Archive

標題

2014.7 IACSS Summer School


Created with flickr slideshow.

More pictures 按鈕

Navigation

日期

側記人

日期

側記人

7/1(二)

田冰

7/8(二)

高越月Karol Wiktor Leja

7/2(三)

田冰

7/9(三)

張婧

7/3(四)

徐緩之Karol Wiktor Leja

7/10(四)

劉金華Karol Wiktor Leja

7/4(五)

徐緩之佐藤大

7/11(五)

 

7/5(六)

高越月佐藤大

7/12(六)

張靜

7/6(日)

 

7/13(日)

張靜

7/7(一)

劉金華佐藤大

7/14(一)

張婧

 

Date:2014.7.1

Author: 田冰

第三屆亞際文化研究學會暑期班,于2014年7月1日上午十點整,在國立交通大學人社二館階梯教室R110正式開課。
本次暑期班的主要發起人之一,交通大學社會與文化研究所陳光興教授在開場前一一介紹並感謝了全體工作人員。
交通大學社會與文化研究所教授,台灣聯合大學系統文化研究國際中心主任劉紀蕙首先致歡迎辭。她向學員們介紹了台灣聯合大學系統文化研究國際中心,並冀望多年積累的聯結網絡能使更多人受益。她同時鼓勵學員們將自身關切的問題意識帶入到討論中來。
聖公會大學的白元淡教授,緊接著為學員介紹了“亞洲現代思想”的歷史背景以及亞際文化研究學會暑期班的發展沿革。她提出,在現階段,我們也許需要重新思考:亞洲思想的生產機制到底是什麼?我們身處於怎樣的歷史語境之中來思考我們生產、構造亞洲思想的系統方式?尤其當我們在亞洲的語境下展開文化研究之時,我們更需要去質疑思想的根基。
她引用韓國詩人Kim Namjo的話:
思想到底存在於哪裡?
它不在埃菲爾鐵塔裡,也不在我們的思維方式間,而应当是於人的生活息息相关
白元淡教授以宋京東的《我不是韓國人》一文收尾,拋出了“身份認同”這一困擾整個亞洲的問題。她提議學員們以此為起點,借助這個寶貴的機會,勇敢挑戰自己的既有觀念,在區域架構內發現新的關聯,試圖理解新的“亞洲”概念,探索“亞洲”新價值,并通過自己的發現旅程,最終找到“亞洲”新的身份認同。
雪梨大學和嶺南大學教授Meaghan MORRIS,在開場前向暑期班工作組表達了謝意。工作組為每位學員準備了可回收的水杯和餐具,這份微小而貼心的禮物和它所帶來的美好而珍貴的環保理念,讓MORRIS十分感動。
她以“陌生的友鄰”這一切身感覺作喻,期待學員們嘗試了解並體諒他人的處境,關照和尊重他人的思想,借用他者之境來思考和解決自身的問題。談到語言與翻譯的障礙,MORRIS提出,我們應該要“部分理解”(Partial Understanding),而不是掌握所有的語言、推敲逐字逐句的意思,這恰好也是當前知識生產的真實狀況。
陳光興老師最後發言,他幫助學員們梳理了整個計劃的歷史脈絡,同時介紹了亞洲思想界在數十年間為創造新的互動空間、尋找新的知識方式,克服殖民、戰爭與冷戰在區域內造成的溝通障礙與思想困境,所進行的合作與連帶。他希望學員們藉此機會多多交流,成為朋友,並且要互相支持和幫助,而不是互相競爭。如何放下和打破自我,以己之長補他人之短,是學員們在接下來的兩周時間裡將要學習和面對的。
隨後,五十三名學員分成六個小組進行自我介紹,學員們逐一闡述了自己的研究興趣。晚上六時,在交大人社二館一樓大廳舉行了熱烈的歡迎儀式。

