劉克襄《野狗之丘》的動保意義初探：以德希達之動物觀為參照起點

Animal Advocacy in Ka-Shiang Liu's Hill of Stray Dogs: Jacques Derrida's Animal Concern as a Point of Departure

10.6637/CWLQ.2008.37(1).81-115

黃宗慧(Tsung-Huei Huang)

劉克襄 ； 德希達 ； 動物 ； 化人主義 ； 人類中心論 ； Ka-Shiang Liu ； Derrida ； animal ； anthropomorphism ； anthropocentrism

中外文學

37卷1期（2008 / 03 / 01）

81 - 115

繁體中文

論及台灣當代的自然書寫，就不可不提劉克襄這位相當具有代表性的作家。他長期關注於生態觀察，早期書寫的對象雖以鳥類為主，但其實大至鯨魚小至昆蟲，都曾成為他作品中的關懷焦點。劉克襄最新的一部小說《野狗之丘》則改寫自他的野狗觀察筆記，一方面從動物行為學的觀點，描寫野狗的交配或覓食等行為，另一方面，也讓野狗道出自己的心聲，甚至還分析牠們的潛意識。值得注意的是，劉克襄並非只是在實驗一種動物寫作的可能性，當他不惜冒著「化人主義」的批判，以擬人化口吻書寫野狗時，其實也賦予了這部作品更深一層的動保意義：他之所以試著從動物角度揣想其心靈，是因為企圖以「反人類中心」的角度與動物溝通、聆聽牠們的聲音，以便將這種聲音傳遞給更多讀者，讓在都市中長期被污名化的野狗多一絲被包容的希望。為彰顯《野狗之丘》的動保意義，本文將以法國哲學家德希達的動物觀為參照之起點，並援引其他相關之動物論述來檢視劉克襄的作品，以期深入思考作家對於野狗的描寫如何讓動物為自己發聲、進而引領讀者重新思考野狗與人的關係。德希達對於傳統哲學最大的不滿，在於其預設動物沒有論理、溝通、哀悼等能力。本文將說明劉克襄的作品如何呼應了德希達對傳統哲學的解構，批判了人類中心的論述，並成功地提供了一種回應動物他者的方式。另一方面，德希達曾以被貓看到自己的裸體會感到羞愧、且又會因這種羞愧而羞愧的心情為例，說明將動物視為觀看的他者，可以如何啟發人對於自身身份的思考，但這種「被動物看到」的經驗與心情，在劉克襄的作品中則較匱乏。換句話說，劉克襄雖然將野狗視為觀看的他者，凸顯牠們彼此觀看以及觀看人類的種種經驗，但作者自己或社區周遭的人與野狗間的眼神交會，在書中則不得見。本論文因此也將談及，這個面向的缺乏對於劉克襄的動物觀有什麼樣的影響、又是否造成了作品的某些不足之處。

Continually devoting himself to ecology observation and incessantly writing about various kinds of animals, Ka-Shiang Liu plays a vital role in contemporary Taiwan's nature writing. His recent work, The Hill of Stray Dogs, is a novella in memory of the dogs that were killed in the stray dog eradication program enforced by Taipei City Government. In this novella, Liu does not confine himself to describing stray dogs' behavior from the ethological perspective. He also speaks for them by unearthing their thoughts and even their unconscious. Liu's mode of writing brings us to the controversy concerning whether animal writers are justified in endowing non-human animals with a voice of their own. In this paper, I argue that The Hill of Stray Dogs, instead of uncritically underwriting anthropomorphism, aims at criticizing anthropocentric prejudice. Liu's involvement with animal protection will be thrown into relief once we bring Jacques Derrida's theoretical dealings of animals in dialogue with Liu's novella. Derrida has contended that the animal-other still has the power to 〞manifest to me in some way its experience of my language〞 (2002: 387, original emphases), even though they cannot speak human language. Moreover, he questions whether we can deny non-human animals' abilities, such as mourning, pretending, suffering, as traditional philosophers do. I therefore maintain that Derrida's animal concern finds a loud echo in The Hill of Stray Dogs. In addition to drawing on Derrida's theory, I will resort to Martha C. Nussbaum's appeal for animal flourishing, Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert's advocacy of human-animal geographical co-existence, among others, to demonstrate how Liu's anti-anthropocentric stance is justified. However, while Liu vividly describes the exchanges between strays as well as their gazes at one another, in contrast to Derrida's emphasis on the experience of being looked at by the animal, he fails to portray how humans feel about being seen by strays. I thus conclude that if Liu did not shun depictions of how strays may look at human beings, he might address the human-animal relations in a more enlightening way. For the answer to the question concerning 〞who I am,〞 as Derrida asserts, actually lies in 〞the animal that I therefore follow after〞 (l'animal que donc je suis (á suivre)).

