二個疑問:權力的結構,特別是像我們這樣的社會所運作的機制,真的就是主要屬於壓抑的種類?禁制、審查、及拒絕,真的就是在我們自己的社會,即使不是每個社會,權力通常賴以運作的方式嗎?這是歷史跟理論是否搭配的問題。

A third and final doubt: Did the critical discourse that addresses itself to repression come to act as a roadblock to a power mechanism that had operated unchallenged up that point, or is it not in fact part of the same historical network as the thing it denounces ( and doubtless misrepresents) by calling it “ repression”? Was these really a historical rupture between the age of repression and the critical analysis of repression? This is a historical-political question.

最後第三個疑問:權力機制勢不可遏地運作到今,處理壓抑的批判論述能充當阻擋它的路障嗎?批判論述本身,儘管稱乎它所抨擊的事物為「壓抑」(毫無疑問是認錯對象),其實不就是跟它一樣,都是相同的歷史網絡的一部份?這些真的是壓抑的時代跟對壓抑批判分析的時代之間的歷史的斷裂?這是歷史跟政治是否對應的問題。

My purpose in introducing these three doubts is not merely to construct counterarguments that are symmetrical and contrary to those outlined above; it is not a matter of saying that sexuality, far form being repressed in capitalists and bourgeois societies, has on the contrary benefited from a regime of unchanging liberty; nor is a matter of saying that power in societies such as ours is more tolerant than repressive, and that the critique of repression, while it may give itself airs of a rupture with the past, actually forms part of a much older process and, depending on how one chooses to understand this process, will appear either as a new episode in the lessening of prohibitions, or as a more devious and discreet form of power.

我介紹這三個疑問,目的不僅僅是要建構反駁論點,針對前面所述的各項論點逐一反駁。我並非是要說,性在資本主義及布爾喬亞的社會絲毫沒有受到壓抑,反而是因為這樣的體制的自由競爭而獲得利益。我也不是要說,像我們這樣的社會對性是包容,而不是壓抑。對於性壓抑的批判,我們雖然擺出跟以前決裂的姿態,實際上是先前的過程的餘緒。端賴你選擇如何來理解這個過程,我們的批判似乎只是減少性的禁制的一個新的插曲,或僅是在權力運作模式較為委婉跟謹慎。

The doubts I would like to oppose to the repressive hypothesis are aimed less at showing it to be mistaken than at putting it back within a general economy of discourses on sex in modern societies since the seventeenth century. Why has sexuality been so widely discussed, and what has been said about it? What were the effects of power generated by what was said? What are the links between these discourses, these effects of power, and the pleasures that were invested by them? What knowledge was formed as a result of this linkage?

我對壓抑的假設提出這些疑問,目的不是要先顯示它是錯誤的,而是要將它放置回到自十七世紀以來現代社會對於性的論述的一般運作。為什麼性如此廣泛受到討論,以及對於性大家都在討論些什麼?大家所討論的會產生怎樣的權力影響?這些論述,權力的影響,以及這些論述所投注期望的歡樂,他們之間的關聯是什麼?這些關聯結果形成怎樣的知識?

The object, in short, is to define the regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality in our part of the world. The central issue, then ( at least in the first instance), is not to determine whether one says yes or no to sex, whether one formulates prohibitions or permissions, whether one asserts its importance or denies its effects, or whether one refines the words one uses to designate it; but to account for the fact that it is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said.

簡而言之,我的目的是要替權力、知識、及歡樂的體制下個定義,因為他們維持我們對於人類的性的論述,使我們得以參與這個世界。主要的議題(至少在第一個例子)因此不是要決定我們對於性是接受或拒絕,我們規劃的是禁制或容許,我們是重視或漠視性的影響,或是我們談論性時,措詞是否要委婉,而是要說明性被談論這個事實,要找出是誰在做論述,他們論述時立場跟觀點是什麼,以及是什麼機構在激勵人們談論性,然後記錄並散播所論述的內容。

What is at issue, briefly, is the over-all “ discursive fact,” the way in which sex is “ put into discourse.” Hence, too, my main concern will be to locate the forms of power, the channels it takes, and the discourses it permeates in order to reach the most tenuous and individual modes of behavior, the paths that give it access to the rare or scarcely perceivable forms of desire, how it penetrates and controls everyday pleasure—all this entailing effects that may be those of refusal, blockage, and invalidation, but also incitement and intensification: in short, the “ polymorphous techniques of power.”

簡而言之,爭議所在是這個全面性的「論述的事實」,也就是,性是如何被擺置於論述之中。因此,我的主要關心將是要找出權力的形式,權力運作的管道,權力滲透的論述,這樣我們才有辦法抵達最脆弱而個人化的行為模式,以及權力是透過怎樣的途徑,才得以滲透到罕見而難於覺察的慾望的形式,跟權力是如何貫穿並控制我們日常的歡樂。所有這些接續而來的影響,可能都是拒絕、阻擋、及徒勞無功,但也可能是激勵跟強化。總而言之,就是「權力的技巧的多重形態」。

And finally, the essential aim will not be to determine whether these discursive productions and these effects of power lead one to formulate the truth about sex, or on the contrary falsehoods designed to conceal that truth, but rather to bring out the “ will to knowledge” that serves as both their support and their instrument.

最後,最主要的目的,不是要決定這些論述的產生跟權力的影響,會導致我們構想有關性的真相,或相反的,構想被設計來隱藏真相的假相,而是要顯示「追求知識的意志」,來充當論述產生的支持跟工具。

Let there be no misunderstanding: I do not claim that sex has not been prohibited or barred or masked or misapprehended since the classical age: nor do I even assert that it has suffered these things any less from that period on than before. I do not maintain that the prohibition of sex is a ruse; but it is a ruse to make prohibition into the basic and constitutive element from which one would be able to write the history of what has been said concerning sex starting from the modern epoch.

請大家不要誤解:我並沒有宣稱,自十七世紀以來,性就沒有受到禁制、禁止、掩蓋或誤解。我甚至也沒有主張,從十七世紀開始,性比前受到較少的禁制、禁止、掩蓋或誤解。我沒有斷言,對於性的禁制是一種策略,我是說,策略所在是將性的禁制變成基本而組成的因素,根據這個因素,我們才能夠寫作從現代開始的有關性的討論的歷史。

All these negative elements—defenses, censorships, denials—which the repressive hypothesis groups together in one great central mechanism destined to say no, are doubtless only component parts that have a local and tactical role to play in a transformation into discourse, a technology of power, and a will to knowledge that are far from being reducible to the former.

性受到壓抑的假設將這些負面的因素,諸如防衛、審查、及拒絕等,全部聚集在一個註定要否定性存在的中央的機制裡。可是,這些負面因素,無疑的,僅是扮演局部及策略的角色所組成的部份。論述的轉移,權力的技巧,跟追求知識的意志相比,後者完全無法被化簡進入前者。

In short, I would like to disengage my analysis from the privileges generally accorded the economy of scarcity and the principles of rarefaction, to search instead for instances of discursive production ( which also administer silences, to be sure), of the production of power ( which sometimes have the function of prohibiting), of the propagation of knowledge ( which often cause mistaken beliefs or systematic misconceptions to circulate); I would like to write the history of these instances and their transformations.

總而言之,我想要將我的分析,跟一般性以稀為貴及多就不稀罕所給予的特權劃清界線,這樣我才能相反地尋找到論述產生的例子(當然,也有壓抑及沉默),權力產生的例子(有時有禁制的功用),以及知識的傳播的例子(時常引起錯誤的信仰或制度的誤解流傳)。我想要寫作有關這些例子跟他們轉變的歷史。

A first survey made from this viewpoint seems to indicate that since the end of the sixteenth century, the “ putting into discourse of sex,” far from undergoing a process of restriction, on the contrary has been subjected to a mechanism of increasing incitement; that the techniques of power exercised over sex have not obeyed a principle of rigorous selection, but rather one of dissemination and implantation of polymorphous sexualities; and that the will to knowledge has not come to a halt in the face of a taboo that must not be lifted, but has persisted in constituting—despite many mistakes, of course-a science of sexuality.

這些觀點乍看起來,似乎指示著,自從十七世紀末以來,「性成為論述」絲毫沒有經歷受到限制的過程,相反的,還屈從於越來越受到獎勵的機制;對於性所運用的權力的技巧,並沒有遵循嚴格選擇的法則,而是將多重形態的性予以擴散跟安置;追求知識的意志面臨不可碰觸的禁忌時,並沒有因而怯步,反而持續建構
一套性的科學,雖然難免錯誤重重。

It is these movements that I will now attempt to bring into focus in a schematic way, bypassing as it were the repressive hypothesis and the facts of interdiction or exclusion it invokes, and starting from certain historical facts that serve as guidelines for research.

我現在企圖將這些運動的過程,以基型模式,會聚處理。我繞過性壓抑的假設的理論,及其所訴諸於的性被禁制及排除的事實,而從某些歷史的事實開始,並以這些事實充當研究的指標。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

傅柯性史03

October 29, 2009

傅柯性史03
The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault 傅柯:性史
Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

Chapter 1: We, Other Victorians
第一章:維多利亞時期另類人

But it appears to me that the essential thing is not this economic factor, but rather the existence in our era of a discourse in which, sex, the revelation of truth, the overturning of global laws, the proclamation of a new day to come, and the promise of a certain felicity are linked together.

我覺得最重要的不是這個經濟的因素,而是我們的時代存在著一個論述:性,跟真理的啟發,全球律法的推翻,新日子來臨的宣告,及某種幸福的許諾,被關聯在一起。

Today it is sex that serves as a support for the ancient form—so familiar and important in the West—of preaching A great sexual sermon—which has had its subtle theologians and its popular voices—has swept through our societies over the last decades; it has chastised the old order, denounced hypocrisy, and praised the rights of the immediate and the real: it has made people dream of a New City. The Franciscans are called to mind. And we might wonder how it is possible that the lyricism and religiosity that long accompanied the revolutionary project have, in Western industrial societies, been largely carried over to sex.

宣揚福音,在以前的西方世界,是耳熟能詳的重大事情,今天則是由性來充當理論基礎。過去幾十年來,我們的社會瀰漫一個偉大的性解放的福音,大家對性的鼓吹趨之若鶩,宛如性的微妙成了神學家口中的福音。這個福音抨擊舊有的社會秩序,揭發假道學,讚賞當下的時刻及真實的事物。它使人們渴望「新天堂」,跟聖法蘭西斯的聖靈自然的福音有幾分神似。我們可能會大為驚奇:抒情跟宗教,長久以來都是革命大業的夥伴,在今天西方的工業社會,已經被轉移到性。

The notion of repressed sex is not, therefore, only a theoretical matter. The affirmation of a sexuality that has never been more rigorously subjugated than during the age of they hypocritical, bustling, and responsible bourgeoisie is coupled with the grandiloquence of a discourse purporting to reveal the truth about sex, modify its economy within reality, subvert the law that governs it, and change its future.

因此,性受到壓抑的觀念不僅僅是理論上的事情。在假道學,忙碌,及盡責任的布爾喬亞的時代,飽受嚴格管制的性,現在受到肯定,因為它伴隨著新論述的大力鼓吹及顯示有關性的真理,修正性在現實社會的經濟活動,顛覆管制性的法律,並且改變性在未來的地位。

The statement of oppression and the form of the sermon refer back to one another; they are mutually reinforcing. To say that sex is not repressed, or rather that the relationship between sex and power is not characterized by repression, is to risk falling into a sterile paradox. It not only runs counter to a well-accepted argument, it goes against the whole economy and all the discursive “ interests” that underlie this argument.

壓迫的陳述跟宣揚福音的模式互相牽連,他們互相奧援。說性沒有受到壓抑,或是說性跟權力之間的關係不是由壓抑表現特色,那等於是甘冒兩邊落空的詭論。它不但跟眾所接受的論點相對立,而且違背作為論點基礎的整個經濟跟所有的論述的「利益」。

This is the point at which I would like to situate the series of historical analyses that will follow, the present volume being at the same time an introduction and a first attempt at an overview: it surveys a few historically significant points and outlines certain theoretical problems.