The 3rd Biannual Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Society (IACSS) Summer School officially started at 10 a.m. on July 1st in R110 of HA BuildingⅡ, National Chiao-Tung University.
One of the main initiators and organizers of IACSS, Prof. Kuan-Hsing CHEN from National Chiao-Tung University, introduced all the staff members of this summer school and expressed his gratitude towards them at the very beginning.
Prof. Joyce C.H. LIU from National Chiao Tung University, she is also the director of International Institute for Cultural Studies, University System of Taiwan (IACS-UST) was the first one to give welcome speech. She made a brief introduction to the history of IACS-UST. In the mean time, she’s hoping more people can benefit from the network which has been build over the past years. She also encouraged the students to bring their own concerns and problematic to the discussion.
Followed by Prof. LIU, Prof. PAIK Won Dam from Sungkonghoe University, Korea explained the historical background of “Modern Asian Thought” along with IACSS Summer School. She proposed a question that we should rethink about now: What is the production system of Asian Thought? In what kind of context we are to think about the systematic of the way we produce and construct Asian Thought? Especially when we do cultural studies, we need to question the foundation of thought.
She quoted from a Korean poem written by Kim Namjo:
Where is the place of thought?
It’s not from the Eiffel Tower; it’s not from our way of thinking.
The place of thought should closely link to people’s life.
Prof. PAIK ended with an article titled “I’m not Korean” written by another Korean poet SONG Kyung Dong. The article reveals the identity problem in Asia. She suggested that it could be the starting point for all the students to take the great chance to challenge the ideas that we already have; to think about new relations within this regional base; to understand new conceptualizing of Asia; to explore new value of Asia; to make our own journey to find Asian new identities.
Before her speech, Prof. Meaghan MORRIS from the University of Sydney as well as Lingnan University, Hong Kong, expressed her appreciation to the staff members who brought up the idea to prepare the recyclable cup and tableware for each member. She was really touched by the small yet precious gift which stands for the beautiful idea of ECO concept.
She used the metaphor of “strange neighborhood” to expecting the students to do their best to know and consider other people’s situation; to care and respect other people’s thought. By doing that, we may get to think and even solve our own problems. Speaking of language and translation issue in Asia, MORRIS said we should probably do “Partial Understanding” other than grasping all the languages to search for the meaning word by word. Partial Understanding is the real condition of knowledge production now.
Prof. Kuan-Hsing CHEN gave his speech at last. He sorted out the whole history of the entire project. He also introduced the cooperative and networking work the Asian intellectuals dedicated over the past decades by creating new critical spaces of dialogues and searching for new modes of knowledge production to overcome the long-lasting barriers of interactions and the predicaments of thought engendered by colonialism, wars and the Cold War. He wishes the students to have more communication and make good friends with each other. He’s also hoping the students could support and help each other rather than compete. Each person has his strength and weakness, therefore, how to mobilize the strength to sublimate others; how to learn to break the ego will be the key points in the following two weeks.
Fifty-three students were then divided into six groups to do self introduction. They explained their personal study interests as well.

The welcome party started at 6 p.m. in the lobby of HA BuildingⅡ, National Chiao-Tung University

Top

Date:2014.7.3

Author徐緩之

在當下重新回到歷史的某個瞬間在本次暑期班中被經常提及,在閱讀泰戈爾於民族主義的思考,我們如何進入文本重新發覺它於當下的意義?

暑期班的第三日議題其實從前一日電影《家與國》(The Home and The World)的放映開始。影片以泰戈爾1916年的同名小說為藍本,由著名導演薩蒂亞吉特·雷伊執導,於1984年首次公映。電影學者阿希什‧拉賈德雅克薩(Ashish Rajadhyaksha)在映前介紹中提及,故事在20世紀初葉孟加拉抵制英(外)貨運動(Swadesi)的背景下,兩個男主角分別代表對於印度民族主義與脫殖的兩種可能,女主角與兩人之間的糾葛關係成為一種隱喻。

次日,印度學者Firdous Azim結合電影與文本語境談及泰戈爾的反思:抵制英(外)貨運動(Swadesi)並沒有將民眾納入它的國家想像,它受限於階級,社群甚至性別,以致最後把民眾推向危險的後果。泰戈爾抓住了兩點:一是殖民主義與西方之關係,其二是構建在西方之上的民族概念的反殖民抗爭,他也認識到西方企業是資本主義的,而西化過程包括科學進程在內,其根源都是資本積累。

為回應這一問題,他提出了基於個人體驗的社會或是集合(Samaj)的設想,並將宗教,亞洲聯繫以及與西方的關係納入其中,去展望一個後民族主義的世界。Firdous Azim在講演最後說:「泰戈爾是否成功地給了我們一個關於未來的另一種想像?除去我們所有的負面回應,我們其實有空間去重新思考泰戈爾的努力,建立歷史、文化與社會之間的聯繫,它可能會提供給我們另一種視角。」

我清楚記得一位同學在Firdous Azim教授的講演之後的提問:「閱讀一百年前的文本的意義在哪?」而台灣學者黃道明同樣用提問的方式回應了這一問題:「 從當下的視野出發,一百年之後的世界會是怎樣?」

而泰戈爾於我,是要撇開框架,從人性開始思考。

Revisiting a moment in the history from the present is an often-discussed topic during the whole summer school. So while reading Tagore, how can we re-enter the text to discover its meaning for today?

The third day’s topic began with the night screening on 2nd July of The Home and The World (1984). Which is based on Tagore’s homonymous novel and directed by Satyajit Ray. In the pre-screening session, film scholar Ashish Rajadhyaksha highlighted that setting in early 1900s during the Swadesi movement, while Nikhil and Sandip, the two main male characters in the film represent two different approaches of nationalism and anti-colonialism, and Bimala, the female character swinging between them is, too some extent, a metaphor about where the nation will go.

