惩罚的合理性--福柯对人道主义的批判分析

“惩罚合理性”涉及惩罚在社会中何以能够存在,何以被人容忍乃至接受,何以长期有效运行。福柯通过考察西方近代以来的人道主义惩罚变革,对惩罚合理性和人道主义作了一种批判分析。福柯试图表明,作为人道主义惩罚变革出发点的“人”实际上只是真实的人的副本,是现代哲学基于人的有限认知而对人的一种知识建构;人道主义惩罚变革主要不是出于人类的道德情感,而是出于惩罚权力技术的需要;人道主义惩罚变革导致了身体规训和监控加强的消极后果。福柯有关“惩罚合理性”和人道主义的批判分析促使现代社会反思作为人道主义出发点的“人”观念,反思权力循着理性和人道之名对人的统治。     

现代社会中的“权力神”——基于福柯权力理论的现代性考察

福柯的权力理论是对现代社会中权力运行的另一种描述。福柯从对霍布斯权力理论的批判中,对马克思理论的扬弃中,以经验论的实践视角和后现代的微观视角通过从"酷刑"到"监狱",从"惩罚权力"到"规训权力",重构了现代社会中的权力理论,并塑造了一个现代社会中的"权力神"。在"权力神"理论的背后,其本质是现代国家理性的表达。福柯在现代社会中所塑造的"权力神"理论,也从另一个侧面揭示了现代社会的困境:自由主义社会中的二律背反,工具理性支配下的现代社会中价值理性的缺失。     

本体与属性：监狱惩罚的新界定

我国传统刑罚学中关于惩罚的研究范式仅囿于＂惩罚为了什么＂,实际上,应该对惩罚的本体即＂惩罚是什么＂作出深入分析。惩罚是国家基于报应主义或功利主义的立场,对被判定为有罪的人有计划、有组织地施加痛苦的一种方式。当人类进入到近现代社会后,惩罚则由一种方式转变为一种机制时,监狱惩罚便由此承担了其历史赋予的重任。监狱惩罚是对惩罚的现实兑现,是通过时间、空间和制度等安排实现对惩罚的物化。监狱惩罚的法律属性从历史和逻辑出发都可以定性为监狱的本质机能,而改造机能只能为次生机能。     

论惩罚的政治正当性

报应主义与功利主义为惩罚提供了道德正当性证成,但在民主的价值多元社会,道德的正当性是一回事,如何促成政治实践是另外一回事。因此,在惩罚的道德证成之外,有必要开辟惩罚的政治证成道路。近代社会契约论者提供了不同的政治证成进路,当代契约论者罗尔斯提出自由主义的正当性原则。根据罗尔斯方案,国家惩罚制度的合理性在于公民的理性而非某个道德原则,应该保留犯罪者的公民身份,合理限制犯罪者的权利,死刑是不可证的。     

福柯《规训与惩罚》的理论基础与终极关怀

福柯其人其思想都极为独特。他经常以独特的思维关注主流学术不屑谈及的领域,譬如疯癫、疾病、罪犯与性。《规训与惩罚》是福柯在谱系学历史观的支撑下写就的一部惩罚史,以此解构线性历史观所支撑的主流视域对惩罚史的解读,最终体现了其对现代人自由问题的关注。     

权利政治的流变——关于权利与国家理论的一个思想史考察

权利政治是以个人权利为出发点,通过国家与市民社会相分离、权力分立来限制国家权力,通过法治来保障人权和公民权利的现代政治.本文试图按照从霍布斯到福柯的理论线索,揭示权利政治从18世纪到20世纪发展进程中面临的内在矛盾、名实纠葛以及遭遇到的流变.本文认为,现代社会中与个人权利发展相伴随的国家权力增长需要引起重视,在通过法律保护个人权利的同时,也应寻求权利实现的社会途径.     

