The Psycho-Politics of Frantz Fanon and Michel Foucault: A Critical Dialogue

法农主要被解读为暴力、殖民主义和种族的理论家。我打算用法农新近出版的精神病学著作来说明他也是一位心理政治学理论家。法农的心理政治与更为人所知的福柯的心理政治惊人地相似。然而，尽管他们的知识背景重叠，福柯从未提及法农的作品，并且对殖民主义几乎保持沉默。我的目标是迫使福柯走出这些引人注目的沉默，将他的心理政治带入一场有历史依据的、与法农的批判性对话。我们正在经历一场“心理健康危机”。其中一个主要的回应是“去污名化”精神疾病，将精神疾病定义为生理疾病的精神类似物。在反对歧视的同时，这种反应未能挑战精神病学的生物医学模型，即精神疾病是一种位于患者体内的神经病理学。这种模式将精神疾病个体化和非政治化，模糊了其在压迫性社会结构中的嵌入性，并假定精神保健是仁慈的。心理健康的政治迫切需要哲学分析、批判，以及对护理和康复的解放愿景的表达。然而，政治理论在心理健康问题上一直保持着惊人的沉默。这反映了该学科对残疾的历史忽视，直到最近才开始得到纠正。研究过去对精神病学的哲学批评和对疯狂的病态化，可以为应对当前的“危机”提出不同的方法。福柯也许是政治思想史上最著名的心理政治理论家，而法农在历史上一直被忽视。法农的精神病学研究被认为对他的政治是偶然的，如果不是有害的，部分原因是，直到最近，它仍然是分散的，没有翻译。他最新出版的精神病学文集《异化与自由》（异化与自由，2018）意味着这不再是一个站得住脚的借口。法农和福柯都将疯狂主体的生产与精神力量和知识系统之间的关系理论化。我的研究问题是：弗朗茨·法农和米歇尔·福柯的心理政治学之间有什么共鸣和不和谐？关于这个问题的文章还很少。我发现的唯一持续和普遍的比较是泰勒的《法农、福柯和精神病学的政治》（2010）；遗憾的是，它忽略了法农和福柯对法国殖民主义和种族主义的不同经历如何影响了他们的结论。雷诺、洛伦齐尼和塔齐奥利的比较，以及法拉梅利更局部化的比较，显示出对法农如何对福柯的欧洲中心主义提出非殖民化挑战的更大敏感性。我的论文将是比较政治理论的历史研究。它的结构如下：我将比较法农的社会诊断和福柯的历史方法，将疯狂去病理化，以及他们对现代精神病学假定的人道主义改革的非自然化批评。2. 我将比较他们对精神病学和刑事司法系统之间的相似之处和勾结的描述，特别参考他们对司法-精神病学忏悔的分析。3. 我将比较他们对空间的心理政治，认为法农对禁闭提出了更深远的批评。4. 我将权衡他们对心理-社会“恢复”的看法。5. 我将对比他们关于生、死和死亡愿望的心理政治。

Fanon has primarily been read as a theorist of violence, colonialism, and race. I intend to use Fanon's newly-available psychiatric writings to show he is also a theorist of psycho-politics. Fanon's psycho-politics is strikingly similar to the much better-known psycho-politics of Foucault. However, in spite of their overlapping intellectual contexts, Foucault never mentions Fanon's work, and was virtually silent on colonialism. I aim to force Foucault out of these conspicuous silences, bringing his psycho-politics into a historically-informed, critical dialogue with Fanon's. We are living through a "mental health crisis". One of the primary responses has been to "destigmatise" mental illness, framing psychiatric disorders as the psychic analogues of physical illnesses. Whilst countering discrimination, this response fails to challenge psychiatry's biomedical model of mental illness as a neurological pathology located within the sufferer. This model individualises and depoliticises mental illness, obscuring its embeddedness within oppressive social structures, as well as presuming the benevolence of mental healthcare. The politics of mental health urgently demands philosophical analysis, critique, and the articulation of emancipatory visions of care and recovery. Political theory, however, has remained remarkably quiet about mental health. This reflects the discipline's historical neglect of disability, which has only recently begun to be remedied. Researching past philosophical critiques of psychiatry and the pathologisation of madness can suggest alternative ways of responding to the current "crisis". Foucault is perhaps the best-known psycho-political theorist in the history of political thought, whereas Fanon has historically been overlooked. Fanon's psychiatric work has been dismissed as incidental, if not detrimental, to his politics - partly because, until recently, it has remained scattered and untranslated. The newly-available collection of his psychiatric writings, Alienation and Freedom (2018), means this is no longer a valid excuse. Both Fanon and Foucault theorised the relationship between the production of maddened subjects and systems of psychiatric power and knowledge. My research question is: What are the resonances and dissonances between the psycho-politics of Frantz Fanon and Michel Foucault? Very little has yet been written on this subject. The only sustained and general comparison I have found is Taylor's 'Fanon, Foucault and the Politics of Psychiatry' (2010); it regrettably neglects how Fanon and Foucault's differently-situated experiences of French colonialism and racism affected their conclusions. Renault's, Lorenzini and Tazzioli's, and Faramelli's more localised comparisons show greater sensitivity to how Fanon poses a decolonial challenge to Foucault's Eurocentrism.My thesis will be a historically-informed work of comparative political theory. It will be structured as follows: 1. I will compare Fanon's sociodiagnostic and Foucault's historical approaches to depathologising madness, and their denaturalising critiques of modern psychiatry's putatively humanitarian reforms. 2. I will compare their accounts of the parallels and collusions between psychiatry and the criminal justice system, with particular reference to their analyses of juridico-psychiatric confession. 3. I will compare their psycho-politics of space, arguing that Fanon offers a further-reaching critique of confinement. 4. I will weigh up their visions of psycho-social "recovery". 5. I will counterpoint their psycho-politics of life, death, and the death wish.