就是在這個觀點上,我想要用來定位我後來的一系列的有關性的歷史分析。目前這一冊既是導論,也是首次企圖做個概要:它調查一些性歷史的重要時期,並略述某些理論上的問題。

Briefly, my aim is to examine the case of a society which has been loudly castigating itself for its hypocrisy for more than a century, which speaks verbosely of its own silence, take great points to relate in detail the things it does not say, denounces the powers it exercises, and promises to liberate itself from the very laws that have made it function.

簡言之,我的目的是要審察,社會是怎樣因為自己的假道學公開申斥自己達百年之久,又不厭其煩地述說自己的壓抑沉默,殫精竭力去詳述它自己的禁忌不語,抨擊自己運作的權力,承諾要從社會運轉的法律規範下解放自己。

I would like to explore not only these discourses but also the will that sustains them and the strategic intention that supports them. The question I would like to pose is not, “ Why are we repressed? “ but rather, Why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves, that we are repressed? By what spiral did we come to affirm that sex is negated? What led us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence?

我想要探討的不僅是這些論述,而且是怎樣的意志維持他們,以及什麼策略的意圖支持他們。我想要提出的問題不是「為什麼我們被壓抑?」而是「為什麼我們說我們受到壓抑時,我們對於我們的最近,我們的現在,以及我們自己的不認同,是如此激烈,又如此怨恨?以怎樣的迴旋思考,我們幡然肯定說:性是被否決。什麼事情迫使我們誇張地顯示:性是我們隱藏的東西,坦承性是我們壓抑沉默的東西?」

And we do all this by formulating the matter in the most explicit terms, by trying to reveal it in its most naked reality, by affirming it in the positivity of its power and its effects. It is certainly legitimate to ask why sex was associated with sin for such a long time—although it would remain to be discovered how this association was formed, and one would have to be careful not to state in a summary and hasty fashion that sex was “ condemned”—but we must also ask why we burden ourselves today with so much guilt for having once made sex a sin.

我們肯定、顯示及坦承,都是斬釘截鐵地闡述,設法掀開裏子呈現,在權力及其影響的積極運作中,肯定性受到壓抑。我們確實有足夠理由問:為什麼如此久的時間性跟原罪聯想在一起?另外一個有待發現的問題是:這種聯想是如何形成?我們必須謹慎,不要總而言之地匆促下結論:性是「天譴」。但是我們也要問:性被認為是原罪是以前所為,為什麼我們今天要讓自己負擔如此的罪惡感?

What paths have brought us to the point where we are “ at fault” with respect to our own sex? And how have we come to be a civilization so peculiar as to tell itself that, through an abuse of power which has not ended, it has long “ sinned” against sex? How does one account for the displacement which, while claiming to free us from the sinful nature of sex, taxes us with a great historical wrong which consists precisely in imaging that nature to be blameworthy and in drawing disastrous consequences from that belief?

是什麼途徑引導我們相信:關於我們自己的性,我們是「該受遣責」?我們是如何成為如此特別的文明,告訴自己說:經由迄今尚未停止的權力濫用,這個文明對於性長久以來都是「有原罪」?我們既然宣稱要解放自己免於性的原罪性質,而冤屈就是在於想像性的原罪性質是應該受到譴責的,然後從那個信仰導致災難般的結果,那我們要如何來說明使我們負擔性的歷史冤屈的錯誤位置?

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

傅柯性史02

October 28, 2009

傅柯性史02

But have we not liberated ourselves from those two long centuries in which the history of sexuality must be seen first of all as the chronicle of an increasing repression? Only to a slight extent, we are told.

但是我們不是已經從那漫長的兩世紀解放出來?我們難道還要首先以壓抑逐漸增加的編年表來看待性的歷史?有人說,五十步笑百步而已。

Perhaps some progress was made by Freud; but with such circumspection, such medical prudence, a scientific guarantee of innocuousness, and so many precautions in order to contain everything, with no fear of “ overflow,” in that safest and most discreet of spaces, between the couch and discourse: yet another round of whispering on a bed.

也許佛洛伊德開拓了某些進展,但是過於小心翼翼,過於醫療的慎重,要擔保性的科學研究無關風化,無傷大雅,無「氾濫成災」之虞,在那個安全而謹慎的研究空間,在沙發躺椅跟精神分析師的治療,不會牽涉到床褥之間的纏綿呢喃。

And could things have been otherwise? We are informed that if repression has indeed been the fundamental link between power, knowledge, and sexuality, since the classical age, it stands to reason that we will not be able to free ourselves from it except at a considerable cost; nothing less than a transgression of laws, a lifting of prohibitions, an irruption of speech, a reinstating of pleasure within reality, and a whole new economy in the mechanisms of power will be required.

但是兩者怎麼可能風馬年不相及?我們被告知,若是自古以來,壓抑確實曾經是權力、知識、性之間的基本關聯,那麼顯而易見的,我們將無法解放自己免於壓抑,除非我們犧牲重大代價。那道道地地就是法律的逾越,禁令的撤銷,讓人談性無所忌諱,將歡愛重新放置回現實之中,這將需要現有的權力結構的整個重新調整。

For the least glimmer of truth is conditioned by politics. Hence, one cannot hope to obtain the desired results simply from a medical practice, nor from a theoretical discourse, however rigorously pursued. Thus, one denounces Freud’s conformism, the normalizing functions of psychoanalysis, the obvious timidity underlying Reich’s vehemence, and all the effects of integration ensured by the “ science ‘ of sex and the barely equivocal practices of sexology.
真理即使散發出些微光芒都會被政治權力宰割。因此,僅僅從醫學的治療,或從理論的論述,無論你多麼孜孜不倦從事,都不可能希望獲得你所預期的效果。所以,有人抨擊佛洛伊德的過於妥協權力結構,將精神分析學的功用體制化,是屈服於德帝國威權下的明顯怯懦,性的「科學研究」保證在的體制的影響之內,性學的做法模稜兩可。

The discourse on modern sexual repression holds up well, owing no doubt to how easy it is to uphold. A solemn historical and political guarantee protects it. By placing the advent of the age of repression in the seventeenth century, after hundreds of years of open spaces and free expression, one adjusts it to coincide with the development of capitalism: it becomes an integral part of the bourgeois order. The minor chronicle of sex and its trials is transposed into the ceremonious history of the modes of production; its trifling aspect fades from view.

對於現代性壓抑的論述表達得振振有詞,毫無疑問的,原因是要做這樣的論述實在輕而易舉。性在歷史跟政治方面受到嚴肅地擔保,使壓抑的論述言之成理。經過數百年的開放空間跟自由表達之後,我們將壓抑時代的來臨擺置在十九世紀,這樣我們可以將它調整跟資本主義的發展巧合。性的壓抑成為布爾喬亞社會秩序整體的一部份。性的次要編年記載跟性的審判,被調換成為生產模式隆重正式的歷史;性的瑣碎的層面隱而不見。

A principle of explanation emerges after the fact: if sex is so rigorously repressed, this is because it is incompatible with a general and intensive work imperative. At a time when labor capacity was being systematically exploited, how could this capacity be allowed to dissipate itself in pleasurable pursuits, except in those—reduced to a minimum—that enabled it to reproduce itself?

從這個事實背後出現一個解釋的原則:假如性是如此嚴格被壓抑,那是因為性跟普遍而強烈的工作倫理格格不入。在勞工的能力正在系統化地被剝削的時代,這個勞動力量如何能被允許消耗本身在歡樂的追逐上,除了被化約到最小數量?那就是使勞動力繁殖更多的勞動力!

Sex and its effects are perhaps not so easily deciphered; on the other hand, their repression, thus reconstructed, is easily analyzed. And the sexual cause—the demand fro sexual freedom, but also for the knowledge to be gained from sex and the right to speak about it—becomes legitimately associated with the honor of a political cause: sex too is placed on the agenda for the future. A suspicious mind might wonder if taking so many precaution in order to give the history of sex such an impressive filiation does not bear traces of the same old prudishness: as if those valorizing correlations were necessary before such a discourse could be formulated or accepted.

性跟性的影響可能無法如此簡單地來解釋。在另一方面,對於因此而被重新建構的性的壓抑,則是很容易分析。性的追求目標不但是要求性的自由,而且要從性那裡獲得知識,以及要有公開談論性的權利。這個目標在法律層面跟政治追求免於恐懼的目標不謀而合。

But there may be another reason that makes it so gratifying for us to define the relationship between sex and power in terms of repression: something that one might call the speaker’s benefit.

但是我們很滿意於用壓抑理論來定義性跟權力之間的關係,可能還有另一個理由:我們稱之為「說者為王」的利益。

If sex is repressed, that is, condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression. A person who holds forth in such language places himself to a certain extent outside the reach of power; he upsets established law; he somehow anticipates the coming freedom.

假如性被壓抑,換言之,性被判決為被禁止、不存在、及不可說,那麼一個人正在談論性的這個事實本身,就已經有了蓄意逾越的跡象。對於性話題侃侃而談的人,某個程度上,就已經將自己擺置於權力的掌控之外;他顛覆了現有的法律,他用某種方法,預先得到即將來臨的自由。

This explains the solemnity with which one speaks of sex nowadays. When they had to allude to it, the first demographers and psychiatrists of the nineteenth century thought it advisable to excuse themselves for asking their readers to dwell on matters so trivial and base.

這說明為什麼今天談論性話題是一件嚴肅的事情。十九世紀的人口統計學家跟精神分析師必須提到性時,最好先說句恕他們不好意思,要求對方去述說如此不堪而下流的事情。

But for decades now, we have found it difficult to speak on the subject without striking a different pose: we are conscious of defying established power, our tone of voice shows that we know we are being subversive, and we ardently conjure away the present and appeal to the future, whose day will be hastened by the contribution we believe we are making.

但是幾百年來,我們發現到,談論性必須要採取截然不同的姿態:我們心知肚明我們是公然挑釁既有的權力結構。我們說話的語調顯示,我們知道我們正在顛覆體制。我們熱烈地驅除現況,訴諸未來,因為我們相信,我們目前所做的貢獻,就是要使未來理想的加快實現。

Something that smacks of revolt, of promised freedom, of the coming age of a different law, slips easily into this discourse on sexual oppression. Some of the ancient functions of prophecy are reactivated therein.

在這個對於性壓迫的論述中,聽起來有點像是革命,自由的許諾,及新世界秩序的理想,輕易地就展現出來。在此,重新啟動的有點像是古代預言大同世界來臨的功能。

Tomorrow sex will be good again. Because this repression is affirmed, one can discreetly bring into coexistence concepts which the fear of ridicule or the bitterness of history prevents most of us from putting side by side: revolution and happiness; or revolution; or revolution and a different body, one that is newer and more beautiful; or indeed, revolution and pleasure.

明天性將會再恢復美好。因為性被壓抑已經被確認,我們能夠謹慎地讓革命跟幸福的理念共存。以前因為恐懼性受到嘲笑及性歷史的痛苦,我們不能夠坦蕩地讓革命跟幸福並列,或是革命跟嶄新身體並列,使我們的身體更新,更美麗,或讓革命跟歡樂並列。

What sustains our eagerness to speak of sex in terms of repression is doubtless this opportunity to speak out against the powers that be, to utter truths and promise bliss, to link together enlightenment, liberation, and manifold pleasures; to pronounce a discourse that combines the fervor of knowledge, the determination to change the laws, and the longing for the garden of earthly delights.

我們所以那麼熱切談論到性受到壓抑,毫無疑問,是因為我們要得到公開宣稱反抗既有權力結構的機會,表達真相,許諾幸福,將覺醒、解放及多重歡樂凝聚在一起,宣佈一個新的論述,可以將知識的狂熱,改變世界的決心,及對於塵世樂園的渴望,團結在一起。

This is perhaps what also explains the market value attributed not only to what is said about sexual repression, but also to the mere fact of lending an ear to those who would eliminate the effects of repression.

