札記

札記
札記

賴錫三 著〈繽紛多彩,期許共生〉
“Through the dynamic multiplicity of the world, a hope for mutual co-becoming emerges”

理想狀態,自然生生不息,人文多元多嬌。人類與萬物,原共同居存於同一蒼穹下、大地上。同屬一家,命運連枝。雖然,自然不缺生存競爭,人類未少矛盾沖突,但自然競爭極少贏者全拿,而人類沖突卻經常掉入零和遊戲。

In its ideal disposition, nature constantly creates, and alongside of this dynamic tumult the humanities themselves becomes become plural and multi-faceted. In the beginning, humanity and the myriad of things co-existed together under one vaulted universe and on one great earth. We were all one family, with our fate bound together. While nature produced innumerable contests for survival, and humanity was certainly not without conflict and contradictions, natural competition rarely saw a winner take all scenario. The conflicts of humanity, on the other hand, often become a zero sum game.

共生之道,不否定競爭與沖突,但要迴避剛強爭伐的「永不知足」。共生之道,期待在彼此差異的辯證張力中,轉化「非生即死」,調節雙方而永保生生餘地。

The path of mutual co-existence (which could also be translated as mutual becoming) does not mean a total negation of competition and conflict. But what must be avoided is a unyielding mode of aggression which “never knows satisfaction.” The path of mutual becoming hopes that the dialectical tension produced out of mutual differences can become transformed, so that all sides come to understand that “if we do not co-exist together, then only mutual destruction that awaits.” With this realization, a process of mutual transformation can commence, which can lead to the perpetual protection of life to flourish.

當今天下,天氣失調,大地荒蕪,生物滅絕,種族衝突,貧富懸殊,強權惡鬥⋯⋯或呈現剛強霸凌柔弱,或呈現剛強鬥爭剛強。當此之世,我們更加需要「共生」的思想運動,用「雙贏」的「無限遊戲」之王道,來取代「獨贏」的「有限遊戲」之霸道。

Today, all under heaven, the climate has become unbalanced, the earth has become arid, life is dying, ethnicities are rife with conflict between one another, the gap between the wealthy and the poor widens…the strong bully the weak, while the strong battle with the strong. At this moment, we need more than ever an intellectual movement organized around the concept of “co-existence,” or “mutual co-becoming.” This is a movement that can utilize the “win-win” logic of a “game without end” to replace the “singular winner” of “a game with an end.” The former could be considered the kingly or sagely way, the later the way of the hegemon. 

「漢學之島:國際漢學平台在中山」,我們的計畫遠不只是計畫,它是對未來的想像與期待,想像基礎在於「共生」思想的興發與運動,以及「共生」平台的搭建與橋接。我們以臺灣的人文風土、高雄的海洋風韻為據地,一方面,「通古今之變」地對古典漢學資源進行價值重估與持續開採。另一方面,「通中西之變」地邀請跨領域跨文化的漢學家們來集思廣議「共生哲學」。讓「跨文化漢學之島」的臺灣,在人類的焦慮年代,發揮它可貴可愛的文化軟實力。

The Ministry of Education sponsored project “The Sino-Island: The Global Sinology Platform at Zhongshan” is not simply a public project in formalistic terms. It represents a sense of imagination and hope for the future. Its imaginative basis is grounded in developments around the notion of “mutual co-becoming,” which can serve as platform and bridge. With Taiwan’s humanistic local culture as the larger backdrop against which we conduct our work, and Kaoshiung’s oceanic port city as our homebase, we seek to on the one hand to produce “connected variations through the ancient and the modern,” re-evaluating classical Sinological resources, engaging with them deeply as tools to think with and respond to contemporary challenges. On the other hand, we seek to produced “connected variations between the Sino-cultural world and the West,” inviting Sinologists whose work intersects across various fields and cultures to converge within the space of our platform, working to develop the promise of what a “philosophy of co-becoming” could be. In this era of deep anxiety, we aim to speak of Taiwan as a “transcultural Sino-island,” giving full play to its soft cultural force, which is ever valuable, ever delicate.

莫加南(Mark McConaghy) 著〈中華寶島:反思「國際漢學平台」〉
“The Sino-Island: Thoughts on The Global Sinology Platform”

納中華入台灣:反思「國際漢學平台」

本人與賴錫三教授共同合作建構本平台的動力在於長期以來我對台灣人文教育的焦慮,即其面對在認識論上的危機。台灣本地擁有其瑰瑋的漢學歷史,擁有世界第一流的漢學單位,包括:國家圖書館漢學研究中心、中央研究院與各大學的中文系與研究中心。我們將漢學定義為中華世界中豐碩的文史哲傳統及其自身現代的命運。無法否認的是,作為漢學重鎮的台灣於國民黨1949年之後在台的政權意識形態有關——彼時的政府亟欲代表另一種中國現代轉型的路線,維持對中國傳統文化正面的態度與對岸戰後極端反傳統主義展現出鮮明顯的對比。因而在國府來台後,台灣能夠吸收中國大陸第一流的自由主義者與傳統主義者,如:牟宗三、徐復觀、錢穆、胡適與傅斯年等重要人物,這些先驅皆能夠被視為使得台灣能成為漢學之島的奠基者。同時,也必須強調日治時期的文人與公共知識分子(如林獻堂、連橫與蔣渭水等)以中華文化作為認同的來源與反殖民的重要工具。

自七零年代末期,台灣在文化與政治上的民族主義開始浮出島嶼地表之上,成熟於八、九零年代,此一民族主義不僅僅反應當時台灣本土社會對白色恐怖的反感,也是針對過往黨國體制禁止所有與台灣歷史、語言和認同相關論述的尖銳批判。 台灣民族主義試圖跟日治時期反殖民的「台灣是台灣人的台灣」的社會、政治運動連結, 希望能進一步挖掘/建構/加強台灣的主體性與本土意識,此一論述將本土意識與大中華意識看成是兩種對立的他者,而譴責後者為外來的和壓迫性的。

