“授课情况简介”（编者所撰）中的一段删节

“授课情况简介”（编者所撰）中的一段删节 位置当在中译本［1999版2004印刷］，第257页倒数第二段。 英译p. 277-8. Ps：译完才发现，根本就没有删节的必要，仅仅因为马克思大人么么么么么么么么么么么么？？？ When it comes to relations between power and political economy, Foucault maintained a sort of "uninterrupted dialogue" with Marx. Marx was in fact not unaware of the question of power and its disciplines: one has only to look at the analyses of "The Working Day," "The Division of Labor and Manufacture," and "Machinery and Large-Scale Industry" in the first volume of Capital and of "The Process of Circulation of Capital" in volume 2［6］. 至于说到权力与政治经济学的关系，福柯与马克思进行着一场“持续的对话”。事实上，马克思对于权力及其纪律/规训问题，并非全然没有意识。对此，人们只需要读一下他在《资本论》中的分析，如第一卷中的“工作日”、“分工和工场手工业”、“机器和大工业”，以及第二卷中的“货币资本的循环”等章节。 But in Marx, relations of domination in the factory appear to be established solely by the play and the effects of the "antagonistic" relations between capital and labor. For Foucault, in contrast, that relationship is possible only because of the subjugations, training, and surveillance that have already been produced and administered by disciplines. In this connection, he remarks: "When, because of the division of labor, there was a need for people who were capable of doing this or of doing that, and when there was a fear that popular resistance movements, inertia, or rebellion might upset the entire capitalist order that was being born, every individual had to be under a precise and concrete surveillance, and I think that the medicalization I was talking about is bound up with this."［7］ 但在马克思那里，似乎仅仅是劳资关系的“敌对”所导致的游戏和效果，确立了工厂中的支配关系。相反，福柯认为，这种关系之所以可能，仅仅是因为存在着各类奴役、训练和监视，它们早已被纪律生产出来，并受纪律的管理。对于这种关联，福柯写道：“一方面，由于劳动分工，存在着对于有能力干这干那的人的需求；另一方面，同样存在着一股对于大众的恐惧，害怕他们的抵抗运动、懒惰或反叛可能颠覆整个新生的资本主义秩序。因此，每个个体都必须受到某种精确而具体的监视。我想，我刚才所讲的医学化是和这些联系在一起的。” It was therefore not the "capitalist" bourgeoisie of the nineteenth century that invented and imposed relations of domination; it inherited them from the disciplinary mechanisms of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and simply had to use them, to modify them by intensifying some and attenuating others. "All these power relations do not, therefore, emanate from a single source; it is the overall effect of a tangle of power relations that allows one class or group to dominate another."8 "Basically," wrote Foucault in 1978, "it is true that the question I was asking was being asked of Marxism and of other conceptions of history and politics, and it was this: With respect to, for example, the relations of production, don't relations of power represent a level of reality that is both complex and relatively-but only relatively-independent?"9 因此，发明和施加支配关系的，并非19世纪“资本主义”的市民阶级。他们从17和18世纪的纪律机制中，继承了这种支配关系，他们必须强化其中的某些机制，弱化另一些机制，从而使用它们，修正它们。福柯在1978年写道：“所有这些权力关系并非都散发自某个单一的源头；正是相互纠缠的权力关系的整体效应，使得一个阶级或集团可以支配另一个阶级或集团。基本上，我在此提出的问题，马克思主义或其他历史与政治的观念也都曾发出疑惑，事实就是如此。这个问题就是：就（比如）生产关系而言，难道权力关系没有再现/描绘/表征出一个既复杂又相对——但仅仅是相对——独立的现实层面？” And we can then ask ourselves whether "capitalism," or the mode of production in which these power relations are inscribed, might not represent in its turn a great apparatus for coding and intensifying those "relatively autonomous relations"-relations between the labor force and capital that were certainly "economic" and conflictual-thanks to the divisions, the hierarchies, and the division of labor that had been established in manufactures, workshops, and factories, but also and above all by disciplinary rules, the subjugation of bodies, and the sanitary regulations that adapted, intensified, and bent the labor force to the economic constraints of production. It is therefore not labor that introduced the disciplines; it is more a case of disciplines and norms making it possible to organize labor in the way that it is organized in the so-called capitalist economy. 于是，我们也可以自我提问。反过来说，“资本主义”，或者权力关系铭刻于其上的生产方式，是否就没有再现/描绘/表征出一个巨型的配置，加剧那些“相对独立的关系”（劳资关系自然既是“经济性”的 ，也是斗争性的），并为其编订规则。这个配置一方面得益于在制造业、车间和工厂中确立的隔离、等级制和劳动分工，另一方面更是首先得益于迫使劳动力顺从经济生产约束的纪律规则、肉体奴役和卫生规章。因此，引入纪律的并不是劳动，毋宁说，纪律和规范使劳动的组织得以可能，也就是说，将劳动组织在一个所谓的资本主义经济中。 （曳尾于涂 转译自英译本）