《疯颠与文明》一书，时间跨度有六百年。话题是从"疯人"在历史舞台上的出现谈起，即中世纪末随着麻风病的消退，疯人开始取代麻风病患者，成为社会排斥和隔离的新对象。然后是历述这种排斥/隔离机制的各种变形：文艺复兴时期（十四--十六世纪）是用"愚人船"放逐他们（就像舜投凶顽于四裔）；古典时期（十七世纪）是把他们当"社会垃圾"和罪犯，盲流一起关进收容所，叫"大禁闭"；启蒙时期（十八世纪）是他们当"瘟疫"来隔离，叫"大恐惧"；终点是十九世纪，即把疯人与罪犯分开，当病人看待，与"正常人"隔离，实行"治病救人"的"人道主义"。这样才形成现代的精神病院。
Foucault begins his history in the Middle Ages, noting the social and physical exclusion of lepers. He argues that with the gradual disappearance of leprosy, madness came to occupy this excluded position. The ship of fools in the 15th century is a literary version of one such exclusionary practice, the practice of sending mad people away in ships. However, during the Renaissance, madness was regarded as an all-abundant phenomenon because humans could not come close to the Reason of God. As Cervantes' Don Quixote, all humans are weak to desires and dissimulation. Therefore, the insane, understood as those who had come too close to God's Reason, were accepted in the middle of society. It is not before the 17th century, in a movement which Foucault famously describes as the Great Confinement, that "unreasonable" members of the population systematically were locked away and institutionalized. In the 18th century, madness came to be seen as the obverse of Reason, that is, as having lost what made them human and become animal-like and therefore treated as such. It is not before 19th century that madness was regarded as a mental illness that should be cured, e.g. Philippe Pinel, Freud. A few professional historians have argued that the large increase in confinement did not happen in 17th but in the 19th century. Critics argue that this undermines the central argument of Foucault, notably the link between the Age of Enlightenment and the suppression of the insane.
However, Foucault scholars have shown that Foucault was not talking about medical institutions designed specifically for the insane but about the creation of houses of confinement for social outsiders, including not only the insane but also vagrants, unemployed, impoverished, and orphaned, and what effect those general houses of confinement had on the insane and perceptions of Madness in western society. Furthermore, Foucault goes to great lengths to demonstrate that while this "confinement" of social outcasts was a generally European phenomenon, it had a unique development in France and distinct developments in the other countries that the confinement took place in, such as Germany and England, disproving complaints that Foucault takes French events to generalize the history of madness in the West. A few of the historians critical of its historiography, such as Roy Porter, also began to concur with these refutations and discarded their own past criticisms to acknowledge the revolutionary nature of Foucault's book.
Foucault begins his history in the Middle Ages, noting the social and physical exclusion of lepers. He argues that with the gradual disappearance of leprosy, madness came to occupy this excluded position. The ship of fools in the 15th century is a literary version of one such exclusionary practice, the practice of sending mad people away in ships. However, during the Renaissance, madness was regarded as an all-abundant phenomenon because humans could not come close to the Reason of God. As Cervantes' Don Quixote, all humans are weak to desires and dissimulation. Therefore, the insane, understood as those who had come too close to God's Reason, were accepted in the middle of society. It is not before the 17th century, in a movement which Foucault famously describes as the Great Confinement, that "unreasonable" members of the population systematically were locked away and institutionalized. In the 18th century, madness came to be seen as the obverse of Reason, that is, as having lost what made them human and become animal-like and therefore treated as such. It is not before 19th century that madness was regarded as a mental illness that should be cured, e.g. Philippe Pinel, Freud. A few professional historians have argued that the large increase in confinement did not happen in 17th but in the 19th century. Critics argue that this undermines the central argument of Foucault, notably the link between the Age of Enlightenment and the suppression of the insane.
