科学时代的人类学现实主义
|
摘要
人类学是关于现实主义的学科。文章明确区分了现实主义和科学主义(或者说客观主义),认为现实主义应该确认包括民族志在内的所有知识得以产生的语境及其偶发性。而科学主义(一套将科学作为权威来源的说辞)却悖论式地否认科学本身得以生成的语境。一个现实主义的视角不但以社会经验为依据,并且也意识到以此获得知识的种种局限性。如今我们生活的世界充斥着市场消费主义、新自由主义、审计文化以及各种强权暴政,这些势力出于其自身政治利益的需要,正想方设法取代各种质性的修辞研究,从而遏制批判性的思想。有鉴于此,现实主义不啻为一个探索人类学理论所蕴含的政治意义的较为恰当的视角。
引文
[1]R.Needham,The Future of Social Anthropology:Disintegration or Metamorphosis?In:Anniversary Contributions to Anthropology:Twelve Essays.Leiden:E.J.Brill,1970,pp.34-46.
[2]P.Bourdieu,Outline of a Theory of Practice,trans.Nice R.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977.
[3]R.Malighetti,The Plural Unification of Sciences:The Epistemological Contributions of a Perpetually Dissatisfied Discipline.Unpublished Manuscript.(n.d.)
[4]B.Latour and S.Woolgar,Laboratory Life:The Construction of Scientific Facts,2nd edition.Princeton:Princeton University Press,1986.
[5]S.Trawee,Beamtimes and Lifetimes:The World of High Energy Physicists.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.1988.
[6]P.Rabinow,Making PCR:A Story of Biotechnology.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997.
[7]S.M.Low and S.E.Merry,Engaged Anthropology:Diversity and Dilemmas:An Introduction to Supplement 2.Current Anthropology 51(Suppl 2),2010:S203-S226.
[8]S.P.Reyna,Hard truths:Addressing a Crisis in Ethnography.In:O.Zenker and K.Kumoll(eds)Beyond Writing Culture:Current Intersections of Epistemologies and Representational Practices.Oxford:Berghahn,2010,pp.166-9.
[9]D.Fassin,The Endurance of Critique.Anthropological Theory 17(1),2017:4-29.
[10]D.Fassin,Introduction:Governing precarity.In:D.Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans.P.Brown and D.Fassin.London:Pluto Press,2015,pp.1-11.
[11]S.J.Tambiah,Magic,Science,Religion,and the Scope of Rationality.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[12]N.Abu El-Haj,Facts on the Ground:Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self Fashioning in Israeli Society.Chicago:U-niversity of Chicago Press,2001.
[13]G.B.Vico,Principij di Scienza Nuova,3rd edition.Naples:Stamperia Muziana.1744.
[14]G.Payne and J.Payne,Key Concepts in Social Research.Thousand Oaks,CA:SAGE.200,171.
[15]J.Fabian,Time and the Other:How Anthropology makes its Object.New York:Columbia University Press,1983.
[16]D.Zeitlyn,Understanding Anthropological Understanding:For a Metrological Anthropology.Anthropological Theory 9,2009:209-231.
[17]A.Giuliani,Vico’s Rhetorical Philosophy and the New Rhetoric.In:Tagliacozzo G and Verene PV(eds)Giambattista Vico’s Science of Humanity.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1976:33.
[18]A.R.Radcliffe-Brown,Structure and Function in Primitive Society:Essays and Addresses.Glencoe,IL:The Free Press.1952,P.1.
[19]A.Shryock,Nationalism and the Genealogical Imagination:Oral History and Textual Authority in Tribal Jordan.Berkeley:University of California Press,1997.
[20]P.Dresch,The Significance of the Course Events Take in Segmentary Systems.American Ethnologist 13,1986:309-32.
[21]M.Strathern,Audit Culture:Anthropological Studies in Accountability,Ethics,and the Academy.London:Routledge,2000.
[22]C.Shore and S.Wright,AuditCultureRevisited:Rankings,Ratings,and the Reassembling of Society.Current Anthropology 56,2015:421-444.
[23]D.R.Holmes,Economy of Words:Communicative Imperatives in Central Banks.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2013.
[24]M.Douglas,Purity and Danger:An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo.London:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1966.
[25]S.Gudeman and A.Rivera,Conversations in Colombia:The Domestic Economy in Life and Text.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[26]M.Mauss,The Gift:Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies,trans.Cunnison I.London:Cohen&West,1954.
[27]M.Herzfeld,(2016a)Cultural Intimacy:Social Poetics and the Real Life of States,Societies,and Institutions,3rd edition.New York:Routledge,2016.
[28]J.Eckert,Beyond Agatha Christie:Relationality and Critique in Anthropological Theory.Anthropological Theory 16,2016:241-248.
[29]J.C.Scott,Seeing Like a State:How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.New Haven:Yale University Press,1998.
