矯正｜correction
◆立岩 真也 1997/09/05 『私的所有論』，勁草書房，445+66p. ISBN-10: 4326601175 ISBN-13: 978-4326601172 6300 ［amazon］／［kinokuniya］ ※
◆立岩 真也 2013/05/20 『私的所有論 第２版』，生活書院・文庫版，973p. ISBN-10: 4865000062 ISBN-13: 978-4865000061 1800+ ［amazon］／［kinokuniya］ ※
◆Tateiwa, Shinya(立岩 真也) 2016 On Private Property, English Version, Kyoto Books
［４］関数の不在→個体関与の戦略
「一つは、価値、利害を変えること、与えることである。図に即せば、自分が何をよしとするのかしないのかの関▽378 数を変えることである。この実践について「矯正」という言葉を用いることもできるだろう◇10。本書では、その一部として「主体化」という戦略の現われとその効果を、第２節でみる。」
「◇10 矯正の試みが大規模に始まったのは、増大する貧民、浮浪民の脅威を解消しようとして一六世紀以降各地に建設された監禁−矯正施設においてである。それは、刑罰、隔離による無害化、費用の軽減、安い労働力の利用という意図とともに、労働と規律による収容者の改善、矯正を目指す。ここには怠惰（労働しないこと、規則正しい生活を送らないこと）によって、貧困が、あるいは無秩序が生ずるという観念が存在する。怠惰はそれ自体悪であるとともに、それによって、悪が引き起こされる源泉である。そして、怠惰とは個人の意志の欠如であり、救いに選ばれていないことの表象であると考えられるにせよ、そうでないにせよ、個人のものであるとされる。それゆえに、それに起因する貧困と貧困者に同情する必要はない。（中世、中世のキリスト教においてはそう考えられていなかった。貧困観の転換についてFoucault［1961→1972＝1975］、小山路男［1962］、千葉治男［1975］、中村賢二郎［1976］、田中峰雄［1980］、東丸恭子［1983］、転換を示すものとしてLuther［1520＝1979:150-152］、等。）こうして一方で区画、放置、排除がなされる。同時に、それはまた他者の介入を通して矯正されうるものと考えられている。貧困は怠惰のせいであり、それは怠惰な個人のものである。個人のものではあるが、また怠惰はそれ自体罪である。そこに、恩恵として、労働が与えられる。
だがこの収容施設は至る所で失敗に帰し、施設はその醜悪な環境によって恐れられることに、あるいは規律の弛緩によって怠惰、悪徳の温床と見做されることになる。一八世紀末以降、各地で監禁−矯正施設から貧民が解放されていく。というより、（労働可能な）貧民、狂人、犯罪者が分離され、狂人と犯罪者は別々の監禁施設に収容され、貧民は労働市場の中におかれる。
監禁−矯正施設から「解放」された貧民−労働者は、契約を結び資本体に下属する。とはいえ、その外に個々人に対する権力の作用が存在しなくなったわけではない。また、国家による介入を「福祉国家」以降のことと考えるべきでもない。例えば公的な扶助を通し、家庭を主要な場として、労働者の道徳化の試みが多▽426 くなされた（阪上孝［1984］等）。労働と規律は監獄でも重視される。それには経験論からも支持が与えられる。経験論は、理性が主体に本性としてあらかじめ内属するのでなく、経験によってそれが得られることを主張し、正しい精神を持つために正しい規律に従わせることを主張するからである。
この矯正の観念は、やがて刑法（理論）においても、犯罪学の成立とともにあるいは少し遅れて、顕在化する（前期古典学派・後期古典学派に対する近代学派、あるいは旧派に対する新派）。この時、自己原因−帰責の観念は不確かなものとなる。というのも、かつて怠惰は個人の内部にあるとされ、そこに恩恵として労働が加えられたのだが、ここでは、犯罪の原因が追求され、それに応じた対処がなされようとしているのであり、自己原因の観念は認め難いものとなっていくからである。」
Another approach is to alter people's interests and values or give them new ones. Put in terms of what is shown in the figure, this approach involves changing the formula by which people determine what is good or bad for them. The term "correcting" can be used in regard to this practice◆10. In Section 2 I will examine the appearance and effects of the strategy known as "subjectification" as one aspect of this approach.
chap.6 note 10
"Attempts at correction began on a large scale in the second half of the 16th century with confinement/correction institutions being created in each local area to deal with the threat posed by increasing numbers of vagrants and the extremely poor. Along with making punishment and isolation harmless and allowing for the reduction of costs and the use of cheap labor, these institutions were also intended to improve and correct the people whom they housed through labor and discipline. There was a belief that poverty and disorder come from laziness (an inclination not to work or not to live in accordance with accepted norms and rules). Laziness is both bad in and of itself and also a cause of other bad things. And whether or not it is an absence of individual will and expression of the fact that the person in question has not been selected for salvation, laziness is thought of as something belonging to the individual. As a result there is no need to feel sorry for those whose poverty has been caused by their own laziness (this was not the prevailing attitude in the middle ages and in medieval Christianity. On changes in the conception of poverty see Foucault [1961→1972=1975], Koyama [1962], Chiba [1975], Nakamura [1976], Tanaka [1980] and Higashimaru [1983]. For an illustration of this shift see Luther [1520]). In this way division, abandonment and exclusion were practiced. At the same time it was thought that interference in the lives of others could have a corrective influence. Poverty was caused by laziness, and this laziness was something that belonged to the lazy individual in question. Laziness belonged to the individual but it was also a sin in and of itself. Here labor was to be given as a blessing.