3rd July, Prof. Firdous Azim introduced the social context of the film as well as the reading and talked about Tagore’s thinking in both pieces. In Tagore’s view, Swadesi failed to include people in its national imaginary. It was limited by class community and perhaps gender, drew people into its ambit with dangerous consequences. Tagore keeps two main points in mind, colonialism and the West and anti-colonial struggles, which draw on the West for a notion of nation. He also recognizes that the western enterprise is a capitalist one, and that western progress, including scientific progress, is based on monetary gain and profit.

To offset this, he proposed the notion of society or samaj in Bengali context and talks about religion, connection with Asia and the West within the concept of Samaj, which he considers to be “a spontaneous self-expression of man as social being. It is a natural regulation of human relationships, so that men can develop ideals of life in co-operation with one another.” In the end, Prof. Firdous Azim said:” Is Tagore successful in giving us an alternative vision for the future? Despite the negative response that we have to give to this statement, there is room to re-think all of these efforts and to draw historical-cultural-social links that may provide us with an alternative vision.”

I clearly remembered one classmate posing a question towards Prof.Firdous Azim:” What is the meaning of reading a text 100 years ago?” And Taiwanese Scholar Hans Huang raised another question to respond: ”With the vision we have now, how can we imagine the World be 100 years after?”

I would say Tagore to me is to get out of the frameworks and start thinking from our humanity.

Top

 

Date:2014.7.3

AuthorKarol Wiktor Leja

Unit 1-2: National Cultures scheduled for July the 3rd dealt with notion of nation and nationalism focusing in particular on Rabindranath Tagore’s thought. First, Professor Firdous Azirm from BRAC University lectured on this topic via Skype. After briefly introducing historical background relevant to the subject she proceeded with analyzing Tagore’s novel The home and the world as well as its screen adaptation which we enjoyed the day before. While referring to various characters from the story like Bimala, Sandip or Amulya, Professor outlined main themes and arguments presented in the novel such as sexual awakening, ambiguity of nationalism, or social dilemmas of nationalists’ struggle. Afterwards she moved to talk about Nationalism – Tagore’s essay, which was one of required texts in the Summer School program. In doing so, Professor Azir pointed out four features of Tagore’s thought presented in the essay: samaj or society, Dharma or religion, Asian connections, and criticism of the West. Lastly professor outlined author’s attitude towards Nationalist Movement. In a Q&A section she commented further on several other issues like differences between novel and movie adaptation, cosmopolitan perspective in the works of Tagore and women involvement in the Indian Nationalist Movement. 
Second speaker that day, Professor Hans Huang of NCU focused on nationalism in Taiwanese context in connection to queer studies issues. While examining development of gay movement in Taiwan, Professor commented on the significance of martial law era, oppressive character of regime and law, as well as popular culture role in creating the image of gay community. Finally he pointed out that a process of reshaping the gay society is in a way inspired by nationalism and the notion of nation-state, concluding that Tagore’s idea of samaj could constitute a good alternative to these tendencies.
Next, the theatrical interlude in the form of interview took place. Professor Huang was answering questions regarding various subjects, like his first memories of China and Taiwan, experiences during the KMT regime, struggle with alienation or AIDS issues in Taiwan.
After that the participants were put into small groups and assigned to discuss the following question: “Can we imagine being unbound by nation-state issues in 2114?” Each group had to consider this question from a different national perspective: Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, South Korea or India.

After small group have met, participants presented their answers to the posed question. Various ideas touched issues such as relationships in virtual reality, economic aspects of atomic families, development of identity, freedom of speech, ideas of democracy, or aggressive and passive mode of participating in politics.

Top

Date:2014.7.4

Author徐緩之

泰戈爾之後,甘地的課程可以說再次從電影開始,授課地點變成了前身為「新竹市營有樂館」和「國民大戲院」的新竹影像博物館,而學者阿希什‧拉賈德雅克薩(Ashish Rajadhyaksha)卻以「甘地討厭電影院!」開題。

於甘地,電影院可能作為西方傳播現代性的陣地與殖民主義緊密聯結在一起,因此要抵抗殖民與資本主義,就必須對抗隨它而來所有的「現代方式」。所以面對相機,甘地坐在紡車邊,似乎仍在抵抗鏡頭。

與泰戈爾不同,甘地是一位實踐者,他的思考通過行動與對話被認識,阿希什說:「甘地的寫作很像現在的博客(部落格/Blog)」。非暴力不合作不只是一種方法,更是認識論,課中對我很有啟發的是,運動的目的不只在解放身為被殖民者的我們,也要把殖民者從殖民主義的囚牢中解救出來。另一個例子:在某一規模較小抗議中,場面失去控制以致於警察局被反抗人士燒毀,警員受傷。雖然這只是大運動中的一環,但甘地立即叫停整個運動,他說:「我們必須清楚我們反對的到底是什麼。」

在第二部分,王智明老師提出在當下,如何看待非暴力不合作於社運的影響?如何回應甘地對於現代文明的批評?如何理解自治(Hind Swaraj)的意義?……等等用以引導討論的問題。小組陳述中,我覺得其中最有趣的一句回應是來自阿希什:「太陽花學運的要求並沒有得到滿足,有人覺得這是失敗,那如果甘地在太陽花學運的現場,他很有可能會說你們已經成功了,成功獲得一次社運經驗,用以推進下一次。」

