論柯慈《麥可‧K的生命與時代》中的生存美學

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Department of English National Taiwan Normal University Master Thesis. 論柯慈《麥可‧K 的生命與時代》中的生存美學 The Aesthetics of Existence in J. M. Coetzee’s Life and Times of Michael K. 指導教授：梁孫傑. 教授. Advisor: Dr. Sun-Chieh Liang 研究生：劉佳馨 Advisee: Chiashin Liu. 中華民國一百零六年七月 July 2017.

(2) The Aesthetics of Existence in J. M. Coetzee’s Life and Times of Michael K. by. Chiashin Liu. A thesis submitted to Department of English National Taiwan Normal University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. July 2017.

(3) I 論文摘要本論文旨在探討人如何能夠實踐自由倫理，以擺脫強加其上的枷鎖與束縛。在柯慈 (J.M. Coetzee) 的小說《麥可‧K 的生命與時代》 (Life and Times of Michael K) ，主角麥可‧K 原本是個不起眼的主角，生下來就兔唇，被認定頭腦簡單，不受人重視，甚至連他的親生母親都無法忍受他的殘缺。然而麥可‧K 並不怨天尤人，謹守本分，沒想到換來的竟是遭到這個殘酷世界的無情對待，使他居無定所、身無分文。被暴力對待的麥可‧K，拒絕用一樣暴力的方式來抵抗暴力，因此選擇了用一種非暴力的方式，來將權力的醜惡暴力地呈現出來。他看似消極無為的態度，事實上蘊含了極大的能量與反叛性，透過主角激進的消極方式，以不行動來做為他的行動，除了暴露出法律與政治的荒謬性，也進而呈現出生命的價值與可塑性。本文採用法國哲學家傅柯(Michel Foucault)的三個概念出發：1.生命政治 (biopower) 2.說真話(parrhēsia) 3. 生存美學 (aesthetics of existence)，筆者將這三個概念彼此與其他概念相互連結，希冀藉由柯慈的小說與傅柯思想概念的對話，展開出一個異於後殖民論述的討論，以期能跳脫二元對立的框架，從一個看似受盡壓迫與極端消極的主體，抽離出其內蘊的潛能，進而開展出其獨特的生命價值，朝著傅柯式的生存美學不斷趨近。. 關鍵字：柯慈、傅柯、生命政治、說真話、生存美學.

(4) II The Aesthetics of Existence in J. M. Coetzee’s Life and Times of Michael K. ABSTRACT This thesis probes the question of how an individual is capable of practicing the ethics of freedom in an attempt to ward off the political obligation imposed upon him/herself. In J.M. Coetzee’s novel Life and Times of Michael K, Michael K is by no means a stout and sturdy hero who stands out alone from or for other people. In attempts to restore his own freedom, he is compelled to transgress and transcend the existent laws and conventions. In Life & Times of Michael K, the protagonist escapes, intentionally or unintentionally, from the symbolic order and anthropocentric society he has long been embedded in so as to live an alternative form of life. Michael K’s refusal to conform to the sovereignty as well as his persistent yearning for freedom even under such a turbulent period of history during the civil war, so to speak, epitomizes what Foucault calls for, “the aesthetics of existence”. This thesis aims to exhibit how a seemingly impotent individual like Michael K is in a position to parry the national determination exerted upon his life, reaffirming the potential puissance of one’s life.. Keywords: Coetzee, Foucault, biopower, parrhēsia, aesthetics of existence.

(5) III. Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Professor Sun-chieh Liang of the department of English at National Taiwan Normal University, the committee members, my family and my friends. Without their guidance and support, this M.A. thesis would never have been completed. I am greatly indebted to my thesis advisor, Professor Sun-chieh Liang, for his tremendous patience and tolerance. His enormous erudition together with his careful reading and revision of my draft rendered my oral defense move smoothly. Moreover, I would like to thank him for his constant encouragement whenever I was in despair and about to abandon myself. His encouraging words could always set my mind at ease in the course of my academic pilgrimage. My sincere thanks also go to the committee members, Professor Chao-yung Liao of the department of English at National Taiwan University and Professor Yuh-chuan Shao of the department of English at National Taiwan Normal University. Without their valuable comments, this thesis would not have been fully completed. I also want to express my gratitude to Professor Yenbin Chiou of the department of English at National Cheng-Chi University. He is the one who inspired me to commence my study on Michel Foucault. Also, I would like to thank some of my friends who inspired me in various ways, Steven Chuang in particular. He borrowed dozens of books to me, and patiently discussed with me some key concepts in my thesis. Finally, I must express my profound gratitude to my family, especially my.

(6) IV husband, who supported and encouraged me continuously throughout the years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. Special thanks also go to my dear mother, my two sisters, and my parents in law. They took great care of my three-month-old son so that I was able to concentrate on my thesis writing. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you all for always being there cheering me up and standing by me through the good and bad times. My words end here, but my gratitude lasts forever..

(7) V. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………....….......I Chinese Abstract…………………………………………….....………II Acknowledges…………………………………………….....…….......III I.. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the Thesis……………………..…………………. 1 1.2 Literature Review……………………………………………… 4 1.3 Methodology…………………………….…………………….. 6 1.4 Biopolitics and Empire………………………………………… 7 1.5 Truth-telling (Parrhēsia) ………………………………………13 1.6 From the Care of the Self to the Aesthetics of Existence………15 1.7 Overview of Subsequent Chapters…………………………….. 16. II. Chapter One: From Sovereign Power to Biopower 2.1 Foucault’s Theory of Power…………………………………... 19 2.2 Sovereign Power and Disciplinary Power…………………..… 20 2.3 Biopower………………………………………………...…….. 24. III. Chapter Two: From the Care of the Self to The Aesthetics of Existence.

(8) VI 3.1 A Conversion of Academic Interest and Writing Style…………………………………………………………… 36 3.2 Care of the Self.......................................................................... 37 3.3 Parrhēsia ................................................................................... 39 3.4 The Aesthetics of Existence....................................................... 44. IV. Chapter Three: Conclusion........................................................... 52 Works Cited........................................................................................... 58.

(9) Liu 1. I. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the Thesis Among all the contemporary writers of the twentieth century, John Michael Coetzee (J.M. Coetzee, 1940-) is conspicuously worthy of the reputation to be reckoned as one of the most (if not the most) prominent contributors in literature from South Africa. In spite of the fact that he was born in Cape Town, South Africa, he decided to immigrate to Australia at the age of sixty-two and then became naturalized as an Australian citizen. As a writer, Coetzee has always been prolific and pluralistic, with already thirteen novels so far published along with a motley collected critical essays and translations from Afrikaans and Dutch, 1 all of which have attracted increasing concerns from coeval writers, critics, linguists, dramatists, poets, philosophers, educators, historians, politicians, and even animal right advocates. Prior to the winning of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature, Coetzee had already been awarded several international literary prizes, including The Central News Agency Literary Award thrice between 1977 and 1984, The Man Booker Prize for fiction in 1983 and in 1999 respectively, to list just a few. Accredited and acclaimed internationally for his considerable achievement in literature, Coetzee never hesitates to exhibit his adamant concern for his native land, namely, South Africa under the implementation and impact of apartheid—the former official policy which involves racial segregation and discrimination against all the non-whites in South Africa, despite the fact that he has never been thoroughly reckoned by his compatriots as ―an Afrikaner.‖ For him, the issue of ethnic identity serves as a ruthless test—the one that. 1. Coetzee translated Wilma Stockenstrom‘s book entitled The Expedition to the Baobab Tree from Afrikaans into modern English. In addition, his translations from Dutch into English includes Marcellus Emants‘ A Posthumous Confession, and an anthology of poems called Landscape with Rowers: Poetry from the Netherlands..

