On Foucault’s Resonant Reception of Mao Zedong’s Thought on Investigation and Research

The connection between Michel Foucault (1926–1984) and Mao Zedong Thought, as mediated by the Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons (GIP) [1]1 The Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons (Prison Information Group) was a French activist organization founded by Michel Foucault and others in 1971 to investigate prison conditions and publicize prisoners’ grievances. which he led in the 1970s, has already received some discussion in international scholarship. In the English-language academic world, aside from brief mentions in the influential works *The Wind from the East: French Intellectuals, the Cultural Revolution, and the Legacy of the 1960s* (2010) and *Mao’s Little Red Book: A Global History* (2014), the most important paper is undoubtedly “Foucault, Maoism, Genealogy: The Influence of Political Militancy in Michel Foucault’s Thought.” That article opens by pointing out that, besides the already evident “Nietzschean influence,” there is a less obvious “dialogue partner” in Foucault’s historical methodology, namely “French Maoism.” It therefore seeks to examine how “principles formed in Maoist political activity are reflected not only in Foucault’s practical activities in the Prison Information Group (GIP), but also in his lecture discourses on genealogy, power, and critique.” [2]2 The paper cited is by an unnamed author; the reference is to a specific scholarly article on Foucault, Maoism, and genealogy. In sum, existing research has revealed the Chinese factor in the configuration of Foucault’s thought, which is significant both for understanding Foucault’s intellectual development and for understanding the cultural exchange and mutual learning between China and the West in the twentieth century.

米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault, 1926—1984)在20世纪70年代主导的“监狱信息小组”(Groupe d'Information sur les Prisons, GIP)与毛泽东思想的联系,目前国际学界已有相关论述。英语学界中，除了影响颇大的《东风：法国知识分子与20世纪60年代的遗产》(The Wind from the East:French Intellectuals,the Cultrual Revolution,and the Legacy of the1960s,2010)、《毛泽东的小红书：一部全球史》(Mao’s Little Red Book:A Global History,2014)两本论著中略有提及，最重要的一篇论文当属“Foucault, Maoism, Genealogy: The Influence of Political Militancy in Michel Foucault’s Thought”,文章开篇就指出，除了已经显露出的“尼采影响”外，福柯的历史研究方法论中有一个不太明显的“对话伙伴”,即“法国毛主义”,因此要去考察“毛主义政治活动中形成的原则不仅体现在福柯在监狱情报小组(GIP)的活动实践中，还体现在他关于系谱学、权力和批判的讲堂论述中”。总的来说，现有成果揭示了福柯思想构境中的中国因素，这不论对于理解福柯的思想发展，还是理解20世纪中西之间的文化交流互鉴，均具有重要意义。

However, a common problem with these studies is that, when they use Foucault’s participation in the investigative activities of the Prison Information Group as a medium to describe the “Mao–Foucault” relationship, they tend to present a vague, simplistic narrative. It appears as though, once Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research was disseminated in France, and given the broader context of Foucault’s “left turn” during the May 1968 events [3]3 The May 1968 events were a period of widespread student and worker protests and general strikes in France, which profoundly influenced French intellectual and political life., he naturally accepted Mao’s thought on investigation and research, thereby moving toward practice and initiating prison investigations. The issue is not so simple. On the one hand, in the process of theoretical travel, the theory itself may undergo deformation and mutation; when a Chinese idea begins its French journey, what Foucault received was inevitably not Mao’s investigation in its original form. On the other hand, as a thinker with a certain philosophical grounding, after learning about Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research, Foucault may also have engaged in selective acceptance based on his own theoretical interests. The assertion that “Foucault was influenced by Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research” still leaves a series of questions unexplained: Through what channels did Foucault come into contact with Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research? How did Foucault himself understand Mao’s investigation? Was the driving force behind Foucault’s investigative practices during this period solely Mao’s thought on investigation and research? Were there similarities and differences between Foucault’s investigation and Mao’s? Only by clarifying these questions can we possibly answer what role Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research played around the time Foucault wrote *Discipline and Punish*; at the same time, we may also, by drawing on Foucault’s external perspective, gain a more comprehensive understanding of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research.

但是，这些研究呈现出的一个共性问题是，在以福柯参与“监狱信息小组”的调查活动为中介描述“毛泽东—福柯”之间的关系时，多是一种模糊的、简单的叙事，似乎毛泽东调查研究思想一经在法国传播，加之“五月风暴”过程中福柯思想“左转”的大背景，其就自然而然地接受了毛泽东的调查研究思想，从而走向实践，开启监狱调查。问题并没有这么简单。一方面，在理论旅行的过程中，理论本身就可能发生变形、变异，当一个中国思想开启它的法国之旅，福柯接受的注定不是原原本本的毛泽东式的调查；另一方面，作为一位有一定哲学积淀的思想家，福柯在了解毛泽东调查研究思想以后，也有可能出于自身的理论旨趣而展开选择性接受。“福柯受毛泽东调查研究思想影响”这一论断依旧有一系列问题没有解释清楚：福柯是通过什么渠道接触到毛泽东调查研究思想的?福柯自己是怎么理解毛泽东的调查的?这一时期福柯调查实践的背后驱动力，仅仅是毛泽东的调查研究思想吗?福柯式调查与毛泽东的调查是否存在异同?只有辨析清楚这些问题，我们才有可能回答在福柯写作《规训与惩罚》前后毛泽东调查研究思想到底扮演了怎样的角色；同时，亦有可能借助福柯的外位性视角，更为全面地理解毛泽东调查研究思想。

I. Foucault’s Encounter with Mao Zedong’s Thought on Investigation and Research

一、福柯与毛泽东调查研究思想的相遇

The French dissemination of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research was closely linked to the Maoist organization the Union des Jeunesses Communistes Marxistes-Léninistes (UJCML) [4]4 The Union des Jeunesses Communistes Marxistes-Léninistes (Union of Marxist-Leninist Communist Youth) was a French Maoist organization active in the late 1960s.. In 1967, before the preparation of the UJCML’s Second National Conference (July 14–16), the *Activity Report of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the UJCML* (hereinafter the *Report*) was issued, which devoted a special section to discussing the question of investigation (*enquête*). The *Report* began by emphasizing the “danger of intensive mobilization on the anti-imperialist front,” warning that “if necessary rectification is not carried out, negative effects will arise.” How to avoid this danger? The *Report* pointed out the need to complete an “ideological turn” (*tournant idéologique*), the specific method of which was to attach great importance to investigation, namely, “No investigation, no right to speak” (*Qui n’a pas fait d’enquête n’a pas droit à la parole*). [5]5 This is a direct translation of Mao Zedong’s famous slogan from his 1930 essay “Oppose Book Worship.” Although the translation of “no investigation, no right to speak” in the *Report* differs from that of China’s Foreign Languages Press, this “foreign” “alternative” translation indirectly shows the slogan’s influence in France. The *Report* then provided a more detailed explanation of investigation: “Unlike the spontaneity of intellectuals, the Marxist-Leninist analysis of all aspects of French social reality requires patient concrete analysis and investigative work, requires a solid foundation on which to establish a line, to conduct partial analyses of the situation, and to gradually implement the content of the program. … It is not enough to merely establish contact with workers. Training these workers and encouraging them to organize is a long-term task, in which you may break your teeth.” It can be seen here that “investigation” was not only an important method for intellectuals to understand French reality but also a key pathway for the UJCML to implement the mass line [6]6 The mass line is a core political and organizational method of the CPC, emphasizing that the Party must learn from the masses and then guide them. within Mao Zedong Thought. In sum, through the mediation of the UJCML, Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research spread widely among French leftist intellectual circles. The investigative approach of going to factories and to the masses had a significant impact at the time, to the extent that after the UJCML was officially banned by the French authorities in June 1968, many of its members reorganized into the “Maoist” organization the Gauche Prolétarienne (GP) [7]7 The Gauche Prolétarienne (Proletarian Left) was a French Maoist group formed after the dissolution of the UJCML, active in the early 1970s., which once again emphasized the importance of investigation.