But these institutions failed everywhere they were tried, being seen either as places of terror due the horrendous environment in which those confined in them lived or as hotbeds of laziness and immorality due to the laxity of their rules. At the end of the 18th century the poor began to be released from internment-correctional facilities. More precisely the poor (who were able to work), criminals and the insane were separated from each other, with those in the latter two categories being confined in separate internment facilities and those in the former being released into the labor market.
The poor people/laborers "released" from internment-correctional facilities were bound through contracts and subsumed into the body of capital. It is not as the case, however, that power was not also exercised on individuals outside of these facilities, and intervention on the part of the state need not be thought of as beginning with the creation of the "welfare state." For example, there were many attempts to improve the morality of laborers through public assistance focused on the family (see Sakaue [1984]). Prison has been seen as important in regard to labor and discipline/adherence to rules. This view has received support from empiricism, as this doctrine asserts that reason exists in individuals not as an innate characteristic present from the start but as something received through experience and thus in order for people to have correct mental processes they must be made to follow a correct set of rules.
Eventually this concept of correction appeared in criminal justice (theory) in conjunction with or slightly later than the emergence of criminology (marking the arrival of the "modern" school of thought in contrast to the early and late classical schools, or the emergence of a "new school" in contrast to the "old school"). At this time the concept of internal causation-responsibility of the self was called into question; where previously laziness had been seen as something internal to the individual that could be ameliorated by the addition of labor, here the concept of self-causation became difficult to confirm as attempts were made to find the cause(s) of crime/bad behavior and take measures to deal with them."
「個体に関する知、個体への介入と「自由」とは、また規範の個別性と一様性は、その目的において背反するわけではない。矯正の戦略は、諸個体を等質のものと捉え、均一の規範を与えるという原則と背反する場合がある。その知は個々人を、あるいは集団をその差異において取り出す。また知られたその性質に応じて差異化された処遇が試みられる。だが両者を諸個体を有効に捉えるための技術論と考えるなら、これは同じ場にある。そしてこの知・関与の技術は、同じ規範が一人一人に同じ効果を与えるわけではないという以前より存在している問題、その問題の解決の模索に解答を与え、契約としての法からの逸出、とりわけ恒常的とみなされる逸出を説明し、それへの処方を与えることによって、次第に確固とした位置を占めていく。（第２・３節）」
Regarding their aims there is neither a contradiction between knowledge regarding individuals/ intervention directed towards individuals and "freedom" nor between uniform regulations/norms and those that differ depending on the individual in question. Corrective strategies may in some cases contradict or conflict with the principle of treating each individual as the same and applying the same norms to everyone. This knowledge of their differences can be used to single out different individuals or groups of individuals. Attempts can also be made to deal with each individual differently based on this knowledge of their particular characteristics. But if both approaches are thought of as technical theories regarding how best to deal with each individual then they both perform the same kind of role. These techniques of knowledge/involvement have come to occupy an increasingly solid position within society by providing a solution to the longstanding problem posed by the fact that the same norm will not always produce the same result when applied to different individuals, explaining departures from law as a contract, especially departures that can be seen as being chronic or persistent, and providing a prescription for dealing with these issues. (See Chapter 2 Section 3).
註10
この矯正の観念は、やがて刑法（理論）においても、犯罪学の成立とともにあるいは少し遅れて、顕在化する（前期古典学派・後期古典学派に対する近代学派、あるいは旧派に対する新派）。この時、自己原因−帰責の観念は不確かなものとなる。というのも、かつて怠惰は個人の内部にあるとされ、そこに恩恵として労働が加えられたのだが、ここでは、犯罪の原因が追求され、それに応じた対処がなされようとしているのであり、自己原因の観念は認め難いものとなっていくからである。
Eventually this concept of correction appeared in criminal justice (theory) in conjunction with or slightly later than the emergence of criminology (marking the arrival of the "modern" school of thought in contrast to the early and late classical schools, or the emergence of a "new school" in contrast to the "old school"). At this time the concept of internal causation-responsibility of the self was called into question; where previously laziness had been seen as something internal to the individual that could be ameliorated by the addition of labor, here the concept of self-causation became difficult to confirm as attempts were made to find the cause(s) of crime/bad behavior and take measures to deal with them.
UP: REV:20160629