可能這就是為什麼廣受歡迎的市場價值,不但被歸功於有關性受到壓抑的論述,而且被歸功於大眾願意於傾聽那些設法要減少性受到壓抑的影響的人。

Ours is, after all, the only civilization in which officials are paid to listen to all and sundry impart the secrets of their sex: as if the urge to talk about it, and the interest one hopes to arouse by doing so, have far surpassed the possibilities of being heard, so that some individuals have even offered their ears for hire.

畢竟,我們的時代是唯一的文明社會,由官方付錢聘諮商師來傾聽各式各樣的人傾吐他們性的秘密。好似談論性的渴望,以及希望藉由談論性來引起人們對於性的興趣,價值就已經遠遠超過被傾聽的可能性,有些人甚至於以洗耳恭聽他人談論性的秘密當著職業。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

傅柯性史 01

October 27, 2009

Foucault 01
The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault 傅柯:性史
Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

Part One : We “ Other Victorians”
第一章:維多利亞時代另類人

For a long time, the story goes, we supported a Victorian regime, and we continue to be dominated by it even today. Thus the image of the imperial prude is emblazoned on our restrained, mute, and hypocritical sexuality.

有一種說法,常久以來,我們都信奉英國維多利亞時代的體制,甚至迄今,我們仍然繼續受到這個體制的支配。因此,當時大英帝國時代對於性的假道學所表現的拘謹、避而不談、及假惺惺的形象,依舊被我們津津樂道。

At the beginning of the seventeenth century a certain frankness was till common, it would seem. Sexual practices had little need of secrecy; words were said without undue reticence, and things were done without too much concealment; one had a tolerant familiarity with the illicit.

在十七世紀初,人們對於性似乎都普遍地坦蕩蕩。跟性有關的各種做法幾乎沒有什麼忌諱,談論到性,不必過份的閃爍其詞,從事性行為,也沒有什麼必要太多的躲躲藏藏。婚外性行為,人們司空見慣,見怪不怪。

Codes regulating the coarse, the obscene, and the indecent were quite lax compared to those of the nineteen century. It was a time of direct gestures, shameless discourse, and open transgressions, when anatomies were shown and intermingled at will, and knowing children hung about amid the laughter of adults: it was a period when bodies “ made a display of themselves.

跟十九世紀比較起來,當時對於公開性行為的踰越、淫穢放蕩及傷害風化,規範的法律是相當鬆弛的。那個時代,人們對於性行為直接坦然,大大方方論述,招搖踰越,身體解剖圖公開展示,隨意地夾雜性行為的暗示,大人放肆淫笑,也不避諱小孩在旁。那個時代,身體「展露自己,以為炫耀」。

But twilight soon fell upon this bright day, followed by the monotonous nights of the Victorian bourgeoisie. Sexuality was carefully confined; it moved into the home. The conjugal family took custody of it and absorbed it into the serious function. On the subject of sex, silence became the rule.

但是不久,黃昏就降臨到燦爛白天,跟隨而來的是,維多利亞時代布爾喬亞小資產階級沉悶的夜晚。性行為謹慎地被限制,並且被搬遷到家屋之內。結婚的家庭才能堂而皇之從事性行為,而且還被牽扯到生兒育女的嚴肅功用。至於性的話題,人們通常心照不宣。

The couple imposed itself as model, enforced the norm, safeguarded the truth, and reserved the right to speak while retaining the principle of secrecy. A single locus of sexuality was acknowledged in social space as well as at the heart of every household, but it was a utilitarian and fertile one: the parents’ bedroom.

父母要做表率,性行為要有夫妻的名份,敦倫的真相則諱莫如深,縱使保有談論的權利,也得遵照不可外揚的原則。在社會空間及每個家庭的核心,性行為唯一被認可的空間,是從功用及繁殖後代來考量的空間:父母的臥房。

The rest had only to remain vague; proper demeanor avoided contact with other bodies, and verbal decency sanitized one’ speech. And sterile behavior carried the taint of abnormality; if it insisted on making itself too visible, it would be designated accordingly and would have to pay the penalty.

其餘的事情則隱秘不清,端正的行為要避免外遇跟劈腿,合宜的言詞要謹慎自己的話語。行房而不能生育會被懷疑夫妻哪一方生理有毛病。假如不能生育被公開周知,被會認為不能傳宗接代,而必須付出懲罰的代價。

Nothing that was not ordered in terms of generation or transfigured by it could expect sanction or protection. Nor did it merit a hearing. It would be driven out, denied, and reduced to silence. Not only did it not exist, it had no right to exist and would be made to disappear upon its least manifestation—whether in acts or in words.

跟傳宗接代無關,或沒有藉此而顯得光明堂皇的性論述,不可能得到認可或保護。也無法得到公開的聽聞。這種性的論述將會被驅除,否認,並被迫不可發表。它不僅不存在,而且連存在的權利都沒有。只要稍露跡象,不論是行為或言詞,都會被迫消聲匿跡。

Everyone knew, for example, that children had no sex, which was why they were forbidden to talk about it, why one closed one’s eyes and stopped one’s ears whenever they came to show evidence to the contrary, and why a general and studied silence was imposed.

例如,大家都知道,小孩沒有性能力,這就是為什麼他們被禁止談論性,也是為什麼當小孩逐漸顯示有性的能力時,大家都裝聾作啞,視而不見。更是為什麼大家一方面視若無睹,又暗中觀察。

These are the characteristic features attributed to repression, which serve to distinguish it from the prohibitions maintained by penal law: repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, an affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know.

有些明顯的特徵,歸屬給壓抑,可以用來區別它跟刑法所維持的禁止有何不同。壓抑不但是充當一種要性匿跡不見的宣示,而且命令性要消除聲音,等於是肯定性的不存在,可是,又暗示地承認,關於性這碼事,沒有可以稱道,沒有什麼看頭,也沒有什麼好去知曉。

Such was the hypocrisy of our bourgeois societies with its halting logic. It was forced to make a few concessions, however. If it was truly necessary to make room for illegitimate sexualities, it was reasoned, let them take their infernal mischief elsewhere: to a place where they could be reintegrated, if not in the circuits of production, at least in those of profit.

我們布爾喬亞小資產階級邏輯矛盾的假道學,就是這副德性。可是,它也不得不做些讓步。它的推理是,既然不合法的性慾望實在有必要讓它們有個宣洩之所,就眼不見為淨地讓它們到其它地方去翻雲覆雨。既然跟生育子女的繁殖無關的性蠢蠢欲動,那就跟它們跟生財交易的繁榮合併去幹。

The brothel and the mental hospital would be those places of tolerance: the prostitute, the client, and the pimp, together with the psychiatrist and his hysteric—those “ other Victorians,’ as Steven Marcus would say—seem to have surreptitiously transferred the pleasures that are unspoken into the order of things that are counted.

妓院跟醫院就是這種社會可以包容性論述的地方:妓女、嫖客、老鴇,外加精神科醫生跟患性歇斯底里症的病人,就是哲學家馬庫色筆下所謂的「維多利亞時代另類人」。他們似乎偷偷地將可做不可說的性歡樂,挪移到被官方認可的社會秩序上。

Words and gestures, quietly authorized, could be exchanged there at the going rate. Only in those places would untrammeled sex have a right to ( safgely insularized ) forms of reality, and only to clandestine, circumscribed, and coded types of discourse. Everywhere else, modern Puritanism imposed its triple edict of taboo, nonexistence, and silence.

有關性的論述跟行為,悄悄地被默許,現在能夠依照實際進行的情況去從事。只有在那些場所,坦蕩自在的性,才擁有權利存在於安全隔離的現實環境中,才擁有權利去做某個限度,而且不公開的記錄方式的論述。在其它場所,現代的清教徒就給性貫徹禁忌、不存在、及不可說等三道敕令。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

自我的科技 06

August 31, 2009

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

自我的科技 05

August 29, 2009

The technologies of the Self 自我的科技 05

Michel Foucault 傅柯

Summary 結語

At the opposite pole is gymnasia (“to train oneself”). While meditatio is an imaginary experience that trains thought, gymnasia is training in a real situation, even if it’s been artificially induced. There is a long tradition behind this: sexual abstinence, physical privation, and other rituals of purification.

另外一個極端是健身(鍛鍊自己)。雖然冥思是鍛鍊思想的想像的經驗,健身則是在真實情境中鍛鍊,雖然還是人為誘導。背後的傳統頗為悠久:性的克制、生理的羸弱、及其他淨化的儀式。

Those practices of abstinence have other meanings than purification or witnessing demonic force, as in Pythagoras and Socrates. In the culture of the Stoics, their function is to establish and test the independence of the individual with regard to the external world. For example, in Plutarch’s De Genio Socratis, one gives oneself over to very hard sporting activities. Or one temps oneself by placing oneself in front of many tantalizing dishes and then renouncing these appetizing dishes. Then you call your slaves and give them the dishes, and you take the meal prepared for the slaves. Another example is Seneca’s eighteenth letter to Lucilius. He prepares for a great feast day by acts of mortification of the flesh in order to convince himself that poverty is not an evil and he can endure it.

那些克制的做法,尚有其它意義,除了淨化或見證惡魔力量, 如同在畢達哥拉斯及蘇格拉底所看到的。在禁欲學派的文化,他們的功用是要建立跟測驗個人有能力獨立於外在世界。例如,在普魯達奇的「蘇格拉底言行錄」,我們讓自己承受艱難的運動。或者在面前放置許多饈餐美食,然後再拒絕這些誘人垂涎的佳餚。然後你召喚來奴僕,賜予他們這些美食,你自己卻去食用準備給奴僕的食物。另一個例子是西尼卡給陸西利斯的十八封信。他在赴一個盛宴日之前,先讓自己挨餓受凍,以說服自己,貧窮並非邪惡,他能夠忍受。

Between these poles of training in thought and training in reality, melete and gymnasia, there are a whole series of intermediate possibilities. Epictetus provides the best example of the middle ground between these poles. He wants to watch perpetually over representations, a technique which culminates in Freud. There are two metaphors important from his point of view: the night watchman, who doesn’t admit anyone into town if that person can’t prove who he is (we must be “watchman” over the flux of thought), and the money changer, who verifies the authenticity of currency, looks at it, weighs and verifies it. We have to be money changers of our own representations of our thoughts, vigilantly testing them, verifying them, their metal, weight, effigy.

在鍛練思想跟在現實中接受鍛鍊,也就是冥思跟健身兩極之間,還有一整套的中間的可能性。伊比帖達斯提供兩極之間的中間地帶最好例子。他要永久地觀察象徵符號,這個技巧被佛洛伊德發揮得淋漓盡致。從他的觀點,有兩個隱喻非常重要:夜間守更人不允許任何人進城,假如那人無法證明身份(對於思想的流動,我們必然是「守更人」),另一個是金錢鋭兌換人驗明貨幣的真假、觀看、秤重及驗明。我們必須是自己思想的象徵符號的金錢兌換人,警覺地測試、驗明他們的金屬、重量及肖像真假。

The same metaphor of the money changer is found in the Stoics and in early Christian literature but with different meanings. When Epictetus says you have to be a money changer, he means as soon as an idea comes to mind you have to think of the rules you must apply to evaluate. For John Cassian, being a money changer and looking at your thoughts means something very different: It means you must try to decipher it, at the root of the movement which brings you the representations, there is or is not concupiscence or desire – if your innocent thought has evil origins; if you have something underlying which is the great seducer, which is perhaps hidden, the money of your thought.
金錢兌換人的相同隱喻在禁欲學派及早期的基督教文件中均可找到,但是意義不同。當伊比帖達斯說,你必需是一為金錢兌換人,他的意思是,當你想到一個觀念,你必須想到你必須運用來評估的原則。對於凱西安,當金錢兌換人並觀看你自己的思想,意義另有不同。它意味你必須設法詮釋它,對於符號來源的動作追根究底,假如你純真的思想有惡念,假如你潛意識有誘惑者作祟,那麼你思想的金錢,就會攙雜或多或少的個人成見或欲念。

In Epictetus there are two exercises: sophistic and ethical. The first are exercises borrowed from school: question-and-answer games. This must be an ethical game; that is, it must teach a moral lesson. The second are more ambulatory exercises. In the morning you go for a walk, and you test your reactions to that walk. The purpose of both exercises is control of representations, not the deciphering of truth. They are reminders about conforming to the rules in the face of adversity. A pre-Freudian machine of censorship is described word for word in the tests of Epictetus and Cassian. For Epictetus, the control of representations means not deciphering but recalling principles of acting and thus seeing, through self-examination, if they govern your life. It is a kind of permanent self-examination. You have to be your own censor. The meditation on death is the culmination of all these exercises.