[30]A.Glaeser,Monolithic intentionality,belonging,and the production of state paranoia:A view through Stasi onto the late GDR.In:A.Shryock(ed.)Off Stage/On Display:Intimacy and Ethnography in the Age of Public Culture.Stanford:Stanford University Press,2004,pp.244-76.
[31]E.E.Evans-Pritchard.The Nuer:A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People.Oxford:Clarendon Press,1940.
[32]M.Herzfeld,The Social Production of Indifference:Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy.Oxford:Berg,1992.
[33]M.De Certeau,The Practice of Everyday Life,trans.Rendall SE.Berkeley:Universityof California Press,1984.
[34]E.R.Leach,Rethinking Anthropology.London:Athlone Press,1962.
[35]M.Herzfeld,The Absent Presence:Discourses of Cryptocolonialism.South Atlantic Quarterly 101,2002:899-926.
[36]F.Barth,Introduction.In:F.Barth(ed.)Ethnic Groups and Boundaries:The Social Organization of Culture Difference.Bergen:Universiteitsforlaget,1969,pp.9-38.
[37]A.Wimmer and N.Glick Schiller Methodological Nationalism and Beyond:Nationstate Building,Migration and the Social Sciences.Global Networks 2,2002:301-334.
[38]S.J.Tambiah,Animals are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit.Ethnology 8,1969:423-459.
[39]F.Aulino,Perceiving the Social Body:A phenomenological Perspective on Ethical Practice in Buddhist Thailand.Journal of Religious Ethics 42,2014:415-41.
[40]P.Ladwig,Ontology,Materiality and Spectral Traces:Methodological Thoughts on Studying Lao Buddhist Festivals for Ghosts and Ancestral Spirits.Anthropological Theory 12,2013:427-448.
[41]J.L.Austin How to Do Things with Words.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1975.
[42]P.Rabinow,French Modern:Norms and Forms of the Social Environment.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1989.
[43]C.Sopranzetti,Owners of the Map:Motorcycle Taxi Drivers,Mobility,and Politics in Bangkok.Berkeley:University of California Press,2017.
(1)特别参阅《写文化》一书,J. Clifford and G. Marcus(eds),Writing Culture:The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley:University of California Press,1986。其他精辟的批评,请参阅S. P.Reyna,Hard truths:Addressing a crisis in ethnography. In:Zenker O and Kumoll K(eds)Beyond Writing Culture:Current Intersections of Epistemologies and Representational Practices. Oxford:Berghahn,2010,pp. 166。
(2)参见G. Marcus and P. Hall. Lives in Trust:The Fortunes of Dynastic Families in Late Twentieth-Century America. Boulder:Westview. 1992; P. Rabinow,Making PCR:A Story of Biotechnology.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997。
(3)特别参见L. Hutcheon and M. J. Valdes,Irony,nostalgia,and the postmodern:A dialogue. Poligraf1as 3:18–41. Available at:http://www. lpimentel. filos. unam. mx/sites/default/files/poligrafias/3/02-hutcheon-valdes. pdf(accessed 31 July 2017)。
(4)例如S. Helmreich,Alien Ocean:Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley:University of California Press,2009; C. M.Kelty,Geeks,internets,and recursive publics. Cultural Anthropology20,2005:185–214。
(5)相关范畴,参见L. E. Lassiter,Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology 46,2005:83–106; D.Vine,Public anthropology’in its second decade:Robert Borofsky’s Center for a Public Anthropology. American Anthropologist 113,2011:336–339。
(6)J. Clifford, On ethnographic authority. Representations 2(Spring),1983:7。也可参见D. Zeitlyn Understanding anthropological understanding:For a metrological anthropology. Anthropological Theory 9,2009:209–231。
(7)因此,当一名观众评论一出现实主义歌剧“并不真实”,或者当一个民族志学者发现中国社会生活组织事实上已经分崩离析(恰当地表达了某些矛盾之处)(参见Chang S and Hua L,“Travailler beaucoup,travailler dur” a`dazhai. Etudes rurales 179,2007:95–116. Chang and Hua),与长期宣传鼓动所营造出的种种“真实性的理念”完全不符的时候,这并非表明我们正在挑战一个谎言。我们所面临的这一问题要求我们以一种极其传统的方式来表述和界定真实性,正如同艺术家们希望我们将歌剧当作真实的来看待一样。
(8)也可参见M. Herzfeld,The Social Production of Indifference:Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy. Oxford:Berg. 1992。
