主体性问题是当代法国哲学的核心问题之一。学界普遍认为当代法国哲学很大程度上存在着解构主体的倾向。米歇尔·福柯的“人之死”的宣言，将对主体的解构推向了高潮。本文将福柯关于主体的讨论作为理解当代法国哲学的窗口，并发现福柯对历史上特定的主体进行解构的目的在于重建一种主体性原则。在此，主体性原则并非历史上对主体的具体规定，而是指在其背后对于人的自由与能动性的追求，包括个体主义、批判的权利与行动自由等维度。福柯通过区分法语的主体（sujet）一词的“臣服主体”与“自由主体”的双重含义，指出历史上诸多对主体的规定，尤其是近代以来的主体并非能动的、自由自决的自由主体，而是受到标准化定义与规范的被动的臣服主体。这就背离了主体性原则。进一步地，福柯基于对这种臣服主体的批判，正面阐发了主体性原则。福柯通过“批判态度”“界限态度”等概念，强调主体对权力/知识设定的界限的逾越与反抗，以及主体自由、多元与开放的可能性。福柯对主体的双重规定以及对主体性原则的重建，代表了当代法国哲学当中的一种可能的路径，即通过对臣服主体的揭示与批判，而尝试重建能动的主体性原则。巴塔耶从对劳动主体的批判走向“自主性”概念，以及晚近的激进左派基于对福柯的激进化阐释重建主体的方式，都可以从类似的角度得到理解。这种对主体性原则的全新的理解，有着与传统主体迥然不同的形而上学基础，即“恶的形而上学”。其特点在于通过对被传统一元论所排斥与否定的“恶”的关注与肯定，呈现出某种二元论的特征。其中，善与恶的两极不可通约，并处于战争状态。而在恶的一极的内部则呈现出经验性的、多元的状况。“恶的形而上学”在超现实主义、巴塔耶、克洛索夫斯基、波伏娃等人对以萨德为代表的“恶”的关注与思考之中逐渐成形，并且在福柯对萨德与边缘人群的研究中基本完备。恶的形而上学为主体性原则奠基的方式，突破了传统柏拉图式的普遍本原对具体的人的压抑。恶的形而上学通过二元论赋予恶正面价值，而超越既有一元论的权力/知识的界限，为主体的行动提供丰富的前提。当代法国哲学通过断裂、僭越等概念，强调不可通约性与域外，将这样的思路系统化了。福柯同时继承了两方面的传统，不仅在知识论上指出权力/知识建构的一元论体系的专断性与偶然性，更强调个体应主动与之断裂，走向域外，而敞开主体自由多元的空间。
The problem of subjectivity is one of the central issues of contemporary French philosophy. It is generally accepted that contemporary French philosophy has a tendency to deconstruct the subject with Michel Foucault‘s declaration of the ‘death of man‘ bringing it to a peak. This article uses Foucault‘s discussion of the subject as a window into contemporary French philosophy and finds that Foucault‘s aim in deconstructing the historically specific subject is to reconstruct a principle of subjectivity, which is not a historically specific prescription of the subject, but refers to the pursuit of human freedom and agency behind it, including the dimensions of individualism, the right to criticise and freedom of action.By distinguishing the dual meaning of the French term subject（sujet） as ‘free subject‘ and ‘submissive subject‘, Foucault points out that many historical prescriptions of the subject, especially since modern times, have not been active, free subjects of self-determination, but rather the passive and submissive subject, by the standardised definition and regulation of the human being. Thus deviates from the principle of subjectivity. Further, on the basis of a critique of the submissive subject, Foucault develops a positive understanding of the principle of subjectivity. Through concepts such as the ‘critical attitude‘ and the ‘limit-attitude‘, Foucault emphasises the subject‘s transgression and resistance to the boundaries set by power/knowledge, and the possibility of its freedom, plurality and openness.Foucault‘s double specification of the subject and the reconstruction of the principle of subjectivity represent a possible path in contemporary French philosophy, namely the attempt to reconstruct the principle of subjectivity through the revelation and critique of the submissive subject. Bataille‘s move from the critique of the subject of labour to the concept of ‘sovereignty‘ and the approach in which the recent radical left has reconstructed the subject based on a radicalised interpretation of Foucault can be understood in a similar light.This new understanding of the principle of subjectivity has a very different metaphysical basis from that of the traditional subject, namely the ‘metaphysics of evil‘. The ‘metaphysics of evil‘ is characterised by a certain dualism through the focus on and affirmation of ‘evil‘, which is excluded and denied outside the traditional monist perspective. In it, the two poles of good and evil are incommensurable and at war, while within the pole of evil, there is a further empirical and pluralistic situation. The ‘metaphysics of evil‘ takes shape in the attention and reflection of Surrealism, Bataille, Klossowski, Beauvoir and others on the ‘evil‘ represented by Marquis de Sade, and is largely completed in Foucault‘s study of Sade and the marginalised. The metaphysics of evil lays the foundations for the principle of subjectivity in a way that breaks with the traditional Platonic suppression of the universal essence of the concrete human being. The metaphysics of evil gives positive value to evil through dualism, while transcending the boundaries of established monism of power/knowledge to provide rich conditions for the subject‘s action. Contemporary French philosophy has systematised such thinking through concepts such as rupture and transgression, emphasising incommensurability and outside. Inheriting both traditions, Foucault not only epistemologically points out the arbitrariness and contingency of the monistic system of power/knowledge construction, but also emphasises that the individual should actively break with it and go outside, while opening up the space of freedom and plurality of the subject.
