第121集...米歇尔·福柯 第一部分

嘿，非常感谢收听这个播客。很高兴你目前喜欢它。每集的完整文字稿可在philosophizethis.org找到。要支持这样的节目，请访问patreon.com/philosophizethis。

Hey. Thanks so much for listening to the podcast. Cool that you're enjoying it so far. Full transcripts of every episode at philosophizethis.org. And to support a show like this, go to patreon.com/philosophizethis.

没有你们的帮助，我无法做到这一切。谢谢。简单澄清一下，在上集末尾，我提到要做几期关于维特根斯坦和海德格尔晚期作品的节目。但从上集发布后收到的邮件来看，大家似乎对此不太感兴趣。

Could never do this without your help. Thank you. So real quick, just to clarify something. Towards the end of last episode, I talked about doing a couple episodes on the late work of Wittgenstein and Heidegger. But based on the emails I received after releasing last episode, it it seems clear that people don't really wanna hear about it.

他们更想直接进入后现代主义的话题。我个人认为，要真正理解后现代主义，必须了解从逻辑实证主义到二十世纪中期转向行为主义和实用主义的关键过渡。但说实话，我终究是个按听众喜好做节目的表演者，否则就得关门大吉了。

They kinda wanna just move on to postmodernism. Now personally, I think to fully understand postmodernism, it's absolutely crucial to understand this transition from logical positivism to the mid twentieth century where there's more of a focus on behaviorism and pragmatism. But look. Let's be honest here. At the end of the day, I'm a dancing monkey that's doing episodes about what the majority of people wanna hear about or else I go out of business.

因此，今天的节目是关于米歇尔·福柯系列的第一部分。如果对这些思想的背景有任何困惑，欢迎发邮件给我。虽然有人将福柯列为典型后现代哲学家，但仅用哲学标签定义他并不公平——他的研究常涉及哲学之外的领域。

So with that in mind, today's episode is part one of a series on Michel Foucault. And if you're at all confused about the context of these ideas and how they're being brought up, send me an email. I'll respond to as many as I can. But that said, if someone were gonna write a shortlist of the quintessential postmodernist philosophers, of what's meant when somebody says postmodernist philosopher, Foucault is definitely gonna be on that list. But to some, relegating the work of Foucault and labeling it as merely being in the realm of philosophy doesn't really do him justice because his work oftentimes moves into areas that have nothing to do with philosophy.

有人会称福柯为历史学家、政治理论家或社会评论家。根据他不同时期的著作，读者对其关注重点可能有截然不同的印象。我们无法单集涵盖福柯的全部工作，但很好的切入点是讨论他1975年的著作《规训与惩罚》。对初次接触者而言，这本书可能像部犯罪学编年史。

To some, you could easily refer to Foucault as a historian or a political theorist or a social commentator. Depending on what era of his life he wrote the book you're reading, you could have very different impressions about what subject matters even were important to him. Now this makes it completely impossible for us to cover the entire scope of Foucault's work in a single episode, and it can kinda make it hard to find a clean entry point into covering his work. But I think a really good place to start is for us to talk about the details of his 1975 book titled Discipline and Punish. Now to a total outsider to the work of Michel Foucault, to somebody that just picked up and read Discipline and Punish one day, to that person, the book may seem to be just a history of criminology, a historical catalog of the ways we've treated and punished criminals over the centuries.

但正如本期将揭示的，福柯实则通过此书探讨更深层的问题：社会权力结构的本质，以及权力者与普通公民的关系。为避免前半部分听起来像监狱史纪录片，我会在章节末尾提出问题，暗示这些内容远不止犯罪学历史那么简单。顺便说，福柯本人从不用'历史'一词描述此书。

But as we'll talk about later on today's episode, Foucault's actually making a much deeper point with this book. He's making a point about the structures of where power lies in society and the relationship between the people in power and the average citizen. And just so the first half of the podcast doesn't come off completely like I'm doing some documentary on the history of how we've treated prisoners, throughout the episode, I'm gonna ask some questions when we come to the end of sections to sort of foreshadow why this may be much bigger than just Foucault talking about the history of criminology. By the way, Foucault himself would never describe this book as a, quote, unquote, history of anything. Foucault hated the word history and almost never used it in his writing.

他更愿用'谱系学'或'考古学'来形容对罪犯处置方式的研究。福柯厌恶'历史'一词，因其常隐含人类处于持续进步时间线的傲慢假设——仿佛我们已告别马基雅维利式的野蛮，权力者不再残酷折磨罪犯。

He used words to describe this book more like a a genealogy of the way we've treated criminals or an archaeology of how criminals have been punished over the years. He hates the word history because so often the word history brings with it a connotation that we exist in our modern world at the end of this long historical timeline of events that have led to near constant progress. This idea that, ah, we used to be these barbaric savages that followed the playbook of Machiavelli. The ends justify the means. We used to believe it was morally acceptable for the king or the people in power to brutally torture and kill someone that was guilty of a heinous crime.

哦，然后历史发生了，时间流逝，进步实现，伟大思想家涌现...

Oh, but then but then history happened. Time went on. Progress was made. Great political theorists came along. Great leaders.

伦理哲学家完成工作，我们幡然醒悟，创造了更自由的现代世界，权力者对公民的压制大幅减少。福柯将质疑这种历史假设，深入探讨权力者与公民的根本关系究竟改变了多少。在《规训与惩罚》第一章，他通过描述1750年代西欧罪犯的处境奠定讨论基础。

Great ethical philosophers did their work, and we all realized the error of our ways and brought into existence a more modern world where everyone's much more free. The people in power inhibiting the lives of the average citizen far less than they used to. Foucault is gonna call this assumption about history into question and really dig deeper into the idea of how much has really changed when it comes to the fundamental relationship between those in power and the citizens. Foucault begins exploring this idea in chapter one of Discipline and Punish by laying the groundwork for the rest of the discussion and describing what it was like to be a criminal in Western Europe in the seventeen fifties. Specifically, he gives an example of what the world was like at this time by describing an actual punishment that was carried out on a criminal in the year 1757.

