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。我打算用法农新近发表的精神病学著作来说明他也是一位心理政治学的理论家。法农的心理政治学与福柯更为著名的心理政治学惊人地相似。然而，尽管他们的知识背景重叠，福柯从来没有提到法农的工作，几乎是沉默的殖民主义。我的目标是迫使福柯走出这些明显的沉默，使他的心理政治学进入一个历史的知情，与法农的批判性对话。我们正在经历一场“心理健康危机”。主要的反应之一是“消除”精神疾病，将精神疾病视为身体疾病的精神类似物。在反对歧视的同时，这一反应未能挑战精神病学将精神疾病视为患者体内神经病理学的生物医学模型。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，并假定精神卫生保健是仁慈的。心理健康的政治学迫切需要哲学分析，批判和解放的护理和康复愿景的阐述。然而，政治理论对心理健康问题却保持着惊人的沉默。这反映了该学科历史上对残疾的忽视，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疯狂的病理化可以提出应对当前“危机”的替代方法。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。法农的精神病学工作被认为是偶然的，如果不是有害的，他的政治-部分原因是，直到最近，它仍然分散和未翻译。他最近出版的精神病学著作集《异化与自由》（2018）意味着这不再是一个有效的借口。法农和福柯都从理论上阐述了发狂的主体的产生与精神力量和知识体系之间的关系。我的研究问题是：法农和福柯的心理政治学之间的共鸣和不和谐是什么？关于这个问题的著作还很少。我发现的唯一持续和一般性的比较是泰勒的“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在法国殖民主义和种族主义的不同经历如何影响他们的结论。雷诺的，Lorenzini和Tazzioli的，和Faramelli的更本地化的比较显示出更大的敏感性，如何法农构成了一个非殖民地的挑战福柯的Eurocentrism.My论文将是一个历史上知情的比较政治理论的工作。它的结构如下：1.我将比较法农的社会诊断和福柯的历史方法去病态的疯狂，和他们的变性批评现代精神病学的pupsiministic人道主义改革。2.我将比较他们对精神病学和刑事司法系统之间的相似性和勾结的描述，特别是他们对司法-精神病学供词的分析。3.我将比较他们的空间心理政治，认为法农提供了一个更深远的限制批评。4.我将衡量他们对心理社会“康复”的看法。5.我将与他们关于生、死和死亡愿望的心理政治相对应。

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.