（1984年）
    
    
     译者：李康 校者：王倪
    
     [MS按：福柯的这篇名文有多个中文译本，在我看来，李康先生的这个译本是最好的，但在网上并不多见。现在我对它又做了一点编辑加工，自认为这是迄今为止网上能找到的最佳版本了。]
    
     题注：本文根据Catherine Porter的英译本“What is Enlightenment?”（收于Paul Rabinow编的M. Foucault, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, The New Press, 1997, pp. 303-319.）译出，根据法文本校订（Dits et ecrits，vol. IV., pp. 562-578, ‘Qu’est-ce que les Lumieres?’, Paris, Gallimard, 1994）。
    
     I.
    
     今天，如果有家杂志向自己的读者们提出一个问题，那它这么做的目的，就只是针对每个人都已经有所见解的某一项主题来征询意见，所以，想借此得出什么新东西是不太可能的。而18世纪的编辑们则更喜欢向公众提些尚无解决办法的问题。我也不知道这种习惯是否更为有效，但有一点可以肯定，它会更加吸引人。
    
     不管怎么说，反正与这种风尚相顺应的是，1784年的11月，有这么一家德国期刊，即《柏林月刊》，刊载了对一个问题的答复。问题是：什么是启蒙？答复者：康德。
    
     这或许只是篇小文章。但是，在我看来，它标志着悄然切入某个问题的思想史。对于这个问题，现代哲学既没有能力作出回答，可也从未成功地予以摆脱。就是这个问题，迄今两百年来一直被以多种不同的形式重复着。自黑格尔开始，中间经过尼采或马克斯·韦伯，然后到霍克海默或哈贝马斯，几乎没有一种哲学能回避这同一个问题，都不得不以某种直接或间接的方式面对它。那么，这个被称为启蒙（Aufkl?rung）的事件，这个至少在一定程度上决定了我们今天所是、所思、所为的事件，又是什么呢？我们不妨设想一下，如果《柏林月刊》今天依然存在，并正在向它的读者们征询这样一个问题：什么是现代哲学？或许我们也会以类似的方式答道：现代哲学就是这样一种哲学，它一直在尽力试图回答两百年前非常贸然地提出来的那个问题：什么是启蒙？
    
     我们不妨先费点工夫，来看看康德的文章。它有那么几点原因值得引起我们的关注。
    
     1. 仅仅在康德此文发表的两个月以前，M. 门德尔松（Moses Mendelssohn）也在同一家杂志答复了同一个问题。不过，康德在撰写自己的答复时，尚未读到前者的文章。德国的哲学运动当然不是恰好从那一刻开始，才遭遇到犹太文化的新发展的。门德尔松和莱辛一样，早在此前大约30年就已经置身于那个交叉点。但直到那时，问题还只是为犹太文化在德国思想中辟出一席之地（莱辛在他的《犹太人》中就曾做过这种尝试），要不就是确定犹太思想与德国哲学所共同面临的问题，这正是门德尔松在《斐多`或论灵魂的不朽》[1]中所做的事情。通过《柏林月刊》上刊载的这两篇文章，人们开始认识到，德语中的“Aufkl?rung”和意第绪语的“Haskala”属于同一个历史，这两个词正努力确定产生它们的共同过程。或许也是借此宣称接受某种共同的命运[2]——现在我们可知道，它会导致怎样的悲剧了。
    
     2. 然而，原因还不仅仅如此。无论就其自身还是就其在整个基督教传统内的地位而言，康德的文章都引出了一个新问题。
    
     这当然不是哲学思想第一次试图反思自身的现在（present）。但是，大体而言，我们可以说这种反思此前主要采取了以下三种形式：
    
     (1) 可以将现在表述为属于这个世界的一个特定时代。它通过某些内在的特性区别于其它时代，或者通过某些悲剧性事件与其他时代相分离。基于这种认识，在柏拉图的《政治家篇》中，对话者认识到自己身处世界的那些循环周期中的一个周期。在这个循环之中，世界正逐渐走向堕落，并会接连引发各种各样的否定性后果。
    
     (2) 可以通过这样一种努力对现在提出质询，即试图从现在之中解读出某一即将到来的事件的预示性标志。在此我们把握到了某种历史解释学的原则，奥古斯丁或可援以为例。
    
     (3) 还可以将现在作为面向新世界的曙光的某个转折点来分析，维柯在《新科学》的最末一章中描绘的正是这一点。他眼中的“今天”，是“一种完全的人道……象遍布在全世界各民族中，因为有少数几位伟大的独裁君主在统治这个各民族的世界”；“今天”还是“欧洲……到处都闪耀着人道的光辉，构成人类生活幸福的物品丰富”。[3]
    
     现在，康德引出启蒙问题的方式可完全不一样了：它既非某人从属的某一世界时代，亦非可以从中体察各种标志的事件，也不是某种成就的开端。康德用一种几乎完全是否定性的方式来界定启蒙，视之为“Ausgang”，即“出口”，“出路”。在其他论述历史的文章中，康德偶尔也探讨某种历史进程的起源，或者确定这种进程内在的目的论。在专门讨论启蒙的文章里，他只探讨了有关现时性的问题，而并不想以某种整体性或终极目的为基础来理解现在。他所寻求的是某种差异：今天与昨天相比，引出了什么样的差异？
    
     3. 我并不想在此深入探讨这篇文章的细节。不过，它虽然简短，却并非处处都很清晰。我只想点明三、四点自己认为重要的特色，以便理解康德是如何提出有关现在的哲学问题的。
     康德开宗明义地指出，作为启蒙特征的“出路”是一个将我们从“不成熟”状态解放出来的过程。而他所说的“不成熟”，指的则是我们意志的特定状态，这种状态使我们在需要运用理性的领域里，却接受了他人权威的引导。康德举了三个例子：当一本书代替了我们的知性，当一位牧师代替了我们的良心，当一位医生替我们规定了膳食，此时的我们就处于不成熟状态之中。（在此顺便提一句：虽说文章本身并未明言，但我们还是很容易看出这三点批评的意味）。不管怎么说，规定了启蒙的，正是将意志、权威和对理性的运用这三者联系起来的既存关系的某种转变。
    
     我们也必须注意到，康德表述这一出路的方式是相当含混的。他把这出路概括为一种现象，一种进行之中的过程，但也将其表述为一项任务，一项义务。他开宗明义地指出，人们应对自身的不成熟状态负责。如此我们不得不推定：人只有依靠自己改变自己，才能摆脱这种不成熟状态。值得注意的是，康德认为这一启蒙有一条可选择的口号：现在这口号成了一种昭示标志，即某种人们可以据此相互识别的特性；它还是一条箴言，一条人们可以用来警示自己、建议他人的教导。那么，这教导又是什么？“Aude sapere”：“敢于认识”，“要有去知的勇气和决心”。因此，我们必须既把启蒙理解为一个人类集体参与的过程，又将其视作一项勇气鼓召之下由个人完成的行为。人既是该过程的构成要索，又充当着这同一个过程的行动者。他们参与了这一过程，所以是该过程中的行动者，而过程的发生又须以人们决定成为其自愿的行动者为前提。
    
     康德的文章在这里出现了第三点疑难，即对“Menschheit”这个词的使用方式。众所周知，在康德的历史观中，这是一个重要的用语。我们是否应该这么理解：全体人类都卷入了启蒙过程？如果正是这种情况，那么我们必须把启蒙看成是影响到地球上所有民族的政治及社会生存状态的一种历史变化。或者，我们是否也可以这样理解：正是启蒙所带来的变化，使人类真正获得了人性？但这又涉及到另一个问题：这变化是什么？康德在此给出的回答又是相当的含糊。不管怎么说，这问题看起来似乎简单明了，但内涵却相当复杂。
     康德规定，人类要想逃脱自身的不成熟状态，必须具备两点基本前提，它们既是精神性的，又是制度性的，兼有伦理意涵和政治意涵。
    
     第一点前提，是明确区分服从的领域与运用理性的领域。康德用为人熟知的表述，“不要想，只管服从命令”，简要地概括了不成熟状态的特征；在他看来，军事纪律、政治权力和宗教权威中通常行使的就是这种思维形式。人类要达到成熟状态，并不是在它不再被要求服从之时，而是在被告知“服从，但尽可如你所愿地运用理性来思维”的时候。我们必须注意到，此处原来使用的德文词是“r?sonieren”，康德在三大《批判》中也用过它。这个词并不是指对理性的任意一种运用，而是专指一种运用理性的特定方式：除其自身，理性别无其他目的，即为了运用理性而运用理性。付清自己的税款，但同时能如其所愿地探讨纳税制度；或者，如果是位本堂牧师，尽自己教区的服务之责，而又能在宗教教义方面自由地运用理性。通过这些表面上似乎完全是琐碎小事的例子，康德力图告诉我们，它们正是达到成熟状态的标志。
    