听听1757年某罪犯受的真实刑罚：'犯人赤身只穿衬衣，手持两磅重燃蜡火炬，在教堂台阶公开行刑。用烧红钳子撕扯其胸、臂、腿肌肉，持凶刀的右手浇硫磺灼烧，伤口灌入熔铅、沸油、松脂与硫磺混合物，最后四马分尸，残肢焚毁扬灰。'福柯希望我们首先思考几个问题。

Listen to the punishment this person faced for the crimes they had committed. This punishment was to be implemented in public on the steps of the church, and the criminal was to be, quote, taken and conveyed in a cart wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds. Then on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs, and calves with red hot pincers, his right hand holding the knife with which he committed the said parasite, burnt with sulfur, and on those places where the flesh will be torn away poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax, and sulfur melted together, and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses, and his limbs and body consumed by fire reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds, end quote. That was an actual punishment carried out on an actual person in the year 1757. Now a few things Foucault would want us to initially consider about this situation.

其一，是要认识到这个判决诞生于一个对你而言可能如同外星般遥远的星球。你看，人们很容易听到这样的刑罚，用现代的道德直觉去衡量它，对十八世纪五十年代的人们产生道德优越感，然后将他们的整个文化视为野蛮的过往时代产物，甚至认为讨论它都是在浪费时间。我们能从认为这种刑罚合理的人身上学到什么？但福柯指出这种思维方式的问题在于：如果你总在此停止思考，第一，你将永远无法理解历史背景为何造就了不同的时代；第二，更重要的是，这种道德优越感常使我们忽略古今世界的相似性。

One would be to recognize the fact that this sentence was handed down on what may as well be a distant alien planet to the planet that you live on. See, because it's so easy to hear about a punishment like this, weigh it up against the moral intuitions that happen to be given to you in modern times, feel morally superior to the people that lived in the seventeen fifties, and then write off their entire culture as just barbaric savagery from a bygone era that to even talk about is legitimizing a waste of time. What could we possibly learn from people that thought something like this was a good idea? But the problem with this approach to Foucault is that if you always end the conversation here, number one, you never understand the historical context that explains why things were different back then. But number two, and more importantly to Foucault, that feeling of moral superiority so often gets us to never consider the similarities between the world back then and the world as it is now.

更具体地说，是那个时代的权力结构、其与公民的关系，以及其中多少元素延续至今。试想：这个刑罚发生在美国独立战争前、法国大革命前的世界。下达判决的君主国并非启蒙运动产物，而是更接近马基雅维利《君主论》与霍布斯《利维坦》的文艺复兴式诠释。

More specifically, the power structures of that time, their relationship to the citizens, and how many aspects of them still persist to this day. Because think about it. This punishment was handed down in a world that was pre American revolution, pre French revolution. The nation state that sentenced this prisoner to this punishment was not modeled after the Enlightenment. It was modeled more after a Renaissance era interpretation of Machiavelli's the prince and Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.

这种社会的稳定性基于社会契约理论——如我们播客讨论过的，即每个国民出生时便签署了隐形契约。公民通过税收、公共服务等方式向国家让渡部分权益，换取霍布斯所称的

The stability of this particular society would have been grounded in social contract theory. Or if you remember from the podcast episodes we did about this period, it's the idea that upon birth, each and every citizen of the nation state effectively signs a social contract. The citizens sacrifice a certain amount to the state by way of taxation or public service or by other means, and in return, they receive protection, protection from what Hobbes calls the state of nature, protection by a king or a magistrate or whatever sovereign body is in charge that guarantees certain natural rights for the people. Put another way, the citizen's job is to sacrifice for the sovereign so that the sovereign can do their job of guaranteeing the natural rights of the population, including punishing criminals that disobey the law. This is a contract where both parties have a very important role if society is going to function.

从我们讨论霍布斯的节目中你可能还记得：在这种社会里，犯罪被视为对政治体的直接攻击，是对每位签署社会契约公民的冒犯——他们共同构成了霍布斯笔下的利维坦。但最重要的是，犯罪被视为对君主权威的公然挑衅。福柯认为，正是在这里，我们得以窥见十八世纪五十年代刑罚体系的真正核心功能——当时的刑事司法目标并非正义。

Now another thing you may remember from the episodes we did on Hobbes is that when somebody commits a crime in one of these societies, the act is seen as a direct attack on the body politic. Not only that, but the crime is seen as a direct affront to every single citizen that assigned a social contract, each one of them making up a small piece of that Leviathan that Hobbes describes. But more importantly than either of those two things, when a crime is committed in one of these societies, it is seen as a direct affront to the authority of the king. And it's right here, Foucault thinks, that you can start to see the true primary function of the penal system in one of these societies in the seventeen fifties. The goal of the criminal justice system back then was not justice.

那时并不注重任何形式的公平裁决。实施刑罚的目的不是公正——同类犯罪通常不会获得相同惩罚。刑事司法体系的真正功能，这些刑罚之所以戏剧化且公开执行的关键原因，在于其维持社会秩序的能力。它通过几种关键方式实现：首先，这种体系能极有效地威慑犯罪行为。

There was no real focus on a balancing of the scales in any sort of way. The goal of implementing these punishments was not fairness. People didn't get the same punishment for the same crime, generally speaking. The true function of the criminal justice system, the reason these punishments were often dramatic and always carried out in front of everyone in the public as a spectacle, the primary function was its ability to maintain social order, and it achieved this goal in a couple of key ways. First of all, this type of system was a fantastic deterrent of criminal behavior.

因为如果你是一个计划在那天犯下某种滔天罪行的人，只需看看那个被烧红钳子撕掉手臂的家伙，这就是一篇极具说服力的文章，告诉你为什么不该做那些事。但这类制度在当时如此有效的另一个原因是，在这样的社会中，当犯罪发生时，它直接质疑了君主的权威。这些在教堂台阶上当众执行的惩罚，最终成为一种极其有效的公共景观，因为它们向民众强化了一个事实——直接证明了君主仍在履行社会契约的义务。这整个展示的主要目的不是正义，也不是公平，而是维持社会内部的秩序。

Because if you were someone who had plans that day of committing some sort of heinous criminal act, look no further than the guy getting his arms ripped off by red hot pincers as a persuasive essay as to why you shouldn't be doing that stuff. But the other reason this type of system was so good back then, because in one of these societies, when a crime is committed, it directly calls into question the authority of the sovereign, these punishments being carried out in front of everybody on the church steps ended up being an extremely useful public spectacle because these punishments served as reinforcement of the fact, direct evidence of the fact to the population that the sovereign was still upholding their end of the social contract. The primary goal of this entire display was not justice. It was not fairness. It was the maintaining of order within the society.

