摘要
阐释法曾被用以应对科学民族志方法论危机。它取得了部分成功,但也给激进后现代主义留下了认识论上解构的后门,使民族志变为"写"文化甚至走向不可知论。完善它,须明确人类学家与田野对象为交互主体,语言为介质,其本体则是并接的多重宇宙论。当代人类学"本体论转向"强调多重宇宙论比较,但不能武断"异文合并"以求纯化。阐释实为同一世界多元文化主体的话语权实践,仅从认识论上强调"裸呈"田野对象叙事或不同主体视角,并不能消除权力不对等。在此意义上,民族志并非"写"而是"做"出来的,"做"得好坏,不仅与不同主体的认识角度、水平有关,更与阐释的权力实践有关。
Interpretation was once used as a method to deal with the methodological crisis in sci- entific ethnography. It has succeeded to some degree, but it has left radical postmodernism room for e- pistemological destruction, turning ethnography into the ＂＇writing＂ of culture and even leading it to ag- nosticism. To correct the situation, we must make sure that ethnography takes anthropologists and their fieldwork objects as its inter-subjects, language as its media and parallel muhiverse as its ontology. The ＂ontological turn＂ in contemporary anthropology emphasizes muhiverse comparison but rejects ar- bitrary conflation or purification. Therefore, interpretation actually is an exercise of discourse rights by multi-cultural subjects in the same world. The inequality in discourse power couldn＇t be eliminated only by an epistemological emphasis on ＂ naked presentation＂ of fieldwork object narration or multi- subject perspectives. In this sense, what anthropologists do is not to ＂ write＂ but ＂ do＂ ethnography. How well ethnography is done is determined by not only their epistemological perspectives and profi- ciency of different subjects but the power practice of interpretation.
出处
《思想战线》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第5期11-19,共9页
Thinking
关键词
阐释
交互主体
多重宇宙论
话语权
“做”民族志
interpretation, inter-subjects, multiverse, discourse power, ＂＇ do＂ ethnography
