民族志"书写":徘徊于科学与诗学间的叙事

一、"书写之椽":一种民族志表述的反思 民族志(ethnography)作为民族学重要的组成部分,完整地表现了人类学家田野调查的记录、描述、分析和解释.参见T.Barfield(ed.),The Dictionary of Anthropology,UK,Blackwell Publishing,2003,p.157.但是,民族志无论作为一种学科的原则,还是调查的方法,抑或是人类学家书写的"作品",不同时代、不同学派的人类学家都有着不同的主张,这也构成了人类学重要的历史内容.     

日本人类学三讲——中牧弘允在北大的演讲(连载之三)

<正>按语:2012年5月13日至14日,日本国立民族学博物馆名誉教授、吹田市立博物馆馆长中牧弘允先生应北京大学社会学系、中国社会与发展研究中心之邀,在北大举办三场演讲,主题分别是"日本人类学的邀请"(Invitation to Japanese Anthropology)、"国立民族学博物馆的创世纪"(Genesis of National Museum of Ethnology)及"日本企业人类学"(Anthropology     

人类学视野中的灾难和文化要素的探讨

Like Professor Anthony Oliver -Smith, I wish to speak to the theories and analyses of disaster from an anthropological perspective. While Professor Oliver -Smith's paper covers the history of the anthr...     

民族地区人类学研究的方法与课题

西北民族大学社会人类学·民俗学学院(现改称"民族学与社会学学院")在其创建者郝苏民先生荣休(国外称因有学术建树而得到"退而不休"待遇的学者为Professor Emeritus,我译之为"荣休",我看郝先生当之无愧)之后不久,便给了我这个机会来座谈,我十分感激.此前我来过这里一次,第一印象是,这个教学研究机构在民族学上有其值得珍惜的特色.当不少同人仍旧沉浸于人类学、民族学、民俗学、社会学等等学科之间的界线的"勘察工作"时,这个学院"偏安一隅",悄然进行自己的学科综合.     

国际人类学与民族学联合会食物人类学委员会简介

一、概况 事实上,国际食物人类学委员会(The International Commission for the Anthropology of Food,ICAF)涉及的领域不仅仅限于人类学.它是一个关注食物与世界大众这一研究主题的研究者们的科学网络组织.     

A Critical Review of Chinese Ethnic Law Studies in 2014

I. Basic Theory of Ethnic Law Studies
As a mature discipline,research on the basic theory of ethnic law studies is no longer the focus of research. Nonetheless,this does not deny that it is a rese...     