福柯会想指出，如果你是君主，如果你是受这些社会委托维持秩序的个体或群体，那么确保你明天、下周或下个月仍能掌权并维持秩序，绝对是履行职责的关键部分。换句话说，福柯认为，作为君主，维持秩序这一任务内在且必要的部分，就是维护现有的权力结构。但让我们提出一个预示性的问题：当权力结构不再满足人民需求时会发生什么？福柯会想指出，不仅这种以维持秩序为职责的君主制度对我们有效，而且效果显著。事实上，它在数百年间运行得极为出色。

And Foucault would wanna point out that if you're the sovereign, if you're the person or group that's been commissioned by one of these societies to maintain order, an absolutely crucial part of doing your job is to make sure that you're still in power, able to maintain order tomorrow or next week or a month from now. In other words, Foucault is saying an intrinsic necessary part of that task of maintaining order, if you're the sovereign, is preserving the existing power structure. But just to ask one of those foreshadowing questions, what happens when the power structure no longer serves the needs of the people? Now Foucault would wanna point out that not only did having a sovereign whose job it was to maintain order in this way work for us, but it worked well. In fact, it worked extremely well for hundreds of years.

但最终，就像任何不完美的系统一样，问题出现了。君主和其他掌权者开始注意到以这种方式构建的社会的兴衰模式。他们开始遭遇一些意想不到的后果，系统中反复出现的缺陷。你看，当你为了向社会传递权力归属的信息而公开处决人时，事情并不总是顺利。例如，有时你试图公开处决某人，他们却死不了。

But eventually, as is the case with any imperfect system, problems came up. The sovereign and other people in positions of power started to notice some patterns with societies that were structured this way and how they rise and fall. They started to run into some unintended consequences, flaws in the system that seemed to be repeating themselves over and over again. See, because when you're in the business of publicly executing people for the sake of sending a message about where the power lies in a society, things don't always play out seamlessly in that situation. For example, sometimes when you try to publicly execute someone, they don't die.

我是说，总会有意外发生，对吧？设备故障，马匹那天不配合，你试图绞死某人，但他们脖子上像有六块腹肌似的，就那么挂在那儿几个小时嘲笑你。关键是这类事情时有发生。而当它们发生时，民众很容易开始思考这是否是某种凶兆。

I mean, something's eventually gonna go wrong. Right? The the equipment malfunctions, the horses aren't cooperating that day, you try to hang somebody, but they, you know, they got, like, a six pack on their neck, and they just kinda hang there for a few hours laughing at you. Point is, these sorts of things happen sometimes. And when they did, it wasn't a far leap for the population to start considering whether this was some sort of bad omen.

这是否意味着君主的权威正在动摇，他们不再有能力履行社会契约的义务？但这并非这些社会中唯一出现的意外后果。例如，在本集开头，我们讨论了福柯在《规训与惩罚》第一章中引用的1757年一项相当极端的惩罚。当这类极端惩罚施加于某人时，民众很可能会认为惩罚远远超过了所犯罪行的严重程度，这种情况并不罕见。当此类事件发生时，民众站在罪犯一边，或至少质疑君主的权威及其治理能力，也并非完全罕见。

Was this a sign that the authority of the sovereign was wavering, that they were no longer capable of carrying out their end of the social contract? But this wasn't the only unintended consequence that started to crop up in these societies. For example, at the beginning of the episode, we talked about a pretty extreme punishment in 1757 that Foucault cites in chapter one of discipline and punish. Well, it wasn't entirely uncommon when one of these sorts of extreme punishments were carried out on someone that the population might think the punishment greatly exceeded the severity of the crime that was being committed. When this sort of thing happened, it wasn't entirely uncommon for the population to side with the criminal, or at the very least, call into question the authority of the sovereign and whether they're still running things properly.

但或许对统治者而言，最出乎意料且无人预见到的负面后果是：当这类残酷的处决与惩罚每日在公共广场上当着所有人的面进行时——若社会运转良好且统治者尽职尽责，人们心中对谁在掌权便毫无疑虑。对于违反现行权力结构所执行规则时将面临何种问责对象及方式，也不存在任何疑问。然而其反面则是，当情况恶化时——比如发生饥荒、自然权利得不到保障，或仅仅是公众普遍认为统治者无能且需要变革时——人们在寻找必须推翻并消灭的当权者以实现变革时，同样不会有任何困惑。统治者与掌权者逐渐意识到，在我们所讨论的这种虽残酷却现实的社会形态中，民众意志常常能影响掌权者的更迭，这对统治者而言有时会极为不便。

But probably the biggest unintended negative consequence for the sovereign that nobody saw common was that when you have these sorts of brutal executions and punishments taking place in the public square every day in front of everyone, when society's functioning well and the sovereign's doing their job, there is zero doubt in anyone's mind when it comes to who is in charge. There is zero question as to who you'll have to answer to and how you'll have to answer to them should you decide to go against the rules enforced by the existing power structure. But the flip side to that is that when things are not going well, say there's a famine or natural rights aren't being guaranteed, or even if there's just a general public sentiment that the sovereign's inept and some change needs to take place. The flip side is that there is zero confusion in anyone's mind when looking for the people in power that need to be overthrown and killed for this change to occur. What the sovereign and the people in power started to realize is that in this type of society that we're talking about, brutal as it was, the will of the people often had influence over which people were in positions of power, and this could be extremely inconvenient for the sovereign at times.

这使得长期掌权成为一项极其脆弱的冒险。当权者们明白，若想使权力更具可持续性，就必须进行某种根本性变革。福柯记录了1757年至1837年间社会对待罪犯方式的重大转变。此刻我需要预先回应一个可能的质疑：有人或许会认为'哦，所以你是在说一群掌权的恶人意识到在这种旧式社会中民众意志确实能产生影响'。

It made staying in a position of power for any extended period of time a pretty vulnerable enterprise. The people in positions of power knew that something drastic had to change if they wanted to make power more sustainable, and Foucault documents a fundamental shift that occurs in the way societies treat criminals that takes place between the year 1757 and 1837. Now real quick. I'm just anticipating a place that someone's brain might go here. Oh oh, Oh, so what you're saying is that a bunch of evil people in positions of power realized that in this older type of society, the will of the people actually mattered and could influence things.