However, Foucault scholars have shown that Foucault was not talking about medical institutions designed specifically for the insane but about the creation of houses of confinement for social outsiders, including not only the insane but also vagrants, unemployed, impoverished, and orphaned, and what effect those general houses of confinement had on the insane and perceptions of Madness in western society. Furthermore, Foucault goes to great lengths to demonstrate that while this "confinement" of social outcasts was a generally European phenomenon, it had a unique development in France and distinct developments in the other countries that the confinement took place in, such as Germany and England, disproving complaints that Foucault takes French events to generalize the history of madness in the West. A few of the historians critical of its historiography, such as Roy Porter, also began to concur with these refutations and discarded their own past criticisms to acknowledge the revolutionary nature of Foucault's book.
这大概是福柯写过的最接近"完美"的著作，冷峻的描写与热烈的"抒情核心"，细致的分析与透辟的理论反省以充满张力的方式冶于一炉。对比最初台湾版的翻译，译者又做了精心的修改，使现在这个译本无论准确性还是流畅性，都堪称佳译。当然翻译的质量是建立在作者对福柯思想的全面研究的基础上的，这一点恰恰是现在许多翻译所缺乏的。不过，将discipline译为"规训"，仍有"造字"之嫌，而现有的"纪律"一词却似乎更贴切。毕竟在尼采和韦伯那里，这个词都译做"纪律"（所以这个概念也并非如译者所言，是福柯的"独创"）。
Foucault challenges the commonly accepted idea that the prison became the consistent form of punishment due to humanitarian concerns of reformists, although he does not deny those. He does so by meticulously tracing out the shifts in culture that led to the prison's dominance, focusing on the body and questions of power. Prison is a form used by the "disciplines", a new technological power, which can also be found, according to Foucault, in schools, hospitals, military barracks, etc. The main ideas of Discipline and Punish can be grouped according to its four parts: torture, punishment, discipline and prison.
Torture
Foucault begins the book by contrasting two forms of penalty: the violent and chaotic public torture of Robert-François Damiens who was convicted of attempted regicide in the late 18th century, and the highly regimented daily schedule for inmates from an early 19th century prison. These examples provide a picture of just how profound the change in western penal systems were after less than a century. Foucault wants the reader to consider what led to these changes. How did western culture shift so radically?
To answer this question, he begins by examining public torture itself. He argues that the public spectacle of torture was a theatrical forum that served several intended and unintended purposes for society. The intended purposes were:
* Reflecting the violence of the original crime onto the convict's body for all to see.
* Enacting the revenge upon the convict's body, which the sovereign seeks for having been injured by the crime. Foucault argues that the law was considered an extension of the sovereign's body, and so the revenge must take the form of harming the convict's body.
Some unintended consequences were:
* Providing a forum for the convict's body to become a focus of sympathy and admiration.
* Creating a site of conflict between the masses and the sovereign at the convict's body. Foucault notes that public executions often led to riots in support of the prisoner.
Thus, he argues, the public execution was ultimately an ineffective use of the body, qualified as non-economical. As well, it was applied non-uniformly and haphazardly. Hence, its political cost was too high. It was the antithesis of the more modern concerns of the state: order and generalization.
Punishment
The switch to prison was not immediate. There was a more graded change, though it ran its course rapidly. Prison was preceded by a different form of public spectacle. The theater of public torture gave way to public chain gangs. Punishment became "gentle", though not for humanitarian reasons, Foucault suggests. He argues that reformists were unhappy with the unpredictable, unevenly distributed nature of the violence the sovereign would inflict on the convict. The sovereign's right to punish was so disproportionate that it was ineffective and uncontrolled. Reformists felt the power to punish and judge should become more evenly distributed, the state's power must be a form of public power. This, according to Foucault, was of more concern to reformists than humanitarian arguments.
Out of this movement towards generalized punishment, a thousand "mini-theatres" of punishment would have been created wherein the convicts' bodies would have been put on display in a more ubiquitous, controlled, and effective spectacle. Prisoners would have been forced to do work that reflected their crime, thus repaying society for their infractions. This would have allowed the public to see the convicts' bodies enacting their punishment, and thus to reflect on the crime. But these experiments lasted less than twenty years.