从民族志物品收集到东南海洋系文化构建——林惠祥先生收藏与展示实践（1929-1958）

Since the 1980s, critical museum studies have interpreted the‘collecting and exhibi-ting activities’ of a museum as both practical activ-ities as well as a persistent scientific and socio-cul-tural process, and have explored the natures of museum, including the logic and strategy behind these practices. Through reviewing Lin Huixiang ’s collecting and exhibiting practices ( 1929 to 1958 ) , this article aims to explore internal rela-tionships between ( i ) museum practices and ( ii ) the practitioner, all under a particular episteme. This article moreover presents the genealogy of Lin Huixiang ’s academic ideas, museum practices, and‘Southeastern-oceanic-cultural ’ research pro-jects;it covers his earlier activities of ethnographic object collecting and exhibiting practices all the way to the construction of the‘Southeastern-ocean-ic-culture-system ’ within the framework of the‘New Theory of Evolution’ . Seen from a critical perspective, a museum is not a neutral and objective institution but a space full of power and discussion. In addition, in our modern times Museums have become a controver-sial place: the museum’s nature has changed from a‘palace of knowledge’ to a representation-system composed of objects. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill uses the terms“effective history” and“episteme” to ex-amine the history of a museum, and divides it into three stages: ( i ) the irrational cabinet, ( ii ) a classical episteme, and ( iii) a modern episteme. Different epistemes directly influence the collecting and exhibiting practices. Susan Pearce points out that collecting activities express and shape the rela-tionship between the human and material worlds. She distinguishes between “gathering”, “hoard-ing”, and “collecting” and she emphasizes that the term “collecting” points to products of imagi-nation. This imagination metaphorically creates meanings by arrangement and it displays the known world. Therefore, the activity of collecting and ex-hibiting is always practiced under a particular epis-teme;in addition political standpoints, value judg-ments, and academic interests are involved when interpreting the meanings of the objects and the constructing the knowledge order. This article moreover conducts a systematic exploration of Lin Huixiang’s collecting and exhibi-ting practices as well as the genealogy of his aca-demic ideas. All is examined from three aspects:( i) ethnicity, nation, and ethnographic object col-lecting practices; ( ii ) the intellectual, display practices and Museum of Anthropology; ( iii ) the New Theory of Evolution and the establishment of the Southeastern-oceanic-culture-system. The first section of “ethnicity, nation, and ethnographic object collecting practices”focuses on Lin Huixiang’s collecting practices from 1929 until the end of the Second World War. He started to collect aboriginal human objects in Taiwan since 1929 and ethnographical objects in the South Sea since 1937 . As most anthropologists from that area and period, Lin Huixiang’s collecting activities were influenced by patriotism, the establishment of a Chinese anthropology, and by personal academic interests. Chinese anthropologists during the 1920s to 1940s, including Lin Huixiang, believed that nationalism and the ‘Great Harmony ’ would lead to Chinese independence and civilization. And his practices had real significance for China in war-time. On the one hand, these aboriginal objects from Taiwan and the South Sea were regarded as material evidence of an extant“barbarian” culture;this was helpful in understanding that the‘barbari-an’ culture was basically same as that of ours, which then would reduce our ethnic prejudice a-gainst the ‘barbarian’ . On the other hand, these objects also became a means for the public to un-derstand Taiwan, the colony of Japan; in fact, these aboriginal objects even became a symbol of anti-colonialism and aroused the people’s patriot-ism. The second part of “the intelluctual, display practices and Museum of Anthropology” turns to Lin Huixiang’s ideas about the enlightment through a museum and its exhibitions. Lin Huixiang indeed emphasized the educational function of exhibitions and the museum. He displayed his collections to the public, held several exhibitions starting in 1929 , donated all his collections to Xiamen Uni-versity in 1951 , and advocated the establishment of the Museum of Anthropology. Lin Huixiang pointed out that museums were educational institu-tions meant to spread knowledge, and he used specimens, charts, and models to educate the pub-lic. As an anthropologist, Lin Huixiang understood the meaning of an ethnographical museum as an in-strument for teaching, research, and social educa-tion. By reviewing Lin Huixiang’s ‘collecting and exhibiting practices ’ during the period 1929 -1958 , we can clearly come to understand his aca-demic ideas about the discipline of anthropology and about the Southeastern-regional culture. The exhibitions in the Museum of Anthropology of Xia-men University represent his endeavor to construct the Southeastern-oceanic-culture-system within the framework of the New Theory of Evolution. He showed archaeological specimens from the prehis-toric period to the historical period, as well as eth-nographical objects of China’s Southeastern region and Taiwan region, Indonesia, Singapore, India, and of Burma. All objects displayed in exhibitions were used to illustrate the rule of evolution, espe-cially the ethnographic objects that evidenced the primitiveness of human culture; this is helpful to us when exploring the origins of cultures. At the same time, Lin Huixiang compared the cultures of Northern China and Southeastern China, and iden-tified cultural traits specific to the Southeastern ar-ea, aiming to show cultural similarities among China’s Southeastern region and the Taiwan region, and Southeast Asia, which he called the“South-eastern-oceanic-culture-system”.     

Review on Chinese Ethnic Law Studies in 2012

The Studies of Chinese Ethnic Law made great achievements in 2012.Among them, more than 320 articles were published .This is an increase of more than 100 articles than were pub-lished in 2011.The con...     