于是他们秘密结盟，组建名为'飘零凤凰会'之类的秘密组织，设计诡异的暗号，围坐密谋控制民众以永保权力——但福柯可能会指出，政府中人渴望权力根基更稳固时，并不需要存在某个邪恶秘密组织。记住，掌权者同样签署了社会契约。这份契约部分内容在于维护社会秩序以持续保障公民自然权利，而福柯认为历史上维护秩序的部分方式就是保全现有权力结构。这些掌权者中甚至不需要存在任何恶人，他们就有动机发明更新更好的掌权策略。福柯将1757至1837年间实施的这些新策略称为权力者控制囚犯方式的广义进化。

So they all got together, met in backrooms, formed a secret society, called it something like the council of the drifting phoenix came up with a creepy secret handshake, and they all sat around coming up with ways to control the population so they'd never have to relinquish power. But what Foucault would probably wanna point out is that there doesn't need to be some evil secret society for people in government to want power to be more deeply embedded. Remember, the people in positions of power signed a social contract as well. Part of that social contract is maintaining the order of society so that they can continue to guarantee the natural rights of the citizens, and part of maintaining order historically to Foucault has been to preserve the existing power structure. There doesn't need to be a single evil person in any of these positions of power for them to be motivated to come up with new, better tactics to stay in power, and Foucault would say that these new tactics that are being implemented between the years 1757 and 1837 is a broader evolution of the way people in power keep prisoners under control.

这些变革历经数十年逐渐发生，有时仅体现为公开处决仪式本身的细微调整。以往囚犯处决前会被置于敞篷车上游街示众，经年累月慢慢演变为四周钉着木板的封闭车厢，几乎看不见犯人；后来更发展为头套布袋完全隐匿身份。到1790年代，多数社会已摒弃戏剧性或创意性公开处决，转而采用法院门前标准化的断头台行刑。数年后断头台移至法院后方，最终移入监狱内部，所有处决转为秘密执行。

These changes occur gradually over the course of decades, sometimes just with subtle changes to the ceremony of the public execution itself. Whereas before, prisoners used to be just paraded around in an open top cart before their execution, slowly over the years, that evolved into a closed top cart with wooden planks on the sides that you could hardly see the person. That eventually evolved into a bag being over the person's head and their identity completely concealed. By the seventeen nineties, most societies had moved away from these dramatic or creative public executions and favored a more standardized punishment of a guillotine in front of the courthouse. Few years later, the guillotine was moved behind the courthouse until eventually it was moved inside the prison, and all executions were done in private.

惩罚及我们对待罪犯的现实方式，已从过去作为公众意识前沿（无人能忽视的存在），缓慢演变为如今抽象、静默、隔离甚至封锁在遥远建筑中的事物——我们再也无需直面。这使得施加惩罚的掌权者更难被定位。在此提出几个预示性问题：这可能对社会产生何种影响？更重要的是，为何想维持权力者会更青睐这种局面？福柯指出，到1837年，我们惩罚罪犯的方式发生了两项极其刻意的根本转变。

Punishment and the reality of the way we treat criminals has slowly moved from before when it was something that was at the forefront of public consciousness that it was impossible not to be aware of to now when it's something abstract, silent, cordoned off, and even locked away in these distant faraway buildings that we never have to see. Much harder to locate who the people in power are that are inflicting this punishment. To ask a couple more foreshadowing questions here, what sort of effects might this have on a society? And more importantly, why might people who want to maintain their positions of power prefer a situation like this? By the year 1837, two fundamental changes had occurred in the way that we punish criminals that Foucault says are extremely deliberate.

第一，将死刑作为全民见证的公开景观的做法已几乎绝迹；第二，我们改变了策略——从对身体施加伤害转向新纪元：主要聚焦于对罪犯思想的规训与控制。容我重申：这是从过去肉体惩罚到现代思想规训与改造的根本转变。这正是福柯将著作命名为《规训与惩罚》的原因。

Number one, putting somebody to death as a public spectacle that everybody gets to witness had all but disappeared. And number two, we had changed tactics from punishing criminals by inflicting harm on their bodies to the emergence of a new era in our methods of punishing criminals where we now focus primarily on the disciplining and control of their minds. Let me say it again. There is a fundamental shift from the physical punishment of the person's body like we used to do to the more modern disciplining and reformation of the person's mind. This is why Foucault titles the book Discipline and Punish.

这标志着现代监狱体系的萌芽与诞生。权力者开始发展更高效有力的掌权方式，这一漫长演进的起点。福柯在书中引用了1830年代服刑囚犯必须遵守的精确作息表，诸位不难想象其内容：

This is the emergence and infancy of what will eventually become the modern prison. This is the beginning of a long evolution where people in positions of power develop a much more efficient and effective way of wielding and sustaining power over people. Foucault in the book cites an actual strict time schedule that criminals in the eighteen thirties that were serving time had to follow during their time in prison. You can imagine what something like this might look like. Right?

上午7点起床，7:05准时列队点名，7:15到达食堂用早餐，7:25抵达当日指定工作岗位，9:15饮水休息。

7AM, wake up. 07:05, you are to be on your mark for roll call. 07:15, you are to be at the mess hall for breakfast. 07:25, you are to be at your assigned job post for the day. 09:15, water break.

9:20继续劳作。换言之，当每日行程被精确到秒地规划时，既无暇从事非法活动，也无余力思考规训要求之外的任何事。我们将这种对思想规训与行为改造的严格聚焦，与年间涌现的其他新策略相结合——特别是福柯认为史上最高效的罪犯管控新方法：改良版三维度体系。

09:20, back to work. In other words, when your entire day is scheduled and accounted for down to the second, there's not much time for illicit criminal activity. There's not much time for any thought outside of disciplining yourself and adhering to the schedule of stuff you're required to do. We'll couple this new strict focus on the disciplining of the mind and reformation of behavior with more new tactics that were emerging over the years. More specifically, a new improved three pronged approach towards controlling prisoners that Foucault thinks is one of the most effective methods that's ever been devised.