毛泽东调查研究思想的法国传播，与法国共青盟(马列)(Union des Jeunesses Communistes Marxistes-Léninistes, UJCM-L这一毛派组织密切相关。1967年，在筹备共青盟(马列)第二次全国会议(7月14日—16日)前，《共青盟中央委员会秘书处的活动报告》(以下简称《报告》)发布，其中专门用一部分讨论了调查(enquête)问题。《报告》一开始就强调了“在反帝战线上密集动员”的危险，“如果不进行必要的整顿，就会产生负面影响”。如何避免这种危险?《报告》指出需要完成一个“意识形态转向”(tournant idéologique),其具体办法就是高度重视调查的重要性，即“没有调查，没有发言权”(Qui n’a pas fait d’enquête n’a pas droit à la parole)。尽管《报告》中的“没有调查，没有发言权”翻译与中国外文出版社的翻译不尽相同，但这种“异域”的“另一种”译法，侧面显示了此口号在法国的影响力。紧接着《报告》中对调查给予了更为细致的说明：“与知识分子的自发性不同，马克思列宁主义对法国社会现实各方面的分析，需要耐心地进行具体分析和调查工作，需要有一个坚实的基础，在此基础上建立路线，对形势进行局部分析，逐步落实纲领的各项内容。……仅仅与工人建立联系是不够的。培训这些工人，鼓励他们组织起来，是一项长期的工作，在这项工作中，你有可能会摔断牙齿。”这里可以看出，“调查”不仅是知识分子理解法国现实的重要方法，也是共青盟(马列)展开毛泽东思想中群众路线的重要途径。总的来说，经过共青盟(马列)的中介，毛泽东调查研究思想在法国左翼知识分子群体中广泛传播，走向工厂、走向大众的调查方式在当时产生了很大影响，以至于1968年6月共青盟(马列)被法国官方取缔后，不少成员重新组建的“毛派”组织“无产阶级左派”(Gauche Prolétarienne, GP),再一次强调调查的重要性。

To a certain extent, the Prison Information Group (GIP) led by Foucault was a concrete practice of the investigation advocated by the Gauche Prolétarienne. This is because during this period Foucault’s close friend Daniel Defert [8]8 Daniel Defert was a French sociologist and Foucault’s long-term partner; he was involved in Maoist activism and co-founded the GIP with Foucault. was an underground member of the Gauche Prolétarienne. However, a question that needs consideration is: How exactly did these grand events concretely influence Foucault’s participation in investigative actions? Attempting to conduct a detailed empirical investigation of this kind from Foucault’s surviving writings may be futile. As Defert said: “Foucault rarely spoke actively about China, but he often thought about China.” How exactly did Foucault come into contact with the concept of “investigation”? Anglophone scholarship mostly discusses this within the broader context of the May 1968 events. Indeed, Foucault was also affected by this; after witnessing the Tunisian student protests against the authoritarian government in 1968, his political passion was gradually aroused, beginning his “left turn.” However, the above explanation is insufficient, because influence itself occurs in everyday life. Between the zeitgeist and the individual, there must be some “intermediaries” or “intermediate objects” that play a more concrete role. From this perspective, starting from Foucault’s “proximity” to describe his encounter with Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research is a relatively ideal path.

在一定程度上，福柯领导的“监狱信息小组”,是“无产阶级左派”倡导调查的一个具体实践。因为这一时期福柯的密友丹尼尔·德菲尔(Daniel Defert)就是“无产阶级左派”的地下成员。但是，需要思考的一个问题是，这些宏大事件具体是怎样影响到福柯参与调查行动的?试图从福柯的遗存文字中去详细地展开类似实证性的考察可能是徒劳无功的，正如德菲尔所言：“福柯极少主动谈及中国，但他经常思考中国。”福柯到底是怎么接触到“调查”这个概念的?英美学界多是从“五月风暴”的大背景中展开相关论述。诚然，福柯也受到相关影响，从1968年见证突尼斯学生反抗专制政府的抗议活动之后，福柯的政治热情被逐渐唤起，由此开始“左转”的历程。但是，上述解释并不充分，因为影响本身是在日常生活中发生的，在时代思潮与个体之间，必然有一些“中间人”或“中间物”扮演了更为具体的角色。从这个角度上说，以福柯的“附近”为起点，描述福柯与毛泽东调查研究思想的相遇，是一个较为理想的路径。

First, the intermediary role played by Defert must be given serious attention. Many biographies of Foucault mention Defert’s influence on Foucault’s leftward turn after the “May ’68” events, [9]9 The “May ’68” events refer to a series of student and worker protests and general strikes that erupted across France in May 1968, nearly toppling the government of Charles de Gaulle. particularly his important role in pushing Foucault toward prison investigations. During this period, Defert was a faithful “Maoist” and also a member of the “Proletarian Left.” [10]10 The “Proletarian Left” (Gauche Prolétarienne) was a prominent French Maoist organization active from 1968 to 1973. In fact, before undertaking prison investigations with Foucault, aside from participating in the preparation of the first hunger strike by Maoist political prisoners in September 1970, Defert had already joined the “Organization of Political Prisoners” (Organisation des Prisonniers Politiques, OPP) initiated by “Maoists.” One of this organization’s tasks was to conduct investigations among political prisoners in prison, an effort deeply influenced by Mao Zedong Thought. In Defert’s autobiographical interview book *Political Life*, the interviewer asked: “The Maoists had a slogan: ‘No investigation, no right to speak.’ This was prevalent in the Proletarian Left at the time…” Defert replied very directly: “Absolutely correct.” At the same time, Defert himself recalled that he often told Foucault about his experiences and what he had heard in the “Proletarian Left”: “I listened with rapt attention and often reported this summary to Foucault, who considered it academic.” From this perspective, the influence route of “investigation—Defert—Foucault” had already taken shape. However, the situation is not so simple, and this is a point that most Foucault biographies and related English-language scholarship have failed to recognize: Defert himself was trained in sociology, and investigation is a basic professional skill of sociology. The book *Political Life* provides many important details. Before the “Night of the Barricades” in 1968, [11]11 The “Night of the Barricades” (May 10–11, 1968) was a major confrontation between students and police in the Latin Quarter of Paris, a key event in the May ’68 protests. Defert was already an assistant researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research. His thesis discussed how social knowledge as a discipline developed from 18th-century German statistics, and for this purpose he had even taken several courses from Bourdieu. At the time of the “Night of the Barricades,” Defert was participating in a social investigation group established by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. Defert recalled: “It was this experience that truly let me understand what sociological investigation is… I represented the institution: occupational health doctors, social security doctors, or agricultural fund doctors. In this way, I came to understand the truth of the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee, or between residents and medical institutions.” However, “May ’68” still greatly shocked Defert, whose thought was originally “left-leaning” (he was already a union representative of the National Scientific Research Union): “As a sociologist, I had been trying to obtain information, but I discovered the liberating effect of mass movements and the extraordinary insight people had into the medical system. From that day on, for me, the social analyst was no longer the profession of sociologist, but mass movements.” Thus, Defert’s understanding of investigation underwent a shift stimulated by the experience of French realpolitik: from “sociological investigation” to “Maoist investigation.” The former is the professional technique of intellectuals, while the latter’s purpose is “to go among the masses.” But could Defert completely sever himself from his professional knowledge? This “shift” also implies, to a certain extent, the hybridity of Defert’s understanding of investigation. Consequently, for Foucault, what he received through Defert’s mediation was already a “mutated” version of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research.

第一，德菲尔扮演的中介角色需要高度重视。不少福柯的传记中，均提到了德菲尔对1968年“五月风暴”以后福柯思想左转的影响，特别是福柯走向监狱调查过程中的重要推动作用。因为这一时期德菲尔是一位忠实的“毛主义者”,同时也是“无产阶级左派”的成员之一。其实在与福柯展开监狱调查以前，除了参与筹备了1970年9月毛派政治犯的第一次绝食斗争，德菲尔就已经参与了由“毛主义者”发起的“政治犯组织”(Organisation des Prisonniers Politiques, OPP),此组织的任务之一，就是面向监狱政治犯的调查，这背后深受毛泽东思想的影响。在德菲尔的自传性访谈《政治生活》一书中，提问者问道：“毛派有一句口号：‘没有调查，没有发言权。’这在当时的无产阶级左派盛行……”德菲尔非常干脆地回答：“完全正确。”同时，德菲尔本人也回忆道，他经常把自己在“无产阶级左派”中的经历和听到的见闻告诉福柯：“我听得如痴如醉，经常向福柯汇报这一总结，而福柯却认为这是学术性的。”这样看来，“调查—德菲尔—福柯”的影响路线已经形成。然而，情况却不是这样简单，这也是多数福柯传记和相关英语学界研究者没有意识到的问题：德菲尔本身就是社会学专业出身的，而调查就是社会学的基本专业能力。《政治生活》一书为我们提供了不少重要的细节。1968年“街垒之夜”之前，德菲尔已经是法国国家科学研究中心的一名助理研究员，他的论文讨论的是社会知识作为一门学科是如何从18世纪的德国统计学发展而来的，为此，他还专门选修过布迪厄的几门课程。在“街垒之夜”发生的时候，德菲尔正在参与法国国家健康与医学研究院成立的一个社会调查小组，德菲尔回忆道：“正是这次经历让我真正了解到什么是社会学调查……我代表的是机构：职业健康医生、社会保障医生或农业基金医生。就这样，我了解到采访者和被采访者之间，或者说居民和医疗机构之间关系的真相。”然而，“五月风暴”依旧给思想原本“左倾”的德菲尔(他当时已经是国家科研工会的工会代表)予以极大震撼：“作为一名社会学家，我一直在努力获取信息，但我发现了群众运动的解放效应，以及人们对医疗系统的非凡洞察力。从那天起，对我来说，社会分析者不再是社会学家这一职业，而是群众运动。”由此可见，德菲尔关于调查的认识，有一个法国现实政治经验刺激后的转轨，即从“社会学的调查”到“毛主义式的调查”,前者是知识分子的专业技术，后者的目的则是“到群众中去”。但是，德菲尔能够完全与他的专业知识割裂吗?这种“转轨”,在一定程度上也意味着德菲尔关于调查认识构成的混杂性，那么对于福柯而言，通过德菲尔的中介，他接收到的已然是“变异”后的毛泽东调查研究思想。

