Foucault權力／知識論述對於自主性作為教育目的之省思──J. D. Marshall專著的檢視

Foucault’s Power/Knowledge Discourse Reflections on Autonomy as the Aim of Education: A Review of J. D. Marshall Monograph

自主性之理念來自於啟蒙時代I. Kant對於道德本質的界定。1960年代以R. S. Peters、R. F. Dearden等學者開創的倫敦路線，循此加以確立教育理想。個人自主、理性自主、道德自律等幾乎成為西方自由民主國家核心的教育目的。不過，1980年代以後，開始受到質疑。批評的重點在於個人自我觀的性質，部分學者認為Kant或倫敦路線的學者過於重視自我的理性所扮演的角色。本文即在此學術脈絡爭議中，嘗試從M. Foucault的立場去審視自主性作為教育目的之合理性。研究者以紐西蘭資深教育哲學學者J. D. Marshall對於Foucault的專著為分析文本。本文第二節先闡述Marshall所歸納的自由主義概念及自由教育的基本立場。第三節則詮釋Foucault權力／知識觀下的治理術，包括支配術、自我技術，並對比自由主義的權力論述重點。第四節則詳述Foucault立場可能對倫敦路線自主性或新自由主義自我觀的批評及可能啟示。筆者的結論是Foucault的知識／權力、治理術、規訓等概念，雖無法完全否定自由主義自主性作為教育目的之理想，但可為傳統自由論者提供更多思考的可能。教師們在培養學生自主的過程中，也將更能體察學生被規訓的種種運作，發展適合學生主體的自我技術，對於當下臺灣新課綱推展，也將能提供哲學反思。

The concept of autonomy comes from Kant’s definition of moral essence in the Enlightenment era. In the 1960s, the London Line, pioneered by scholars such as R. S. Peters and R. F. Dearden, followed form Kant and to form the educational ideal. Individual autonomy, rational autonomy, moral autonomy almost become the western liberal democratic countries very core educational aims. After the 1980s, however, it began to be questioned. The focus of criticism is on the nature of personal self-concept. Some scholars believe that Kant or scholars of the London Line attach too much importance to the role played by the rationality. This paper attempts to examine the rationality of autonomy as the aim of education from the discourse of Foucault. The author takes the treatise of Foucault by J. Marshall, a senior educational philosopher in New Zealand, as the analysis text. The second section of the paper first explains the liberal concept and the basic position of liberal education summarized by Marshall. The third section explains the governmentality under the Foucault power/knowledge view, including the technologies of domination and the technologies of the self, and compares them with the discussions of liberalism. The fourth section elaborates on Foucault’s criticism to the autonomy of the London Line and the self-concept of neoliberalism and Foucault’s positive implications. The conclusion of the author is that although Foucault’s concepts of knowledge/power, governmentality, discipline and so on cannot completely negate the ideal of liberal autonomy as the educational aim, they can provide more possibilities for liberalists. In the process of cultivating students’ autonomy, teachers will be better able to observe the various operations of students being disciplined and develop self-techniques suitable for students. It will also provide philosophical reflection for the development of the new curriculum in Taiwan.