在伊比帖達斯,運動有兩種:辯護跟倫理。第一種運動從學校的問答遊戲借用過來。內容必須是倫理遊戲,換言之,它必須是道德的教誨。第二種是更加靈活的運動。在早上你出去散步,你測驗你對散步的反應。這兩種運動的目的是符號的控制,而不是詮釋真理。他們提醒我們面對逆境時,要能堅守原則。伊比帖達斯跟凱西安的測驗詳盡地描述如後來佛洛伊德所發明的檢查儀器。對於伊比帖達斯,符號的控制的意思,不是詮釋,而是透過自我省察,回想行動跟觀看的原則,是否你的人生受其支配。這是一種永久的自我省察。你必須是你自己的檢查者。對於死亡的沉思是所有這些運動的最高潮。

In addition to letters, examination, and askesis, we must now evoke a fourth technique in the examination of the self, the interpretation of dreams. It was to have an important destiny in the nineteenth century, but it occupied a relatively marginal position in the ancient world. Philosophers had an ambivalent attitude toward the interpretation of dreams. Most Stoics are critical and skeptical about such interpretation. But there is still the popular and general practice of it. There were experts who were able to interpret dreams, including Pythagoras and some of the Stoics, and some experts who wrote books to teach people to interpret their own dreams. There were huge amounts of literature on how to do it, but the only surviving manual The Interpretation of Dreams by Artemidorus (second century A.D.). Dream interpretation was important because in antiquity the meaning of a dream was an announcement of a future event.

除了信件、省察、自我修行之外,我們必須召喚第四種技巧來省,省察自我,那就是夢的解釋。它在十九世紀舉足輕重,但是在古代世界,它只佔有比較邊緣的地位。哲學家對於夢的解釋態度模稜兩可。大部份的禁欲學派對於夢的解釋懷疑而批判。但是依舊有一些通俗的普遍做法。有專心能夠解釋夢,包含畢達哥拉斯及一些禁欲學派。還有些專家寫書教導人們解釋他們自己的夢。還有大量的史料討論如何解釋夢,但是僅存的一本書籍,是紀元後兩百年,阿帖米多拉思的夢的解釋。夢的解釋是重要的,因為在古代,夢的意義等於是未來事件的宣告。

I should mention two other documents dealing with the importance of dream interpretation for everyday life. The first is by Synesius of Cyrene in the fourth century A.D. He was well known and cultivated. Even though he was not a Christian, he asked to be a bishop. His remarks on dreams are interesting, for public divination was forbidden in order to spare the emperor bad news. Therefore, one had to interpret one’s own dreams; one had to be a self-interpreter. To do it, one had to remember not only one’s dreams but the events before and after. One had to record what happened every day, both the life of the day and the life of the night.

夢的解釋對日常生活的重要性,我應該提到其它兩樣文件。第一件是紀元後四百年,希尼西斯所寫。他學問廣博,聲名遠播。他雖然不是基督徒,他要求當主教。他對於夢的談話是有趣的,因為公開的算命被禁止,以免皇帝聽到不好的消息。因此,我們必須解釋自己的夢,我們必須是自己夢的解釋者。為了解釋自己的夢,我們必須記住不但是自己的夢,以及夢前夢後的事件。我們必須記錄每天所發生的事情,不論是白天或晚上的生活。

Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Discourses, written in the second century, records his dreams and explains how to interpret them. He believed that in the interpretation of dreams we receive advice from the gods about remedies for illness. With this work, we are at the crossing point of two kinds of discourses. It isn’t the writing of self’s daily activities that is the matrix of the Sacred Discourses but the ritual inscription of praises to the gods that have healed one.

阿瑞提底思的「神聖話語」寫於第二世紀,記錄他的夢,並解釋如何詮釋。他相信在夢的解釋時,我們接受神祇關於疾病治療的勸告。以這部作品,我們處於兩種論述的交會點。作為神聖論述的基型,不是日常活動的寫作,而是對於神祇治療我們的感恩儀式的銘記。

V 第五章

I wish to examine the scheme of one of the main techniques of the self in early Christianity and what it was as a truth game. To do so, I must look at the transition from pagan to Christian culture in which it is possible to see clear-cut continuities and discontinuities.

我希望檢查一下基督教早期自我的主要技巧的結構,以及作為真理遊戲的內容。為了如此做,我必須觀看從異教徒到基督教文化的變遷,這樣我們才可能看出輪廓清晰的延續跟斷裂。

Christianity is not only a salvation religion, it is a confessional religion. It imposes very strict obligations of truth, dogma, and canon, more so than do the pagan religions. Truth obligations to believe this or that were and are still very numerous. The duty to accept a set of obligations, to hold certain books as permanent truth, to accept authoritarian decisions in matters of truth, not only to believe certain things but to show that one believes, and to accept institutional authority are all characteristic of Christianity.

基督教不僅是救贖人生的宗教,也是告解悔罪的宗教。它比異教徒的宗教,賦予更嚴格的真理、教條、教規的義務。相信這個或那個的對於真理的義務多到不勝枚舉。諸如,接受一套義務的責任,擁有某些書當著永恆的真理,接受權威對於真理事物的決定,不但要相信某些事物,而且要表現出你相信,以及要接受教會的權威,這些都是基督教的特色。

Christianity requires another form of truth obligation different from faith. Each person has the duty to know who he is, that is, to try to know what is happening inside him, to acknowledge faults, to recognize temptations, to locate desires, and everyone is obliged to disclose these things to either to God or to others in the community and hence to bear public or private witness against oneself. The truth obligations of faith and the self are linked together. This link permits a purification of the soul impossible without self-knowledge.

基督教要求另外一種跟信仰不同的真理形式。每個人都有責任了解自己是什麼,換言之,設法了解自己內心到底發生什麼事,承認錯誤,認出誘惑,找出欲望,每個人有義務要將這些事情表露給上帝或社會的其它人知道,然後公開或私下見證到自己的缺失。信仰跟自我對於真理有義務,是密切相關的。這種關連意味著:假如沒有了解自己,靈魂的淨化是不可能。

It’s not the same in the Catholic as in the Reform tradition. But the main features of both are an ensemble of truth obligations dealing with faith, books, dogma, and one dealing with truth, heart and soul. Access to truth cannot be conceived of without purity of the soul. Purity of the soul is the consequence of self-knowledge and a condition for understanding the text; in Augustine: Quis facit vertatem (to make truth in oneself, to get access to the light).

天主教跟宗教改革的傳統,並不相同。但是兩者的主要特色是擁有一套的對於真理的義務,來處理信仰、書籍、教條、及我們如何處理真理、心靈跟靈魂。假如沒有靈魂的淨化,無從構想真理的接近。靈魂的淨化是了解自我的結果,也是了解文本的條件。也就是奧古斯丁懺悔錄所說:發覺自己身上的真理,接近光。

I’d like to analyze the ways by which, in order to get access to the light, the church conceived of illumination: the disclosure of the self. The sacrament of penance and the confession of sins are rather late innovations. Christians of the first centuries had different forms for discovering and deciphering truth about themselves. One of the two main forms of those disclosures can be characterized by the word exomologesis, or “recognition of fact”. Even the Latin fathers used this Greek term with no exact translation. For Christians it meant to recognize publicly the truth of their faith or to recognize publicly that they were Christians.

我想要分析一下,為了接近光,教堂用什麼方式想像啟明:自我的顯露。悔罪的儀式跟原罪的告解是相當晚期才革新的。前幾世紀的基督教徒有不同的方式用來發現跟詮釋有關自己的真理。這些顯露有 兩個主要的形式,其中之一可用「承認真相」一詞表現其特色。即使是通拉丁文的父執輩,他們直接用這個希臘術語,沒有明確的翻譯。對於基督教徒,這意味著要公開地承認他們信仰的真理,或是要公開地承認他們是基督教徒。

The word also had a penitential meaning. When a sinner seeks penance, he must visit a bishop and ask for it. In early Christianity, penitence was not an act or a ritual but a status imposed on somebody who had committed very serious sins.

這個字也有悔罪的意思。當一位有德行有過失者尋求悔罪,他必須拜訪主教,要求悔罪。在早期基督教,悔罪不是一種行為或儀式,而是某一位犯了嚴重原罪的人所享有的某種地位。

Exomologesis was a ritual of recognizing oneself as a sinner and a penitent. It had several characteristics. First, you were penitent for four to ten years, and this status affected your life. There was fasting, and there were rules about clothing and prohibitions about sex. The individual was marked so he couldn’t live the same life as others. Even after his reconciliation, he suffered from a number of prohibitions; for example, he could not marry or become a priest.

告解庭是一種儀式,承認自己是原罪違犯者及懺悔者。它有好幾個特性。首先,你從事懺悔,四到十年,這個地位影響你的一生。你從事齋戒,遵守有關服裝,跟禁制性生活的規範。你個人被劃分清楚,不可能跟別人過同樣的生活。即使告解獲得寬恕後,他還得忍受許多禁制,例如,他不能結婚或當僧侶。

Within this status you find the obligation of exomologesis. The sinner seeks his penance. He visits the bishop and asks the bishop to impose on him the status of a penitent. He must explain why he wants the status, and he has to explain his faults. This was not a confession; it was a condition of the status. Later, in the medieval period, exomologesis became a ritual which took place at the end of the period of penance just before reconciliation. This ceremony placed him among the other Christians. Of this recognition ceremony, Tertullian says that wearing a hair shirt and ashes, wretchedly dressed, the sinner stands humbled before the church. Then he prostrates himself and kisses the brethren’s knees (On Repentance 9 – 12). Exomologesis is not a verbal behavior but the dramatic recognition of one’s status as a penitent. Much later, in the Epistles of Jerome, there is a description of the penitence of Fabiola, a Roman lady. During these days, Fabiola was in the ranks of penitents. People wept with her, lending drama to her public chastisement.

在這個地位內,你找到告解的義務。違犯原罪者尋求悔罪。他拜訪主教,要求主教給予他作為悔罪者的地位。他必須解釋為什麼他要這個地位,他必需解釋他的過錯。這不是懺悔而已,這是一種地位的狀態。後來,在中世紀時期,告解庭成為一種儀式,在悔罪告一段落,寬恕之前舉行這個儀式將他置放於其他基督教徒中間。關於這個認罪的典禮,帖土里安說,穿著粗糙麻衣跟草鞋,服裝襤褸,原罪違犯者謙卑地站在教堂前面。然後他匍匐地上,親吻教友的膝蓋。告解庭不是光說不練的行為,而是戲劇性地承認自己作為悔罪者的地位。後來,傑洛米使徒書曾描述一位名叫費比奧拉的羅馬女士的悔罪。費比奧拉處地悔罪者的地位。人們跟她一起哭泣,替她公開的懲戒儀式增添不少戲劇化。

Recognition also designates the entire process that the penitent experiences in this status over the years. He is the aggregate of manifested penitential behavior, of self-punishment as well as of self-revelation. The acts by which he punishes himself are indistinguishable from the acts by which he reveals himself. Self-punishment and the voluntary expression of the self are bound together. This link is evident in many writings. Cyprian, for example, talks of exhibitions of shame and modesty. Penance is not nominal but dramatic.