最後,想談談與課程無關的。上午,我們頂著烈日,卻依舊高興且投入地觀察新竹的街道,與上海相比,在這兒,城隍廟仍是城市的重要空間而非旅遊據點,是集會、鄉土慶典、甚至黑幫堂口的集合地。更有賴各位工作人員的悉心安排,泰式午餐簡單卻令人驚豔。

After Tagore, in a way, lecture about Gandhi began with film again as the venue is a former film theatre, which has become Image Museum in Hsinchu since 2000. And Ashish Rajadhyaksha opened the lecture saying:” Gandhi hated cinema.”

To Gandhi, I suppose, cinema as a frontier for the western to distribute modernity is tied up with colonialism, so to fight against capitalism and colonialism, you must fight so called modern ways. So it may explain, in the photograph of the handout, while facing the camera, Gandhi is sitting next to the spinner, still seems to fight against the object, which is capturing the moment.

Differ from Tagore, Gandhi is more of a practitioner and we recognize his thought mostly through his practices and short pieces of writing, like Ashish’s comment, “if in present, Gandhi will be a blogger.” From my understanding, Passive Resistance is not merely a methodology, but a theory of knowledge about how you can understand your enemy and who the enemy is. A point quite inspiring is Gandhi argues that the movement isn’t mean to only save us from colonialism, but also to save the British people who are unaware of their suffering. Here I share another example from the class: In a relatively small demonstration in India, a police office was torn down and officers were injured. Gandhi, despite it’s only a part of a larger protest, suspended the whole movement, said:” we need to know what we are against.”

In the second part of the lecture, Chih-Ming WANG set several questions within the Asia context to guide the group discussion. How can we apply or see Non-violence or Passive Resistance in social movements in today’s context? And how do we understand Hind Swaraj in our own context? During the discussion, I felt that one piece from Ashish’s comment is intriguing: “Someone said Sunflower Movement is a failure as the demands are not fulfilled. I wonder Gandhi may say it is already a success, with the experience to start another.”

At last, I want to talk about something other than the course. Before noon, though under the burning sun, I feel quite happy to get a chance walking around the city with my eyes catching everything interests me. The Town God’s Temple in Hsinchu is such an active space in the city with gatherings, ceremonies and even gangsters’ groupings. Not to mention the detailed covering from the staffs, the Thai style lunch is simple but amazingly delicious.

Top

Date:2014.7.4

Author: 佐藤大/Sato Dai

NOTES FOR THE JULY 4: GANDHISM AND MAOISM
BY ASHISH RAJADHYAKSHA AND ANDY CHIH-MING WANG
(Plus the museum tour and the downtown trip)

On the Fourth of July, the summer school lectures were conducted at the Image Museum of Hsinchu City. A volunteer guide, who was born in 1930s during the era of Japanese rule, gave an introductory lecture on the history of the museum. Initially named Yurakukan (遊樂館), the original structure of this museum was constructed by the Japanese in 1933. Back then, the Yurakukan was the first and only movie theater with air-conditioning in Taiwan. Later, during the Second World War, the Yurakukan was bombed by the Allied Forces, and was subsequently rebuilt in 1946 by the Kuomintang government, screening movies until 1991, when it was finally closed down. In the year 2000, the building was reconstructed as the Image Museum of Hsinchu City, preserving its historical heritage and also providing a platform for artistic endeavors.

After the lecture, the students also had a chance to explore downtown Hsinchu. The most prominent site was the remains of the East Gate of Hsinchu, built during the Tao-Kwang Era by the Qing Dynasty.

Together, the introductory lecture and tour of the city reveals the complex, multilayered history of the city which inherits elements the cultural features from the Qing dynasty, Japanese occupation and KMT regime after the World War II.

In the afternoon, the students attended two lectures. The first lecture was given by Mr. Ashish Rajadhyaksha, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore. The lecture was primarily about life and works of Gandhi. Since Ashish has been working exclusively on Indian cinema, he drew various examples from these cinematic representations to elaborate his points on Gandhi, idea of Swaraj (self-rule), and Indian nationalism. At times, he brought up Tagore, another prominent Indian national figure, to compare their different nation-building projects. Ghare Baire, a Bengali film directed by Satyajit Ray, was also explored in the lecture to point out two different attitudes to the Indian anti-colonial movement. One is represented by Nikhil, who is rational and against violence; the other is represented by Sandip, who would go to great length to achieve his goals including violent means. The movie was based on the home and the world, which is a novel written by Rabindranath Tagore.

The second lecture was about the application of Indian thoughts to overcome modernity in Asia. Dr. Andy Chi-ming Wang, an assistant research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica, Taipei, focused on the interconnection of Asian thoughts, such as Maoism and Gandhism, for instance.

