國際關係理論的新物質主義轉向：後人類中心的國際關係研究概論與論析

The New Materialism Turn in International Relations Theory: The Introduction and Commentary to Post-Anthropocentric International Relations

莫大華(Tahua Mo)

《問題與研究》 58卷1期 (2019/03) Pp. 47-87

https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.201903_58(1).0002

摘要

當前國際關係理論研究現正面臨著「物質轉向」、「物質主義轉向」、「新物質主義轉向」及「複雜轉向」的風潮，重新掀起國際關係理論的「心－物」、「心－身」、「社會世界－自然世界」、「行為主體性－結構」的爭論，乃至「人類中心－非人類中心」的新爭論。國際關係學者藉由「新物質主義」的哲學觀點提供了實用的哲學基礎而使國際關係或國際系統的本體論爭議迴避或拒絕二元對立觀點，呈現出新的「中間道路」（via media）吸納雙方觀點發展出「不只人類」的觀點，以及物質性也不是僅僅無生命的物質，而是也具有生命的物質。「新物質主義」以「組合體」或「行為者網絡」概念，將二元對立觀點組合在一起，就像是由各組件連結在一起相互影響而製造產品的機械。新物質主義使國際關係理論研究超越「人類中心主義」特質，重新組合國際關係中人類與非人類因素的異質性拼裝在一起，人類因素與非人類因素並非分離而是共同演化及相互關聯。遂出現了以新物質主義為哲學基礎，結合複雜理論或複雜系統理論的「複雜國際關係理論」，以及結合複雜理論與生態學理論的「後人類國際關係理論」，還有強調人類行為者與非人類行為者（actants）之間網絡關係的「行為者網絡理論」。進而發展出以生態系統為中心，結合人類與非人類因素的「後人類中心國際關係理論」（Postanthropocentric International Relations）。本文探討「新物質主義」所引起的國際關係後設理論的省思，並比較分析新進的「複雜國際關係理論」、「後人類國際關係理論」與「行為者網絡理論」三項理論，以及說明「新物質主義」哲學基礎的洞見及限制，以及省思其對於國際關係理論研究的影響。

關鍵字

新物質主義 ； 物質轉向 ； 複雜國際關係理論 ； 後人類國際關係理論

並列摘要

The field of international relations is facing the fashions of ＂material turn＂, ＂materialism turn,＂ ＂new materialism turn,＂ and ＂complexity turn,＂ which re-raises the new debates of ideal-material, mind-body, social world-natural world, agency-structure, and anthropocentrism-nonanthropocentrism in international relations. With the New Materialism offering a practical philosophical foundation, the ontological debates of international relations or international systems could avoid or refuse the binary opposition of dualism and express the new via media to absorb thesis and antithesis of dualism, as well as develop a ＂more-than- human＂ perspective and a materiality of inanimate/(no space) animate [CORRECT: inanimate/animate] materials. New Materialism assembles the binary opposition of dualism affectively together with the ＂assemblages＂ or ＂actor-networks,＂ which in a sense is similar to machines linking elements to produce things. New Materialism makes international relations beyond anthropocentrism and re-assembles the heterogeneity of human and non-human factors and bricolage them together, meaning the entities are not separated, but are co-evolutionary and co-connected. Therefore, there are three international relations theories with the New Materialism as philosophical foundations: the Complex International Relations with combining Complexity Theory or Complex System Theory; the Posthuman International Relations with combining Complexity Theory and Ecology; and the Actor-Network Theory with the networks of actors and actants. These theories further develop Post-anthropocentric International Relations with the center on ecological system. This project attempts to focus on three topics: to explore the International Relations' metatheoretical reflection that the New Materialism provoked; to comparatively analyze Complex International Relations, Posthuman International Relations, and Actor-Network Theory to explain the insights and limitations of the New Materialism; and to reflect on their influences in international relations.

並列關鍵字

New Materialism ； Material Turn ； Complex International Relations ； Post-human International Relations

參考文獻

du Plessis, Gitte. 2017. “When Pathogens Determine the Territory: Toward a Concept of Non-Human Borders.” https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117710998(June 8, 2017).

郭雪真，2017，〈國際關係理論國際體系理論化研究及其知識論思辨:非均衡體系理論的知識論反思〉，《問題與研究》，56(2): 109-143。Kuo, Hsueh-chen.2017. “Guo ji guan xi li lun guo ji ti xi li lun hua yan jiu ji qi zhi shi lun si bian: fei jun heng ti xi li lun de zhi shi lun fan si” [An Analysis of Systemic Theorization of International System in International Relations Theory and Its Epistemological Speculation: The Reflection of Non-Equilibrium Systems Theory]. Issues and Studies, 56(2): 109-143.

Acuto, Michele and Simon Curtis. 2013a. “Assemble Thinking and International Relations.” In Michele Acuto and Simon Curtis, eds., Reassembling International Theory: Assemble Thinking and International Relations, pp. 1-15. New York, NY: Palgrave Pivot.

Adey, Peter. 2012. “How to Engage?: Assemblage as Ethos/Ethos as Assemblage.” Dialogues in Human Geography, 2(2): 198-201.

Adler, Emanuel. 2008. “The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self Restraint and NATO’s Post Cold War Transformation.” European Journal of International Relations 14(2): 195-230.