1. 梁孫傑(2006)。狗臉的歲／水月：列維納斯與動物。中外文學，34(8)，123-150。
   連結：
2. 睿根、王穎譯(2003)。倫理學與動物。中外文學，32(2)，15-39。
   連結：
3. Adams, Carol.(2004).The Pornography of Meat.New York:Continuum.
4. Adorno, Theodor.,E. F. N. Jephcott. (Trans.)(2002).Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life.London:Verso.
5. Arluke, Arnold,Clinton R. Sanders.(1996).Regarding Animals.Philadelphia:Temple UP.
6. Baker, Steve.(2000).The Postmodern Animal.London:Reaktion.
7. Barthes, Ronald.,Richard Howard. (Trans.)(2000).Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photoraphy.London:Vintage.
8. Baudrillard, Jean.,Sheila Faria Glaser. (Trans.)(1994).Simulacra and Simulation.Ann Arbor:U of Michigan P.
9. Bekoff, Marc,Carron A Meaney, (eds.)(1998).Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare.Westport, CT:Greenwood.
10. Bentham, Jeremy.,Tom Regan (Ed.),Peter Singer.(1976).Animal Rights and Human Obligations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
11. Burghardt, Gordon M..Critical Anthropomorphism.Bekoff and Meaney.
12. Derrida, Jacques.,David Wills. (Trans.)(2002).The Animal That Therefore I am (More to Follow).Critical Inquiry,28,369-418.
13. Eduardo Cadava (Ed.),David Wills. (Trans.),Cary Wolfe. (Ed.)(2003).Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal.Minneapolis:U of Minnesota P.
14. Eduardo Cadava (Ed.),Harold Coward (Ed.),Toby Foshay.(1992).Derrida and Negative Theology.Albany:SUNY.
15. Eduardo Cadava (Ed.),Peter Connor,Jean-Luc Nancy.(1991).Who Comes After the Subject.New York:Routledge.
16. Fisher, John Andrew..Anthropomorphiam.Dekoff and Meaney.
17. Griffiths, Huw,Ingrid Poulter,David Sibley.,Chris Philo (Ed.),Chris Wilbert.(2000).Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations.London:Routledge.
18. Haraway, Donna J.(1991).Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.New York:Routledge.
19. Unpublished essay
20. Lacan, Jacques.,Bruce Fink. (Trans.)(2006).Ecrits.New York:Norton.
21. Leslie, Esther.(2004).Hollywood Flatlands: Animation, Critical Theory and the Avant-Garde.London:Verso.
22. Lippit, Akira Mizuta.(1998).Magnetic Animal: Derrida, Wildlife, Animetaphor.Modern Language Notes,113,1111-1125.
23. Lippit, Akira Mizuta.(1997).Rodney Kingdom: Mnemotechnics and the Animal World.Women and Performance,9(2),53-80.
24. Milekic. Slavoljub..Disneyfication.Bekoff and Meaney.
25. Nussbaum, Martha C.(2006).Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.Cambridge, MA:Belknap-Harvard UP.
26. Olson, Roberta J. M.,Kathleen Hulser.(2003).Petropolis: a Social History of Urban Animal Companions.Visual Studies,18(2),133-143.
27. Philo, Chris,Chris Wilbert.(2000).Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations.London:Routledge.
28. Staten, Henry..Derrida and the Affect of Self.Western Humanities Review,51(1),348-351.
29. Staten, Henry.(1997).Derrida and the Affect of Self.Western Humanities Review,50(4),348-351.
30. 巴特、許綺玲譯(1997)。明室·攝影札記。台北:台灣攝影工作室。
31. 方賓秀(1999)。劉克襄動物小說之主題意識及寫作特色析論。台南師院學生學刊，20，101-113。
32. 中國時報(2008/01/27)
33. 中國時報(1997/06/17)
34. 聯合報(2007/04/15)
35. 李如漩(2001)。《風鳥皮諾查》之藝術淺探。台灣人文，6，123-137。
36. 辛格、孟祥森、錢永祥譯(1996)。動物解放。台北:關懷生命協會。
37. 辛格、綠林譯(2006)。捍衛·生命·史匹拉。台北:柿子文化。
38. 聯合報(1998/11/13)
39. 孫啓元(2000)。狗臉歲月。香港:郭良蕙新事業有限公司。
40. 中國時報(2007/03/10)
41. 環境資訊電子報(2007/09/28)
42. 黃宗慧(2006)。狗眼看世界。聯合文學，260，49-51。
43. 黃宗潔、陳明柔主編(2006)。台灣的自然書寫。台北:晨星。
44. 自由時報(2007/04/24)
45. 葛蘭汀、強生、Temple Grandin、Catherine Johnson、劉泗翰譯(2006)。傾聽動物心語。台北:木馬文化。
46. 劉克襄(2007)。野狗之丘。台北:遠流。
47. 中國時報(2006/01/28)
48. 劉克襄(2006)。文學、動物與社會。台北:台灣大學。
49. 劉克襄(1991)。風鳥皮諾查。台北:遠流。
50. 劉克襄(2000)。綠色童年。台北:玉山社。
51. 劉克襄受訪、林清盛主持(2007)。News98電台。阿貓阿狗逛大街。
52. 錢永祥(2006)。納斯邦的動物倫理學新論。思想，1，291-295。
53. 魏貽君、陳明柔主編(2006)。台灣的自然書寫。台北:晨星。

1. Liang, Sun-chieh(2012).Animal Contact in Liu Ka-shiang's He-lien-mo-mo the Humpback Whale.淡江評論,42(2),33-58.
2. 陳木青(2022)。城市之餘：論劉克襄《野狗之丘》、《虎地貓》的地理空間與生命關懷。東華漢學，36，205-241。
3. 黃宗慧(2017)。化人新世紀？以《愛麗絲》為鏡／徑重省人─動物組配論。中外文學，46(3)，113-154。
4. 黃宗潔(2009)。劉克襄動物小說中的自然觀。東華漢學，10，285-324。
5. 葉文琪、高郁婷、王志弘(2017)。從牲畜到毛孩子：臺灣報紙動物再現的劃界敘事與情感化。新聞學研究，133，43-85。