Exploring the Concept: Destiny

Destiny is the idea that the contingencies of life have purpose for the individual, it is the a key to an intricate lock, which once opened, aligns all the nooks and crannies, and opens the way to an ultimate path of transcending clarity.

Destiny is a moral lesson which people construct out of their own biographies; it is the way people give meaning and significance to the events of their lives which seem strewn across impossibly different realms. It allows people to transcend the immediate successes and failures of certain events, and to attempt to organize these happenings in relation to the entire body of experience. In short, destiny is the idea that life has an overarching purpose, not merely in terms of its material success or wishes fulfilled, but a purpose to convey to the onlooker and, most importantly the self, a story of a moral victory which gives every “chapter” of life significance in relation to its final conclusion.

There is a great peril concerning destiny, a question of ‘when’ the lesson can be extracted from the story. It is the question of whether or not one can make sense of the of the events up until now, or how one deals with life when it seems as if the conclusion has been reached and the remainder of days are a mere between and beyond of an epilogue. It might be troubling for the individual in both cases, but neither diminishes the faith that people hold for a ‘destiny’. Going into it further, we may not be able to dictate the events that happen to us, but we are always the authors of our own biographies in the sense that it is ultimately up to ourselves to adopt or create a moral lesson from our experience. This authorship is fundamental for the writing of a destiny and also fundamental for our own sense of being, it is an invigorating motive for living life, hence making it hard to give up even in the face of absurdity.

The relation between destiny and past events soon becomes tautological, things happen because they are ‘destined’ to, and the moral significance extracted from events soon comes back to construct the narrative in which they are remembered. The relation between destiny and the future becomes the more dynamic relation. On one hand, there is an uncertainty of reconstruction, for it is always possible that one must revise the moral story when facing inexplicable events, such as a natural catastrophe and sudden reversals of fortune. On the other hand, there is a chance for gratifying revelation of what is one’s true destiny; a final success in a string of repetitive failures, a lucky draw at the lottery, a newborn showing infinite dependency, such are the moments when failures are turned to mere hardships on the road to greater meaning.

What makes individuals interesting is their ways of constructing their destiny. Some cannot bear the idea of loose strings and stray alleyways; they must make meaning of everything at hand at all times. Some are forever looking forward future revelations, forgoing their own conduct and the probabilities of change, always remaining faithful in their own conviction that a vindication will come. While most of us accept the fact that some events have come to be through pure chance, that they could have held different content, even lesser meaning, while holding other events as defining moments in the our tale of morality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contemplating on the concept further, i've realized how much my ideas on the subject pinge on a particular sense of 'authorship' that might not have existed in other historical eras. Their was no use of the word 'author' in medival Europe, for all works were attributed to the glory of god working through the hands of us, the sinners. It was Machiavelli that told us to reach for the other half of glory which rightly belonged to ourselves, against the other tides fortune. The mediator of the self between Destiny and the Events to be expalined may not have been a recognized actor. My ideas are probably a reflection of the multitude of oppurtunities and the vacancy of any dominant ways of life in modern life.

日本民俗學&其殖民地的學科發展

童老師:
比較視野是什麼? 什麼是好的比較研究?
我們80年代檢討的是西方的學術問題, 我們反省是否有意義?
80年代是流動的年代, 人類學研究的對象是什麼? Sight, Fieldwork, 這些概念要怎麼看待?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
日本現代人類學與殖民主義的發展
清水昭俊, 作中國研究: 一直以來都是在研究殖民地作人類學, 戰時人類學, 大洋洲移民

日本受中國影響, 開始記錄少數民族, 並以中央自居. 先記錄到的是蝦夷族(阿依努人), 攻打北海道. 明治時期才開始有民族誌類似的東西.
黑船開港, 開始去探索密克羅尼西亞, 以往對周照的大洋洲其實不敢興趣. 很多是用西方傳來的故事當民族誌. 1877Edward Morse發現大森貝塚, 1884東京人類學會. 坪井正五郎, 留英向Taylor學習, 東京帝大人類學系第一任系主任.

