本文分析了福柯视角下生命和权力的关系问题。前福柯时期生命政治论对生命-政治关系的描述可以分为自然主义和政治主义，其共同缺陷在于将生命和政治想象为彼此独立、相互对抗的不同实体。而莱姆克认为，从福柯视角看来，生命和政治不是二元对立的关系，生命既不是政治权力的基础，也不是政治权力的对象，而是政治权力既需要尊重，又可以突破的边界。本文认同莱姆克生命-政治并非二元对立的观点。在生命-权力的问题上，由于权力对生命的塑造作用，以及内生于权力的抵抗性，本文认为，生命是权力关系网络中被塑造出来的锚点：权力将生命塑造为新的政治主体——自然生命，而生命既是权力的靶标和作用对象，也是抵抗的所在之处。

本文的观点基于对福柯“权力”和“生命”描述的详细分析。福柯视角下的权力具有三个核心特征——生产性、关系性和抵抗性：权力不仅仅具有压抑功能，最重要的是具有生产功能；权力不是可被持有的物，而是关系策略的网络；权力总以抵抗为前提，且由于权力总是从局部中产生，各种技术和话语之间并不具有连续性，所以抵抗能够生产出新的权力关系。

将福柯的权力观点应用到生命权力的分析中，能够更加深刻地揭示出生命和权力之间的互动关系。首先，权力生产生命，这一点在生命权力对新型政治主体——自然生命的建构作用中清晰地表现出来。其次，权力作为关系和策略的网络，与知识真理话语之间有密不可分的关系。在当代生命政治中，生命正是通过不同的真理话语——统计学、医学和自由主义政治经济学——而被塑造为与具体个人和生命体验所截然不同的抽象实体。在统计学中，生命是数据的集合，在医学话语中，生命是有健康和疾病特征的肉体，而在自由主义治理术之中，生命则在群体而非个人的层面上被视作人口，它是自治的实体，具有自身的动态和流动性，可以通过施加不同的外部刺激而加以干涉、调控。

然而，也正如福柯的权力观点所告诉我们的，局部的各种权力之间并不存在必然的连结关系。穿梭在各种权力技术之间的是真理话语，但话语具有多价特征：一方面，话语穿梭于各种权力机制之中，构成了其相互连结的桥梁；另一方面，话语自身也是抵抗的重要工具。因此，当自然生命成为权力与政治所关注的核心对象时，生命也同时成为了权力网络中力量分布密集的一个重要锚点。正是围绕着生命，新的生物学、生命科学、基因学乃至作为生命载体的主体的自我言说，都在相互对话，并在对话中生产出新的权力关系。生命与权力之间相互塑造的关系和不可化约的抵抗性，构成了生命权力内部持久张力，而这一张力将推动生命权力的技术形式和抵抗源泉发展到新的历史阶段。

This dissertation analyzes the relationship between life and power from the perspective of Foucault. Prior to Foucault, political theories of life could be categorized into naturalism and politicalism, both of which shared the common flaw of demonstrating life and politics as distinct entities in opposition to each other. However, according to Lemke, from the Foucauldian perspective, life and politics do not constitute a binary opposition; rather, life is neither the basis nor the object of political power but rather the boundaries that political power both needs to respect and can transgress. This paper agrees with Lemke that the life-politics relationship is not a binary opposition.

Regarding the issue of life-power, due to the shaping role of power on life and the inherent resistance within power, this paper argues that life is an anchor shaped within the network of power relations: power shapes life into a new political subject—biopolitics, where life serves as both the target and the locus of resistance to power.

My viewpoint is based on a detailed analysis of Foucault's descriptions of "power" and "life". Foucault's perspective on power has three core features—productivity, relationality, and resistance: power not only represses but, more importantly, it produces; it is not a tangible possession but a network of relational strategies; and resistance is inherent to power, which emerges locally and discontinuously, thus resistance can produce new power relations.

Applying Foucault's perspective on power to the analysis of biopower can more profoundly reveal the interactive relationship between life and power. Firstly, power produces life, as evident in biopower's construction of new political subjects—natural life. Secondly, power as a network of relations and strategies is intricately linked to discourses of knowledge and truth. In contemporary biopolitics, life is shaped into an abstract entity through various discourses—statistics, medicine, and liberal political economy—each presenting different perspectives. However, as Foucault's perspective on power suggests, there is no necessary connection between various local powers. Discourses serve as both bridges connecting different power mechanisms and important tools of resistance. Therefore, when natural life becomes the central object of power and politics, life also becomes a crucial anchor point in the network of power. It is around life that new biological, life sciences, genetics, and the self-expression of life as a carrier engage in dialogue, thereby producing new power relations. The mutually shaping relationship between life and power and the irreducible resistance constitute enduring tensions within biopower, which will drive the development of its technological forms and sources of resistance into new historical stages.