On the Archaeology of “Dispositif Spatial ” from the debate of Foucault and Derrida on "Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique"

Abstract

法國思想家德希達於1963年的哲學會議上，發表〈我思與瘋狂史〉評論傅柯在1961年出版的《古典時代瘋狂史》。德希達認為，傅柯在《古典時代瘋狂史》中以考古學的方式探尋非理性起源史、理性/瘋狂的界限史，本質上仍屬於某種歷史主義、某種編年史的考究，並且認為在經驗歷史的層次談論理性與瘋狂的界限猶如隔靴搔癢，無法進入此議題的本質。藉著《古典時代瘋狂史》的論調，德希達建構了另一種理性/瘋狂的界限論述，依此說明，理性與瘋狂的界限（理性/瘋狂），是伴隨著思想活動的每個當下而發生，故僅有在思想活動的層次才能形構出理性/瘋狂中間的分隔號、界限、起源。 本文在第一章概述這場爭論的背景：法國60年代的思想史脈絡。第二章進入傅柯「理性/瘋狂」的界限思考，並闡析德希達在〈我思與瘋狂史〉中對此論調的批評。第三章正式進入傅柯，筆者認為德希達誤解傅柯，一方面是傅柯在書寫《古典時代瘋狂史》時，考古學方法論尚未成熟，故交代不清；另一方面是德希達刻意將傅柯劃入起源的形上學，並藉此解構傳統在場的形上學。釐清傅柯對「理性/瘋狂」之起源概念的關鍵在於傅柯思想的基底材料：考古學意義下的話語事件。筆者將在此章節會清楚地交代。第四章闡釋考古學到系譜學的發展動態，並把焦點定在傅柯思想的核心概念：「配置」，筆者認為，配置是傅柯思想的基礎形式，透過配置，我們更能清楚地看到傅柯心目中的「起源/決斷」之意義（話語事件）；另一方面筆者依此概念疏理傅柯在1970後的思想轉型，於此我們涉及了傅柯的權力分析學，並解釋系譜學意義的話語事件。最後，在第五章，筆者藉由配置與話語事件的關係說明傅柯的空間性思維，藉此標誌出特屬於傅柯思想的特異性：異托邦：配置的是異托邦概念的實際操作，配置就是「異質拓樸學」。In 1963, French philosopher Derrida had commented on Foucault’s (Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique) in his conference paper . The archaeology method that Foucault applied to discuss the origin of non-reason and the limit of reason/madness, Derrida believed, is basically just a kind of historicism and chronicle study and it is far from enough to inquire the limit of reason/madness merely out of history of experience. Thus, Derrida constructed a different way to expound the limit of reason/madness, in order to declare that the relation of reason and madness is accompany with every moment of our thinking activity, and we can only construct the limit of reason/madness in the level of thinking activity. The first chapter of this dissertation, is the context of French intellectual history in 1960s, as the background of this debate. In the second chapter, I go through Foucault’s thought on the limit of “Reason/Madness”, and Derrida’s critic of it in. By the third chapter, I step from Foucault’s thoughts and claim that in this debate Derrida’s critic is actually out of his misunderstanding of Foucault. On the one side, since the Archaeology as a methodology is not mature when Foucault was written the , that turns out Foucault cannot declare the concept of Archaeology clearly; on the other side, Derrida sedulously put Foucault’s thought into the metaphysics of origin, and used it to deconstruct traditional metaphysics of presence. In order to clarify the origin of “Reason/Madness” ’s concept, the crucial point is to understand the basic material of Foucault’s thought: Discursive event in the framework of archaeology, which I mention in the third chapter. In the forth chapter, I discuss the development from archaeology to genealogy, and focus on the core concept “ Dispositif ” (Dispositive) in Foucault’s philosophy. I believe that Dispositif is the fundamental form of Foucault’s thought, and via Dispositif, we can getting more close to the meaning of “Origin/Decision” in Foucault’s mind; At the same time, I use this concept to sort out how Foucault’s thought changed after 1970. I mention Foucault ‘s analysis of power and explain how he deployed discursive event’s meaning in the genealogy. At last, in the fifth chapter, I explain Foucault’s spatial thought from the relationship between Dispositif and discursive event, from it I can point out the singularity of his thought: Hétérotopie，as Dispoistif is the actual usage of the Hétérotopie concept, Dispositif is Hétérotopologie