鲍德温•斯宾塞与后维多利亚时代的古典人类学

The post-Victorian anthropologist Baldwin Spencer was the first to investigate the central and northern aboriginal tribes of Australia. His ethnographic works in this area have greatly in-fluenced related disciplines and studies in fields such as kinship, totem worship, and primitive reli-gions. In the field of classics and anthropology, Spencer’s academic heritage has received wide-spread respect and recognition, and has made sub-sequent academic discussion possible. In order to present Spencer’s personal experiences and aca-demic ideas clearly and comprehensively, it is nec-essary to return to the post-Victorian context, and comb Spencer’ s life history and academic history. Taking important clues from various times an e-vents in his life, the paper introduces three peri-ods:Spencer’s early training in the discipline and his epistemic background, his medium-term eth-nographic investigations and works, and the later investigations of Tierra del Fuego. Textual study, based on Spencer’s life history and academic histo-ry, is very useful to understand his ethnographic investigations. Sir Walter Baldwin Spencer ( 1860 -1929 ) was born on 23 June, 1860 in Lancashire, Eng-land. Spencer was educated at Old Trafford School and at the Manchester School of Art. His interest in art and sketching was lifelong, and would reveal itself in his competence as a scientific draftsman and illustrator ( D. J. Mulvaney,1990 ) . Entering Owens College ( Victoria University of Manchester) in 1879, Spencer intended to study medicine. In-spired by Milnes Marshall, a disciple of Darwin disciple, he became a committed evolutionary biol-ogist, soon abandoning conventional religion. He entered the University of Oxford in 1881 to study
science under Professor H. N. Moseley, who com-bined an enthusiasm for evolutionary biology with ethnological interests. Spencer grasped Oxford ’ s diverse opportunities, which included lectures by Ruskin and E. B. Tylor. In 1887, Spencer ar-rived at Melbourne University . With his colleague Professor David Masson, Spencer helped to trans-form university standards and they co-operated as entrepreneurs of Australian science. Spencer was recruited as zoologist and photog-rapher in the 1894 Horn scientific exploration ex-pedition to central Australia. His anthropological interest was rekindled when he met F. J. Gillen, the Alice Springs postmaster, during the expedi-tion. In 1896 Spencer joined Gillen for the most intensive fieldwork then attempted in Australia. The Native Tribes of Central Australia ( 1899 ) , which resulted, was to influence contemporary theories on social evolution and interpretations of the origins of art and ceremonial practices. Spencer and Gillen drove a buggy from Oodnadatta to Borroloola in 1901-02 . Their research resulted in The Northern Tribes of Central Australia ( 1904 );Haddon had written that the names of Spencer and Gillen are familiar to every ethnologist in the world, and probably no books on ethnology have been so wide-ly noticed and criticized as have The Native Tribes of Central Australia and The Northern Tribes of Central Australia (A. C. Haddon ,1902). To assist the Government of the Common-wealth, Spencer was appointed Special Commis-sioner for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, and also their Chief Protector. He also led three other scientists, including J. A. Gilruth, on the 1911 Preliminary Scientific Expedition. Native Tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia (1914)
described his ethnographic observations and the ex-tensive collections made on the expedition. At the government ’ s request, Spencer visited Alice Springs and Hermannsburg in 1923 . He published The Arunta: A Study of a Stone Age People ( 2 vols, 1927 ) to respond to the criticisms derived from Carl Stretlow and defend his work. A popular rewrite of previous books followed—Wanderings in Wild Australia ( 2 vols, 1928 )—this time under his sole authorship. Spencer retired as emeritus professor in 1919 . His nerves and his judgments were impaired from the strain of continuous overwork, the virtual disin-tegration of his marriage, and he was finally hospi-talized in 1921 . His health improved and within two years he resumed anthropological activities and rebuilt his art collection. He sailed to Tierra del Fuego together with Jean Hamilton to undertake anthropological studies early in 1929. Spencer, with an unrivalled record of anthropological field-work in Australia, undertook this journey to fill a gap in our knowledge, and compare very different and remote races of mankind (A. C. H. ,1931). However, his gallant attempt was prematurely frus-trated by his death from angina pectoris, at which point he had been only two months in the field. His notes were organized and published as Spencer’s Last Journey (1931). His achievements were recognized. Elected as a fellow of the Royal Society in 1900 , he was ap-pointed C. M. G. in 1904 and K. C. M. G. in 1916 . Manchester University conferred him with an honorary doctorate of science, while Melbourne a-warded him a doctorate of letters. Exeter College, Oxford, elected him to an honorary fellowship in 1907 , and stained glass in its hall commemorates his contribution. James Frazer’s letter to Spencer in 1899 was prophetic: books like mine, merely speculative, will be superseded sooner or later ( the sooner the better for the sake of truth) by bet-ter induction based on fuller knowledge;books like yours, containing records of observations, will nev-er be superseded ( John M. Cooper, 1932 ) . Therefore, the sense and value of reading and un-derstanding Spencer and his books today goes with-out saying.     

本刊顾问

Advisors of Editorial Board: James L.Watson:Emeritus Professor of Department of Anthropology,Harvard University,USA Leonard W.J.vander Kuijp:Professor of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies.Department of South Asian Studies.Harvard University,USA Stevan Harrell:Professor of Department of Anthropology,University of Washington in Seattle,USA Stephan Feuchtwang:Emeritus Professor of Department of Anthropology.London School of Economics,UK Michael Rowlands:Professor of Department of Anthropology, University ...     

