【翻譯】民主概念的幾點引見(譯自：阿岡本)初版完成

Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy
Giorgio Agamben (English Version is Translated by Nicholas Heron)

published on Theory & Event (Volume 13, Issue 1, 2010)


民主概念的幾點引見
喬治歐‧阿岡本 (英文翻譯/尼可拉斯‧赫榮)
刊於《理論與時事》(13期第1卷，2010)
中文翻譯：魯霸撒路

Any discussion of the term "democracy" today is distorted by a preliminary ambiguity that condemns those who use it to misunderstanding. Of what do we speak when we speak about democracy? To what form of rationality does this term actually pertain? A slightly more attentive observation would show that those who discuss democracy today understand this term sometimes as a form of the body politic's constitution, sometimes as a technique of government. The term thus refers both to the conceptuality of public law and to that of administrative practice: it designates power's form of legitimation as well as the modalities of its exercise. Since it is obvious to everybody that, in contemporary political discourse, this term is more often related to a technique of government - which, as such, has nothing especially reassuring about it - one understands the malaise of those who continue to use it in the first sense in entirely good faith.

今天我們在討論「民主」這個詞彙時，都被最初一開始這詞彙的模糊性所曲解，甚至譴責那些錯誤理解使用該詞彙的人們。在我們提到民主這詞的時候，我們到底談的是什麼樣的一個東西？而在這個詞當中所蘊含(涉及)的是那種形式的「理性」(觀)？在逐步更細緻的觀察，你會發現，今天這些討論「民主」的人們，有時在理解這個詞彙的同時，是將「它」(民主)做為一個身體政治的構成，有時是視作為一個「統治的技術」。這個詞彙因而也同時指涉所謂公法的概念性以及運用在行政實務上的公法概念原則等：「民主」表達一個「正當性權力的形式」，同時也是這權力形式運行時的型態。因為它，大家應該都可以感覺的到，在當代政治話語論述中，多數情形所述及的「民主」，是一套統治者的統治技術──就如同這樣，其實也沒有任何特別再需要重新確證的這個詞彙的意義本身──所以後來我們都就似乎以一種全然信仰的方式，去理解這些繼續在使用這個錯誤解讀概念的說法。

That the interlacing of these two conceptualities - juridico-political on the one hand, economico-managerial on the other - has deep roots and is not easily disentangled will appear clearly in the following example. When we find the word politeia in the classics of Greek political thought (often within the context of a discussion about the different forms ofpoliteia: monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, as well as their parekbaseis or deviations), we see the translators render this word sometimes as "constitution," sometimes as "government." Thus, in the passage of The Athenian Constitution (§ 27) where Aristotle describes the 'demagogy' of Pericles, the English translator renders demotikoteran synebe genesthai ten politeian as "the constitution became still more democratic."1 Immediately thereafter, Aristotle adds that the multitudeapasan ten politeian mallon agein eis hautons, which the same translator renders by "brought all the government more into their hands"2 (obviously, to translate by "brought all the constitution", as consistency would have demanded, would be problematic).

這兩個已經相當根植並且難以解開的概念性交錯──一方面是法律政治的面相，另者則是經濟管理的面向，將會在接下來我所要說的事例當中清楚看到。當我們在古典希臘政治思想經典當中尋找「politeia」(城邦、理想國)這個字詞時(通常相關的資料都會是探討不同城邦治理的型態：貴族政體、寡頭政體、民主政體以及悖逆與叛亂─脫離正軌型態)，我們可以看到許多翻譯者都會有時讓這個詞等同於「構成的型態」或是「政府」。因此，在雅典城邦法當中，亞里斯多德提及著名雅典君主伯里克里斯的「群眾統治」，英文翻譯將古希臘文的「demotikoteran synebe genesthai ten politeian」翻為「讓一套組成型態更為民主」(註一)。而隨即，亞里斯多德附加上「the multitudeapasan ten politeian mallon agein eis hautons」這段，同樣被英文翻譯作「將所有的統治政府更帶進他們(人民)的手中」(註二)(顯然如果翻作「將所有組成型態帶來到...」這樣，在整體意義連貫性上翻譯的結果，可能會造成意義上理解的障礙與問題)。

 Where does this veritable 'amphiboly' come from, this ambiguity of the fundamental political concept, by virtue of which it appears now as constitution, now as government? Here it will suffice to indicate two passages in the history of Western political thought in which this ambiguity appears with particular evidence. The first is to be found in the Politics (1279a 25-27) when Aristotle declares his intention to enumerate and study the different forms of constitution (politeiai): "Sincepoliteia and politeuma mean the same thing, and politeuma is the supreme power (kyrion) of cities, it is necessary that the supreme power be in the hands of one, of the few, or of the many […]." The standard translations give here: "Since constitution and government mean the same thing, and government is the supreme power of the State […]." Although a more faithful translation would have had to preserve the proximity of the two terms politeia (political activity) andpoliteuma (the political entity that results from this), it is clear that Aristotle's attempt to mitigate ambiguity by means of this figure he calls the kyrion constitutes the essential problem of this passage. To employ modern terminology - not without somewhat forcing the link - constituent power (politeia) and constituted power (politeuma) come together here in the form of a sovereign power (kyrion), which appears as that which holds the two faces of politics together. But why is the political divided, and on what basis does the kyrion articulate this split, while stitching it together?