这个用于约束囚犯的三维度方法，被福柯称为监视、规范化与考核。即对囚犯的持续监视（这与规范化完美结合——权力者制定的'模范囚犯'思维行为标准），二者又与持续考核流程相辅相成：权力者通过评分判定你与我们设定的'模范囚犯'行为准则的契合度。福柯认为这套高效的新控囚体系可能源于哲学家边沁的构想。正如柏拉图在《理想国》中耗费大量篇幅设计理想政府结构，边沁在其著作中同样致力于构建理想监狱体系。

The three prongs of this three pronged method that's used to keep prisoners in line are what Foucault calls surveillance, normalization, and examination. That is constant surveillance of the prisoners, which combines nicely with normalization or a normalized standard of how a good prisoner should be thinking and behaving that's been given to you by the people in power. And both of these work nicely with a constant process of examination and reexamination where people in positions of power give you a score or a grade determining how well you're corresponding with that way of behaving that we decided a good prisoner should be a reflection of. Foucault thinks this new, highly effective way of controlling prisoners may have sprung out of the work of a philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. The same way Plato and the republic spends a considerable amount of time trying to come up with the ideal structure of government, Jeremy Bentham spends a bunch of time in his work trying to come up with the ideal structure of a prison.

经过长时间思考后，他最终提出的模型被他称为‘全景敞视监狱’。简而言之，全景敞视监狱是一种设计巧妙的建筑布局，使处于权力中心的看守或监管者能够随时观察任何囚室内的犯人，而囚犯却无法看见他们。囚犯无从知晓自己何时被监视，也不明白被监视的标准。边沁认为，这种设计之所以是监狱的理想形态，是因为在这种监狱中，囚犯唯一合理的行为方式就是每时每刻都表现得像在被监视一样——因为他们永远无法确定监视是否正在进行。

And the model that he arrives at after thinking about it for so long is what he calls the Panopticon. Simply put, the Panopticon is a building designed and laid out in a very clever way where a single guard or warden or anyone in a position of power can stand in a specific spot in the center of the building, and they can see inside the cell of any prisoner they want, watch them at any time, but the prisoners can't see them. They can't know when they're being watched. They can't know the criteria that determines why they're being watched. In a sense, Bentham says, the reason this is an ideal design for a prison is because the only reasonable thing that prisoners can do in a prison that's designed this way is to behave every second of every day as though they're being watched because they can never know when or when it's not happening.

囚犯的生活重新沦为持续不断的监控——无论是通过摄像头还是武装警卫，严格遵循权力者定义的‘模范囚犯’行为准则，并接受专家、法院系统、假释委员会或本周任何审查机构的严苛检验。此刻或许有人会问：为何我们要如此详尽地探讨犯罪史？这与哲学有何关联？对我个人又有何意义？福柯可能会对持此疑问者说：但愿你们已注意到我们至今讨论的细节——因为这些控制手段远不止适用于囚犯。

The life of the prisoner becomes, once again, constant surveillance through cameras or armed guards, strict adherence to a normalized way a good prisoner behaves given to them by people in power, and rigorous examination by experts or the court system or the parole board or whoever it is this week for the prisoner to answer to. Now something out there might be saying, why are we going on so much about the history of criminals? What does this have to do with philosophy? What relevance does this have to me whatsoever? Well, if you're someone that's thought that all we've been talking about so far in this episode are methods that we've developed over the years for controlling only prisoners, Foucault would probably say, I hope you've been paying attention to the details of what's been said so far.

当杰里米·边沁设计全景敞视监狱时，他探讨的不仅是监狱的理想结构。由此延伸，福柯所论述的也不仅是我们为控制囚犯而演变出的方法。边沁在其著作中将全景敞视监狱广义描述为‘一种获取支配心灵之权力的全新模式，其规模前所未有’。正因如此，他随即指出：虽然这是控制囚犯的理想建筑结构，但同样设计完全可以应用于其他领域——无论是精神病院中定义‘模范病患’，军队中塑造‘优秀士兵’，还是大学里规训‘好学生’的思维行为标准。

Because when Jeremy Bentham sits down and creates the design of this panopticon of his, he's not just talking about the ideal structure of a prison. And what follows from that is that Foucault is not just talking about the evolution of methods we've developed to control prisoners. Jeremy Bentham describes the panopticon very generally in his work as a, quote, new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind and a quantity hitherto without example, end quote. And knowing that he said that, it makes sense that he quickly goes on to say that although this is the ideal structure of a prison if you wanted to control prisoners, there's no reason the same design couldn't be applied if you wanted to create anything. I mean, a a mental institution that promotes a standard to the inmates of what a good patient is, or in a military setting, promoting what it is to be a good soldier, or in a university setting, promoting how you should think and behave if you wanna be a good student.

若边沁生活在现代经济社会，他必定会看到全景敞视模式在工厂培养‘模范工人’中的效用，更会意识到跨国公司如何借此塑造‘理想员工’。关键在于：作为企业掌权者，你无需像对待采石苦役的囚犯那样对待员工。只要将锁链放长到让他们感受不到禁锢，你就能设定狭窄的‘模范员工’标准——他们不仅会自觉遵循，还会主动维持这种状态。

If Bentham lived in a modern economic society, he no doubt would see the utility of the panopticon if it was applied to a factory and producing good factory workers, or even more generally, how it could be used at a multinational corporation trying to produce good employees. See, that's the thing. Let's say you're in a position of power in a corporation. To be able to use the fundamentals of these highly effective tactics that have been developed over the years to control your employees, you don't need to treat them like they're a prisoner that's part of a chain gang forced to crush rocks all day. No.

通过摄像头、打卡机、主管、截止期限、电脑活动监控构成的 surveillance（监视）；通过专业言行着装规范、职场人格面具、政治正确要求建立的 normalization（规范化）；再辅以月度/季度/年度考核的 examination（审查）——这套三位一体机制使员工始终承受着遵从标准化行为的巨大压力。甚至在高度竞争环境中，同事间互相监视以获取把柄的现象也成了监视的延伸。

As long as you make sure that their chain is long enough that they don't feel like a prisoner, you can set up some pretty narrow parameters for what it is to be a, quote, good employee that not only will they fall into, but they will actually police themselves to stay that way. They'll feel intense pressure to adhere to that normalized standard of behavior at all times because their life at work is one of surveillance, normalization, and examination. Surveillance by way of cameras, time clocks, supervisors, deadlines, monitoring activity on your computer. Mean, I even sometimes just the surveillance of other employees around that feel like they benefit from having dirt on someone in a highly competitive environment. The normalized standard of being a good employee, speaking, acting, dressing in a professional way, however that's defined by whoever decided in the company, putting on your work persona, always being politically correct, doing all the things to make sure you're a good team player.

