文章摘要
哈正利,刘占勇.中国民族学人类学本土化、国际化的困境与方向[J].民族学刊,2019,10(3):1-4, 98-99
中国民族学人类学本土化、国际化的困境与方向
Dilemma and Direction of the “Localization” and “Internationalization” of Ethnology and Anthropology in China
  
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2019.03.01
中文关键词: 中国人类学  学科建设  本土化  国际化
英文关键词: Chinese anthropology  discipline construction  localization  internationalization
基金项目:
作者单位
哈正利 中南民族大学 
刘占勇 中南民族大学 
摘要点击次数: 134
全文下载次数: 147
中文摘要:
      本土化与国际化是中国民族学人类学学科建设中始终无法回避的一个议题,在不同历史时期,中国民族学人类学家对于本土化和国际化都曾有过热烈的探讨。本文在解读不同时期中国民族学人类学本土化和国际化主张的基础上,分析了中国民族学人类学本土化和国际化的学科内外的困境,强调了中国民族学人类学学科建设的局限主要归因于对学科本体缺乏应有的共识。鉴于中国民族学人类学的本土化和国际化从来就是东西方文化交流的产物,我们认为要实现彻底的本土化和国际化,必然依赖真正意义上的、充分的、平等的文化交流。
英文摘要:
      During the 1990s, the “localization” of ethnology and anthropology in China became a hot topic for scholars at home and abroad. In the process, although Chinese scholars did not use the concept of “localization”, in general, they all advocated studying and using Western theories and methods critically, and combining local materials to make theoretical innovations, and establish the discipline as China’s own or as one with Chinese characteristics. This was done so as to make a contribution to the international anthropological community, and move Chinese anthropological research from the periphery to the center of the international academic community. This way of thinking appeared earlier in the 1930’s when the discipline was being formed, and, appeared again in the 1980’s when the discipline was being reconstructed, Foreign scholars harshly criticized the “localization” of anthropology in China. They felt that Chinese anthropology focused only on providing information, and training excellent students, but that the discipline lacked the concepts, theories, methods, viewpoints, i.e. topics of common concern that provided universal commonality. Nonetheless, foreign scholars admitted that anthropology in China had made certain achievements, and formed its own characteristics, and they were, in fact, full of expectations for the future development of anthropology in China. However, during the 1990s, on the basis of the discussions and ideas formed during the 1930s and 1980s, the marginalization of Chinese anthropology still remained unchanged, which can be seen from the arguments repeated by many domestic anthropologists at that time. Based on this, this article believes that even after ten years of reconstruction of the discipline, an academic foundation for the discussion of the localization of anthropology in China is still lacking. The discussion of the “localization” of anthropology should be based on the practical facts of China, and should be carried out with self-reflection on the construction of the discipline based upon the perspective of ontology, epistemology, methodology, and ethnographic texts. The concept juxtaposed with of localization is internationalization. However, in the discussion of the localization of anthropology in China during the 1990s, the relationship between the two did not receive the attention of scholars, especially from the perspective of epistemology and methodology. To discuss the issue of the localization and internationalization of anthropology in China, two points must be clarified. Firstly, localization does not mean “Signification”. The trend of “localized” research that has appeared since the Second World War was not meant to construct a social science of a country’s own, but to promote the common development of international scholarship. Secondly, internationalization is not “Westernization”. After the Second World War, with the deconstruction of the former Western social sciences tradition, the differentiations within the academic world, and the development of the localization trend in the third world, how to establish an international social science also became an issue that the Western academic community could not avoid. In addition, no matter whether in the West or in the East, anthropology develops its own form, undergoes different practical processes, and forms a regional academic tradition. Therefore, there is not a clear international standard in the pursuit of “internationalization”. As far as the internationalization of anthropology in China is concerned, it is neither a confrontation with localization, nor a convergence with or rejection of Western scholarship. Instead, it means to use Western theories and methods proficiently, begin from the local realities of China, and be based on the common norms of disciplines. The localization and internationalization of anthropology in China is the product of cultural exchanges between the East and the West. Domestic scholars generally believe that in order to realize the localization and internationalization of anthropology in China, it is necessary to strengthen international academic and cultural exchanges. However, most views only emphasize the influence of external political and social environmental factors, and few people pay attention to the restrictions of the discipline itself, i.e. the lack of consensus on the subject of ontology. In many aspects, Claude Levi-Strauss provides a good interpretation of the ontology of anthropology, including it is the study of the diversity and changes of human culture; and the pursuit of balance and coordination of cultural unity and particularity; It has the characteristic of social “estrangement effect”; it pays attention to the problems of frontier faced by human beings; it does not restrict itself to the study of faraway, small-scale communities, but can also carry out research on the phenomenon of “the effect of estrangement” in the researchers’ own society. These arguments can promote our understanding of the attributes, characteristics and goals of anthropology, and can promote the localization and internationalization of anthropology in China by strengthening cultural exchanges between the East and the West - the common view shared by anthropologists at home and abroad, for example, Claude Levi-Strauss, Immanuel Wallerstein and Fei Xiaotong among many. Of course, this kind of communication and dialogue must be a real interaction, including both academic and cultural. In short, in order to realize the common development of localization and internationalization of anthropology in China, we must rely on true, full and equal cultural exchanges, and respect the norms of social science research. Only then can we realize the “Chinese era of anthropology”.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭

手机扫一扫看
分享按钮