(10) Liu 2. he never managed to pass (Doubling the Point 341). Ever since the first publication of his novel Dusklands in 1974, Coetzee has denounced in various novels and literary critiques, explicitly or implicitly, the injustice and iniquity of the white dominance and apartheid in Africa. Prior to the release of Life and Times of Michael K in 1983, three novels of his had been published already: Duskland, In the Heart of the Country, and Waiting for the Barbarians, all of which seem to rotate around racial issues. In Dusklands (1974), Coetzee juxtaposes two trespassers, an American bureaucrat who attempts to invent a scheme for propagandizing the Vietnamese, and a white South African hunter looking for elephant tusks in the ―unexplored" interior of South Africa, both of whom, due to their biased preconceptions, hold fast their provincial judgments upon the natives they seek to take control of. Therein lies Coetzee‘s indictment of the prejudice and violence ingrained in the mentality of the white race. In his next novel In the Heart of the Country (1977), Coetzee depicts a story from a remote farmland in South Africa. The story is narrated by virginal white spinster who is determined to take a revenge on her father for bringing a black mistress home. From her narrative, a perverted portrayal of the South Africa has been delineated. Waiting for the Barbarians (1980), Coetzee‘s third novel, divulges the sheer brutality of a white government who is in total control of the natives. With the publication of each subsequent novel, Coetzee's reputation as an eminent novelist in the international arena continues to flourish. It is worth emphasizing that Coetzee‘s novels never seem to be merely embedded strictly in a particular period of time or under his own political circumstances but also transcend from the history of apartheid or even from the discourse of imperialism now and then, affording his readers access to a vista brimming with diverse and divergent possibilities. With this frame in mind,.

(11) Liu 3. Coetzee claims in Doubling the Point: Essays and Interviews, ―I am someone who has intimations of freedom (as every chained prisoner has) and constructs representations‖ (341). Indeed, Coetzee attempts to construct a rather idiosyncratic ―representation‖ in Life and Times of Michael K. Contrary to his previous books that tend to dichotomize two conflicting races, the portrayal of Michael K seems to move somewhat a bit away from his deep concern for race-related issues. Racial issues seem to be not so much of the focal point in Life and Times of Michael K. Hence, to grasp what Coetzee endeavors to highlight here might require first an apprehension of precisely what he is not doing. Set in a time of acute political turmoil, the novel elates the story of Michael K, a thirty-one-year-old man who is often reckoned as someone ―of feeble mind‖ (131) among ―a multitude in the second class‖ (136). In other words, Michael K is never a hero who stands out alone from his people, at least not from the very threshold of the novel. In attempts to restore his own freedom, both physically and mentally, he is compelled to transgress and transcend the limit of his selfness in virtue of technologies of the self, to use Foucault‘s phraseology. Accordingly, what is being staged here is not the general (re)presentation of a society of or after apartheid but the rather fundamental question upon the issues pertaining to the very existence of each individual. In this regard, what Coetzee attempts to reveal in this novel, among many others as well, is to kindle a light among his readers, enabling and enforcing them on the confrontation of the unseen power and politics that might have been inflicting furtively upon them. Drawing on the concept of ―duty‖, which is considered to be his lifelong concern, Coetzee advocates that ―one has a duty (an ethical duty?—perhaps) not to submit to powers of discourse without question‖ (Doubling the Point: Essays and Interviews 200). It is upon this.

(12) Liu 4. regard that Coetzee begins to question one‘s existence in relation to history: how can it be possible, if any, for an individual to practice his or her own ethics or even aesthetics of existence in face of a formidable authority and adversity without falling easy prey to the dogmatic individualism or antiauthoritarianism? How can one‘s life, seemingly languid as well as vulnerable, be transformed into a potential life so alternative and so singular as to pose any imminent resistance to the determination of the Empire? In response to the queries listed above, I choose to analyze and display Coetzee‘s Life & Times of Michael K through issues such as power, freedom, and the aesthetics of existence, all of which appear to be closely related to Michel Foucault‘s philosophical concerns. In broad terms, what Michael K attempts to perform in front of us alludes to a technology of the self in an ethical as well as an aesthetic dimension. In attempts to embody and embrace one‘s ethical freedom, an individual is inclined to practice an etho-poetic attitude by virtue of transgressing the limit of one‘s selfness, which is, in Foucault‘s sense, an etho-aesthetic or etho-poetic existence. In this novel, Michael K, as the protagonist, escapes from the symbolic order and anthropocentric society he has long been embedded in, so as to live an alternative form of life. Michael K‘s refusal to conform to the sovereignty and his persistent craving for freedom even under such a turbulent period of history during the civil war, so to speak, epitomizes what Foucault calls for, ―the aesthetics of existence‖. In the paragraphs to come, I aim to demonstrate how such a seemingly impotent (in every sense of the word) individual like Michael K is capable of parrying the national hegemony exerted upon his life, forging his life into a work of art.. 1.2 Literature Review.

(13) Liu 5. The title of J.M. Coetzee‘s Life and Times of Michael K, with its odd name as merely a single letter ―K,‖ derives mainly and literally from Coetzee‘s profound reverence to Franz Kafka. In Doubling the Point: Essays and Interviews, Coetzee acknowledges, bluntly and even boastfully, the formative effect Kafka has exerted upon his writing, bantering that as a writer, he would not even be qualified enough ―to loose the latchet of Kafka‘s shoe‖ (199). Further, Coetzee also lays claim to Michael K‘s Kafkaesque name to be under ―no monopoly on the letter K‖ (199). In other words, the letter ―K‖ seems to be the ―outsider‖ that rids itself of the shackles of the monopoly from language as well as the order of existent discourse. The conceptualization for an individual to stand outside the symbolic order of language serves to draw attention once again in Doubling the Point, in which Coetzee, when asked about his attempt to probe the limits of language and how he situates himself among the contemporary white South African writers, reiterates his inextricable connection to Kafka: What engaged me then and engages me still in Kafka is an intensity, a pressure of writing that, as I have said, pushes at the limits of language…Ignore the question: what is interesting is the liberation possibility Kafka opens up. (198-99) The attempt to ―think outside one‘s own language‖ is, indubitably, consistent with the characterization of Michael K, one who is rarely skilled to articulate for and to himself: ―Always when he tried to explain himself to himself, there remained a gap, a hole, a darkness before which his understanding baulked, into which it was useless to pour words. The words were eaten up, the gap remained. His was always a story with a hole in it‖ (Michael K 150-51). The gap between K‘s aspiration and articulation, however, should not be pinned down as a sheer muffler that hinders Michael K from.