Foucault argues that this theory of "gentle" punishment represented the first step away from the excessive force of the sovereign, and towards more generalized and controlled means of punishment. But he suggests that the shift towards prison that followed was the result of a new "technology" and ontology for the body being developed in the 18th century, the "technology" of discipline, and the ontology of "man as machine."
Discipline
The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault. He looks at the development of highly refined forms of discipline, of discipline concerned with the smallest and most precise aspects of a person's body. Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations emerging in the modern age and continuing to today.
The individuality that discipline constructs (for the bodies it controls) has four characteristics, namely it makes individuality which is:
* Cellular—determining the spatial distribution of the bodies
* Organic—ensuring that the activities required of the bodies are "natural" for them
* Genetic—controlling the evolution over time of the activities of the bodies
* Combinatory—allowing for the combination of the force of many bodies into a single massive force
Foucault suggests this individuality can be implemented in systems that are officially egalitarian, but use discipline to construct non-egalitarian power relations:
Historically, the process by which the bourgeoisie became in the course of the eighteenth century the politically dominant class was masked by the establishment of an explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative regime. But the development and generalization of disciplinary mechanisms constituted the other, dark side of these processes. The general juridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian in principle was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical that we call the disciplines. (222)
Foucault's argument is that discipline creates "docile bodies", ideal for the new economics, politics and warfare of the modern industrial age—bodies that function in factories, ordered military regiments, and school classrooms. But, to construct docile bodies the disciplinary institutions must be able to a) constantly observe and record the bodies they control, b) ensure the internalization of the disciplinary individuality within the bodies being controlled. That is, discipline must come about without excessive force through careful observation, and molding of the bodies into the correct form through this observation. This requires a particular form of institution, which Foucault argues, was exemplified by Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, which was never actually built.
The Panopticon was the ultimate realization of a modern disciplinary institution. It allowed for constant observation characterized by an "unequal gaze"; the constant possibility of observation. Perhaps the most important feature of the panopticon was that it was specifically designed so that the prisoner could never be sure whether s/he was being observed. The unequal gaze caused the internalization of disciplinary individuality, and the docile body required of its inmates. This means one is less likely to break rules or laws if they believe they are being watched, even if they are not. Thus, prison, and specifically those that follow the model of the Panopticon, provide the ideal form of modern punishment. Foucault argues that this is why the generalized, "gentle" punishment of public work gangs gave way to the prison. It was the ideal modernization of punishment, so its eventual dominance was natural.
Having laid out the emergence of the prison as the dominant form of punishment, Foucault devotes the rest of the book to examining its precise form and function in our society, to lay bare the reasons for its continued use, and question the assumed results of its use.
Prison
In examining the construction of the prison as the central means of criminal punishment, Foucault builds a case for the idea that prison became part of a larger “carceral system” that has become an all-encompassing sovereign institution in modern society. Prison is one part of a vast network, including schools, military institutions, hospitals, and factories, which build a panoptic society for its members. This system creates “disciplinary careers” (Discipline and Punish, 300) for those locked within its corridors. It is operated under the scientific authority of medicine, psychology, and criminology. Moreover, it operates according to principles that ensure that it “cannot fail to produce delinquents.” (Discipline and Punish, 266). Delinquency, indeed, is produced when social petty crime (such as taking wood in the lord's lands) is no longer tolerated, creating a class of specialized "delinquents" acting as the police's proxy in surveillance of society.
The structures Foucault chooses to use as his starting positions help highlight his conclusions. In particular, his choice as a perfect prison of the penal institution at Mettray helps personify the carceral system. Within it is included the Prison, the School, the Church, and the work-house (industry)—all of which feature heavily in his argument. The prisons at Neufchatel, Mettray, and Mettray Netherlands were perfect examples for Foucault, because they, even in their original state, began to show the traits Foucault was searching for. They showed the body of knowledge being developed about the prisoners, the creation of the 'delinquent' class, and the disciplinary careers emerging.