接着进入审查阶段：你的每月/每季/年度评估会从各个维度打出十分制分数，本质上衡量你与‘公司定义的理想形象’的契合度。‘嗯，你的生产率与上次评估持平...某些方面不错，但其他方面还有提升空间。别担心，我已制定行动计划帮你回归正轨。’这种三管齐下的方法已成为控制人类行为的主导模式。

Then it's on to the examination phase with your monthly, quarterly, yearly evaluations where they give you a score out of 10 in all these different areas to determine how well you're doing, or in other words, how well you correspond with exactly who I say you should be when you're here. Oh, well, seems your your productivity is about the same level as last evaluation. That's fine, I guess. You're doing good in some areas, but, you know, there's room for improvement in a couple other areas. And, don't worry.

这种三位一体方法已成为控制人类行为的主导模式。若存疑，不妨观察其与某些宗教结构的相似性——持续监视、规范行为、严格审查的流程。该方法如此高效且普适，以致在现代社会，权力运作已将其渗透到监狱或企业等机构之外，深深嵌入了社会肌理本身。

I made an action plan so that we can see if we can get you back on track. How about that? This three pronged method has become the dominant way of controlling human behavior. And if you doubt that in any way, consider the similarities it has to the structure of some religions with the constant surveillance, normative behavior, and rigorous process of examination. This method is so effective and so capable of being applied to any circumstance imaginable that in our modern world, it has so pervaded the way power is exercised that it extends beyond institutions like prisons or corporations, and it's actually embedded itself into the very fabric of society.

完全相同的监视-规范化-审查流程，也存在于你的网络形象塑造与媒体消费中，很可能正作用于你当前所处的社交圈层。福柯指出现代权力操控最阴险之处在于：你既是受控对象，又是系统的积极参与者——这种参与往往在无意识中巩固了现有权力结构。让我们暂停片刻，深入探讨福柯的隐含意义：还记得1750年代的刑事司法体系吗？

The very same process of surveillance, normalization, and examination could be said to exist in the way you present yourself online and the media you consume. It most likely is even being played out in various social circles that you're a part of right now. Foucault would say that one of the truly insidious things about the way power is wielded and people are controlled in modern times is that simultaneously, you are both a subject that is being controlled while also being an active participant in the system, an active participant that in some way, most times unknowingly, supports the existing power structure. Let's slow down for a second, really talk about what's being implied here for Foucault. Remember the criminal justice system back in the seventeen fifties?

正如我们讨论的，当时体系的首要目标显然不是正义或公平，而是维持社会秩序与推动发展所带来的利益。福柯将追问：1970年代的刑罚体系在本质上真的有所不同吗？我们是否真的身处一个通过历史进步构建出以‘实现正义’为首要目标的光明时代？对福柯而言，现代刑罚体系的目标是通过监视、规范化与审查，批量生产温顺无害、遵守规则、满足于遵从上层定义的‘标准人生’的纳税劳动力。

So as we talked about, the goal of the whole situation back then was clearly not primarily justice or fairness, but instead the benefits the system provided to society when it came to maintaining order and keeping things moving forward. Well, Foucault is going to ask, is the penal system of the nineteen seventies really so different when you take a closer look at it? Do we exist in a modern, enlightened era where we've grown throughout history and learned the era of our ways and constructed a penal system that first and foremost has the aim of distributing justice and fairness? To Foucault, the goal of the modern penal system is not justice or fairness. The goal is through surveillance, normalization, and examination to produce harmless, non rebellious, working, tax paying, productive citizens who follow the rules and are satisfied with a life of conforming to the normalized standard of what it is to be a person handed down to them from above.

换言之，权力阶层需要的是驯服而有用的主体，去实现他们规划的未来愿景。这解释了白领与蓝领犯罪量刑的悬殊差异——偷税两万美元的企业高管与抢劫塔可钟85美元加至尊卷饼的平民，只要前者不拒不还款，十之八九不会入狱。因为在权力者眼中，高管的行为几乎不需要‘改造’——‘继续工作吧，你现有的状态基本符合要求’。

In other words, docile, useful subjects that carry out the vision for what the future should hold given to them by the people in power. This is why there's such a difference when it comes to the sentencing between white collar and blue collar crimes, between an executive that robs the IRS of $20,000 by evading taxes and some dude that robs a Taco Bell of, you know, $85 and a Burrito Supreme. Short of the executive absolutely refusing to pay back any of the money, Nine times out of 10, they are not gonna see the inside of a prison cell because their behavior really doesn't need that much reformation in the eyes of the people in power. I mean, keep doing almost everything you're doing. Keep keep working.

继续创造就业机会。继续创办新公司。继续每周日去打羽毛球。只要按时缴税就行。而那个抢劫塔可钟的家伙，就算他走回店里把85美元亲手交给经理，像喂雏鸟一样把至尊墨西哥卷塞回他嘴里——

Keep creating jobs. Keep starting new companies. Keep going to badminton on Sundays. Just pay your taxes. Whereas the guy that robbed the Taco Bell, I mean, it doesn't matter if he marches back into that store, hands the $85 directly to the manager, baby birds the burrito supreme back into his mouth.

十有八九这家伙还是会进监狱，因为刑罚体系的目标是将罪犯改造成为符合预设的'正常人'模板，而非直接报复罪行。如今还要考虑一个事实：一旦判刑，就与正义或公平无关了。现代社会盛行'表现良好提前释放'机制——换句话说，只要你愿意按照要求改造自己，初始刑期长短根本不重要。只要你遵守规则，我们甚至可能为你减刑数十年。

Nine times out of 10, that guy is going to jail because the goal of the penal system is reforming criminals to fit a preexisting mold of what a normal person is, not direct retribution for a crime. Now also consider the fact that once you're sentenced, it isn't about justice or fairness at that point either. In today's day and age, there's the modern advent of getting out on good behavior. In other words, as long as you're willing to reform yourself into the type of person that we've told you to be, it doesn't really matter what your initial sentence was. We may knock a couple decades off your sentence if only you're willing to play by our rules.