Top

Date:2014.7.5

Author: 高越月

來自世界各地,擁有不同文化背景的人們是如何看待毛澤東——這個對二十世紀的中國產生了最為重要的影響的人物?他于抗日戰爭期間寫成的著名文章《論持久戰》,又具有怎樣的哲學思想?世新大學的陳信行教授帶領IACS的學員們一起討論了相關內容。
在分析交戰中的中日雙方情勢時,毛澤東從矛盾雙方可以相互轉換的觀點出發,辯證地看待國內外的戰爭形勢,認為攻守、強弱的狀況都是處於變化之中的——這正是陳教授所指出的,毛澤東的哲學思想所在。而且他總是能夠將其表達為樸素的,簡明的,能讓大部分人理解的文字。由於各自所接受的教育背景、所經歷的現實體驗不同,學員們在討論中也表達了各自不同的閱讀體驗。立場和觀點的不同,正體現出問題的複雜性。總體而言,如何看待和評價毛澤東思想或者毛澤東本人,也許在目前是一個很難回答的問題。他無疑是在二十世紀中國革命中最重要的領袖人物,即便同時代有許多同樣重要的人物共同推進了歷史的前進,但是卻無人能夠替代他對歷史的影響力。他所指導的中國革命所具有的特殊性也正在於,其經驗並非來自于一套完整的理論指導,而是從無數實踐中所產生的“中國經驗”。而在被認為是“危機時代”的當下,重讀毛澤東思想,重提中國革命,是否給人們提供了理解過去,思考當下和未來的新的方法和路徑?

How people treat Mao Zedong from all over the world, with different cultural backgrounds——the character who had the most significant impact on the 20th century China?  And does there any philosophy thoughts in On Protracted War, one of the famous articles of Mao finished during the War of Resistance Against Japan?  Professor Hsin-Hsing Chen at Shih-Hisn University led our students to discuss the related problems.

In analyzing the war situation both in China and Japan, Mao Zedong particularly emphasized on the mutual transformation of contradiction—— where Professor Chen pointed out Mao’s philosophy existed in. He had a view of dialectics with the war situation in home and abroad, that is, there is no continued stability circumstance.  Attack and defense, strong and weak, —— always be in a constant state of flux. Whatever, Mao can always expressed as a simple, concise, allowing most people to understand the text. Because of the different educational background and experience, students also had own different reading sense. The complexity of the problem is reflected by different positions and perspectives.

Overall, how to regard Maoism or Mao himself is still a no results question. It is undoubtedly that Mao is the most important leaders in Chinese Revolution of the twentieth century's. Although he is not the only person who influenced and pushed the process of history deeply, no one can be such powerful as him. What’s more , the Chinese Revolution guided by Mao particularly represent the “China Experience” because of the mode—— not from a completed set of theoretical guidance, but generated from countless practice. At the "crisis era", we reread Mao Zedong Thought and revisit the Chinese Revolution. Does it provide people new ways and paths to understand the past, present and future?

Top

Date:2014.7.5

Author:佐藤大/Sato Dai

On the July 5th, a lecture on Maoism was given by Hsin-Hsing Chen, an associate professor at the Graduate Institute for Social Transformation Studies, Shih-Hsin University. The lecture would be mainly consist of three parts; one is about the background of Mao Zedong, the author of “On Protracted War”, “In Memory of Norman Bethune” and “Serve the People”; the second, part is about how to apply the theories in “On Protracted War” in a practical context; the third, the historical context on “On Protracted  War”.
Firstly, in order to understand On Protracted War by Mao, Professor Chen discussed how to read Mao’s work in a context. To begin with, he pointed out the image and of Mao as a dialectic philosopher. As described in the Little Red Book, often Mao was worshiped as an idol of a personality cult. Such catchy phrases as “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun” demonstrate the attractiveness of his works.
Secondly, Prof. Chen applied “On the Protracted War” to an actual case of a working union organization. He used the metaphor of “fish tank” to explain the process of building a powerful organization of workers. The process of organizing a labor union is composed of two parts; discreet phase and open phase. The discreet phase includes initial contact, recruit of leaders, the formation and the training of the organizing committee. After the establishment of labor union would be the second stage, open phase, which is composed of mass affiliation and pressure action. Since employers are more powerful from various aspects, such as economic power and governmental influence, building an organization is a great challenge. It must be created gradually, systematically, in a disciplined manner, understanding that it must be a “step by step” process.
Lastly, the professor explained the historical background of “On Protracted War”. At global level, Internationalism was popular in the 1930s, which is typically marked by Kanikosen, a Japanese novel by Takiji Kobayashi. Another important background which is typical in China was foreign influences and civil war. After the opium war in 1840, and especially after the Boxer Rebellion in 1901, Chinese land has been overrun by Western and Japanese militaries. Besides, the complex history of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Kuomintang (KMT) between cooperation and hostility also influenced the idea of the article.