Foucault challenges the commonly accepted idea that the prison became the consistent form of punishment due to humanitarian concerns of reformists, although he does not deny those. He does so by meticulously tracing out the shifts in culture that led to the prison's dominance, focusing on the body and questions of power. Prison is a form used by the "disciplines", a new technological power, which can also be found, according to Foucault, in schools, hospitals, military barracks, etc. The main ideas of Discipline and Punish can be grouped according to its four parts: torture, punishment, discipline and prison.
Torture
Foucault begins the book by contrasting two forms of penalty: the violent and chaotic public torture of Robert-François Damiens who was convicted of attempted regicide in the late 18th century, and the highly regimented daily schedule for inmates from an early 19th century prison. These examples provide a picture of just how profound the change in western penal systems were after less than a century. Foucault wants the reader to consider what led to these changes. How did western culture shift so radically?
To answer this question, he begins by examining public torture itself. He argues that the public spectacle of torture was a theatrical forum that served several intended and unintended purposes for society. The intended purposes were:
* Reflecting the violence of the original crime onto the convict's body for all to see.
* Enacting the revenge upon the convict's body, which the sovereign seeks for having been injured by the crime. Foucault argues that the law was considered an extension of the sovereign's body, and so the revenge must take the form of harming the convict's body.
Some unintended consequences were:
* Providing a forum for the convict's body to become a focus of sympathy and admiration.
* Creating a site of conflict between the masses and the sovereign at the convict's body. Foucault notes that public executions often led to riots in support of the prisoner.
Thus, he argues, the public execution was ultimately an ineffective use of the body, qualified as non-economical. As well, it was applied non-uniformly and haphazardly. Hence, its political cost was too high. It was the antithesis of the more modern concerns of the state: order and generalization.
Punishment
The switch to prison was not immediate. There was a more graded change, though it ran its course rapidly. Prison was preceded by a different form of public spectacle. The theater of public torture gave way to public chain gangs. Punishment became "gentle", though not for humanitarian reasons, Foucault suggests. He argues that reformists were unhappy with the unpredictable, unevenly distributed nature of the violence the sovereign would inflict on the convict. The sovereign's right to punish was so disproportionate that it was ineffective and uncontrolled. Reformists felt the power to punish and judge should become more evenly distributed, the state's power must be a form of public power. This, according to Foucault, was of more concern to reformists than humanitarian arguments.
Out of this movement towards generalized punishment, a thousand "mini-theatres" of punishment would have been created wherein the convicts' bodies would have been put on display in a more ubiquitous, controlled, and effective spectacle. Prisoners would have been forced to do work that reflected their crime, thus repaying society for their infractions. This would have allowed the public to see the convicts' bodies enacting their punishment, and thus to reflect on the crime. But these experiments lasted less than twenty years.
Foucault argues that this theory of "gentle" punishment represented the first step away from the excessive force of the sovereign, and towards more generalized and controlled means of punishment. But he suggests that the shift towards prison that followed was the result of a new "technology" and ontology for the body being developed in the 18th century, the "technology" of discipline, and the ontology of "man as machine."
Discipline
The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault. He looks at the development of highly refined forms of discipline, of discipline concerned with the smallest and most precise aspects of a person's body. Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations emerging in the modern age and continuing to today.