但有些人无论入狱多少次，都注定不会遵守规则。他们永远不会变成当权者期望的模样，永远不会改变。这些人要么成为监狱常客，要么最终被判终身监禁。福柯认为，正是这些拒绝遵守规则的人让我们这些所谓的'正常人'深深着迷。将自我视为'正常'、将罪犯标签化为'异常者'或需要'改造归化'的对象——福柯指出，这本身就是现代社会的发明。

Now some people out there, no matter how many times they go to prison, are just the type of people that are never gonna play by the rules. They're never gonna become this person that people in power want them to become. They're never gonna change, and those people are the people that will either be lifelong repeat offenders in and out of jail, or they'll eventually get life in prison. And Foucault would say it's these kinds of people that refuse to play by the rules that are absolutely fascinating to us as, quote, normal people. That's another modern invention for Foucault, thinking of ourselves as normal and the labeling of criminals as abnormal or people that need to be reformed to a state of normalcy.

但恰恰是他们与'正常人'的差异让我们对罪犯如此痴迷。看看过去几年爆红的数千档真实犯罪播客，网飞上铺天盖地的犯罪剧集——如果你还订阅有线电视，那些黄金时段滚动播出的罪案纪录片都在证明这一点。

But it's the fact that they're not like normal people that makes us so fascinated by criminals. Look at the thousands of true crime podcasts that have absolutely exploded onto the podcast scene in the last couple years. Massively popular. Look on Netflix at all the crime related shows you can find there. Mean, if you still have a TV subscription, look at all the TV shows on the air documenting some crime that was committed.

对福柯而言，这种犯罪迷恋并非现代特有。纵观历史，美国西部有比利小子，大萧条时期有邦妮和克莱德，罪犯甚至能成为民间英雄像DB·库珀——这种现象绝非美国独有。

This fascination with criminals is not a modern phenomenon to Foucault. This has existed all throughout our history. In the American West, there was Billy the Kid. In the Great Depression, Bonnie and Clyde. Criminals can even become folk heroes like DB Cooper, but this doesn't just happen in The United States.

全球文明都经历过这个阶段。古代社会逐渐废除公开处刑的部分原因，正是意识到将受民众爱戴的罪犯置于舞台中央的危险后果。福柯认为我们痴迷罪犯，是因为当他们激烈反抗社会规则时，恰恰照见了我们的本质——守法生活在巨型社会监狱中的囚徒。我们的人生被困在环形监狱的囚室里，或者说，嵌套式的全景监控之中。

This has happened all over the world. Part of the reason these older societies moved away from the direction of executing criminals as a public spectacle is because of the very real effects of what happens when you put a criminal beloved by the public at center stage. Foucault thinks we love criminals so much because when they vehemently refuse to play by the rules of society, they have an ability to show us exactly what we are. The law abiding occupants and active participants in what is effectively a massive social prison. We live our lives trapped in a cell inside of a panopticon, or a panopticon inside of another panopticon.

对福柯来说，全景监狱堪称现代性工程的绝妙隐喻。正如真实监狱的运作目标不是正义等崇高美德，而是将囚犯改造成维持社会运转的零件；我们作为社会监狱的囚徒，也不断被规训成好员工、好消费者、好选民、好学生、好朋友——所有这些内化的期待都来自权力阶层的灌输。影视书籍等媒体给我们设定标准：体型应该怎样、美是什么、该关心什么、什么能说什么不能说、为什么有些人可以你不行。古今所有酷刑监狱对人的摧残，都比不上现代人在社会监狱里对自我的规训。我们活在全景监狱中，因为无时无刻不觉得有目光在监督我们是否符合那些外界灌输的行为标准。

In fact, the panopticon is a great metaphor for the entire project of modernity to Foucault. See, just like in the actual prison, where the goal of the operation is not some higher virtue like justice, but instead to reform prisoners into subjects that are useful for keeping society going, We, as occupants of our social prison, are constantly being disciplined and reformed into good employees, good consumers, good voters, good students, good friends, all internalized expectations of ourselves given to us by someone in a position of power. We're given standards to adhere to by TV shows, movies, books, all media, standards we internalize that tell us how our body should look, what beauty is, what you should care about, what you can and can't say, what some people can do that you can't do. There is no prison or method of torture that has ever been devised that can do to people what they willingly do to themselves in our modern social prison. We live in a panopticon because we live our lives as though we are constantly being watched and held to these standards about how we should be that are given to us by media and the people around us.

但最病态的是：我们既是被规训的囚徒，又是全景监狱中央监视自己的狱长。我们创造了自我监控的世界——照镜子时盘算要不要节食瘦两公斤来变美，忍受内心有毒的念头却保持沉默，只因害怕违背社会期待求助会暴露脆弱。没有什么监狱比得上这种生活：强迫自己符合标准化行为模板，同时被自己和他人持续审查是否维持'该有的样子'——福柯称之为现代灵魂谱系学。想想吧，你消费的媒体甚至决定了你思考自我时的全部词汇和认知框架。

But the truly sick part about it is that we have constructed a world where we are simultaneously both the prisoner being reformed in the cell and the warden at the center of the panopticon that's constantly watching us. We've created a world where we are under constant surveillance by ourselves, surveillance by looking in the mirror, wondering if you should starve yourself tonight to lose that two pounds that'll make you beautiful, surveillance of your own irrational toxic thoughts, but you suffer in silence rather than have to face the shame of going against societal expectations and asking for help and appearing temporarily weak to the people around you who need you to keep it together. There is no prison that can compare to the life of forcing yourself to adhere to a normalized standard of behavior that tells you the person you should be while constantly being surveyed and examined by yourself and others to make sure you stay that way. This is what Foucault refers to as the genealogy of the modern soul. Consider the fact that the media you consume even gives you the very vocabulary you have at your disposal, and with it, the only categories you have to think about who you even are as a person.

细思极恐——如果你掌握了定义人类自我认知的终极话语权，那将是何等力量？历史上人们总在追问：权力究竟在哪里？谁掌握权力？如何施加于人？经典答案总是将权力与政治特权挂钩。

Think about that. Think about the power you could have if you were the person that came up with the only terms people had to think about who they even are. See, all throughout history, people have asked the questions, where does power ultimately lie? Who has the power, and how is it exercised on people? And there's been this classic idea that people have brought up over and over again that power lies in the hands of people that are in privileged political positions.