當代種族, 文化的人種學, 土俗學, 物質&文化考古學, 範圍太廣, 研究者非本科系, 研究成果抽象. 研究的議題:舊石器時代的人本人是什麼樣子? Morse說是混種, 食人族. 日人很幹, 坪井說應該是阿依努人的後裔. 鳥居龍藏認為是東北亞、中南半島,、密克羅尼西亞來的, 有考古資料被書, 考古得以發展. 1910-20考古學分出去, 留下體質和文化在人類學裡面.

鳥居龍藏認為人種學與體質有差, 認為前者需考慮到歷史, 文化面向. 抽出來之後反而比之前的廣義人類學更廣. 當時不是很重視到實地去做田野. 鳥使日人類學跨出日本和日本人起源的問題, 去整個東亞作研究. 他的田野地擴展與帝國擴張是同步的. 1905日俄戰爭去滿州, 1910去韓國, 1919西伯利亞, 都是跟著軍隊的腳步.

田野地的海外擴展
台、韓都是依照者日本人非專業的發展將人類學起家的. 1896鳥居來台, 出了Reports on Taiwanese Aboriginals, 1901年開始舊慣調查, 原住民分別, 1913-22年出了兩本The Report of the Investigation on the Savage's Custom. 都是由man on the spot來做調查的. 1928建立台北帝大土俗人種學講座, 移川子之藏, 宮本延人, 馬淵東一三個人開始的, 那時候在文政部史學科裡面的, 強調南方研究, 南洋史學是史學的重點, 馬淵東一是唯一培養出來的學生. 1935年出高砂族系統所屬. 1949年考古人類學成立, 第一本專刊就是出鄒族的研究, 因為高砂一書未提到該族. The Formosan Native Tribes, A genealogical and Classificatory Study, 1935. 寫完後金費不足, 馬淵東走向單一點, 密集的研究. 剛田千, 舊慣調查分漢人, 原住民, 由法學系的人做的, 著重民法的概念. 剛田千提出祭祀圈的概念. 他們調查的方式, 到警察局, 把長老叫過來, 有資源的人帶過來, 坐下來談, 短時間, 大範圍. 他們不懂當地語言, 靠官方力量,這樣的成績如何?

韓國的發展類似, 有學院成立, 但他們沒有原住民, 作宗教, 社會學研究. 日學者來作法類似, 但比較偏向作城市. 邱葉榮是主要的學者, 開闢儒教與民俗宗教兩個議題, 研究複雜社會. 韓國不太吃結構功能論這套, 太多變遷.

Micronesia, 日本人沒有再此建任何教育人類學的制度, 因為他們認為他們都是原住民. 是由自然科學家去做的調查, 但自己有興趣的人調查的比較好Togo Kichitaro, Matsuoka Sizuo松崗靜雄. 後兩者是海軍的人, 一次大戰結束後國際聯盟勢力重劃, 建了一個南洋廳在我們系. 松創日(荷)蘭交通會, 了解東印度範圍. 作M調查, 在各島上發問卷. 日本政府現代化的過程派出大量的學者留西. 日本的博覽會把中國人放得很低, 還有真人(土著)演出, 以一種新型殖民地出現. 北海道當時是external territory, 是他們第一個殖民經驗, 影響台灣很大. Hijikata Hisakatsu'不得志'的藝術家, 去Satawa的小島, 作了一些記錄. Satawa在亞浦島的附近, 航海技術出名, 花很多時間在帛琉, 組了一個南洋學會之類的, 只是知識分子非專科. 從男人會所的故事板得到靈感, 開始賣紀念品, 讓日本學生旅行時感覺很偉大. Sugiura Kenchi宗教民俗學的研究, 作土地所有權調查, 鼓勵土地私有制, 是第一個專科的. 比較觀點, 歷史觀點, 也有功能的. 最後的研究比較接近實用人類學的觀點, 作者認為有點類似於Malinowski, 但缺少批判性.