認罪也指明悔罪者在過去幾年來,在這個地位所經驗的整個過程。他是各種被證明的悔罪行為,各種自我懲罰,及各種自我啟明的集大成者。他用於懲罰自己的行為,跟他啟明自己的行為,無法區分出來。自我懲罰跟自我的自願表達,密切掛鉤。這種關連在許多作品甚為顯著。例如,希普林曾談到羞愧跟謙遜的展示。悔罪不是虛有其名,而是搏命演出。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

自我的科技 04

August 28, 2009

The Technologies 自我的科技 04

Michel Foucault 傅柯

Summary 結語

Seneca’s De Ira (book 3) contains some traces of the old tradition. He describes an examination of conscience. The same thing was recommended by the Epicureans, and the practice was rooted in the Pythagorean tradition. The goal was purification of the conscience using a mnemonic device. Do good things, have a good examination of the self, and a good sleep follows together with good dreams, which is contact with the gods.

西尼卡的冥想集包含古老傳統的一些痕跡他描述良心的省察。伊璧鳩魯學派也推薦相同的做法,此做法同樣根源於畢達哥拉斯的傳統。目標是要以使用記憶的方式,淨化良心。做好事,好好省查自我,睡好眠,做好夢,就能跟眾神接觸。

Seneca seems to use juridical language, and it seems that the self is both the judge and the accused. Seneca is the judge and prosecutes the self so that the examination is a kind of trial. But if you look closer, it’s rather different than a court. Seneca uses terms related not to juridical but to administrative practices, as when a comptroller looks at the books or when a building inspector examines a building. Self-examination is taking stock. Faults are simply good intentions left undone. The rule is a means of doing something correctly, not judging what has happened in the past. Later, Christian confession will look for bad intentions.

西尼卡似乎使用司法的語言,似乎自我既是法官又是被告。西尼卡是法官,起訴自我,使得省察像是在審判。但是假如你仔細看,它跟法庭又相當不同。西尼卡使用的術語不是跟司法而是跟行政的做法有關,如同一位審計長檢查帳冊,或建築督察檢視建築物。自我省察被記載下來,錯誤的地方只是一些有心要做卻沒有完成。常規是要正確地行為的方式,而不是判斷過去所發生的事。後來,基督教則是省察內心有所不軌意圖。

It is this administrative view of life much more than the juridical model that is important. Seneca isn’t a judge who has to punish but a stock-taking administrator. He is a permanent administrator of himself, not a judge of his past. He sees that everything has been done correctly following the rule but not he law. It is not real faults for which he reproaches himself but rather his lack of success. His errors are of strategy, not of moral character. He wants to make adjustments between what he wanted to do and what he had done and reactivate the rules of conduct, not excavate his guilt. In Christian confession, the penitent is obliged to memorize laws but does so in order to discover his sins.

重要的就是這個行政觀點看人生,而不是司法模式。西尼卡不是懲罰惡行的法官,而是記載過失的行政官。他自己就是一位終身職的行政官,不是審判過去的法官。他負責每件事都遵照常規,而非法律安排妥當。他譴責自己,不是因為犯了什麼大錯,而是功敗垂成。他的錯誤是策略方式,不是道德品行。他要調整他所要做的跟他所曾經做的,然後重新制定行為的常規,而不是挖掘罪惡感。在基督教的告解,懺悔者必須記著行為的法則,這樣才能發現自己的原罪。

For Seneca it isn’t a question of discovering truth in the subject but of remembering truth, recovering a truth which has been forgotten. Second, the subject doesn’t forget himself, his nature, origin, or his supernatural affinity, but the rules of conduct, what he ought to have done. Third, the recollection of errors committed in the day measures the distinction between what has been done and what should have been done. Fourth, the subject is not the operating ground for the process of deciphering but is the point where rules of conduct come together in memory. The subject constitutes the intersection between acts which have to be regulated and rules for what ought to be done. This is quite different from the Platonic conception and from the Christian conception of conscience.

對於西尼卡,問題不是要在當事人身上發現真理,而是要記住真理,曾經被遺忘的真理。其次,當事人並沒有忘記自己、自己的天性、出身、或神靈的感應,而是忘記行為常規,沒有為所當為。第三,回想當日所犯下的錯誤,可以區分曾經做過些什麼及什麼是該做而未為。第四、當事人並不是解說過程的運作場所,而是行為常規在記憶時的會合點。當事人組成行為必須被規範疇的交會點,以及應該如何行為的常規。這是相當不同於柏拉圖的觀念,也不同於基督教的良心觀念。

The Stoics spiritualized the notion of anachoresis, the retreat of an army, the hiding of an escaped slave from his master, or the retreat into the country away from the towns, as in Marcus Aurelius’s country retreat. A retreat into the country becomes a spiritual retreat into oneself. It is a general attitude and also a precise act every day; you retire into the self to discover – but not to discover faults and deep feelings, only to remember rules of action, the main laws of behavior. It is mnemotechnical formula.

禁欲學派將隱士的觀念,軍隊的撤退、奴隸逃離主人的隱藏、或遠離城鎮,隱退到鄉間,如卡苦士的鄉間隱居,全部予以化為精神。隱退到鄉間成為精神隱退到自我。這是一般的態度跟日常正確的行為,你隱退到自我是為了發現,不是要發現錯誤及深層感覺,而是要記著行為常規,行為的主要規範。這是藉記憶提醒的通則。

IV 第四章

I have spoken of three Stoic techniques of the self: letters to friends and disclosure of self; examination of self and conscience, including a review of what was done, of what should have been done, and comparison of the two. Now I want to consider the third Stoic technique, askesis, not a disclosure of the secret self but a remembering.

我曾經談到禁欲學派有三個技巧:寫信給朋友,展露自我,省察自我及良心,包含審視所作所為,應為而未為,及兩者相比較。現在我要談到禁欲學派的第三個技巧,自我修行,但不是洩露秘密的自我,而是記憶。

For Plato, one must discover the truth that is within one. For the Stoics, truth is not in oneself but in the logoi, the teaching of the teachers. One memorizes what one has heard, converting the statements one hears into rules of conduct. The subjectivization of truth is the aim of these techniques. During the imperial period , one couldn’t assimilate ethical principles without a theoretical framework such as science, as for example in Lucretius’s De Rerum Naturae. There are structural questions underlying the practice of the examination of the self every night. I want to underscore the fact that in Stoicism it’s not the deciphering of the self, not the means to disclose secrecy, which is important; it’s the memory of what you’ve done and what you’ve had to do.

對於柏拉圖,我們必須在人自身之內發現真理。對於禁欲學派,真理不是自我本身,而是在理性,師長的教導。我們記住我們所曾經聽過,將我們所聽到的陳述轉變成行為的常規。臣服於真理是這些技巧的目標。在帝國時期,假如沒有理論的架構,如科學,如馬苦士的自然頌,我們無法吸收到倫理的原則。每夜自我的省察的做法,會有一些作為依據的結構性的問題。

In Christianity asceticism always refers to a certain renunciation of the self and of reality because most of the time your self is a part of that reality you have to renounce in order to get access to another level of reality. This move to attain the renunciation of the self distinguishes Christian asceticism.

在基督教,禁欲總是提到某些自我及真理的摒棄,因為大部份時刻,你的自我是你必須捨棄的那個真理的一部份,為了要接近另一層面的真理。想要完成自我的捨棄這個舉動,是基督教的禁欲論引人注意的地方

In the philosophical tradition dominated by Stoicism, askesis means not renunciation but the progressive consideration of self, or mastery over oneself, obtained not through the renunciation of reality but through the acquisition and assimilation of truth. It has as its final aim not preparation for another reality but access to the reality of this world. The Greek word for this is paraskeuazõ (“to get prepared”). It is a set of practices by which one can acquire, assimilate, and transform truth into a permanent principle of action. Alethia becomes ethos. It is a process of becoming more subjective.

在禁欲學派佔優勢的哲學的傳統,自我修行並不是意味著自我的捨棄,而是不斷地省察自我,或駕馭自我,得到不是憑藉捨棄真理,而是憑藉獲得真理並融入真理。它最後的目標不是替另外一個真理做準備,而是要接近這個世界的真理。這個希臘字意思是「準備」。憑這一套做法,我們可以獲得、吸收、及轉換真理成為永久的行動原則。真理成為倫理。過程變得更主觀。

What are the principle features of askesis? They include exercises in which the subject puts himself into a situation in which he can verify whether he can confront events and use the discourse with which he is armed. It is a question of testing the preparation. Is this truth assimilated enough to become ethics so that we can behave as we must when an event presents itself?

自我修行主要的特色是什麼?它們包含一些做法,讓當事人將自己置放於一種情境,他可以驗證是否他能憑藉所被教導的理論,面對事件。這是考驗準備是否充份的問題。這個真理是否被吸收到足以成為倫理,讓我們能夠行為如我們所當為,當面臨考驗的事件?

The Greeks charcterized the two poles of those exercises by the terms melete and gymnasia. Melete means “meditation”, according to the Latin translation, meditatio. It has the same root as epimelesthai. It is a rather vague term, a technical term borrowed from rhetoric. Melete is the work one undertook in order to prepare a discourse or an improvisation by thinking over useful terms and arguments. You had to anticipate the real situation through dialogue in your thoughts. The philosophical meditation is this kind of meditation: It is composed of memorizing responses and reactivating those memories by placing oneself in a situation where one can imagine how one would react. One judges the reasoning one should use in an imaginary exercise (“Let us suppose…) in order to test an action or event (for example, “How would I react?”). Imagining the articulation of possible events to test how you would react – that’s meditation.

希臘人用冥思跟健身來表縣這兩種運動的特色。冥思意思是「沉思」,依照拉丁文的翻譯,它跟了解有相同字根,是個相當模糊的術語,從修辭學借用過來的術語。冥思是我們準備論述,或臨機思索有用詞語及論辯時,所從事的公作。你必須在你腦海裡先預期對話時的真實情境。哲學的沉思就是這種沉思。它包含記憶回應及重新提起這些回應,以將自己置放於一種情境,我們能夠想像要如何反應。我們在想像的練習中(讓我們假設),判斷我們應該使用的推理,為了要測驗一個行動或事件(例如,我該如何反應?)想像如何表述可能的事件,以測驗你將如何反應,這就是冥思。

The most famous exercise of meditation is the premeditatio mallorum as practiced by the Stoics. It is an ethical, imaginary experience. In appearance it’s a rather dark and pessimistic vision about eidetic reduction.

冥思最著名的練習是禁欲學派所實行的「消災冥思」。那是一種倫理的想像的經驗。外表看起來,對於心象推論,持暗淡而悲觀的觀照。

The Stoics developed three eidetic reductions of future misfortune. First, it is not a question of imagining the future as it is likely to turn out but to imagine the worst which can happen, even if there’s little chance that it will turn out that way – the worst as certainty, as actualizing what could happen, not as calculation of probability. Second, one shouldn’t envisage things as possibly taking place in the distant future but as already actual and in the process of taking place. For example, imagining not that one might be exiled but rather that one is already exiled, subjected to torture, and dying. Third, one does this not in order to experience inarticulate sufferings but in order to convince oneself that they are not real ills. The reduction of all that is possible, of all the duration and of all the misfortunes, reveals not something bad but what we have to accept. It consists of having at the same time the future and the present event. The Epicureans were hostile to it because they thought it was useless. They thought it better to recollect and memorize past pleasures in order to derive pleasure from present events.