(9)以“ism”结尾的单词往往意味着模仿,希腊语的后缀-ismos也意味着模仿。例如,“希腊风格”(‘Hellenism’)这一称谓就是后来主张采用古希腊语言和文化的学者们对5世纪时期雅典卫城所呈现出的典型希腊化模式加以效仿的结果。如今这一称谓已经成为19世纪崛起的现代希腊民族主义的古典官方意识形态。道德主义当然不能代替道德,就像科学主义不能代替科学一样。与目前的讨论密切相关的是明确区分实证研究(来自古希腊哲学,意为经验)和经验主义的重要性,后者是科学主义的特定变体。见J. W. Fernandez and M. Herzfeld,In search of meaningful methods.In:Bernard HR and Gravlee CG(eds)Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology,2nd edition. Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,2014,pp. 55–96; M. Herzfeld Anthropology through the LookingGlass:Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987:13。
(10)特别参见P. Heywood,Anthropology and what there is:Reflections on ‘ontology’. Cambridge Anthropology 30,2012:143–151; P. Heywood and J. Laidlaw,One More Turn and You’re There.Anthropology of This Century 7,2013; Available at:http://aotcpress.com/articles/turn/(accessed 28 November 2016); M. Holbraad,M.A. Pedersenand E. Viveiros de Castro,The Politics of Ontology:Anthropological Positions. Cultural Anthropology,13 January,2014; Available at:https://culanth. org/fieldsights/462-the-politics-ofontology-anthropological-positions(accessed 28 December 2016).P. Ladwig,Ontology,materiality and spectral traces:Methodological thoughts on studying Lao Buddhist festivals for ghosts and ancestral spirits. Anthropological Theory 12,2013:427–448; H. B. Vigh and D. B. Sausdal,From Essence Back to Existence:Anthropology Beyond the Ontological Turn. Anthropological Theory 14,2014:49–73; E.Viveiros de Castro,Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation. Tipiti 2(1),2014:3–22。
(11)在这一方面,理论与实践的区别再现了结构与能动性之间的区别,两者过去在理论层面通常以社会中心主义以及方法论的个体主义加以区别,现在看来它们都是同一枚硬币的两面(参见A. Giddens,The Constitution of Society:Introduction to the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley:University of California Press,1984. I. Karp,Agency and social theory:A review of Giddens. American Ethnologist13,1986:131-37)。索绪尔所区分分的语言和言语也是如此,二者互为意义。
(12)关于人类学常识的概念,参见M. Herzfeld,Common Sense,Anthropology of. In:Wright JD(ed.)International Encyclopedia of the Behavioral and Social Sciences,2nd edition. Oxford:Elsevier,2015,pp. 258–262。
(13)参见S. P. Reyna,Hard truths:Addressing a crisis in ethnography. In:Zenker O and Kumoll K(eds)Beyond Writing Culture:Current Intersections of Epistemologies and Representational Practices.Oxford:Berghahn,2010,p. 168。
(14)我的计算机不能识别出“科学主义的”(scientistic)这个词,尽管它能识别出“科学主义”(scientism),这似乎也表明我们生活的制度性世界正在日益简化和本质化。(在正式话语的分析中,形容词可能比名词更具破坏性!)
(15)然而,我们应该认识到,在这篇文章的其他地方简要提到的科学人类学家(anthropologists of science)将科学作为他们关注的中心。有关人类学是否是一门科学的争论对于我而言纯粹是一场唯名论的游戏,然而在本文中我们应该清楚这种争论的政治效应。
(16)特别参阅M. Holbraad,M. A. Pedersen and E. Viveiros de Castro,The politics of ontology:Anthropological positions. Cultural Anthropology,13 January,2014; Available at:https://culanth. org/fieldsights/462-the-politics-of-ontology-anthropological-positions(accessed 28 December 2016).参见上文注3。
(17)参见R. Needham,The future of social anthropology:Disintegration or metamorphosis? In:Anniversary Contributions to Anthropology:Twelve Essays. Leiden:E. J. Brill,pp. 34–46; L. Rosen,Other Intentions:Cultural Contexts and the Attribution of Inner States.Santa Fe:SAR Press,1995。
(18)参见P. Bourdieu,In Other Words:Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge:Polity Press,1990,p. 78; D. Reay,‘It’s all becoming a habitus’:Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education 25,2005:433。
(19)M. Herzfeld,Engagement,Gentrification,and the Neoliberal Hijacking of History. Current Anthropology 51(Suppl 2),2010:S259-S267; M. Herzfeld,Serendipitous sculpture:Ethnography is as ethnography goes. Anthropology and Humanism 39,2014:3–9; S.M. Low and S. E. Merry,Engaged anthropology:Diversity and Dilemmas:An Introduction to Supplement 2. Current Anthropology 51(Suppl 2),2010:S203–S226.
(20)这种名为“词根学”的研究方法对于民俗学家而言极为普遍,他们幻想着可以从形形色色的民歌中重构出一种原始文本(Urtext),因为他们认为这些民歌是原始文本的不同版本。
(21)如布洛赫(M. Bloch),见M. Jakoubek and L. J. Budilova'(n. d.)An Interview with Prof. M. Judith. Okely:‘I seem to provoke controversy……’. Available at:https://otik. uk. zcu. cz/bitstream/handle/11025/6337/Jakoubek. pdf? sequence=1(accessed 28December 2016).布洛赫表达了与本文作者相似的观点。
(22)从根本上而言,萨皮尔-沃尔夫假说认为语言限制了思想的形式。这一假说的极端论调认为翻译或者任何跨文化交流都是不可能的。然而,将这一假说稍加调和,它只不过认为语言限制思想,但是并没有决定思想的种种可能性。
(23)如R. D. Andrade,Moral Models in Anthropology. Current Anthropology 36,1995:399–408,433–438.