The individuality that discipline constructs (for the bodies it controls) has four characteristics, namely it makes individuality which is:
* Cellular—determining the spatial distribution of the bodies
* Organic—ensuring that the activities required of the bodies are "natural" for them
* Genetic—controlling the evolution over time of the activities of the bodies
* Combinatory—allowing for the combination of the force of many bodies into a single massive force
Foucault suggests this individuality can be implemented in systems that are officially egalitarian, but use discipline to construct non-egalitarian power relations:
Historically, the process by which the bourgeoisie became in the course of the eighteenth century the politically dominant class was masked by the establishment of an explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative regime. But the development and generalization of disciplinary mechanisms constituted the other, dark side of these processes. The general juridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian in principle was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical that we call the disciplines. (222)
Foucault's argument is that discipline creates "docile bodies", ideal for the new economics, politics and warfare of the modern industrial age—bodies that function in factories, ordered military regiments, and school classrooms. But, to construct docile bodies the disciplinary institutions must be able to a) constantly observe and record the bodies they control, b) ensure the internalization of the disciplinary individuality within the bodies being controlled. That is, discipline must come about without excessive force through careful observation, and molding of the bodies into the correct form through this observation. This requires a particular form of institution, which Foucault argues, was exemplified by Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, which was never actually built.
The Panopticon was the ultimate realization of a modern disciplinary institution. It allowed for constant observation characterized by an "unequal gaze"; the constant possibility of observation. Perhaps the most important feature of the panopticon was that it was specifically designed so that the prisoner could never be sure whether s/he was being observed. The unequal gaze caused the internalization of disciplinary individuality, and the docile body required of its inmates. This means one is less likely to break rules or laws if they believe they are being watched, even if they are not. Thus, prison, and specifically those that follow the model of the Panopticon, provide the ideal form of modern punishment. Foucault argues that this is why the generalized, "gentle" punishment of public work gangs gave way to the prison. It was the ideal modernization of punishment, so its eventual dominance was natural.
Having laid out the emergence of the prison as the dominant form of punishment, Foucault devotes the rest of the book to examining its precise form and function in our society, to lay bare the reasons for its continued use, and question the assumed results of its use.
Prison
In examining the construction of the prison as the central means of criminal punishment, Foucault builds a case for the idea that prison became part of a larger “carceral system” that has become an all-encompassing sovereign institution in modern society. Prison is one part of a vast network, including schools, military institutions, hospitals, and factories, which build a panoptic society for its members. This system creates “disciplinary careers” (Discipline and Punish, 300) for those locked within its corridors. It is operated under the scientific authority of medicine, psychology, and criminology. Moreover, it operates according to principles that ensure that it “cannot fail to produce delinquents.” (Discipline and Punish, 266). Delinquency, indeed, is produced when social petty crime (such as taking wood in the lord's lands) is no longer tolerated, creating a class of specialized "delinquents" acting as the police's proxy in surveillance of society.
The structures Foucault chooses to use as his starting positions help highlight his conclusions. In particular, his choice as a perfect prison of the penal institution at Mettray helps personify the carceral system. Within it is included the Prison, the School, the Church, and the work-house (industry)—all of which feature heavily in his argument. The prisons at Neufchatel, Mettray, and Mettray Netherlands were perfect examples for Foucault, because they, even in their original state, began to show the traits Foucault was searching for. They showed the body of knowledge being developed about the prisoners, the creation of the 'delinquent' class, and the disciplinary careers emerging.