(14) Liu 6. expressing himself; rather, it coerces Michael K to unleash an alternative realm to speak, a realm that renders it possible for Michael K to keep himself constantly afloat from the symbolic order of language as well as the totalitarian regime in South Africa. It is upon this ground that David Attwell regards Michael K‘s muteness as ―Coetzee‘s muted affirmation of the freedom to narrate, to texualize‖ (Attwell 10).. 1.3 Methodology In attempts to explore the aesthetics of existence through the reading of J.M. Coetzee‘s Life and Times of Michael K, I will have recourse to the French philosopher Michel Foucault‘s theory as the main focus and foundation for my research due to two main reasons. First, the existent research we have so far concerning Coetzee‘s depiction of Michael K merely allows us to cast lights on his deformation, which has resulted in his muteness and his seemingly determined insistence to stay silent most of the time. However, the observation fails to recognize Michael K‘s internal conflict and his innate orientation toward truth and freedom, let alone to regard Michael K‘s life as a delicate work of art. Second, though the postcolonial studies have contributed immensely to the exposure of the iniquity and injustice of the colonizer, its theoretical assumptions seem to anticipate a future of dualism and resentment. In order not to generate the mutual hostility between the oppressor and the oppressed, I employ Foucault‘s notions about how one could situate himself or herself, properly and even aesthetically, even under the times of oppression. As Foucault aptly and poignantly puts it, ―the main objective of these struggles is to attack not so much such-or-such institution of power, or group, or elite, or class but, rather, a technique, a form of power‖ (―The Subject and Power‖ 331). Thus, in the following, I would like to.

(15) Liu 7. illustrate how Foucauldian perspectives could be applied to enrich the present Coetzeeian studies.. 1.4 Biopolitics and Empire The French philosopher Michel Foucault has been enormously influential in his theory of power. Foucault‘s distinction of power, by and large, comprises three threads, namely, sovereign power, disciplinary power, and biopower—as the focus of this section seeks to discuss. In what follows, I intend to provide a brief account on the development of sovereign power from the seventeenth century onwards. Then, by demonstrating how the authoritative power varies considerably during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, I want to present how biopower distinguishes itself from the previous power structures, and how the concept of biopower has been exerted on the protagonist. In. his. signature. book,. Leviathan. (1991),. Thomas. Hobbes,. the. seventeenth-century English philosopher who might be best known for his political theory, enunciates the approaches to consummate ―the Great Leviathan‖—the ―Mortall God‖ on earth, in attempts to lead his people to eternal peace and Common-wealth: This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner. This done, the Multitude so united in one Person,.

(16) Liu 8. is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN. (Leviathan, 120) The authoritative power Hobbes‘s Leviathan possesses and hinges on appears to be an absolute violence, a violence to terminate any other possible forms of violence, a violence that requires everyone to renounce a certain part of his power in order to yield obedience to another Man in control. ―Force‖ and ―Justice‖ are claimed to be ―the two arms of a Common-wealth,‖ which are utilized to muffle any voices from its dissidents. Seen from this regard, resistance seems to be a logical byproduct. However, there is still another form of power lurking implicitly from antiquity: the ―pastoral‖ power, as Thomas Lemke puts it. Lemke juxtaposes the two forms of power, the ―political‖ and ―pastoral,‖ claiming the latter to be closely related to ―the production of truth‖: The modern (Western) state is the result of a complex combination of ―political‖ and ―pastoral‖ power. While the former derives from the Greek polis and is organized around rights, universality, public space, etc., the latter is a Christian religious concept that focuses on the comprehensive guidance of individuals. It is an individualizing form of power that is intimately linked to the production of truth. (13) Presumably, if one regards the pastoral power as his or her own ―truth,‖ then such an authoritative power ceases to be reckoned as totalitarianism but a salvation that beacons the road toward the truth. It mutates from a government of minds into ―a government of souls‖ (Lemke 14), anticipating a new ―Empire‖ to come. In a similar vein, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their cooperative book Empire (2001) also envisage a new empire, yet it is one with no specific territorial borders or centers, a ―decentered and deterritorializing apparatus‖ that is ―composed of a series of national.

(17) Liu 9. and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule‖ (Hardt & Negri, xii). What distinguishes this new Empire from the previous nation-state, however, does not lie in its territorial differentiation but in the fact that ―[i]t not only regulates human interactions but also seeks directly to rule over human nature‖ (Hardt & Negri xv). It is a new paradigm of power which permeates the life of every individual from the interior, a power whose governance is analogous to that of the Bentham‘s panopticism, as Foucault puts it: Government, initially limited to the fictions of supervision, is only to intervene when it sees that something is not happening according to the general mechanics of behavior, exchange, and economic life. Panopticism is not a regional mechanics limited to certain institutions; for Bentham, panopticism really is a general political formula that characterizes a type of government. (The Birth of Biopolitics 67) The notion of panopticism is further elaborated and exemplified in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975). It serves to be a typical model that can exemplify Foucault‘s conceptualization of disciplinary power, since it ―automatizes and disindividualizes power…. The Panopticon is a marvelous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogenous effects of power‖ (Discipline and Punish 202). Such a ―panopticon‖ can be ubiquitous, be it a school, a factory, or a hospital. Disciplinary power, however, cannot be conceived as a certain institution or apparatus that is authorized to operate such type of power. Rather, ―it is a type of power, a modality for its exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it is a ‗physics‘ or an ‗anatomy‘ of power, a technology‖ (Discipline and Punish 215). Such a ―technology‖ or ―discipline‖ is employed to control and regulate the individual as well as a whole.

(18) Liu 10. population. In a word, disciplinary power refers to a series of technologies through which individuals are supervised and controlled efficiently. In addition to disciplinary power, there was also another modality in the classical period: sovereign power, which refers to a power for the sovereignty to decide one‘s life or death. It was perhaps the sovereign‘s most primary and privileged power it ever held before the nineteenth century, that is, before the maturity of biopower. The sovereign power possesses the ultimate jurisdictional right over its people, ―either have people put to death or let them live‖ (Society Must Be Defended 240). Such a right to decide life or death, however, is not always weighted equivalently. To be more precise, the right of death always surpasses the right of life, which is, in essence, ―the right of the sword,‖ since ―[s]overeign power‘s effect on life is exercised only when the sovereign can kill: it is at the moment when the sovereign can kill that he exercises his right over life…It is the right to take life or let live. And this obviously introduces a startling dissymmetry‖ (Society Must Be Defended 240-41). Such an ancient and authoritative right to ―take life and let die‖ underwent a tremendous change in the nineteenth century, a time during which ―one of the basic phenomena…was what might be called power‘s hold over life‖ (Society Must Be Defended 239). In contrast to sovereign power, this fledgling power, ―biopower‖ by the name, does not emerge as a substitution for sovereign power; instead, it is a power which‖ does not erase the old right but which does penetrate it, permeate it. This is the right, or rather precisely the opposite right. It is the power to ‗make‘ live and ‗let‘ die‖ (Society Must Be Defended 241). In fact, the term ―biopower‖ as well as ―biopolitics‖ has not been put on stage until Foucault‘s publication of his first volume of the History of Sexuality in 1976. He further elaborated theoretical framework of biopolitics in his 1975-76 lectures at the Collège de France, Society Must Be Defended.