Top

Date:2014.7.7

Author:劉金華

作為文化研究學會暑期班「作為方法的亞洲」單元的第一部分,文本《作為方法的亞洲》和《近代的超克》被選用,來分析竹內好的思維模式。來自國立交通大學的藍弘岳教授,主要介紹了竹內好思想得以產生的學術背景,比如他與武田清子等著名思想史學者的來往。他還特別強調了日本學者對於中國文本的「訓讀」的閱讀方式。來自東京大學的池上善彥教授的講座,則通過印度,中國和日本等三方的現代化做對比分析,就日本的現代性以及日本的戰爭經驗等問題進行的探討,試圖定義什麼是「方法」。他指出,「竹內好總是要求我們要多方比較」,這應作為一種方法論,成為一種有用的機制。
總之,池上教授一再強調的是,比較不會依賴於單一的方法和特定的主題,因為這沒有必要,當然也不實用。比較的目的是使學習者通過積極而深入的學習,建立一個具有批判意識的比較模式。在隨後進行的討論活動中,池上教授建議學生討論不同領域之間存在的共同的問題和挑戰,並考慮可能需要什麼樣的比較視角,來解決這些問題。這会將「作為方法的亞洲」付諸實踐。

As a first part of  the unit “Asia as Method”, the required texts, Asia as Methodand Overcoming the Modernity, have been designed to analyze the thinking mode taken by Yoshimi Takeuchi. Prof. Hung-Yueh Lan from National Chiao-Tung University mainly introduced the academic background of Yoshimi Takeuchi, for example, his relations with Kiyoko Takeda, a prominent scholar of  the history of  thought. He also highlighted the reading method of “Kunyomi”to Chinese traditional canon. Through the analysis of the difference of modernization of India, China, and Japan,modernity of Japan and Japan’s experience on the war, the lecture of Prof. Ikegami, from Tokyo University, tried to explore what is a “method”. He pointed out that Takeuchi is always asking us to“ compare things in threes” as a methodology and a useful mechanism.

It is to be emphasized that comparison does not rely upon an approach to a certain theme as it is not necessary and certainly not practical. The aim is rather to enable the learners, through taking part in active and deep learning, build up a comparative model on critical consciousness. In the followed discussion, Prof. Ikegami suggested students to discuss common problems and challenges to those areas and what kind of comparative perspectives might be needed to think these problems through. It will be a way to put “Asia as method” into practice.

Top

Date:2014.7.7

Author:佐藤大/Sato Dai

The two lectures of today were both on Yoshimi Takeuchi, a Japanese philosopher known for Asia as Method. Firstly, Dr. Hung-Yueh Lan, an associate professor of National Chiao Tung University, gave us a brief introduction of the biography of Yoshimi Takeuchi (1910-1977) and Masao Maruyama (1914-1996), who also specialized in political thoughts.  According to Dr. Lan, Takeuchi’s decision to choose Sinology as a field of study was not due to pure academic interest, but rather because it was easier to pass the entrance examination to Tokyo University with this subject.  But after a while he got more interested in China, partly because he visited Peiping (known as Beijing today) and witnessed the gap between the description of Chinese people in literal and academic works and the reality of Chinese people there. Takeuchi also explained the causal relation between the Second World War and the different modernization models of Japan and China. Influenced by John Dewey, Takeuchi believes that Japanese modernization, which started during the Meiji Restoration, was a shallow and forced movement while Chinese modernization, which is characterized by the May Fourth movement, was more fundamental and spontaneous. Tadao Umesao’s Ecological View of History also led Takeuchi to question the “Asian-ness of Japan”, since the Japanese modernization model was not applicable for the other Asiatic countries.
The second lecture was given by Mr. Yoshihiko Ikegami, a former chief editor of Gendai-shiso.  After expressing concern about the reinterpretation of the constitution under the Abe Administration, Mr. Ikegami introduced Takeuchi’s methodology of trilateral analysis. The process is comprised of three steps. Firstly, think about oneself, the process of which is conceptualized as a dot. Secondly, find another benchmark to compare and consider the relativity among the two, such as China-India, Japan-China, China-India, which would be described as a line. Thirdly, in order to have a more dimensional understanding, introduce a third concept. For instance, the combination of Japan, Europe and Asia would enable us to have a more dynamic understanding of one of the three elements. The relationship among the three is needed so as to recognize the constantly-changing worlds correctly – an approach that is similar to physics in the sense that the relative speed of the two objects is easily observed, while it is impossible to get the relative speed among three. Takeuchi used this method to analyze how to overcome modernity.

Ikegami also explained the bilateral view of Takeuchi towards WWII. Recognizing the war as against both the countries of Asia and the United States, Takeuchi considers that Japan needs to reflect on the war against the Asian people but not the war against the Americans.

In conclusion, Ikegami repeatedly emphasized the importance of the peace constitution of Japan and pointed out the contradictions of revisionist groups. The dilemma is that revisionists are insisting on the amendment because of US influence on the articles; however the amendment would lead Japan to get closer to the United States militarily.

