如何書寫被排除者的歷史金士伯格論傅柯的瘋狂史研究

Foucault, Ginzburg and Writing the History of the Excluded

傅柯的〈古典時代的瘋狂史〉(Histoire de lafolie àl’âge classique)是他早期深具原創性的重要著作，對瘋狂史與精神醫學史等研究領域有不可抹滅的開啟之功，其貢獻也廣為史家所承認。然而此書也是傅柯受到批評最多的作品，其史料基礎的周延程度以及對史料的解釋，皆受到不少歷史學者的嚴厲批評。在哲學與方法論的層次上，本書引發的辯論也不少。哲學家德希達(Jacques Derrida)認為傳柯書寫被理性排除的「瘋狂經驗」、「讓瘋狂成為言說的主體」是個不可能的計劃。另一方面義大利微觀史大師金士伯格(Carlo Ginzburg)則對德希達的批評與傳柯後期的歷史研究取向提出強烈批判，並且以尖銳的語氣譴責德希達「膚淺的虛無主義」。以金士伯格為代表的微觀史學者(micro historians)仔細耙梳宗教審判、醫院病歷等各類檔案，試圖書寫狼人、巫師、女巫、異端、未婚媽媽等「歐洲失落的人」的歷史，標舉出另一種書寫被排除者歷史的計劃與努力。這篇史學論文(historiographical essay)回顧這三位學者的爭論，並由金士伯格對傳柯的批評入手，比較兩者的歷史研究取徑與方法，探討兩者的差異對於目前歷史學界書寫底層人民、被壓迫者、無力發聲者的歷史的努力所具有的意義。

Michel Foucault’s Histoire de la folie a l’age classique is widely regarded as a seminal work in the history of madness. However it was also Foucault’s most controversial book. Foucault’s research method and use of historical materials in the book have received close scrutiny and rigorous criticism from historians. There have been few discussions, however, of the main historiographical claim of Histoire de La folie , viz. it is intended as a history of madness rather than a history of psychiatry. Foucault wanted to explore the experience of madness which, he argued, has been excluded by Reason since the ’classical age.’ The most famous criticism of Foucault’s claim is by the philosopher Jacques Derrida who argues that writing the history of madness is an impossible project. Commenting on the debate between Foucault and Derrida, on the other hand, the historian Carlo Ginzburg dismisses Derrida’s criticism as shallow and nihilistic. He regrets that Foucault, probably spurred by Derrida’s criticism, had abandoned the important project of writing the hi story of the excluded, and had since focused on the history of the acts of exclusion instead. Ginzburg has devoted his efforts on writing the history of the persecuted such as witches, werewolves, and heretics. He and his colleagues in the so-called school of microhistory have formulated an alternative project of writing the history of the excluded. In this paper I examine the debate between Foucault, Derrida and Ginzburg and discuss its historiographical significance.