(19) Liu 11. (2003). Yet what is the biopower under discussion here? In what sense, then, can we claim that this new power can be epochal enough so as to chart a transition of Foucault‘s theoretical concerns? Biopower, Foucault suggests, seeks to maximize its domination over life by exploiting and exhausting that life to the extreme, a power ―whose highest function was perhaps no longer to kill, but to invest life through and through‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol.1 139). Or, to put it another way, biopower is not a power to kill but a power ―to foster life or disallow it to the point of death‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 138). This new political paradigm basically intervenes in the life of its population by regulating the most minimal and imperceptible aspects of one‘s life, particularly in control over the health of its people in an economic and statistical manner, namely, ―techniques for maximizing life‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol.1 123). Esposito distinguishes biopolitics from the techniques from the ancient regimes such as the Roman empire, claiming that the ―techniques for maximizing life‖ of biopolitics is indubitably unprecedented throughout the human history of politics, which is distinctive from any of the ancient domination of human body, such as the agrarian politics or ancient regime‘s corporeal domination of slaves, for ―none of this is enough to locate these events and texts within a properly biopolitical orbit. The reason? Because, in the ancient and medieval period, preserving life as such was never the primary objective of political action, as it was to become in the modern era‖ (Terms of the Political: Community, Immunity, Biopolitics 69). Functioning not as an exterior power but an interior one, biopower manages to ―touch not just upon what subjects do (their labor) but what they might do (their livelihood)‖ (Binkley xvii). Also, as Foucault explicitly clarifies, the subject at issue is not ―man-as-body‖ but ―man-as-species‖: ―Unlike discipline, which is addressed to bodies, the new.

(20) Liu 12. nondisciplinary power is applied not to man-as-body but to the living man, to man-as-living-being; ultimately, if you like, to man-as-species‖ (Society Must Be Defended 242). Hence, biopolitics appears to anticipate the establishment of modern public hygiene, public medical service, and charitable institutions, and even the system of insurance, all of which conspire together ―to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol.1 136) through incessant and imperceptible techniques of intervention and regulatory controls. In a sense, biopolitics seems to problematize every issue pertinent to life and survival, as it seeks to meddle in issues like ―the birth rate, the mortality rate, longevity, and so on (Society Must Be Defended 243) those which were regarded previously as the most natural, private, and contingent—those ―unmanageable,‖ so to speak. This new modality of power that distinguishes itself from disciplinary power as well as sovereign power, I will argue, seems not so much a quirk or a transition as an integration of Foucault‘s philosophical concerns. The techniques of biopolitics to foster one‘s life to the maximum seem to be obvious and ubiquitous in the novel under discussion. Michael K suffers interrogation, imprisonment, and is forced a labor camp even though his only ―crime‖ might be his poverty mingled with his compassion for his mother. As a vagrant, Michael K is fully ―controlled‖ to the extent that he is not allowed to move back home without authoritative permission, for the whole population has been under full surveillance. Also, the enslavement of Michael K for some inexplicable reason exhibits one of the most quintessential techniques: ―to invest life through and through‖ so as to maximize its force. Instead of putting Michael K into jail or leaving him alone, the police, without second thought, just put him to work. When Michael K is sent to the hospital for the first time due to his starvation, the first thing the doctor does is to examine.

(21) Liu 13. whether or not Michael K is infected with venereal diseases, since it is epidemic and might encumber the productivity of the mass population. On the other hand, the doctor also notices Michael K‘s harelip immediately, yet he does not intend to provide any medical treatment or further advice for Michael K to correct it, since K‘s physical deformity will not menace the public hygiene. In other words, what seems to be at stake and will be paid with serious concerns are issues concerning to the public health, such as any possible infectious diseases in this case. In addition, as an ordinary doctor living in a war-afflicted country, what he could have done—if not out of emergency—to help some from a humble origin like Michael K could be quite limited. When Michael K is sent to the hospital again later, unwillingly, his refusal to have any food offered by the hospital staff arouses much concerns and curiosity from people around him. The nation/state, which ―is no better than the bomb‖ (The Birth of Biopolitics 76), has deprived Michael K of his right of death, a power that ―foster[s] life or disallow[s] it to the point of death‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 138). The right to choose between life and death has evolved into a highly political one.2 Thus, Foucault once contends, ―[f]or the first time in history, no doubt, biological existence was reflected in political existence‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol 1 142).. 1.5 Truth-telling (Parrhēsia) Parrhēsia, or ―truth-telling,‖ concerns one‘s freedom to say everything he or she bears in mind regardless of any potential menace or consequence. In the later period of his academic inquiry, Foucault‘s emphasis upon truth as well the truth-teller seems all the more firm and affirmative. Torben Bech Dyrberg in Foucault on the Politics of 2. The discourse pertaining to the ethics between life and death requires more detailed references and analysis. However, since it is not the main focus of this thesis, I choose not to put further discussions here..

(22) Liu 14. Parrhēsia (2014) accentuates the significance of parrhēsia among Foucault‘s oeuvre, since ―it [parrhēsia] connects personal and institutional aspects of politics and it emphasizes the duty to make sure that words and deeds are not disconnected. In so doing, it stresses trustworthiness and accountability as vital for democracy both personally and institutionally‖ (2). Indeed, the sense of ―duty‖ to articulate the truth has been reiterated and reinforced in Foucault‘s own delineation of parrhēsia, an act that confronts directly with truth. The risk of one‘s life demonstrates the ontological realm of late Foucault‘s use of truth: truth is not a metaphysical idea in its elusive and abstract form. Rather, it is a practice or praxis that can be acquired through the activity of truth-telling. Foucault‘s emphasis on parrhēsia seems to imply his objection to the politicized truth, which turns out to be a means of political propaganda. Han Morgenthau in Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (2005) echoes Foucault‘s appeal, revealing how truth in the modern period has been manipulated for political purposes such as the maneuver of wars: ―The citizens of a modern warring nation, in contrast to their ancestors of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, does not fight for the glory of his prince or the unity and greatness of his nation, but he ―crusades‖ for an ―ideal,‖ a set of principles,‖ a way of life,‖ for which he claims a monopoly of truth and virtue‖ (246; emphasis in original). In a similar vein, in Politics and Truth: Political Theory and the Postmodernist Challenge (1997), Theresa Man Ling Lee also indicates that from twentieth century on, knowledge has been severely politicized. Lee takes the ―cold war‖ for instance, denouncing modern wars have developed into ―a means to validate political ideas as truth‖ (1). Employing Foucault‘s concepts on truth, truth-telling in relation to power, Lee further contends that ―the Cold War was literally a contest of truth—a truth that is.

(23) Liu 15. distinctly secular, invoking political ideas rather than religious principles‖ (Lee 2). In line with Foucault‘s critical retrospection on truth and power, Thomas L. Dumm in Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom (1996) suggests that parrhēsia is ―a concern to articulate an ethic in response to the failure of our politics to be ethical, a concern for how we might escape the judgment we have imposed upon ourselves, a concern for the beauty of being free‖ (13). Dumm‘s perspective on parrhēsia allows people to treat truth-telling as a possible solution to eschew the violence of politics imposed upon them. In other words, parrhēsia provides each individual a springboard to freedom. In Life and Times of Michael K, Michael K’s courage to articulate the truth has been revealed from many of his interlocutors, such as his doctors, colleagues, soldiers and even police officers. His unwillingness to eat any food from the hospital also suggests his silent articulation of truth—a truth leading him to freedom.. 1.6 From the Care of the Self to the Aesthetics of Existence Michael K‘s mode of being is not only a configuration of himself, but also a creation of himself, a creation of his life outside the world. The aesthetic dimension of Michael K‘s life is immensely embodied in his resistance, either an ethical resistance to others or a political resistance to the asymmetrical power relations. Thus, there seems to be a reciprocal relation underlying the realm between creation and resistance, as Cremonesi advocates: ―to create is also to resist‖ (Cremonesi 249). The ethical concern on how to aesthetically and poetically ―create‖ and ―resist,‖ or even ―reconstitute‖ the self seems to be affiliated with Foucault‘s concept on the aesthetics of existence: What I mean by the phrase are those intentional and voluntary actions by which men not only set themselves rules of conduct, but also seek to.