日本都市人類學
鳥居龍藏因為個性問題無法成為領導, 個研究零散. 1920民俗研究才成為主流. 柳田國男, 原本做日本的鬼怪, 第一個組織化民俗學, 從精英文化放出來, 作民間. 1925創民俗雜誌, 投稿學者非常多樣, 分日人與外人研究兩種. 1929經費不足, 停刊. 民俗學這個雜誌出現, 很類似, 比較多外國人來投. 1934民俗學停刊. 民俗學會成立, 基本上是民俗學同一批人, 比較接近俠義文化人類學, 想要反省當時民族主義的潮流. 不再關心體質, 種族, 認為人是同質的. 和柳田國男作切割, 想要走比較國際的路線. 也是由不同的學科的人組成, 很多都是從東方研究過來的. 坪井懷疑是否由單一民族來組成國家是最好的, 但新學會沒有很走這條路. 二次世界大戰, 南洋難以做研究, 中國的田野增加. 調查非常的政治化, 但也促使田野方法的嚴謹, 因為需要大量的人去實地考察. 岡正雄希望建立民族研究所來研究被統治的民族. 1942年新學會解散, 成立民族xx學會, 為帝國服務的傾向明顯. 日本戰敗導致很多田野地的喪失, 開始有很多道德問題需要反省, 石田英一郎想要提倡純理論傾向, 不關心社會實際運動, 接受西方的學術中立觀點. 開始深耕日本本身的文化研究, 步步向外走, 最後才再回到舊殖民地. 作者認為有些殖民主義的意味, 因為和日本有強列經濟關係的地方才會被好好研究.

童老師講評:
可以看出人類學與殖民主義, 國族主義, 政治之關係.
Metropolitan anthropology不要翻譯為都市人類學, 應該是母國人類學. 地方文史工作者 vs. 外來的專科訓練者, 學術權力上, 詮釋能力上的不同, 語言能力不同. 有些問題, 韓國是複雜社會但不是都市社會, 應該是鄉民社會. 鄉民一定是與區域性的大市場有關係, 他不以利潤為生產目標, 但必須要與都市互通有無. Micronesia沒有大學的意思是說研究者過來就走. 你們說殖民地人類學繼承了鳥居龍藏的方向是什麼意思?
經濟調查:礦物, 人力, 土地, 林場etc. 要找什麼樣的社會比較好動員. 日人處處設研究所. 這些人回日本被怎麼看待?他們是需要適應的. 1942年, 日本人統治新幾內亞, 派了100多位學者去做調查. 同年海南島也是一對學者在佔領後進入. 本系菲律賓, 印尼的東西事這樣來的. 1949年後我們成立, 有什麼傳承嗎? 其實南洋的研究並沒有傳得很好, 沒有跨學科, 1914年日人成立南洋廳現在很多東西都近了台灣的博物館. 殖民是很糟的東西, 但他也留下不少東西, 很可惜沒有發揮意義.
日本是被西方打開的, 處理的方式和中國人很接近. 明治維新時出現了民族主義和民俗學的傳統. 民俗學最早是德國和英國, 是在國家底下整理地方特色的嘗試, 日人也是如此. 日本人的傳統是什麼? 北海道是什麼意思. 西學該放在哪裡, 儒學呢. 日本人的特色是看自己, 問日本人是誰. 找了很多西方的學者發展系學, 找了Morris來.
日本人後來有一部書, 寫一群人漂流在海記錄傳奇式誌. 中國有類似的嗎? A: 鏡花緣, 這種在海外的移民. 中國人去外面移民的歷史有時連續數百年, 如去泰國等, 這些外來的文化匯豐富中國人的想像嗎? 鏡花緣拿外地來講比較理想的文化特色, 有點烏托邦的文學.
李繼和移川都式在哈佛20年代的學生. 移川是民俗學的傳統, 後來用來人種學, 比較接近鳥居, 因為日本作為殖民者民俗會牽涉到民族情感, 太敏感, 不過他們在日本本體是用民俗學.