Second, Foucault’s experience during his time in the Philosophy Department at the University of Vincennes was another important intermediary through which he came into contact with Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research. [12]12 The University of Vincennes (Université de Vincennes, later Paris VIII) was founded in 1969 as an experimental university in response to the May ’68 events, known for its radical politics and interdisciplinary approach. Defert stated in an interview: “Foucault had just been recruited to the university, together with others, to form a ‘cooperative core’ for a university to respond to the crisis of 1968. This is not the place to revisit the turbulent history of Vincennes, which is its own story, but part of the history of the ‘Prison Information Group’ was indeed established there.” This view is worth serious consideration. At the University of Vincennes, Foucault not only personally participated in the student movement but also recruited a large number of Maoists in the Philosophy Department, including Étienne Balibar, Jacques Rancière, Alain Badiou, Judith Miller, and others. Among them, Badiou had a particular fondness for Mao’s thought on investigation. Deeply inspired by Mao’s *Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan*, [13]13 Mao’s *Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan* (March 1927) is a classic text of Mao Zedong Thought, advocating for investigation and mobilizing the peasantry as the main force of revolution. Badiou believed that investigation in France should not be limited to cities and factories; rural areas and impoverished peasants should also be objects of investigation. Guided by this line of thought, he led the Union of Communists of France Marxist-Leninist (UCFM-L) to conduct a detailed investigation into the living conditions of French peasants starting in 1970, and in 1976 published a collection of investigations titled *The Book of Poor Peasants: Five Years of Maoist Work in the French Countryside* (*Le livre des paysans pauvres: 5 années de travail maoïste dans une campagne française*). Whether Foucault was directly influenced by Badiou cannot yet be confirmed by available materials, but Badiou’s emphasis on investigation reflects, from one angle, the atmosphere in the Philosophy Department at Vincennes at that time. Within the Philosophy Department at Vincennes, the influence of Jacques Alain, Judith Miller, and Jacques Rancière in pushing Foucault to participate in investigative practice can be concretely verified. In 1971, when Defert and other members of the “Proletarian Left” began their second hunger strike, he hoped Foucault would publicly support their action, but Defert hesitated to disturb Foucault’s work and did not ask. In the end, it was Alain and Judith who “laid siege to Foucault, advocating the adoption of the public investigation model of the U.S. Senate Prison Committee.” Rancière’s influence on Foucault may have been more indirect, affecting Foucault through Defert. Defert recalled that he initially wanted to join the “Proletarian Left” and shared this idea with Rancière. Rancière immediately affirmed it and suggested that Defert first join his own “Organization of Political Prisoners.” “One of the goals of the Organization of Political Prisoners was to grant political prisoner status to incarcerated Maoists, in order to expand communication with these prisoners.” It can be said that this was the beginning of Defert’s investigations targeting prisons, and also an indirect factor pushing Foucault toward prison investigations.

第二，福柯在万森大学哲学系期间的经历也是他接触毛泽东调查研究思想的一个重要中介。德菲尔在访谈中曾论道：“福柯刚刚被召入该校，与其他人一起组建了一所大学的‘合作核心’,以应对1968年的危机。这里不是重温万森动荡历史的地方，那是它自己的故事，但‘监狱信息小组’的部分历史确实是在那里建立起来的。”此一观点颇值得重视。在万森大学，福柯不仅亲身参与到了学生运动中，同时也在哲学系招募了大量的毛派分子，包括埃蒂安·巴利巴尔(Étienne Balibar)、雅克·朗西埃(Jacques Rancière)、阿兰·巴迪欧(Alain Badiou)、朱迪斯·米勒(Judith Miller)等等。其中巴迪欧就对毛泽东的调查思想情有独钟，他深受毛泽东《湖南农民运动考察报告》的启发，认为法国的调查不能限于城市和工厂，农村和贫困的农民也应该是调查对象，在此思路指导下，他领导法国马列主义共产同盟(Union des Communistes de France Marxiste-Léniniste, UCFM-L)自1970年起对法国农民的生活状况展开详尽的调查，并于1976年出版调查文集《贫农之书：毛主义在法国乡村的五年工作》(Le livre des paysans pauvres: 5années de travail maoïste dans une campagne français)。福柯是否直接受到巴迪欧的影响，目前还无材料可以证实，但是巴迪欧对调查的重视从一个侧面反映出当时万森大学哲学系的一种氛围。在万森大学哲学系中，雅克·阿兰(Jacques Alain)和朱迪斯·米勒以及雅克·朗西埃对推动福柯参与调查实践是具体可考的。在1971年，德菲尔等“无产阶级左派”成员开始第二次绝食斗争时，他希望福柯可以公开地支持他们的行动，但是德菲尔担心打扰福柯的工作而没有开口，最后还是阿兰和朱迪斯“向福柯发起了围攻，主张采用美国参议院监狱委员会的公开调查模式”。朗西埃对福柯的影响，或许曲折一些，他是通过影响德菲尔间接影响到福柯的。德菲尔回忆道，他自己最初想加入“无产阶级左派”,并和朗西埃分享了这个想法。朗西埃听后立刻给予肯定，并建议德菲尔首先可以参加他本人所在的“政治犯组织”,“政治犯组织的目标之一是让被监禁的毛派分子获得政治犯身份，以扩大与这些囚犯的交流”,可以说，这是德菲尔以监狱为对象展开调查的开始，也是推动福柯走向监狱调查的一个间接因素。

One further point that needs to be clarified concerns the textual issue of the dissemination of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research in France. In a 1967 letter, Foucault stated, “I am very interested in what is happening in China.” This was clearly influenced by the French “Maoism” of the time, forming an exoticized imagination of the “Cultural Revolution,” but it also proves that Foucault was indeed paying attention to China during this period. What can be confirmed at present is that Foucault certainly knew the phrase “No investigation, no right to speak.” [14]14 “没有调查，没有发言权” (No investigation, no right to speak) is a well-known slogan from Mao Zedong, originally from his 1930 work *Oppose Book Worship*. As for Mao’s other works? Based on the publication situation at the time, the important texts of Mao’s investigation and research had basically been translated into French. First, there were separate editions, such as *Oppose Book Worship*. [15]15 *Oppose Book Worship* (反对本本主义) is a 1930 essay by Mao Zedong emphasizing the importance of practical investigation over dogmatic reliance on texts. Second, there were relevant articles included in the French edition of the *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, such as “Preface and Postscript to ‘Rural Surveys’” and “Reform Our Study.” Third, there was the “Little Red Book.” [16]16 The “Little Red Book” refers to *Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong*, a collection of Mao’s sayings widely circulated during the Cultural Revolution. The 23rd theme of the French edition of the “Little Red Book” was “Investigation and Research,” which excerpted nine passages from four articles: “Preface and Postscript to ‘Rural Surveys’,” *Oppose Book Worship*, “Reform Our Study,” and “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War.” This roughly constitutes the main textual corpus of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research that Foucault could have read before participating in the prison investigation.

还需要交代的一点，是关于毛泽东调查研究思想在法国传播的文本问题。在1967年福柯的信件中，他称“我对中国发生的事情非常感兴趣”,很显然这是受到当时法国“毛主义”的影响，对“文革”形成了一种异域想象，但这也可以证明，这一时期福柯确实关注了中国。目前可以确定的是，福柯是肯定知道“没有调查，没有发言权”这句话的。至于毛泽东其他的作品呢?从当时的出版情况看，毛泽东关于调查研究的重要篇目，基本已翻译至法国。其一，是单行本，如《反对本本主义》。其二，法文版《毛泽东选集》中收录的相关文章，如《“农村调查”的序言和跋》《改造我们的学习》等篇目。第三，是“红宝书”。法文版“红宝书”第23个主题就是“调查研究”,其中摘录了《“农村调查”的序言和跋》《反对本本主义》《改造我们的学习》《中国革命战争的战略问题》4篇文章中的9段话。这大致构成福柯在参与监狱调查之前可以阅读到的毛泽东调查研究思想的主要文本。

II. A Summary of Foucault’s Prison Investigation Practice

二、福柯的监狱调查实践述要

On February 8, 1971, at the Chapelle Saint-Bernard-de-Montparnasse in Paris, Foucault announced the establishment of the “Prison Information Group” (Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons, GIP) before the media. Because the GIP was not a tightly organized group, there is still no consensus in academia on the exact date of its dissolution. A widely accepted view is that the Foucault chronology listed at the beginning of *Dits et écrits*, edited by Daniel Defert, indicates that the GIP disbanded in December 1972. The newly formed “Prisoners’ Action Committee” (Comité d’Action des Prisonniers, CAP) and the “Association for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights” (Association pour la Défense des Droits des Détenus, ADDD) partially continued the functions of the GIP, and in January 1973, the two new organizations collaborated to publish the fourth (and final) pamphlet in the “Intolerable” (Intolérable) series of prison investigations. Of course, although the GIP was named an “information group,” its activities were not limited to “information” itself. Centered on the theme of “protest,” the group employed various methods such as hunger strikes, public demonstrations, leaflets, press conferences, street theater, plays, and documentaries. Moreover, the GIP had two very distinctive activities: one was organizing nationwide prison coordination, that is, orchestrating the prison uprisings that broke out across France in the winter of 1971–1972; the other was publishing a series of information pamphlets as the results of investigations. Focusing on the problematic of the connection between Mao’s and Foucault’s thought on investigation and research, this section needs to address the following questions: (1) Object of investigation: Why did Foucault choose to investigate prisons? (2) Purpose of investigation: With what aim did Foucault conduct the investigation? (3) Process of investigation: How exactly did Foucault investigate? (4) Results of investigation: After completing the basic investigation, what further work did Foucault undertake?

