傅柯性史 03

The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault 傅柯：性史

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

Chapter 1: We, Other Victorians

第一章：維多利亞時期另類人

But it appears to me that the essential thing is not this economic factor, but rather the
existence in our era of a discourse in which, sex, the revelation of truth, the
overturning of global laws, the proclamation of a new day to come, and the promise
of a certain felicity are linked together.

我覺得最重要的不是這個經濟的因素，而是我們的時代存在著一個論述：性，
跟真理的啟發，全球律法的推翻，新日子來臨的宣告，及某種幸福的許諾，被
關聯在一起。

Today it is sex that serves as a support for the ancient form—so familiar and
important in the West—of preaching A great sexual sermon—which has had its subtle
theologians and its popular voices—has swept through our societies over the last
decades; it has chastised the old order, denounced hypocrisy, and praised the rights of
the immediate and the real: it has made people dream of a New City. The Franciscans
are called to mind. And we might wonder how it is possible that the lyricism and
religiosity that long accompanied the revolutionary project have, in Western industrial
societies, been largely carried over to sex.

宣揚福音，在以前的西方世界，是耳熟能詳的重大事情，今天則是由性來充當
理論基礎。過去幾十年來，我們的社會瀰漫一個偉大的性解放的福音，大家對性
的鼓吹趨之若鶩，宛如性的微妙成了神學家口中的福音。這個福音抨擊舊有的社
會秩序，揭發假道學，讚賞當下的時刻及真實的事物。它使人們渴望「新天堂」
跟聖法蘭西斯的聖靈自然的福音有幾分神似。我們可能會大為驚奇：抒情跟宗教
長久以來都是革命大業的夥伴，在今天西方的工業社會，已經被轉移到性。

The notion of repressed sex is not, therefore, only a theoretical matter. The affirmation
of a sexuality that has never been more rigorously subjugated than during the age of
they hypocritical, bustling, and responsible bourgeoisie is coupled with the
grandiloquence of a discourse purporting to reveal the truth about sex, modify its
economy within reality, subvert the law that governs it, and change its future.

1
因此，性受到壓抑的觀念不僅僅是理論上的事情。在假道學，忙碌，及盡責任的
布爾喬亞的時代，飽受嚴格管制的性，現在受到肯定，因為它伴隨著新論述的
大力鼓吹及顯示有關性的真理，修正性在現實社會的經濟活動，顛覆管制性的
法律，並且改變性在未來的地位。

The statement of oppression and the form of the sermon refer back to one another;
they are mutually reinforcing. To say that sex is not repressed, or rather that the
relationship between sex and power is not characterized by repression, is to risk
falling into a sterile paradox. It not only runs counter to a well-accepted argument, it
goes against the whole economy and all the discursive “ interests” that underlie this
argument.

壓迫的陳述跟宣揚福音的模式互相牽連，他們互相奧援。說性沒有受到壓抑，或
是說性跟權力之間的關係不是由壓抑表現特色，那等於是甘冒兩邊落空的詭論。
它不但跟眾所接受的論點相對立，而且違背作為論點基礎的整個經濟跟所有的
論述的「利益」。

This is the point at which I would like to situate the series of historical analyses that
will follow, the present volume being at the same time an introduction and a first
attempt at an overview: it surveys a few historically significant points and outlines
certain theoretical problems.

就是在這個觀點上，我想要用來定位我後來的一系列的有關性的歷史分析。目前
這一冊既是導論，也是首次企圖做個概要：它調查一些性歷史的重要時期，並
略述某些理論上的問題。

Briefly, my aim is to examine the case of a society which has been loudly castigating
itself for its hypocrisy for more than a century, which speaks verbosely of its own
silence, take great points to relate in detail the things it does not say, denounces the
powers it exercises, and promises to liberate itself from the very laws that have made
it function.

簡言之，我的目的是要審察，社會是怎樣因為自己的假道學公開申斥自己達百
年之久，又不厭其煩地述說自己的壓抑沉默，殫精竭力去詳述它自己的禁忌不
語，抨擊自己運作的權力，承諾要從社會運轉的法律規範下解放自己。

I would like to explore not only these discourses but also the will that sustains them
and the strategic intention that supports them. The question I would like to pose is not,

2
“ Why are we repressed? “ but rather, Why do we say, with so much passion and so
much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against
ourselves, that we are repressed? By what spiral did we come to affirm that sex is
negated? What led us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it
is something we silence?

我想要探討的不僅是這些論述，而且是怎樣的意志維持他們，以及什麼策略的
意圖支持他們。我想要提出的問題不是「為什麼我們被壓抑？」而是「為什麼我們
說我們受到壓抑時，我們對於我們的最近，我們的現在，以及我們自己的不認
同，是如此激烈，又如此怨恨？以怎樣的迴旋思考，我們幡然肯定說：性是被
否決。什麼事情迫使我們誇張地顯示：性是我們隱藏的東西，坦承性是我們壓抑
沉默的東西？」

And we do all this by formulating the matter in the most explicit terms, by trying to
reveal it in its most naked reality, by affirming it in the positivity of its power and its
effects. It is certainly legitimate to ask why sex was associated with sin for such a
long time—although it would remain to be discovered how this association was
formed, and one would have to be careful not to state in a summary and hasty fashion
that sex was “ condemned”—but we must also ask why we burden ourselves today
with so much guilt for having once made sex a sin.

我們肯定、顯示及坦承，都是斬釘截鐵地闡述，設法掀開裏子呈現，在權力及其
影響的積極運作中，肯定性受到壓抑。我們確實有足夠理由問：為什麼如此久的
時間性跟原罪聯想在一起？另外一個有待發現的問題是：這種聯想是如何形成？
我們必須謹慎，不要總而言之地匆促下結論：性是「天譴」。但是我們也要問：
性被認為是原罪是以前所為，為什麼我們今天要讓自己負擔如此的罪惡感？

What paths have brought us to the point where we are “ at fault” with respect to our
own sex? And how have we come to be a civilization so peculiar as to tell itself that,
through an abuse of power which has not ended, it has long “ sinned” against sex?
How does one account for the displacement which, while claiming to free us from the
sinful nature of sex, taxes us with a great historical wrong which consists precisely in
imaging that nature to be blameworthy and in drawing disastrous consequences from
that belief?

是什麼途徑引導我們相信：關於我們自己的性，我們是「該受遣責」？我們是如
何成為如此特別的文明，告訴自己說：經由迄今尚未停止的權力濫用，這個文
明對於性長久以來都是「有原罪」？我們既然宣稱要解放自己免於性的原罪性質

3
而冤屈就是在於想像性的原罪性質是應該受到譴責的，然後從那個信仰導致災
難般的結果，那我們要如何來說明使我們負擔性的歷史冤屈的錯誤位置？

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw