「師爺，你給我他媽的翻譯一下他媽的什麼叫他媽的驚喜」
QUESTION 1
Foucault,
in the preface to Madness and
Civilization writes (1967:xi):
We have yet to write the history of that
other form of madness, by which men, in an act of sovereign reason, confine
their neighbors, and communicate and recognize each other through the merciless
language of non-madness; to define the moment of this conspiracy before it was
permanently established in the realm of truth, before it was revived by the
lyricism of protest.
For
Foucault, the notion of “non-madness” defines what it means to be a normal
human being, and thus “the realm of truth.” Unlike earlier structuralist
approaches, the notion of “power” is central to Foucault’s approach. Not only
does the ability to define “non-madness” require power, but the new form of
truth itself generates new forms of power. In your answer first compare and
contrast this notion of truth with that of earlier structuralist thinkers (like
Levi-Strauss) and later action-oriented theorists (like Ortner and Bourdieu).
Then, second, talk about the ways in which a “realm of truth” has been created
by the study of indigenous peoples (in Taiwan or elsewhere).
QUESTION 2
Vincent
Crapanzano在“Hermes’ Dilemma”一文中（in Writing Culture, 1986:51-76）以為，Clifford Geertz的峇里島鬥雞論文（1973）並沒有提供「在地者觀點的在地理解」，而是一種「被建構出來的在地者的被建構觀點的被建構理解」（p74）。請依循Crapanzano的觀點，闡釋這種「建構的建構的建構」的「詮釋技藝」（interpretive virtuosity, p53），如何使得Geertz（至少在〈深度遊戲〉這篇文章中）建立起他的「民族誌權威」？同時，這種民族誌修辭設計（rhetorical projection）使其讀者（以及民族誌作者自身）確信他們在民族誌權威的位置，你認為是否必要？是否有其他形式？
In
his “Hermes’ Dilemma” article (in Writing
Culture, 1986:51-76), Vincent Crapanzano criticizes Clifford Geertz on his
Balinese cock fighting essay (1973) that “Despite his
phenomenological-hermeneutical pretentions, there is in fact in ‘Deep Play’ no
understanding of the native from the native’s point of view. There is only the constructed understanding
of the constructed native’s constructed point of view” (1986:74). Following Crapanzano (1986), please illuminate how does Geertz
acquire his ethnographic authority (at least in “Deep Play”) through such
“construction of construction of construction” (p74) in terms of “interpretive
virtuosity” (p53). Is this rhetorical projection necessary for
ethnographers in order to convince their readers (and themselves) on
ethnographic authority? Any other way to acquire it?
QUESTION 3
Anna
Tsing近來試圖用「規模」（scale）的觀點重新思考全球現代性的形成，發展在地知識與資本主義之間「有生產性的摩擦」（productive friction），並與全球接軌的過程。同時她也對Arjun Appadurai的全球地景觀點進行批評（c.f. “Global Situation,” Tsing 2000）。她提出的替代觀點是「規模製作」（scale-making）：
Rather
than assume we know exactly what global capitalism is, even before it arrives,
we need to find out how it operates in friction. Instead of rushing toward
global spatial compression, I examine the links between heterogeneous projects
of space and scale making, as these both enable capitalist proliferation and
embroil it in moments of chaos. In tracing the connections through which
entrepreneurship operates, the cultural work of encounter emerges as
formative.” (Friction, 2005:12)
Tsing認為「規模」取向可以展現資本主義計畫中的異質空間（相較於Appadurai的地景論述），得此對比全球與地方差距下資本作用的多樣性。請引用Tsing的「規模」觀點，說明如何不同於Appadurai的地景概念，如何藉由此觀點對全球與地方的二元性加以拆解，並且討論Tsing與Appadurai論述著重處理後殖民全球化情境（postcolonial globality）的哪些問題？
Anna
Tsing uses the concept of “scale” in rethinking the formation of modern
globalism. She considers that the
“productive friction” between local practice and global capital is the process
of making global connection. Tsing
criticizes Appadurai’s “scape-making” in the imagined globalism (cf. “Global Situation,” Tsing 2000); in
turn, she uses “scale-making” to make further explanation,
(See
above quotation.)
The
notion of “scale” can demonstrate heterogeneous spaces in the project of
capitalism, thereby exploring the diversity of globalism and the distance
between local and global. Explain how Tsing’s
“scale” concept is different from Appadurai’s “scape” model in understanding
the dyad of local and global, and what are the emphases in the explanation of
“postcolonial globality” by the two theoretical approaches.
沒有留言:
張貼留言