1971年2月8日，在巴黎的圣贝尔纳教堂(Chapelle Saint-Bernard-de-Montparnasse),福柯在记者媒体面前宣布“监狱信息小组”的成立。因为“监狱信息小组”并不是一个组织纪律严密的团体，所以它具体何时解体，目前学界还未达成一致。共识度较高的一个观点，是德菲尔主编的《文与言》(Dits et écrits)开篇所列福柯年表中指出，“监狱信息小组”于1972年12月解散，新成立的“囚犯行动委员会”(Comite d'Action des Prisonniers, CAP)和“囚犯权利协会”(Association pour la Défense des Droits des Détenus, ADDD)部分延续了“监狱信息小组”的功能，同时在1973年1月两个新组织协作出版了监狱调查“不可容忍”(Intolérable)系列的第四本(也是最后一本)小册子。当然，“监狱信息小组”虽然以“信息小组”为名，但这一团体的行为活动并不限于“信息”本身，围绕“抗议”这一主题，此团体采用了绝食、公众示威、传单、新闻发布会、街头剧院、戏剧、纪录片等多种方式。不止于此，“监狱信息小组”有两个非常独特的活动，一个是组织全国性的监狱串联，即策划了1971—1972年冬天在法国各地爆发的监狱起义，而另一个则是出版了一系列作为调查结果的信息小册子。围绕“毛泽东—福柯”调查研究思想之联系这一问题意识，这一部分重点需要回答的问题是：(1)调查对象：福柯为什么会选择调查监狱?(2)调查目的：福柯是本着什么样的目的进行调查的?(3)调查过程：福柯到底是怎么调查的?(4)调查结果：在完成基本的调查以后，福柯继续展开了怎样的工作?

First, the “prison” as the object of investigation. Although the above has preliminarily analyzed some reasons for Foucault stepping out of the study as an academic intellectual, further explanation of the specific “prison” investigation is still needed here. In the second volume of *Dits et écrits*, the collection of Foucault’s works edited by Defert, there is a passage before the “GIP Manifesto” that briefly records the process of Foucault organizing the GIP. Defert “proposed to Foucault that Foucault himself form a committee to investigate the situation in prisons… Considering that the historical study of prisons would be a continuation of the analysis in *The History of Madness*, Foucault actively responded to this proposal.” It can be said that the reason the object of investigation was the “prison” was a convergence of Foucault’s subjective needs and the objective conditions of the French “Maoist” movement at the time. In 1961, Foucault published his monograph *Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason*, based on his doctoral thesis. Unlike ordinary medical or pathological studies, Foucault treated mental illness in this book as a social construct, a repression of reason over unreason, which, under the influence of knowledge discourse, formed administrative institutions such as asylums. This research not only highlighted Foucault’s emphasis on discursive power but also reflected his unique research method. In a 1957 essay, “Scientific Research and Psychology,” Foucault argued that psychology’s “movement is toward a truth that is being deconstructed, a destroyed object, a science that seeks only demystification,” and it needs to revolve around the study of “negative experiences” (expériences négatives). From this perspective, Foucault’s prison investigation does not appear abrupt; it was, to some extent, another practice of deconstructing power from the margins. One point to note here is that although Foucault investigated “oppressed subjects,” they were mostly common criminals, and even some “lumpen-proletarians.” They possessed a passion for resistance but lacked revolutionary capacity and conviction, making it difficult for them to become “revolutionary subjects.” In contrast, in Mao’s investigations, the objects were primarily the masses of workers and peasants as revolutionary subjects. Thus, from the choice of investigation objects, a fundamental difference had already emerged between Foucault and Mao.

首先是作为调查对象的“监狱”。尽管上文已经初步分析了福柯从学院知识分子走出书斋的一些原因，这儿依旧需要对具体的“监狱”调查做一些说明。在德菲尔主编的福柯论著文集《文与言》第二卷中，《监狱信息小组宣言》之前有一段文字，简要地记录了福柯组织监狱信息小组的发生过程。德菲尔“向福柯提议，由福柯本人来组建一个调查监狱情况的委员会……考虑到对监狱的历史研究是对《疯狂史》中分析的延续，福柯积极回应了这个提议。”可以说，之所以调查对象是“监狱”,是福柯的主观需要和当时法国“毛主义”运动客观情况的契合。1961年，福柯在博士论文基础上整理成的专著《疯狂与理性：古典时代的疯狂史》出版。不同于一般的医学、病理学研究，福柯在此书中将精神病视为一种社会性建构，是理性对于非理性的压抑，并在知识话语的作用下形成诸如疯人院这样的管理机构。这项研究不仅凸显出福柯对话语权力的重视，也是他独特研究方法的体现，在1957年《科学研究与心理学》的论文中，福柯就论道，心理学的“运动是朝向一种正在解构的真理，一个被摧毁的对象，一种只寻求去神秘化的科学”,它需要围绕“消极经验”(expériences négatives)展开研究。这样看来，福柯进行监狱调查并不显得突兀，这在一定程度上是其从边缘解构权力的又一次实践。这里需要注意一点，福柯调查尽管是“被压迫的主体”,但是多为普通刑事犯，甚至一些是“流氓无产阶级”,他们有着反抗的激情，但是却缺乏革命的能力与信念，故而很难成为“革命的主体”,而在毛泽东的调查中，对象基本是以工农为主体的革命群众。所以，从调查对象的选择上，福柯与毛泽东之间已经呈现出根本性的差异。

Second, from the perspective of the purpose of investigation, it is the awakening of the masses through the “politicization of everyday life.” Foucault had a very clear orientation for the “Prison Information Group.” In the *Prison Information Group Manifesto*, which Foucault authored, he called out: “Information about prisons is rarely published; it is a hidden area of our social system, a black box in our lives. We have the right to know… Our goal is to make people understand prisons… We have no right to propose reforms. We only want people to know the reality. And to publish it immediately, almost daily, because time is pressing. We need to alert public opinion and keep the public vigilant. We will try to use all media…” This was a position Foucault took very seriously and consistently. In the article “Prison Investigation: Breaking the Iron Bars of Silence,” the interlocutor asked Foucault whether, given that there were already many reports in France about the general situation of prisons (such as prison films, etc.), and the public already knew something about what happened behind prison bars, this would create difficulties for Foucault’s work. Foucault replied very bluntly: “No, the important thing is to understand who we are. We do not play the role of an investigative committee. We want to set up an information group, responsible for seeking out, inciting, and disseminating information, and for determining objectives and taking possible actions. This is what we want to do.” From this perspective, Foucault’s investigation had deviated from investigation in the traditional sociological sense; it was not merely about understanding reality, grasping the situation, and conducting objective research. Foucault endowed “investigation” with an ideological function, so he said investigation needed to “determine objectives” and “be responsible for seeking out, inciting, and disseminating information.” On this point, Foucault’s view of investigation shares some similarities with Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research. However, as stated in the *Prison Information Group Manifesto*, Foucault did not endorse intellectuals directly intervening in social struggle. It cannot be said that Foucault was a “half-baked” revolutionary. Rather than saying that Foucault at that time thought about the function of intellectuals from the perspective of class struggle, it is more accurate to say that Foucault always thought about how intellectuals could participate in the “anti-power” and “anti-discipline” struggles in the modern social sense. He believed that intellectuals had their own methods of struggle; his task was to awaken the masses and stimulate thought. “From now on, information must be transmitted by word of mouth, from group to group. This may be a surprising method, but it is still the best method. Information must be recirculated; individual experience must be transformed into collective knowledge. In other words, political knowledge.” This pure identity as a “critical intellectual” shows a great difference from Mao Zedong, because in Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and research, investigation is not only about collecting information but also about solving problems. In Marx’s words, the key to the problem lies in “changing the world.”