     我们可能会想，这并没有什么特别新鲜的，良知的自由自16世纪以来一直就有这样的意涵：一个人只要服从他必须服从的，就应享有如其所愿思考的权利。但也正是在这一点上，康德以某种相当令人吃惊的方式，引出了另一种区分，即理性的私下运用与公开运用，不过他随即又补充道，理性就其公开的运用而言必须是自由的，而其私下运用则应是顺从的。就其字面意思来讲，这和通常所谓的良知的自由正好相反。
    
     但我们多少必须把问题搞得更精确些。对康德来说，是什么构成了对理性的私下运用？又是在哪一个领域里私下运用理性？康德认为，当人成了“机器上的一颗齿轮”时，他对理性的运用就是私下的运用。这也就是说，当他在社会中扮演某种角色，或是从事某项工作，比如作为士兵、纳税人、本堂神甫或社会公仆时，他都是作为社会的一个特殊环节；他由此发现自己处在一个被限定的位置上，不得不采用特定的规则，寻求特定的目的。康德这么说，并不是在要求人们一味盲从，而是要求他们在运用自己的理性时，要适应这些被规定的情况；也就是说，理性必须从属于所考虑的具体目的。在这一点上，我们可以说，理性不可能有任何自由的运用。
    
     另一方面，当某人只是为了运用自己的理性而运用理性，当他是作为一个具有运用理性的能力的生命存在（而不是机器上的一颗齿轮），作为具有运用理性能力的人类中的一员，这时，理性的运用就必然应该是自由和公开的。因此，启蒙并不仅仅是个人认识到属于自己的思想自由获得保障的过程。当对理性普遍、自由、公开的运用彼此叠加在一起的时候，启蒙才会出现。
    
     这样我们自然就必须对康德的文章提出第四个问题。我们略加思索便可发现，对理性的普遍运用（摆脱任何私人的目的）是作为个体的主体自身的事情；同样，我们也能很容易地看到，这种运用方式的自由是如何可以不受到任何质疑，便可以一种纯粹否定的方式得到保证。但对那种理性的公开运用又是如何得到保证的呢？正如我们所见，启蒙不应该被简单地理解为影响到全体人类的总体过程，也不应该仅仅被视作为个人规定的某种义务，它现在是作为一个政治问题出现的了。不管是什么情况，问题的关键都在于要搞清楚，在个人都尽可能谨慎地服从的情况下，对理性的运用又是如何能够采取它所要求的公开形式，求知的决心又是如何能够在大庭广众之下得到贯彻？康德在结尾处以几乎完全不加掩饰的措辞，向腓德烈大帝提出了契约一般的建议，我们可以称之为自由理性与理性专制之约（the contract of rational despotism with free reason）：对自主理性公开而自由的运用，将成为服从的最佳保障。当然，这还得加上一项条件：那些必须得到服从的政治原则，本身必须符合普遍理性。
    
     至此，我们对康德文章的讨论告一段落。我丝毫无意于认为这篇文章充分表述了启蒙；而且我想，也没有哪一位历史学家会认为，它对18世纪末期社会、政治与文化转型的分析足以令人满意。
    
     话虽如此，尽管这篇文章自有它的具体背景，而我也并不想过份抬高它在康德著作整体中的地位，但我相信仍有必要强调这篇短文与三大《批判》之间的关联。实际上，康德是把启蒙描述为一个历史转折点（moment），在这一点上，人类开始运用自己的理性，而不臣服于任何权威；现在，恰恰是在这个转折点上，我们需要批判，因为批判的任务正在于确定正当运用理性的前提条件，从而确定我们可以知什么，我们必须做什么，我们又可能希望什么。正是对理性的不正当运用，加上幻觉，才引发了教条主义和他律（heteronomy）；而只有在明确限定正当运用理性的原则之后，才能确保理性的自律（autonomy）。从某种意义上来说，批判记载了理性在启蒙中逐步成熟起来的轨迹；而反过来说，启蒙又是一个批判的时代。
    
     我认为，除此之外，还有必要强调康德这篇文章与他对历史的其他论述之间的关联。后面这些文章在相当程度上可说是致力于确定时间的内在合目的性以及人类历史趋向的终点。这样，对启蒙的分析就将这种历史界定为人类向自身的成熟状态的行进，根据总体运动及其根本方向来定位现时性。不过，这种分析同时也揭示出，每一个置身这一特定的历史转折点的个体，是如何都以某种特定方式承担着这一总体过程的责任。
    
     我倾向于认为，从某种意义上来说，这篇短文正处在批判性反思和历史反思的交叉点上。它是康德对自己事业的现时性的反思。一位哲学家在一个特定的历史转折点，为自己所从事的工作给出自己的理由，这无疑不是第一次。但是在我看来，一位哲学家用这种从内部入手的密切方式，既探究自己的工作对于知识的意义，又反思了历史，还具体分析了自己正在写作也正为之写作的那个特定的历史转折点，三者结合在一起，这可是第一次。正是在把“今天”同时看作历史中的差异和一种特定哲学任务的契机的反思中，我捕捉到了这篇文章的新颖之处。
    
     我认为，如果这样来看待这篇文章，我们就会从中认识到一种出发点：它的概貌可以称之为现代性的态度。
    
     II.
    
     我知道人们经常把现代性说成一个时代，或至少是标志一个时代的一系列特性。就现代性的编年定位而言，在它之前，是一个多少有些幼稚或古旧的前现代性，在它之后，则是某种莫测高深、令人挠头的后现代性。由此，我们发现自己正在追问：现代性是否构成了启蒙的后果及其发展，或是否应将其视为对18世纪基本原则的断裂或偏离。
    
     回头来看康德的这篇文章。我不明白，为什么我们不能把现代性更多的看作是一种态度，而不是一段历史时期。所谓“态度”，我指的是一种与现时性发生关联的模式，一种由某些人作出的自愿选择，总之，是一种思考、感觉乃至行为举止的方式，它处处体现出某种归属关系，并将自身表现为一项任务。无疑，它有点象是希腊人所说的精神气质（ethos）。因此我认为，对我们来说，更有启示意义的不是致力于将“现代”与“前现代”或“后现代”区分开来，而是努力探明现代性的态度如何自其形成伊始就处于与各种“反现代性”态度的争战之中。
    
     我打算以一位几乎是不可忽略的人物为例，勾勒这种现代性的态度，因为人们广泛认为，他对现代性的自觉意识是19世纪最为敏锐的意识之一。他，就是波德莱尔。
    
     1. 人们经常把现代性概括为对时间的非连续性的自觉意识：与传统的决裂，对新颖的情感，在不断逝去的时刻前的眩晕。当波德莱尔将现代性界定为“过渡、短暂、偶然”[4]的时候，想表达的似乎正是这个意思。但是在他看来，要成为现代的，并不在于认识并接受这种无休止的运动，而是在于针对这一运动采取某种特定态度。存在某种永恒的东西，它既不是在现在时刻之外，也不是在现在之后，而是在现在之中。正是在对这永恒之物的重新捕捉之中，体现出审慎从容、不易屈服的态度。现代性不同于时尚，后者只限于对时间的流逝念念不忘；现代性是这样一种态度，它促成人们把握现时中“英雄”的一面。现代性并不是对于短暂飞逝的现在的敏感，而是将现在“英雄化”的意志。
    
     我将仅限于讨论波德莱尔关于与他同时代的绘画艺术的评论。和波德莱尔同时代的那些画家们认为19世纪的服饰粗陋不堪，只想着描绘古代的袍褂。但波德莱尔取笑他们。在他看来，绘画中的现代性并不体现在把黑衣引到画布上来。现代画家能将黑色礼服表现为“我们时代所必需的服饰”，能知道如何用所处时日的时尚，将我们的时代与死亡之间本质、永久而挥之不去的关系彰显出来。“燕尾服和黑衣不仅具有体现普遍平等的政治美，而且还具有表现公众灵魂的诗性美——这是一长列殓尸人（爱情殓尸人，政治殓尸人，资产阶级殓尸人……）。我们都在举行某种葬礼”。[5]为了描述这种现代性的态度，波德莱尔有时使用了间接肯定的修辞，以训言的形式意味深长地呈现给我们：“你们无权蔑视现在”。
    