禁欲學派對於預測災難發展三個心象的推論。第一、問題不是想像未來如可能發展的結果,而是想像可能會發生的最糟糕的狀況,即使那樣的結果機率不大。最糟糕的狀況終會降臨,可能會發生的狀況終會發生,不是當著是機率多少的計算。第二、我們不應該想像事情在遙遠的未來才可能發生,而是當著已經是事實,並且是在發生的過程中。例如,不是想像我們可能會被放逐,而是我們現在已經是被放逐,歷經折磨,奄奄一息。第三、我們如此行為,不是為了經驗那難於說出的痛苦,而是為了說服自己,痛苦都是虛幻。對於可能狀況、發生過程、及所有災難的推論,不是要顯示人生有悲慘,而是要我們逆來順受。這同時包含未來跟現在的事件。伊璧鳩魯學派對此觀點不予茍同,因為他們認為那是無用之舉。他們認為我們最好還是回想及記憶過去的歡樂,為了我們能夠從目前的事件得到歡樂。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
雄伯

自我的科技 03

August 27, 2009

Technologies of the Self 自我的科技 03

Michel Foucault 傅柯

Summary 結語

In traditional political life, oral culture was largely dominant, and therefore rhetoric was important. But the development of the administrative structures and the bureaucracy of the imperial period increased the amount and role of writing in the political sphere. In Plato’s writings, dialogue gave way to the literary pseudo-dialogue. But by the Hellenistic age, writing prevailed, and real dialectic passed to correspondence. Taking care of oneself became linked to a constant writing activity. The self is something to write about, a theme or object (subject) of writing activity. That is not a modern trait born of the Reformation or of romanticism; it is one of the most ancient Western traditions. It was well established and deeply rooted when Augustine started writing his Confessions.

在傳統的政治生活,言談的文化非常佔優勢,因此雄辯術非常重要。但是帝國時期行政結構跟官僚的發展,增加了寫作在政治圈的數量跟份量。在柏拉圖的作品裡,對話被文學的偽對話所取代。但是在希臘時代以前,寫作盛行,真正的雄辯由信件進行。照顧自己跟不斷的寫作活動密不可分。自我是要寫作出來,是寫作活動的主題或客體(或主體)。這不是誕生於宗教改革或浪漫時期,而是西方傳統古已有之。在奧古斯丁開始寫懺悔錄時,這種風氣早行之有年,根深柢固。

The new concern with self involved a new experience of self. The new form of the experience of the self is to be seen in the first and second century when introspection becomes more and more detailed. A relation developed between writing and vigilance. Attention was paid to nuances of life, mood, and reading, and the experience of oneself was intensified and widened by virtue of this act of writing. A whole field of experience opened which earlier was absent.

對於自我新的關懷牽涉到自我新的經驗。這種自我新的經驗形式在以後的第一及第二世紀甚為顯著,當內省的內容越來越詳細。寫作與自我惕厲彼此相關。注意力集中於生活的細微末節、心情、跟閱讀。憑藉這個寫作的活動,自我的經驗被強調跟擴展。整個經驗的領域於焉展開,這是早期所未曾有的。

One can compare Cicero to the later Seneca or Marcu Aurelius. We see, for example, Seneca’s and Marcus’s meticulous concern with the details of daily life, with the movements of the spirit, with self-analysis. Everything in the imperial period is present in Marcus Aurelius’s letter of 144-45 A.D. to Fronto:

我們可比較西塞祿跟晚期的西尼卡或馬苦士。例如,西尼卡跟馬苦士鉅細糜餘地關懷到日常生活細節、精神的活動及自我分析。帝國時期的每件事出現在紀元前144到45年馬苦士給佛朗圖的信件。

Hail, my sweetest of masters.

敬愛的閣下,

We are well. I slept somewhat late owing to my slight cold, which seems now to have subsided. So from five A.M. till 9, I spent the time partly reading some of Cato’s Agriculture, partly in writing not quite such wretched stuff, by heavens, as yesterday. Then, after paying my respects to my father, I relieved my throat, I will not say by gargling – though the word gargarisso is, I believe, found in Novius and elsewhere – but by swallowing honey water as far as the gullet and ejecting it again. After easing my throat I went off to my father and attended him at a sacrifice. Then we went to luncheon. What do you think we ate? A wee bit of bread, though I saw others devouring beans, onions, and herrings full of roe. We then worked hard at grape-gathering, and had a good sweat, and were merry and, as the poet says, “still left some clusters hanging high as gleanings of the vintage.” After six-o’clock we came home.

我身體安好。雖然我有曾略受風寒而晏起,風寒現已消退。所以,從早上五點到九點,我花部份時間閱讀凱圖的農業,部份時間寫作如昨天所述鬱悶之事,宏觀來看,卻也不足掛懷。然後,跟父親請安後,我清爽喉嚨,不是以藥漱口,雖然我確信在諾比思及其它地方都曾提到此漱洗藥物,而是吞嚥蜂蜜到食道,再傾吐出來。使喉嚨舒爽後,我前去參見父親,盡人子之道服侍他。然後我們前去午餐?你猜我們吃些什麼?我只吃一小片麵包,雖然我看到他人狼吞虎嚥豆子、洋蔥、輫魚跟纍纍魚卵。

I did but little work and that to no purpose. Then I had a long chat with my little mother as she sat on the bed. My talk was this: “What do you think my Fronto is now doing?” Then she: “And what do you think my Gratia is doing?” Then : “And what do you think our little sparrow, the wee Gratia, is doing?” Whilst we were chattering in this way and disputing which of us loved the one or other of you two the better, the gong sounded, an intimation that my father had gone to his bath. So we had supper after we had bathed in the oil-press room; I do not mean bathed in the oil-press room, but when we had bathed, had supper there, and we enjoyed hearing the yokels chaffing one another. After coming back, before I turn over and snore, I get my task done and give my dearest of masters an account of the day’s doings, and if I could miss him more, I would not grudge wasting away a little more. Farewell, my Fronto, wherever you are, most honeysweet, my love, my delight. How is it between you and me? I love you and you are away.

我工作進展不大,而且無所為而為。然後,我去跟我的母親長談,她坐在床上。我的談話是「你認為佛朗圖現在正在做什麼?」她的問話是「你認為我的格拉達正在做什麼?」然後是「你認為我的小麻雀,小格拉達正在做什麼?」我們一邊言不及義地漫談,爭辯我們誰更加愛你們,銅鑼聲傳來訊息,父親已經去澡堂。我們也跟到澡堂淋浴後,就在那裡吃晚餐。我並不是指在澡堂浸泡,但是我們淋浴後,在那裡吃晚餐,我們很高興聽到那些小市民互相戲弄玩笑。回來後,在就寢酣睡之前,我先做完工作,跟我敬愛的師長描述我一天的行程。我對你思念之情倍增,實在不願再蹉跎時光。珍重再見,佛朗圖,無論你身在何處,你都是我的摯愛,我的愉悅。你我是怎麼一回事?我愛你,而你卻不在。

This letter presents a description of everyday life. All the details of taking care of oneself are here, all the unimportant things he has done. Cicero tells only important things, but in Aurelius’s letter these details are important because they are you – what you thought, what you felt.

這封信描寫日常生活。所有的照顧自己的細節一覽無餘,所有他所做的細微末節。西塞祿只談重要大事,但是在馬苦士的信件,這些細微末節很重要,因為那就是你,你的所思所感

The relation between the body and the soul is interesting too. For the Stoics, the body was not so important, but Marcus Aurelius speaks of himself, his health, what he has eaten, his sore throat. This is quite characteristic of the ambiguity about the body in this cultivation of the self. Theoretically, the culture is soul-orientated, but all the concerns of the body take on a huge importance. In Pliny and Seneca there is great hypochondria. They retreat to the countryside. They have intellectual activities but rural activities as well. They eat and engage in the activity of peasants. The importance of the rural retreat in this letter is that nature helps put one in contact with oneself.

身體跟靈魂的關係也是很有趣。對於禁欲學派,身體沒那麼重要,但是馬苦士提到自己、他的健康、他所吃的、他的喉嚨痛。在自我培養方面,這是很曖昧的特性。理論上,文化是以靈魂為導向,但是所有身體的關懷卻具有重大意義。普里尼跟西尼卡都提到憂鬱症。他們隱退到鄉間。他們有知性的活動,也有鄉間的活動。他們從事農夫的活動。在這封信中,鄉間隱退的重要性是,大自然使我們跟自己保持連繫。

There is also a love relationship with Aurelius and Fronto, one between a twenty-four and a forty-year old man. Ars erotica is the theme of discussion. Homosexual love was important in this period and carried over into Christian monasticism.

馬苦士跟佛朗圖也有相愛的關係,二十四歲跟四十歲老年的相愛關係。歡愉的藝術是討論的主題。同性戀的愛在這個時期很重要,一直延伸到基督教的一神論。

Finally, in the last lines, there is an allusion to the examination of conscience at the end of the day. Aurelius goes to bed and looks in the notebook to see what he was going to do and how it corresponds to what he did. The letter is the transcription of that examination of conscience. It stresses what you did, not what you thought. That is the difference between practice in the Hellenistic and imperial periods and later monastic practice. In Seneca too there are only deeds, not thoughts. But it does prefigure Christian confession.

最後,在最後幾行,提到一天結束時良心的省察。馬苦士就寢時,先翻看剳記,看看他將要做什麼及如何言行一致。這封信描述了良心的省察,強調你的行為,未必是你的思想。那就是希臘及帝國時期,跟後來的修道院做法不同的地方。西尼卡也是只談行為,不談思想。但是他確實也預言到後來基督教的告解懺罪模式。

This genre of epistles shows a side apart from the philosophy of the era. The examination of conscience begins with this letter writing. Diary writing comes later. It dates from the Christian Era and focuses on the notion of the struggle of the soul.

信件的技藝除了那時期的哲學外,另有一面。良心的省察開始於這種信件寫作。日記隨之而來。他起源於基督教時期,專注於靈魂奮鬥的觀念。

III

In my discussion of Plato’s Alcibiades, I have isolated three major themes: first, the relation between care for oneself and care for the political life; second, the relation between taking care of the self and defective education; and third, the relation between taking care of oneself and knowing oneself. Whereas we saw in the Alcibiades the close relation between “Take care of yourself” and “Know yourself”, taking care of yourself eventually became absorbed into knowing yourself.

在討論柏拉圖的阿希比底思時,我曾將三個主要的主題孤立出來:首先、關懷自己跟關懷政治生活之間的關係。第二、照顧自己跟教育的不足的關係。第三、照顧自己跟了解自己的關係。雖然我們在阿西比底思中看到「照顧自己」跟「了解自己」有密切關係,照顧自己最後被合併到了解自己。

We can see three themes in Plato, also in the Hellenistic period, and four to five centuries later in Seneca, Plutarch, Epicetus, and the like. If the problems are the same, the solutions and themes are quite different and, in some cases, the opposite of the Platonic meanings.

我們在柏拉圖,在希臘時期,四到五世紀後,在西尼卡,在普拉達奇,在伊匹西達斯,看到這三個主題。即使問題都一樣,主題的解答卻大不相同。有些狀況,甚至是柏拉圖意義的相反。

First, to be concerned with self in the Hellenistic and Roman periods is not exclusively a preparation for political life. Care of the self has become a universal principle. One must leave politics to take better care of the self.

首先,在希臘跟羅馬時期,關懷自己並不是政治生涯的準備。自我的關懷是普及的原則。我們必須離開政治,才較能照顧好自己。

Second, the concern with oneself is not just obligatory for young people concerned with their education; it is a way of living for everybody throughout their lives.

第二、關懷自己對於關懷自身教育的年輕人,不僅僅是義務,也是每一個人終其一生的生活方式。

Third, even if self-knowledge plays an important role in taking care of oneself, it involves other relationships as well.

第三、雖然在照顧自己時,了解自己舉足輕重,但是還牽涉到其它關係。

I want to discuss briefly the first two points: the universality of the care of the self independent of political life, and the care of the self throughout one’s life.

我要簡短地討論前兩點:獨立於政治之外,照顧自己,是普及的做法,以及人要終其一生照顧自己。

1. A medical model was substituted for Plato’s pedagogical model. The care of the self isn’t another kind of pedagogy; it has to become permanent medical care. Permanent medical care is one of the central features of the care of the self. One must become the doctor of oneself.

其一、醫療模式取代柏拉圖。照顧自己不是另外一種教導;它必須成為永久的醫療照顧。永久的醫療照顧是照顧自己的重要特性。我們必須自己成為醫生。

2. Since we have to take care throughout, the objective is no longer to get prepared for adult, or for another life, but to get prepared for a certain complete achievement of life. This achievement is complete at the moment just prior to death – of old age as completion – is an inversion of the traditional Greek values on youth.