大家覺得說有什麼樣的傳承或是怎麼樣斷裂.
台灣人類學系是一個很古老的系, 我們成立時的研究以原住民為主, 濁大計畫之後才開始做漢人, 以鄉民和社會變遷的角度再談, 農村進入工業的社會, 文化變遷. 黃應貴的農業機械化. 他後來研究的是東浦人怎麼從生計到經濟作物. 他把原住民看作是國家內的另外一群人. 邱延亮就在談國族人類學, 接續這一篇. 明年是建國百年, 國科會要做百年大展, 來做人文學門的展覽, 因人類學很多東西, 所以要自己再搞一個, 全國巡迴的. 台灣人類學的100年在哪裡? 有2個傳統, 殷商考古, 那時中研院來的三個所就有一個所是史語所, 還有史學, 民族傳統, 民國17年瑞義夫在華南做了很多研究, 他們很多都有國學訓練, 看禮記. 還有一個傳統是日本的傳統, 收藏上很強, 物質研究基本上是接這個的. 台大留用教授, 也有留宮本, 金關藏夫. 金是作體質的, 有很多掌紋阿, 血液阿, 有很多科學的種族主義有關.

A Revised Review of 'I'll Believe In Anything' by Wolf Parade

After a few days of distance, I believe I could have done more justice to this review now that my thoughts have come to be more clear and concrete. This album deals with human genesis on an emotional level. Its revolt stems from two main dissatisfactions that come from, I believe, a mass media and industrialized setting. The first dissatisfaction is a dissatisfaction of expression, the feeling that our common usage of idioms, metaphors and social types fail to capture what we ourselves feel is the true nature of our relationships. Mass media is seen as a culprit here, because its reach is so far, and so encompassing, that any new form of expression would have to be checked with a large body of preexisting symbols, or else face the consequence of being marginalized, or worse misunderstood, or even worse, seen as a petty play of rearranging clichés. Wolf Parade’s solution to this problem is using metaphors that are so personal and absurd, that they dislocate a given situation with the language we normally use to think about it. The signified is cut off and rescued from the signifier, and its meaning seems to seep past its former boundaries and reconnects itself with a deeper conscious. You would be lying if you claimed to understand all the metaphors in that album, because they are not made to be understood, instead they are made so that you can make your own connections, feel your own liberation from preconfigured ways of expression.

The second dissatisfaction is a dissatisfaction with modern society. People locked in high-rises, enduring tedious work hours, taking in the clanking city sounds all around them. Our ambivalence with the city creates an interesting dynamic, as some embrace it wholeheartedly, taking the good with the bad, the smog with and bright city lights, the sin and the glamour. Some deject it, and search for other places to live like the suburbs or the countryside, while limiting contact as much as possible. As artists, the ambivalence receives another layer in songs like “Modern World”, for it is precisely the contrast of constraint and free-play that their music gains flair. In most of these songs there are two distinct parts, one is highly structured part, featuring a set pace and a “comprehensible” melody; the other is a tearing down of the first part, featuring a changing pace, often an acceleration to the point of destruction, and weird yet pleasing tunes. Each half taken alone is not spectacular, but when combined they create a rushing sensation, an explosive impetus in their music. Their music is a metaphor for oppression and resistance, both which cannot be felt without being placed in juxtaposition with the other.

In the opening of this blog I’ve written that the album was about ‘human genesis ’, now that we examined the two dissatisfactions of the album I will turn back to the conclusion given. It is a very simple message up front, one that simply points out the rigidness of our culture and the inhumane conditions of our society, suggesting that the human soul could not have come from modernity, hence encouraging us to find our own roots in objects and places of personal significance. We can capture some of our true selves in abstract metaphors, secret memories of sacred places and such. The message becomes more complex when it reveals itself to unconfident in its own suggestions. What if modernity is so ingrained in us that our departure from it is only a reconfiguration of its template? What if this yearning can only come from a heightened awareness of our individuality, which can only come from modernity? What if there is simply no human soul, no identifiable, unique and integrated ‘thing’ that belongs to only ourselves? There is a deep anxiety that haunts all of Wolf Parade’s achievements.

