法律.规训.治理——对福柯《生命政治的诞生》的法哲学解读

Law? Discipline? Governance - An Interpretation of Foucault’s The Birth of Biopolitics

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

行政法学院

作者:

伍茜

导师:

付子堂

导师单位:

行政法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

福柯;法律;规训;治理;生命政治

摘要:

本文是对福柯《生命政治的诞生》一书的法哲学解读。福柯的研究重心在其整个思想体系中有这样一种转变:将关注点从“法律到规训”转移到“法律与治理”上。这种转变路径最基本的理论依据是:社会是一个有机联系的实体。实际上,社会是一个复杂体和独立体,拥有自己的法则,不能仅仅是被简单地治理。社会需要有效的治理,方能进步。然而,在治理过程中,往往会伴随着意料之外的结果,这种可能性实际上使得社会的发展偏离了预计的进步轨道。福柯并没有明确指出这一思维上的转变公式和线索,但是,其著作中有关法治的这部分内容,可以让人们发现其理论中的一致性,并且得到更多的启发。该书更多涉及的是作为生命政治合理性框架的“自由主义治理技艺”,而非纯粹讲解“生命政治”。这也恰是“诞生”的应有之意。福柯从“自由主义”处找到了关于“什么是治理活动的合理化”这一问题的答案:即用最小的经济和政治成本获得最大的治理效果。生命政治理论摆脱了宪政问题的束缚,不再以“国家是如何构建的”为起点,而关注治理的限度和合理性。当富足取代了公平正义成为社会管制的标准时,合理性就被置于合法性之前,成为治理实践的首要考虑。由此,治理实践的作用对象发生了清晰可见的转变:从单个人转向人口。治理的步伐迈进了不同以往的领域——“市场”这一商品贸易空间。市场为国家带来正当性,而国家又为市场提供保障。同时,自由主义治理技艺并不排斥法治,而恰恰需要寻求法治,但它并非是条文主义式的法治。生命政治理论着重讨论的是看不见的、微观的奴役。规训作为一种治理技艺,是权力的运作形式。观察治理技艺在不同时期呈现的样态,可以更好地察觉这种隐形的奴役。这种变化结果的根本原因,在于权力从压迫型转变成生产型:一方面,迎合了资本主义的生产要求;另一方面,使人们自觉地加入生产游戏中,制定并遵守规则。由此,“生命”或“人口”充分发挥它的生产作用。在这种新治理技艺的视角下,就形成了一种把社会看作市场的观念。于是,治理社会不再是政治的技艺,而是市场管理的技艺。市场不再仅仅是一个简单的组织经济活动的技术性工具,而是具有了社会学和政治学的含义。然而,新治理技艺不能解决的问题是:当治理犯错时,就存在着一种达到治理效果却与正义相悖的局面。这也正是福柯“反法律”思想的真实含义。福柯并不排斥法律的治理,他对法律的放逐,是在法律成为规训手段之时提出的。 福柯法律观有其与众不同的视角和批判精神,即对治理模式、法治逻辑的反思。他带着这份对规训社会的危机感开始了极限体验和对生存美学的探究。虽然,福柯并没有对法治国家的治理技艺建构一个实实在在的图景;但他的生命政治理论提醒人们关注治理的限度,即怎样实施治理才是最恰当的方式。因此,在建设法治国家时,必须关注治理限度问题,避免法律成为规训化权力的工具。这是“生命政治”理论对建设法治国家的一种告诫,也是福柯对法治理论的贡献。

学科:

法学理论

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

伍茜. 法律.规训.治理——对福柯《生命政治的诞生》的法哲学解读[D]. 西南政法大学,2013.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 法律.规训.治理——对福柯《生命政治的诞生》的法哲学解读
  • dc.title
  • Law? Discipline? Governance - An Interpretation of Foucault’s The Birth of Biopolitics
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20100301010065
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 伍茜
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 行政法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2013
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 付子堂
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 行政法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 福柯;法律;规训;治理;生命政治
  • dc.subject
  • Foucault;Law;Discipline;Governance;Biopolitics
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 本文是对福柯《生命政治的诞生》一书的法哲学解读。福柯的研究重心在其整个思想体系中有这样一种转变:将关注点从“法律到规训”转移到“法律与治理”上。这种转变路径最基本的理论依据是:社会是一个有机联系的实体。实际上,社会是一个复杂体和独立体,拥有自己的法则,不能仅仅是被简单地治理。社会需要有效的治理,方能进步。然而,在治理过程中,往往会伴随着意料之外的结果,这种可能性实际上使得社会的发展偏离了预计的进步轨道。福柯并没有明确指出这一思维上的转变公式和线索,但是,其著作中有关法治的这部分内容,可以让人们发现其理论中的一致性,并且得到更多的启发。该书更多涉及的是作为生命政治合理性框架的“自由主义治理技艺”,而非纯粹讲解“生命政治”。这也恰是“诞生”的应有之意。福柯从“自由主义”处找到了关于“什么是治理活动的合理化”这一问题的答案:即用最小的经济和政治成本获得最大的治理效果。生命政治理论摆脱了宪政问题的束缚,不再以“国家是如何构建的”为起点,而关注治理的限度和合理性。当富足取代了公平正义成为社会管制的标准时,合理性就被置于合法性之前,成为治理实践的首要考虑。由此,治理实践的作用对象发生了清晰可见的转变:从单个人转向人口。治理的步伐迈进了不同以往的领域——“市场”这一商品贸易空间。市场为国家带来正当性,而国家又为市场提供保障。同时,自由主义治理技艺并不排斥法治,而恰恰需要寻求法治,但它并非是条文主义式的法治。生命政治理论着重讨论的是看不见的、微观的奴役。规训作为一种治理技艺,是权力的运作形式。观察治理技艺在不同时期呈现的样态,可以更好地察觉这种隐形的奴役。这种变化结果的根本原因,在于权力从压迫型转变成生产型:一方面,迎合了资本主义的生产要求;另一方面,使人们自觉地加入生产游戏中,制定并遵守规则。由此,“生命”或“人口”充分发挥它的生产作用。在这种新治理技艺的视角下,就形成了一种把社会看作市场的观念。于是,治理社会不再是政治的技艺,而是市场管理的技艺。市场不再仅仅是一个简单的组织经济活动的技术性工具,而是具有了社会学和政治学的含义。然而,新治理技艺不能解决的问题是:当治理犯错时,就存在着一种达到治理效果却与正义相悖的局面。这也正是福柯“反法律”思想的真实含义。福柯并不排斥法律的治理,他对法律的放逐,是在法律成为规训手段之时提出的。 福柯法律观有其与众不同的视角和批判精神,即对治理模式、法治逻辑的反思。他带着这份对规训社会的危机感开始了极限体验和对生存美学的探究。虽然,福柯并没有对法治国家的治理技艺建构一个实实在在的图景;但他的生命政治理论提醒人们关注治理的限度,即怎样实施治理才是最恰当的方式。因此,在建设法治国家时,必须关注治理限度问题,避免法律成为规训化权力的工具。这是“生命政治”理论对建设法治国家的一种告诫,也是福柯对法治理论的贡献。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • This paper is an interpretation of Foucault’s The Birth of Biopolitics. From ‘law to disciplines’ to ‘law and governance’, this is a significant transition in Foucault's whole ideological system. The root of this change is the basic and important point that ‘society’ is an entity. Actually, society is a complex and independent reality, which has its own laws and cannot be acted upon simply. Society necessitates ‘good government’, getting it right. However, undesired results and unintended consequences will make things worse. Foucault didn’t point out this transition in his works. But, the study of ‘rule of law’ in his works can make people understand the consistency of his ideological system, and then be inspired.The Birth of Biopolitics is more related to liberalistic ‘art of governance’ as rational frame of biopolitics, rather than merely making an interpretation of bioplitics. So, that is the meaning of ‘birth’ in the title. From the Liberalism, Foucault came to the conclusion that what is the rationalization of governance: in order to achieve the best effect of governance with the minimum economical and political costs. Break through the shackles of constitutionalism, thesis of biopolitics is not based on how to construct the state, but focus on limitation and rationality of governance. Being put before legitimacy, rationality is the first thing to consider by governance practices, when richness replaces equity and justice, becoming the standard of social regulation. Thus, it is clear that the object of governance has changed from individual to population. It means that governance steps into a different territory: the market, the place for trading merchandise. Market gives state legitimacy, and state ensure market functioning well. Meanwhile, liberalistic ‘art of governance’ doesn’t oppose rule of law, it just does not agree with legalism.The thesis of biopolitics focuses on the invisible and micro slavery. Discipline, as a kind of art of governance, is one of the forms of the operation of the state power. Studing the modes of discipline in different periods, can understand this invisible slavery much better. The primary reason of the change in different periods is that power has changed from repressive to productive. On the one hand, it caters to the capitalistic request for producing. On the other hand, it makes people to join the game of producing, laying down regulations and obey it. Thus, life and population give full play to producing for capitalistic production. In the perspective of new art of governance, there is an idea of regarding society as market, with it, governance is no longer an art of politics, but of regulating market. From then on, market has sociological and political meaning. However, the problem, which new art of governance cannot solve, is that when governance makes mistake, the consequence may be successful but unjust. This is the exact understanding about Foucault’s anti-law. Foucault didn’t repel law. He said, if law itself turns into discipline, it’s time to expulses law. The contributions of Foucault’s sociological view of law are his distinctive angle of vision and critical spirit, in other words, his profoundly rethinking of pattern and logic of rule of law. With the awareness of crisis of disciplinary society, Foucault started to experience ultimate feelings and study aesthetics of existence. Although, Foucault did not construct a real prospect for technique of governance of a country under the rule of law, his thesis of biopolitics emphasizes the significant part of governance: the limitation of governance, in other words, what is the best and most efficient way to govern. So, to establish a country under the rule of law, it is necessary to consider the limitation of governance, avoiding law becoming tool of disciplinary power. This is an admonition to a country under the rule of law by thesis of biopolitics, and a contribution of Foucault’s sociological legal view.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D90
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-12
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2013-05-25
  • dc.relation.relatedpublications
  • 目 录引 论......................................................................................................... 1(一)福柯及其主要思想........................................................................... 1(二)研究综述........................................................................................ 2一、法律观在福柯思想体系中的地位........................................................ 5(一)现代性问题与后现代性问题...................................................... 6(二)福柯探究性道德的意图............................................................. 7(三)福柯对法律真理观的超越.................................................. 10二、生命政治在自由主义的框架下诞生................................................. 13(一)福柯对自由主义的研究......................................................... 13(二)福柯对生命政治的研究.............................................................. 16三、规训社会中的治理技艺..................................................................... 21(一)从外在限制向内心拘束转变......................................................... 21(二)从压制个体向治理人口转变....................................................... 23(三)从法权视角向经济视角转变...................................................... 25四、法律的真实角色............................................................................... 29(一)法律对治理理由的限制......................................................... 29(二)法律在规训社会中的危机.......................................................... 31五、法治国家的治理技艺........................................................................... 33(一)治理技艺的两个分支............................................................ 34(二)法治国家实现的秩序................................................................... 39结 论........................................................................................................... 42(一)生命政治的诞生......................................................................... 42(二)由“ 不自由”引发的反思......................................................... 42参考文献................................................................................................. 45
回到顶部