其次，从调查目的上看，是“日常生活政治化”的民众唤醒。福柯对“监狱信息小组”有着非常清晰的调查定位，在福柯主笔的《监狱信息小组宣言》中，他呼吁道：“关于监狱的信息鲜有发布，它是我们社会制度中的一个隐秘领域，是我们生活中的一个黑匣子。我们有知情权……我们的目标是让大家了解监狱……我们无权建议改革。我们只想让人们了解现实。而且要立即公布，几乎每天公布，因为时间紧迫。我们需要提醒公众舆论，让公众保持警惕。我们将尝试使用所有媒体……”这是福柯非常重视，也一以贯之的立场。在《监狱调查：打破沉默的铁栏》一文中，对话者向福柯问道，当时法国关于监狱总体情况的报道已经很多了(如监狱电影等),国民其实已经知道了监狱铁栏杆后的一些事情，在这种情况下是否会给福柯的工作带来困难。福柯非常干脆地回复道：“不，重要的是要明白我们是谁。我们不扮演调查委员会的角色。我们要成立一个信息小组，负责寻找、煽动并传播信息，并确定目标，采取可能的行动。这是我们要做的。”从这个角度上看，福柯的调查已经偏离了传统社会学意义上的调查，它不仅仅是了解现实、掌握情况，客观地展开研究，福柯赋予了“调查”以意识形态的功能，所以他说调查需要“确定目标”和“负责寻找、煽动并传播信息”。在这一点上，福柯的调查观与毛泽东的调查研究思想有一些相似之处。但是，正如在《监狱信息小组宣言》中提出的，福柯并不赞成知识分子直接介入社会斗争。不能说福柯是“半截子”的革命者，与其说当时的福柯是从阶级斗争的角度思考知识分子的功能，不如说福柯从来思考的都是知识分子如何参与现代社会意义上的“反权力”“反规训”抗争。他认为知识分子有自己的斗争方式，他的任务是唤醒民众、刺激思考，“从现在起，信息必须通过口口相传，在群体与群体之间传播。这可能是一个令人惊讶的方法，但仍然是最好的方法。信息必须重新流通起来；个人经验必须转化为集体知识。换句话说，就是政治知识。”这种纯粹的“批判型知识分子”的身份限定，显示出与毛泽东的极大差异，因为在毛泽东调查研究思想中，调查不仅是搜集信息，同时要解决问题，用马克思的话说，问题的关键在于“改造世界”。

Third, concerning “information dissemination,” Foucault’s main activity during the prison investigation group period was conducting surveys or interviews with prisoners’ families. If one focuses solely on the act of “investigating prisons” itself, Foucault’s investigation was clearly somewhat “unqualified.” Because Foucault basically never entered the interior of prisons for on-site observation; in other words, he lacked direct experiential perception of prisons. Of course, this cannot be entirely “blamed” on Foucault, because according to the French prison system of the 1970s, apart from prisoners, prison guards, and lawyers, ordinary citizens had no right to enter prisons for visits, let alone conduct investigations inside prisons. The only time Foucault entered a prison was on April 21, 1972, when he visited Attica Prison in the United States. This prison visit left a deep impression on Foucault. Foucault admitted that for a French person, what he saw at Attica was simply “a terrifying experience” (une expérience terrifiante). He said that before this visit, he had indeed heard many prisoners in France talk about what happened inside prisons, but what he saw at Attica Prison was still very different from what he had heard before. This allowed him to personally witness the prison as a “machine,” and to perceive it “from the inside of the machine” (l’intérieur d’une machine). Despite the lack of on-site prison investigations, Foucault’s investigative activities during this period were still quite active. He actively stepped out of his study, indirectly obtaining a considerable amount of information about prisons through interviews and conversations with prisoners’ families and released prisoners, as well as by distributing survey questionnaires to prisoners inside. In an interview in 1972, Foucault described in some detail his experience of surveying prisoners’ families at the gate of La Santé Prison. Because prisoners’ families would line up at the prison gate every Saturday to wait for visits, Foucault and other members of the investigation group would distribute questionnaires to them together. Foucault said: “The first week, we were not well received. The second week, people were still wary. By the third week, someone said to us: ‘This is just talk. It should have been done long ago.’ Then, this woman suddenly told us everything. She was furious, talking at length about visits, the money she gave to the prisoner, the rich people who weren’t locked up, the filthy things. Everyone could see the plainclothes police with their long ears pricked up… The fourth Saturday was even more unusual. Among the people in line, even before we arrived, they were discussing our questionnaire, the prison scandals… That day, instead of making them wait on the street until 1:30 p.m. as usual, we opened the gates of La Santé Prison three-quarters of an hour early…” This reflects that, as time went on, the investigations of the “Prison Information Group” gained a certain degree of trust among prisoners and the people around them. Judging from the content of the survey questionnaires recorded in the relevant literature, the questions Foucault designed can be described as very “everyday-life-oriented.” The questions mainly covered multiple aspects such as “visits,” “letters,” “rights,” “telephone,” “walks,” “food,” “canteen,” “leisure time,” “work,” “medical treatment,” “discipline,” and so on. Randomly browsing some of the questions and answers in the questionnaires, it is hard to see this as an interview about prisoners’ prison life. For example, “Q: How many times a week do you eat meat? A: Four times pork, two times fish. Q: What about fruit? A: Three times. An apple or an orange, a pear or a banana, depending on the season.” These kinds of questions about life details occupied a considerable proportion of the questionnaire. On the one hand, this shows that Foucault was indeed carrying out his positioning of the “information group”: transmitting voices. On the other hand, from the very beginning of the investigation, Foucault presupposed the rights of prisoners as “human beings.” This presupposition of a stance that transcends good and evil, or completely disregards the facts of the crime, contains a very radical implication of resistance.

第三，围绕“信息传播”,福柯在监狱调查小组时期主要的活动是对囚犯家属做调查问卷或访谈。如果仅仅聚焦“调查监狱”行为本身，福柯的调查显然有些“不合格”。因为福柯基本没有走进监狱的内部进行实地观察，换言之，他缺乏对监狱切身性的经验感知。当然，这也不能够完全“怪罪”于福柯，因为根据20世纪70年代的法国监狱制度，除了囚犯、监狱看守和律师，一般公民是无权进入监狱探视的，更不用说在监狱内部展开调查。福柯唯一一次进入监狱内部，是1972年4月21日参观美国的阿提卡监狱。这次监狱之行给福柯留下了深刻的印象，福柯坦言，对于法国人而言，阿提卡所见简直是“一次可怕的经历”(une expéricence terrifiante)。他称在此次参观之前他确实在法国听过不少囚犯讲述监狱内部的事情，但是阿提卡监狱所见依旧是与之前的听闻有着很大的不同，这让他亲自见证了作为“机器”的监狱，并且是从“机器的内部”(l’intérieur d’une machine)进行感知的。尽管缺乏实地的监狱考察，这一时期福柯的调查行为依旧颇为活跃，他积极走出书斋，通过与囚犯家属、被释囚犯的采访和交谈，以及通过向狱中囚犯发放调查问卷，他还是间接地获取了不少关于监狱的信息。在1972年的一次访谈中，福柯曾比较详细地讲述了他在桑特监狱门口对囚犯家属调查的经历。因为每周六囚犯的家属都会在监狱门口排队等候探视，福柯和调查小组的其他成员便会一起向他们发放问卷。福柯说：“第一周，我们很不受待见。第二周，人们仍然心存戒备。到了第三周，有人对我们说：‘这只是说说而已。早就应该这样做了。’然后，这位女士突然告诉了我们一切。她怒火中烧，大谈探视、她给犯人的钱、那些没被关进监狱的有钱人、那些肮脏的东西。每个人都能窥见便衣警察竖着长长的耳朵……第四个星期六更是不同寻常。在排队的人群中，甚至在我们到达之前，人们就在讨论我们的调查问卷、监狱丑闻……那天，我们没有像往常一样让他们在街上等到下午一点半，而是提前三刻钟打开了桑特监狱的大门……”这反映了伴随着时间的推进，“监狱信息小组”的调查在囚犯及其周边人群中取得了相关信任。从相关文献中记载的调查问卷内容看，福柯设计的内容可以说是非常的“日常生活化”,问题主要包括“访问”“信件”“权利”“电话”“散步”“食物”“餐厅”“闲暇时间”“工作”“医疗处理”“纪律”等多个方面。随机浏览问卷中的一些问答，很难看出这是对囚犯监狱生活的采访，如“问：你一周能吃几次肉?答：四次猪肉，两次鱼肉。问：水果呢?答：三次。一个苹果或者橘子、梨子或者香蕉，这得看季节”,这些生活细节问题在问卷中占有不少比例，这一方面说明福柯确实在执行他对于“信息小组”的定位：传递声音；另一方面，福柯在调查之初就预设了囚犯本身所具有的“人”的权利，这种超越善恶或者说完全不顾犯罪事实的立场预设，其蕴含的抵抗意味其实是非常激进的。

