This article uses a Chinese narrative of ‘nature-human harmony’ as the main thread to connect the contributions of ontological anthropology. I argue that the best of the critiques of nature-human or nature-culture dualism in social anthropology propose rebuilding a world that ‘pursues harmony while preserving difference’ in the double sense of nature and culture. Given that most social scientific problems are indeed related to utilitarian individualism, I argue that research on ‘ontology’ should re-engage the ancient notion of ‘ ji’, construed as ‘others-comprised self’, which forms the foundation of a perspective of ‘broad human relationship’ between humans and their others (other humans, things, and divinities). Perspectivism inherits many categories of Western cosmology that it critiques and represents a kind of inert ontology. Grounded in the cosmology of life ( sheng), we hope to contribute to a new anthropology of the compatibility between self/others and subject/objects.

本文以近代西学的源流为主线,叙述了学科的"大历史".作者将人类学定义为"一门研究'他者'及其与我们之间的关联、对我们有启迪的学问",把"他者"界定为"非我"或"非己",指出这个概念超越文明的我他之别,不仅指人,还包括"物"和"神".接着文章追溯了从"后中世纪"的科学到19世纪人类学,及其在"两战"之间、战后人类学及20世纪70年代以来的变化.漫长的学科史的追溯表明西方人类学也是世界观的历史显现.本文也评论了西方人类学对近代世界格局的回应,述及中国的"三个世界"理论和"南方人类学"的兴起,最后落脚到"我们对世界人类学会有什么贡献"这一问题.本文开篇强调了非西方人类学史和区域民族志史的价值,结语部分则指出中国人类学能否为世界提供思想,取决于我们是不是"有心".

Why should human beings be divided into "us" or "them"? This question underlies the basic proposition of anthropology. In fact, it has never received a decisive answer. In the dialogue between Marshall Sahlins and Wang Mingming, the two agree that "we are part of the other," because it is to the other that we owe the constitution of our full selves. The modernity of diversity and plurality supports the validity of this judgment.

基于中国东南及西南的田野经验,王铭铭教授提出"中间圈"概念以概括相对于中心区域的边陲文化.关凯教授就这一概念及云南民族研究、中国民族学学科发展相关问题对王铭铭教授进行了访谈.

近年来,"XX作为方法"一语频繁出现.其中的"XX"大抵是历史学和社会科学研究对象的区域,规模大到亚洲或中国,小到国内的地区,最近它甚至缩小到"自己"了."亚洲作为方法",由汪晖借自日本学者竹内好的叙述,用以还原一个超越国族疆界的、复合的认识主体地位(即"主体间性").①"中国作为方法"是日本著名学者沟口雄三提出的,②在国内学界受到关注,指作为历史"内发动力"的中国本土思想."XX地区作为方法",似与"华南派"历史人类学家有特殊关系,指其长期研究的岭南区域的突出特征及其理论价值.③"自己作为方法",则出自近期项飙、吴琦的对话录的书名,④这本书以项飙自己的学术人生为主线,牵出一连串对乡土、学界与世界的经验和看法.

一、返回故土 1989年5月,父亲重病住院,我要回乡探望.身在英伦,路途遥远,而当时英国对中国留学生有"再入境签证"的要求.没有它,就不能回英完成学业了.幸亏有驻英中国使馆的照顾,我得到一封外交照会,紧急启程回国.当月底,我抵达北京,如约匆忙赶往中央民族学院(现为中央民族大学)家属院拜见了费孝通先生.一天后,我上了一列迟迟不开的火车往福建走(受特殊事件影响,我在北京火车站候车室地板上睡了30多个小时,在火车上站了40多个小时)……父亲痊愈后,留学生因故暂不能离境,我在家住了一年多.不过那时我并不是无事可做.回国前我已完成开题报告,可以进入博士论文田野工作阶段.