其二、因為我們必須終身照顧,目標就不再是為成年,或為另一種生活而準備,而是為某種生活的圓融成就做準備。這種成就在彌留之前的時刻達到圓融。或在老年時刻完滿,顛覆了希臘時代重視青壯的傳統。

3. Lastly, we have the various practices to which cultivation of self has given rise and the relation of self knowledge to these.

其三、最後,我們有培養自我產生的各種法門,以及了解自我跟這些法門的關係。

In Alcibiades, the soul had a mirror relation to itself, which relates to the concept of memory and justifies dialogue as a method of discovering truth in the soul. But, from the time of Plato to the Hellenistic age, the relationship between care of the self and knowledge of the self changed. We may note two perspectives.

在阿西比底思,靈魂跟自己有鏡相關係,這牽涉到記憶的觀念,並證明對話是一種在靈魂中發現實真理的方法。但是,從柏拉圖時代到希臘時代,照顧自己跟了解自己的關係改變了。有兩個觀點值得注意。

In the philosophical movements of Stoicism in the imperial period there is a different conception of truth and memory, and another method of examining the self. First, we see the disappearance of dialogue and the increasing importance of a new pedagogical relationship – a new pedagogical game where the master/teacher speaks and doesn’t ask questions and the disciple doesn’t answer but must listen and keep silent. A culture of silence becomes more and more important. In Pythagorean culture, disciples kept silent for five years as a pedagogical rule. They didn’t ask questions or speak up during the lesson, but they developed the art of listening. This is the positive condition for acquiring truth. The tradition is picked up during the imperial period, where we see the beginning of the culture of silence and the art of listening rather than the cultivation of dialogue as in Plato

在帝國時期禁欲學派的哲學運動,真理和記憶的觀念並不相同,省察自我另有方法。首先,我們看到對話的消失及新的教導關係逐漸重要。這個新的教導遊戲是:老師光教不問,學生並不回答,但必需沉默聆聽。沉默的氣氛變得越來越重要。在畢達哥拉斯的氛圍,學生保持沉默五年,是教導的常規。他們在上課時並不問題或發表意見,而是展示聆聽的藝術。這對於獲得真理,是正面的條件。在帝國時期,這套傳統被延續下來。在此,我們看到沉默氣氛及聆聽藝術的開端,而不是如同在柏拉圖中是培養對話。

To learn the art of listening, we have to read Plutarch’s treatise on the art of listening to lectures (Peri tou akouein). At the beginning of this treatise, Plutarch says that, following schooling, we have to learn to listen to logos throughout our adult life. The art of listening is crucial so you can tell what is true and what is dissimulation, what is rhetorical truth and what is falsehood in the discourse of the rhetoricans. Listening is linked to the fact that you’re not under the control of the masters but you must listen to logos. You keep silent at the lecture. You think about it afterward. This is the art of listening to the voice of the master and the voice of reason in yourself.

為了學習聆聽的藝術,我們必須閱讀普魯達奇對聆聽演說的論文。在這篇論文的開始,普魯達奇說,學校畢業後,我們必須在我們的成年生涯學習聆聽理性。聆聽的藝術對於你是重要的,這樣你才能辨別何者為真實、何者為虛偽、何者是真理在侃侃而談、何者是辯士在天花亂墜。聆聽必須注意的事實是,你並非悉聽老師的掌控,你要聆聽的是理性。你在聽演說時保持沉默。後來你再仔細回想。這就是聆聽老師的聲音跟你內在理性的聲音,你所必須具備的聆聽藝術。

The advice may seem banal, but I think it’s important. In his treatise On the Contemplative Life, Philo of Alexandria describes banquets of silence, not debauched banquets with wine, boys, revelry, and dialogue. There is instead a teacher who gives a monologue on the interpretation of the Bible and a very precise indication of the way people must listen (De Vita Cont. 77). For example, they must always assume the same posture when listening. The morphology of this notion is an interesting theme in monasticism and pedagogy henceforth.

這勸告或許是老生常談,但是我認為很重要。在論沉思的生活時,亞歷山大、菲洛描述沉默的宴饗,不是酒席、男色、狂歡,及對話的宴饗。代替的,有一位老師單獨發表對聖經的詮釋,並且很明確地指明人們必須聆聽的方式。例如,他們聆聽時,必須總是擺出相同的姿態。這個觀念的形態對於以後修道院靈修教導,是個有趣的主題。

In Plato the themes of contemplation of self and care of self are related dialectically through dialogue. Now in the imperial period we have themes of, on one side, the obligation of listening to truth and, on the other side, of looking and listening to the self for the truth within. The difference between the one era and the other is one of the great signs of the disappearance of the dialectical structure.

在柏拉圖,沉思自我跟照顧自己的主題,透過對話而產生論辯的關係。現在在帝國時期,我們一方面有聆聽真理的義務的主題,另一方面,又有聆聽自己,以尋求內在真理的主題。前一時代跟後一時代的不同,從論辯結構的消失的明顯跡象可以看出。

What was an examination of conscience in this culture, and how does one look at oneself? For the Pythagoreans, the examination of conscience had to do with purification. Since sleep was related to death as a kind of encounter with the gods, you had to purify yourself before going to sleep. Remembering the dead was an exercise for the memory. But in the Hellenistic and the early imperial periods, you see this practice acquitting new values and signification. There are several relevant texts: Seneca’s De Ira, and De Tranquilitate and the beginning of Marcus Aurelius’s fourth book of Meditations.

在這樣的文化中,什麼是良心的省察?我們如何看待我們自己?對於畢達哥拉斯而言,良心的省察必須跟淨化有關。因為睡眠跟死亡有關,作為一種跟神祇的相會,你必須在睡眠之前淨化你自己。緬懷死去的人是記憶的一種活動。但是在希臘及早期帝國時期,你看到這種做法得到新的價值跟意義。有好幾個相關的文本:西尼卡的冥想集及馬苦士的沉思錄第四冊。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
雄伯

自我的科技 02

August 26, 2009

Technologies of the Self 自我的科技

Michel Foucault 傅柯

Summary 結語

There are several reasons why “Know yourself” has obscured “Take care of yourself”. First, there has been a profound transformation in the moral principles of Western society. We find it difficult to base rigorous morality and austere principles on the precept that we should give ourselves more care than anything else in the world. We are more inclined to see taking care of ourselves as an immorality, as a means of escape from all possible rules. We inherit the tradition of Christian morality which makes self-renunciation the condition for salvation. To know oneself was paradoxically the way to self-renunciation.

有好幾個理由,為什麼「了解自己」模糊掉「照顧自己」。首先,西方社會的道德原理曾歷經深刻變化。我們很難將有活力而嚴峻的原則,立基於我們應該照顧自己勝於世上其它事物的教導上。我們反而更傾向於看待照顧自己是不道德,認為是至自私地逃避各種規範的途徑。我們繼承基督教道德的傳統,將自我克制視為救贖的條件。了解自己很弔詭地導致自我克制。

We also inherit a secular tradition which respects external law as the basis for morality. How then can respect for the self be the basis for morality? We are the inheritors of a social morality which seeks the rules for acceptable behavior in relations with others. Since the sixteenth century, criticism of established morality has been undertaken in the name of the importance of recognizing and knowing the self. Therefore, it is difficult to see concern with oneself as compatible with morality. “Know thyself” has obscured “Take care of yourself” because our morality, a morality of asceticism, insists that the self is that which one can reject.

我們也繼承一種世俗的傳統,尊重外在的法律當著道德的基礎。那麼,對於自我的尊重如何才能成為道德的基礎?我們是社會道德的繼承者,尋求規範作為跟別人相處的可接受的行為。自從十六世紀以來,曾有人以認識自己及照顧自己的重要性為名,從事批判約定成俗的道德。「了解自己」曾經模糊掉「照顧自己」,因為我們的道德是一種禁慾的道德,堅持自我是我們能夠摒棄的東西。

The second reason is that, in theoretical philosophy from Descartes to Husserl, knowledge of the self (the thinking subject) takes on an ever-increasing importance as the first step in the theory of knowledge.

第二個理由是,從笛卡爾到胡賽爾的理論科學,了解自我(沉思的自我)變得越來越加重要,作為知識理論的第一步。

To summarize: There has been an inversion between the hierarchy of the two principles of antiquity, “Take care of yourself” and “Know thyself”. In Greco-Roman culture knowledge of oneself appeared as the consequence of taking care of yourself. In the modern world, knowledge of oneself constitutes the fundamental principle.

結論:自古以降,「照顧自我」跟「了解自我」這兩種原則的上下階層曾歷經顛覆。在希臘及羅馬文化,了解自我出現當著是照顧自我的結果。在現代世界,了解自我則組成基本的原則。

II

The first philosophical elaboration of the concern with taking care of oneself that I wish to consider is found in Plato’s Alcibiades . The date of its writing is uncertain, and it may be a spurious Platonic dialogue. It is not my intention to study dates but to point the principal features of the care of self which is the center of the dialogue.

我心目中所嚮往的關懷照顧自我的哲學,在柏拉圖的阿希比底思中可找到。其寫作日期已無可考,可能是柏拉圖對話錄的偽作。考證其日期並非我的意圖,我只是想指出,對話錄的核心思想是以照顧自我作為主要特徵。

The Neoplatonists in the third or fourth century A.D. show the significance given to this dialogue and the importance it assumed in the classical tradition. They wanted to organize Plato’s dialogues as pedagogy and as the matrix for encyclopedic knowledge. They considered Alcibiades to be the first dialogue of Plato, the first to be read, the first to be studied. It was arche. In the second century Albinus said that every gifted young man who wanted to stand apart from politics and practice virtue should study the Alcibiades. It provided the point of departure and a program for all Platonic philosophy. “Taking care of oneself” was its first principle. I would like to analyze the care of self in the Alcibiades in terms of three aspects.

紀元前第三或第四世紀的新柏拉圖學派主張,我們應該重視這本對話錄及其在古典傳統中的地位。他們要整理柏拉圖的對話錄作為教學錄,當著是百科全書的基礎。他們認為阿希比底思是柏拉圖對話錄的第一章,首先應該讀,首先應該研究。那是開門見山。在第二世紀,阿希那思說,每位青年才俊,若不想從事政治,而想從事品德,則應該研習阿希比底思。此章提供一個出發點,可飽覽全部柏拉圖哲學。「照顧自我」是其第一原則。我想要以三個面向分析阿希比底思的照顧自我。

1. How is this question introduced into the dialogue? What are the reasons Alcibiades and Socrates are brought to the notion of taking care of one’s self? Alcibiades is about to begin his public and political life. He wishes to speak before the people and be all powerful in the city. He is not satisfied with his traditional status, with the privileges of his birth and heritage. He wishes to gain personal power over all others both inside and outside the city. At this point of intersection and transformation, Socrates intervenes and declares his love for Alcibiades. Alcibiades can no longer be the beloved; he must become a lover. He must become active in the political and the love game. Thus, there is a dialect between political and erotic discourse. Alcibiades makes his transition in specific ways in both politics and love.

第一、這個問題如何被介紹到對話錄?是什麼理由引導阿希比底思跟蘇格拉底想到照顧自我這個觀念?阿西比底思即將從事公共及政治生涯。他希望在公眾面前演說,在城邦擁有權勢。他並不滿足於他傳統的地位,跟出生即繼承的特權。他希望得到個人的權勢,統治城邦內外。在這個交會蛻變的時刻,蘇格拉底介入宣說他對於阿希比底思的敬愛。阿希比底思不再能夠以被愛為滿足,他必須要能愛別人。他必須積極參與政治及愛的遊戲。因此,政治跟性愛的論述於焉展開。阿希比底思在政治及愛兩方面,都明確地幡然改變。

An ambivalence is evident in Alcibiade’s political and erotic vocabulary. During his adolescence Alcibiades was desirable and had many admirers, but now that his beard is growing, his lovers disappear. Earlier, he had rejected them all in the bloom of his beauty becuase he wanted to be dominant, not dominated. He did not wish to be dominated by youth, but now he wants to dominate others. This is the moment Socrates appears, and he succeeds where others have failed: He will make Alcibiades submit, but in a different sense. They make a pact – Alcibiades will submit to his lover. Socrates, not in a physical but in a spiritual sense. The intersection of political ambition and philosophical love is “taking care of oneself”.