圆形监狱与后现代主义——读《规训与惩罚》后有感

福柯(MichelFoucault1926～1984)在学术界是一个另类,他的很多见解都是从前人所未曾挖掘的方面入手,从而提出自己独到的见解。在《规训与惩罚》一书中,对现代性的解剖以及他对权力、规训、知识和主体的分析都独树一帜,颠覆了传统见解,从而也起了诸多争议。     

福柯眼中的"圆形监狱"--对《规训与惩罚》中的"全景敞视主义"的解读

现代法律既关涉人的身体问题———追求安全与幸福 ,又关涉人的精神问题———实现自由和权利 ,福柯因此而特别注重对现代法律和法学的检讨与批判。《规训与惩罚》是集中体现福柯法哲学思想的杰出著作。作为当代思想家的福柯不只是描述式地讨论“监狱的诞生” ,其思想意蕴远远超出一般监狱学的范围。监狱及其实践提供了一个检验现代政治民主的重要标准 ,正是在这种意义上 ,监狱内所发生的事情对整个社会都有影响。     

监狱惩罚机能及其限制

惩罚是监狱行刑的重要内容，是监狱存在的法律属性和本质机能，但是有些学者出于进化论的需要却把其解读为类似体罚和权力的代名词。现代社会条件下监狱惩罚本身具有正义、平等、人道和秩序的价值元素，而惩罚本身具有的这些元素是对惩罚内涵和外延的自我限制。另外，鉴于惩罚具有权力的外在性和表象性，所以必须明确惩罚的客体和监狱纪律的内容和属性，并基于理性主义对其权力的扩张性进行限制。     

羞辱性法律惩罚的博弈分析——以深圳福田区警方示众处理卖淫、嫖娼人员一案为研究样本

深圳福田区警方对卖淫、嫖娼人员进行示众处理的行为属于羞辱性法律惩罚。根据"信号传递—合作"重复博弈模型的分析,羞辱性法律惩罚是一种信息沟通机制,通过传递非合作者的身份信息以便利惩罚与威慑,同时表明国家权力执行者的合作者身份、确保权力运作的合法性。但是,由于存在惩罚程度的模糊性与"次群体"中的反信号问题,羞辱性法律惩罚的功能无法充分发挥甚至会产生负作用,因此已在历史上逐步消亡并且在现代社会中也是不可取的。     

Foucault and the Enigma of the Monster

In this paper Foucault’s thought on monstrosity is explored. Monsters appear whenever and wherever knowledge/power assemblages emerge. That which eludes the latter, and which threatens to subvert them, is the monstrous. Foucault distinguished the production, throughout history, of juridical-natural monsters, moral monsters, and political monsters. In this paper it is argued that Foucault must have sensed that monstrosity eludes all notions of identity and difference, and therefore also the notion that places it ‘outside’. It is the space of emergence itself, i.e. the location where sheer potentiality becomes the possible of and in the event. All monstrosity is therefore deeply, and inevitably, political. It is the promise of unsettling subversion.     

Foucault, Law, and Power: A Reassessment

After raising doubts about Foucault's approach to law-power, in the light of various acts of religion-inspired violence on and after 11 September 2001, a case is made against this approach, based on the charge that Foucault ties law far too tightly to what he calls negative power. He makes law part of juridico-sovereignty power, a form of power he regards as outmoded, with an outmoded commitment to sovereignty and the state. It is argued that in attempting to separate law from what he sees as the positive power of modern governmentality, Foucault never understands law's role as a part of a crucial balance - between political power, military power, the social, the cultural, the legal, and the economic - a balance that tries to achieve both individual freedom and the security to enjoy that freedom. An alternative way of understanding law, and of understanding sovereignty and the state - the state under the rule of law - is presented as a much better route to an appreciation of law's part in the balance.     

A Manner of Speaking: Declaration,Critique and the Trope of Interrogation

In this paper I will argue for the ethical and political virtue of a form of critique associated with the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault’s tryptich of essays on critique—namely ‘What is Critique?’ ‘What is Revolution?’ and ‘What is Enlightenment?’—develop a formulation of critique understood as an attitude or disposition, a kind of relation that one bears to oneself and to the actuality of the present. I suggest that this critical attitude goes hand in hand with a mode of intellectual practice realized rhetorically in the form of the interrogative and methodologically in ‘problematology’. But, in addition to highlighting the habitus of critique suggested by Foucault, I also want to consider the entanglement of this critical enterprise in the conditions of the present that it attempts to diagnose. Specifically, I ask, in what way is a critical enterprise in the interrogative mood itself imbricated in the trope of interrogation that fills so much of our current political and public landscape?     