I believe there is ample literature on the modern discontents, and hence I do not feel a need to link the two dissatisfactions in to an overarching scheme, or point out a single source. In the end, the music deals with the significance with the conditions we are set in. In my eyes, “Apologies to the Queen Mary” is not an escapism album, but a reminder and a celebration of an individual soul lurking behind imminent extinction.

P.S This could have replaced the previous article of the same review, but I was interested to show the progress from an emotional, spur-of-the-moment review, to the clear-headed version. I don’t believe that logic is ad-hoc to the conclusions of human emotion, on the contrary it works best when given such significance.

A Sporadic Review of 'I'll Believe In Anything' by Wolf Parade

Listening to the song for the first time, I almost immediately knew what it meant, the imagery was just so clear in a vague way that there could be no other explanation. For me, it was as if the horizon had been spun around the axis of the city dweller and now the landscape became the erected monument against the city which now lay at our feet. We were released from civilizations imposing ways, spilt forth from our cubicles and classrooms, removed from the artificial sense of connectedness. Now we were all worshiping together, and of each other. The gray mass of the city now bore fruit for a better place, an orchard that grew from the ashes of something reminiscent of the rural, of the natural.

In the end, people could not find their own genesis in the metropolis; they could not garner any warmth from what they have created collectively, so they stored a piece of where they truly came from deep in their hearts separately. Nobody should know what this piece of home is, nobody could falsify our own convictions, and nobody would find that two people were inconveniently the same. It was a cult of mass grievance, of mystified individuals carrying fabricated pasts. For some it was the olive tree, for others the pine forest, the stone that came from the river bed. Wolf Parade is calling the bluff on modernity, this song is telling people they could not have originated from the iron beams and concrete pavements, that no son of Adam and Eve could have come from the Big Apple, no soul of ours could have come sprung from the head lights, and most importantly, no love could have come from the “fire in the wire”.

“I’ll take you away”, he says, “to a place where no one knows your name”. Where is that place? If it isn’t in your eyes than it must be in your bones, if it isn’t in your soul, than it must be in your ghost. There is a place called home for all of us, and it doesn’t have to be a lonely place. Take me to your place of birth, and I’ll show you mine, and together we can roam an imagined world, truer than the one we’ve met.

台語求愛十訣

每次回到老家，阿公總是會問我:信啊，你有沒有交到女朋友?我以前說沒有的時候，他總會說一定是我沒有膽量。細問之後才發現阿公對於追求女孩的要領有一套順口溜，它就是從這套順口溜裡面判斷我一定是不敢追求所以才沒有女朋友。
以下是台語的順口溜，阿公說他在讀高中的時候聽別人說的:

一、錢
二、緣
三、水
四、少年
五、敢
六、好膽
七、固誠
八、求
九、皮
十、綿

順口溜的念法是兩個、兩個念，阿公說有按照重要性來排的，針對的是男生這方的特質。有興趣的人檔案在這裡，可以自行去下載。
http://www.divshare.com/download/13347508-c54

一、錢
念法和國語一樣，屬於文讀。阿公說沒錢女孩子怎麼會看上你?

