移民研究 指定書目：Strangers, Ambivalence and Social Theory. (Ashgate, 1988) 推薦閱讀：Bulrny Diken, “Hybridity, Globalization and the Stranger” 本週版主： 書目整理： 上課筆記： 課前準備 Before class Translate of p.156 (彥廷) 課後分享 After class

移民研究

國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所僑教與海外華人研究組課程綱要

科目名稱（中文）：移民研究　　科目名稱（英文）：Migration Studies　　　全/半年：　半　必/選修：　選　總學分數：　３　

授課教師：　楊聰榮 　（國際與僑教學院　副教授）

本週主題

14.(5/25) 移民與社群互動、社區生活

指定書目：Strangers, Ambivalence and Social Theory. (Ashgate, 1988)

推薦閱讀：Bulrny Diken, “Hybridity, Globalization and the Stranger”

本週版主：

由負責報告組別全體擔任版主，並選出一人做為
輪值主席

書目整理：

請整理相關議題的各種書目，包括課堂講
義及同學提供的材料，及自行找尋的參考資料

上課筆記：

上課內容與討論 Lecture and Discussion
由負責報告組別整理上課筆記，大家補充。

課前準備 Before class

在上課前撰寫課堂講義之摘要及心得，
負責報告組別要準備回答問題。

Translate of p.156 (彥廷)

    Until relatively recently, African cloth was made primarily in Holland and Germany. The production was targeted to specific "tribes", that is , based on specific patterns, and the cloth was not obtainable in Europe. The production of local difference on a global scale is proof of a global relation in production and consumption. It is not, of course, the globalization of culture, of meaning, but of the global control over local consumption via product differentiation. This is clearly a global systemic relation, but is it also globalization? (Friedman 1995:87)

直到最近，非洲衣物主要在荷蘭和德國生產。這種生產針對特定的部落，基於特定的模式，而且這些衣物在歐洲是無法獲得的。全球範圍下的區域性生產差異是全球性生產與消費關係的證明。當然，這並不是文化全球化的含意，但通過生產差異，全球控制超越了本地消費。這很明顯是全球性的系統化關係；但這也是全球化嗎？

    Only if culture is limited to "the museological definition of ethnographic objects" and thus conceived of as a "matter" that can be "mixed", can hybridization, creolization, etc.be talked of, but still only as an "identification of others" by the cosmopolitan anthropologist (Friedman 1995: 82). This is importantly also a typical attribute of Western modernity in that it "consists in transforming difference into essence", such as "race, text, paradigm, code, structure, without ever needing to examine the actual process by which specificity comes to be and is reproduced" (Friedman 1995:80).

只有當文化被限制為「民族學物件的博物學定義」，而且因此將之設想為一種可以混合、雜交、克里奧爾化(混合語規範化)的物質時，才被談到。然而仍然只是一個被世界性人類學家給予的「他者的識別」。這是「以轉化差異為構成要素」中重要而且典型的現代西方屬性，例如「種族、文字、典範、代碼、結構，從來不必去檢驗特異性呈現和再現的實際過程」。

    It can be argued that Friedman operates with a rather restricted understanding of hybridization only as identification.

But it is important to recall that hybridization also takes place "in spite of" identifications; as is the case in the context of "hybridization between enemies" (see Pieterse 1995). Thus, instead of a wholesale denial and denigration of theories of hybridization by limiting it to identification, we can still fruitfully investigate hybridization process which take place in spite of pure identification because even this denial itself is grounded in existing hybridity. Ex-Yugoslavia, as the latest example, the most racist response to hybridity, or the most severe ambition to ethnic cleansing, is raised in the most hybrid contexts.

可以說 Friedman 對異族結合作了相當限制性的理解，僅僅作為個人標誌。但重要的是記得混血也發生在不在意個人識別之處，例如在「敵人之間混合化」背景下的例子（參見 Pieterse 1995）因此，並非藉由限制它去全面否認和詆毀混血理論，我們仍然可以卓有成效地探討異族結合的過程，儘管它純粹建立於單純的身分辨識。因為即使這種拒絕仍立足於既有的混雜性上。最近的例子，前南斯拉夫，對混血最種族主義式的反應，或是對種族清洗最嚴重的企圖，造成了最多異族通婚的背景。

    However, the points Friedman underlines are important in consideration of the hybridity of the Turkish habitus. They explicitly remind us that the objects, the products and the elements combined and mixed in the production of the habitus are only half the story regarding the processes of hybridization. At least equally important is the question of how and to what degree this hybridization is (not) recognized in the social space, which seems determined to order "anomalies" and to discipline human and no-human actors producing hybrids, a topic which we will approach from different angles in chapter 8.

然而， Friedman 所指出的考慮土耳其習慣的異族結合的是非常重要的。他們明確地提醒我們：習慣的塑造過程中產品和元素的組合和混合只是異族結合過程的一半故事。同樣重要的問題是在社會空間中這種異族結合如何和多大程度上(不)被認可，這似乎決定去整頓「反常現象」並去規範人類和非人類參與者進行混血。這個主題我們將在第八章從不同的角度來探討。

    So far, we can say that, with respect to "identifications" in the Danish social space, it is not easy to find hybrid ones.

It is one thing to be hybrid, and it is  something else to "affirm" it in one's identifications. The most important question is in which direction the hybird habitus will tend to navigate, e.g. toward an affirmation of itself and its hybridity or toward denial of it through nationalism and fundamentalism. The choice is, of course, up to "us", all actors.

到目前為止，我們可以說，丹麥社會空間的個人標誌這方面，很難找到混血兒。成為混血是一回事，將它納入個人標誌中承認它又是另外一回事。最重要的問題是混血的習性會趨向何方，例如：傾向於承認自身和自己的混血特質；或是經由民族主義和原教旨主義拒絕這個屬性。這選擇當然取決於所有的參與者，也就是我們自己。

課後分享 After class

在上課後提出你的心得及想法，研究規劃，
如果有相關資料分享，請提原件或連結。