Credentialism as monopoly,class war,and socialization scheme

Social theorists in earlier periods have looked at credentialing from the perspective of its service to the economic or social system as opposed to its “protection of the public interest.” Adam Smith regarded the long education and the performance tests that the guilds required as monopolistic constraints on production; Karl Marx saw the same guild system as controlled by the propertied classes and uselessly exclusionary; and Emile Durkheim, unlike both Smith and Marx, regarded the occupational group with its entrance requirements as central to the stability of modern society. The application of the principles of Smith, Marx, and Durkheim, in past and present systems, tells us that the present credentialing system is not sacrosanct. It may have little basis in research, in the prevention of anomie, or in the protection of the public interest.     

Rethinking Power and Law: Foucault’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Society must be Defended</Emphasis>

Michel Foucault provides a radical challenge to the liberal approach to power and law, which is echoed by Jacques Derrida. Important differences exist between the analyses of Foucault and Derrida which should not be overlooked. This essay proceeds on the basis of an awareness of these differences, yet it at the same time attempts to bring these thinkers closer together, with reference specifically to the thinking of Freud. It is often said that Foucault does not offer an alternative to that which he criticises or that his analyses do not provide for a way in which to escape from the effects of power. By specifically focusing on Foucault’s reliance on the notion of ‘play’ in Society must be defended, it is submitted that an ‘escape’ is in fact provided for. The deconstructive reading of Foucault which is presented here attempts to ensure that Foucault does not remain trapped within metaphysics.     

功能分化社会的“去分化”?——权力生产性与权力媒介性的理论冲突及其消解

在功能分化的现代社会中,以卢曼为代表的权力媒介观和以福柯为典型的权力生产观形成了针锋相对的价值立场。在系统理论看来,权力作为政治系统“象征性的普遍化沟通媒介”,维系着功能分化的社会结构,所以权力的媒介性具有自我限制的意义。但是,福柯以权力驱逐法律运作、生产知识话语和控制性实践为例,揭示了权力的生产性对社会的全面宰制和“去分化”的倾向。为了消解权力生产性所带来的“去分化”的危险,应当将权力领域限缩于政治系统,以“去主体化”的立场和“沟通”的衔接性理解权力的运作逻辑,并通过作为结构耦合的宪法与基本权利,既实现由权力到法的符码转译,同时又确保社会子系统内部的强制性力量关系具有正当性与合法性。     

Policing Unauthorized Camping

We argue that the links between welfare, policing, and exclusion, though rarely made explicit, nevertheless form the undercurrent of the modern neo-liberal state. In making this argument, we draw particularly upon the voluminous literature which amplifies the seminal work of Foucault, especially as it relates to government. Thereafter, we apply this set of understandings to the way in which the unauthorized encampments of Gypsies and Travellers are policed. We concentrate first on the construction of legislation and its legal aftermath. Subsequently, we draw upon case study evidence to illustrate our thesis, particularly focusing on the sorting processes of decision-makers.     

A Moral Equivalent of Consent of the Governed

Though genuine (voluntary, deliberate) consent of the governed does not occur in modern states, political legitimacy still requires something that does what consent does. Dereification of the state (recognizing that citizens continually create their state), combined with a defensible notion of moral responsibility, entails citizens' moral responsibility for their state. This implies that we may treat citizens morally as if they consented to their state, yielding a moral equivalent of consent of the governed, and a conception of political legitimacy applicable to modern states thought legitimate. It implies that legitimate states have a moral right to rule, and their citizens have a prima facie moral obligation to obey the law.     

Compassion can be cruel: Durkheim on sympathy and punishment

Emile Durkheim's perspective on punishment has been examined in considerable detail, but criminologists still neglect one dimension of his perspective: his account of the causal relationship between “sentiments of human sympathy” and the intensity of criminal punishment. Unlike conventional accounts, which propose a negative relationship between these variables, Durkheim argued that there are conditions under which the relationship is positive. According to Durkheim, increments in feelings of compassion for humans in general can heighten public outrage to acts of “human criminality” and, for this reason, can intensify the punitive response to such crimes. In this article, Durkheim's account of this relationship is abstracted from his theory of penal evolution and is revised to improve its plausibility and temper its problematic implications. It is concluded that his account represents another irony of his work which warrants attention, and which may further our understanding of the persistence of both imprisonment and punitive attitudes.