什麼是「人類學的田野工作」？知識情境與倫理立場的反省

What is ＂Anthropological＂ about Anthropological Fieldwork?: Reflections on its Epistemology and Ethics

10.6152/jaa.2016.06.0003

林開世(Kai-Shyh Lin)

田野工作 ； 民族誌 ； 方法論 ； 民族誌書寫 ； 田野倫理 ； Fieldwork ； ethnography ； methodology ； ethnographic writing ； fieldwork ethics

考古人類學刊

84期（2016 / 06 / 01）

77 - 109

繁體中文

在田野工作已經成為一種時髦的用語，眾多學科都採用田野工作作為他們的研究方法時，「甚麼是人類學的田野工作？」成為人類學這個學門迫切需要反思的議題。這篇文章將從究竟「人類學的田野工作」有哪些性質，使得它與其他種類型的田野調查有一些重要差異入手，勾畫出我認為人類學的知識生產過程，最關鍵的一些知識上與倫理立場上的特性，包括：開放性與關係性的自我，主體位置的不確定性，高度的反身性與批判性，情緒與理論的工作。這些性質塑造與影響人類學知識的性格與人類學家獨特的傾向，也帶給人類學特殊的學術倫理，有別於一般實證研究上形式的倫理要求。本文反對用形式性的標準，像時間長短或語言能力來定義人類學的田野工作。也批評後現代主義那種文本取向的民族誌書寫，無法解決他們所要挑戰的研究過程中不平等關係，反而忽略了田野中的實作，才是民族誌繼續存在的關鍵所在。最後，本文嘗試回應，在當代全球化的情境中，人類學式的田野工作面臨的新挑戰。

As ＂fieldwork＂ becomes more popular than ever among researches in other social sciences , anthropology suddenly finds itself increasingly losing control over one of its most cherished trademarks. With the dissipating of so called ＂primitive cultures＂, the traditional intensive study of a single site in the field has become a questionable methodology to cope with a fast moving world. Anthropology needs to go back to its methodological foundation to reflect on its nature and its ethical commitment to conduct ＂Anthropological fieldwork＂. This essay argues that there are at least four basic experiential dynamics at work in the fieldwork situation that continue to shape our discipline's epistemological and ethical orientations. They are: the ethics of an open and relational self, uncertainty in locating subjectivities, a highly critical and reflective sense of politics, and the labor of emotion and ethics. Thus, we reject efforts to differentiate anthropological fieldwork from other empirical studies with various formalistic criteria, such as long duration or fluency in native languages, and also argue against those post-modernist attempts to obfuscate the unequal conditions intrinsic to any ethnographic writing by deploying various textual innovations. We insist that fieldwork should continue to be the central endeavor in learning and pursuing knowledge of the unfamiliar. In conclusion, we outline some of the most pressing challenges to anthropological fieldwork in the contemporary world and our possible responses.