     2. 这种英雄化无疑是反讽性的。现代性的态度并不会为着维持不断逝去的时刻或将其永久化，而把它抬高到神圣的位置。它当然无意于将不断逝去的时刻当作一件转瞬即逝的新奇玩意来捕获，那本是波德莱尔所愿称之为旁观者（spectator）的姿态。这些漫游者（flàneur），这些无所事事、四下闲逛的旁观者，满足于睁着自己的眼睛，一心增长记忆的储藏。与这些漫游者相反，波德莱尔这样描绘现代性的人：“他就这样走啊，跑啊，寻找啊……可以肯定，这个人，……这个富有活跃的想象力的孤独者，这个片刻不停地穿越浩瀚的人性荒漠的游历者，有一个比纯粹的漫游者更高尚些的目的，它更具普遍性，不同于随境而生、稍纵即逝的快活。他正在寻找某种你必须允许我称之为‘现代性’的特性……他把从时尚中抽取隐含在历史中的诗性的要素作为他的工作”。[6]波德莱尔拿素描家贡斯当丹·居伊（Constantin Guys）作为现代性的一个典范。在一个旁观者，一个新奇玩意的收藏者的外观之下，居伊“将在任何闪动着光亮、回响着诗意、跃动着生命、震颤着音乐的地方滞留到最后；任何地方，只要那里有一种激情可以呈现在他的眼前，只要那里有自然的人和传统的人出现在一种奇特的美之中，只要那里的阳光照耀了堕落的动物（depraved animal）的瞬间的快乐”。[7]
    
     但我们可别搞错了。贡斯当丹·居伊可不是一个漫游者；波德莱尔之所以把他看作一名杰出的现代画家，是因为当整个世界沉入梦乡的时候，他却开始了工作，改变着那个世界的面貌。他所导致的改变并不包含取消现实，而是现实的真相与自由的修行（exercise）之间一种复杂的相互作用；“自然”的东西“不止于自然”，而“美”的东西也“不止于美”，个体的对象又象是“被赋予一种象（它们的）创造者的灵魂一样的充满活力的生命”。[8]对于现代性的态度而言，现在的丰富价值是与这样一种对它的极度渴望分不开的：把现在想象成与其自身不同的东西，但不是摧毁现在，而是通过把握现在自身的状态，来改变现在。在波德莱尔的现代性修行中，对现实的极度关注在此对应于一种自由的实践，后者既是对这一现实的尊重，又是对这一现实的冲犯。
    
     3. 然而，对波德莱尔来说，现代性不仅仅是与现在的一种关系形式，还是必须与自身确立关系的一种关系形式。现代性审慎从容的态度维系着一种不可离弃的苦行主义。要成为现代的，并不是非得承认自己置身于短暂飞逝的时刻之流中，而是要把自己当作某种对象，加以艰难复杂的精心塑造，也就是波德莱尔用他那时的时兴话所称的浪荡子（dandysme）。我不打算在此一一追叙以下这些广为人知的论述：论“粗鄙、世俗、卑劣的本性”；论人所不可或缺的自我反抗；论“优雅教育”，它逐渐成了比最可怖的宗教还要专制的教律，强加在“身处卑微却又雄心勃勃的信徒身上”；最后，还有论浪荡子的苦行主义。他通过苦行，将自己的身体、行为、感觉、情绪乃至他的生存本身，都变成一件艺术品。在波德莱尔看来，作为现代人的人不是去发掘自己，发掘自身的秘密和隐藏着的真实，而是要去努力创造自己。这种现代性并不是要“在人本身的存在之中解放他自己”，而是迫使其面对塑造他自己的任务。
    
     4. 让我最后再补充一句。在波德莱尔眼里，对现在反讽式的英雄化，改变现实面貌的自由游戏，苦行式的对自我的精心塑造，这些在社会自身或国家政体中都不占有什么位置，而只能在另一个不同的领域里得出创生。波德莱尔将这个领域称为艺术。
    
     我并不期望通过这寥寥几个特点，就能概括18世纪末期的启蒙这一复杂的历史事件，或是在过去的两个世纪里可能曾以各种面目出现的现代性的态度。
    
     我一直致力于强调两方面的问题。一方面，一种特定类型的哲学追问在什么样的程度上根植于启蒙，而且在这种追问之下，人与现在的关系，人的生存的历史模式，以及作为一个自主主体的自我的构成，都一一被纳入问题领域；另一方面，可以将我们与启蒙联结起来的脉络并不在于信守教条原则，而在于不断激活某种态度，它是某种哲学的精神气质，我们可以将其描述为对我们所处历史时代的持恒批判。下面我打算非常简略地勾勒一番这种精神气质。
    
     A. 否定性方面
    
     1. 这种精神气质首先意味着拒弃我所谓的对启蒙的“挟持”。在我看来，首先，启蒙作为今天的我们依然相当依赖的一系列政治、经济、社会、制度及文化事件，构成了一个享有优先地位的分析领域；其次，启蒙是一项将真理的进步与自由的历史直接联结起来的事业，构建了一个我们至今仍在考虑的哲学问题；最后，它确定了哲学思维的一种特定方式，我通过康德的文章力图揭示的正是这一点。
     但这并不等于说，你非得对启蒙表示出非敌即友的鲜明立场，而恰恰是意味着你必须拒弃一切可能会以某种简单化的专断选择形式出现的立场，即要么接受启蒙并信守它的理性主义传统（有些人认为这是肯定性的术语，另一些人则用它来指责别人），要么批判启蒙，并努力摆脱它的理性原则（对此人们同样是褒贬不一）。我们如果只是把“辩证的”精细差别引入挟持，却依然孜孜以求确定启蒙曾经可能包含的那些要素的优劣，就还是未能摆脱这种挟持。
     我们必须努力将自身作为在某种程度上，被启蒙历史地限定的存在，深入地分析自己。这样的分析应该包括一系列尽可能精细的历史追问，它并非回溯性地指向“理性的本质内核”（essential kernel of rationality），而是面向“必然性的当代界限”（contemporary limits of the necessary）。前者可以在启蒙中找到，并且在任何情况下都应该得到维持；而后者也就是对于作为自主主体的我们的构成而言，不是或不再是不可离弃的那些东西。
    
     2. 人道主义[9]与启蒙两者之间总是容易被掺合在一起，在对我们自身进行持续不断的批判时必须避免这一点。我们始终必须牢记，启蒙是一个或一系列事件，是一系列复杂的历史过程，定位在欧洲社会发展过程某一特定的节点之上。启蒙本身包括了社会转型的要素，政治制度的类型，知识的形式，知识与实践活动理性化过程的计划，技术上的突变，而且都远不止于一两种，根本没法用一句话来概括。纵然这些现象有许多直至今天仍很重要，但正如我上文所称，在我看来，只有对现在的反思性关联模式，才是整个哲学反思形式的依据。
     人道主义则与此完全不同。它是一项主题，或者，更确切地说，是一系列主题，曾经在漫长的时间跨度里，在多个场合之下，在欧洲社会里反复出现，并且总是牵系着价值判断。这些主题在它们的内涵及其所维持的价值观念上都有着颇为明显的巨大差异。而且，它们还一直充当着一种批判性的区分原则。17世纪的人道主义表现为对基督教的批判或对宗教的总体批判，是一种与上帝中心论色彩远为浓厚的苦行式人道主义相对立的基督教人道主义。而19世纪则既有对科学持厌憎和批评态度的怀疑论人道主义，又有与之相反的将自己的希望寄附在同一种科学上的人道主义。马克思主义向来是一种人道主义，存在主义与人格主义亦是如此。人们还有那么一段时间曾经拥护国家社会主义所体现的人道主义价值观，那时斯大林主义者也说他们是人道主义者。
    
     但是我们绝不能就此认为，所有曾经与人道主义有所牵连的东西都需要被拒弃，而是应该总结出这样的认识，即有关人道主义的讨论主题本身太过灵活，太过纷杂，太缺乏一以贯之的东西，不适于作为反思的参考基准。事实上，至少从17世纪以来，所谓人道主义的东西就一直依赖于一些从宗教、科学或政治中挪过来的有关人的观念。人道主义的作用就是装点和验证有关人的观念，不管怎么说，它必须以后者为依托。
    
     因此，就这一关联来看，我相信，可以依据立于自主性中的我们针对自身的批判以及持恒的创造，依据这样的原则，即在启蒙关于自身的历史意识中处于核心地位的原则，来反对这个如此频繁地反复凸现、又是如此一贯地以人道主义为依托的讨论主题。从这一立场出发，我倾向于认为，启蒙与人道主义之间是一种张力关系，而不是同一关系。
    
     我认为，不管在什么情况下，将启蒙与人道主义这两者掺合在一起都是危险的；而且，从历史的角度来看，这样做也是不确切的。如果说有关人、人类、人道主义者的问题在整个18世纪里都有其重要地位的话，我认为这几乎说不上是因为启蒙自视为一种人道主义。同时，也有必要注意到，在整个19世纪里，对象圣伯夫或布克哈特这样的人来说非常重要的为16世纪人道主义编修历史的工作，与启蒙和18世纪始终是相互脱离的，有时甚至是明确对立的。19世纪也有倾向将启蒙与人道主义这两者对立起来，其程度至少不逊于将它们掺合在一起的倾向。
    