(24)此外,这种创造性的阐释通常被纳入法律实践本身。正如法国移民法官“有权要求律师不要提出任何地方官都不会接受的论点,他们要求律师们尽量提出更多富有‘创造性’的请求和建议。见N. Fischer,Justice for Immigrants:The Work of Magistrates in Deportation Proceed-ings. In:D. Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans. P. Brown and D.Fassin. London:Pluto Press,2015,p. 50。
(25)这一行为是工业化时代的特殊形式,工人们坚持严格遵守各项规章制度,而不是罢工。在这样一种坚守中,英国的整个铁路系统在很短时间内便陷于瘫痪。制定这些规章制度的政策也一并陷入停滞。而只有参与调查的人类学家清楚,个体或者集体的行为之所以能发挥作用,正是因为他们利用这些规则来颠覆其试图维系的结构。比如参见G. Feldman,S. Lathrop,C. Shore and J.Wedel,Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy. In:R. W. Pearson and L. W. Sherman(eds)The Use and Usefulness of the Social Sciences:Achievement,Disappointments,and Promise(The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,vol. 600).Thousand Oaks,CA:SAGE,2005,pp. 30–51。
(26)另见J. C. Scott,Weapons of the Weak:Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven:Yale University Press,1985。
(27)M. Herzfeld,Anthropology through the Looking-Glass:Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987; M. Herzfeld,The Social Production of Indifference:Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy. Oxford:Berg,1992。
(28)参见I. Karp,Agency and Social Theory:A Review of Giddens. American Ethnologist 13,1986:131–37。
(29)参见R. Malighetti,The Plural Unification of Sciences:The Epistemological Contributions of a Perpetually Dissatisfied Discipline.Unpublished Manuscript.(n. d.)。
(30)参见E. W. Ardener,Introduction. In:E. W. Ardener(ed.)Social Anthropology and Language. London:Tavistock,1971,pp. liv,lxxxiii)。
(31)S. Dube,Introduction:Enchantments of Modernity. South Atlantic Quarterly 101,2002:729–755(见Dube的批判:2002:741-743)。
(32)这不是通常的学术上的说辞,比如“这一切都取决于你怎么看……”,或者是深知探寻事物之不易而裹足不前(比如事情远比你想象的要复杂得多之类的说辞)。这是一种对于事物的短暂易变以及复杂多样全然接受的态度,因为这些因素构成了我们所理解的事实。
(33)M. Herzfeld,Siege of the Spirits:Community and Polity in Bangkok. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2016:227-8n42;参见J. Holston,The Modernist City:An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989; P. Rabinow,French Modern:Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1989。
(34)关于这一点,请参阅《曼谷邮报》2016年12月28日的社论:“军政府的国民改革指导大会(NRSA)通常是一个不太引人注目的组织。然而每隔一段时间,它就会提出一个似乎与国民毫不相干的议案,让人大跌眼镜。”参见http://www. bangkokpost. com/opinion/opinion/1169777/。
(35)特别参见J. Holston,The Modernist City:An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989; A.A. Johnson,Ghosts of the New City:Spirits,Urbanity,and the Ruins of Progress in Chiang Mai. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,2014。
(36)将人类学家视为专家的观点存在颇多批判和争议。参见S. Turner,What can we Say About the Future of Social Science? Anthropological Theory 13,2013:187–200。
(37)A. Vradis and D. Dalakoglou,Revolt and Crisis in Greece:Between a Present Yet to Pass and a Future Still to Come. London:AK Press,2011; T. Rakopoulos,Solidarity Tensions:Informality and Sociality in the Greek Crisis. Social Analysis 59,2015:85–104。
(38)特别参见M. Carrithers,Anthropology as A Moral Science of Possibilities. Current Anthropology46,2005:433–456; V. Das,Life and Words:Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. Berkeley:University of California Press,2006; D. Fassin,Beyond good and evil?Questioning the Anthropological Discomfort with Morals. Anthropological Theory 8,2008:333–344; D. Fassin,Introduction:Governing Precarity. In:D. Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans. P. Brown and P. Fassin. London:Pluto Press,2015,pp. 1–11.; D. Fassin,The Endurance of Critique. Anthropological Theory 17(1),2017:4–29; N. Fischer,Justice for Immigrants:The Work of Magistrates in Deportation Proceedings. In:D. Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans. P. Brown and D. Fassin. London:Pluto Press,2015; P. Heywood,Making a Difference:Ethics,Activism,and Anthropological Theory. Oxford:Berghahn,2017; A. Kleinman,What Really Matters:Living a Moral Life amidst Uncertainty and Danger.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006; M. Lambek,The Ethical Condition:Essays in Action,Person,and Value. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2015; L. Prasad,Poetics of Conduct:Oral Narrative and Moral Being in a South Indian Town. New York:Columbia University Press,2007.这份清单绝不是详尽无遗的。
(39)很可能有争议的方法之一,如D. Graeber,Debt:The First5000 Years. Brooklyn:Melville House,2011。
[2]P.Bourdieu,Outline of a Theory of Practice,trans.Nice R.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977.
