克利福德·格尔兹列传

克利福德·格尔兹是美国人类学家,阐释人类学的提出者。格尔兹一生所出版的著作非常丰富,《文化的解释》(1973)和《地方性知识》(1983)是他的代表著作。"阐释人类学"是格尔兹最主要的学术贡献。他的"阐释人类学"从意义角度赋予文化以新的诠释,同时还提出了"深描"的民族志表达方式,并重视研究地方性知识。国内外学者对格尔兹的研究做出了评价,他们的评论强调了格尔兹研究的重要性,同时也探讨了"阐释人类学"所引发的争论。     

人类学视域中的博物馆陈列展览

陈列展览是博物馆得以传播知识和思想、进行社会教育的载体,是博物馆的主要业务工作之一.当今随着新博物馆学的兴起与发展,博物馆由对"物"的重视逐渐转向对"人"的重视,这就要求博物馆陈列展览在强调知识性与学术性的同时,也要注重其亲和力,拉近与公众的距离,主动融入公众之中.人类学是全面研究人及其文化的学科,主张通过研究文化来理解人性,无论从其理论、方法抑或其学科发展历程看,都具有强烈的人文关怀.本文拟从人类学的视角对博物馆陈列展览予以解读,借以展现陈列展览的不同维度,从而更好地达到其传播知识与社会教育的目的.     

人类学视域中的博物馆陈列展览

陈列展览是博物馆得以传播知识和思想、进行社会教育的载体,是博物馆的主要业务工作之一。当今随着新博物馆学的兴起与发展,博物馆由对"物"的重视逐渐转向对"人"的重视,这就要求博物馆陈列展览在强调知识性与学术性的同时,也要注重其亲和力,拉近与公众的距离,主动融入公众之中。人类学是全面研究人及其文化的学科,主张通过研究文化来理解人性,无论从其理论、方法抑或其学科发展历程看,都具有强烈的人文关怀。本文拟从人类学的视角对博物馆陈列展览予以解读,借以展现陈列展览的不同维度,从而更好地达到其传播知识与社会教育的目的。     

"地方性知识"的生态性与文化相对性意蕴

"地方性知识"作为著名人类学家格尔茨对于人类学界和知识界的两大贡献之一,在其被提出来以后,就受到包括人类学、民族学、民俗学、文化学、社会学、法学、哲学、政治学、传播学和博物学等在内的不同学科门类的学者广泛征引和不断诠释;本文特地对这一概念中所蕴涵的生态性与文化相对性,及其被提出的时代与知识背景进行论述和阐释.     

民族生态博物馆旅游可持续发展研究——以广西民族生态博物馆群为例

生态博物馆作为新博物馆学的重要组成,其目的是为了对当地的文化、自然遗产及风景进行"在地"的保护。与传统博物馆注重对文物的收集及展览不同,生态博物馆以自然风景、文化遗产或居民的集体记忆为收藏和诠释的对象,打破了传统博物馆的固定边界,将"地域"概念扩展到博物馆领域。随着旅游的发展,生态博物馆作为重要的旅游吸引物,在促进生态博物馆建设和发展中发挥重要作用,为生态博物馆"在地"文化的保护和发展提供了新的模式。本文以文化空间理论为基础,从生态博物馆的概念模型出发建构生态博物馆的文化空间,提出了生态博物馆文化空间的根本、基础和载体。在此基础上,以广西民族生态博物馆群为研究对象,针对其旅游发展中存在的问题,结合生态博物馆文化空间,提出广西民族生态博物馆旅游可持续发展的实现路径,为生态博物馆建设及旅游发展提供理论借鉴。     

民俗文化村的文化表演——以生态人类学的视角分析

生态人类学关注人与环境的互动,在20世纪末转向对人造环境的文化表演的研究.国内外学者从经济、政治和现代性的反思视角切入,从跨文化互动的角度展示了不同文化、族群是如何理解、改造环境,建构民俗文化村的,又是如何诠释当下的生计活动的.文化表演的研究对于反思环境决定论具有建设性,但应注意"西方本位"存在的问题.     

卷首语

文学人类学把握住人类学与知识全球化、后现代认识论的关系,从人类学与文学的相互作用这个新角度着眼,透析出20世节纪文学创作观念变革与文学研究的范式革新的一个重要学术思想动力.在文学创作方面,梳理了"文化他者"的发现如何激发出"人类学想象",体现在从超现实主义到魔幻现实主义的整个20世纪文学发展之中;在文学理论批评方面,梳理出西方文学人类学研究的五大方法流派,逐一加以辨析;以及"文化"概念对人文社会科学的再整合作用;并对其代表人物弗莱的理论遗产进行全面剖析;对人类学知识与文学研究的最佳结合点--神话学做了点面结合的示范性阐述;结合神话学传播中国的过程,论述和总结文学人类学研究的中国本土化实践经验,特别是"三重证据法"的提出,为文学人类学的理论建构和研究的拓展提供了前瞻性的见解.     

