治理、部署與榮光：生命政治作為政治理論

Abstract

由傅柯對「生命權力」的經典闡述開始，現代政治之所以如鄂蘭所說，越來越以生命為政治場域的主要參照，緣由是其漸漸捨棄了「以力量對抗力量」，在各種浮誇儀式中作用，以生殺大權為終極手段的主權權力模式。取而代之的生命權力模式，著重的是：權力在不同局部機制之間的流通而具有的生產性效應；從局部機制到全面性策略之間的具體化過程；以及整體權力部署中各種權力技術之間的流通與轉化。以傅柯這三個高度理論性的系譜學方法為引，論文重構了傅柯的戰爭論述：作為社會組織原則的戰爭、在論述上各種戰爭型態之間的相互解碼，以及最後，從戰爭到治理的轉進。從方法論的提示到理論環節的釐清，在現實的對應是一個契約論思想家嘗試以主權與法律緊緊捆綁住，在18世紀稱之為治安，往後可以概括表述稱為「治理」的新政治空間，在這個空間中有雜多的治理對象，「人口」是其總稱；沒有一個單一的原則，只能泛稱為「治理性」；「安全部署」則是為了確保各種不同治理機制不致於相互衝突與消耗，這三個理論工具，所說明的是在自由主義治理取代國家理性的過程，新的治理對象、新的治理原則與新的政治理據的出現。在傅柯極富實驗性質，探索生命政治論題的過程中，物理性的身體逐漸退場，或者，它在生命與死亡得以實現互兌的部署網絡中，重新以不同元素的樣貌重新登場，「新自由主義」在這個意義上才可以稱之為「生命政治的誕生」。 這也回應了Esposito質疑以截然二分的生命與死亡效應來區分生命政治與主權，是否在概念上足夠精確的提問。但真正尖銳的提問，必然得到迴響，即便不是以可預期的形式。在傅柯成熟的生命政治論述中沒有特殊地位的「絕對死亡」，也就是暴力，在奈格理藉由推進傅柯，而闡述的帝國與雜眾相抗政治格局，以純粹的技術手段與毫無意義的殺戮重新登場。這個以不再需要肉身相搏卻能製造更有效率殺戮的戰爭，對應的是同樣是傅柯從來沒有系統性（或者說從來沒有）構思過的政治可能：雜眾作為一個集體性，具有顛覆潛能的政治主體。後現代的無產階級將在新的資本主義階段中，由於資本更需要以連結性關係來進行對社會的吸納，變得更壯大。 新的社會形態既孕育出更健壯的抵抗力量，也是失落政治傳統重新復興的現實契機：一種不依據既有建制而自由生成連結的制憲力量論述傳統。在此，主權的問題在新一輪的生命政治戰場中重新登場。Esposito與阿岡本著力將主權對個體的個別化效應，而不只僅僅是其揮霍但無效的權力使用，視為其特有的生命政治法理，而對阿岡本來說，可以視為對Esposito的回應，此一個別化效應並不在於其具體的生命形式，裸命更深刻的意涵在於它是在人形化機制中，通過例外性關係實現特定生命形式的過渡時的雙生。無窮盡的人形化部署貫穿社會的方方面面，可以說是當代資本主義社會的重要特徵，當代生命政治的核心論題是例外性關係向政治體內部的滲透與常態化，這是阿岡本對傅柯的增補：不是另一種有別於主權權力的權力流通方式，而是主權生命政治邏輯的分子化。以主權的禁令結構作為權威與權力之間的接合，對阿岡本來說，基本上也是西方政治「王國與治理」雙元機制的得以運作的邏輯。藉由安濟神學的概念範疇，阿岡本一方面重新處理了治理作為主權自我設置邏輯之延伸的論題；另一方面也在引入榮光此一概念的同時，指出了貫穿其論著的線索：政治是對一種例外性關係的設置，以為對空白的擄獲。在當前這個一切倫理與政治使命都不再有意義的末人政治時代，去除神學意象的榮光部署有了新的樣貌：各種傳播媒體對空洞言說的生產。暴力並沒有就此絕跡，其當代理據恐怕不一定是帝國生命權力的最終手段，而是，在榮光與治理的無以分別中，在每一個可能的環節中，從榮光的部署，從無意義的輿論言說中，都有可能翻轉出暴力，論文的研究，就以這場阿岡本與奈格理的「巨人之戰」，暫時畫下句點。