[3]R.Malighetti,The Plural Unification of Sciences:The Epistemological Contributions of a Perpetually Dissatisfied Discipline.Unpublished Manuscript.(n.d.)
[4]B.Latour and S.Woolgar,Laboratory Life:The Construction of Scientific Facts,2nd edition.Princeton:Princeton University Press,1986.
[5]S.Trawee,Beamtimes and Lifetimes:The World of High Energy Physicists.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.1988.
[6]P.Rabinow,Making PCR:A Story of Biotechnology.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997.
[7]S.M.Low and S.E.Merry,Engaged Anthropology:Diversity and Dilemmas:An Introduction to Supplement 2.Current Anthropology 51(Suppl 2),2010:S203-S226.
[8]S.P.Reyna,Hard truths:Addressing a Crisis in Ethnography.In:O.Zenker and K.Kumoll(eds)Beyond Writing Culture:Current Intersections of Epistemologies and Representational Practices.Oxford:Berghahn,2010,pp.166-9.
[9]D.Fassin,The Endurance of Critique.Anthropological Theory 17(1),2017:4-29.
[10]D.Fassin,Introduction:Governing precarity.In:D.Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans.P.Brown and D.Fassin.London:Pluto Press,2015,pp.1-11.
[11]S.J.Tambiah,Magic,Science,Religion,and the Scope of Rationality.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[12]N.Abu El-Haj,Facts on the Ground:Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self Fashioning in Israeli Society.Chicago:U-niversity of Chicago Press,2001.
[13]G.B.Vico,Principij di Scienza Nuova,3rd edition.Naples:Stamperia Muziana.1744.
[14]G.Payne and J.Payne,Key Concepts in Social Research.Thousand Oaks,CA:SAGE.200,171.
[15]J.Fabian,Time and the Other:How Anthropology makes its Object.New York:Columbia University Press,1983.
[16]D.Zeitlyn,Understanding Anthropological Understanding:For a Metrological Anthropology.Anthropological Theory 9,2009:209-231.
[17]A.Giuliani,Vico’s Rhetorical Philosophy and the New Rhetoric.In:Tagliacozzo G and Verene PV(eds)Giambattista Vico’s Science of Humanity.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1976:33.
[18]A.R.Radcliffe-Brown,Structure and Function in Primitive Society:Essays and Addresses.Glencoe,IL:The Free Press.1952,P.1.
[19]A.Shryock,Nationalism and the Genealogical Imagination:Oral History and Textual Authority in Tribal Jordan.Berkeley:University of California Press,1997.
[20]P.Dresch,The Significance of the Course Events Take in Segmentary Systems.American Ethnologist 13,1986:309-32.
[21]M.Strathern,Audit Culture:Anthropological Studies in Accountability,Ethics,and the Academy.London:Routledge,2000.
[22]C.Shore and S.Wright,AuditCultureRevisited:Rankings,Ratings,and the Reassembling of Society.Current Anthropology 56,2015:421-444.
[23]D.R.Holmes,Economy of Words:Communicative Imperatives in Central Banks.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2013.
[24]M.Douglas,Purity and Danger:An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo.London:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1966.
[25]S.Gudeman and A.Rivera,Conversations in Colombia:The Domestic Economy in Life and Text.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[26]M.Mauss,The Gift:Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies,trans.Cunnison I.London:Cohen&West,1954.
[27]M.Herzfeld,(2016a)Cultural Intimacy:Social Poetics and the Real Life of States,Societies,and Institutions,3rd edition.New York:Routledge,2016.
[28]J.Eckert,Beyond Agatha Christie:Relationality and Critique in Anthropological Theory.Anthropological Theory 16,2016:241-248.
[29]J.C.Scott,Seeing Like a State:How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.New Haven:Yale University Press,1998.
[30]A.Glaeser,Monolithic intentionality,belonging,and the production of state paranoia:A view through Stasi onto the late GDR.In:A.Shryock(ed.)Off Stage/On Display:Intimacy and Ethnography in the Age of Public Culture.Stanford:Stanford University Press,2004,pp.244-76.
[31]E.E.Evans-Pritchard.The Nuer:A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People.Oxford:Clarendon Press,1940.
[32]M.Herzfeld,The Social Production of Indifference:Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy.Oxford:Berg,1992.
[33]M.De Certeau,The Practice of Everyday Life,trans.Rendall SE.Berkeley:Universityof California Press,1984.