传统观点认为：总统可以签署行政令，推动两党共识，任命终审法官——这就是权力所在。但马克思主义传统给出了否定答案。

The thinking is if you're the president of a country, you can pass executive orders. You can go across the aisle and find bipartisan consensus if you want to. You can appoint judges that ultimately dictate the law. That's where power lies. But then a Marxist tradition came along and said, no.

那其实是对权力的一种天真理解。因为在发达经济社会中，如果你能收买总统的利益，如果你能游说政客并通过财务捐助获得立法影响力，那么拥有权力的就不是处于特权政治地位的人，而是处于特权经济地位的人。许多后现代主义者，包括福柯在内，会认为马克思主义者就像他们之前的那些人一样天真，同样执着于试图寻找某种宏大叙事来解释一切，就像他们总是试图用经济学所做的那样。对福柯来说，权力并不存在于这些地方。你看，如果权力真的掌握在少数人手中，那倒是一件好事。

That's actually a naive understanding of power. Because in advanced economic societies, if you can buy the interests of the president, if you can lobby politicians and get legislation influence in your behavior because of financial contributions, then it's not people in privileged political positions that have the power, but people in privileged economic positions. Well, many postmodernists would say, Foucault among them, that the Marxists are just as naive as the people that came before them and just as hell bent on trying to find some grand narrative to explain everything like they always try to do with economics. To Foucault, power doesn't lie in either of these places. See, it would be great if power actually did lie in the hands of a relative few like that.

对福柯来说，如果像光明会这样的组织真的存在，那将是一件好事，因为那样的话，就像18世纪50年代的社会一样，我们可以直接指出掌权者，并在情况恶化时除掉他们。但在我们的现代世界中，权力要难识别得多，部分原因是它变得更加广泛和分散。在福柯看来，我们现代世界中的权力总是与知识相连。最近我们讨论了结构主义者和后结构主义者及其对知识主张的看法，我们知道对他们来说，知识并不是你在学校学到的关于宇宙本质的客观编码事实。对这些思想家来说，知识不过是当前主导文化话语的发现，以及它用来分割和理解世界的方法。

To Foucault, it'd be great if something like the Illuminati really existed because then, just like the societies in the seventeen fifties, we could point directly at the people in power and do away with them if things were going bad. But in our modern world, power is much more difficult to identify, and part of the reason why is because it's become much more widespread and diffuse. Power in our modern world of Foucault is always connected to knowledge. And having recently talked about the structuralists and post structuralists and their views on knowledge claims, we know that knowledge to them is not some objective codified set of facts about the way the universe is that you learn in school. Knowledge to these thinkers is nothing more than the findings of the current dominant set of cultural discourses and the method that it uses to chop up and make sense of the world.

因此，如果权力掌握在有知识的人手中，而知识是由那些使用狭隘文化偏见来分割现实的人提供给我们的，那么我们从哪里获得知识？这些为我们获取知识的人又是谁？在现代世界中，科学是我们获取知识的来源。而各自研究领域中的科学思想领袖，就是为我们获取知识以供使用的人。这就是权力的最终所在。你知道，福柯有一个著名的观点。

So if power lies in the hands of people with knowledge, and knowledge is given to us by people that use narrow cultural biases to chop up reality, then where do we get our knowledge, and who are these people that are arriving at knowledge for us? Well, in our modern world, science is where we get our knowledge. And thought leaders within the sciences in their respective fields of study are the people that arrive at knowledge for us to use. This is where power ultimately lies. You know, Foucault has a famous idea.

他认为，人是最近才被发明出来的概念，而且正在接近其到期日，人的概念直到大约17世纪才被讨论。他这么说的部分意思是，直到17世纪，人们才真正将人文科学作为一种规范性的事业来关注。直到17世纪，心理学、生物学、医学、社会学等领域才被积极地用来试图得出一个科学的、理性的关于“什么是人”的概念。福柯会问，那么，是谁进行了这些决定什么是人的实验？我们是否可能因为只从几乎完全是西欧文化背景、相似教育背景、相似社会经济状况的男性的极端狭隘的文化视角来看待什么是人，而限制了自己？这些人能够上学，为他们的实验获得资金，他们能够一生都在思考这类问题。

It's that that that man is a recent invention that's reaching its expiration date, that the concept of man is something that wasn't even talked about until around the sixteen hundreds. And part of what he means when he says that is that it wasn't until the sixteen hundreds that people really focused on the human sciences as a prescriptive endeavor. It wasn't until the sixteen hundreds that fields like psychology, biology, medicine, sociology were being used actively to try to arrive at a scientific rational idea of, quote, what it is to be a human being. Foucault would ask, well, who have conducted these experiments that are determining what it is to be a human being? Have we maybe limited ourselves by only looking at what it is to be a human being from the extremely narrow cultural perspective of almost entirely men from a Western European cultural background, from a similar educational background, from a similar socioeconomic situation where they were able to go to school, get funding for their experiments, they were able to think about stuff like this for their entire lives.

福柯会问，当我们理解什么是人时，多年来我们收集的数据是否来自如此有限的观点，以至于我们对什么是人的大部分理解正在接近某种到期日？无论你对这个问题的答案是什么，福柯关于权力的观点是，你有多少钱或你担任多高的政治职位并不重要。那些人可能看起来很强大，但如果你能决定那些人用来理解他们存在的最基本事物的参数，如果你能决定他们对什么是人的看法，他们如何融入世界，他们用来思考自己是谁的词汇？如果你能决定哪些事情对他们来说甚至重要，然后他们用他们的经济或政治资源在这个世界上追求这些？对福柯来说，这才是真正的权力所在。

Foucault would ask, when it comes to our understanding of what it is to be a human being, has the data we've gathered over the years come from such a limited point of view that much of our understanding of what it is to be a human being is approaching some sort of expiration date? Regardless of your answer to this question, Foucault's point about power is that it doesn't matter how much money you have or how high of a political office you hold. Those people may seem to be powerful, but if you can dictate the parameters that those people use to understand the most foundational things about their existence, if you can dictate their views on what a human being is, how they fit into the world, the vocabulary they use to think about who they are? How about being able to dictate what things even matter to them that they then go on with their economic or political resources to pursue in this world? That's where true power lies to Foucault.

我们将在下一集中更多地讨论这个问题。感谢收听。下次再聊。

We'll talk more about this next episode. Thank you for listening. I'll talk to you next time.