東亞文化交流史中的「去脈絡化」與「再脈絡化」現象及其研究方法論問題

Abstract

在東亞文化交流史上，不同地域間的文本、人物或思想的交流，常出現「脈絡性轉換」的現象。所謂「脈絡性轉換」指將異地傳入的文本、人物或思想加以「去脈絡化」，再予以「再脈絡化」於本國情境之中以融入於本國的文化風土。本文主旨在探討「去脈絡化」與「再脈絡化」現象之研究方法及其問題。本文第一節係引言，第二節先釐清所謂「東亞」並不是抽離於中、日、韓、越各國之上的抽象名詞，而是存在於各國具體的文化交流活動的動態過程之中，而所謂「中國」是作為劇場的「東亞」諸多演員中極重要的「他者」，並不是作為交響樂的「東亞」的唯一指揮者。本文第三節指出「觀念史」方法可用於「去脈絡化」現象的研究，但不免容易陷入「文本主義」的盲點。本文第四節進一步析論研究「再脈絡化」現象的有效方法就是，將交流的文本或思想置於具體而特殊的歷史背景之中，並指出文化交流中的媒介人物的情感，常在「去脈絡化」與「再脈絡化」過程中發揮主導性的作用。本文結論認為：因為東亞文化交流是動態的過程而非靜態的結構，所以我們在研究東亞文化交流史時，必須在「文本主義」與「脈絡主義」之間，以及「事實」與「價值」或「情感」之間，求取其動態的平衡。

In the history of cultural interaction in East Asia, the phenomena of ”decontextualization” and ”recontextualization” can readily be observed in the exchanges of texts, people and ideas among the different regions. ”Contextual turn” refers to processes of ”decontextualization” where a text, person or idea is transmitted from its home country into another country where it is then ”recontextualized” into that cultural environment. The present paper discusses methodological problems involved in the study of the phenomena of ”decontextualization” and ”recontextualization.”Section one introduces this paper. Section two then clarifies that ”East Asia” is not an abstract term ranging over the countries of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, but rather refers to the dynamic, real process of concrete cultural interactions among these living countries. On the dramatic stage of these interactions, China plays the role of significant ”Other” to the many other actors. China is certainly not the sole conductor of the symphony of East Asia. Section three shows that the methodology of ”the history of ideas” can be used when studying these phenomena of ”decontextualization.” But one can easily become ensnared in what I call ”the blind spot of textualism.” Section four provides an analytical discussion of an effective methodology for studying ”decontextualization:” such an activity would involve looking at the concrete exchange of texts, people, and ideas against a specific historical background, then highlighting the subjective ”emotions” of the ”intermediate agents” in these cultural exchanges as the agents navigate the processes of ”decontextualization” and ”recontextualization.”This paper concludes by stressing that East Asian cultural interactions are dynamic processes and not static structures. Therefore, in our study of the history of cultural interactions in East Asia we must seek the dynamic equilibrium between ”textualism” and ”contextualism” as well as between ”fact” and ”value” or ”emotion.”