[34]E.R.Leach,Rethinking Anthropology.London:Athlone Press,1962.
[35]M.Herzfeld,The Absent Presence:Discourses of Cryptocolonialism.South Atlantic Quarterly 101,2002:899-926.
[36]F.Barth,Introduction.In:F.Barth(ed.)Ethnic Groups and Boundaries:The Social Organization of Culture Difference.Bergen:Universiteitsforlaget,1969,pp.9-38.
[37]A.Wimmer and N.Glick Schiller Methodological Nationalism and Beyond:Nationstate Building,Migration and the Social Sciences.Global Networks 2,2002:301-334.
[38]S.J.Tambiah,Animals are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit.Ethnology 8,1969:423-459.
[39]F.Aulino,Perceiving the Social Body:A phenomenological Perspective on Ethical Practice in Buddhist Thailand.Journal of Religious Ethics 42,2014:415-41.
[40]P.Ladwig,Ontology,Materiality and Spectral Traces:Methodological Thoughts on Studying Lao Buddhist Festivals for Ghosts and Ancestral Spirits.Anthropological Theory 12,2013:427-448.
[41]J.L.Austin How to Do Things with Words.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press,1975.
[42]P.Rabinow,French Modern:Norms and Forms of the Social Environment.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1989.
[43]C.Sopranzetti,Owners of the Map:Motorcycle Taxi Drivers,Mobility,and Politics in Bangkok.Berkeley:University of California Press,2017.
(1)特别参阅《写文化》一书,J. Clifford and G. Marcus(eds),Writing Culture:The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley:University of California Press,1986。其他精辟的批评,请参阅S. P.Reyna,Hard truths:Addressing a crisis in ethnography. In:Zenker O and Kumoll K(eds)Beyond Writing Culture:Current Intersections of Epistemologies and Representational Practices. Oxford:Berghahn,2010,pp. 166。
(2)参见G. Marcus and P. Hall. Lives in Trust:The Fortunes of Dynastic Families in Late Twentieth-Century America. Boulder:Westview. 1992; P. Rabinow,Making PCR:A Story of Biotechnology.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997。
(3)特别参见L. Hutcheon and M. J. Valdes,Irony,nostalgia,and the postmodern:A dialogue. Poligraf1as 3:18–41. Available at:http://www. lpimentel. filos. unam. mx/sites/default/files/poligrafias/3/02-hutcheon-valdes. pdf(accessed 31 July 2017)。
(4)例如S. Helmreich,Alien Ocean:Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley:University of California Press,2009; C. M.Kelty,Geeks,internets,and recursive publics. Cultural Anthropology20,2005:185–214。
(5)相关范畴,参见L. E. Lassiter,Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology 46,2005:83–106; D.Vine,Public anthropology’in its second decade:Robert Borofsky’s Center for a Public Anthropology. American Anthropologist 113,2011:336–339。
(6)J. Clifford, On ethnographic authority. Representations 2(Spring),1983:7。也可参见D. Zeitlyn Understanding anthropological understanding:For a metrological anthropology. Anthropological Theory 9,2009:209–231。
(7)因此,当一名观众评论一出现实主义歌剧“并不真实”,或者当一个民族志学者发现中国社会生活组织事实上已经分崩离析(恰当地表达了某些矛盾之处)(参见Chang S and Hua L,“Travailler beaucoup,travailler dur” a`dazhai. Etudes rurales 179,2007:95–116. Chang and Hua),与长期宣传鼓动所营造出的种种“真实性的理念”完全不符的时候,这并非表明我们正在挑战一个谎言。我们所面临的这一问题要求我们以一种极其传统的方式来表述和界定真实性,正如同艺术家们希望我们将歌剧当作真实的来看待一样。
(8)也可参见M. Herzfeld,The Social Production of Indifference:Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy. Oxford:Berg. 1992。
(9)以“ism”结尾的单词往往意味着模仿,希腊语的后缀-ismos也意味着模仿。例如,“希腊风格”(‘Hellenism’)这一称谓就是后来主张采用古希腊语言和文化的学者们对5世纪时期雅典卫城所呈现出的典型希腊化模式加以效仿的结果。如今这一称谓已经成为19世纪崛起的现代希腊民族主义的古典官方意识形态。道德主义当然不能代替道德,就像科学主义不能代替科学一样。与目前的讨论密切相关的是明确区分实证研究(来自古希腊哲学,意为经验)和经验主义的重要性,后者是科学主义的特定变体。见J. W. Fernandez and M. Herzfeld,In search of meaningful methods.In:Bernard HR and Gravlee CG(eds)Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology,2nd edition. Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,2014,pp. 55–96; M. Herzfeld Anthropology through the LookingGlass:Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987:13。