(24) Liu 16. transform themselves, to change themselves in their singular being, and to make their life into an oeuvre that carries certain aesthetic value and meets certain stylistic criteria. (Use of Pleasure 10-11) To change is by no means to abandon one‘s singular being in order to conform oneself to the social norm. On the contrary, the prime importance of change lies in the constitution of one‘s personal choice or stylistic criteria as a work of art in a manner of self-mastery. In Michel Foucault and the Games of Truth (1998), Nilson maintains that one is autonomous enough to forge a stylistic criterion that emphatically signifies a certain ―personal stylistics of existence‖ (98). Still, to achieve the aesthetics of existence, one has to practice the technologies of the self, which ―is entirely of a piece with his characterization of ethics broadly as the reflexive practice of freedom‖ (An Anthropology of Ethics 48). In a similar fashion, Michael K is a figure of thought who, in his personal stylistics of existence, practices the ethics of the ―children of the earth‖ (Life and Times of Michael K 139). He eats only the food from God or ―the breed of freedom‖ (Ibid. 146), and does not consume anything artificial. His style of existence or creation implies both an ethical and ecological critique: one‘s alienation from the food of the earth in the ecological context as well as one‘s existence down to earth in the ethical implication. Michael‘s being or existence consists in his insistence of the earth, particularly on his choice of food from the earth, such as the melons, pumpkins, ants, bugs, lizards or birds. He constitutes himself as a native son from the earth, and he firmly insists on his choice of food. However feeble and fiddling Michael K appears to be, his life has been transformed into a work of art.. 1.7 Overview of Subsequent Chapters This thesis aims to explore the aesthetics of existence through the reading of J. M..

(25) Liu 17. Coetzee‘s Life and Times of Michael K. In the previous discussion of this chapter, I have presented an overview of how Michel Foucault‘s notion on biopolitics, truth-telling, and the aesthetics of existence can be legitimately applied to shed a new light on the book. In light of Foucauldian notion of biopower, one can analyze and recognize the relations between his or her life and the power exerted around and upon him/herself. As an enigmatic figure, Michael K demonstrates to us how an individual is able to ward off socio-politically obligatory responsibility imposed upon an individual, even in a ―passive‖ fashion sometimes. This ―passive‖ fashion is, however, an ethics of freedom, which leads to one‘s ultimate aesthetics of existence. In the paragraphs to come, I will divide my thesis into two chapters as follows: In Chapter One, I intend to investigate mainly Michel Foucault‘s concept on biopower/biopolitics mainly from two books, History of Sexuality and Society Must Be Defended. I will provide some historical and political backgrounds related to the emergence of biopolitics. Then, I will compare and contrast how biopower is essentially distinctive from any of the previous power of politics, and how it permeates one‘s life in a most imperceptible way. The techniques of biopower will be discussed in detail, which will also be supported by textual examples from Life and Times of Michael K. Paradoxical as it can be, Michael K, I want to argue, serves to be both an epitome and an exception among people living under the shadow of apartheid. Chapter Two will begin with Foucault‘s theoretical framework concerning to his notion on the aesthetics of existence. Then, I will demonstrate how Michael K has endeavored to forge his life into a unique piece of art, which is in accordance with Foucault‘s theoretical concerns pertinent to freedom, perrhesia, care of the self, aesthetics of existence, and the technologies of self. As someone whose life has been disdained on the very first day even by his mother, Michael K‘s existence is neither.

(26) Liu 18. anticipated nor welcomed by this world around him. Nevertheless, Michael K gradually finds his own rhythm in a hostile world, calling forth the potentiality of his life. His life is, I want to argue, a life of style which begins and blossoms out of turmoil and can best exemplify what Foucault puts forth in his speeches during the last few years of his life: the aesthetics of existence..

(27) Liu 19. Chapter One From Sovereign Power to Biopower. Only because politics in our age had been entirely transformed into biopolitics was it possible for politics to be constituted as totalitarian politics to a degree hitherto unknown. ─Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality.. In this chapter, I aim to expose the possibility and profitability to read J.M. Coetzee‘s novel Life and Times of Michael K in conjunction with Foucault‘s perception of biopower. To begin with, I will commence my discussion of biopower by briefly introducing the general aspects of Foucauldian genealogy of power. This will lead to a discussion on the sovereign power and the disciplinary power. In light of this cognizance in mind, I will provide the differentiation of biopower from the two aforementioned modes of power. An overview of Foucault‘s engagement with biopolitics will be enumerated from the first volumes of The History of Sexuality and Society Must Be Defended, along with some other lecture courses. Textual examples from this novel of Michael K will be provided to exhibit how biopower as well as disciplinary power impose and impinge imperceptibly upon Michael K‘s life.. 2.1 Foucault’s Theory of Power French philosopher Michel Foucault, who was acclaimed by Fernand Braudel to be ―one of the most dazzling minds of his era,‖ is perhaps best known for his innovative observation on the idea of power. Indeed, Foucault‘s analysis of power is.

(28) Liu 20. conceptually distinctive from how people might generally conceive of it. To Foucault, power does not refer to ―a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizens of a given state‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction 92). Nor does he consider that power indicates ―a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a system whose effects…pervade the entire social body‖ (92). Thus, rather than suggesting power as some specific and coercive systems or institutions which would inflict arbitrarily and unilaterally upon its prey, Foucault avouches, instead, that power is not only ubiquitous but dynamic, as he himself puts it explicitly in an interview: It seems to me that power is ‗―always already there‖‘, that one is never ‗outside‘ it, that there are no ‗margins for those who break with the system to gambol in. But this does not entail the necessity of accepting an inescapable form of domination or an absolute privilege on the side of law. To say that one can never be ―outside‖ power does not mean that one is trapped and condemned to defeat no matter what.‖ (Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-77, 141-42) Proceeding with the hypotheses of both Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844–1900), the conceptualization of power appears to be something akin to an outflow of energy that permeates all social relations, and it is ―the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate. . .‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction 92). In other words, the Foucauldian viewpoint of power comprises a bundle of assorted relations of forces twined together with numerous social organizations.. 2.2 Sovereign Power and Disciplinary Power.

(29) Liu 21. As mentioned above, I will now provide a general overview on the sovereign power and disciplinary power respectively. By so doing, I intend to reveal the quite remarkable disparities between the two as a preliminary step to the successive discussion of biopower. Chronologically, Foucault categorizes all power relations into three modes: sovereign power, disciplinary power, and the focus of the current chapter: biopower. The sovereign power, as Foucault explicates in the first part of Discipline and Punish and the last part of Society Must Be Defended, stands for the form of power involved with the monarchial sovereignty that is customarily exercised by kings, rulers, emperors or presidents—those who possess the right to take life or let live, or, the right of life and death. Such a right to decide life and death, however, has always been exercised asymmetrically, for ―the balance is always tipped in favor of death. Sovereign power‘s effect on life is exercised only when the sovereign can kill . . . . The very essence of the right of life and death is actually the right to kill‖ (Society Must Be Defended 240). Accordingly, the right to let live has always been entirely neglected, for it would be preposterous to expect the sovereign power to ―grant life in the same way that he can inflict death‖ (240). Also, the sovereign power is exercised substantially by the principle of what Foucault calls deduction (prélèvement). To be more specific, the sovereign power is ―essentially a right of seizure‖ (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction 136), a mechanism which deduces or subtracts ―things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself; it culminated in the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it‖ (ibid.). Aside from the sovereign power, a new mechanism of power emerged in the eighteenth century, namely, the disciplinary power. Foucault analyzes explicitly in detail about this new technique of power in one of his representative works,.