     不管怎么说，我认为，正如我们必须从“对启蒙非敌即友”的知性上和政治上的挟持中寻求自我解脱一样，我们也必须摆脱将人道主义主题与启蒙问题混为一谈，这是一种在历史和道德意义上都令人困惑的混乱观念。如果我们要相对澄清我们对自己和自己的过去的自觉意识，那么，对启蒙与人道主义之间在过去两个世纪里的复杂关系进行研究，就不失为一项颇有价值的重要课题。
    
     B. 肯定性方面
    
     尽管需要预防上述这些问题，面对可能是一种哲学的精神气质的东西，我们显然还必须赋予它更具肯定性的内涵。这种哲学气质经由关于我们自身的某种历史本体论，存在于对我们所言、所思和所为的批判之中。
    
     1. 可以将这种哲学气质概括为一种“界限态度”（limit-attitude）。我们现在并不是在讨论一种拒弃的姿态。我们不得不摆脱外部一内部这一非此即彼的选择，不得不处身于边界。实际上，批判是由对界限的分析与反思组成的。然而，倘若康德的问题在于：认识到（savoir）什么界限是知识（connaissance）不得不宣布放弃越出（exceeding）的；那么在我看来，今天的关键问题则必须转回某种肯定性的问题：在那些被作为普遍、必然、义务而加在我们身上的东西里面，所有那些属于独特、偶然及专断约束的产物的东西，又占据着什么样的位置？简言之，问题的关键在于：把以必然性界限形式展开的批判，转化为以某种可能性逾越（franchissement）形式出现的实践批判。
    
     这又将导致一种显见的后果：批判不再是以寻求具有普遍价值的形式结构为目的的实践展开，而是深入某些事件的历史考察，这些事件曾经引导我们建构自身，并把自身作为我们所为、所思及所言的主体来加以认识。在这个意义上，这种批判不是超越性的，其目标也不在于促成一种形而上学，而是具有谱系学的方案和考古学的方法。之所以说是这种批判是考古学而不是先验超越的，是因为它所致力的并不在于确定所有知识（connaissance）或所有可能的道德行动的普遍结构，而是在于将表达我们所思、所言及所为的话语实例作为如此繁多的历史事件来探讨；同时，之所以说这种批判是谱系学的，是因为它不再根据我们所是的形式推演出我们所不可能做、不可能知的东西，而将从使我们成为我们所是的那种偶然性（contingency）中，分离出某种可能性来。在这种可能性下，我们得以不再依我们所是、所为或所思去是、去行、去思。
    
     这种批判将不再致力于促成某种最终成为科学的形而上学，而将尽可能广泛地为不确定的对自由的追求提供新的促动力。
    
     2. 然而，倘若我们不满足于关于自由的断言或空想，我认为这种历史一批判性的态度还必须具备实验性的特质。我的意思是说，这种针对我们自身界限所展开的工作，必须一方面开启一个新的历史追问领域，另一方面还要将自身交付现实（reality）、交付现时（l’actualité）进行检验，这两方面都得把握具备发生变化的可能性与必要性的那些关节点，确定确切的变化形式。这就是说，有关我们自身的历史本体论必须摆脱所有声称具有普遍性或彻底性的计划。其实，我们根据经验便可以知道，所谓要摆脱现时的总体情况，以便制定出关于另一种社会、另一样思考方式。另一种文化或是另一类世界观的总体筹划，这种声言只能导致那些最危险的传统的复辟。
    
     我宁愿选择某些具体特定的转化方式，在过去20年里。它们已证明在某些区域具备可行性，包括我们生存与思考的方式，与权威的关联，两性之间的关系，以及我们理解癫狂与病患的方式；我也宁愿选择那些源于历史分析与实践态度之间相互联系的部分性的转化，而不愿意接受那些最糟糕不过的政治制度已在整个20世纪一再重复了的塑造新人的筹划。
     因此，我想把适于针对我们自身的批判本体论的这种哲学气质，概括为对那些我们有可能逾越的界限所进行的一种历史一实践性的检验，从而也是由我们自己对作为自由存在的自身所开展的工作。
    
     3. 此外，以下异议无疑是完全有道理的：如果我们自己被这种始终是部分的、局部的追问或检验限制住，难道不会有被自己既无意识、又无控制的更具普遍性的结构所左右的危险？
    
     对于这个问题有两点回应。我们的确不得不就此放弃，不再期望得到关于可能构成我们历史界限的东西的任何完整而确定的知识（connaissance）。根据这种观点，对于自己的界限以及逾越这些界限的可能性，我们在理论和实践两方面的体验始终有它的外在界限与内在限定；所以说，我们总是会重新回到出发点。
    
     然而这并不等于说，所有的工作都只能在无序和偶然的状态之中展开。我们正探讨的这项工作自有其一般性、系统性、同质性以及关键所在。
    
     （1）它的关键。
     这些关键问题体现在可称之为“能力与权力之间关系的悖论”之中。我们知道，18世纪整体上或其一部分所给出的伟大承诺或希望，是以技术能力对物所发生的影响与个体相对于他人的自由同时协调增长为基础的。进而，我们还可以看到，在整个西方社会的历史中，获取能力与争夺自由构成了永恒的要素，这一点也许正是它们独特的历史命运的根源，这命运是如此的殊异，与其它社会相比，演变轨迹是如此的特别，又是那么的具有普遍和支配的地位。而现在，能力的增长与自主性的增长，这两者之间的关系可不象18世纪会认定的那么简单。不管我们谈论的是以经济为目标的生产，还是以社会调控为宗旨的制度，抑或是各种以便沟通的技术，我们已经可以发现；各式各样的技术传递了多种多样的权力关系，比如集体性或个体性的纪律，以国家的权力、社会或聚居区域的需求为名行使的规范化程序。因此说，问题的关键在于，能力的增长如何才能摆脱权力关系的强化？
    
     （2）同质性。
     这就将我们引向了对可称之为“实践系统”的领域的考察。我们在此所说的同质性，不是人们对于自身的呈现，也不是他们对其一无所知的决定他们的条件，而是他们行事的内容与方式。可以说，人们行事的技术性一面，在于他们组织自己行事方式的那些理性形式；而这些实践活动策略性的一面，则在于当他们在这些实践系统里行事时，可以相对自由地对他人所为作出反应，改变游戏的规则。具备了这些技术性因素与策略性因素，这一实践领域可以就此确保这些历史一批判性分析的同质性。
    
     （3）系统性。
     这些实践系统根源于三个广阔领域：对事物的控制的关系，对他人的行动的关系，以及对自己的关系。这并不是说这三个领域彼此之间毫无关联。众所周知，对事物的控制是以与他人的关系为中介的，而与他人的关系又总是会牵涉到与自己的关系，反之亦然。然而，我们需要考虑的是知识、权力与伦理这三个基轴各自的特殊性质以及它们相互之间的关联。换句话说，关于我们自身的历史本体论不得不回答一系列开放性的问题，提出许许多多的追问。这些追问可以复杂多义，也可以具体限定，就看我们的选择。但是它们都会涉及到下述系统化的问题：我们如何被建构为自身知识的主体？我们如何被建构为行使权力关系或是屈从于权力关系的主体？我们又是如何被建构为自身行动的道德主体？
    
     （4）普遍性。
     最后一点，鉴于这些历史一批判性的深入考察始终瞄准某一具体的素材、时代或限定的实践与话语体系，所以说它们都是非常具体确定的。但是，至少就我们所来自的西方社会而言，这些考察所面临的下述问题自有其普遍性，因为它们不断地重复凸显于我们的时代，例如心智健全与精神错乱之间的关系，疾患与健康之间的关系，犯罪与法律之间的关系，以及性关系的角色，等等。
    
     然而，我引出这种普遍性，并不是认为必须通过它跨越时间向度的超历史连续性，来追溯我们所要探讨的问题，也不认为必须探求它的各种变异。我们所必须把握的，是我们对所探讨的问题的了解程度，在它们之中行使的权力形式；而我们置身它们之中，通过某种特定的问题化（problematization）——它确定各种客体对象、行动规则以及与自己的关系的各种模式——所拥有的有关自身的经验，则只能建构出被限定的历史形象。问题化过程既非人类学意义上的常态，也不是编年史性质上的变异，所以我们得考察问题化（的各种模式）[(modes de) problématizations]，以便分析蕴含在它们的历史独特形式中的普遍意涵。
    
     最后做一简结，回到康德。我不知道我们是否能够达到成熟状态下的成年。有许多经验使我们相信，启蒙的历史事件并未使我们成为成熟的成年人，而我们至今也未曾达到这样的状态。但是不管怎么说，在我看来，康德通过反思启蒙而构建的对现在与我们自身的批判性追问自有其意义。我认为，在过去的两个世纪里，康德的反思一直是种不失其重要性或有效性的哲学思维方式。我们当然不能将关于自身的批判本体论视为一种理论或教律，甚至也不能把它看作是一套不断积累中的永恒的知识体系，而是应该把它理解为一种态度，一种精神气质，一种哲学生活。在这种态度、精神气质或哲学生活之中，对我们所是之内涵的批判同时也成为关于强加给我们的界限的历史考察，成为逾越这些界限的可能性（de leur franchissement possible）的实验。
    