Brief Introduction of Advisors and Members of Editorial Board Journal of Ethnology

Advisors of Editorial Board James L.Watson:Emeritus Professor of Department of Anthropology,Harvard University,USA Leonard W.J.vander Kuijp:Professor of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies,Department of South Asian Studies,Harvard University,USA Stevan Harrell:Professor of Department of Anthropology,University of Washington in Seattle,USA Stephan Feuchtwang:Emeritus Profcssor of Department of Anthropology,London School of Economics,UK Michael Rowlands:Professor of Department of Anthropology,University College London,UK Nicholas Tapp:Researcher of Department of Anthropology,Australian National University ...     

广东族群与区域文化研究

中山大学人类学系主持的广东族群与区域文化课题研究,是采取多学科综合研究方法的一次有效尝试,取得了较好的研究成果。课题研究涉及广东汉人体质特征、广东方言、广东汉族三大民系的文化特点及其变迁等内容,得出了相应的研究结论。这些结论是集体的研究成果。     

汉学人类学视域下的民众日常生活史研究——芝加哥大学教授雅各布·伊弗斯专访

汉学（Sinology）自展开在中国地区的实地调研后,几十年来,西方汉学家一直不断尝试将人类学理论应用于汉人社区研究。在本篇访谈中,芝加哥大学东亚语言与文明系的雅各布·伊弗斯（Jacob Eyferth）教授以自己的学术经历为线索,讨论了汉学、人类学、历史学、区域研究（Area Study）、科技与社会研究等几大相关领域之间的关系,并以他对四川省的夹江造纸及关中地区织布的研究为具体个案,从汉学人类学的角度对中国传统社会中的技术控制、性别分工、家庭组织等核心问题提出了自己的见解。     

Book reviews

Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness, Paul Gilroy, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, October 1993.     

略论中国人类学的华西学派

本文认为,学派是一门科学中由于学说与师承的不同而形成的派别。中国人类学是近百年来由国外引进的一门学科,在国内已有相当发展并形成一些学派,如"南派"和"北派"。除此以外,是否还有其他的派别,值得研究。作者论述了中国人类学的华西学派,即以20世纪初到50年代在成都建立的华西协合大学为中心的学派及该学派形成和发展的过程、特点等。     

费孝通先生的学问人生管窥

本文以文献资料为依据,从教学风格、学科建设思想和学问情怀三个方面对费孝通先生一生探索的榜样意义进行阐发。费先生在教学上倡导引导学生探求未知、从实求知的教学理念,在学科建设上坚持面向实践、学以致用的学术导向,在学术追求上达到将家、国、天下自觉统一起来的极高境界,他宏富的著述、深刻的思想和崇高的追求,是值得后人永远珍视的宝贵财富。     

语言人类学及其在中国的发展

语言人类学是一门交叉学科,它是在人类学的学科背景下产生和发展起来的。西方的语言人类学经历了田野工作、比较分析、理论概括几个阶段。中国是一个多民族多语种的国家,语言人类学的发展有其广阔的基础,加强语言人类学的研究不仅有利于人类学的学科建设,同时对保护语言文化的多样性、不同的语言文化族群相互尊重以及和谐对话都具有重要意义。     

语言人类学及其在中国的发展

语言人类学是一门交叉学科,它是在人类学的学科背景下产生和发展起来的。西方的语言人类学经历了田野工作、比较分析、理论概括几个阶段。中国是一个多民族多语种的国家,语言人类学的发展有其广阔的基础,加强语言人类学的研究不仅有利于人类学的学科建设,同时对保护语言文化的多样性、不同的语言文化族群相互尊重以及和谐对话都具有重要意义。     

论中国现代民俗学先驱者的性人类学研究

在中国现代民俗学的开创阶段,人类学的发展远赶不上民俗学。性人类学研究的推动者首先是一些知名的民俗学家,而不是人类学家。总的说来,中国早期的性人类学研究深深地打上了民俗学的烙印。先驱者们的性人类学研究虽处于起步阶段,但却给刚刚引入中国的人类学的本土化发展留下了宝贵的一页。当时的性人类学研究受传统道德观念的束缚很深,甚至还有人为此付出了惨重的代价。