Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/68050
|
| Title: | 反胃的社會主義？:論辛克萊 叢林的生命政治 |
| Authors: | 邱彥彬
Chiou, Yen-bin |
| Contributors: | 英文系 |
| Keywords: | 鄂蘭;傅科;阿岡本;辛克萊;叢林;老羅斯福;生命政治;死亡政治;人道主義;巴迪烏
Hannah Arendt;Michel Foucault;Giorgio Agamben;Upton Sinclair;The Jungle;Theodore Roosevelt;biopolitics;thanatopolitics;humanitarianism;Alain Badiou |
| Date: | 2010.06 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-08-04 11:44:29 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 艾思普齊拖(Roberto Esposito)認爲，面對全新的生命政治型態，論述語彙必須從傳統的政治概念－諸如左派與右派、集權主義與民主的二元對立－轉向「自然歷史化」（也就是生命政治化、或生命存在的裸命化）與「歷史自然化」（也就是政治的生命化與家計管理化）此一更爲「深層」的「衝突對立項」。換句話說，唯有更確實地掌握生命政治內部尊重生命與製造死亡的共生現象，以及生死辯證可能引發的衝突與對立，方能精確定位超越生命政治的外部究竟何在。針對生命政治的相關問題，本文認爲鄂蘭(Hannah Arendt)顯然提出一個比傅科(Michel Foucault)更爲精確的分析論述。以下，本文將以辛克萊(Upton Sinclair)的《叢林(The Jungle)在老羅斯福主政的進步時期(Progressive Era)所引發的風風雨雨爲例，從鄂蘭與傅科的不可能對話出發，反駁傅科有關「治理性總體配置的危機」的說法。本文分別由小說的內外緣切入，重新檢視政治生命化與生命政治化的生死辯證，主張不管是老羅斯福以政治介入社會進行的生命調控，還是辛克萊鼓吹的社會主義運動，都不能視爲是外於社會、外於生命、由上而下的政治手段，因爲兩者均屬在社會生命的內在性平面上進行的家計管理。因此，《叢林出版所引發的爭議以及辛克萊與老羅斯福之間的齟齬，只不過是纏繞在生命政治周遭的煙幕而已。辛克萊「瞄準心卻打中胃」的感嘆，表面上把生命與政治一刀切開，認爲老羅斯福關心的不過是大眾生命的維存，但小說家真正在意的是更高層次的解放政治，但事實上辛克萊將富萊契主義(Fletcherism)的健康飲食觀與尼采(Friedrich Nietzsche)共一爐而冶之的社會主義，非但無法超脫老羅斯福的生命政治操作，兩者反倒是殊途同歸，全都坐實鄂蘭所批評的政治淪爲家計管理的現象，一起在生命政治與死亡政治共同鋪成的道路上攜手前進。不管是老羅斯福「溫和的基進主義」或是辛克萊的社會主義，在生命政治的大旗下，傳統政治光譜的配置已經失去效力，左派右派一起在生命的內在性平面上，進入生命政治的生死辯證，絲毫不見任何超越的可能。富萊契主義與尼采結合，召喚出來的不是解放後的新人類圖像，而是死亡政治的幽靈。既然生命維存法則(life preservation)終將導向生命機器與死亡機器的協同運作，以尊重生命爲名的人道主義本是問題的癥結，自然不可能是應對、甚至解決生命政治之道。這正是辛克萊的人道主義可議之處：對勞動者墮入畜生道的慘狀施予憐憫，不但在表述的層次上鈍化小說家對泰勒主義(Taylorism)的批判，更是和生命政治組成一條統一戰線，讓小說再現成爲生產裸命，將生命不斷政治化的文字機器。由此觀之，巴迪烏(Alain Badiou)將生命維存原則視爲倫理踐作必須超越的障礙，實則與鄂蘭洞悉生命政治中的生死辯證、謀求超越生命政治內在性的思想進路不謀而合。
In response to the pervasiveness of biopolitical administration, Robert Esposito urges us to drop the ill-advised vocabulary of left-right politics and dismiss the critical judgment which is still organized in terms of the time-honored binary of democracy and totalitarianism. At the time when the vital process becomes the only end thought worth pursuing, what is at stake, then, is a far more "profound" clash between naturalization of history and historicization of nature. The birthmark on biopolitics, so to speak, is the trace left by such a clash. From the chiasmatic interpenetration of nature and history, there emerges the dialectical convergence between the politics which tends to relegate itself to the administration of housekeeping, and the life which, while given pride of place among political values, is ironically exposed to the vicissitudes of zoefication. Without such cognizance of the dialectical entanglement between bios and thanatos, it is impossible to imagine an authentic exteriority where the biopolitical immanence can be imploded and transcended. Hannah Arendt is aware of the full scale of the problem entailed in biopolitical administration, so much so that her analysis is more of note than Michel Foucault`s wayward discourse. This paper starts with the impossibility of dialogue between Arendt and Foucault. On this ground, I will proceed to the re-examination of the publication of Upton Sinclair`s The Jungle and its aftermath. The bad blood between Theodore Roosevelt and Sinclair has been a household story ever since, but the antagonism, I will argue, is actually more apparent than real. Be it Roosevelt`s commitment to food safety and population health or Sinclair`s preoccupation with the socialist reshaping of society, they both take a stand in favor of, and hence symptomatic of the biopolitical administration. Worthy of note in this regard is Sinclair`s incorporation of Nietzsche and Fletcherism into his socialist program, which, along with Roosevelt`s obsession with eugenics, enables a glimpse into the glaring lethal implications of the biopolitical governance in the Progressive Era. From this perspective, we should stop ourselves to regard humanitarianism as an adequate response, much less the antidote to the havoc wrought by biopolitics. Generally executed on a humanitarian note, Sinclair`s gruesome portrayal of the immigrant workers in Chicago`s Packingtown is hence no less a function of the biopolitical killing machine, precisely because it is harnessed to the ongoing fabrication of homo sacer in conformity with the principle of life preservation-a principle that lends fuel to the biopolitical machinery. Little wonder that Alain Badiou, who argues practically along the same line, emphatically takes the condemnation of the life-preservation principle to be a jump-off point for developing an ethical exterior perspective on biopolitical administration. |
| Relation: | 英美文學評論, 16 ,155-183 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 155-185.pdf | | 2428Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 914 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