(10)特别参见P. Heywood,Anthropology and what there is:Reflections on ‘ontology’. Cambridge Anthropology 30,2012:143–151; P. Heywood and J. Laidlaw,One More Turn and You’re There.Anthropology of This Century 7,2013; Available at:http://aotcpress.com/articles/turn/(accessed 28 November 2016); M. Holbraad,M.A. Pedersenand E. Viveiros de Castro,The Politics of Ontology:Anthropological Positions. Cultural Anthropology,13 January,2014; Available at:https://culanth. org/fieldsights/462-the-politics-ofontology-anthropological-positions(accessed 28 December 2016).P. Ladwig,Ontology,materiality and spectral traces:Methodological thoughts on studying Lao Buddhist festivals for ghosts and ancestral spirits. Anthropological Theory 12,2013:427–448; H. B. Vigh and D. B. Sausdal,From Essence Back to Existence:Anthropology Beyond the Ontological Turn. Anthropological Theory 14,2014:49–73; E.Viveiros de Castro,Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation. Tipiti 2(1),2014:3–22。
(11)在这一方面,理论与实践的区别再现了结构与能动性之间的区别,两者过去在理论层面通常以社会中心主义以及方法论的个体主义加以区别,现在看来它们都是同一枚硬币的两面(参见A. Giddens,The Constitution of Society:Introduction to the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley:University of California Press,1984. I. Karp,Agency and social theory:A review of Giddens. American Ethnologist13,1986:131-37)。索绪尔所区分分的语言和言语也是如此,二者互为意义。
(12)关于人类学常识的概念,参见M. Herzfeld,Common Sense,Anthropology of. In:Wright JD(ed.)International Encyclopedia of the Behavioral and Social Sciences,2nd edition. Oxford:Elsevier,2015,pp. 258–262。
(13)参见S. P. Reyna,Hard truths:Addressing a crisis in ethnography. In:Zenker O and Kumoll K(eds)Beyond Writing Culture:Current Intersections of Epistemologies and Representational Practices.Oxford:Berghahn,2010,p. 168。
(14)我的计算机不能识别出“科学主义的”(scientistic)这个词,尽管它能识别出“科学主义”(scientism),这似乎也表明我们生活的制度性世界正在日益简化和本质化。(在正式话语的分析中,形容词可能比名词更具破坏性!)
(15)然而,我们应该认识到,在这篇文章的其他地方简要提到的科学人类学家(anthropologists of science)将科学作为他们关注的中心。有关人类学是否是一门科学的争论对于我而言纯粹是一场唯名论的游戏,然而在本文中我们应该清楚这种争论的政治效应。
(16)特别参阅M. Holbraad,M. A. Pedersen and E. Viveiros de Castro,The politics of ontology:Anthropological positions. Cultural Anthropology,13 January,2014; Available at:https://culanth. org/fieldsights/462-the-politics-of-ontology-anthropological-positions(accessed 28 December 2016).参见上文注3。
(17)参见R. Needham,The future of social anthropology:Disintegration or metamorphosis? In:Anniversary Contributions to Anthropology:Twelve Essays. Leiden:E. J. Brill,pp. 34–46; L. Rosen,Other Intentions:Cultural Contexts and the Attribution of Inner States.Santa Fe:SAR Press,1995。
(18)参见P. Bourdieu,In Other Words:Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge:Polity Press,1990,p. 78; D. Reay,‘It’s all becoming a habitus’:Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education 25,2005:433。
(19)M. Herzfeld,Engagement,Gentrification,and the Neoliberal Hijacking of History. Current Anthropology 51(Suppl 2),2010:S259-S267; M. Herzfeld,Serendipitous sculpture:Ethnography is as ethnography goes. Anthropology and Humanism 39,2014:3–9; S.M. Low and S. E. Merry,Engaged anthropology:Diversity and Dilemmas:An Introduction to Supplement 2. Current Anthropology 51(Suppl 2),2010:S203–S226.
(20)这种名为“词根学”的研究方法对于民俗学家而言极为普遍,他们幻想着可以从形形色色的民歌中重构出一种原始文本(Urtext),因为他们认为这些民歌是原始文本的不同版本。
(21)如布洛赫(M. Bloch),见M. Jakoubek and L. J. Budilova'(n. d.)An Interview with Prof. M. Judith. Okely:‘I seem to provoke controversy……’. Available at:https://otik. uk. zcu. cz/bitstream/handle/11025/6337/Jakoubek. pdf? sequence=1(accessed 28December 2016).布洛赫表达了与本文作者相似的观点。
(22)从根本上而言,萨皮尔-沃尔夫假说认为语言限制了思想的形式。这一假说的极端论调认为翻译或者任何跨文化交流都是不可能的。然而,将这一假说稍加调和,它只不过认为语言限制思想,但是并没有决定思想的种种可能性。
(23)如R. D. Andrade,Moral Models in Anthropology. Current Anthropology 36,1995:399–408,433–438.