在阿希比底思的政治與性愛的詞彙,愛恨交加頗為顯著。青年時,阿希比底思受人仰慕,崇拜者甚眾,但是隨著他的鬍鬚增長,崇拜者卻消失。早先,他帥俊英發,對於崇拜者不屑一顧,因為他想要支配別人,而非受人支配。他不希望被年輕人牽著鼻子走,但是現在他想要支配別人。此時,蘇格拉底介入,他成功地做到別人做不到的地方。他使阿希比底思順服,但是順服的意義不同。他們有一個約定:阿希比底思將順服於他的所愛,蘇格拉底,不是生理上,而是精神上的意義。政治的企圖心,跟哲學的愛的交會點是:「照顧你自己」。

2. In that relationship, why should Alcibiades be concerned with himself, and why is Socrates concerned with that concern of Alcibiades? Socrates asks Alcibiades about his personal capacity and the nature of his ambition. Does he know the meaning of the rule of law, of justice or concord? Alcibiades clearly knows nothing. Socrates calls upon him to compare his education with that of the Persian and Spartan kings, his rivals. Spartan and Persian princes have teachers in Wisdom, Justice, Temperance, and Courage. By comparison, Alcibiades’ education is like that of an old, ignorant slave. He doesn’t know these things so he can’t apply himself to knowledge. But, says Socrates, it’s not too late. To help him gain the upper hand – to acquire techne – Alcibiades must apply himself, he must take care of himself. But Alcibiades doesn’t know to what he must apply himself. What is this knowledge he seeks? He is embarrassed and confused. Socrates calls upon him to take heart.

第二、在那種關係中,為什麼阿希比底思會關心到他自己?為什麼蘇格拉底要關心到阿希比底思的關心?蘇格拉底問阿西比底思的個人能力跟企圖心的特性。他知道法律規範、正義或盟約的意義嗎?阿西比底思顯然一無所知。蘇格拉底要求他比較他的教育跟敵國波斯及斯巴達國王的教育。斯巴達及波斯王子有智慧、正義、克己、及勇氣各門老師教導。比較起來,阿希比底思的教育,像是無知的老耄奴才的教育。他對於這些事情一無所知,所以他才無法致力於知識。但是,蘇格拉底說,為時尚未太晚。為了幫著他佔有優勢,為了得到技藝,阿希比底思必須全心專注,他必須照顧自己。但是阿希比底思不知道他必須專注致力於什麼。他所尋求的知識是什麼?他陷入尷尬跟困惑。蘇格拉底則要求他先銘記在心。

In 127d of the Alcibiades we find the first appearance of the phrase, epimelesthai sautou. Concern for the self always refers to an active political and erotic state. Epimelesthai expresses something much more serious than the simple fact of paying attention. It involves various things: taking pains with one’s holdings and one’s health. It is always a real activity and not just attitude. It is used in reference to the activity of a farmer tending his fields, his cattle, and his house, or to the job of the king in taking care of his city and citizens, or to the worship of ancestors or gods, or as a medical term to signify the fact of caring. It is highly significant that the concern for the self in Alcibiades is directly related to a defective pedagogy, one which concerns political ambition and a specific moment of life.

在阿西比底思的127頁,我們發現這個詞句「關懷自我」首次出現。對於自我的關懷總是提到積極的政治及性愛的狀態。關懷表達不僅僅是注意,而是更加嚴肅。它牽涉到各種事情:努力維護財物及自己的健康。它總是一種真實的活動,而不僅僅是態度。農夫照顧他的田地、家畜及房屋,國王照顧城邦及臣民,或崇拜祖先跟眾神,都是關懷活動的應用,或是當著醫療的用詞,用於表達關心的事實。我們應該重視的是,阿希比底思對於自我的關懷跟教導方式的不足密切關聯,因為他只關心到政治的企圖心及人生的某一特定時刻。

3. The rest of the text is devoted to an analysis of this notion of epimelesthai, “taking pains with oneself”. It is divided into two questions: What is this self of which one has to take care. and of what does that care consist? First, what is the self (129b)? Self is a reflective pronoun, and it has two meanings. Auto means “the same”, but it also conveys the notion of identity. The latter meaning shifts the question from “What is this self?” to “What is the plateau on which I shall find my identity?”

第三、其餘的文本專注於關懷自我,也就是「費心於自己」這個觀念。這觀念可區分為二:我們必須照顧的自我是什麼及照顧包含那些?先談,何謂自我?自我是一個反身代名詞,意義有二。自身意思是相同,但是也傳達認同的觀念。第二個觀念轉移「何謂自我」這個問題,到「我在何處平台可找到認同」?

Alcibiades tries to find the self in a dialectical movement. When you take care of the body, you don’t take care of the self. The self is not clothing, tools, or possessions. It is to be found in the principle which uses these tools, a principle not of the body but of the soul. You have to worry about your soul – that is the principle activity of caring for yourself. The care of the self is the care of the activity and not the care of the soul-assubstance.

阿希比底思設法在辯證法中找到自我。當你照顧身體,你沒有照顧到自我。自我不是衣服、工具或財產。它應該在使用這些工具的原理的地方尋找,不是身體的原理,而是靈魂的原理。你必須要擔心你的靈魂,那是照顧自己的原理活動。自我的照顧是原理活動的照顧,而不是靈魂虛無飄渺的照顧。

The second question is: How must we take care of this principle of activity, the soul? Of what does this care consist? One must know of what the soul consists. The soul cannot know itself except by looking at itself in a similar element, a mirror. Thus, it must contemplate the divine element. In this divine contemplation, the soul will be able to discover rules serve as a basis for behavior and political action. The effort of the soul to know itself is the principle on which just political action can be founded, and Alcibiades will be a good politicians insofar as he contemplates his soul in the divine element.

第二個問題是:我們必須如何照顧活動的原理,也就是靈魂?這個照顧包含什麼?我們必須知道這個靈魂是什麼。靈魂無法了解自己,除非以跟鏡子般相同的元素觀照自己。因此,靈魂必須沉思神聖的元素。在神祇的沉思中,靈魂將能夠發現到規範充當行為及政治舉動的基礎。靈魂的努力了解自己,就是公正的政治舉動賴以建立的原理。只要阿希比底思在神祇的元素中沉思,他將是位好的政治家。

Often the discussion gravitates around and is phrased in terms of the Delphic principle, “Know yourself”. To take care of oneself consists of knowing oneself. Knowing oneself becomes the object of the quest of concern for self. Being occupied with oneself and political activities are linked. The dialogue ends when Alcibiades knows he must take care of himself by examining his soul.

這個討論往往繞著太陽神廟的原理「了解自己」打轉及表達。照顧自己包含了解自己。了解自己變成關懷自我的追求的目標。專注於自我跟政治的活動是密不可分。對話錄的終了,阿希比底思了解到,他必須以審查自己的靈魂照顧自己。

This early text illuminates the historical background of the precept “taking care of oneself” and sets out four main problems that endure throughout antiquity, although the solutions offered often differ from those in Plato’s Alcibiades.

這個早期的文本闡明「照顧自己」這個教導的歷史背景,展開了四個貫穿古今的主要的問題,雖然解決方式,跟柏拉圖的阿希比底思的解決方式,大不相同。

First, there is the problem of the relation between being occupied with oneself and political activity. In the later Hellenistic and imperial periods, the question is presented in an alternative way: When is it better to turn away from political activity to concern oneself with oneself?

首先,專注於自己跟政治活動之間的關係的問題。在希臘晚期跟帝國時期,這個問題輪番被提出。何時我們最好脫離政治活動,專注於自己?

Second, there is a problem of the relationship between being occupied with oneself and pedagogy. For Socrates, occupying oneself is the duty of a young man, but later in the Hellenistic period it is seen as a permanent duty of one’s whole life.

其次,專注於自己跟教導之間的關係的問題。對於蘇格拉底而言,專注於自己是一位年輕人的責任,但是後來,在希臘時期,它被看著是人一生永久的責任。

Third, there is a problem of the relationship between concern for oneself and the knowledge of oneself. Plato gave priority to the Delphic maxim, “Know yourself”. The privileged position of “Know yourself” is characteristic of all Platonists. Later, in the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman periods, this is reversed. The accent was not on the knowledge of the self but on the concern with oneself. The latter was given an autonomy and even a pre-eminence as a philosophical issue.

第三,關懷自己跟了解自己之間的關係的問題。柏拉圖將太陽神廟的箴言「了解自己」列為優先順序。所有柏拉圖學派的特色就是「了解自己」具有特權地位。後來,在希臘跟羅馬時期,這種優位才倒轉過來。重點不再是了解自己,而是關懷自己。後者被給予自主權,甚至優先作為哲學的議題。

Fourth, there is the problem of the relationship between the care of the self and philosophical love, of the relation to the master.

第四,照顧自己跟哲學愛智之間,也就是主從之間的關係的問題。

In the Hellenistic and imperial periods, the Socratic notion of “taking care of oneself” became a common, universal philosophical theme. “Care of the self” was accepted by Epicurus and his followers, by the Cynics, and by such Stoics as Seneca, Rufus, and Galen. The Pythagoreans gave attention to the notion of an ordered life in common. This theme of taking care of oneself was not abstract advice but a widespread activity, a network of obligations and services to the soul. Following Epicurus himself, the Epicureans believed that its never too late to occupy oneself with oneself. The Stoics say you must attend to the self, “retire into the self and stay there.” Lucian parodied the notion. It was an extremely widespread activity and it brought about competition between rhetoricians and those who turned toward themselves, particularly over the question of the master.

在希臘及帝國時期,蘇格拉抵「照顧自己」的觀念,成為共同及普及性的哲學主題。伊璧鳩魯跟其隨從、犬儒學派、及在西尼卡、盧法思和嘉倫的禁欲學派,都接受「照顧自己」的說法。畢達哥拉斯學派也注意到這個大家公認的有條理的生活。照顧自己不是抽象的勸告,而是廣泛的活動,有一套責任跟服務的網絡給靈魂。伊璧鳩魯學派追隨其大師之後,相信專注於自己永不嫌太晚。禁欲學派說,你必須注意到自己,「隱退到自我,並停留在那裡」。盧西安模仿此觀念。這是極為普遍的活動,甚至還導致修辭學家跟專注自我照顧者的爭辯,特別是有關何者是主從的問題。

There were charlatans, of course. But certain individuals took it seriously. It was generally acknowledged that it was good to be reflective, at least briefly. Pliny advises a friend to set aside a few moments a day, or several weeks or months, for a retreat into himself. This was an active leisure – to study, to read, to prepare for misfortune or death. It was a meditation and a preparation.

當然,野狐禪混跡其間勢所難免。但是某些人可是當真看待。大家所公認的是,能夠反省,即使是片刻都是好的。普林尼勸告一位朋友,每天、或幾週、或幾個月,撥出一些時刻隱退到自己。去從事積極的休閒,去研究、閱讀、替災難或死亡的來臨預做心理準則。這是一種沉思,一種準備。

Writing was also important in the culture of taking care of oneself. One of the main features of taking care involved taking notes on oneself to be reread, writing treatises and letters to friends to help them, and keeping notebooks in order to reactivate for oneself the truths on needed. Socrate’s letters are an example of this self exercise

在照顧自己的文化,寫作也很重要。照顧自己的主要特色,牽涉到記錄自己,為了受人賞讀,寫作論文及信件給朋友幫助他們,讀書剳記,以便可以溫故知新,了解自己真正所需。蘇格拉底的信件,就是這個自我演練的範本。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

自我的科技

August 25, 2009

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