中研院民族所

宗旨說明： 

「人類學的本體論研究群」（Anthropological Studies on Ontology Research Group，以下簡稱「本研究群」），創立於2021，希望建立一個網絡，讓國內、國際學者聚集，一起探討與了解目前在人類學界方興未艾的「本體論轉向」研究，期許開展擴深對於人類學理論、人類學歷史的掌握，另一方面探索新的角度看待田野方法和田野材料。最後，這個「本體論轉向」研究本質上跨學科界域與理論深度的取向，可以讓人類學進一步和社會科學、哲學、STS等學門交流。

人類學不變的研究旨趣在於了解不同的世界，人類學因此不但確信不同的世界與文化有其獨特的價值和存在的理由，它更致力於發展出如何去理解不同的世界的理論與方法論。另一方面，從「人類學」最早的英文原意(the study of man)也可以得知：人類學要了解的不同世界是人類所創造的世界，以「文化」一詞大致涵蓋了人類學的研究範圍。百年來人類學的爭論與理論突破可以說是對於「文化」這一概念的不斷定義和劃分，至於「自然」若不是做為與文化的對立面，就是完全交給科學家去處理。人類學的「本體論轉向」基本上就是認真面對：1. 「不同的世界」基本假設所隱含的甚麼是「真實」(real)的問題；2. 「文化」與「自然」的對立的預設問題。然而，人類學的「本體論轉向」不僅僅是集中在本質、認識、存在等等這些哲學本體論式的探問，它的關切重點同時也帶有方法上的介入，也就是，人們或田野工作者在甚麼狀況下可以「看到」他/她的真實、現象。

本研究群認為推動「本體論轉向」研究正是時候，不只是它把學科當中原本就存有的張力再往前推，特別是當今地球的狀況不再讓我們能夠只以「人類中心」看待地球。例如：人類與非人類的關係，多物種的並存如何可能等等，都已經在不同學科開始探討。一個暫時的共識便要先承認不是只有人才有主體、動機、意義；不是只有自然科學處理非人類的領域，人文社會科學處理人類的領域，我們要能夠發展出同時看這兩個領域的方法。人類學做為了解世界人類不同文化如何可能並存的學科，我們的確有能力而且必須貢獻研究成果創造一個可持續的、多物種並存的世界。 

研究展望/Research Prospects 

本研究群在跨學科對話的前提下組成，初步階段有兩個重點。一，以讀書會的方式，頻率約三個月一次，研讀討論「本體論轉向」既存的幾個大的潮流和辯論。目前重疊出幾個主要的討論取向：(1) STS; (2)speculative realism/object-oriented ontology; (3)方法論／知識論的相互關係。STS有各種新穎的概念設計；speculative realism/object-oriented ontology則和幾個哲學家Meillassoux, Harman, Spinoza,  Deleuze最為相關；對人類學知識發展而言，是(3)方法論／知識論的相互關係裡的兩個陣營──法國結構主義以及英國社會人類學彼此之間的隱約對立或稱辯論最為明顯。 依據Holbraad and Pedersen (2017)，可以拉出兩條軸線：(1) 法國結構主義及其北美系譜（Levi-Strauss, Sahlins, Valeri, Michael Scott, Descola）；(2)英國社會人類學傳統，注重社會關係（Wagner, M. Stathern, Viveiros de Castro, Tim Ingold）， 同時也涉及到Descola與Viveiros de Castro在animism vs. perspectivism的辯論中展現出對於文化／自然定義的歧異。

二，我們計畫於二年之內籌辦一個大型的研討會，將成果結集成書。無論是有意識地想以民族誌材料討論哲學問題，或是ontology背後有methodology的思考，參與成員都要將ontological的知識，跟方法、現象，做個連結，和人類學與社會科學傳統處理的方式做個比較，是否ontological turn確實面對且處理了嶄新的問題，又或者ontology只是「文化的不同名字」。在舉辦大型研討會之前，我們也將舉行幾次小型的工作坊，成員將實驗性地探討如人與動物的關係、人在環境中對地景的感知與技術、動物世界是怎麼被看、landscape、感知與認識、美學、創造、意象等等。總之，本研究群將研究視為一個開放性的、實驗性的過程。然後再建立連結。這種連結不只是理論連結，其實是擴大對世界的認識，所謂多元宇宙，然後連結、嵌入不同的世界。

Introduction

Anthropological Studies on Ontology Research Group, initiated in 2021, aims to build up an academic network connecting scholars of both domestic and international, so as to facilitate the discussion of the growing trend of anthropological studies of “the ontological turn”. The research group believes that “the ontological turn” may develop and broaden the understanding of anthropological theories and the history of anthropology on the one hand, and can explore new approaches toward methodologies and ethnographic material, on the other. Moreover, “the ontological turn” in anthropology is essentially an inquiry that traverses disciplines and theories, being able to enhance the conversations among social sciences, philosophy and STS.