福柯给网民们的一封电子邮件
亲爱的中国的网友：
大家好！
首先我对有这样一个机会能够和大家对话表示万分荣幸。最近听说我的著作在贵国翻译出版了很多，尽管我不能再享受由此而带来的版权利润，而且有很大一部分还属于盗版，但对于一个死去的人来说，名字能够为更多的人所知晓，毕竟也是一件好事。
有朋友说我的著作文字晦涩，影响了阅读，这点我要说明一下：因为我讲的性，权力，政治等等话题，一讲大家都明白。我只是东拉西扯，把能找到的，能想到的都扯上，号称"知识考古学"，以显得来头大，也能多混些稿费，无形中就把简单的事情给搞复杂了，在此先向大家致歉。
说句良心话，我的著作还是挺有追求的。我的追求就是想为天下一向让人瞧不起的弱者们，比如同性恋、疯子什么的讨个公道，让历史说话，揭一揭那些所谓"正常人"的老底，让大家剥开他们的画皮看一看，同时也不再自卑，从此快乐地生活。
说句实话，我是个同性恋，这你们也都有所耳闻。如果让我看到一个美眉，我是一点儿感觉都没有。可要是看到一个漂亮的小伙儿，我立刻就会激动起来。像我这样的人，在整个人类社会中所占的比例还不小。有人说，同性恋是"社会丑恶现象"，这简直是不负责任的瞎扯。你们知道吗，这同性恋是天生的，不是后天学出来的。这就跟你们生下来是男的，就是男的；是女的，那就是女的一样。而且，谁规定了男的必须找女的，女的必须找男的？如果我们两个男人真心相爱，那就是我们俩人的事儿，又碍着谁了？他们喜欢女人我们管过吗？那他们又凭什么来管我们呢？他们喜欢女人，就让我们也喜欢女人，这也太霸道了吧！我们明明不喜欢女人，偏让我们去跟女人好，这不是自己找罪受吗？说我们同性恋传染艾滋病，这倒是事实，我自己就是因为得了艾滋病死的嘛。可他们跟女人不是也搞出性病来了吗？怎么就不说了？我在书中曾经阐释过，不允许两个男人结婚的文明，就不算是真正的文明。听说美国公仆克林顿上任后发布的第一项法令，不是关于国际经济的，也不是关于世界和平的，而是关于美军人同性恋合法化的。这个小克还是蛮理解我们这些思想家的。
最近听说，中国也有着悠久的同性恋历史，流传已久的如断袖、分桃等美丽的同性恋传说，在贵国的名著《红楼梦》中，也有描写几对少年可歌可泣的同性恋故事的。所以我相信，你们当中也有许多像我这样的人。朋友们，如果你们在生活中遇到嘲讽和打击，切莫灰心，别失意，要知道，这不是什么丢脸的事，古往今来有多少英雄豪杰，都是和我们一样的人。而且，要记得，有个福哥，在天上为你们鼓劲，为你们加油。
另外我还研究疯子。日常生活里，老有人说别人："哼，疯子！神经病！"这也是不讲道理的废话。不合他们意的就是疯子？就是神经病？他们说什么就是什么？哪儿有那事儿啊！比如他们说尼采先生是疯子，把他送进了疯人院，可是请看一看，有谁敢说比尼采先生更清醒，对世界看得更透？贵国有本小说叫《狂人日记》，里边就是讲一个疯子的故事，可后来别人都说这疯子是"反封建的斗士"。所以，别以为"正常"就是什么好事儿，我说过了，所谓"正常"，不过就是另一种形式的疯癫。说白了，大伙儿都是疯子，谁也别说谁。你们说我是疯子，从另一个角度说，你们还是疯子呢！咱们这些疯子们活在这个世界上，和平共处就成了。不过当然话不能说绝对了。有些疯子也讨厌，借着疯劲儿瞎折腾，把他们关起来还是对的。我的朋友阿尔都塞疯了之后，把自己老婆给掐死了，后来他被关在疯人院里一直到死，想起来痛心啊，一个天才就这样……。至少我心里一块石头落了地：他连老婆都掐死了，朋友更何足道哉？要是一不留神，让他给掐死了，还不给偿命，那才叫亏呢！
