請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67805
標題: | 研究邊疆的邊緣人 ─ 歐文·拉鐵摩爾和他與西方主流學術脈絡的疏離 Frontiers Less Crossed ─ Owen Lattimore and His Deviance From the Mainstream of Western Academia |
作者: | Te-Jung Liao 廖德融 |
指導教授: | 石之瑜(Chih-yu Shih),李宥霆(Yu-ting Lee) |
關鍵字: | 拉鐵摩爾,位置性,知識位置,邊疆研究,內亞邊疆,中國學,西方學術, Owen Lattimore,positionality,epistemic position,frontier studies,Inner Asian frontiers,China studies,Western academia, |
出版年 : | 2020 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 本論文從四個方面切入,發掘在由西方觀念建立起的學術場域中,歐文.拉鐵摩爾作為出身西方的知識主體,卻能通過自己的邊緣意識和邊疆方法,將其邊疆研究發展出與西方學術主流脈絡疏離的位置性。 第一,1950年代至今,學界對拉鐵摩爾的研究定位,無不順應時局地將拉鐵摩爾歸入從西方觀念派生出來的兩極對立/國家主體/世界一體,等框架前提的個別範疇之中。不僅反映先行研究對拉鐵摩爾的定位,實則更接近研究者本身通過西方學術框架建立的認知需求,也側面透露出倘欲探求拉鐵摩爾的知識位置,西方學術觀念脈絡應當作為與之映襯的對象。 第二,西方以「同一性」為觀念前提,發展出強調主體性與普遍性並存的認知。十九世紀中期演化論的出檯,刺激西方的世界觀和學術研究進一步演變為,不同主體皆處在普遍性的單線進步軌道上進行演化。在此脈絡中,西方眼中的東方中國即成為落後而野蠻的對象。然而,拉鐵摩爾不具同一性的前提和自我邊緣的定位,使他疏離出西方此般的認知位置。 第三,以拉鐵摩爾閱讀的當代西方不同學術領域大家,如考古人類學的斯坦因,政治地理學的麥金德和杭亭頓,和世界文明史的史賓格勒和湯恩比等人為參考座標。進而指出這些比較對象的學術研究框架皆正是通過西方觀念前提派生而出的,因此促使他們分別試圖重建世界整體、建構二元對立的世界觀,或發展多元並立的文明主體認識。拉鐵摩爾汲取了他們部分的分析工具,卻因不具備相應的前提,從而疏離出他們的問題和追求。 第四,系統性地梳理拉鐵摩爾進入學術場域以來的論著,發掘他從邊緣出發的視角,使他改造了西方大家們分析框架的內涵,構築出自己毋須仰賴/對抗西方觀念前提的「邊疆方法」。這套從文明邊緣群體的形成過程,和邊緣群體與文明中心的情感關係切入,看待邊疆對文明歷史形成促動作用的研究方法,反映了拉鐵摩爾自我的邊緣意識,也透露出他追蹤自己認為熟悉的邊疆位置的過程。 以西方學術觀念的脈絡為基礎,構成了拉鐵摩爾閱讀對象的作品和先行研究對拉鐵摩爾的定位。本論文則發現,需要不以西方學術觀念為前提,方能有效理解並定位拉鐵摩爾與其邊疆研究,如何與西方學術脈絡疏離的關係。論文最終,指出拉鐵摩爾雖然得以疏離於西方,卻也因為自己的邊緣意識和邊疆方法,使他在世界呈現兩極對立的冷戰局勢中,陸續失去他在自己的邊疆研究對象和中國學領域中的位置。 This study aims to discover the positionality Owen Lattimore had in his frontier studies. It explores how Owen Lattimore, as an intellectual subject of Western origin, was able to develop his one-of-a-kind frontier studies within the Western academia. His success was largely based on the rarely possessed marginal consciousness and his unique frontier approach, both of which were very unusual within the mainstream of Western academia. Four main approaches are applied in this study. 1) From 1950s onward, academic researches on Lattimore have positioned him in the context of a polar opposites/national subject/world unity framework derived from Western academic presuppositions. The positionality of Lattimore described in these former studies has closely revealed the epistemic needs of the researchers but failed to describe Lattimore in his own words. This fact further supports the belief that in order to discover Lattimore's true positionality, we must see Western academic context only as something subsidiary. However, it serves our purpose to look at the context from time to time and make comparisons between Lattimore and those from the mainstream. 2) The Western world takes 'oneness' as a conceptual presupposition and has developed a mentality that emphasizes the co-existence of subjectivity and universality. Owing to the introduction of the theory of evolution in the mid-nineteenth century, Westerners have thus formed an idea of unilinear development where different subjects all evolve toward one end. Having this idea in mind, Westerners started to see China as a place suffering from backwardness and barbarism in an Orientalist sense. However, Lattimore never had the presupposition of 'oneness'. Moreover, his strategy of aligning himself with marginal groups allowed him to keep distance from the mainstream Western intellectual context. 3) By juxtaposing Lattimore’s own work and those by other Western giants contemporary to him, we can clearly see the latter were largely derived from the Western presuppositions. These Western giants range from Aurel Stein of archaeological anthropology, Halford Mackinder and Ellsworth Huntington of political geography, and Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee of the history of world civilizations. They either attempted to reconstruct the world as a whole, to construct a dualistic worldview, or to develop a pluralistic understanding of civilizational subjects. Lattimore drew on some of their analytical tools, but was actively distanced from their concerns and pursuits by not having the corresponding presuppositions. 4) By systematically examining Lattimore's writings following his first enrollment into the academia, we made a clear presentation of his perspective of the periphery. This perspective allowed him to improve the analytical framework used by Western scholars, and enabled him to construct his own 'frontier approach' without relying on/going against the widely-held Western presuppositions. What he did with this frontier approach was to look at the formation of marginal groups on the peripheries of civilizations and the emotional relationship between marginal groups and people from the center of civilizations. If we take into account the fact that Lattimore always had a solid self-awareness of being marginalized, we believe it is reasonable to hold that Lattimore had a special sympathy for the marginal groups he studied. The process he always used to trace the location of frontiers was also a sympathetic one. The presuppositions wildly-held in the context of Western academia have both shaped the concerns of the intellectual giants mentioned above and former studies on Lattimore. What we have discovered, however, shows that it is necessary to not hold Western academic presuppositions in order to effectively understand Lattimore and his frontier studies, for he was indeed deviant from the mainstream context. Unfortunately, his marginal consciousness and frontier approach that enabled him to be unique failed to grant him an enduring influence in the academic field of China studies. In his later years, he no longer could find a position to practice his perspective of frontier and could only remain limited influence over the field in a world where everything was polarized because of the escalating Cold War. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67805 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202003480 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 國家發展研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-1408202019002700.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.98 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。