ジュディス・バトラーによれば、主体ならびに身体・性とは権力が産出する構築物であるという。それ自体は確かに正しいが、そこで看過されているのは、妊娠・出産する女性の物質的な身体――〈妊む身体〉である。そこで本稿は倉橋由美子の『暗い旅』と初期短編における〈妊む身体〉の不随意性に着目し、それを見失うことなく権力に抵抗するあり方を提示した。まず初期短編を通して〈妊む身体〉をめぐって構築される男／女＝主体／客体という権力構造を分析している。その上で『暗い旅』の考察に入り、匿名の語り手から呼びかけられることで主人公の「あなた」が女という性を否応なく引き受けさせられるも、〈妊む身体〉の不随意性を足がかりに、女の性を演ずる行為に転換する過程を論じた。更に、こうした「あなた」の演技性が主体を撹乱すると同時に、主体を根拠としない権力への抵抗にもなり得ることを明らかにした。

　現代社会では，21世紀に入って新自由主義的な改革が広く浸透するとともに，情報化も新たな段階を迎えようとしている．本稿では，現代社会のなかで進行している権力様式の転換と近代的自由の変質をメディア論的な視点から考察する．まず，メディア概念を拡張し,「伝達メディア／受容メディア／表象メディア」に区分したうえで，近代社会が，印刷物や権力といった諸メディアを基盤にして成り立っていたことを確認する．次に，今日のインターネットが単なる伝達メディアではなく，時空的秩序の再編を促す表象メディアでもあること，そして権力をはじめとする受容メディアの作動様式にも影響を及ぼしていることを述べる．そして最後に，このような変化が人間の自由にとってどのような意味を持つのかを考察する．

  The article aims to throw a new light on the question of power and resistance in the later Foucault, focusing on the problematic of “government”, which is now considered a guiding thread of his thought from the 1970s to the 1980s. It is often said that there exists rupture between his theory of power in the mid 1970s and that of subjectivation in the 1980s. However, the author argues that there is continuity around the concept of government whose perspective finally subsumes the two theories. With this hypothesis, the author analyzes a pair of notions:“scientia sexualis” (sexual science) and “ars erotica” (erotic technique), which appear in The Will to Knowledge, and then discusses the conceptual elaboration of government in the later Foucault.

  Firstly, the author shows that Foucault articulated sexual science and erotic technique as two different ways of truth-telling practices with its own subject-constructing process respectively : subjection through secularized confessional practices and subjectivation through embodiment of liberating truth initiated by a master. It will then be argued that this articulation anticipated Foucault's full discussion of subjectivation in the 1980s whereas the way he contrasts sexual science in modern times with erotic technique in pre-Christian period in the western world might tend to fall into the well-known dichotomy between power and resistance.

  Secondly, the author suggests that in the late 1970s, Foucault made a paradigmatic turn on the conception of government. While its definition as government of human conducts did not fundamentally alter since its introduction in the early 1970s, the place it occupied in Foucault's thought drastically changed in the later period. Initially, government in this sense was equivalent to sexual science or pastoral power. In the late 1970s, however, it came to have three dimensions. That it to say, the question of government came to be addressed in terms of governing (guiding) practices of others and oneself as well as of being governed. With this move, Foucault maintains that “counter-guiding” of the governed or even their autonomous self-guidance is immanent in the very practices of government.

  Thirdly and finally, the author contends that this new conception of government in the later Foucault provides new insights into the apparent opposition between sexual science and erotic technique. It is true that Foucault suggested, in passage, that the two are not exclusive but intertwined, and in so doing, tried to avoid, it may seem, addressing the thorny dichotomy. However, as discussed above, Foucault's later conception of government doesn't substitute power but subsumes both power and subject ; his argumentation that subjection and subjectivation result from two different truth-telling practices indeed opened up a path to the theoretical refinement of government in the 1980s, which made it possible to treat these processes under a single category of government. Consequently, the pair of sexual science and erotic technique ought to be seen as a necessary precursor of Foucault's full conceptualization of government.