除了以上说的，我还提倡"巅峰体验"，也有称作"极端体验"的。说白了，就是要"爽呆了"！不过这个"爽"倒不一定是指平常的那些享受。比如，你来个蹦极，那就是尝到恐惧的爽，你受个虐待，那就是痛苦的爽。俄罗斯有个写小说的老哥叫陀思妥耶夫斯基，他说他最爽的时候就是他抽羊角疯的时候。我自己呢，一生都在追求极致的爽，什么方式都成，只要高兴就行，只要爽就行。活着的时候，我有时有节制地吸点儿毒，劲儿上来的时候，就有点飘飘然，很爽的；有一回我出门让车给撞了，人家把我送进医院，有几分钟我觉得自己要死了，哎呀，那种感觉好爽耶！至于我真死的时候，那份儿爽可就更甭提了！常言道"欲仙欲死"，真是很有道理的咧！
当然我不提倡大家全跟我学：追求吸毒的爽，上了瘾得倾家荡产，那就变成穷爽了，这种爽不尝也罢。太追求性爱的爽，不小心得了性病艾滋什么的，对健康不利；去成心挨汽车撞更是吃饱了撑的，这种爽可遇而不可求。不过大家伙儿要追求爽呢，也是挺容易的：只要碍不着别人的事儿，讲究点儿个人卫生，不损害别人的健康和自己的健康，不违法，不损害安定团结，那就行了。怎么觉得爽就怎么来，同性恋也好，让别人说是"疯子"也罢，走自己的路，让别人说去。毕竟，人生苦短，要尽所有可能的爽，才是更具意义的啊！
朋友们，让我们共勉吧！
你们最虔诚的
米歇尔·福柯
顺便说一下，陈陂找到我，要我给中国网友发封"伊妹儿"。我不懂中文，有点犹豫，可陈陂拍着胸脯说他负责翻译。我瞅他的法语水平，有点儿二把刀，可他在我这死磨硬泡，我拗不过，只好写了上面的话。如果网友们瞅着不对劲儿，那都是陈陂的馊主意，可千万别找我！
米歇尔·福柯
又及
亲爱的中国的网友：
大家好！
首先我对有这样一个机会能够和大家对话表示万分荣幸。最近听说我的著作在贵国翻译出版了很多，尽管我不能再享受由此而带来的版权利润，而且有很大一部分还属于盗版，但对于一个死去的人来说，名字能够为更多的人所知晓，毕竟也是一件好事。
有朋友说我的著作文字晦涩，影响了阅读，这点我要说明一下：因为我讲的性，权力，政治等等话题，一讲大家都明白。我只是东拉西扯，把能找到的，能想到的都扯上，号称"知识考古学"，以显得来头大，也能多混些稿费，无形中就把简单的事情给搞复杂了，在此先向大家致歉。
说句良心话，我的著作还是挺有追求的。我的追求就是想为天下一向让人瞧不起的弱者们，比如同性恋、疯子什么的讨个公道，让历史说话，揭一揭那些所谓"正常人"的老底，让大家剥开他们的画皮看一看，同时也不再自卑，从此快乐地生活。
说句实话，我是个同性恋，这你们也都有所耳闻。如果让我看到一个美眉，我是一点儿感觉都没有。可要是看到一个漂亮的小伙儿，我立刻就会激动起来。像我这样的人，在整个人类社会中所占的比例还不小。有人说，同性恋是"社会丑恶现象"，这简直是不负责任的瞎扯。你们知道吗，这同性恋是天生的，不是后天学出来的。这就跟你们生下来是男的，就是男的；是女的，那就是女的一样。而且，谁规定了男的必须找女的，女的必须找男的？如果我们两个男人真心相爱，那就是我们俩人的事儿，又碍着谁了？他们喜欢女人我们管过吗？那他们又凭什么来管我们呢？他们喜欢女人，就让我们也喜欢女人，这也太霸道了吧！我们明明不喜欢女人，偏让我们去跟女人好，这不是自己找罪受吗？说我们同性恋传染艾滋病，这倒是事实，我自己就是因为得了艾滋病死的嘛。可他们跟女人不是也搞出性病来了吗？怎么就不说了？我在书中曾经阐释过，不允许两个男人结婚的文明，就不算是真正的文明。听说美国公仆克林顿上任后发布的第一项法令，不是关于国际经济的，也不是关于世界和平的，而是关于美军人同性恋合法化的。这个小克还是蛮理解我们这些思想家的。
