傅柯與布爾迪厄身體觀對女性主義身體觀的相關研究影響深遠，從檢討女性柔順和習慣身體的社會絡印中，呈現男權中心的歷史與社會結構。此外，衡諸於傅柯和布爾迪厄的身體觀研究，也都企圖兼顧身體所進行的社會批判與身體的社會改造，使其身體觀理論具有政治實踐性。準此，本文將探討傅柯和布爾迪厄的身體觀，試圖從中找出某些共同的社會批判的方法，主張身體在世的優先性與超越自由與決定的二元論，成為分析女性服從、愛美與性貞節的有利社會批判工具。此外，本文亦將分別探討傅柯和布爾迪厄身體觀理論中柔順身體與習慣身體如何產生能動性的問題，換言之，兩者都企圖在身體中建立施為者（agent）的概念。最後，本文將根據女性主義者企圖兼顧身體的社會批判與身體改造的能動性（McNay, 1999, 2000），進一步分析比較兩者身體能動性的優缺點。 本文的結論是：雖然McNay解讀傅柯施為者的方式不盡理想，但是，McNay對兩人高下的判斷對於女性主義身體觀的後續發展而言，仍然具有高度的啟發性：亦即將傅柯的自我科技的身體放入布爾迪厄社會習性與社會場域的物質脈絡中，因為場域的多元（各種不同的資本的分配與組合）與動態是施為者自我治理的必要客觀環境，此外，從場域的整體（象徵）權力的相對位置中，勢將呈現出不同風格的自我治理術，這些差異的生活風格更體現出高下優劣的社會等級。最後，除了必須結合傅柯和布爾迪厄身體觀理論外，還需要從性別角度來探討各式社會場域中不同自我治理術間的（象徵）權力鬥爭，尤其是持續觀察（下層）女性取得發言的權威位置的可能性，後者正是兩者共同闕漏之處。

Although feminists’ concepts of the body have been greatly influenced by the analysis of body politics in the works of Foucault and Bourdieu, feminists have been studying their concept of the body in a separate way. McNay’s shift of theoretical concern from Foucault (McNay, 1992) to Bourdieu (McNay 1999; 2000) has brought out the important comparisons between them. Although McNay inclines to argue that their concept of body have more theoretical differences than resemblances, I aim to suggest otherwise, namely, docile body and body hatibus share more resemblances than differences. The aim of this paper is to argue that docile body and habitual body (habitus) is not only similar at the surface. Deep down, both concepts of body share family resemblances. Both Foucault and Bourdieu explained their concept of body, implicitly or explicitly, through the concept of body-in-the-world, which puts an end to the prioirty of the subject on the one hand, and subsitutes the real is relational for the social substance on the othor hand. Moreover, both Foucault and Bourdieu aim to challenge all sorts of dualism (freedom/determinism; subject / structure; domination/resistance, body/mind; etc.), and to put great efforts to elaborate how body within the social constraints working its way toward the practices of freedom and action. However, to McNay’s criticual assessments, by way of four sets of comparison, including atemporality/temporality, reflexivity/pre-reflexivity, negative paradigm/ positive paradigm, and resistant (domination)/ investment (negotiation), docile body and body habitus are different concepts with regard to the implied concept of agency. For Foucault, agent can be neither autonomus subject nor total subjection. For Bourdieu, agent incorporated with the feel of the game within social fields. To McNay’s judgment, Bourdieu’s body habitus is more satisfactory than Foucault’s docile body, because the former could provide the material contexualizations for Foucault’s technologies of the self. But, as far as gendered habitus is concerned, Bourdieu’s body habitus becomes problematical in the sense that Bourdieu holds that women’s body habitus can not negotiate to their advantage within different social fields. The paper concludes with the promising suggestion anticipated that feminists’ works of body politics can be greatly enlightened by seeing both Foucault and Bourdieu on the body as a complementary whole.