二、緣
你看上別人、別人要看上你，都是要投緣才會發生；興趣相似和碰面的機運都算是緣的一部份。

三、水
長的帥氣、漂亮。

四、少年
阿公說:談戀愛當然是你們年輕人的是，像我這樣老老的誰要?
其實阿公對於穿著的品味大概是我們家中男生最講究的，說不定現在的女孩子更喜歡。阿公以前做過房屋仲介所以知道穿著體面的重要性，有好幾套西裝，出門的時候也會把頭髮上油、帶上金絲框的墨鏡，很帥氣。

五、敢, 六、好膽
阿公說兩者很像似，但有一些區別。他說要追求一個人是要「敢」，時機到了該牽女孩子的手時，要牽起來要「好膽」。我不是很能掌握這個區別，或許有更懂台語的人能說說看?阿公說，他覺得我長得還算帥，家境也沒有太差，那一定是沒有勇氣才追不到女孩子了。

七、跪, 八、固誠
這兩者的也是意思上很相似。跪的意思是說姿態要放的低，在行為上要刻意的放軟，對方才會接受你。「固誠」這個詞是音譯，沒有對應的國語詞，阿公說大概的意思是「求」，也是要對孩子真摯的請求、裝可憐之意，阿公說延伸的意思是把對方不要的講到要，就是「固誠」。

九、皮, 十、綿
這兩者也是有點相似。「皮」沒有國語的字，我聽講解的時候感覺像是在討價還價。阿公說是不要把姿態放的太高，人家拒絕你的邀約就算了，是要一再的勸說，「和我看電影又不會怎麼樣?挨，來拉來拉」這樣的人就可說是「皮皮的」。「綿」有點像是「皮」的柔情版，一方面有溫柔的討好對方，另外一方有很密集的意思。

順口溜之外，阿公對於愛情的想法蠻傳統的，以家庭的和諧為重點；阿公就認為不應該取和自己學歷相當的女孩子，因為這樣就像一部車一樣同時兩個人在開，雙方就容易起口角。對他而言女孩子的特質最好是開朗、漂亮、勤勞、會燒菜、吃得了苦又柔順，家裡若是有點錢更好。而作為一家之主的男人首要的工作就是提供家裡的穩定的經濟基礎、工作賣命，還要為全家大小的未來規劃的好。如果和西方連續劇裡那種「你愛她就好」的態度而言，阿公的觀點很顧及現實面，也不太談情感；他說人自然而然就會有喜歡的偶像，只是你「應該」喜歡上哪個女孩子還是聽他的未來生活比較快樂；我的理解是說，人對於自己的情感是有些掌握的能力，不是一種人處與完全被動、情感是完全自發性的地步；你如果知道了哪一些特質對你是好的，你就會比較容易去喜歡上對方。

阿公有時候會出我考題，特別是陪他看綜藝節目的時候，他有次問說蔡依林和Coco哪一個比較好。我回他蔡依林比較漂亮，他說我應該選Coco因為她英文比較好這樣才不會讓你把英文給忘了(讓我還蠻啼笑皆非的，不過他真的有為孫子著想)。他又問我說Coco和林志玲你選哪一個，這次我選林志玲。阿公就說我選對了，因為林志玲看起來比較乖，不像Coco染一頭紅頭髮。

Love and its Discontents

This is a transcript created from the video “Jaques Derrida on Love and Being”, which I believe comes from the 2002 documentary of the master himself, though I can’t confirm it.

You can find the video here.