最近听说，中国也有着悠久的同性恋历史，流传已久的如断袖、分桃等美丽的同性恋传说，在贵国的名著《红楼梦》中，也有描写几对少年可歌可泣的同性恋故事的。所以我相信，你们当中也有许多像我这样的人。朋友们，如果你们在生活中遇到嘲讽和打击，切莫灰心，别失意，要知道，这不是什么丢脸的事，古往今来有多少英雄豪杰，都是和我们一样的人。而且，要记得，有个福哥，在天上为你们鼓劲，为你们加油。
另外我还研究疯子。日常生活里，老有人说别人："哼，疯子！神经病！"这也是不讲道理的废话。不合他们意的就是疯子？就是神经病？他们说什么就是什么？哪儿有那事儿啊！比如他们说尼采先生是疯子，把他送进了疯人院，可是请看一看，有谁敢说比尼采先生更清醒，对世界看得更透？贵国有本小说叫《狂人日记》，里边就是讲一个疯子的故事，可后来别人都说这疯子是"反封建的斗士"。所以，别以为"正常"就是什么好事儿，我说过了，所谓"正常"，不过就是另一种形式的疯癫。说白了，大伙儿都是疯子，谁也别说谁。你们说我是疯子，从另一个角度说，你们还是疯子呢！咱们这些疯子们活在这个世界上，和平共处就成了。不过当然话不能说绝对了。有些疯子也讨厌，借着疯劲儿瞎折腾，把他们关起来还是对的。我的朋友阿尔都塞疯了之后，把自己老婆给掐死了，后来他被关在疯人院里一直到死，想起来痛心啊，一个天才就这样……。至少我心里一块石头落了地：他连老婆都掐死了，朋友更何足道哉？要是一不留神，让他给掐死了，还不给偿命，那才叫亏呢！
除了以上说的，我还提倡"巅峰体验"，也有称作"极端体验"的。说白了，就是要"爽呆了"！不过这个"爽"倒不一定是指平常的那些享受。比如，你来个蹦极，那就是尝到恐惧的爽，你受个虐待，那就是痛苦的爽。俄罗斯有个写小说的老哥叫陀思妥耶夫斯基，他说他最爽的时候就是他抽羊角疯的时候。我自己呢，一生都在追求极致的爽，什么方式都成，只要高兴就行，只要爽就行。活着的时候，我有时有节制地吸点儿毒，劲儿上来的时候，就有点飘飘然，很爽的；有一回我出门让车给撞了，人家把我送进医院，有几分钟我觉得自己要死了，哎呀，那种感觉好爽耶！至于我真死的时候，那份儿爽可就更甭提了！常言道"欲仙欲死"，真是很有道理的咧！
当然我不提倡大家全跟我学：追求吸毒的爽，上了瘾得倾家荡产，那就变成穷爽了，这种爽不尝也罢。太追求性爱的爽，不小心得了性病艾滋什么的，对健康不利；去成心挨汽车撞更是吃饱了撑的，这种爽可遇而不可求。不过大家伙儿要追求爽呢，也是挺容易的：只要碍不着别人的事儿，讲究点儿个人卫生，不损害别人的健康和自己的健康，不违法，不损害安定团结，那就行了。怎么觉得爽就怎么来，同性恋也好，让别人说是"疯子"也罢，走自己的路，让别人说去。毕竟，人生苦短，要尽所有可能的爽，才是更具意义的啊！
朋友们，让我们共勉吧！
你们最虔诚的
米歇尔·福柯
顺便说一下，陈陂找到我，要我给中国网友发封"伊妹儿"。我不懂中文，有点犹豫，可陈陂拍着胸脯说他负责翻译。我瞅他的法语水平，有点儿二把刀，可他在我这死磨硬泡，我拗不过，只好写了上面的话。如果网友们瞅着不对劲儿，那都是陈陂的馊主意，可千万别找我！
米歇尔·福柯
又及