华夏身处欧亚大陆东部,经史前到“封建”的转化,再经秦汉帝制的确立,成长为一个超社会的文明共同体.这个文明共同体本身并非民族性的,而是一个介于民族与世界之间的“多元一体格局”,其生命的养分,来自使“多”与“一”得以协调融合的宇宙观系统.这个宇宙观系统使华夏有别于欧亚大陆其他文明,特别是印欧文明与闪米特文明.然而,数千年来,作为欧亚诸文明的核心成员之一,华夏通过其周边的“中间圈”与其他文明频繁往来,在文明的扩散与借鉴中,与后者共同造就了某种文明的“主体间性”局面.要实现文明的“文化自觉”,便要把握文明共同体的生命脉搏,而要把握这一脉搏,便既要通过深挖“多重证据”,追根溯源,又要“环顾四周”,考察诸文明的差异与关联.对于我们认识文明共同体研究这一使命的双重性,不少置身于人文学诸领域中的学者已做出了巨大贡献.然而,我们仍旧面对着通过重温社会科学主要理论支柱的典籍之文明叙述达成“凝视与环顾”的使命.

This article is a research report involving three anthropological studies conducted during the period of “Kuige” and their “re-studies.” By narrating the project, I set forth my views on the connections and differences between Chinese anthropological explorations from two historical periods. These anthropological explorations refer to the study of Lu Village conducted by Fei Xiaotong, that of “West Town” (Xizhou) by Francis L. K. Hsu, and that of “Pai-IPai” (Dai) villages by Tien Ju-Kang. They were all completed in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Each writer extracted a framework to analyze the land system, ancestor worship, and the relationship between humans and gods from the writer’s own field experience. Despite the difference in research methods, all three studies noticed the cultural differences between rural society and modernity. Since 2000, Peking University and Yunnan Minzu University have launched a “Province-university Cooperation Project.” During the project, a research team formed of several young scholars revisited Lu Village, “West Town” (Xizhou), and Namu Village. These writers’ works were based on the data acquired in their fieldwork and drew upon the opinions raised by global anthropologists on “re-study” in recent decades. Considering the dual effects of social change and shifts in academic concepts around “follow-up research,” the scholars put forward several points of view with their ethnographies, which all featured the characteristics of inheritance and reflection. Based on the results of the three “re-studies,” this article emphasizes the importance of the study of public rituals for the research of rural society. This article also attempts to re-examine the methodology of “human ecology,” which profoundly impacts Chinese anthropology and sociology.

近代人类学的奠基者曾高度重视借鉴古典学的研究成果.20世纪初,学科理念发生巨变.此后数十年间,古典学者继续借鉴人类学思想,而现代新人类学中重视古典学的学者却越来越少.20世纪60年代初,克拉克洪在其所著《论人类学与古典学的关系》一书中对这一变化表示喜忧参半.他乐见人类学思想渗入古典学,担忧人类学因减少汲取古典学的养分而丢失其本来的品质.克拉克洪指出,人类学的根基是人文与科学,此二者均为古希腊人的发明,现代新人类学要保持其品格,便有必要重返古希腊.鉴于克氏主张的重要性,本文力图对之加以还原,并在此基础上进行反思.本文认为,克拉克洪有规避西学人类学的神学关联及过度渲染古希腊特殊性的倾向,更存在以“文化”概念“消化”文野关联的问题.要扭转这类倾向,克服这类问题,应有选择地丰富古典旧人类学有关“中间环节”的看法.

本文以"显"和"隐"两个字为切入点,探讨了文化展示的人类学与人类学的文化展示的关系.虽然人类学家常常认为自己是田野中使"隐"得以显现的人,但实际上不同地方的"报道人"已经生活在一个兼备"显"和"隐"的世界里.我们在田野调查时看到的文化展示,如寺庙及其节庆,充满了"展示的智慧",堪与伴随着"殖民现代性"而来的各种"展示文化"做比对.此外,人类学家在寺庙庆典的"综合文本"中看到的——尤其是他们的献祭逻辑——对我们改革当代的"展示文化"具有启发意义.