傅柯「正常化社會」之研究—以我國K他命管制政策為例

Abstract

本文主要由兩個部分組成：第一、藉著重新審視傅柯在《必須保衛社會》（法蘭西學院講座1975-76）所提出來的「正常化社會」，我們得以瞭解傅柯對「規範�常態」的構想，進而取之重建我們對紀律性權力、生命權力與法律的認識；第二、依靠在傅柯「正常化社會」的理論架構上，本文還將試著簡要地分析我國第三級毒品「K他命」近年的立法態勢與相關管制政策所透顯的知識�權力。 「正常化社會」係由「紀律性權力」與「生命權力」所共同織就，兩者並各自展現不同的權力運作邏輯。紀律性權力脈絡下的「正常化」（normalisation），指的其實是「規訓」（normation）：它從一個預設的「規範」（norme）開始，透過依循規範而遂行的定性、矯正等積極改造技術，區分出正常�不正常的個體。生命權力脈絡下的「正常化」（normalisation），指的則是透過預測、統計等技術對人口現象進行的「調節」：它首先出現一個「正常」的人口統計曲線（出生率、死亡率等），最接近「正常」的正常性曲線分佈即是「常態」（norme）；此處的「正常化」即是將所有不同的正常性曲線牽引至最接近「正常」的位置，也就是想辦法維持住人口現象的「常態」。同時，傅柯還認為現代社會的法律（loi）不再只是以「禁止—懲罰」此種命令語句代言主權權力，它同時還是溝通紀律性權力與生命權力的渠道—這也正是為什麼傅柯表示法律愈來愈像是個規範�常態在運轉著。 將「正常化社會」套用到我國關於K他命的立法趨勢上，我們可以觀察到：法務部反對將「K他命」升為二級毒品的思考理路，其實正是生命權力核心理念「成本」、「均值」、「預測」的寫照。

This thesis consists in two parts: first, by examining the idea of “normalizing society” from Michel Foucault’s 1975-76 Collège de France lectures as compiled in the “Society must be defended,” we may understand the way in which he conceives of “norm,” and furthermore redefine disciplinary power, bio-power and law. Second, based on the theoretical framework of Foucault’s “normalizing society,” I will briefly analyze recent legislative activities in Taiwan related to the third-class drug Ketamine, as well as the knowledge/power dynamic exhibited in relevant drugs control policy. “Normalizing society” is woven out of “disciplinary power” and “bio-power,” and these two forces exhibit their own different operational logics. “Normalization” in the context of disciplinary power actually refers to “normation.” “Normation” presumes the “norm,” and in accord thereto effects corrective and other techniques of transformation in order to differentiate between normal and abnormal individuals. In relation to “bio-power,” however, “normalization” refers to “regulation” of the population via statistical and other predictive technologies. Here there appears a “normal” demographic curve (e.g. birth rate, death rate). That normal distribution which most closely approximates the normal curve is then the “norm.” Normalization acts to pull all the different curves to the nearest “normal” position, in effect maintaining the “norm” of population phenomena. At the same time, Foucault also believed that the law (loi) in modern society is no longer merely an “interdiction-sanction” imperative that speaks for sovereign power, it is furthermore a channel for communicating disciplinary power and bio-power. Indeed, it is for this very reason that he said the law (loi) increasingly operates as a “norm.” Applying “normalizing society” in an analysis of legislative trends in recent Taiwan, we may observe that the Ministry of Justice’s decision not to raise Ketamine to second-class drug status in fact expresses several core facets of bio-power—“cost,” “average,” and “prediction.”