Finally, after the investigation was completed, aside from “giving voice,” Foucault ultimately returned to his study. Based on his own experience, he took “the prison” as his object and launched a deep analysis of the operation of power in modern society. Foucault would generally compile the periodic results of his investigations into booklets and publish them. From June 1971 to January 1973, Foucault participated in the publication of four booklets on the results of prison investigations, collectively titled the “Intolerable” series. Among them, the most influential was the first booklet, published in June 1971, entitled *Enquête dans 20 prisons* (Investigation in Twenty Prisons). The content of the booklet still adhered to the principle of “giving voice,” including the complete text of two survey questionnaires, some statements by prisoners about prison life, and some responses to the questionnaires. The booklet had a preface, which, though unsigned, can be basically attributed to Foucault. Its opening displayed formidable firepower, launching a fierce critique of virtually all state institutions: “Courts, prisons, hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, occupational medicine, universities, the press, and information centers: through all these institutions and under different masks, an oppression is being carried out whose root is political oppression.” This radical critique of micro-power already presents the theoretical prelude to *Discipline and Punish*. In fact, reading Foucault’s conversations about prisons from this period, one can clearly see that Foucault was no longer merely using concepts to critique prisons abstractly; he would use concrete cases to support his views. From these vivid statements, it is evident that he was mobilizing his own investigative experience to think about prison issues. For example, in a 1971 interview, when Foucault discussed the lack of rights for prisoners, he immediately gave an example: “A prisoner enrolled in a correspondence course from the Faculty of Letters. In a letter to the prison director, he wrote: ‘For some time now, when I receive my corrected assignments, I see that the inspector’s stamp is placed right in the middle of the teacher’s annotations, which makes me very unhappy… Clearly, stamping it ruins my studies, I cannot see the documentary material represented by these annotations, and I cannot keep these traces in the documents I wish to retain.’” More important, perhaps, is the writing of *Discipline and Punish*. This treatise, published in 1975, can be fully regarded as a theoretical summation of Foucault’s prison investigations. At the end of the first chapter of this book, Foucault states that he is not concerned with history but with the present, and that the goal of this book is “to write a history of the present,” and that his reflections on punishment “derive less from history than from reality.” At least from the Foucault chronology edited by Daniel Defert, it appears that as early as September 1972, Foucault had already begun to conceive a book on punishment, which was the initial idea for *Discipline and Punish*. By February 1973, the first draft of *Discipline and Punish* was completed. In other words, the period when *Discipline and Punish* was written was essentially the most active phase of the “Prison Information Group.” At the same time, Foucault’s courses at the Collège de France during this period also laid the foundation for the writing of *Discipline and Punish*; the most relevant courses were *Penal Theories and Institutions* (1971–1972) and *The Punitive Society* (1972–1973). All of the above shows that Foucault concretely incorporated the knowledge gained from investigation and the embodied perceptions during the investigative process into his theoretical analysis of the prison. “Incorporation” can be seen as a rather sophisticated wisdom, perhaps also revealing Foucault’s cunning, because in *Discipline and Punish*, he mostly mobilizes archives and historical sources, while remaining silent on the French prison issues of his own time. Is this a case of “using the past to criticize the present”? But it is undeniable that after the investigation, Foucault ultimately returned to the life of a scholar.

最后，在调查结束之后，除了“传播声音”以外，福柯最终还是回到了书斋，在基于自身经验的基础上，他以“监狱”为对象，展开了对现代社会权力运作的深度剖析。阶段性的调查成果，福柯基本会整理成册，并予以出版。1971年6月—1973年1月，福柯参与了4本关于监狱调查结果的小册子发布，它们总体冠以“不可容忍”系列。其中影响较大的，是1971年6月出版的第一本小册子，名为《二十所监狱调查》(Enquête dans20prisons)。小册子内容依旧本着“发出声音”的原则，完整地收录了两份调查问卷，还有一些囚犯关于监狱生活的陈述，以及一些关于问卷的答复。这本小册子前有一篇序言，虽然没有署名，但是基本可以断定是福柯执笔的，它的开篇就显示出强大的火力，几乎是对所有的国家机构展开激烈的批判：“法院、监狱、医院、精神病院、职业医学、大学、新闻机构和信息中心：通过所有这些机构并在不同的面具下，一种压迫正在实施，这种压迫的根源是政治压迫。”这种对微观权力的激进批判，已经呈现出《规训与惩罚》的理论前奏。其实，阅读这一时期福柯关于监狱的谈话，可以明显地发现福柯已经不再仅仅是抽象地用概念批判监狱，福柯会用一些具体的案例来佐证他的观点，从这些形象话语中，已经显示出他是在调动自己的调查经验来思考监狱问题。例如，在1971年的一次采访中，福柯谈及囚犯在狱中权利的缺失，他旋即便脱口而出一个例子：“一名囚犯报名参加了文学院的函授课程。他在给监狱长的信中写道：‘这一段时间以来，当我收到批改过的作业时，我看到检查员的印章盖在老师批注的正中间，感到非常不高兴……很明显，盖上这个章会破坏我的学业，我看不到这些作业批注代表的文献材料，而且我也不能在我希望留存的文件中保留这些痕迹。’”更为重要的可能是《规训与惩罚》的写作。这本1975年出版的论著，完全可以视为福柯监狱调查的理论性总结，在此书的第一章末尾，福柯就交代到，他关心的不是历史，而是现在，这本书的目标是“写一部关于现在的历史”,而其中关于惩罚的思考“与其说得自于历史，不如说得自于现实”。至少从目前德菲尔编辑的福柯年谱上看，其实在1972年9月，福柯就已经开始构思一本关于惩罚的书，这便是《规训与惩罚》的最初构想。1973年2月，《规训与惩罚》的初稿便已完成。换言之，《规训与惩罚》成书时间，基本就是“监狱信息小组”最为活跃的阶段。与此同时，这一时期福柯在法兰西学院的课程，也为《规训与惩罚》的写作奠定了基础，主题最为相关的课程即1971—1972年的《刑事理论与刑事制度》和1972—1973年的《惩罚的社会》。上述种种均可以看出，福柯切身地把调查所获得的知识、调查过程中的具身性感知，化入了对监狱的理论化分析中。“化”可以视为一种颇为高超的智慧，或许也透露出福柯的狡黠，因为在《规训与惩罚》中，他更多是在调动档案和史料，而对他身处时代的法国监狱问题闭口不谈。这是一种“借古讽今”吗?但无可否认，调查之后，福柯最终回归了学者的生活。

III. The Limits of Foucault’s Reception of Mao Zedong’s Thought on Investigation and Study

三、福柯接受毛泽东调查研究思想的限度

Having briefly outlined the historical facts above, it is now necessary to answer the most fundamental question of this article: to what extent was Foucault influenced by Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study? Based on existing research results, two rather biased answers need to be pointed out first. On the one hand, in James Miller’s *The Passion of Michel Foucault*, the radical investigations of Foucault during the “Prison Information Group” period are merely regarded as a Nietzschean “limit-experience.” This “de-Maoized” conclusion is clearly inaccurate. On the other hand, a 2015 paper by Max Peter and Caspar Villadsen, in contrast to Miller’s conclusion, shows a much broader perspective. The article emphasizes that seeing only the “Nietzschean influence” on Foucault during this period would overlook other methodological sources of inspiration for Foucault’s thinking on the relationship between knowledge and the exercise of power. Therefore, this paper specifically emphasizes the influence of “Maoism” on Foucault’s themes such as genealogy and the critique of power after the 1970s. However, the paper by Max Peter and Caspar Villadsen still has two problems. First, setting aside Nietzsche and only discussing the influence of French “Maoists” on Foucault tends to simplify the issue through this single-factor influence study, and even, to a certain extent, risks exaggerating the influence of “Maoism” on Foucault. Second, the influence of “Maoism” on Foucault is fundamentally not the same thing as Mao Zedong’s influence on Foucault. Although French “Maoists” did play an important mediating role in Foucault’s reception of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study, this was already Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study that had been “re-edited” after being “imagined” by France. Therefore, this paper still does not address the crux of the issue. To a certain extent, I believe the following judgment by French scholar Christophe Bourseiller is relatively pertinent: “Can we say that Michel Foucault was a Maoist radical in 1971? Certainly not. Like many intellectuals, he was enthusiastic about the ‘May ’68 events’; he was more connected to the liberal spirit of the left than to a Marxist-Leninist dogmatist.” [20]20 Christophe Bourseiller, *Les Maoïstes: La folle histoire des gardes rouges français* (Paris: Plon, 1996), p. 249. “May ’68” refers to the nationwide student and worker protests and general strike in France in May 1968. British scholar David Macey, speaking more specifically about the relationship between “Foucault and Mao,” said that Foucault “took action to support the Maoists, but did not share the Maoists’ belief in the ‘Cultural Revolution’ or their vision of an impending civil war… He saw himself as merely working with the Maoists… One constant element in his behavior was a willingness to commit himself fully, both politically and physically, while feeling a deep disgust for what he considered intolerable.” [21]21 David Macey, *The Lives of Michel Foucault* (London: Hutchinson, 1993), p. 289. Macey’s brief judgment fully reveals the similarities and differences between Foucault and the Maoists, and is very much in line with Foucault’s temperament as an independent thinker.

