傅柯長期被指責為是一反人本主義者，而其對「主體」之拒絕，也要對喪失有效反抗社會不公之代理人來負責。本論文即在指出傅柯其實擁有更精緻複雜的主體概念，頻繁且具有功能性地出現於前後著作中，尤其是《性史》三卷。此一主體（或主觀化──更貼切地說）是一個過程中的主體，或危機中的主體；它絕非是在規訓下屈從的被動主體，而是更像在懸崖邊維持存在姿態的主體，它將反思其所有吊詭的張力。而此一典型的現代主體，將激發僭越╱跨界之慾，勇於躍對斷裂面的另方（難以湊近之）自我的雙重性。

　　　　　Foucault has long been blamed as an anti-humanist and his “rejection” of subject also taken responsible for losing an agent to resist social injustice. This essay, however, deals with Foucault’s more sophisticated concept of subject, turned out to be prevalent and functional almost through out all his works, especially in his three-volume “History of Sexuality”. This subject (or subjectivation) is a subject-in-process or a subject-in-crisis, which by no means passive under the disciplinary power to become a subjected subject, but like a subject holding an existential gesture beside an abyss to reflect all its paradoxical tension. And such modern subject would evoke a transgressive desire to jump and meet with its impossible double under the ruptured ground.