傅柯、殖民主義、與後殖民文化研究

Foucault, Colonialism and Post-colonial Cultural Study

本文是一篇理論性的論文。作者試圖處理一個至今從未被處理的問題：傅柯本人對殖民主義的看法。自從薩伊德的《東方主義》以來，把傅柯的理論用來解釋殖民主義已經變成一個學術圈內家喻戶曉的事，不過在學術界大談特談之際卻沒有人能告訴我們傅柯本人到底對殖民主義持什麼樣的看法。本文就是想填補這個在我看來是當今後殖民文化研究中令人尷尬的空白。本文的寫法是一一列出所有傅柯曾提及殖民主義與其相關字眼的場合，然後針對這些文本作分析。經過這些分析之後，本文企圖論證，有一些東西在阻止傅柯在殖民主義上發言：他把殖民主義說得越清楚，他的整套權力論證就越脆弱。在論證完傅柯本人與殖民主義的關係之後，本文把焦點轉移到當今後殖民學者對他的詮釋及應用。作者選了牛津大學教授Robert Young作為主要的對話對象。我將論證，與絕大多數當今的後殖民文化研究者一樣，Young只看到「論述的傅柯」，而忽略了其它面向的傅柯。這種單向的、片面的理解及運用傅柯的方式導致人們在一種抽離卻固定的狀態下設論殖民主義。最後，本文探討Young所提倡的「傅柯式的殖民論述」作結束。我質疑，Young筆下的「傅柯式的殖民論述」是不是有更好的東西加以取代。

The author addresses a theoretical question that has never been adequately answered in either the West or Taiwan: What were Michel Foucault's own views on colonialism? Since the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism in 1978, the application of Foucault's theory to colonial and post-colonial issues has become commonplace. I believe the application has one embarrassing aspect: whereas Foucault's contributions have been widely acknowledged, few can clearly document his personal views on colonialism. I analyze 27 mentions of colonialism in Foucault's writings to clarify his own thoughts on the topic, then further examine colonial discourse by bringing Robert Young's works into the discussion. I argue that too much attention in post-colonial studies has been given to 'discourse Foucault' at the expense of 'discipline Foucault', 'racism Foucault' and 'governmentality Foucault.'