知识与话语的权力空间:从东方学到东方主义

“Orientalism”主要有两种意思:一是作为话语的东方主义,二是作为文化表述的科学知识;两者之间并非简单的决定关系,在表面的知识与本质的话语之间存在着巨大的权力空间,他者化形象表述、文化利用、本质主义、思想套装、政治行为与帝国意识等这些权力因素在空间内的运作,才使得东方学知识随着历史变化而更新,同时又不断地加固东方主义的话语存在,权力越来越体现其空间化和结构性的特色,亦即某种去中心的帝国本质,这种没有中心的权力可以借用各种因素来实现自身的生产与再生产,从而完成从东方学到东方主义的历史体系的构建。     

“万里长城建造时”：卡夫卡的中国神话

批评的策略在于分析所谓"单个文本或作家与其所属的复杂文本集合体之间的动态关系",因为构成文本意义的,是文本所在的话语传统。解读卡夫卡的《万里长城建造时》,具有诗学与汉学的双重意义。它揭示了文学想象与表述的内在意义结构,重建了西方文化构筑中国的长城神话的话语传统,"长城"从一个历史建筑变成具有"他者"意义的文化符号。     

从奈保尔的印度游记分析其对印度文化的疏离与误判

本文通过分析奈保尔在两部印度游记中对印度文化的评论,探寻这位英籍印裔作家对母国印度文化的疏离与误判。     

非洲文学国族想象的话语困境与批评重构

长期以来,相比于处于主流与中心位置的西方文学,非洲文学无论创作还是批评都处于边缘的位置,其边缘身份源自西方他者的操控及非洲文学主体性的迷失,但不可忽视的是,在现代非洲社会文化转型进程中,非洲作家在自塑非洲形象时,一直试图将民族国家文化的本土化嵌入现代性的结构中,以获取民族性与现代性的双重视域;从他塑到自塑,体现出非洲文学超越西方话语制导的理论自觉。在廓清非洲文学“殖民内置”与“自我东方主义”的基础上,非洲文学批评应植入“对位批评”的话语形态,为重构非洲文学现代传统及自主批评体系夯实基础。     

《奥兰多》中的东方和东方主义

国内学界对《奥兰多》中的东方再现缺少关注。伍尔夫在有关东方旅行的游记及与同性恋人维塔·萨克维尔-韦斯特的通信中,表现出明显的东方主义心态。她把这种心态带入对《奥兰多》东方场景的虚构,通过表现奥兰多对土耳其景物和土耳其吉卜赛人的偏见及由此生发的归家欲望,反衬奥兰多作为盎格鲁-撒克逊白人的种族和民族身份,将土耳其降格为文化他者。这种处理方式在一定程度上映射了20世纪20年代英国与土耳其的政治角力,揭示出《奥兰多》作为一部现代主义文学作品的现实指涉和地缘政治内涵,也体现了伍尔夫的文学创作与帝国政治的紧密关联。     

另一种东方主义:超越后殖民主义文化批判

后殖民主义文化批判遮蔽了另一种东方主义。西方文化传统中 ,有两种“东方主义” ,一种是否定的、意识形态性的东方主义 ,一种是肯定的、乌托邦式的东方主义。前者构筑低劣、被动、堕落、邪恶的东方形象 ,成为西方帝国主义意识形态的一种“精心谋划” ;后者却将东方理想化为幸福与智慧的乐园 ,成为超越与批判不同时代西方社会意识形态的乌托邦。后殖民主义文化批判只关注否定的、意识形态性的东方主义 ,但是肯定的、乌托邦式的东方主义 ,在西方文化中历史更悠久、影响更深远 ,涉及的地域也更为广泛。它所表现的西方世界观念中特有的开放与包容性、正义与超越、自我怀疑与自我批判的精神 ,是西方文化创造性的生机所在 ,也是我们在现代化语境中真正值得反思、借鉴的内容     

浅论近代日本汉学与对中国的东方学话语

一直到江户时期汉学始终为日本学术的最高境界。但进入明治时代之后,日本将中国看“成落后”的国家,汉学已不再作为达到“先王之道”的学问,随之汉学渐渐地分成几门客观的、科学的学术领域。一批研究中国经典的学者及爱好汉学的作家,虽然一方面对传统中国有憧憬、向往的心情,但另一方面他们一致认为应该用从近代化获得的优势,对中国施加压力,进而改变它。在这一过程中,秉承西方列强,形成了为日本帝国主义获得殖民地提供理论支持的日本式东方学话语。     

International Circumstances as Factors in Building a Welfare State: Welfare Regimes in Europe, Japan and Korea

The East Asian experiences of welfare-state building have universal implications for the sociology of the welfare state because they clearly indicate the relevance of international circumstances to welfare-state building. The convergence theory of the welfare state lays emphasis on the economic development, demographic structure, and age of the social security system. The path dependency theory regards a country's social structure and history as important. However, both these theories clearly state the importance of the domestic factors as well. On the contrary, the East Asian experiences show that the dates of the takeoff of the welfare state and the international context at that time were decisive for the subsequent development of the welfare state. The European welfare states are considered to be a by-product of "embedded liberalism." The Japanese welfare state, on the other hand, was established in the context of the worldwide stagflation of the 1970s; therefore, Japan experienced the formation and crisis of the welfare state at the same time and this is what characterized its present welfare system. The Korean welfare state emerged in the age of global capitalism and was consequently shaped by the co-occurrence of welfare and workfare. Given the above, it can be said that the international circumstances faced by each welfare state characterized the three worlds of welfare capitalism: Europe, Japan, and Korea.     

透析萨义德的公共知识分子身份

在当前的现实语境下,相当部分论述萨义德的文章都存在不同程度的误读,究其原因,论述者对萨义德的公共知识分子身份有意无意地忽略是一个相当重要的因素。探讨萨义德的公共知识分子身份,在对知识分子应有的责任和情怀的论述中寻求正确理解萨义德的批判精神和独立意识的途径。     

Roma as the Others

While it is common to speak about ‘Roma culture’ as a single entity, the questions posed by Roma culture are more complex. We are speaking about the general issues pertaining to various manifestations of this culture in the context of the Czech Republic. It must be stressed that under ‘Roma,’ we understand a family resemblance social category that consists of overlapping smaller groups and that is not based on features that are universally shared across the whole category; there are similarities and some kind of prototype that keeps the category together. Also, this culture is in no way completely separated from the majority (Czech) culture and it shares many features with it and vice versa. Because of the particular history, there are no language barriers, there are no religious differences and also community values and aims are broadly similar. So when we speak about minority/majority, we must try to avoid thinking in terms of distinctive and separate entities.