(30) Liu 22. Discipline and Punish (1975). Stepping into the splendid autumn of his life, Foucault canonizes this book confidently as his ―first book‖ that witnesses the zenith of his academic career. The American philosopher James Miller who authored the biography of Foucault, elucidates the historical background as well as its value of the masterpiece in The Passion of Michel Foucault: Conceived during the most militant period of Foucault‘s activism with the French Maoists and the Groupe d‘Information sur les Prisons, it was composed between 1972 and 1947, at a time when the French ultra-left found itself in retreat and disarray. Foucault‘s most important essay in political theory, the text stages ―multiple impossibilities,‖ condemning humanism, implicitly justifying popular violence—and forcing the reader to grapple with the problematic role of hate and aggression in modern society, and in the modern psyche. (208-09) Foucault‘s attempt at ―condemning humanism,‖ then, is conducted by his comparison between the modern and premodern modalities of punishment. It has been widely hailed and celebrated to abandon the violent and savage way of punishment utilized to exert on ―the body and blood‖ (Discipline and Punish 16) in the premodern societies. A more ―humanized‖ form seemed to be adopted with ―less cruelty, less pain, more kindness, more respect, more ‗humanity‘‖ (16). However, such a display of ―humanity‖ is, according to Foucault, a sheer camouflage of a more subtle and astute artifice. In tandem with the disappearance of brutal torture inflicted on the body comes the disciplinary power, which intends not only to regulate the body but, with constant surveillance, to rectify the soul. With its concerns mainly upon the individuals, the disciplinary power aims not to return blow for blow but to restrain and remodel every individual, as Foucault asserts.

(31) Liu 23. explicitly, ―the chief function of the disciplinary power is to ‗train‘, rather than to select and to levy; or, no doubt, to train in order to levy and select all the more‖ (170). The individual body ―which obeys, responds, becomes skillful and increases its forces (136)‖ turns out to be the ―docile body,‖ a body which has been thoroughly ―ameliorated‖ under such an insidious coercion. Here, Foucault seems to suggest that the disciplinary power will always undertake its incessant and imperceptible task of transforming the individuals into docile bodies so that those disciplines may one day be imbedded, internalized, and even intensified by the individuals. In ―From the Repressive Hypothesis to Bio-Power,‖ Dreyfus and Rabinow account for the scheme of disciplinary power by claiming that its goal ―was to produce a human being who could be treated as a ‗docile body.‘ This docile body also had to be a productive body‖ (134-35). It is in this regard that Foucault relates the docile body to its utility as well as its productivity, indicating that the docile bodies will then cement the power which molds them, as they all become ―political puppets‖ and ―small-scale models of power‖ (Discipline and Punish 136). In other words, the individual serves not merely as ―objects‖ of the disciplinary power but also ―as instruments of its exercise‖ (170). Accordingly, since the individual appears to be forged out of the disciplinary power, Foucault stoutly proclaims that ―discipline ‗makes‘ individuals‖ (170) in virtue of ―the mechanisms of legal punishment with a justifiable hold not only on offences, but on individuals; not only on what they do, but on what they are, will be, may be‖ (18). Or to put in another way, it is the power that ―acts in depth on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the inclinations‖ (16). Once the soul internalizes the disciplines, it will be able to discipline itself through and through. In this regard, Foucault reverses the traditional conceptualization of the relations between body and soul, proposing that the soul is the prison of the body‖ (30), for ―a ‗soul‘ inhabits him and brings him.

(32) Liu 24. to existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body‖ (29). In a similar vein, Alan D. Schrift elucidates in his article ―Discipline and Punish‖ (2013): ―Where the body of the condemned had been the focus of the earlier approach to punishment, modern penalty is directed not primarily at the body but at the soul‖ (140). Here, Schrift echoes what Foucault claims about the relations between human bodies and their souls by reiterating that it is the human souls, rather than the human bodies any more, that the modern disciplinary power intends to intervene and inflict its punishment on. Once those disciplines have been implemented and internalized with success, the souls would indeed confine the human bodies from any future deviation.. 2.3 Biopower Aside from the sovereign and disciplinary power, Foucault coined another mode of power: biopower. Biopower does not serve as the sort of power that contradicts or repels disciplinary power; in effect, they complement each other. If disciplinary power aims at taming each individual body into a docile one, biopower is then responsible for the management and distribution of the births, deaths, and illnesses of a population. In opposition to the sovereign power which lays stress on the necessity to deprive of one‘s life, biopower serves to be the power to ―foster life‖ to the extreme instead of terminating it. In the first volume of The History of Sexuality, Foucault proposes, For the first time in history, no doubt, biopolitical existence was reflected in political existence . . . .Power would no longer be dealing simply with legal subjects over whom the ultimate domination was death, but with living beings, and the mastery it would be able to exercise over them would have to be applied at the level of life itself; it was the taking charge of life, more.

(33) Liu 25. than the threat of death, that gave power its access even to the body. (142-43) Such a conversion can be deemed as ―one of the greatest transformations political right underwent in the nineteenth century‖ (Society Must Be Defended 241). In this regard, life itself and the existence of each individual becomes highly political and mutually related. As a result, ―politics … became bio-politics‖ (Deyfus & Rabinow138). Through Foucault‘s observation, the mechanisms of power in the West underwent a tremendous change in the eighteenth century; it neither regulates nor intervenes in one‘s life. It is because the manipulation of a population requires the power to control one‘s life or death, and such a power was regarded at that time to be beyond the power of human beings. One‘s birth, illness, old age as well as death were considered to be parts of the natural law, and thus one could do nothing but let nature take its course. Since the eighteenth century, however, all the impossible have gradually been made possible due to the outgrowth of a new technique of power. Deductive—the leading mechanism of the sovereign power—ceased to be the main concern. Instead, it was gradually supplemented and surpassed by biopower, a power ―working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces, making them grow…rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them‖ (The History of Sexuality 136). In a nutshell, the primordial objective of biopower is no longer to deduce life, but to produce it to the extreme. A rather explicit and direct example to demonstrate the differences among sovereign power, discipline power, and biopower can be found in Foucault‘s 1977-78 Collège de France lectures, in which he hypothesizes a conceivable consequences a.