Top

Date:2014.7.8

Author:高越月

相信很多人和我一樣有同樣的感受,聽孫歌老師講課是一種享受。她嚴密的邏輯性,有力的言辭,不知不覺中就會緊緊抓住你的思維。正如孫歌老師本人所說,在今天的課堂上選擇《作為方法的中國》,並非是要就文本談文本,而是要通過溝口雄三先生的思維方式讓大家理解一種新的認識世界的方式。《作為方法的中國》中的「方法」不是通常意義上的方法論,而是認識論。以中國作為方法也並不是說要用中國的歷史邏輯去認識世界,溝口雄三先生不是一個中國中心主義者,他強調以中國為方法,是要以世界為目的。
孫歌老師提醒我們不要陷入單純的非此即彼的「二元對立論」,試著去忘記我們腦海中既有的思維模式和固定概念,像溝口雄三先生所說的那樣「赤手空拳地進入歷史」,也許這樣我們會打開一個更廣闊的視野。不過對處在目前學習階段的學員們來說,要形成這樣的思維模式是相對困難的,從某種程度上來說是要挑戰或者顛覆我們長久以來所受到的教育的影響,因而對孫歌老師所講課的內容,學員們也產生了異常激烈的討論。最集中的重要問題就是如何理解「作為方法的中國」中的方法,不是具體的實踐途徑,而是一種認識態度。所以學員們也就這一點提出了各種自己的觀點,比如理論的思考如何能對現實產生具體影響?如何看待學者無力的問題?在孫歌老師的回應中,特別觸動我的是,她反覆強調──不要用簡單的二元對立,黑白善惡的價值判斷來理解今天的中國甚至今天的世界(這是我們今天最容易陷入的思維模式)。至於「學者無力」的看法,她說思想和現實是斷裂的,直接為現實出謀劃策的思想不是思想,但是沒有思想的為現實的出謀劃策的策略很可能是糟糕的,是只看眼前不看長遠的一些短見的想法──這就是我們為什麼要思考的原因。要轉換的實際上是我們自己的思維能力。我想,接受現代教育成長的我們最需要的也正是思考的能力。也許,思考來源於好奇心和想像力,兩者足以創造改變一切的可能?

Maybe you have the same feeling with me that it is fantastic time to listen to Professor Sun Ge’s lecture. What can attract your attention unconsciously is her rigorous logical thoughts and powerful words. As Professor Sun said, she chooses China as Methods as today’s context for providing us a new way to understand the world according to the model of thoughts of MIZOGUCHI Yuzo—— not just talk about what the context means. The word method in China as methods  is not Methodology in the usual sense, but the Epistemology. China as methods doesn’t mean to understand the world by Chinese historical logic. MIZOGUCHI Yugo was not a China centrist, so he said that taking China as a method implies taking the world as a goal. 
We were also reminded by Professor Sun to avoid falling into a purely binary opposition——there is not only yes or no , correct and incorrect, and try to forget the stable concept in our brain. Enter the history without anything probably open a wider sights. However it is difficult for students to form a model of thoughts like MIZOGUCHI Yuzo right now. Anyway, changing the way of thoughts means the impression of education we have done will be challenged even more subverted. So there is a fierce discussion about the theme. Most important problem attracted students’ attention is how to understand the word methods in China as methods cannot provide any way of practicing to guide the action in reality, but just an attitude. Some questions, for example, how the thinking of theory could have a concrete impact on the real situation? How to think about Scholars weakness? According to the respond of Professor Sun, I was particularly touched with what she said ——don’t to fall into the binary opposition, or to judge today’s China and even more the world by a standard of value——either black or white. (It would be an usual way of our thoughts.)  As for the Scholars weakness, she said thought and reality is not connected directly. If you have only considered the reality without any thoughts or thinking, it will not going on for long——be terrible, that’s why we should think . Because only focusing on reaIity is just a short seeing. In fact, our ability of thinking should be transferred.  Probably, I’d like to say thinking comes from curiosity and imagination, the above two could make it possible to change the world?

Top

 

Date:2014.7.8

Author:Karol Wiktor Leja

On July the 8th Summer School events was hosted in NCTU’s Hakka Studies Institute. The design of recently build facility resembles Hakka architecture. In the near vicinity you can find traditional temples used to honor ancestors - Confucian custom still vastly practiced by the Hakka people. After touring the place and finding out about its history as well as contemporary relevant issues we were invited to listen the lecture inside the Hakka Studies Institute building. Professor Sun Ge talked about life and works of Mizoguchi Yuzo in connection to his idea of treating China as a method. His biography, outlined by the speaker, uncovered reasons for his engagement in sinology, sources of his personal traits (like diligence or passion) and duality of his experience gained in academic field as well as through involvement in social movements. The lecture raised numerous important issues in terms of philosophy, theory of knowledge, culture/language translation or comparative studies and it would be hard to recall all of those in this short notes. The main theme was of course the way of treating China as a method as presented by Mizoguchi Yuzo. He focused on refuting methods used by Japanese or Western scholars, claiming that they don’t have the capacity to capture the real meaning of Chinese history and culture. Instead he proposes using Chinese view as a method for sinology, and maybe for even wider context.  Complexity of the matter in question raised various issues, which we discussed during our group meeting after the lecture. Participants than presented their conclusions that actually was dominated by doubts and questions. Most of them were dispelled during an open discussion.
Later on the Summer School hosted Professor Stephen Chan who gave a speech on social movements in Hong Kong titled “Hong Kong No More”. During the open discussion that occurred afterwards participants had a chance to ask, comment and share their personal experiences.
July the 8th was a very productive and intensive day of the Summer School program and there’s no doubt that it can inspire and encourage all and every one of the participants.

