本文旨在討論語言學者Alastair Pennycook所提出用以取代定於一尊的語言人權概念之situated ethic一辭的內在問題。Pennycook的這個語辭的前半,是取自冬娜哈若維(Donna Haraway) (1991;1996)所主張之situated knowledge,後半則是取自傅科(Foucault) (1984)的ethics一辭。採哈若維觀點進行之政治哲學態度與採傅科觀點之政治哲學態度,或許表面上看會十分相似(兩者都是支持反統一化、重視多元性),可是並非所有支持反統一化的政治哲學主張都是一樣的。本文欲指出:在傅科系譜學系統中之ethics指的是主體化的型式,是有關修春自身的方式,Pennycook的想法則看不出與此有關。基於此,Pennycook想結合哈若維及傅柯以表達其本身思想之複合字situated-ethics實有內在概念上的困難。
The goal of this paper is to discuss the problem within the term of ”situated ethics.” Alastair Pennycook advocates the concept of ”situated ethics” as the alternative to the universal concept of language right. However, a compound word as such is problematic. The first part of the compound word is adopted from Donna Haraway's(1991; 1996) ”situated knowledge” while ”ethics”, according to Pennycook, is used in a Foucauldian sense. Nevertheless, although the political philosophies of Haraway and Foucault may look similar-both are against universalism and embrace pluralism, they are not exactly the same. It is pointed out that Haraway's thoughts are coherent with what are implied in Pennycook's writing on language rights, however, Pennycook's thoughts on language rights have little relevance to Foucault's ethics in Genealogy, whose significance is on forms of subjectivation.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。