     我们必须把这种哲学态度转换为多种追问的任务。这些追问的方法逻辑，在于综合采用考古学和谱系学的方法，考察同时被想象为技术性的理性类型和策略性的自由游戏的实践活动；这些追问的理论逻辑，在于确定我们与事物、他人及自身的关系的普遍性受到问题化处理的历史独特形式；而这些追间的实践逻辑，则来自于关注将历史一批判性反思交付具体实践活动的尝试检验之中的过程。我不知道是否在今天必须这么说：批判的任务依然包含着对于启蒙的信念；我坚持认为，这一任务需要考察我们的界限，换言之，这是一项需要耐心的劳作，正是它体现了我们对于自由的渴望（a patient labor giving form to our impatience for liberty）。
    
     ———————————
     [1] Ph?don; oder, über die Unsterblichkeit der Seele, “Ph?don”典出柏拉图对话录《斐多篇》（内容系论灵魂的永恒性）——中译者注。
    
     [2] “Haskala”即犹太人所说的“启蒙”，来自意第绪语中的“Sekhel”（reason，intellect）。18世纪至19世纪，中欧与东欧地区受西欧启蒙运动影响，蔓延着一场文化启蒙运动。“Haskala”的目标是要将犹太人培养成能够体现犹太教和一般文化的综合，能够按照普通意义的标准生活来生活，具有宽容精神，具有普遍主义的人道主义者所阐释的那种理性。门德尔松是早期最重要的代表（正是他将《犹太五经》译成德文）。现代学者普遍认为，犹太现代性正是从18世纪起从“Haskala”开始的。人们从此不再被动地等待弥赛亚，而是开始积极追求在现世中（即在每个人的一生中）的个人或民族的实现。当然，这里还涉及其他许多问题，比如霍克海默的有关讨论，可参见他与阿多诺合著的《启蒙辩证法》中他撰写的《反犹主义要素：启蒙的界限》一章，参见曹卫东、渠敬东等编译《霍克海默集》，上海远东出版社1997年版——中译者注。
    
     [3] Giambattista Vico，The New Science of Giambattista Vico, 3rd ed., (1744), abridged trans. T. G. Bergen and M. H. Fisch (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1970), pp. 370, 372. ——英译者注。中译文据维柯《新科学》，朱光潜译，商务印书馆1989年版，第594及596页——中译者注。
    
     [4] Charles Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, trans. Jonathan Mayne (London: Phaidon, 1964), p. 13. ——英译者注。中译文据“现代生活的画家”第四节“现代性”，收于《波德莱尔美学论文选》，郭宏安译，人民文学出版社1987年版，第485页——中译者注。
    
     [5] Charles Baudelaire, “On the Heroism of Modern Life,” in The Mirror of Art: Critical Studies by Charles Baudelaire, trans. Jonathan Mayne (London: Phaidon, 1955), p. 127. ——英译者注。中译文参考“一八四六年的沙龙”第十八节“论现代生活的英雄”，同上书，第301页，有改动——中译者注。
    
     [6] 中译文综合参考郭宏安译《波德莱尔美学论文选》第484页及汪晖译文，加下划线部分为郭本漏译内容——中译者注。
    
     [7] 中译文据郭宏安译《波德莱尔美学论文选》，第483页，略有改动。另按郭译注“depraved animal”：卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源和基础》中写道：“……思考的状态是一种反自然的状态，沉思的人是一头堕落的野兽”——中译者注。
    
     [8] 可参见郭译同上书，第484页——中译者注。
    
     [9] “Humanism”一词随具体的历史背景与知识情境的不同，可分别译作“人道主义”、“人本主义”和“人文主义”。就本文而言，16世纪的“Humanism”应译为“人文主义”，而18世纪的“Humanism”则最好译为“人道主义”。但这样一来，行文上将产生混乱，所以我们一概译为“人道主义”，但同时提醒大家注意该词的历史变异——中译者注。
    
    
    
     附录：
    
    
     What is Enlightenment?
    
     Michel Foucault
    
    
     Today when a periodical asks its readers a question, it does so in order to collect opinions on some subject about which everyone has an opinion already; there is not much likelihood of learning anything new. In the eighteenth century, editors preferred to question the public on problems that did not yet have solutions. I don''t know whether or not that practice was more effective; it was unquestionably more entertaining.
    
     In any event, in line with this custom, in November 1784 a German periodical, Berlinische Monatschrift published a response to the question: Was ist Aufkl?rung? And the respondent was Kant.
    
     A minor text, perhaps. But it seems to me that it marks the discreet entrance into the history of thought of a question that modern philosophy has not been capable of answering, but that it has never managed to get rid of, either. And one that has been repeated in various forms for two centuries now. From Hegel through Nietzsche or Max Weber to Horkheimer or Habermas, hardly any philosophy has failed to confront this same question, directly or indirectly. What, then, is this event that is called the Aufkl?rung and that has determined, at least in part, what we are, what we think, and what we do today? Let us imagine that the Berlinische Monatschrift still exists and that it is asking its readers the question: What is modern philosophy? Perhaps we could respond with an echo: modern philosophy is the philosophy that is attempting to answer the question raised so imprudently two centuries ago: Was ist Aufkl?rung?
    
    
     Let us linger a few moments over Kant''s text. It merits attention for several reasons.
    
     To this same question, Moses Mendelssohn had also replied in the same journal, just two months earlier. But Kant had not seen Mendelssohn''s text when he wrote his. To be sure, the encounter of the German philosophical movement with the new development of Jewish culture does not date from this precise moment. Mendelssohn had been at that crossroads for thirty years or so, in company with Lessing. But up to this point it had been a matter of making a place for Jewish culture within German thought -- which Lessing had tried to do in Die Juden -- or else of identifying problems common to Jewish thought and to German philosophy; this is what Mendelssohn had done in his Phadon; oder, über die Unsterblichkeit der Seele. With the two texts published in the Berlinische Monatschrift the German Aufkl?rung and the Jewish Haskala recognize that they belong to the same history; they are seeking to identify the common processes from which they stem. And it is perhaps a way of announcing the acceptance of a common destiny -- we now know to what drama that was to lead.
    
     But there is more. In itself and within the Christian tradition, Kant''s text poses a new problem.
    
     It was certainly not the first time that philosophical thought had sought to reflect on its own present. But, speaking schematically, we may say that this reflection had until then taken three main forms.
    
     The present may be represented as belonging to a certain era of the world, distinct from the others through some inherent characteristics, or separated from the others by some dramatic event. Thus, in Plato''s Statesman the interlocutors recognize that they belong to one of those revolutions of the world in which the world is turning backwards, with all the negative consequences that may ensue.
    
     The present may be interrogated in an attempt to decipher in it the heralding signs of a forthcoming event. Here we have the principle of a kind of historical hermeneutics of which Augustine might provide an example.
    
     The present may also be analyzed as a point of transition toward the dawning of a new world. That is what Vico describes in the last chapter of La Scienza Nuova; what he sees ''today'' is ''a complete humanity ... spread abroad through all nations, for a few great monarchs rule over this world of peoples''; it is also ''Europe ... radiant with such humanity that it abounds in all the good things that make for the happiness of human life.'' [1]
    
     Now the way Kant poses the question of Aufkl?rung is entirely different: it is neither a world era to which one belongs, nor an event whose signs are perceived, nor the dawning of an accomplishment. Kant defines Aufkl?rung in an almost entirely negative way, as an Ausgang, an ''exit,'' a ''way out.'' In his other texts on history, Kant occasionally raises questions of origin or defines the internal teleology of a historical process. In the text on Aufkl?rung, he deals with the question of contemporary reality alone. He is not seeking to understand the present on the basis of a totality or of a future achievement. He is looking for a difference: What difference does today introduce with respect to yesterday?
    
     I shall not go into detail here concerning this text, which is not always very clear despite its brevity. I should simply like to point out three or four features that seem to me important if we are to understand how Kant raised the philosophical question of the present day.
    
     Kant indicates right away that the ''way out'' that characterizes Enlightenment is a process that releases us from the status of ''immaturity.'' And by ''immaturity,'' he means a certain state of our will that makes us accept someone else''s authority to lead us in areas where the use of reason is called for. Kant gives three examples: we are in a state of ''immaturity'' when a book takes the place of our understanding, when a spiritual director takes the place of our conscience, when a doctor decides for us what our diet is to be. (Let us note in passing that the register of these three critiques is easy to recognize, even though the text does not make it explicit.) In any case, Enlightenment is defined by a modification of the preexisting relation linking will, authority, and the use of reason.
    
