身體在世：傅柯和布爾迪厄身體觀和施為者之對比

Body-in-the-world: Foucault and Bourdieu on the Body and Agency

10.29816/TARQSS.200712.0002

吳秀瑾(Shiu-Ching Wu)

施爲 ； 身體政治 ； 柔順身體 ； 象徵鬥爭 ； 社會習性 ； 身體在世 ； Agency ； body politics ； docile body ； symbolic struggle ； habitus ； Body-in-the-World

台灣社會研究季刊

68期（2007 / 12 / 01）

75 - 117

繁體中文

傳柯與布爾迪厄身體觀對女性主義身體觀的相關研究影響深遠，從檢討女性柔順和習慣身體的社會絡印中，呈現男權中心的歷史與社會結構。此外，衡諸於傳柯和布爾迪厄的身體觀研究，也都金圖秉顧身體所進行的社會批判與身體的社會改造，使其身體觀理論具有政治實踐性。率此，本文將探討傳柯和布爾迪厄的身體觀，試圖從中找出某些共同的社會批判的方法，主張身體在世的優先性與超越自由與決定的二元論，成為分析女性服從、愛美與性貞節的有利社會批判工具。此外，本文亦將分別探討傳柯和布爾迪厄身體觀理論中柔順身體與習慣身體如何產生能動性的問題，換言之，兩者都企圖在身體中建立施為者(agent)的概念。最後，本文將根據女性主義者金圖秉顧身體的社會批判與身體改造的能動性(McNay, 1999, 2000)，進一步分析比較兩者身體能動性的優缺點。 本文的結論是：雖然McNay解讀傳柯施為者的方式不盡理想，但是，McNay對兩人高下的判斷對於女性主義身體觀的後續發展而言，仍然具有高度的啓發性：亦即將傳柯的自我科技的身體放入布爾迪厄社會習性與社會場域的物質脈絡中，因為場域的多元（各種不同的資本的分配與組合）與動態是施為者自我治理的必要客觀環境，此外，從場域的整體（象徵）權力的相對位置中，勢將呈現出不同風格的自我治理術，這些差異的生活風格更體現出高下優劣的社會等級。最後，除了必須結合傳柯和布爾迪厄身體觀理論外，還需要從性別角度來探討各式社會場域中不同自我治理術間的（象徵）權力鬥爭，尤其是持續觀察（下層）女性取得發言的權威位置的可能性，後者正是兩者共同闕漏之處。

Although feminists' concepts of the body have been greatly influenced by the analysis of body politics in the works of Foucault and Bourdieu, feminists have been studying their concept of the body in a separate way. McNay's shift of theoretical concern from Foucault (McNay, 1992) to Bourdieu (McNay 1999; 2000) has brought out the important comparisons between them. Although McNay inclines to argue that their concept of body have more theoretical differences than resemblances, I aim to suggest otherwise, namely, docile body and body hatibus share more resemblances than differences. The aim of this paper is to argue that docile body and habitual body (habitus) is not only similar at the surface. Deep down, both concepts of body share family resemblances. Both Foucault and Bourdieu explained their concept of body, implicitly or explicitly, through the concept of body-in-the-world, which puts an end to the prioirty of the subject on the one hand, and subsitutes the real is relational for the social substance on the othor hand. Moreover, both Foucault and Bourdieu aim to challenge all sorts of dualism (freedom/determinism; subject/structure; domination/resistance, body/mind; etc.), and to put great efforts to elaborate how body within the social constraints working its way toward the practices of freedom and action. However, to McNay's criticual assessments, by way of four sets of comparison, including atemporality/temporality, reflexivity/pre-reflexivity, negative paradigm/ positive paradigm, and resistant (domination)/ investment (negotiation), docile body and body habitus are different concepts with regard to the implied concept of agency. For Foucault, agent can be neither autonomus subject nor total subjection. For Bourdieu, agent incorporated with the feel of the game within social fields. To McNay's judgment, Bourdieu's body habitus is more satisfactory than Foucault's docile body, because the former could provide the material contexualizations for Foucault's technologies of the self. But, as far as gendered habitus is concerned, Bourdieu's body habitus becomes problematical in the sense that Bourdieu holds that women's body habitus can not negotiate to their advantage within different social fields. The paper concludes with the promising suggestion anticipated that feminists' works of body politics can be greatly enlightened by seeing both Foucault and Bourdieu on the body as a complementary whole.