Interviewer: Just whatever you want to say about love…
J Derrida: About what?
Interviewer: Love.
J Derrida: Love or death?
Interviewer: Love, tell me more on love.
J Derrida: I have nothing to say about love. At least pose a question. I can’t examine “love” just like that. You need to pose a question. I’m not capable of talking in generalities about love. I’m not capable… Maybe that’s what you want me to say in front of the camera. That I have nothing to say about love in general.
Interviewer: (Laughs)
Interviewer: Okay, could you explain why this topic has concerned philosophers for centuries? It’s an important philosophical subject, isn’t it?
J Derrida: You can’t ask this of me Amy. Why have philosophers always spoken of love? That’s how philosophy started- No, no. It’s not possible. I have an empty head on love in general. And as for the reason philosophy has often spoken of love, I either have nothing to say or I’d just be reciting clichés.
Interviewer: Plato often spoke of this maybe you could just talk about that.
J Derrida: One of the first questions one could pose, I’m searching a bit… is the question of the difference between the “who” and the “what”. Is love of someone or love of something? Okay supposed I loved someone, do I love someone for the absolute singularity of who they are? I love you because you are you. Or do I love your qualities, your beauty, your intelligence? Does one love someone, or does one love something about someone? The difference between the “who” and the “what” at the heart of love separates the heart. It is often said that love is the movement of the heart. Does my heart move because I love someone who is an absolute singularity, or because I love the way that someone is? Often, love starts with some type of seduction. One is attracted because the other is like this or like that. Inversely, love is disappointed and dies when one comes to realize the other person doesn’t merit our love. The other person isn’t like this or that. So at the death of love, it appears that one stops loving another not because of who they are, but because they are such and such. This is to say, the history of love, the heart of love, is divided between the “who” and “what”. The question of “Being” to return to philosophy- because the first question of philosophy is: what is it “to Be?” What is being? The question of Being is itself always already divided between the who and the what. Is being someone or something? I speak of it abstractly, but I think that whoever starts to love, is in love, or stops loving, is caught between this division of the “who” and the “what”. One wants to be true to someone- singularly, irreplaceably- and one perceives that this someone isn’t X or Y. They didn’t have the qualities, properties, the images, that I thought I’d loved. So fidelity is threatened by the difference between the “who” and the “what”.

What is impressive about Derrida is his refusal to talk in generalities, or in other words “blanket terms” or “transcendental signified”, he doesn’t open up until the question is framed under the discourse. Though it may seem as a mere lack of specifics on the part of the interviewer, or one might even think that he is stalling, I find his approach on most interviews similar. In the second part of this blog I would like to go in to Simmel and his short paragraph on Love, and maybe then I will have more time to share my thoughts of the two.

林開世 on Theory of Anthropology sice the 60's, 逐字稿

這個文章顯示的問題與他提出的框架為何, 問題的困難度是什麼?為何持續的出現?
新民族誌, 歷史人類學的發展好像和practice有不同的走向. 他在80年代中期主要的著作和限制都出來了, 難以在發展. 頂多是個案研究上的深入.Practice很快的成熟, 也到極限了. Ortner指出是一個西方二元對立的問題, 地方和外在, 結構和個人的關係如何處理. 這些問題從來沒有被解決.
Practice和前面的派別最大的不同, 是之前的理論都偏向某一方, 都沒有降到個人的層次來思考這個問題.

這個問題本身不一定是能被克服的. Practice雖然看似解決了這樣的問題, 但其他的理論也未失去他們的效用, ie. structuralism的範圍還是被P廣的多. 60年代的象徵論, Schneider只要把文化的系統和規則找出來就算是文化, 個人層次是難以解決的. 不過處理社會變遷上面都無用, 可以告訴你文化的特性和心靈結構但對於經驗研究較無用. 社會變遷基本上都有它的系統層面, 造成個人的constraint, 如何發展出一個理論能處理constraint, 又找出他的機制來檢視呢? Geertz成功的點在於象徵的公開性, 開始有了practice研究的可能性. 但Geertz少處理認知與系統的問題. Strauss, Schneider把文化的層次抽得太高, 其中Strauss的神話研究抽出社會脈絡完全是現時性的, 如果個別的神話來看的話對於社會、歷史中的個人是什麼意義? 如果這樣的理論沒有辦法根本的解決個人行為的原因, 那還有用嗎?

雖然P沒有辦法超越, 但卻產生了很多種的理論, 個別的理論可以用在不同的case, 有不同的限制. 主要有三種重要的類型:

1.Foucault, 可以進入micro-macro控制的層次, 對個人來說幾乎是無意識的, 在90年00年帶是進展最快的一塊, Bourdieu 也可以放入這一塊. 透過殖民控制的研究, 我們了解到結構不一定是以抽象的面貌出現, 其實有非常多不同的制度性的結構, 且是日常社會生活中常出現的. Dirk 等對統計戶口的研究, 如何去認識人, 新的科技怎麼創造不同的persona, 使我們非常的僅覺我們思考的模式是受現代性的發展. 時空感, 實踐感, 社會感都是權力結構的產物.