This dissertation begins with Michael Foucault’s classic explanation of “biopower”. For Foucault, the reason why life asserted itself as the ultimate point of reference in the modern age is that the operations of power increasingly abandon the mode of sovereignty whose rationality consists in “power against power”, performed in spectacular rituals with the right to take life as ultimate reference. Instead, the mode of biopower maintains itself by the productive effects of powers circulated in different partial mechanisms, the processes of materialization from partial mechanisms to global strategy and the economy and transfer between power technologies within the whole dispositif. According to the three highly theoretical methods of genealogy, the dissertation reconstructs the discourse of war in Foucault: war as the principle of social organization, the mutual deciphering among patterns of war in discrete discourses, and lastly, the displacement from war to government. From the threads of genealogy to the clarification of discourses of war, the correspondence in empirical reality is a new political domain to which Jean-Jacques Rousseau attempted to bind by sovereign and law. In this new political domain which was named “the police” in 18th and later Foucault referred to as “the government”. In this new domain, there are multiple objects for government, which could be generalized as “population”, there is no single principle for effective government, only the general term “governmentality”, and 'dispositif of security' in this new domain avoids the conflicts and depletion between governmental mechanisms. In the replacement of raison d'etat with the liberal creeds in rationality of government, there emerged new objects as population, new principles as governmentality and new political rationality as security. In Foucault’s highly experimental exploration of the implication of biopolitics, the physical bodies gradually recede, or, in the networks of dispositif, which perfectly achieve the exchange of life and death, they could come on the biopolitical scene in new forms, that is why “neoliberalism as the birth of biopolitics”. This dissertation responds to Esposito’s interrogation of Foucault if the distinction between sovereign and biopower with discrete effects of death and life would be conceptually inaccurate. However, in the elaboration of biopolitical antagonism between Empire and Multitude proposed by Antonio Negri, violence as absolute death, which has no place in Foucault’s mature explanation of biopower, reappears in pure technical means and meaningless killing. Wars in contemporary world are wagered without physical conflicts produce more effective massacre, whose counterpart is Multitude as collective, subversive and potential political subject. Negri envisaged a political alternative Foucault would never conceive: In the new stage of capitalism, postmodern proletariat continue to expand for capital more desperately need absorb the social with connective relations. New mode of capitalist society could breeds stronger power to resist the dominance of biopower, for Negri, that is the opportunity for rejuvenation of a lost constituent power tradition in western political thought, the constitution of multitude as free becoming and connection no longer needs the foundation of sovereignty. Roberto Esposito and Giorgio Agamben assert the individualizing effect of sovereignty, for them the specific biopolitical axiom of sovereignty is not only wasteful expenditure. For Agamben, the consequence of the individualizing effect of sovereignty is not any concrete form of life, “bare life ” as anthropological machine accomplishes the passage from zoe to bios by the imposition of exceptional relation. The infinite anthropological machines has traversed all aspects of contemporary capitalist society, Agamben argued the central thesis of biopower is the permeation and normalization of exception into the body politics, which is the supplement of Foucault for Agamben. The ban structure of sovereignty as the articulation of authority and power is essentially the rationale of bipolar machine as “Kingdom and Government” in western political thought. With the categories of economical theology, Agamben on the one hand continued the thesis of biopolitical government as the extension of the exceptional relation of sovereignty, on the other hand, by introducing the concept of glory, he indicated the thread throughout all his biopolitical writings: biopolitics is the disposition of exceptional relation to catch the empty space. In this “last man” age, for all ethical and political tasks are no longer substantial, the dispositif of glory divesting of theological implication would get new image: the production of empty speech by various media. But violence doesn’t vanish at all, whose rationality will not the ultimate mean of Empire as Negri argued, rather, for Agamben, in the indistinction of glory and government, in every moment, all seemingly innocent opinions, measures and speeches could reverse into the most violent consequences. This dissertation concludes with the Gigantomachy between Agamben and Negri.