馬戲團、解剖室、博物館－黑色維納斯在法蘭西帝國

Circus, Dissecting Room, Museum: Black Venus in the French Empire

10.29816/TARQSS.200406.0006

戴麗娟(Li-Chuan Tai)

霍騰托維納斯 ； 人種秀 ； 法國人類學 ； 帝國科學 ； Hottentot Venus ； ethnic shows ； history of French anthropology ； imperia science

台灣社會研究季刊

54期（2004 / 06 / 01）

177 - 212

繁體中文

藉著「霍騰托維納斯」―一個在十九世紀初被帶到歐洲展示的南非女子―事例所揭露的零星史實，本文試圖回溯十九世紀法國人類學作為一門新興科學的操作脈絡，並且探討土著人種的刻板形象如何在學界、娛樂界、官方的相互推波助瀾下深植人心，成為殖民時期留下的知識遺產中極受批評，卻也極難超越的一部份。 受到自然史作法的影響，發展中的人類學與人種研究以系列資料蒐集與分類、比較研究為主，逐漸形成一個以世界為範圍、以首都博物館為中心的長程資料蒐集網絡。博物館在此網絡中不僅是資料集中收藏的所在地，也是資料分析和理論出產的中心。博物館的陳列不僅是一種研究成果的發表，也是理論探索過程的一部份。研究者所選擇的陳列秩序與其物種分類的觀念有關。每一世界人種依其外部特徵在此資料庫的知識秩序中佔有特定的位置。而這樣的類型標本化也成為逐漸媒體化、企業化經營的土著人種展演之依據。這類土著展演的觀念和作法，乃至於以帝國博物館為資料中心所建立的長程網絡雖然在殖民時代得到相當助力，卻不因殖民事實的結束而消失。其影響力到今天仍然可見。

By means of an initial focus on the case history of the ”Hottentot Venus”, the colored, South African human spectacle of 19(superscript th) century Europe, this article reconstructs the practical context of French anthropology when it was still a new science, and shows how and in which places racial stereotypes that have become the most prevalent and criticized part of the legacy of the colonial period were forged and diffused in the popular imagination by the continued interactions of scholars, government administrators and circus businessmen. Influenced by the practices of natural history, the developing anthropology concentrated on the collection of material and its classification, and also comparative studies. For that purpose, long distance networks were established and in which museums played a central role. Museums were the place not only for the display of research results but also for the elaboration of scholars' ideas regarding classification. In the conceptual order based on collection, each ethnic type occupied a given place. This anthropological typification became the foundation that underlaid ethnic shows. Both the long-distance networks and the ethnic spectacles that profited from colonialism did not end with decolonialization, but instead, they continue to influence our vision about people of color and our academic activities even up to the present.

1. Badou, Gerard(2000).L'enigme de la Venus Hottentote.Paris:Jean-Claude Lattes.
2. Bancel, Nicolas,Pascal Blanchard(2002).Zoos humains: De la Venus hottentote aux reality shows.Paris:Editions la Decouverte.
3. Blanckaert, Claude(1987).Les vicissitudes de 1'angle facial' et les debuts de la craniometrie (1765-1875).Revue de synthese,4（3/4）,417-453.
4. Blanckaert, Claude(1997).Le Museum au premier siecle de son histoire.Paris:Editions du Museum national d'histoire naturelle.
5. Chaline, Jean-Pierre(1998).Sociabilite et erudition: les societes savants en France.Paris:Editions du CTHS.
6. Chappey, Jean-Luc(2002).La Societe des Observateurs de I' Homme (1799-1804): Des anthropologues au temps de Bonaparte.Paris:Societe des etudes robespierristes.
7. Corbey, Raymond(1993).Ethnographic Showcases (1870-1930).Cultural Anthropology,8（3）,338-369.
8. Fauvelle-Aymar, Francois-Xavier(2002).L'invention du Hottentot: Histoire du regard occidental sur les Khoisan (XVe-XIXe siecle).Paris:Publications de la Sorbonne.
9. Fox, Robert,George Weisz(1980).The Organization of Science and Technology in France (1808-1914).Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
10. Jardine, Nicholas,James Secord,Emma Spary(1996).Cultures of Natural History.Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
11. Laissus, Yves(1981).Les voyageurs naturalistes du Jardin du roi et du Museum d'histoire naturelle: essai de portrait-robot.Revue d'Histoire des sciences,34（3/4）,259-317.
12. Latour, Bruno(1995).Le metier de chercheur: regard d'un anthropologue.Paris:Institut national de la recherche agronomique.
13. Latour, Bruno(1987).Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.Cambridge, MA:Harvard UP.
14. Osborne, Michael A.(1994).Nature, the Exotic, and the Science of French Colonialism.Bloomington:Indiana UP.
15. Outram, Dorinda(1984).Georges Cuvier.Manchester:Manchester UP.
16. Schneider, William(1977).Race and Empire: The Rise of Popular Ethnography in the Late Nineteenth Century.Journal of Popular Culture,11（1）,98-109.
17. Williams, Elizabeth A.(1985).Anthropological Institutions in Nineteenth-Century France.Isis,283,331-348.

1. 黃之棟(2017)。「NHK排灣族歧視訴訟」的部落批判理論反思。臺灣民主季刊，14(1)，95-131。
2. 李金賢(2013)。進出博物館之間：文物歸還與木乃伊柯象。國立臺灣博物館學刊，66(1)，49-74。
3. 邱大昕(2011)。為什麼馬殺雞？視障按摩歷史的行動網絡分析。臺灣社會研究季刊，83，5-36。
4. 徐純(2008)。博物館與文化資產的保存。文化資產保存學刊，6，04-21。
5. (2020)。通俗科學的歷史研究─英語世界的趨勢、課題與反思。新史學，31(1)，149-203。