爾後,以華語為主的人文教育在台灣分歧為兩種不同的途徑:一為戰後中國自由主義者與傳統主義者相關的漢學,另則是以台灣為主的台灣研究, 前者的目的旨在保存海外華夏文化,提供與中華人民共和國不一樣的另類中國現代化方案。後者以後殖民理論作為基礎,目的在於拯救與孕育具有台灣意識的國家認同。從本土的角度來看,漢學(以及支持它的戰後政權)忽略了台灣本土社會的語言、歷史與意識。

一方面,台灣漢學的學術傳統立足於中華世界的漫長歷史之中,保有對經史子集傳統教育的尊敬態度,將中華看成是文明價值的來源並能提供認同上的歸屬;而台灣研究以建設台灣共和國的文化與公民上的知識條件為終極目標與作為文化載體的中華民國保持距離。台灣研究為達到這個目標採取強調台灣主體性與本土性的策略,同時對台灣被容納到大中華的論述框架裡持保留態度。 由此可知,漢學在台灣的關鍵詞為中華,然台灣研究的關鍵詞為台灣。

對個人而言,此時此刻的主要任務為把這兩種同時在寶島上存在的「孤獨者」進行對話。其實,我們早應該開始這樣的對話,試圖在台灣建設一種共生的共同體,能夠相互完整彼此達到物我合一的境界。我們需要思考中華文化如何透過台灣本土社會而被演繹出來,台灣本土經驗如何對大中華文化做出不可磨滅的貢獻。也許,建構虛幻的「外來」與「本土」的二元對立是不必要的,再一次重述和肯定台灣的中華過去、現在與未來能賦予我們一種重要的話語,這個話語能夠使得台灣與大中華世界進行有意義的對話,同時也能夠保存台灣過往百年來本土運動所創造最珍貴的禮物——對民主與自治的堅持。

我們能夠達成此一「不可能」的任務嗎?魯迅的話語或許可以做如此解:「希望本是無所謂有,無所謂無的。這正如地上的路;其實地上本沒有路,走的人多了,也便成了路。」

Thoughts on The Global Sinology Platform

My initial impetus for working with professor Lai Hsi-san to launch this platform stemmed from a concern I had over what I long felt was a kind of epistemological crisis that marked the humanities in Taiwan. Taiwan is an blessed with some of the world’s leading libraries (for example the National Library), archives (for example Academia Sinica), and educational institutions related to Sinological research (including the many Chinese literature departments that dot the island). Sinology here is defined broadly as the Sino-world’s illustrious literary-historcal-philosophical (文史哲) tradition and its modern fate. No doubt this Sinological treasure-house was supported by the GMD state’s attempts after the 1949 crisis to represent a Sino-positive alternative to Maoist iconoclasm across the straits. Taiwan’s ability to attract luminaries of Chinese traditionalism and liberalism such as Mou Zongsan, Xu Fuguan, Qian Mu, Hu Shih, Fu Sinian and many others during this time set the foundations for the island to become the bastion of Sinological learning it is today. Such Sinological learning also drew sustenance during an earlier era of cultural activity on the island, where anti-colonial luminaries such as Lin Xiantang, Lien Heng, and Chiang Wei-shui turned to Chinese culture as source of value and identity during the 1920s and 30s.

However, beginning in the late 1970s and taking powerful shape throughout the 80s and 90s, Taiwanese political and cultural nationalism arouse as a reaction to not only the political terror of the martial period, but the suppression of discussion and research about Taiwanese history, languages, and identity that marked the period. Making connections back to the island centered anti-colonial movements of the Japanese colonial period (1895-1945), Taiwanese nationalist discourse sought to unearth/construct/strengthen a sense of Taiwanese subjectivity (台灣主體性) and consciousness (台灣意識), which it set up in opposition to the larger overall rubrics of Chinese identity and history (now read as oppressive and largely exogenous). 

Since then, Chinese-language humanities on the island have largely cleaved into two tracks: the deep Sinological tradition linked to post-war liberal and Confucian Chinese intellectuals, intent on nurturing an alternative Chinese modernity to the PRC, and Taiwanese-centered historical and cultural study, whose underlying theoretical tenant is post-colonial theory, attempting to rescue and nurture a Taiwanese history and consciousness that Sinological learning (and the GMD state that supported it) are critiqued as having ignored.

One academic tradition is anchored in the deep time of Chinese history, being reverent of traditional learning, and identifies with China as source of civilizational value and identity. The other is committed to forging the cultural and civic foundations of a new Taiwanese nation unmoored from the ROC state project, doing so by emphasizing local authenticity over larger integration into the Chinese cultural world. One tradition’s master signifier is Sino, the other Taiwan. 

It seems to me it is long past time to put these two solitudes into conversation with one another. To build a community of not just co-existence on the island, but common becoming, and to think of the ways in which Sino-culture is local Taiwanese culture (and vice-versa), without building false dichotomies between the exogenous and endogenous, richening both the island and the larger Chinese world in the process. Re-affirming Taiwan’s Sino-cultural past, present, and future can provide the island with a language to speak to the larger Sino-world off its Western and Southern coasts (an urgent task today), while retaining its commitment to democracy and self-definition that are the most precious gifts that local political struggles over the last one hundred years have given the island.

Can the impossible be accomplished? In the words of one of Lu Xun: “Hope isn’t the kind of thing that you can say either exists or doesn’t exist. It’s like a path across the land- it’s not there to begin with, but when lots of people go the same way, it comes into being.”