解决问题 知难而上——人类学者访谈录之三

中国的人类学虽然队伍较小 ,但它很年轻 ,充满了活力 ,近年来发展势头也较好。人类学应关心人 ,关心生活 ,关心现实 ,知难而上 ,真正解决一些理论问题和实际性问题     

“主体人类学”概念的提出及知识体系建构

人类学是研究人本身及其文化的学问,但长期以来却出现学科研究对象和学科体系的偏移,并产生严重危害。建立主体人类学和重构人类学学科体系是今天世界人类学界的历史性课题。它的解决对于人类重新认识和解读自己、为人文社会科学提供正确的人性前提、人类掌握自己的命运和实现人类学由边缘到核心转变具在极其重要的价值。主体人类学概念及其知识体系包括:主体人类学概念与研究对象,主体─人的生命本质和生命本体,人格结构与选择图型理论,类群结构与选择图型理论,重构人类学学科体系构想,人类学方法论建构以及主体─人的生存价值前提等系统内容。     

Being and Landscape: An Ontological Inquiry into a Japanese Rural Community

This essay aims to reflect on the idea of landscape and our relationship with it by taking the Japanese notion of furusato (native place) in its ontological dimension. Grounded in Heidegger’s ‘phenomenology of Being’ and ‘ontology’, a phenomenological understanding of fieldwork experience in a Japanese rural community will be developed in order to rethink both the furusato and the ‘Being-landscape’ relation. As a consequence, we will be concerned not with how people speak about landscape, but with how the landscape speaks through people. What will be brought to light are the landscape’s moral and relational dimensions: namely, (i) the responsibility towards both our communities and future generations and (ii) a more-than-physical understanding of landscape that alerts us to our belonging to a common world comprised of relationships and tasks.     

反思的艺术人类学——《绘文化》对艺术人类学研究的启示

<绘文化>是一本反思性的艺术人类学民族志代表作.本文主要结合研究对象、研究方法和民族志书写这三个方面,思考此书对当前艺术人类学研究的启示.     

探索的成果 原创的力作——评张佐邦《美学人类学》

本文从世界文化人类学学科发展的学术前沿出发,从学科体系原创、理论观点原创、研究方法原创等方面,对《美学人类学》一书,给予客观、科学的评价。评论中包含着作者许多独到的发现和精辟的见解。     

公祭:人类学的解读

在人类学看来,公祭具有多元性、地方性、族群性、社会性和政冶性等特点.公祭的多元性是文化多样性的一种表达,公祭的地方性是地方性知识的一种凸现,公祭的族群性是族群认同的一个边界,公祭的社会性是社会控制的一个手段,公祭的政治性是一种文化权力的控制.因此,不可轻易否定公祭.但举行公祭必须慎之又慎,必须有理有利有节地举行,制定公祭的法律法规,严格公祭审批,使公祭能在法制的规范下进行,既能够满足人们的精神需求,又能够为增强中华民族凝聚力贡献出应有的力量.     

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”.     

Global Identifications: The Social Identity Behind the Globalised Sociocultural Anthropologist

My social identity as a diasporic Korean American male sometimes engendered doubts about my competency as a cultural anthropologist of South Korea. Such ethnonational gatekeeping by my ‘native’ Korean colleagues laid bare broader critiques of ‘the West’. Paradoxically, they also prompted re-entrenchments of nativeness (and implicitly, non-nativeness) by my colleagues despite their increasingly ‘non-native’ transnational identities. These embodied cultural boundaries are less visible (and arguably less consequential) to those viewed as recognisably non-native Asian (for example, white, Euro-American) or native Asian. But they are markedly visible and relevant to diasporic subjects who fit less comfortably within both boundary-enforcing classifications. The figure of the diasporic anthropologist reveals presumed racialised and gendered markers of difference—chiefly the unmarked but organising role of whiteness—conveniently subsumed under categories of ‘the West’ and ‘Asia’. Consequently, recent calls for ‘global anthropology’ against ‘Euro-American academic hegemony’ that fail to address this essentialising tendency, although important, remain inadequate.     

泰语称谓语中的汉语方言借词

中国南方省份尤其是广东、福建沿海一带移居暹罗者较多。移民给泰国本地带来了不少中国文化,尤其是语言。如今泰语中的汉语词汇借词以潮州话居多。最明显的是“称谓语”。汉语的称谓语在泰语中的使用不仅仅局限于华人家庭,在泰国人当中也普遍使用。泰语里的汉语称谓语借词包括亲属称谓语和社会称谓语。汉语称谓语在泰语借用时音义及词法有所变化,尤其是语义在泰语中的使用已逐渐离开其本义并产生新的义项。     

人类学本土化探索历程评述——以吴文藻、费孝通和李亦园为主的讨论

中国人类学百年发展历程中,学科本土化一直是学者们倡导和践行的目标,本文以几位人类学家思想为主体,结合几次重要的本土化讨论,就人类学本土化百年探索历程做一回顾和阐述。并以此认为中国人类学首先要形成对自己传统的文化自觉,坚守自己的传统才不至于在全球化时代自我迷失,步别人后尘,但又绝不是固步自封的国粹主义,中国人类学研究的本土化最终出路应是走向世界。