1. 吳秀瑾(2005)。女性主義立場論與社會習性。人文及社會科學集刊，17，653-682。
   連結：
2. Adkins, Lisa (eds.),Beverley Skeggs. (eds.)(2004).Feminism After Bourdieu.MA:Black well Publishing Ltd.
3. Allen A.(2000).The Anti-Subjective Hypothesis: Michel Foucault and the Death of the Subject.The Philosophical Forum,31(2),113-130.
4. Althusser, L.,Ben Brewster. (Trans.)(1971).Lenin and philosophy, and other essays.New York:Monthly Review Press.
5. Bevir, M.(1999).Foucault and Critique: Deploying Agency Against Autonomy.Political Theory,27,65-84.
6. Bourdieu,P.(1998).Practical Reason.California:Stanford UP.
7. Bourdieu,P.(1977).Outline of a Theory of Practice.Cambridge UP.
8. Bourdieu,P.(1984).Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.Cambridge:Havard UP.
9. Bourdieu,P.(1990).The logic of Practice.California:Stanford UP.
10. Bourdieu,P.,L. Wacquant.(1992).An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.Chicago:The U of Chicago P..
11. Bourdieu,P.,Peter Collier. (trans.)(1984).Homo Academicus.California:Stanford UP.
12. Bourdieu,P.,Richard Nice. (trans.)(2001).Masculine Domination.Cambridge:Polity Press.
13. Bourdieu,P.,Richard Nice. (trans.)(2000).Pascalian Meditations.Cambridge:Polity Press.
14. Crossley,N.(2001).The Social Body: Habit, Identity and Desire.London:Sage.
15. Davis, K. (Ed.)(1997).Embodied Practices: Feminist Perspectives on the Body.
16. Dews, P.(1989).The Return of the Subject in Late Foucault.Radical Philosophy,51,37-41.
17. Diamond,I. (Eds),L. Quinby. (Eds)(1988).Feminism & Foucault: Reflections on Resistance.Boston:Northeastern University Press.
18. Dudrick, D(2005).Foucault, Butler, and the Body.European Journal of Philosophy,13(2),226-246.
19. Easton, Dossie,Catherine A. Liszt.(1998).The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities.CA:Greenery Press.
20. Foucault, M.(1980).Power/Knowledge.New York:Random House.
21. Foucault, M.(1973).Madness And Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.New York:Vintage Books.
22. Foucault, M.,Alan Sheridan. (Translated)(1979).Discipline & Punish: The Birth of The Prison.New York:Random House.
23. Foucault, M.,Robert Hurley. (Translated)(1985).The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality.New York:Pantheon Books.
24. Foucault, M.,Robert Hurley. (Translated)(1978).The History of Sexuality: An Introduction.New York:Random House.
25. Foucault, M.,Robert Hurley. (Translated)(1986).The Care of the Self. Volume 3 of the History of Sexuality.New York:Pantheon Books.
26. Franke, Katherine M.(2001).Theorizing Yes: An Essay on Feminism, Law, and Desire.Columbia Law Review,101(1),181-208.
27. King, A.(2000).Thinking with Bourdieu Against Bourdieu: A 'Practical' Critique of the Habitus.Sociological Theory,18(3),417-433.
28. Krais, B.,C. Calhoun(eds.),E. LiPuma(eds.),M. Postone (eds.)(1993).Gender and Symbolic Violence: Female Oppression in the Light of Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Social Practice.Bourdieu's Critical Perspectives.
29. Larmour, David H.J. (eds.)(1998).Rethinking Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
30. Lawler, Steph.,Adkins, Lisa (eds.),Beverley Skeggs (eds.)(2004).Feminism After Bourdieu.MA:Black well Publishing Ltd..
31. Lloyd, G.(1984).The Man of Reason: Male and Female in Western Philosophy.London:Routledge.
32. McCall, L.(1992).Does Gender Fit? Bourdieu, Feminism and Conceptions of Social Order.Theory and Society,21,837-867.
33. McNay, L.(1992).Foucault and Feminism: Power, Gender and the Self.Boston:Northeastern UP.
34. McNay, L.(2000).Gender& Agency: Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social Theory.Polity Press.
35. McNay, Lois.(1999).Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity.Theory, Culture and Society,16(1),95-117.
36. McRobbie, Angela.,Adkins, Lisa (Eds.),Beverley Skeggs. (Eds.)(2004).Feminism After Bourdieu.MA:Black well Publishing Ltd..
37. Reay, Diane.,Adkins, Lisa (Eds),Beverley Skeggs. (Eds)(2004).Feminism After Bourdieu.MA:Black well Publishing Ltd..
38. Richlin, Amy.,Larmour, David H.J. (eds.)(1998).Rethinking Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
39. 吳秀瑾(2001)。東吳哲學學報。6，241-282。
40. 佘碧平譯、福柯著(2000)。性經驗史。上海:上海人民出版社。
41. 揚凱麟、黃瑞祺主編(2005)。再見傅柯：傅柯晚期思想新論。台北:松慧。
42. 劉北成譯、楊遠嬰譯、福柯著(1999)。規訓與懲罰。北京:三聯。
43. 謝石譯、沈力譯(1990)。性史。台北:結構群。

1. 洪瑞兒,李佩珊(2021)。臺灣中小學輔導人員施為量表發展與效化研究。教育心理學報，52(3)，545-570。
2. 侯俞如、侯俞如(2012)。街舞舞者風格層次之探討。運動文化研究，20，39-70。
3. 黃雅倩(2018)。鄭多燕塑（健）身操書中的性別議題。體育學報，51(1)，127-141。
4. 江寶釵(2014)。日治時期臺灣文人的國民性論述暨其意義。淡江中文學報，30，205-236。
5. 謝旻凱、陳智彥、郭于瑄(2016)。以傅柯觀點淺談籃球場上教練、球員、裁判權力建構。身體文化學報，23，41-54。
6. 鄭佩芬、黃秋琪、周傳姜(2015)。權力視野下的照顧關係並兼論關懷實踐的意義─長期照護機構照顧服務員的自我敘說探究。生命教育研究，7(2)，27-56。