論柯慈《麥可‧K 的生命與時代》中的悅納異己

Abstract

JM．科慈一向十分關注社會中被邊緣化的他者，透過書寫邊緣他者與其艱難的處境，科慈實踐了悅納並擁抱異己的作客之道，在作品《麥可‧K的生命與時代》中，科慈也呈現出「悅納異己」此倫理命題的諸多面相。主角流浪漢麥可總是徘徊於許多慈善機構，也一再地接受他人的照顧得以生存，這樣的描寫狀似讚揚了國家機器對於邊緣他者的「悅納異己」，但麥可至始至終抗拒的態度和多次逃離卻反倒呼應了德希德所謂「悅納異己的不可能性」。為探索此不可能性、瞭解為何不可能，筆者分三章討論，並加入現代理論的解析，試圖剖析此作品中關於「悅納異己」的實踐。首先，在古典文學、聖經、希臘羅馬史詩故事與德希達解構理論中，對於「悅納異己」的描寫總能嗅出主客之間的權力角力，此也反應在小說中，麥可總是需要聽令於照顧他的政府慈善組織抑或醫療機關。而在第二章中，為深入瞭解「悅納異己」的實踐與所引發的權謀角力，筆者也將引用傅科對於權力系譜學、生命政治、醫療發展史的研究，剖析麥可在醫療院所中，如何在醫病、主客間「悅納異己」的醫療行為下，被醫療知識體系轉化為正常、健康的勞動力。而在第三章中，筆者透過傅科與阿岡本關於生命政治的研究，討論科慈小說中關於集中營地中，政府官員對於麥可「悅納異己」的實踐，也就是說，在《麥可‧K的生命與時代》中，「悅納異己」已淪為政府拉攏異己、並試圖改造、吸納邊緣他者的生命政治手段，這樣關於「悅納異己」的描寫也證實了德希達所謂的「悅納異己的不可能」。

J. M. Coetzee shows his deep concern with the socially marginalized characters. Depicting heterogeneous beings and their difficult situations, Coetzee actualizes the invisible violence in the society. Throughout his writing career, Coetzee practices hospitality ethics and embraces the other in a metaphoric way. In Michael K, hospitality is also one important theme. The protagonist is taken care of by many institutions and individuals, but his resistance is consistent with Derridean idea of “impossible hospitality.” That mechanism of hospitality that causes such impossibility is my main concern, and I would like to explore how hospitality is practiced in Michael K. This thesis is divided into three chapters. Firstly, I explore hospitality ethics in contexts, including the ancient literature, modern theory and Michael K. From the etymological resource to the biblical stories of Abram and Lot, hospitality ethics in the context always show its conflicting nature. Seeing through the operation of hospitality ethics, I can see a clear power flow and power struggle between Michael, the absolute other, and welcoming hosts. Therefore, the main focus in Chapter Two is the rapport between power and hospitality, in line with Foucauldian genealogy of power, I would trace the operation of hospitality in the modern medical systems. Following the medical system, in the Chapter Three, I would focus on the other important reception structure—the camp. In the final analysis, I would argue that the ethics of hospitality turns out to be a bio-political strategy for the government to manipulate and produce the ideal docile citizens for the sovereign power.