(34) Liu 26. person might confront when he or she commits crimes such as stealing or murder. Sovereign power hinges mainly on ―the system of the legal code with a binary division between the permitted and the prohibited‖ (Security, Territory, Population 5). Under sovereign power, the most primitive mode of power of the three that prevailed before the eighteenth century, criminals who desecrates the laws or regulations would not only be admonished against stealing or killing but also be fined, banished or executed in public, hoping to engender fear of its people and thus dissuade them from violating any laws again. The kings or the central authority figures who are always the ones that possess the sovereign power demand their people to be completely obedient to the laws or any regulations. One‘s punishment would be expected to fit the crime, and the crime only. Nothing other than the crime itself would be taken into consideration. Under disciplinary power, the budding power which took shape during the eighteenth century, criminals would still be penalized for their infraction of the laws. However, ―punishment will not just be the spectacular, definitive moment of the hanging, fine, or banishment, but a practice like incarceration with a series of exercises and a work of transformation on the guilty person in the form of what we call penitentiary techniques: obligatory work, moralization, correction and so forth‖ (4). In other words, the disciplinary power is concerned not only about what the criminal did, but also the reason why he or she committed the crime, for the information gathered from each distinctive case is reckoned crucial for the prediction and prevention of any possible recidivism. People endeavor to answer questions such as: ―What are the reasons that impel the criminals to steal or to kill? Are the thieves or murderers consciously aware of what they did? What about their psychological assessment? Are they people with "normal" psychological states? Is it possible to.

(35) Liu 27. preclude those crimes from happening again?‖ Under such mindset, the criminals are strongly encouraged or required to undertake thorough examination in attempts to be ―fixed,‖ for criminality is deemed a serious deviation from the norms. Accordingly, the disciplinary power is characterized as ―an anatomo-politics of the human body‖ with its center ―on the body as a machine‖ (The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction 139) that can be adjusted back to its normal status. In this regard, biopower appears to lay special stress on the conservation and stability of one‘s body in lieu of the menace of death. Also, different from the previous two modes of power, a criminal‘s punishment or motivation ceases to be the focal point under biopower. Instead, the interests reside in questions pertaining to the average rate of thefts or murders, the statistical number of thefts or murders among the population in a certain place, the social cost of such criminality, the possible regulatory controls to abate the rate of thefts and murders…to list just a few. As Foucault himself expounds, under the monopoly of biopower, ―[t]he general question basically will be how to keep a type of criminality, theft for instance, within socially and economically acceptable limits and around an average that will be considered as optimal for a given social functioning‖ (Security, Territory, Population 5). In other words, under the governance of biopower, any unstable or perilous element that might menace the ostensibly holistic harmony of the state will be under observation and domination by the government in power in order to fit in the ―socially and economically acceptable‖ category. What, then, are the relations between biopower and disciplinary power? Do they operate separately and independently under their own operating mechanism? At first glance, biopower and the disciplinary power seem to be irrelevant or, at some point, be contrary to each other. Yet in effect, the two modes of power appear to be ―two.

(36) Liu 28. poles of development linked together by a whole intermediary cluster of relations‖ (139). That is to say, the disciplinary power and biopower do not fall into the opposite side of each other; instead, they complement each other. While the former is claimed to have its focus on the human body and thus is identified as ―an anatomo-politics of the human body,‖ the latter centers on the species body. Each individual will be controlled more scrupulously when the ―two poles of development linked together.‖ In the novel under discussion, J.M. Coetzee relates a life of a desperate drifter struggling with every possible means in attempts to distance himself from the welfare state‘s supervision. As might be expected, the aforementioned modes of power exerted by the state, the disciplinary power and biopower in particular, have all been maneuvered upon the protagonist as well as people around him. Narrated mainly from the third person point of view, this novel begins with a captivating scene at Michael K‘s birth: ―The first thing the midwife noticed about Michael K when she helped him out of his mother into the world was that he had a hare lip‖ (Life and Times of Michael K 3). Albeit the midwife attempts to placate Anna K, Michael K‘s mother, by saying that this unique child certainly would ―bring good luck to the household‖ (3), Anna K seems rather unwilling to accept such an inherent deformity of her fourth child. Also, while the midwife immediately sees the beauty and the precious blessing of this newborn baby and feels much thankful by noticing that he still has a complete palate in his outwardly imperfect lip, Anna K merely feels nauseate to see ―the mouth that would not close and the living pink flesh it bared to her‖ (3). As the mother of this neonate, she even ―shivered to think of what had been growing in her all these months‖ (3). Without the slightest amount of joy from her infant son, Anna K is reluctant to believe that she did give birth to a somewhat monstrous freak. As is painfully clear, Michael K‘s abnormal and obnoxious appearance, coupled with his.

(37) Liu 29. explicit dullness, could merely win little affection even from his biological mother, let alone anyone else. The novel starts with a background introduction to Michael K‘s mundane and monotonous life. The first part of the novel is narrated mostly from a third-person point of view while Michael K‘s own voice can hardly be heard. As a deformed and obtuse child, Michael K seems always docile and obedient to his mother as well as anyone around him. With no definite opinions of his own, Michael K passively accepts whatever he is assigned to. His early life is like a dismally prosaic playlet that leaves its audience with few surprises or solaces. Such an uneventful life of Michael K is abruptly changed one morning as he turns to thirty-one. That particular morning, he received a third-hand message in which he is asked to fetch his mother from hospital. Since that day on, he begins to take the responsibility to take care of his seriously ill mother Anna K, for he keeps an unshakable faith that ―he had been brought into the world to look after his mother‖ (7). Accordingly, when Anna K ―proposed that he should quit Parks and Gardens before he was laid off and accompany her by train to Prince Albert, where she would hire a room while he looked for work on a farm (8)‖, he accepts her proposition instantly without hesitation. Despite the fact that Anna K‘s physical condition is deteriorating rapidly, Michael K and his mother are not allowed by the police to leave for their new destination without a permit for which they have to wait at least two months. Nevertheless, Anna K is painfully aware of the fact that she does not have that much time left before her last breath, and thus telling her son that she ―can‘t wait till August‖ (9). Vexatious to escort his dying mother to Prince Albert, Michael K decides to set off clandestinely regardless their lack of permit. On the very first day of their journey, however, they.

(38) Liu 30. are notified by a soldier who warns them that ―you want to stop on the expressway, you pull fifty metres off the roadside. That‘s the regulation: fifty metres side. Anything nearer, you can get shot, no warming, no questions asked‖ (22). This power to shot people without warming or questions is characterised by Foucault as sovereign power, which is expressed in various recognizable ways by kings, rulers, governors, or other visible agents of power. Most importantly, they own the power to decide one‘s life or death. Michael K and his mother will be shot dead if they violate the regulations enacted by those who own the sovereign power, which is characterized as ―the right of the sword‖ or, more specifically, the right to take life. Disfigured and blunt, Michael K is constantly teased and insulted by other children whenever Anna K, as a domestic servant, took Michael K with her to work. For this reason, Anna K intentionally secludes her son from other children in protection of Michael K‘s as well as her own dignity. Over time, Michael K grows up alone reticently as an outsider of this ongoing world. Nevertheless, living under the domination of disciplinary power and biopower aiming not only to ―exert a positive influence‖ upon the life of an individual but also to ―optimize‖ the life itself, it is unlikely for the sovereignty to stand by with folded arms nonchalantly while watching Michael K, despite his deformity, be occupied with nothing. As a result, after a short trial at school, Michael K is sent to a protection of Huis Norenius in company with ―variously afflicted and unfortunate children‖ (4). There, those who have been proved to be incongruous to receive normal education and are thus regarded deviant from the norms—whether. physically. or. psychologically—are. trained. to. be. ―quasi-normal‖—normal enough to earn a living by themselves and to be productive to the state in general..