這個具有變動性而模棱兩可的詞彙意義，這個基本政治概念的模糊性，究竟是在今天的「組織型態」還是「政府」所具有的美德下，從何而來的呢？這邊，我將會充分以兩個西方政治思想史的段落章句來說明，這個深植在政治思想長期特別顯示出的模糊性。第一個是亞里斯多德的《政治學》(1279，頁25~27)，當他在書中表明他列舉並研究這些不同形式的政體型態(城邦統治形態)時，他說：「Sincepoliteia」和「politeuma」意義是相同的，而「politeuma」是城邦中至高無上的權力，而至高無上的權力必須由一個、或幾個、或者是數個人所把持擁有...。而這邊有個標準的翻譯：「因為組織型態與政府意義上並差別，而政府是國家當中至高無上的權力...」。雖然一個更細緻而真誠的翻譯作品，應該要將「politeia」(政治的活動)與 「politeuma」(由前者所生出的政治政體)之間的近似性與模糊性保留下來，很顯然亞里斯多德試圖藉由「kryrion」(至高無上的權力)這個特徵，來緩解這個模稜兩可的模糊性質。引用當代的詞彙──如果不脫離原有的意義之下──「組織構成(制定憲法)」的權力「politeia」，以及「已組成的」權力(constituted power)的「politeuma」，兩個是主權(至高無上)權力形式中相攜來的兩者，而至高無上的主權將這兩個政治面向合而為一。但是這樣看起來是可以統合的兩者，為何政治分裂？而且至高無上的權力者要在怎樣的基礎上闡明這個分裂的兩者，然而又要同時縫合兩者呢？

The second passage is to be found in The Social Contract. In his 1977-78 lecture course, Security, Territory, Population, Foucault had already demonstrated that Rousseau posed precisely here the problem of reconciling a juridico-constitutional terminology ("contract," "general will," "sovereignty") with an "art of government."3 But, from the perspective that interests us, it is the distinction and the articulation between sovereignty and government, which is the basis of Rousseau's political thought, which is decisive. "I ask my readers," he writes in his Discourse on Political Economy, "to distinguish clearly also the public economy of which I shall be speaking, and which I call government, from the supreme authority, which I call sovereignty; the distinction is that the latter has the right to legislate […] while the former has the power only to execute […]."4 In The Social Contract, the distinction is reaffirmed as an articulation between general will and legislative power on the one hand, and government and executive power on the other. Now precisely what is at issue for Rousseau is simultaneously distinguishing and tying the two elements together (this is why at the very moment in which he formulates the distinction he must vigorously deny that it constitutes a division of the sovereign).5 As for Aristotle, sovereignty - the kyrion - is at once one of the terms in the distinction and that which binds constitution and government together in an indissoluble knot.

第二個段落，是在盧梭的《社會契約論》當中可以觀察得到。法國傅柯(Foucault)在1977~1978年的講習課中，提到領土、人口與安全的主題時，他認為盧梭在該書中，就明確提出在調解「法律政治」詞彙(公約、全意志、主權)和「統治技藝」上的問題。(註三)但是，從這個有趣的觀點來看，其實這就是對於「主權」和「政府」分界劃分與闡述上的問題；這是盧梭的政治思想基礎，且是相當重要的一個概念。「我希望我的讀者...」他(盧梭)在他的〈政治經濟演講稿〉中說到，「...能去理解與劃分，辨明我所應該等等會提到的公共經濟，以及我將會提到的，一個從最高權威，就是我所稱的『主權』而來的『政府』；這個區分的部分，後者(政府)是有(合法)正當性去立法...，而在前者(公共經濟商業)只能利用他的僅有權力去執行運作...」(註四)。在《社會契約論》當中，這個區分，一方面在作為闡述「全(民)意志」和「立法權」之間區分，另外就是對政府和執行行政權作區分。現在更精確來說，對盧梭而言最重要的重點是，要能同時區分並試圖將這兩者元素結合在一起(這就是為何在很多關鍵時刻當中，他提出一些他必會強力否定的主權分權論述)(註五)。如這對亞里斯多德來說，主權──至高無上者，在這個在分別當中任一者詞彙，「組織構成型態」(憲法)與「政府」是堅固相合連結在一起的兩者。