经过以上史实简述，现在有必要回答本文最为根本的一个问题：福柯在多大程度上受到毛泽东调查研究思想的影响?根据已有的研究成果，有两个较为偏颇的答案首先需要予以指出。一方面，以詹姆斯·米勒为代表的《福柯的生死爱欲》一书中，仅仅将“监狱信息小组”时期福柯的激进调查，视为尼采式的“极限体验”,这一“去毛泽东化”的结论，显然不够准确。另一方面，麦斯·彼得和卡斯帕·维拉森于2015年发表的论文，在与米勒的结论对比之下，视野显得开阔了很多，文章强调仅看到这一时期福柯的“尼采影响”,会忽视福柯思考知识和权力行使之间关系的其他方法论灵感来源，所以这篇论文专门强调了“毛主义”在20世纪70年代以后对福柯谱系学、权力批判等主题上的影响。然而，麦斯·彼得和卡斯帕·维拉森的论文依旧有两个问题。第一，撇开尼采而只述法国“毛主义者”对福柯的影响，这种单一性的影响研究有将问题简单化的倾向，甚至在一定程度上，有夸大“毛主义”影响福柯的嫌疑。第二，“毛主义”对福柯的影响，从根本上说，和毛泽东对福柯的影响，不是一回事。尽管在福柯接受毛泽东调查研究思想的过程中，法国“毛主义者”确实发挥了重要的中介作用，但那已经是经过法国“想象”之后进行“再编辑”的毛泽东调查研究思想，所以这篇论文依旧没有讨论到问题的关键。在一定程度上，我认为法国学者克里斯托弗·伯勒的下面这个论断比较中肯：“我们能说米歇尔·福柯是1971年的毛派激进分子吗?当然不能。和许多学者一样，他也对‘五月风暴’狂热，与其说他是马克思列宁主义的教条主义者，不如说他与左派的自由主义精神有更多的联系。”英国学者大卫·梅西就“福柯与毛泽东”的关系，说得更为具体，福柯“采取行动支持毛派分子，但并没有抱持跟毛派相同的‘文化革命’信念以及内战即将来临的想象……他认为自己只是与毛派分子一起工作……他的行为有一项固定不变的元素，就是愿意在政治上与身体上全力投入，同时对自己认为不可容忍的事物深感厌恶”。梅西简短的论断中，充分彰显了福柯与毛主义者之间的同与异，非常符合福柯作为思想者独立思考的气质。

Therefore, Foucault’s reception of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study can be summarized as a “resonant reception.” “Resonant reception” is based on certain historical facts and affirms the correlation between ideas, yet it does not rely entirely on direct textual evidence; rather, it manifests as “a heterogeneous mixture of indirect influence and reception.” This mode of reception perhaps reflects the fact that not all influences can be smoothly presented or clearly captured in language. “Resonant reception” emphasizes the openness and creativity of intellectual interaction. It indicates that theoretical reception need not always be marked by direct textual citation or explicit academic acknowledgment; instead, intellectual encounters can be achieved through emotional resonance and selective affinity. This is relatively consistent with the behavioral characteristics of Foucault’s reception of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study, because Foucault did not base his reception on a systematic study of Mao Zedong Thought, but rather, through the mediation of French “Maoists,” developed a strong identification with Mao’s view of investigation in revolution. Mao’s emphasis on “no investigation, no right to speak” and the concept of investigation as an important tool of revolutionary practice stimulated Foucault’s intense interest in intervening in reality. However, the crux of the matter may lie only in “resonance”; Foucault always understood “investigation” within his own intellectual horizon, so his investigation differed greatly from Mao’s (the specific differences have been analyzed above). From the recollections of Defert above, we know that Foucault was aware of the classic slogan “no investigation, no right to speak,” and to a certain extent, he was also committed to constructing the “right to speak” for intellectuals after investigation. After the “Prison Information Group,” we rarely see Foucault directly citing Mao in his writings. In one interview, Foucault remarked: “I think there are three types of philosophers: philosophers I do not know; philosophers I know and talk about; and philosophers I know but do not talk about.” For Foucault, Mao might have been of the type “known but not talked about.” Was this Foucault’s timidity or some scruple? On the contrary, I believe that in this Foucauldian silence, a free spiritual exchange is revealed, just as he himself said: “Silence is a specific means of experiencing relationships with others. I think this attitude toward silence is truly worth promoting. I advocate developing silence into a cultural ethos.” “I understand him,” “I understand him in my own way,” or “his thought directly inspired my thinking”—this may be the most fascinating moment in the travel of theory.

因此，福柯之于毛泽东调查研究思想的接受，可以概括为“共鸣式接受”。“共鸣式接受”基于一定历史事实，肯定思想之间关联性的同时，但又不完全依赖于直接的文本证据，而是表现为“间接影响和接受的同质杂糅”。这种接受方式或许正体现出并非所有影响都能被语言平滑地呈现或清晰地捕捉。“共鸣式接受”强调思想互动的开放性与创造性。它表明，理论接受并非一定要以直接的文本引用或明确的学术承认为标志，而是可以通过情感共振和选择性契合实现思想相遇。这是比较符合福柯接受毛泽东调查研究思想的行为特征的，因为福柯并非基于对毛泽东思想的系统性研读，而是通过法国“毛主义者”的中介，对毛泽东革命的调查观产生了强烈的认同。毛泽东所强调的“没有调查，没有发言权”以及调查作为革命实践重要工具的观念，激发了福柯对现实介入的强烈兴趣，然而，问题的关键可能仅在于“共鸣”,福柯始终在自己的知识视域中理解“调查”,所以他的调查与毛泽东的调查有着极大的差别(具体的差别上文已有分析)。上文通过德菲尔的回忆可知，福柯是知道“没有调查，没有发言权”的这一经典口号的，他在一定程度上，也是致力于在调查之后知识分子“发言权”的建构。在“监狱信息小组”之后，我们很少看到福柯在文献中直接对毛泽东的引用。在一次访谈中，福柯曾论道：“我认为有三类哲学家：我不知道的哲学家；我知道并谈论的哲学家；我知道但是并不谈论的哲学家。”毛泽东之于福柯，或许就是“知道但是并不谈论”的类型。这是福柯的胆怯或者有所顾忌吗?恰恰相反，我以为在这种福柯式的沉默中，显露出一种自由的精神交往，正如他自己所言：“沉默是体验同他人的关系的特定手段。我以为这种对待沉默的态度真是值得发扬光大。我提倡把沉默发展为一种文化气质。”“我理解他”“我以我的方式理解他”或者“他的思想直接启发了我的思考”,这可能是理论旅行中最具魅力的时刻。

The difference between Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study and Foucault’s view of investigation is, fundamentally, the difference between “investigation in the eyes of a revolutionary” and “investigation in the eyes of a scholar.” The former is a method and, moreover, a practice; the latter is merely a method. Although Foucault endowed investigation with an ideological function, viewing it as a necessary link in resisting the power of modern society, Mao’s investigation was not limited to this. In Mao’s investigation, “investigation” was a “composite” of going to the masses, understanding problems, initiating mobilization, and solving problems. Meng Qingyan summarizes it well: “As a revolutionary, Mao Zedong did not merely treat ‘investigation and study’ as a tool for understanding China; he was not satisfied with positioning his rural investigations at the purely practical methodological level, but instead attempted to refine, induce, and summarize these ‘looking downward’ rural investigations, ‘extracting’ from them a holistic understanding of rural China and even the Chinese revolution.” This is also the greatest difference between

毛泽东调查研究思想与福柯调查观的差异，从根本上说，是“革命者眼中的调查”与“学者眼中的调查”之间的差异，前者是方法、更是实践；后者仅仅是一种方法。尽管福柯赋予了调查意识形态的功能，将其视为反抗现代社会权力的必要环节，但是毛泽东的调查并不仅仅局限于此。在毛泽东的调查中，“调查”是走向群众、了解问题、发起动员、解决问题的“综合体”。孟庆延概括得好：“作为革命者的毛泽东，并没有仅仅将‘调查研究’作为一项了解中国的工具，他并不满足于将自己的农村调查定位在纯粹实用的方法层面，而是尝试对这些‘眼光向下’的农村调查进行提炼、归纳与总结，从中‘提取’出对中国农村乃至中国革命的总体性理解。”这也是毛泽东调查研究思想不同于一般社会学调查最大的差异。此后，这种调查研究思想不断被方法论化，它不仅成为中国共产党人一个重要的工作方法，也是一种根本的思维方式。它通过强调深入实际、依靠群众、从具体问题出发，确保共产党员在革命和建设过程中始终与中国的现实情况紧密结合。这些都是福柯不知道，也不关心的问题。从这一点上说，福柯对毛泽东调查研究思想的理解，完全是去历史化的。