(39) Liu 31. Significantly, what the authorities take to heart is not Michael K‘s deformed appearance but his slow-wittedness that might hinder him from a certain amount of productive work. As for his harelip, though it could be quickly rectified by a minor surgery, no one ever seems to bother about such a ―triviality‖ irrelevant to Michael K‘s productivity. Read in this manner, under the manipulation of biopower, Michael K‘s life has been ―fostered‖ to be as productive as can be so as to curtail the social cost of his ―ailments‖. Institutions such as schools or the protection center where Michael is taken serve to be the implements through which the disciplinary power, in this case, is able to tame Michael K‘s body into a docile one. It is also obvious to see how disciplinary power and biopower concur and complete each other reciprocally. At first glance, the disciplinary power and biopower exerted insidiously on Michael K seem extremely effective. At the age of fifteen, Michael K serves to be no one‘s burden anymore but a man able to stand on his feet while contributing his cheap labour to the nation. Michael K lives his routine and tacit life as a gardener for more than a decade. Inevitably, he has some doubt once in a while about the meaning of his monotonous life and, with success, he indoctrinates himself with the faith that the only reason for his existence in this world is ―to look after his mother‖ (7). Never does he question the reason why he is obliged to look after his ailing mother. Nor does he, living in a low stratum of society, question the social inequality of his and his mother‘s. It never strikes him to rebel against anything or to instigate a revolt so as to overturn the tedious life he is living. He does not even complain about his harelip—the congenital defect from which he has suffered a great deal. He just passively accepts what he encounters and what he has been taught to do, believing that everything happens for a reason, though the reasons might sometimes beyond his grasp. Accordingly, when Anna K advises her son that he quit the job at Parks and.

(40) Liu 32. Gardens in order to ―accompany her by train to Prince Albert‖ (8), she expects that her son would question her about this curt plan, and thus she even prepares an answer beforehand. To her big surprise, ―not for an instant did Michael doubt her. Just as he had believed through all the years in Huis Norenius that his mother had left him there for a reason which, if at first dark, would in the end become clear‖ (8). Under the influence of disciplinary power and biopower, the life of Michael K has been forged to be equipped with an acquiescent mind and a body healthy enough to provide his low-cost, docile workforce for the state. Naïve as he can be, the young Michael K appears to be convinced of the fact that so long as he lives his life harmlessly, no one would do harm to him or to his family. Coetzee in this novel portrays a chaotic war-afflicted landscape of the South Africa, where the lives of people there are severely controlled in the name of protection. Once the thirty-one-year-old Michael K determines to resign his job as a gardener, his routine life undergoes a dramatic change. He turns from a salaried employee to one of the millions of vagabonds. Shortly after a brief summary of Michael K‘s wretched family background and humdrum childhood, the novel then unfolds with his arduous odyssey from Cape Town to Prince Albert, where Anna K was born and wishes to be buried, a place with ―a chicken-run against one wall of the wagonhouse, a pump up on the hill,‖ and a ―prickly pear outside the back door‖ (27). With his mother‘s exacerbation of dropsical symptoms and her complaints about the indefinite delay of the required permit for leaving the Peninsula, Michael K becomes increasingly distressing and desperate and, eventually, he decides not to wait any longer due to the critical condition of his ailing mother. Unfortunately, his mother passes away soon after their departure. Despite his failure in taking his mother back to the farming country of her childhood prior to her death, Michael K resolves to fulfill.

(41) Liu 33. this task with her mother‘s ashes. Under the turmoil of the civil war in South Africa, Michael K, with no permission to leave the area of the Peninsula, lives in fear. He still hopes that if he looks harmless, stupid, and barehanded, ―perhaps they will let me through‖(40). Conversely, however, he is soon arrested by the police and treated ―like a beast at the shambles‖ (40), since leaving an area without authorization can pose tremendous threat to the government. Under the technique of biopower, issues pertaining to the population are all deemed political and crucial, for the population has to be under full control so as to cement the absolute power of the sovereignty. Hence, vagabonds like Michael K, mysterious, uncontrollable, and with no ―fixed abode,‖ may pose potential menace to the government in power. Consequently, their behaviors should be closely monitored, whereas their abodes be thoroughly inspected. Owing to their imminent threat to the government, the vagabonds are overtly the unstable constituents for the holistic harmony—if there is—or security of sovereignty. As a fellow member from the labour camp once candidly tells Michael, ―I‘ll tell you the real reason, I‘ll tell you why they were so quick to pick us up. They want to stop people from disappearing into the mountains and then coming back one night to cut their fences and drive their stock away‖ (80). What this stranger demonstrates is the other side of patrolling and surveillance of the magisterial state: the movement of the population should be geopolitically regulated and controlled; once controlled, the wanderers can pose minor threats to the structure of the sovereignty. This is a cruel exposure of biopower intervening in the life of the people. Read in this regard, any contingent or unpredictable elements such as the wanderers or the unemployed will, as the novel describes, be sent and ―protected‖ in the labor camps like where Michal K once stays, a camp named Jakkalsdrif. This.

(42) Liu 34. camp, established in a ―humanistic‖ name to rehabilitate the invalid, contains and constrains the movement of the ―nuisance‖, legally and economically, by means of furnishing them with the minimum amount of food and water only barely enough to sustain their lives. Most of those who receive the ―humanistic protection‖ offered by the state even express their gratitude to the state for providing a ―home‖ for them to stay—or even to live. To Michael K, Jakkalsdrif is a place tantamount to jail; it reminds him of his nightmarish childhood staying in the protection of Huis Norenius in Faure. When Michael K, out of curiosity and perplexity, asks those people in the camp whether they want to escape from this place , they replies, ―Why should people with nowhere to go run away from the nice life we‘ve got here? From soft beds like this and free wood and a man at the gate with a gun to stop the thieves from coming in the night to steal your money?‖ (78). Hence, when Michael takes any possible means to escape the iron wall, almost all of his ―inmates‖ persuade him to stay. ―Why do you want to go anyway?‖ (78), they suspiciously ask, scarcely being aware of the fact that their lives have fallen prey to the sovereign power. Their docile bodies serve to be the final products of the totalitarian regimes, the compound of disciplinary power and biopower. The curfew time inflicted by the nation/state also exhibits another form of the absolute power through which the network of institutional and legal systems intervenes and infiltrates subtly into the lives of its citizens. During the war period at that time, life of each individual is proven as the feeblest. That is to say, one‘s life, once affirmed by the state in order for its productivity and stability, can be terminated at any moment. A person‘s life is no longer determined for its affirmative productivity, but its negative means of registration, regulation, and even extermination. This entails the very fact that the sovereign power possesses its absolute legitimate power to ―take.

(43) Liu 35. life‖ or ―let live‖ through its juridical and institutional systems. One‘s life to live or die is not determined by himself or herself, but by the state, either an intervention of biopolitical power or that of thanatopolitical power. In this chapter, I have enumerated manifold examples from the novel of Michael K in attempts to demonstrate the concept of power, biopower in particular. In the subsequent chapter, I intend to reveal and exemplify the aesthetic dimension of Michael K‘s life. That is, how Michael K has toiled and moiled in attempts to mould his life as a singular piece of art..

論柯慈 《麥可‧K的生命與時代》中的生存美學

論柯慈《麥可‧K的生命與時代》中的生存美學