The one and foremost research interest of anthropology is to understand different worlds, and therefore the discipline believes that different worlds and cultures have their unique meaning and raison d'être; it then strives to develop theories and methodologies to understand different worlds. At the other end, the original definition of anthropology is “the study of man”, by which we understand that the worlds anthropology seeks to understand are the worlds created by human beings. The very term “culture” can in a sense capture the rough range of its study. It can be said that, , anthropological debates and theoretical breakthroughs have throughout its hundred years of development been the constant refinements of the concept “culture”, while  “nature”, if not directly in opposition to "culture", has been handed over to scientists. In distinction, the “ontological turn” in anthropology takes them seriously: 1. the question of “different worlds”, from which rethink the fundamental assumption of what “real” is; 2. the premise of nature/culture dualism. By all accounts, the “ontological turn” in anthropology focuses not only on questions such as essence, knowledge, existence and other philosophically minded ontological inquires, but also on the methodological intervention: for example, to what extent the local people and ethnographers can grasp reality and phenomena?

There could be no more appropriate time to turn anthropology to ontological than now. Not only because the discipline may benefit pretty much from it in terms of conceptualization and methodology sharpening, but because Anthropocene the planet has endured can afford no more “human-centered” studies. As a result, the relationship between human and non-human, or the possibility of coexistence between multispecies have recently been topics across many disciplines. Among diverse research trends a temporary consensus is that human is not the only creature that can claim subjectivity, motivation or meanings; that it is not natural sciences that deal with non-human while humanities and social sciences, with human. After all, it is impelling to develop new methods and/or theories linking altogether the two research fields. And anthropology, a discipline being able to immerge and take hold of different worlds, will and should contribute to a world of sustainability and multispecies co-existence.

Research Prospects

This research group is founded on interdisciplinary conversation, and it runs on two forms. First, in the form of a study group once every three months, we study and examine existing streams and debates of the “ontological turn”. Current orientations include (1) STS; (2) speculative realism/object-oriented ontology; (3) the interrelationship between methodology and epistemology. STS develops innovative concepts; speculative realism/object-oriented ontology relates to philosophers such as Meillassoux, Harman, Spinoza, while Deleuze is of importance in this orientation. However, the implicit antagonism or debate between the French tradition of structuralism and the British tradition of social anthropology stimulates the development of ontologically-turned knowledge when it comes to methodology and epistemology in anthropology. That is, according to Holbraad and Pedersen (2017), two tendencies can be delineated: (1) French structuralism and its American genealogy (Levi-Strauss, Sahlins, Valeri, Michael Scott, Descola); (2) British social anthropology focusing on social relations (Wagner, M. Stathern, Viveiros de Castro, Tim Ingold), both of which engage, respectively, with what can be seen between Descola and Viveiros de Castro in light of animism vs. perspectivism, the differentiation of culture/nature.

Second, we plan to hold a large conference within two years, and a book collection as a result of our research. Contributors are free to discuss philosophical questions with ethnographic material or to reflect on the ontological assumptions with methodology innovations, with an aim to comparing with the traditional approaches of anthropology and the broader social sciences. It is our hope that we can reconsider the classical debate— whether the ontological turn has posed new questions, or it is just “another word” for culture. To prepare for the conference, we will hold several workshops, and the members could analyze experimentally such topic as the relationship between human and non-human, the perception and technologies of landscapes of a human being in an environment, how the animal world is treated, and also landscapes, perception and knowing, aesthetics, creation, image. In a word, we will carry on the project in an open, experimental process as much as possible. By doing so, we create connections, with theoretical developments, but more with worlds in much broader ways, a world(s)—the so-called multiple universes, one relating with, and embedding into each other.

Convener: Jung, Shaw-Wu

Group members: Lee, Mei-Chun; Cheng, Weining; Lu, Hsin-yi; Lin, Hao-Li; Lee, Yi-Tze; Chuang, Ya-Chung; Huang, Kuan-min; Huang, Yu-chien; Tsai, Yen-ling; Hsieh, I-yi.

召集人：容邵武

參與成員：李梅君、鄭瑋寧、呂欣怡、林浩立、李宜澤、莊雅仲、黃冠閔、黃郁茜、蔡晏霖、謝一誼