     We must also note that this way out is presented by Kant in a rather ambiguous manner. He characterizes it as a phenomenon, an ongoing process; but he also presents it as a task and an obligation. From the very first paragraph, he notes that man himself is responsible for his immature status. Thus it has to be supposed that he will be able to escape from it only by a change that he himself will bring about in himself. Significantly, Kant says that this Enlightenment has a Wahlspruch: now a Wahlspruch is a heraldic device, that is, a distinctive feature by which one can be recognized, and it is also a motto, an instruction that one gives oneself and proposes to others. What, then, is this instruction? Aude sapere: ''dare to know,'' ''have the courage, the audacity, to know.'' Thus Enlightenment must be considered both as a process in which men participate collectively and as an act of courage to be accomplished personally. Men are at once elements and agents of a single process. They may be actors in the process to the extent that they participate in it; and the process occurs to the extent that men decide to be its voluntary actors.
    
     A third difficulty appears here in Kant''s text in his use of the word ''mankind,'' Menschheit. The importance of this word in the Kantian conception of history is well known. Are we to understand that the entire human race is caught up in the process of Enlightenment? In that case, we must imagine Enlightenment as a historical change that affects the political and social existence of all people on the face of the earth. Or are we to understand that it involves a change affecting what constitutes the humanity of human beings? But the question then arises of knowing what this change is. Here again, Kant''s answer is not without a certain ambiguity. In any case, beneath its appearance of simplicity, it is rather complex.
    
     Kant defines two essential conditions under which mankind can escape from its immaturity. And these two conditions are at once spiritual and institutional, ethical and political.
    
     The first of these conditions is that the realm of obedience and the realm of the use of reason be clearly distinguished. Briefly characterizing the immature status, Kant invokes the familiar expression: ''Don''t think, just follow orders''; such is, according to him, the form in which military discipline, political power, and religious authority are usually exercised. Humanity will reach maturity when it is no longer required to obey, but when men are told: ''Obey, and you will be able to reason as much as you like.'' We must note that the German word used here is r?sonieren; this word, which is also used in the Critiques does not refer to just any use of reason, but to a use of reason in which reason has no other end but itself: r?sonieren is to reason for reasoning''s sake. And Kant gives examples, these too being perfectly trivial in appearance: paying one''s taxes, while being able to argue as much as one likes about the system of taxation, would be characteristic of the mature state; or again, taking responsibility for parish service, if one is a pastor, while reasoning freely about religious dogmas.
    
     We might think that there is nothing very different here from what has been meant, since the sixteenth century, by freedom of conscience: the right to think as one pleases so long as one obeys as one must. Yet it is here that Kant brings into play another distinction, and in a rather surprising way. The distinction he introduces is between the private and public uses of reason. But he adds at once that reason must be free in its public use, and must be submissive in its private use. Which is, term for term, the opposite of what is ordinarily called freedom of conscience.
    
     But we must be somewhat more precise. What constitutes, for Kant, this private use of reason? In what area is it exercised? Man, Kant says, makes a private use of reason when he is ''a cog in a machine''; that is, when he has a role to play in society and jobs to do: to be a soldier, to have taxes to pay, to be in charge of a parish, to be a civil servant, all this makes the human being a particular segment of society; he finds himself thereby placed in a circumscribed position, where he has to apply particular rules and pursue particular ends. Kant does not ask that people practice a blind and foolish obedience, but that they adapt the use they make of their reason to these determined circumstances; and reason must then be subjected to the particular ends in view. Thus there cannot be, here, any free use of reason.
    
     On the other hand, when one is reasoning only in order to use one''s reason, when one is reasoning as a reasonable being (and not as a cog in a machine), when one is reasoning as a member of reasonable humanity, then the use of reason must be free and public. Enlightenment is thus not merely the process by which individuals would see their own personal freedom of thought guaranteed. There is Enlightenment when the universal, the free, and the public uses of reason are superimposed on one another.
    
     Now this leads us to a fourth question that must be put to Kant''s text. We can readily see how the universal use of reason (apart from any private end) is the business of the subject himself as an individual; we can readily see, too, how the freedom of this use may be assured in a purely negative manner through the absence of any challenge to it; but how is a public use of that reason to be assured? Enlightenment, as we see, must not be conceived simply as a general process affecting all humanity; it must not be conceived only as an obligation prescribed to individuals: it now appears as a political problem. The question, in any event, is that of knowing how the use of reason can take the public form that it requires, how the audacity to know can be exercised in broad daylight, while individuals are obeying as scrupulously as possible. And Kant, in conclusion, proposes to Frederick II, in scarcely veiled terms, a sort of contract -- what might be called the contract of rational despotism with free reason: the public and free use of autonomous reason will be the best guarantee of obedience, on condition, however, that the political principle that must be obeyed itself be in conformity with universal reason.
    
    
     Let us leave Kant''s text here. I do not by any means propose to consider it as capable of constituting an adequate description of Enlightenment; and no historian, I think, could be satisfied with it for an analysis of the social, political, and cultural transformations that occurred at the end of the eighteenth century.
    
     Nevertheless, notwithstanding its circumstantial nature, and without intending to give it an exaggerated place in Kant''s work, I believe that it is necessary to stress the connection that exists between this brief article and the three Critiques. Kant in fact describes Enlightenment as the moment when humanity is going to put its own reason to use, without subjecting itself to any authority; now it is precisely at this moment that the critique is necessary, since its role is that of defining the conditions under which the use of reason is legitimate in order to determine what can be known, what must be done, and what may be hoped. Illegitimate uses of reason are what give rise to dogmatism and heteronomy, along with illusion; on the other hand, it is when the legitimate use of reason has been clearly defined in its principles that its autonomy can be assured. The critique is, in a sense, the handbook of reason that has grown up in Enlightenment; and, conversely, the Enlightenment is the age of the critique.
    
     It is also necessary, I think, to underline the relation between this text of Kant''s and the other texts he devoted to history. These latter, for the most part, seek to define the internal teleology of time and the point toward which history of humanity is moving. Now the analysis of Enlightenment, defining this history as humanity''s passage to its adult status, situates contemporary reality with respect to the overall movement and its basic directions. But at the same time, it shows how, at this very moment, each individual is responsible in a certain way for that overall process.
    
     The hypothesis I should like to propose is that this little text is located in a sense at the crossroads of critical reflection and reflection on history. It is a reflection by Kant on the contemporary status of his own enterprise. No doubt it is not the first time that a philosopher has given his reasons for undertaking his work at a particular moment. But it seems to me that it is the first time that a philosopher has connected in this way, closely and from the inside, the significance of his work with respect to knowledge, a reflection on history and a particular analysis of the specific moment at which he is writing and because of which he is writing. It is in the reflection on ''today'' as difference in history and as motive for a particular philosophical task that the novelty of this text appears to me to lie.
    
     And, by looking at it in this way, it seems to me we may recognize a point of departure: the outline of what one might call the attitude of modernity.
    
     I know that modernity is often spoken of as an epoch, or at least as a set of features characteristic of an epoch; situated on a calendar, it would be preceded by a more or less naive or archaic premodernity, and followed by an enigmatic and troubling ''postmodernity.'' And then we find ourselves asking whether modernity constitutes the sequel to the Enlightenment and its development, or whether we are to see it as a rupture or a deviation with respect to the basic principles of the 18th century.
    
     Thinking back on Kant''s text, I wonder whether we may not envisage modernity rather as an attitude than as a period of history. And by ''attitude,'' I mean a mode of relating to contemporary reality; a voluntary choice made by certain people; in the end, a way of thinking and feeling; a way, too, of acting and behaving that at one and the same time marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task. A bit, no doubt, like what the Greeks called an ethos. And consequently, rather than seeking to distinguish the ''modern era'' from the ''premodern'' or ''postmodern,'' I think it would be more useful to try to find out how the attitude of modernity, ever since its formation, has found itself struggling with attitudes of ''countermodernity.''
    
     To characterize briefly this attitude of modernity, I shall take an almost indispensable example, namely, Baudelaire; for his consciousness of modernity is widely recognized as one of the most acute in the nineteenth century.
    
     Modernity is often characterized in terms of consciousness of the discontinuity of time: a break with tradition, a feeling of novelty, of vertigo in the face of the passing moment. And this is indeed what Baudelaire seems to be saying when he defines modernity as ''the ephemeral, the fleeting, the contingent.'' [2] But, for him, being modern does not lie in recognizing and accepting this perpetual movement; on the contrary, it lies in adopting a certain attitude with respect to this movement; and this deliberate, difficult attitude consists in recapturing something eternal that is not beyond the present instant, nor behind it, but within it. Modernity is distinct from fashion, which does no more than call into question the course of time; modernity is the attitude that makes it possible to grasp the ''heroic'' aspect of the present moment. Modernity is not a phenomenon of sensitivity to the fleeting present; it is the will to ''heroize'' the present .
    