日本人类学三讲(连载之一)——中牧弘允在北大的演讲

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,在北大举办了三场演讲,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 of Japanese Companies)。演讲由北京大学人类学教授王铭铭主持,中国社会科学院民族学与人类学研究所刘正爱研究员翻译。参加此次学术活动的,有来自北京大学社会学系、中国人民大学人类学研究所、中央民族大学民族学与社会学学院、中国艺术研究院的师生。鉴于这三次演讲系统反映了日本人类学的历史与现状,此处刊登北京大学人类学专业博士研究生何源远、高瑜、翟淑萍所作的录音整理稿。     

旅游者与消费者:博物馆人类学视域中的观众

旅游社会和消费社会将博物馆塑造为景观和符号,将旅游者和消费者吸引进博物馆的异域空间中,并改变着博物馆的知识权力结构和功能.博物馆的观众在这种改变过程中成为旅游者与消费者双重身份的存在.博物馆人类学视域中的观众不再只是展品表征意涵的建构者,也是将博物馆及其展品作为景观的旅游者,也是将博物馆及其产品作为符号的消费者.博物馆为生活于现代性社会中的个体提供了建构休闲情境与娱乐消费的场域.个体的旅游行为和消费行为将博物馆纳入到分化现代性社会的过程中.观众的参观行为将博物馆置于反思和批判现代性社会价值体系的视域中.     

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     

我国人类学民族学博物馆的视野亟需扩展——云南省中医药暨少数民族医药博物馆中医西传分馆的启示

于2009年建成并已部分开放的云南省中医药暨少数民族医药博物馆,是我国西南少数民族文化遗产的一个重要庇护所。而其中正在建设的中医西传分馆,更是中医药类及人类学、民族学类博物馆中的一朵奇葩。除了对针灸西传文化遗产的保护与研究,这座有些另类的博物馆还促使我们对我国民族博物馆的视野乃至整个民族学、人类学的视野进行思考。本文从该馆的由来、功能,以及它带来的启示,讨论"民族"、"少数民族"的本意、特别是对中国人类学界的含义,以及新时期探索海外社会乃至西方社会的必要性与可能性。     

民族博物馆科学管理的制度建设探讨

民族博物馆亟待建立与健全现代化的科学管理体系。因此,必须抓好民族博物馆管理体制机制创新,提高民族博物馆绩效管理水平,提升民族博物馆管理的工作水准。要进一步加强民族博物馆文物管理标准化建设,建立文物捐赠制度,健全国有资产管理制度,完善安全保卫制度。     