If today we witness the overwhelming domination of the government and the economy over a popular sovereignty that has been progressively emptied of any sense, it may be that Western democracies are paying the price for a philosophical legacy they have assumed without reservations. The misunderstanding that consists in conceiving of government as a simple executive power is one of the errors most fraught with consequences in the history of Western politics. It succeeded in ensuring that the political reflection of modernity got lost behind empty abstractions like the Law, the general will and popular sovereignty, while leaving without response the problem which is from every point of view decisive: that of government and its articulation with the sovereign. In a recent book, I have attempted to demonstrate that the central mystery of politics is not sovereignty, but government, not God, but the angels, not the King, but the ministers, not law, but the police - or, more precisely, the double governmental machine which they form and keep in motion.6

如果我們今天親眼目擊到政府強大支配力，以及那些超越過人民主權的經濟力，在某些程度上也逐漸被掏空，這可能代表西方民主國家，正為那些他們所大膽假定的哲學遺留的一切付出代價。對於將政府構成過程型態上，簡化成僅有「行政(執行)權」等所形成的誤解，是眾多西方政治學術史發展結果中訛誤之其一。這正是成功證實了一套在法律、全意志和人民主權等，這些種種空洞抽象性之後迷失的政治現代性反映，但卻不去回應任何重要觀點與視角所發出或產生的問題：尤其是那些政府和他對主權闡述的問題。在最近的著作當中，我試著去闡明，政治學的核心而最難以理解的事物不是主權，而是政府；不是上帝，而是那些天使們；不是國王而是那些大臣與部長們；不是法律，而是警務單位──或是更確切的來說，這些由他們所形構與維持運作的雙重政府機械。(註六)

The Western political system results from the knotting together of two heterogeneous elements, which legitimate one another and which give one another mutual consistency: a politico-juridical rationality and an economico-governmental rationality, a "form of constitution" and a "form of government." Why is the politeia caught in this ambiguity? What grants the sovereign (the kyrion) the power to ensure and to guarantee their legitimate union? Is it not a question of a fiction designed to conceal the fact that the centre of the machine is empty, that between the two elements and the two rationalities there is no possible articulation? And that it is from their disarticulation that it is a question of making that ungovernable emerge, which is at once the source and the vanishing point of every politics?

西方政治系統是由兩個異質元素共同糾結而產生，這兩個元素之間，互為正當性並也互相具有連貫性：法律政治的理性和經濟治理的理性；「構成政府的形態」(憲法)以及「政府的型態」。為何一個字「politeia」會卡在一個不上不下的模糊地帶呢？是什麼東西授予主權(至高無上的權力)和權力去確信並且去保證他們的正當的連結在一起？這難道不是一套設計用來企圖隱瞞這正運作的機械中央，實際上充滿空洞性與問題重重，而在這兩個元素和這兩套理性模式之間，事實上早無法確切闡明可能的問題？而這問題就是來自於他們從不願意清楚闡述，讓無法統治的問題慢慢浮現，這同時是每一個政治學的源頭與消逝點。

It is probable that as long as thought does not resolve to confront this knot and its amphibology, every discussion about democracy - as a form of constitution and as a technique of government - risks lapsing into chatter.

或許，只要我們思考，但不去試圖解決或面對這個癥結點和這個模糊點，每個關於民主的討論──做為一個政府形構(憲法)和作為一個政府統治的技術──這個風險和危機最終都會淪為閒談罷了。


The Authentic Version's Author：Giorgio Agamben 原作者：喬治歐‧阿岡本

Giorgio Agamben teaches at the Università IUAV di Venezia, the Collège International de Philosophie in Paris and previously at the University of Macerata in Italy. He also has held visiting appointments at several American universities, European Graduate School and at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf. Agamben's best known work includes his investigations of the concepts of state of exception and homo sacer. Agamben received the Prix Européen de l'Essai Charles Veillon in 2006.

喬治歐‧阿岡本，目前任教於威尼斯建築大學(Università IUAV di Venezia)、巴黎國際哲學學院(College International de Philosophie)及瑞士莎士菲的European Graduate School。他亦曾於義大利維羅納大學及馬切拉塔(Macerata)大學任教。同時他也是在美國數間大學、歐洲研究學院等主持並進行訪問計畫，如德國杜賽爾朵夫大學等。阿岡本最著名的著作，是他在對於「例外狀態」(state of exception)以及「聖者：犧牲者」(homo sacer)的研究。阿岡本在2006年獲得Prix Européen de l'Essai Charles Veillon獎項。

Notes
(註一)1. Aristotle in Twenty-Three Volumes, XX: The Athenian Constition; The Eudemian Ethics; On Virtues and Vices, trans. H. Rackham (London: William Heinemann, 1952), 79.
(註二)2. Aristotle in Twenty-Three Volumes, XX, 81.
(註三)3. Cf. Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78, ed. Michel Senellart, trans. Graham Burchell (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 106-107.
(註四)4. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy and The Social Contract, trans. Christopher Betts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 6.
(註五)5. Cf. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy and The Social Contract, 64-65.
(註六)6. Cf. Giorgio Agamben, Il Regno e la Gloria. Per una genealogia teologica dell'economia e del governo (Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 2007), 303.