     I shall restrict myself to what Baudelaire says about the painting of his contemporaries. Baudelaire makes fun of those painters who, finding nineteenth-century dress excessively ugly, want to depict nothing but ancient togas. But modernity in painting does not consist, for Baudelaire, in introducing black clothing onto the canvas. The modern painter is the one who can show the dark frock-coat as ''the necessary costume of our time,'' the one who knows how to make manifest, in the fashion of the day, the essential, permanent, obsessive relation that our age entertains with death. ''The dress-coat and frock-coat not only possess their political beauty, which is an expression of universal equality, but also their poetic beauty, which is an expression of the public soul -- an immense cortège of undertaker''s mutes (mutes in love, political mutes, bourgeois mutes...). We are each of us celebrating some funeral.'' [3] To designate this attitude of modernity, Baudelaire sometimes employs a litotes that is highly significant because it is presented in the form of a precept: ''You have no right to despise the present.''
    
     This heroization is ironical, needless to say. The attitude of modernity does not treat the passing moment as sacred in order to try to maintain or perpetuate it. It certainly does not involve harvesting it as a fleeting and interesting curiosity. That would be what Baudelaire would call the spectator''s posture. The flaneur, the idle, strolling spectator, is satisfied to keep his eyes open, to pay attention and to build up a storehouse of memories. In opposition to the flaneur, Baudelaire describes the man of modernity: ''Away he goes, hurrying, searching .... Be very sure that this man ... -- this solitary, gifted with an active imagination, ceaselessly journeying across the great human desert -- has an aim loftier than that of a mere flaneur, an aim more general, something other than the fugitive pleasure of circumstance. He is looking for that quality which you must allow me to call ''modernity.'' ... He makes it his business to extract from fashion whatever element it may contain of poetry within history.'' As an example of modernity, Baudelaire cites the artist Constantin Guys. In appearance a spectator, a collector of curiosities, he remains ''the last to linger wherever there can be a glow of light, an echo of poetry, a quiver of life or a chord of music; wherever a passion can pose before him, wherever natural man and conventional man display themselves in a strange beauty, wherever the sun lights up the swift joys of the depraved animal.'' [4]
    
     But let us make no mistake. Constantin Guys is not a flaneur; what makes him the modern painter par excellence in Baudelaire''s eyes is that, just when the whole world is falling asleep, he begins to work, and he transfigures that world. His transfiguration does not entail an annulling of reality, but a difficult interplay between the truth of what is real and the exercise of freedom; ''natural'' things become ''more than natural,'' ''beautiful'' things become ''more than beautiful,'' and individual objects appear ''endowed with an impulsive life like the soul of their creator.'' [5] For the attitude of modernity, the high value of the present is indissociable from a desperate eagerness to imagine it, to imagine it otherwise than it is, and to transform it not by destroying it but by grasping it in what it is. Baudelairean modernity is an exercise in which extreme attention to what is real is confronted with the practice of a liberty that simultaneously respects this reality and violates it.
    
     However, modernity for Baudelaire is not simply a form of relationship to the present; it is also a mode of relationship that has to be established with oneself. The deliberate attitude of modernity is tied to an indispensable asceticism. To be modern is not to accept oneself as one is in the flux of the passing moments; it is to take oneself as object of a complex and difficult elaboration: what Baudelaire, in the vocabulary of his day, calls dandysme. Here I shall not recall in detail the well-known passages on ''vulgar, earthy, vile nature''; on man''s indispensable revolt against himself; on the ''doctrine of elegance'' which imposes ''upon its ambitious and humble disciples'' a discipline more despotic than the most terrible religions; the pages, finally, on the asceticism of the dandy who makes of his body, his behavior, his feelings and passions, his very existence, a work of art. Modern man, for Baudelaire, is not the man who goes off to discover himself, his secrets and his hidden truth; he is the man who tries to invent himself. This modernity does not ''liberate man in his own being''; it compels him to face the task of producing himself.
    
     Let me add just one final word. This ironic heroization of the present, this transfiguring play of freedom with reality, this ascetic elaboration of the self -- Baudelaire does not imagine that these have any place in society itself, or in the body politic. They can only be produced in another, a different place, which Baudelaire calls art.
    
    
     I do not pretend to be summarizing in these few lines either the complex historical event that was the Enlightenment, at the end of the eighteenth century, or the attitude of modernity in the various guises it may have taken on during the last two centuries.
    
     I have been seeking, on the one hand, to emphasize the extent to which a type of philosophical interrogation -- one that simultaneously problematizes man''s relation to the present, man''s historical mode of being, and the constitution of the self as an autonomous subject -- is rooted in the Enlightenment. On the other hand, I have been seeking to stress that the thread that may connect us with the Enlightenment is not faithfulness to doctrinal elements, but rather the permanent reactivation of an attitude -- that is, of a philosophical ethos that could be described as a permanent critique of our historical era. I should like to characterize this ethos very briefly.
    
     A. Negatively
    
     This ethos implies, first, the refusal of what I like to call the ''blackmail'' of the Enlightenment. I think that the Enlightenment, as a set of political, economic, social, institutional, and cultural events on which we still depend in large part, constitutes a privileged domain for analysis. I also think that as an enterprise for linking the progress of truth and the history of liberty in a bond of direct relation, it formulated a philosophical question that remains for us to consider. I think, finally, as I have tried to show with reference to Kant''s text, that it defined a certain manner of philosophizing.
    
     But that does not mean that one has to be ''for'' or ''against'' the Enlightenment. It even means precisely that one has to refuse everything that might present itself in the form of a simplistic and authoritarian alternative: you either accept the Enlightenment and remain within the tradition of its rationalism (this is considered a positive term by some and used by others, on the contrary, as a reproach); or else you criticize the Enlightenment and then try to escape from its principles of rationality (which may be seen once again as good or bad). And w e do not break free of this blackmail by introducing ''dialectical'' nuances while seeking to determine what good and bad elements there may have been in the Enlightenment.
    
     We must try to proceed with the analysis of ourselves as beings who are historically determined, to a certain extent, by the Enlightenment. Such an analysis implies a series of historical inquiries that are as precise as possible; and these inquiries will not be oriented retrospectively toward the ''essential kernel of rationality'' that can be found in the Enlightenment and that would have to be preserved in any event; they will be oriented toward the ''contemporary limits of the necessary,'' that is, toward what is not or is no longer indispensable for the constitution of ourselves as autonomous subjects.
    
     This permanent critique of ourselves has to avoid the always too facile confusions between humanism and Enlightenment.
    
     We must never forget that the Enlightenment is an event, or a set of events and complex historical processes, that is located at a certain point in the development of European societies. As such, it includes elements of social transformation, types of political institution, forms of knowledge, projects of rationalization of knowledge and practices, technological mutations that are very difficult to sum up in a word, even if many of these phenomena remain important today. The one I have pointed out and that seems to me to have been at the basis of an entire form of philosophical reflection concerns only the mode of reflective relation to the present.
    
     Humanism is something entirely different. It is a theme or rather a set of themes that have reappeared on several occasions over time in European societies; these themes always tied to value judgments have obviously varied greatly in their content as well as in the values they have preserved. Furthermore they have served as a critical principle of differentiation. In the seventeenth century there was a humanism that presented itself as a critique of Christianity or of religion in general; there was a Christian humanism opposed to an ascetic and much more theocentric humanism. In the nineteenth century there was a suspicious humanism hostile and critical toward science and another that to the contrary placed its hope in that same science. Marxism has been a humanism; so have existentialism and personalism; there was a time when people supported the humanistic values represented by National Socialism and when the Stalinists themselves said they were humanists.
    
     From this we must not conclude that everything that has ever been linked with humanism is to be rejected but that the humanistic thematic is in itself too supple too diverse too inconsistent to serve as an axis for reflection. And it is a fact that at least since the seventeenth century what is called humanism has always been obliged to lean on certain conceptions of man borrowed from religion science or politics. Humanism serves to color and to justify the conceptions of man to which it is after all obliged to take recourse.
    
     Now in this connection I believe that this thematic which so often recurs and which always depends on humanism can be opposed by the principle of a critique and a permanent creation of ourselves in our autonomy: that is a principle that is at the heart of the historical consciousness that the Enlightenment has of itself. From this standpoint I am inclined to see Enlightenment and humanism in a state of tension rather than identity.
    
     In any case it seems to me dangerous to confuse them; and further it seems historically inaccurate. If the question of man of the human species of the humanist was important throughout the eighteenth century this is very rarely I believe because the Enlightenment considered itself a humanism. It is worthwhile too to note that throughout the nineteenth century the historiography of sixteenth-century humanism which was so important for people like Saint-Beuve or Burckhardt was always distinct from and sometimes explicitly opposed to the Enlightenment and the eighteenth century. The nineteenth century had a tendency to oppose the two at least as much as to confuse them.
    