遗产理论重新建构的实践：博物馆由圣殿走向世俗

Western theories on cultural herit-age have been developing continuously in ceaseless debates, and these theories have experienced dif-ferent stages of emerging, evolution and decon-struction. At the same time, a reconstruction of‘cultural heritage theories ’ is now being imple-mented and even has gained a certain achieve-ment. Indeed, at present ‘museums ’ have be-come the playgrounds for the reconstruction of new theories: museums are being transformed from a‘palatial ’ heritage protection institutes into ‘an-thropocentric’ cultural service institutes by means of ‘audience engagement’ . Museums increasingly implement the reconstruction of cultural heritage theories. From the 8 th to the 12 th of August 2016 a training project on ‘audience engagement ’ -hos-ted both by the British Council and the Chinese Museums Association-took place in the ‘National Museums Liverpool’ group. Due to its preeminent geological position, professional teams of special-ists, and audience-oriented working mechanisms, the National Museums Liverpool has become a new paradigm for the world of museums. However, be-hind these visible developments, a process of cul-tural heritage studies has been providing a strong support and guidance. Going back to European ideology from the late 18thto 19th century, the ‘past’ was seen as an ob-ject to be studied, pursued, protected, or even re-built ( designing past landscapes, old buildings, and memorials) . This ideology became the starting point of ‘Eurocentric heritage studies ’ . Due to this background, initial heritage studies have been branded with phrases as‘Eurocentrism’ ,‘author-itativeness’ , and ‘sanctification ’; this view has affected a large number of museums in the world. However, heritage studies have been adjusting and evolving. Post-modern heritage theories questioned issues like ‘centralization ’ and ‘authoritative-ness’ , and instead refocused on concepts like‘people’ , ‘democracy ’ , and ‘pluralistic socie-ty’ . The advocacy of‘cultural diversity’ and sup-port of expressions of‘intangible cultural heritage’ are practical applications of this new development in heritage theories. Taking the National Museums Liverpool as a case, the first characteristic of this museums group is the easy accessibility of the location of the muse-ums:several museums are situated just besides the sea as well as close to the city shopping center. Still, other museums are located on the opposite side of this area, yet it is only a 20-minutes walk between the two sides. A second characteristic is a special ‘managerial/administrative mechanism ’ that allows all museums to be run in a certain way;at the same time curators remain at the core of the teams that conduct the projects in the museums. A third trait is that the museum audience remains the main focus of all operations in the‘National Muse-ums Liverpool ’ . The case of National Museums Liverpool shows that ‘museums ’ have become an important place for reconstructing ‘cultural herit-age theories’. By means of ‘free admission’ and ‘audience engagement ’ , the museums’ function has changed from a ‘sacred place for collecting, researching and rescuing the past’ to an anthropo-centric service institute: museums have shifted from an organization of ‘sanctification ’ to one of‘secularization’ . With this development of cultural heritage the-ories, the traditional model of the museums has been reconstructed and renovated:it seems to have restored the voice of the general public and of cer-tain non-powerful groups to preeminence. In addi-tion, the bowuguan tiaoli ( Museum Regulations) issued by the State Council of China in 2015 says that‘education’ is the primary function of a muse-um. This redefinition of what a museum is sup-posed to be, actually reflects a guiding ideology of changing the museum’s traditional status and iden-tity. It also emphasizes the museum’s need for au-dience engagement. All of this challenges the museum’s traditional function of ‘collecting, pre-serving, researching, and displaying’ . New social functions, such as‘public education’ and‘public cultural service’ , are thus constantly emerging into a museum. Although different names have been given to these new functions, ‘audience engage-ment’ is at the core of them. Generally speaking, as international museums are slowly transforming - guided by cultural heritage theories-domestic museums will also gradually change their predomi-nant ‘sacred position ’ and shift into museums of‘decentralization’ . Anthropocentrism and‘service to the people’ will increasingly be the new identity of present-day museums.     

民族博物馆的价值取向探讨

博物馆始终是一个地区乃至一个国家文化水平和文明程度的重要窗口。民族博物馆的价值理念应当参照国际博协的价值体系,肩负起奉献观众通俗高雅民族文化的社会责任,为和谐社会构建做出贡献。民族博物馆要服务和促进国家文化软实力的形成,成为普及和提高大众精神文化的场所,民族博物馆的陈列展预示着博物馆的价值追求。     

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”.     

人类学的批评与建设:基于人道主义的立场

人类学的诞生与西方人道主义传统密不可分。就学科性质而言,人类学的人文倾向赋予了其人道主义内涵;而在学科实践中,许多人类学家也都承担了人道主义者的责任。在批判的意义上,人类学运用马克思主义的人道观充实了人道主义的内涵,拓展了人道主义对人的理解;而在建设意义上,人类学运用其整体论视角和方法论优势,在关注弱势群体、消除暴力纷争、发掘本土知识、达成文化共识等方面都发挥了重要作用。     

医学人类学的社会文化视角

医学人类学是采用人类学的理论、视角与方法对健康、疾病与治疗的相关认知与行为的研究,它还包括将人类学的知识用于解决健康、疾病与卫生保健相关的应用性工作。医学人类学的理论视角大体有两端,一端侧重人类的生物性,形成了医学人类学的生物文化视角;另一端关注社会文化层面,形成了医学人类学的社会文化视角。社会文化视角下的研究构成了医学人类学的主体。本文对社会文化视角的几种理论取向做了历时性梳理,并简要评述了国内相关的研究。     

地方知识的本质与构造——基于乡村社区民族志研究的阐释

地方知识是阐释人类学的标志性概念.在民族志研究的基础上,作者指出,地方知识的本质是一种文化信念,在乡村社区里,地方知识由类官方知识、大众知识和传统知识三部分组成.     

门与墙:一种合作的而非分离的文化转型人类学

人类学需要走出一种围墙的界限,需要不同学科门类之间的知识交流与合作。知识相互间的分离,也可以说是一种之前文化分离观念的自然养成,由此而要去反思曾经社区的、区域的以及模式的文化研究之缺陷和不足。人的精神是相通的,观念之间不会因为围墙和大门关闭而不发生沟通。人类学未来的希望则在于一种跨出边界的合作人类学的成长。     

对人类学研究方法——田野调查的几点思考

田野调查是文化人类学的基本研究方法和获取一手资料的基本途径,也是民族志架构的源泉。对于田野调查,笔者认为:它对人类学研究具有重要的意义,但也存在一定的局限性,本文从参与观察、主位解释法、文化相对主义论三方面进行具体阐述。