1. Amit, Vered(1999).Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World.New York:Routledge.
2. Appudurai, Arjun(1996).Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
3. Asad, Talal(1986).The concept of cultural translation in British social anthropology.Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,Berkeley:
4. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.,Emerson, Caryl(trans.),Holquist, Michael(trans.)(1981).The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays.Austin:University of Texas Press.
5. Battaglia, Debbora(1999).Toward an Ethics of the Open Subject: Writing Culture in Good Conscence.Anthropological Theory Today,Cambridge:
6. Borneman, John,Hammoudi, Abdellah(2009).Being There: The Fieldwork Encounter and the Making of Truth.Berkeley:University of California Press.
7. Bourdieu, Pierre(1990).The Logic of Practice.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
8. Candea, Matei(2007).Arbitrary Locations: In Defence of the Bounded Field-site.Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,13(1),167-184.
9. Clifford, James(1997).Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Clifford, James,Marcus, George E(1986).Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.Berkeley:University of California Press.
11. Cohn, Bernard S.(1996).Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India.Princeton University Press.
12. Coleman, Simon,Collins, Peter(2006).Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology.New York:Berg.
13. Comaroff, John(2010).The End of Anthropology, Again: On the Future of an In/Discipline.American Anthropologist,112(4),524-538.
14. Derrida, Jacques(1982).Margins of Philosophy.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
15. Fabian, Johannes(1990).Presence and Representation: The Other and Anthropological Writing.Critical Inquiry,16(4),753-772.
16. Fabian, Johannes(1983).Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object.New York:Columbia University Press.
17. Falzon, Mark-Anthony(2009).Multi-sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research.Burlington, VT:Ashgate.
18. Faubion, James D.,Marcus, George E.(2009).Fieldwork is Not What It Used to Be: Learning Anthropology's Method in a Time of Transition.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
19. Feldman, Gregory(2011).If Ethnography is more than Participant-observation, then Relations are more than Connections: The Case for Nonlocal Ethnography in a World of Apparatuses.Anthropological Theory,11(4),375-395.
20. Geertz, Clifford(1983).Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology.New York:Basic Books.
21. Hammersley, Martyn(1992).What's Wrong With Ethnography? : Methodological Explorations.London:Routlege.
22. Handelman, Don(1994).Critiques of Anthropology: Literary Turns, Slippery Bends.Poetics Today,15(3),341-381.
23. Hanks, William(1989).Text and Textuality.Annual Review of Anthropology,18,95-127.
24. Hastrup, Kirsten,Hervik, Peter(1994).Social Experience and Anthropological Knowledge.London:Routledge.
25. Ingold, Tim(2014).That's Enough About Ethnography!.HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory,4(1),383-395.
26. Keane, Webb(2003).Self-interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthropology: Reflections on a Genealogy.Comparative Studies in Society and History,45(2),222-248.
27. Kuklick, Henrika(1997).After Ishmael: The Fieldwork Tradition and Its Future.Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science,Berkeley:
28. Lassiter, Luke Eric(2005).Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology.Current Anthropology,46(1),83-106.
29. Malinowski, Bronislaw、于嘉雲譯(1995)。南海舡人（I）。台北:遠流。
30. Marcus, George E(2008).The End(s) of Ethnography: Social/Cultural Anthropology's Signature form of Producing Knowledge in Transition.Cultural Anthropology,23(1),1-14.
31. Marcus, George E(1995).Ethnography In/Of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-sited Ethnography.Annual Review of Anthropology,24(1),95-117.
32. Marcus, George E(1998).Ethnography through Thick and Thin.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
33. Moore, Henrietta L.(2004).Global Anxieties Concept-metaphors and Pre-theoretical Commitments in Anthropology.Anthropological Theory,4(1),71-88.
34. Moore, Henrietta L.(1999).Anthropological Theory Today.Malden, MA:Polity Press.
35. Moore, Henrietta L.(1988).Feminism and Anthropology.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
36. Rabinow, Paul,Marcus, George E.,Faubion, James D.,Rees, Tobias(2008).Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
37. Robben, Antonius C. G. M.,Sluka, Jeffrey A.(2007).Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader.Malden, MA:Blackwell Pub.
38. Sangren, P. Steven(1988).Rhetoric and the Authority of Ethnography: "Postmodernism" and the Social Reproduction of Texts.Current Anthropology,29(3),405-435.
39. Watson, C. W.(ed.)(1999).Being There: Fieldwork in Anthropology.Sterling, Va.:Pluto Press.
40. Wolcott, Harry F.(1995).The Art of Fieldwork.Walnut Creek:AltaMira Press.
41. Young, Michael W.(2004).Malinowski: Odyssey of an Anthropologist, 1884-1920.New Haven:Yale University Press.
42. 郭佩宜編、王宏仁編(2006)。田野的技藝：自我、研究與知識建構。高雄:麗文文化總經銷。
43. 陳文德(2007)。黑盒子被打開了嗎？談「田野工作」與學術知識建構的關係。台灣社會學，13，243-264。
44. 黃應貴(2008)。反景入深林：人類學的觀照、理論與實踐。台北:三民書局。
45. 蔣斌(1997)。反省式民族誌與社會學質化方法：二個研究傳統的文獻評述與討論。臺灣大學考古人類學刊，51，106-128。
46. 謝國雄編(2007)。以身為度、如是我做：田野工作的教與學。台北:群學。

1. 蔡政良(2017)。陌生人總幹事？一位客家人成為原住民部落公共事務推動者過程中的認同政治。臺灣社會研究季刊，108，65-104。
2. 陳怡君(2017)。儀式遺產、社會想像與地方認同：以屏東萬金聖誕季為例。考古人類學刊，87，1-36。
3. 李仁淵(2018)。在田野中找歷史：三十年來的中國華南社會史研究與人類學。考古人類學刊，88，109-140。
4. 留婷婷(2023)。賭徒及其空間煉成術：以澳門小說家太皮作品為例。思與言：人文與社會科學期刊，61(1)，118-166。
5. 劉舜仁,洪偉肯(2020)。從設計領域觀點探索大學人文及社會科學領域的社群參與。設計學報，25(4)，19-41。
6. 呂欣怡(2021)。工業隙縫裡的盆栽景觀：人與樹在失調環境中的符應與共生。考古人類學刊，95，1-43。
7. (2019)。教育工作者與邊緣青少年的相遇：互動分析及教師的反身之知。臺灣教育社會學研究，19(2)，47-85。
8. (2023)。「家鄉」作為「田野」：再思本土田野研究中的方法論問題。臺灣人類學刊，21(2)，119-172。