Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/6823
標題: Knowledge and Power: A Comparison between Althusser''s and Foucault''s Theories of Knowledge
知識與力量: 阿圖塞與傅科知識論之比較
作者: 林依蓉
Lin, Yi-jung
關鍵字: production;生產;theory;Althusser;Foucault;epistemology;science;ideology;discourse;理論;阿圖塞;傅科;知識論;科學;意識型態;論述
出版社: 外國語文學系
摘要: 
阿圖塞的知識論之所以有別於傳統知識論,在於其視知識為一種產物。此一想法乃是受到馬克斯主義的生產觀點所啟發。阿圖塞以為,無論黑格爾或是經驗主義的謬誤,皆在於未清楚區分理念及物質之差異。理念和物質往往一個被視為本質,一個被視為現象,而被當作一體兩面。事實上,不可忽略的是,理念及物質確有其差異性。甚且,若理念被視為恆久不變的本質,其歷史性便會遭到忽略。阿圖塞將知識看作一種產物,將知識的生產製造納入社會的一環,並試圖探討知識和其他社會活動間複雜的互動關係。阿圖塞認為馬克思主義的生產觀念是一個科學的觀念,因其掌握了社會正確的成因。此一想法是建立在科學及意識形態的對立上。阿圖塞以為馬克思主義的普遍性來自科學性。如此一來,科學性似乎成了普遍性的衡量標準。因此,科學及意識形態的區分使得科學失去了歷史性,連帶也使得阿圖塞的知識論前後產生矛盾。
傅科成功地避免了阿圖塞的矛盾,因為他反對科學和意識形態之分。傅科欲探索對錯之分究竟如何形成。對他而言,知識也是一種力量,因知識關乎真理的產製,亦關乎真理如何規範形塑主體。然而,透過知識來行使的力量有別於負面的壓抑性暴力。這種力量正因其不具暴力特質而更為有效,因其更易為人所接受。除此之外,這種力量能穿透個人的日常生活,因論述的影層面遍及社會各角落。然而,傅科過於強調知識的有效性,最後甚至視之為力量唯一的來源。將知識和力量完全等同嚴重地簡化了力的運作,忽略了壓抑性的暴力對社會的影響。如此一來,對傅科而言,知識是唯一需要反抗的對象,而反抗的方式,也停留在論述層面即可。然而,雖然知識對整體社會確有其影響力,但改變人們的想法卻不見得能完全改變現狀,因知識畢竟只是社會的一環,而非全部。

Althusser's theory of knowledge differs from traditional epistemology in that he begins to see knowledge as production. This view on knowledge is inspired by Marxism's concept of production. Althusser believes that theories such as Hegelianism and empiricism fail to consider knowledge as production due to a confusion of ideality with materiality. When thought is confused with the real in an essence-phenomenon relation, their specificity is often passed over. Moreover, when thought is mistaken as an unchangeable essence, its historicity is bracketed. By investigating knowledge in terms of production, Althusser means to incorporate the often left-out theoretical practice into the social ensemble and account for the complex determinations among social practices. Althusser thinks Marxism as a science because its concept of production is a scientific one that grasps the truth of social formation. This belief presupposes a distinction between science and ideology. If dialectical materialism is universalized for providing a general principle, so is the category of scientificity, because Marxism is generalized for being a science. In this case, a distinction between science and ideology in terms of universal validity contradicts and invalidates the concept of knowledge as production.
Foucault advances beyond Althusser in seeing scientific knowledge as production because he problematizes the concept of ideology and attempts to explore how truth is distinguished from falsehood. For Foucault, knowledge is a form of power in that it produces truth and normalizes the subject with its truth claim. The power exercised through knowledge is no longer a negative one, which represses with violence. Rather, the positive power associated with knowledge is more effective because it is non-violent and thus more acceptable. Besides, the productive power penetrates every level of the social whole through the channel of discourse that extends to the everyday life of each individual. However, Foucault stresses the effectiveness of power in the form of knowledge to the extent that knowledge becomes the only form of power. Such a total identification is a serious reduction that plays down the negative aspect of power. In this case, Foucault's proposal for resistance is exclusively a discursive one, whose influences are limited when it comes to transformation of the status quo. After all, discourse is only one level of the social formation.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/6823
Appears in Collections:外國語文學系所

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.