Top

Date:2014.7.10

Author:劉金華

在簡明地介紹了現代早期的中國思想之後,來自上海大學的王曉明教授對《狂人日記》和《阿Q正傳》兩本小說進行了細讀,由此分析和討論了魯迅現代思想的發展及其特點。他是要將魯迅與甘地,竹內好等一樣,作為亞洲重要的思想家之一,而不是傳統意義上的作家進行分析。這確實是一種值得關注的研究視角,由此引發了學員們很多有趣的、並且極具啟發性的討論。
從啟蒙主義的前提出發,很明顯,這兩個小說的創作都是意在「喚醒」中國人。事實上,在那個時代,狂人和阿Q即便處於不同的社會階層,他們的經驗,知識和由此引發的思考都會存在某種聯繫。王教授將魯迅作為現代的思想家進行探討。在這一特定領域分析兩部小說,會申發出新的闡釋空間,賦予小說的人物原型研究以新的視角和構建方式。例如,注意阿Q的日常經驗和他的「知識結構」之間的關係,我們可能會重新認識阿Q。
基於對兩部小說的文本分析,對魯迅思想的研究得到擴展和深化。這種討論問題的方式喚起了學習者的興趣,不失為介紹中國現代思想的一種恰當方式。

With a concise introduction of Chinese thinking in the early modern time into the text analysis on two novels, A Madman’s Diary and The True Story Ah Q, Prof. Wang Xiaoming from ShanghaiUniversity had discussed a topic relevant to Luxun’s ideological process and its characteristics. He tried to regard Luxun as one of important Asian thinkers besides Gandhi, Takeuchi and so on, to replace his traditional literature values. This should be a welcome strategic move. It envisages interesting and propounding discussions.
Starting from the enlightenment premise, it was obvious that the two novels were written as an effort to “awaken” Chinese people. In fact, though Madman and Ah Q were from different social levels at that time, there existed some connections among their experiences, knowledge and reflections. Prof. Wang evoked Luxun as a modern thinker. Moving into a new area also brings about an added capability, that of perceiving the characters of the two novels' original Prototypes in a new light and way of reframing. For example, we may reframe Ah Q based on the relationship between Ah Q’s daily experiences and his “knowledge system”.
Knowledge is thus not only broadened but also deepened. This is considered to be the way to arose learner’s interest and should be the prime rationale for introducing the Chinese Thoughts.

Top

Date:2014.7.10

Author:Karol Wiktor Leja

Events that happened on July the 10th were originally planned as a first module of the Summer School but due to certain complications they were moved. This change turned out to be both a little bit confusing and very stimulating. Our discussion circled around Lu Xun and late XIX/early XX century China which, considering generally chronological structure of the Summer School materials, was a little bit surprising. Nevertheless thanks to drawing on earlier lectures and texts we were able to understand better the importance and impact of Lu Xun ideas.
First and only speaker that day, joining us straight from Finland, Professor Wang Xiao Ming introduced the historical and philosophical background of Lu Xun’s writings to us in a very compact, yet informative way. While sketching the picture of Chinese society on the brink of XX century, it’s relation to the West and to the Chinese state, Professor commented on couple of scholars who introduced many importan, new and relevant ideas to modern Chinese though. One of those idea was the aspiration to create New People in order to reshape China. This argument seem to occupy special place in Lu Xun’s body of work. Than Professor moved to discussing two novels written by the author: “A Madman’s Diary” and “The True Story of AhQ”. His analysis of the works included various references to Lu Xun’s biography, his inspirations (i.e. Buddhism, Communism, Nihilism) and historical context on which Lu commented. Both of the novels are in many ways significate for the author as well as very influential in Chinese culture. After Q&A session that brought up many interesting points and observations we moved to the group discussion. Next, we continued commenting on Lu Xun and his work during an open panel with Professor Wang. We engaged in commenting on numerous subjects ranging from the Lu Xun involvement in Communist movement to considering Ah Q’s “cuteness”.

After the panel we enjoyed dinner followed by a great performance by Worker’s Band Black Hand Nakasi. Group members between songs shared with us their experiences regarding life in Taiwan and difficulties that workers have to face in the neoliberal reality. One could say that the performance was at the same time entertaining, informative and heartbreaking.

Top