(24)此外,这种创造性的阐释通常被纳入法律实践本身。正如法国移民法官“有权要求律师不要提出任何地方官都不会接受的论点,他们要求律师们尽量提出更多富有‘创造性’的请求和建议。见N. Fischer,Justice for Immigrants:The Work of Magistrates in Deportation Proceed-ings. In:D. Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans. P. Brown and D.Fassin. London:Pluto Press,2015,p. 50。
(25)这一行为是工业化时代的特殊形式,工人们坚持严格遵守各项规章制度,而不是罢工。在这样一种坚守中,英国的整个铁路系统在很短时间内便陷于瘫痪。制定这些规章制度的政策也一并陷入停滞。而只有参与调查的人类学家清楚,个体或者集体的行为之所以能发挥作用,正是因为他们利用这些规则来颠覆其试图维系的结构。比如参见G. Feldman,S. Lathrop,C. Shore and J.Wedel,Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy. In:R. W. Pearson and L. W. Sherman(eds)The Use and Usefulness of the Social Sciences:Achievement,Disappointments,and Promise(The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,vol. 600).Thousand Oaks,CA:SAGE,2005,pp. 30–51。
(26)另见J. C. Scott,Weapons of the Weak:Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven:Yale University Press,1985。
(27)M. Herzfeld,Anthropology through the Looking-Glass:Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987; M. Herzfeld,The Social Production of Indifference:Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy. Oxford:Berg,1992。
(28)参见I. Karp,Agency and Social Theory:A Review of Giddens. American Ethnologist 13,1986:131–37。
(29)参见R. Malighetti,The Plural Unification of Sciences:The Epistemological Contributions of a Perpetually Dissatisfied Discipline.Unpublished Manuscript.(n. d.)。
(30)参见E. W. Ardener,Introduction. In:E. W. Ardener(ed.)Social Anthropology and Language. London:Tavistock,1971,pp. liv,lxxxiii)。
(31)S. Dube,Introduction:Enchantments of Modernity. South Atlantic Quarterly 101,2002:729–755(见Dube的批判:2002:741-743)。
(32)这不是通常的学术上的说辞,比如“这一切都取决于你怎么看……”,或者是深知探寻事物之不易而裹足不前(比如事情远比你想象的要复杂得多之类的说辞)。这是一种对于事物的短暂易变以及复杂多样全然接受的态度,因为这些因素构成了我们所理解的事实。
(33)M. Herzfeld,Siege of the Spirits:Community and Polity in Bangkok. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2016:227-8n42;参见J. Holston,The Modernist City:An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989; P. Rabinow,French Modern:Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1989。
(34)关于这一点,请参阅《曼谷邮报》2016年12月28日的社论:“军政府的国民改革指导大会(NRSA)通常是一个不太引人注目的组织。然而每隔一段时间,它就会提出一个似乎与国民毫不相干的议案,让人大跌眼镜。”参见http://www. bangkokpost. com/opinion/opinion/1169777/。
(35)特别参见J. Holston,The Modernist City:An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989; A.A. Johnson,Ghosts of the New City:Spirits,Urbanity,and the Ruins of Progress in Chiang Mai. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,2014。
(36)将人类学家视为专家的观点存在颇多批判和争议。参见S. Turner,What can we Say About the Future of Social Science? Anthropological Theory 13,2013:187–200。
(37)A. Vradis and D. Dalakoglou,Revolt and Crisis in Greece:Between a Present Yet to Pass and a Future Still to Come. London:AK Press,2011; T. Rakopoulos,Solidarity Tensions:Informality and Sociality in the Greek Crisis. Social Analysis 59,2015:85–104。
(38)特别参见M. Carrithers,Anthropology as A Moral Science of Possibilities. Current Anthropology46,2005:433–456; V. Das,Life and Words:Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. Berkeley:University of California Press,2006; D. Fassin,Beyond good and evil?Questioning the Anthropological Discomfort with Morals. Anthropological Theory 8,2008:333–344; D. Fassin,Introduction:Governing Precarity. In:D. Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans. P. Brown and P. Fassin. London:Pluto Press,2015,pp. 1–11.; D. Fassin,The Endurance of Critique. Anthropological Theory 17(1),2017:4–29; N. Fischer,Justice for Immigrants:The Work of Magistrates in Deportation Proceedings. In:D. Fassin,et al.(eds)At the Heart of the State:The Moral World of Institutions,trans. P. Brown and D. Fassin. London:Pluto Press,2015; P. Heywood,Making a Difference:Ethics,Activism,and Anthropological Theory. Oxford:Berghahn,2017; A. Kleinman,What Really Matters:Living a Moral Life amidst Uncertainty and Danger.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006; M. Lambek,The Ethical Condition:Essays in Action,Person,and Value. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2015; L. Prasad,Poetics of Conduct:Oral Narrative and Moral Being in a South Indian Town. New York:Columbia University Press,2007.这份清单绝不是详尽无遗的。
(39)很可能有争议的方法之一,如D. Graeber,Debt:The First5000 Years. Brooklyn:Melville House,2011。