However, what is intriguing is that between "Mao Zedong and Foucault," the perspective of "investigation–knowledge production" achieves a certain fusion of horizons. One of the important objectives of Mao Zedong's thought on investigation and research was to oppose book worship [22]22 Book worship (本本主义): A term used by Mao Zedong to criticize a dogmatic approach that relies solely on books and texts rather than on practical investigation and concrete analysis of actual conditions., emphasizing that revolutionaries must understand China's social reality through firsthand, empirical practice. As Mao Zedong himself stated: "Generally speaking, China's immature bourgeoisie has not had time to, and never will be able to, prepare for us relatively complete or even the most basic materials concerning social conditions... Therefore, we ourselves must undertake the work of collecting materials." Mao Zedong's view of "investigation–knowledge production" can in fact be regarded as an effort by Chinese intellectuals since the late Qing dynasty, following the crisis encountered by the Confucian system of moral knowledge amid the "eastward transmission of Western learning" [23]23 Eastward transmission of Western learning (西学东渐): The historical process from the late Ming dynasty onward, and especially after the Opium Wars, in which Western science, technology, political thought, and culture were introduced into China, challenging traditional Chinese worldviews.. Thus, in China, from modern times onward, "social investigation as a mode of knowledge production is best understood not as a narrow academic endeavor or research activity, but as a cultural and political practice." In this respect, Foucault is quite similar. During his investigation of prisons, Foucault maintained acute thinking and, on the basis of his own experience, began to examine the penal mechanisms of the prison system, directly targeting the bourgeois humanitarian doctrines formed since the Enlightenment and revealing the capillary-like mechanisms of power control in modern society. This unconscious resonance may not have been perceived by Foucault himself. However, the crux of the issue lies in the limits of this "resonance." The Marxist character of Mao Zedong's "investigation–knowledge production" and its historical dimension rooted in China are precisely what Foucault's investigative practice lacks. Behind Mao Zedong's "investigation–knowledge production" lies a concrete manifestation of the traditional Chinese philosophy of "knowing and doing" [24]24 Knowing and doing (知行): A key concept in traditional Chinese philosophy, particularly associated with the Neo-Confucian thinker Wang Yangming, who argued for the unity of knowledge and action. Mao Zedong reinterpreted this concept through the lens of Marxist epistemology. after its transformation by Marxism. In *On Practice*, Mao Zedong clearly states: "Knowledge begins with practice, and after acquiring theoretical knowledge through practice, it must return to practice." This view provides a philosophical foundation for investigation as the core method of knowledge production. In *On Contradiction*, Mao Zedong further emphasizes the analysis of the particularity and universality of contradictions, and this methodology provides specific guiding principles for investigation: investigation is not merely a simple description of phenomena, but a revelation and analysis of the essence of contradictions. Mao Zedong's thought on investigation and research, precisely by penetrating deeply into social reality and revealing the principal contradiction in Chinese society, provides a theoretical basis for revolutionary practice. Mao Zedong's "investigation–knowledge production" not only embodies a high regard for the reality of the "present" but also particularly emphasizes the firsthand participation of the "self," in which there is a dialectical unity of "understanding," "learning," and "creating." Investigation is not only a means of acquiring empirical materials but also a process through which the subject participates in and transforms reality through practice. This mode of knowledge production is neither a deduction of formal logic nor a transcendental abstraction, but a concrete practice of Marxist active creation. Through investigation, Mao Zedong integrated the universal principles of Marxism with China's concrete realities, initially constructing a basic paradigm of a knowledge system suited to the path of Chinese-path modernization. This kind of knowledge production is not only of academic significance but is also a profound political practice.

然而，耐人寻味的是，在“毛泽东—福柯”之间，“调查—知识生产”的观点实现了某种视域融合。毛泽东的调查研究思想，其重要目的之一在于反对本本主义，强调革命者必须通过切身的、经验性的实践来了解中国的社会现实。正如毛泽东所言：“一般地说，中国幼稚的资产阶级还没有来得及也永远不可能替我们预备关于社会情况的较完备的甚至起码的材料……所以我们自己非做搜集材料的工作不可。”毛泽东“调查—知识生产”的观点，其实可以视为晚清以来，儒家知识道德体系在“西学东渐”中遭遇危机后中国知识分子的一种努力，所以在中国，从近代以来，“作为一种知识生产模式的社会调查最好不要被理解为一种狭义的学术努力或研究活动，而是一种文化和政治实践”。这一点，福柯也颇为相似。在监狱调查的过程中，福柯依旧保持敏锐的思考，在自身经验的基础上，开始对监狱的刑罚机制展开考察，矛头直指启蒙运动以来形成的资产阶级人道主义学说，揭示出现代社会如毛细血管一般的权力控制机制。此一无意识的共鸣，或许福柯本人也未曾察觉。但是，问题的关键，在于“共鸣”的限度。毛泽东“调查—知识生产”的马克思主义品格及其扎根中国的历史向度，是福柯的调查实践中所缺乏的。毛泽东“调查—知识生产”背后，是对中国传统“知行”哲学经马克思主义改造后的具体呈现。在《实践论》中，毛泽东明确指出：“认识从实践开始，经过实践得到了理论的认识，还须再回到实践去。”这一观点为调查作为知识生产的核心方法提供了哲学基础。在《矛盾论》中，毛泽东进一步强调了分析矛盾的特殊性与普遍性，这一方法论为调查提供了具体的指导原则：调查不仅是对现象的简单描述，更是对矛盾本质的揭示与分析。毛泽东的调查研究思想正是通过深入社会现实，揭示中国社会的主要矛盾，从而为革命实践提供理论依据。毛泽东的“调查—知识生产”不仅体现了对“当下”现实的高度重视，还特别强调“我”的切身性参与，其中是“了解”“学习”和“创造”的辩证统一。调查不仅是获取经验材料的手段，更是主体通过实践参与现实、改造现实的过程。这种知识生产方式既非形式逻辑的推演，也非先验性的抽象，而是马克思主义能动性创造的具体实践。通过调查，毛泽东将马克思主义的普遍原理与中国具体实际相结合，初步建构了一套适合中国式现代化道路的知识体系的基本范式。这种知识生产不仅具有学术意义，更是一种深刻的政治实践。

Foucault’s reception of Mao Zedong’s thought on investigation and study also reflects a major misunderstanding of Mao Zedong Thought by the “generation of 1968” [25]25 The “generation of 1968” refers to the cohort of Western intellectuals and activists shaped by the global protest movements of 1968, particularly the May 1968 events in France.: they regarded it merely as a critical theory, or as a theoretical weapon to support “rebellion is justified” [26]26 “Rebellion is justified” (造反有理) is a slogan from the Cultural Revolution, derived from Mao Zedong’s statement that “rebellion is justified” against reactionary authorities.. In the storm of “May ’68” [27]27 “May ’68” refers to the massive student and worker protests and general strike in France in May 1968, which nearly toppled the government., driven by their critique of the repressive capitalist society, some radical French students and left-wing intellectuals chose Mao Zedong Thought and imagined a “Maoism.” But when capitalist society carried out self-reform and completed self-repair under specific conditions, this generation largely walked away from “Maoism.” Foucault ultimately turned to ethics and biopolitics, directing his gaze toward ancient Greece; the leader of the Tel Quel group [28]28 Tel Quel was a French avant-garde literary journal (1960–1982) whose contributors included Philippe Sollers, Julia Kristeva, and others; it was initially aligned with Maoism., Philippe Sollers, also moved from “revolutionary China” to “ancient China,” more specifically, “Daoist China.” Perhaps the one who has consistently adhered to Mao Zedong Thought is Badiou; since 1968, Mao Zedong Thought has been an important resource for his philosophical reflections. It should be said that “critique” is only one aspect of Mao Zedong Thought; the more important aspect is the complete set of constructive grand plans represented by *On New Democracy* [29]29 *On New Democracy* (1940) is a key text by Mao Zedong outlining the theory of a “new democratic revolution” as a transitional stage to socialism in semi-colonial, semi-feudal China.. Hu Sheng once pointed out: “As soon as Mao Zedong’s theory of new democracy was put forward, it opened people’s horizons, making everything suddenly clear and definite. His theory of new democracy indeed made a scientific, realistic, and easily understandable judgment on the immediate tasks of the Chinese revolution and its future prospects.” [30]30 Hu Sheng (1918–2000) was a prominent Chinese Marxist historian and theorist, president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Constructively planning the future may be more important than deconstructively critiquing the past and the present. From the perspective of mutual learning between China and the world, Western leftists or Western “peers” seem to have paid insufficient attention to *On New Democracy*. This is a problem that must be taken seriously in the future when telling China’s story to the world.

透过福柯对毛泽东调查研究思想的接受，也折射出“1968年一代”理解毛泽东思想的一个重大误区：仅将其视为一种批判的理论，或者成为支撑“造反有理”的理论武器。在“五月风暴”的狂风骤雨中，出于对资本主义压抑社会的批判，法国一些激进学生和左翼知识分子选择了毛泽东思想，想象出“毛主义”,但当资本主义社会进行自我改良，完成特定条件下的自我修复后，这一代人基本走出了“毛主义”。福柯最终转向了伦理与生命政治，探索的眼光投向了古希腊；原样派的领袖索莱尔斯，也走出“革命中国”,转向了“古代中国”,说得更具体一些，就是“道家中国”。或许对毛泽东思想一以贯之的是巴迪欧，自1968年以来，毛泽东思想一直是他进行哲学思考的重要资源。应当说，“批判”只是毛泽东思想的一个方面，毛泽东思想更为重要的一个方面，是以《新民主主义论》为代表的一整套建设性宏伟方案。胡绳曾指出：“毛泽东的新民主主义论一提出来，就使人们眼界豁然开朗，一下子清楚了，明确了。他的新民主主义理论，确是为中国革命的当前任务和它的前途作出了科学的、符合实际的、易于了解的论断。”建设性地规划未来，可能比解构性地批判过去和当下更为重要。从中外互鉴的角度上看，西方左翼或西方“同行”对《新民主主义论》似乎关注不够，这是今后面向全球讲好中国故事需要严肃对待的一个问题。

(Author’s bio: Wang Yichen, Lecturer at the College of Liberal Arts, Shanghai University, and Shanghai “Chenguang Scholar” [31]31 The “Chenguang Scholar” (晨光学者) is a talent program for young scholars in Shanghai, providing research funding and recognition.)

（作者简介：汪一辰，上海大学文学院讲师、上海市“晨光学者”）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心