102學年度第二學期文化理論資格考題公布＿恭喜建霖、孝宏學長出櫃

本試卷為東華大學族群關係與文化學系102學年度第二學期博士資格考之「文化理論」科目。應考生禁止討論、抄襲（含網路資料），並應沿用學術論文格式書寫，正確書目引用，避免錯別字。應考時間為2014年4月28日星期一中午12點至5月1日星期四中午12點。紙本以雷射影印方式繳交系辦，不接受遲交。

請運用本課程所學內容，就以下三個題目任選兩題，作為答題理論基礎，並提出個人論點和反思。（每題正文不含參考書目之回答字數為6,000-8,000字）

1. Lila Abu-Lughod sees the concept of "culture" as a tool for "making other" and says that "anthropologists should now pursue… a variety of strategies for writing against culture."  Marshall Sahlins presents a very different view of culture — one in which culture is neither good nor bad, but simply omnipresent — when he asks, "If it is true that commodification is the death of authentic culture, how come Americans still have one?" Drawing on examples from Indigenous culture in Taiwan, compare and contrast these two different views of culture. In making your answer draw upon structuralist, functionalist, interpretive, and post-structuralist theories of culture, including (but not limited to) Levi-Strauss, Evans-Pritchard, Geertz, and Bourdieu.

* Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Writing against Culture,” in Richard Fox (ed.), Recapturing Anthropology. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research, (1991): 137–162.

* Sahlins, Marshall. "Two or Three Things that I Know about Culture." *The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute* 5, no. 3 (1999): 399.

2. Both Foucault and Gramsci evoke Machiavelli's "The Prince" to talk about the modern state. For Gramsci "the modern price" was the communist party who needed to shape cultural hegemony in order to secure political power. For Foucault it was Machiavelli's focus on the "art of governing" that was of interest — an art which Foucault links to development of the prison and the mental institution. Compare and contrast these two theories of power with relation to contemporary Taiwan. In making your answer, consider using David Harvey's concept of "neoliberalism" and Benedict Anderson's theory of an "imagined community." 

* Foucault, M. ‘Questions of method’ in Miller, P. et al (eds) *The Foucault effect.* (1991): Chicago University Press

* Gramsci, Antonio. *The modern prince and other writings.* (1967): New York: International Publishers.

3. George Marcus在〈The Uses of Complicity〉文章裡評述過往人類學調查過程中——即便充滿困難恐懼、不確定、偶發事件，或是涉及倫理處境、自我懷疑——與研究對象建立起和諧一致的關係（rapport），始終是民族誌田野工作的門檻與成就標誌，依此彰顯外部者得以平和地進入內部者的世界（Ethnography through Thick & Thin, 1998:106）。然而人類學處境始終充滿合作、矛盾與衝突，於是人類學家與研究對象的「同謀」關係（complicity）——作為雙方對待彼此的互存狀態——表達了一項在田野調查時所面臨的「人類學諷刺」（anthropological irony; Marcus 1998:110）。這種民族誌書寫者的自我覺察意識和倫理姿態使得人類學逐漸反省究竟「我們」是誰：例如Johannes Fabian在Time and the Other（1983:157）宣稱「The We of anthropology then remains an exclusive We [略]」、Clifford Geertz在Works and Lives指陳「Who are we to describe them? 」（1988:135）、Akhil Gupta和James Ferguson在Culture, Power, Place（1997:24, 42-44）則強調「How can “we” anthropologists presumes to speak for “them,” our informants? [中間略] Who is this “we”?」請評論當代民族誌知識生產之「人類學諷刺」為何，並依據上述文獻回答「那麼，『我們』究竟是誰？」