- 學位論文
告別傅科：愛德華．薩伊德之《東方主義》及其後續
Steering Away from Foucault: Edward Said's Orientalism and After
若您是本文的作者，可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。
摘要
摘要 本論文試圖探討：一、薩伊德（Edward Said）針對傅科（Michel Foucault）思想中關於論述、權力與抵抗（resistance）等概念，從挪用到批判的理論轉折；二、在此理論轉折後，薩伊德如何繼續發展其關於抵抗、知識份子、世俗批評（secular criticism）的概念。傅科思想在薩伊德前半段的學術生涯中扮演了舉足輕重的角色，並不只是因為在1972~1986年間有至少六篇針對傅科思想的論文或章節問世，重要的是在這長達近十五年間，薩伊德不斷的重新詮釋、演譯傅科，並調整本身與傅科在理論與道德的角度上的相對位置。本論文試圖整理此「從挪用到批判」的理論轉折，並以之為出發點，進而考察這些轉折如何在薩伊德日後的作品中得到體現與發展。 第一章裡，除了簡單的介紹薩伊德及其生涯之外，在探討薩伊德與傅科的理論關係之際，必須強調薩伊德所接受的理論背景相當廣泛，並不容易將其思想系統化，不過藉由「擾亂策略」（a technique of trouble）與辨證的方式，或許可幫助我們了解薩伊德理論背景之「紊雜」（untidiness）。第一章的後半部對「後殖民抵抗」作了進一步的討論與回顧，包括了卡布爾（Amilcar Cabral）談國家解放，阿什克夫（Bill Ashcroft）談文化轉型，與法農（Frantz Fanon）就抵抗文學的討論。 為了解傅科思想對早期薩伊德的影響，第二章探討薩伊德如何策略性地挪用傅科關於歷史書寫、論述型構、知識的譜系與轉變等概念，來完成《東方主義》（Orientalism, 1978）。儘管本論文旨在討論薩伊德與傅科的理論聯繫與抵抗思想的發展，為了避免「傅科是對薩伊德唯一且最有影響力的因素」這樣的錯覺，我們必須了解，除了傅科的影響外，《東方主義》一書中葛蘭西（Antonio Gramsci）、維科（Giambattista Vico）與西方人文主義傳統等也都是相對重要的理論背景，透過這些思想間的折衝、辨證、互補，造就了探討抵抗議題的可能性。 第三章整理了薩伊德收錄在The World, the Text, and the Critic（1983）與The Reflections on Exile（2000）兩本書中的幾篇章節，這幾篇論文說明了早在1980年代初期，薩伊德已經逐漸無法認同傅科式的論述、權力與抵抗，進而對傅科學說―乃至於對後解構主義的浪潮―提出激烈批判。《東方主義》出版之後近三十年來，受到各界廣泛的討論與批評，因此第三章後半部對其中關於「再現」、「論述」、「『後殖民批評家』的發言位置」、與近年來對薩伊德思想「紊雜」（untidiness）的探討作了部分整理，這些重要的討論有助於我們追蹤薩伊德在下一個階段如何發展抵抗策略。 第四章主要探討薩伊德的抵抗概念如何在《文化與帝國主義》（Culture and Imperialism, 1993）裡逐漸發展成熟，藉由書中包括「對位閱讀」（contrapuntal reading）、「世俗批評」與「知識份子的責任」等主要概念，試圖建構出薩伊德式獨到的抵抗策略。藉由整理薩伊德針對傅科思想所作的批判性轉向，筆者期望此論文不僅能就理論層面有所回顧，尚希望能夠對當前仍在發展中的「後殖民研究」―乃至於稱之為「學科」―提出再省思的機會。
並列摘要
Abstract This thesis has attempted to map out (1) the theoretical trajectory of Edward Said's appropriation of and disagreement with Michel Foucault's analysis about discourse, power and resistance, and (2) the further development of Said's ideas for “Saidian resistance.” To contend that Foucault's ideas occupy a significant position in Said’s writings during his first half of his career, it is not surprising to find out that there are at least six essays or book chapters that mainly discuss Foucault's thoughts; nonetheless, what is surprising is the span of time—approximately fifteen years —that Said kept conceptualizing and rethinking his theoretical/ethical position in comparison with and in contrast to Foucault. In this respect, in Chapter One, after I have presented an overview of this thesis’s central problem and introduced the background and career of Said, I underline the genuine difficulty of systemizing Said's theoretical affiliations. The results show that either “a technique of trouble” or “dialectical thinking” may be helpful for us to understand the “untidiness” of Said’s theoretical views. Although my main concern in this thesis is how Said turned away from Foucault's theoretical frame and developed his unique ideas about resistance, I have nevertheless proposed that we can have a greater picture of postcolonial resistance after we have reviewed key ideas developed by Cabral, Ashcroft, and Fanon concerning national liberation, cultural transformation, and literary resistance. Chapter Two investigates Said's methodological appropriation of Foucault’s notions of history-writing, the scheme of discursive formation, and the genealogy and the transformation of knowledge, particularly in Orientalism (1978), in order to understand the close early theoretical relations between Foucault and Said. This chapter also traces other influences coming from Gramsci, Vico, and Humanism in order to acknowledge that Foucault is not the only determinant on Said's early theoretical framework. It is through Said’s dialectical confrontation with these other factors and figures that Said’s discussion of resistance becomes possible. Chapter Three addresses Said's explicit dissatisfaction with Foucauldian theory in the early 1980s—particularly in essays collected in The World, the Text, and the Critic (1983) and The Reflections on Exile (2000)—and Said’s critical turn to reconsider discourse, power, resistance, as well as the project of poststructural criticism. This chapter also re-examines critiques of Orientalism from different sides, with particular attention paid to the issue of representation, discourse, the position of “postcolonial critics,” and the “untidiness” of Said’s thinking. These significant discussions are important markers as we track the development of and shifts in strategies for resistance. Chapter Four analyzes how Said subsequently proposed his own beliefs about resistance, particularly in Culture and Imperialism (1993), a book that not only discusses the dialectical relation between texts and imperialism but also shows “how innumerable authors and intellectuals of the colonized world make their suppressed histories and identities visible and viable again and strive for ‘the invention of new souls’” (Sheehi 397). In this chapter, I outline Said’s central contributions to the question of postcolonial resistance through critical concepts including “contrapuntal reading,” “secular criticism,” and the responsibility of “intellectuals,” all of which I attempt to regard as strategies of and points of access to “Saidian resistance.” At the end of Chapter Four, I provide a conclusion to attempt to connect shifts in Said's critical positions with the project of contemporary postcolonial studies. I hope my investigation of Said's “steering away” from Foucault would not merely be considered at a theoretical level; instead, my hope is that it can provide us with a perspective to re-conceptualize the ongoing development of contemporary postcolonial studies.
參考文獻
Moore-Gilbert, Bart. “Edward Said: Orientalism and
Said, Edward W. “Afterword.” Said, Orientalism 329-52.
Works Cited
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. “Humanizing the Oriental: Edward Said
Classes, Nations Literatures. London: Verso, 1992. 159-