     In any case I think that just as we must free ourselves from the intellectual blackmail of being for or against the Enlightenment we must escape from the historical and moral confusionism that mixes the theme of humanism with the question of the Enlightenment. An analysis of their complex relations in the course of the last two centuries would be a worthwhile project an important one if we are to bring some measure of clarity to the consciousness that we have of ourselves and of our past.
    
     B. Positively
    
     Yet while taking these precautions into account we must obviously give a more positive content to what may be a philosophical ethos consisting in a critique of what we are saying thinking and doing through a historical ontology of ourselves.
    
     This philosophical ethos may be characterized as a limit-attitude. We are not talking about a gesture of rejection. We have to move beyond the outside-inside alternative; we have to be at the frontiers. Criticism indeed consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits. But if the Kantian question was that of knowing what limits knowledge has to renounce transgressing, it seems to me that the critical question today has to be turned back into a positive one: in what is given lo us as universal necessary obligatory what place is occupied by whatever is singular contingent and the product of arbitrary constraints? The point in brief is to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessary limitation into a practical critique that lakes the form of a possible transgression.
    
     This entails an obvious consequence: that criticism is no longer going to be practiced in the search for formal structures with universal value, but rather as a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we are doing, thinking, saying. In that sense, this criticism is not transcendental, and its goal is not that of making a metaphysics possible: it is genealogical in its design and archaeological in its method. Archaeological -- and not transcendental -- in the sense that it will not seek to identify the universal structures of all knowledge or of all possible moral action, but will seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate what we think, say, and do as so many historical events. And this critique will be genealogical in the sense that it will not deduce from the form of what we are what it is impossible for us to do and to know; but it will separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think. It is not seeking to make possible a metaphysics that has finally become a science; it is seeking to give new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.
    
     But if we are not to settle for the affirmation or the empty dream of freedom, it seems to me that this historico-critical attitude must also be an experimental one. I mean that this work done at the limits of ourselves must, on the one hand, open up a realm of historical inquiry and, on the other, put itself to the test of reality, of contemporary reality, both to grasp the points where change is possible and desirable, and to determine the precise form this change should take. This means that the historical ontology of ourselves must turn away from all projects that claim to be global or radical. In fact we know from experience that the claim to escape from the system of contemporary reality so as to produce the overall programs of another society, of another way of thinking, another culture, another vision of the world, has led only to the return of the most dangerous traditions.
    
     I prefer the very specific transformations that have proved to be possible in the last twenty years in a certain number of areas that concern our ways of being and thinking, relations to authority, relations between the sexes, the way in which we perceive insanity or illness; I prefer even these partial transformations that have been made in the correlation of historical analysis and the practical attitude, to the programs for a new man that the worst political systems have repeated throughout the twentieth century.
    
     I shall thus characterize the philosophical ethos appropriate to the critical ontology of ourselves as a historico-practical test of the limits that we may go beyond, and thus as work carried out by ourselves upon ourselves as free beings.
    
     Still, the following objection would no doubt be entirely legitimate: if we limit ourselves to this type of always partial and local inquiry or test, do we not run the risk of letting ourselves be determined by more general structures of which we may well not be conscious, and over which we may have no control?
    
     To this, two responses. It is true that we have to give up hope of ever acceding to a point of view that could give us access to any complete and definitive knowledge of what may constitute our historical limits. And from this point of view the theoretical and practical experience that we have of our limits and of the possibility of moving beyond them is always limited and determined; thus we are always in the position of beginning again .
    
     But that does not mean that no work can be done except in disorder and contingency. The work in question has its generality, its systematicity, its homogeneity, and its stakes.
    
     (a) Its Stakes
    
     These are indicated by what might be called ''the paradox of the relations of capacity and power.'' We know that the great promise or the great hope of the eighteenth century, or a part of the eighteenth century, lay in the simultaneous and proportional growth of individuals with respect to one another. And, moreover, we can see that throughout the entire history of Western societies (it is perhaps here that the root of their singular historical destiny is located -- such a peculiar destiny, so different from the others in its trajectory and so universalizing, so dominant with respect to the others), the acquisition of capabilities and the struggle for freedom have constituted permanent elements. Now the relations between the growth of capabilities and the growth of autonomy are not as simple as the eighteenth century may have believed. And we have been able to see what forms of power relation were conveyed by various technologies (whether we are speaking of productions with economic aims, or institutions whose goal is social regulation, or of techniques of communication): disciplines, both collective and individual, procedures of normalization exercised in the name of the power of the state, demands of society or of population zones, are examples. What is at stake, then, is this: How can the growth of capabilities be disconnected from the intensification of power relations?
    
     (b) Homogeneity
    
     This leads to the study of what could be called ''practical systems.'' Here we are taking as a homogeneous domain of reference not the representations that men give of themselves, not the conditions that determine them without their knowledge, but rather what they do and the way they do it. That is, the forms of rationality that organize their ways of doing things (this might be called the technological aspect) and the freedom with which they act within these practical systems, reacting to what others do, modifying the rules of the game, up to a certain point (this might be called the strategic side of these practices). The homogeneity of these historico-critical analyses is thus ensured by this realm of practices, with their technological side and their strategic side.
    
     (c) Systematicity
    
     These practical systems stem from three broad areas: relations of control over things, relations of action upon others, relations with oneself. This does not mean that each of these three areas is completely foreign to the others. It is well known that control over things is mediated by relations with others; and relations with others in turn always entail relations with oneself, and vice versa. But we have three axes whose specificity and whose interconnections have to be analyzed: the axis of knowledge, the axis of power, the axis of ethics. In other terms, the historical ontology of ourselves has to answer an open series of questions; it has to make an indefinite number of inquiries which may be multiplied and specified as much as we like, but which will all address the questions systematized as follows: How are we constituted as subjects of our own knowledge? How are we constituted as subjects who exercise or submit to power relations? How are we constituted as moral subjects of our own actions?
    
     (d) Generality
    
     Finally, these historico-critical investigations are quite specific in the sense that they always bear upon a material, an epoch, a body of determined practices and discourses. And yet, at least at the level of the Western societies from which we derive, they have their generality, in the sense that they have continued to recur up to our time: for example, the problem of the relationship between sanity and insanity, or sickness and health, or crime and the law; the problem of the role of sexual relations; and so on.
    
     But by evoking this generality, I do not mean to suggest that it has to be retraced in its metahistorical continuity over time, nor that its variations have to be pursued. What must be grasped is the extent to which what we know of it, the forms of power that are exercised in it, and the experience that we have in it of ourselves constitute nothing but determined historical figures, through a certain form of problematization that defines objects, rules of action, modes of relation to oneself. The study of modes of problematization (that is, of what is neither an anthropological constant nor a chronological variation) is thus the way to analyze questions of general import in their historically unique form.
    
    
     A brief summary, to conclude and to come back to Kant.
    
     I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood. Many things in our experience convince us that the historical event of the Enlightenment did not make us mature adults, and we have not reached that stage yet. However, it seems to me that a meaning can be attributed to that critical interrogation on the present and on ourselves which Kant formulated by reflecting on the Enlightenment. It seems to me that Kant''s reflection is even a way of philosophizing that has not been without its importance or effectiveness during the last two centuries. The critical ontology of ourselves has to be considered not, certainly, as a theory, a doctrine, nor even as a permanent body of knowledge that is accumulating; it has to be conceived as an attitude, an ethos, a philosophical life in which the critique of what we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them.
    
     This philosophical attitude has to be translated into the labor of diverse inquiries. These inquiries have their methodological coherence in the at once archaeological and genealogical study of practices envisaged simultaneously as a technological type of rationality and as strategic games of liberties; they have their theoretical coherence in the definition of the historically unique forms in which the generalities of our relations to things, to others, to ourselves, have been problematized. They have their practical coherence in the care brought to the process of putting historico-critical reflection to the test of concrete practices. I do not know whether it must be said today that the critical task still entails faith in Enlightenment; I continue to think that this task requires work on our limits, that is, a patient labor giving form to our impatience for liberty.
    
    
     Notes:
    
     [1] Giambattista Vico, The New Science, 3rd ed., (1744), abridged trans. T. G. Bergin and M. H. Fisch (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1970), pp. 370, 372.
    
     [2] Charles Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life, trans. Jonathan Mayne (London: Phaidon, 1964), p. 13.
    
     [3] Charles Baudelaire, ''On the Heroism of Modern Life,'' in The Mirror of Art, trans. Jonathan Mayne (London: Phaidon, 1955), p. 127.
    
     [4] Baudelaire, Painter, pp. 12, Il.
    
     [5] Ibid., p. 12.