2.下一塊是比較強調人的agency.Bourdieu非常矛盾的在於它擺盪在一和二裡, 但他可以和rational choice等結合. James Scott為二類代表. 強調人在結構下用策略擺脫它的影響, 這樣的文獻在Gramci的框架之下又出現一批研究, 作peasant, 工人等.

3.第三種理論, 像Sahlins, Raymond Williams等人. RW認為hegemony不可能是絕對的, 要在歷史的框架之下看, 有數個, 同時在競爭的文化結構. Sahlins認為結構的限制並不是那麼的嚴密, 但是與個人意識和不一定有關, 重點是過程, 歷史研究成為重點. 現在視為當然的結構其是在很多鬥爭和妥協的過程中產生的. 重視結構和歷史的辯證理論.

三個通通沒有克服二元對立, 但是有很有趣的理論. 新民族誌相當有趣的interrupt所有的理論建構, 但在經驗研究上面相較於P理論是比較貧乏的. James Clifford "Traveling Theory".

Levi-Strauss也試圖想超越物質, 唯心的二元結構, 不論是親屬的, 社會組織上大家都是處理二元對立的緊張關係. 這些社會上的處理策略和藝術有一個對比性的關係, 幾何形, 裝飾形. Strauss想要打破super-structure和infra-structure, 結構論裡兩者都是深層結構. 我們現在脫離一下Strauss的心靈結構是想逃脫對立的方式, 社會一定有某些緊張關係, 假設這些緊張的關係會投射到所有的結構上面, 是不是所有的地方都有在處理這個問題? 所以才會說Harris他們是vulgar因為所有人都在處理這樣的問題. Marx在霧月18裡面就脫離了德意志意識形態裡面機械性的解決方法, Hegel的也不同. 結構論的啟發是人們可以從一個結構性的原則去處理這個問題, 而不掉入二元對立. EP Thompson, 在Poverty of theory當中批評的十分精采. 結構馬克斯主義雖然也看到了, 但最後last determinate還是經濟面象的. 結構馬克思主義性質上和結構功能論性質很像, 每個都relate到each other, SM裡也是每個moment組合起來, 這就是為什麼他們很快在英美受到重視, 其實就是因為他們使用的學者熟悉於此.

為什麼P會以這樣的面貌出現, 哪個在前, 哪個在後等等? Sahlins的框架有一個問題存在, 在一個P裡面似乎人類的agency最重要, 但卻往往是unintended consequence. 這不是很矛盾嗎, 和人說是Practice但最後重要的卻是無意識的. 回到P的三種, 其實大家都有這樣的問題, 都沒有處理到革命這樣的東西, 他是一定要intended. 到芬蘭車站Edmund Welson寫的在寫馬克思主義的形成與歷史是如何被發現的, 歷史是可以被掌握的這個vision是Marxism很重要的貢獻. 人在重要歷史juncture跳出來捉住歷史, 是一種很18世紀的浪漫思想. Class for itself如何變成Class in itself的問題. Sahlins相對上沒有那麼清楚, 像拿破崙, 列寧都是相當有意識的行為, 其實S也想解釋這樣的問題, 他分出一個Heroic History, 人是可以改變歷史的, 但要對的人, 對的時機下. 例如夏威夷Fiji酋長為了獲得西方的軍事幫助全體改宗, 成為可能是因為結構上酋長本身非常的有權力. 個個社會怎麼樣分配這樣的權力是很重要的問題, S不要我們只看一般社會的慣習而矯枉過正.

批評人家說不處理變遷其實是一個沒有意義的, 因為你必須要先定義出變遷的定義為何, 如果沒有一些結構的框架其實不可能想像變遷. 不可能想像結構變遷是什麼意思, 歷史變遷是什麼意思.

理論這些東西發展其實很慢. 都繞來繞去, 其實可以不用上那麼多, 大家熟一部分後面就都通了