The Gift in Between: The Bataillean Gift that Defies Dichotomy and its Functions in the Biblical Salomé | NCCU Academic Hub

Publications-Periodical Articles

Article View/Open

pdf(510)

Publication Export

Google Scholar^TM

NCCU Library

Discovery System

Citation Infomation

No doi shows Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

Simple Record
Full Record

題名	The Gift in Between: The Bataillean Gift that Defies Dichotomy and its Functions in the Biblical Salomé
作者	陳建龍 Dahn, Alvin
貢獻者	英文系
關鍵詞	禮物論述 ; 喬治‧巴岱依 ; 消耗 ; 莎樂美 Gift ; Georges Bataille ; expenditure ; Salomé
日期	2012-03
上傳時間	11-Feb-2015 11:32:01 (UTC+8)
摘要	自馬歇．牟斯 (Marcel Mauss) 以來，禮物莫不與權勢的展現及強制的交換經濟為伍。禮物的論述定位，於是往往著墨於其負面的特質。此種師承牟斯的禮物經濟觀點，不僅行之久矣，亦且影響深遠。皮耶．布迪厄 (Pierre Bourdieu) 亦在其列，且更進一步地將禮物的強制交換視為隱匿暴力 (“covert violence”) 的遂行。禮物的強制與暴力似乎成了禮物予人的第一印象，禮物的論述似乎印證了俗諺所反應的社會觀察——「無功不受祿」。然而，見解迥異者，亦不乏其人：伊曼紐爾．列維納斯 (Emmanuel Levinas) 將禮物的重心置於他者，而非贈禮的權勢主體；艾蓮．西蘇 (Hélèn Cixous) 提出生育贈禮的觀念，而不求／無法對等回贈的關係確立禮物的可能性；路易斯．海德 (Lewis Hyde) 探討稍縱即逝的音樂，進而詮釋禮物的藝術特質。他者禮物、生育禮物、藝術禮物…，這些禮物觀點，給予禮物經濟嶄新（相較與牟斯）的詮釋與正面的論述角度。而第三種聲音——非正非負，擺盪逸出——則是喬治．巴岱依 (Georges Bataille) 理解下更為複雜的多重禮物。援引巴岱依，並非巴氏所言，得以總結禮物論述，而提供一無可非議的定見。反之，巴氏之言，倚重禮物面向之多元不定，而此多元不定，適足以反映禮物經濟本身之複雜特質。禮物經濟，古來有之，因脫穎自人性、自歷史、自社群，故單一面向的見解，必扼殺其多重面向，必不及巴岱依所顧及之多元。故巴氏禮物之多元，也由思考的複雜，成為論述的必要。「交界的禮物」，換言之，即為勝任論述的禮物。巴岱依對禮物經濟的思考，多以「消耗」(“expenditure”) 的觀點出發，認為贈禮行為，必多少攸關與消耗的概念。既為消耗，贈禮可為負面行為，因為端賴經濟考量而成，不啻為過剩 (“excess”) 之排出，盈餘不需之清除；既為消耗，贈禮可為正面行為，因為無心而贈，盈餘之出而非割愛之餽，非清除而不快，傾倒之物不求回籠，故無強加其上的回饋循環 (“kula”)；既為消耗，贈禮可為交界而曖昧（此亦為德希達式禮物 (the Derridian gift) 的部份概念），因始於丟棄之餘穢，而終為利他之恩惠，立意不在餽贈，故餽贈得以成，實至名歸之禮物竟而存在。藉巴岱依對禮物的見解，本文試圖揭示聖經莎樂美文本中種種贈禮的意旨與關係：希律王 (Herod) 贈與所奪人妻 (Herodias) 之后位、母(Herodias) 贈與莎樂美 (Salomé) 之生育／生命之禮、約翰施洗者贈與眾人之殉道之禮…。原為發掘人類學的論述，亦在古老的聖經文學中，覓得一文化考古的遺址，擴張論述的版圖。 Ever since Marcel Mauss’ anthropological view first read into gifting as demonstration of power and coerced exchange, the negative nature of gifting has been widely noticed and convincingly influential. Pierre Bourdieu, following his footsteps, takes gifting one step further to the level of enacting covert violence. The bad name of gift has become its earmark. There is no free gift out of good will.On the other hand, Emmanuel Levinas offers his gift of Other; Hélèn Cixous suggests gift of birth; Lewis Hyde sees gift of art in the air. These later thinkers seem to perceive the positive side of gifting. For them, there are gifts without political intention or any other string attached…and then there is Georges Bataille breaks from both. It is a break from a clear-cut dichotomy and it is a break into the multiplicity of gifting.By drawing attention to the Bataillean gift, this thesis does not suggest a comprehensive overview of all gift theories and to reach a conclusion. Instead, what makes the Bataillean gift noteworthy is that its complicity serves to reflect the multiplicity of gifting which makes for the whole spirit and significance of the social practice since ancient times.Critical responses to the Bataillean gift have come into a discursive industry by themselves. From Bataille’s constant focus on expenditure to erotic economy (as specified by Part III of The Question of the Gift) and to (not landing on) further multifarious extensions into modern thoughts, numerous modern minds have taken the Bataillean gift for a catalyst that brings forth the gift of postmodernism (Carl Rashke, among others, so claims in publications like Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, explicitly JCRT 5.1. December 2003). This thesis, however, intends no assumption to tackle the challenge of clarifying all elaborations upon Bataille nor to deviate from its focus on how expenditure, as Bataille’s point of departure, enriches the reading of the Biblical Salomé.Bataille focuses on the notion of expenditure for his reasoning of gift. Any gift-giving must be somehow driven by ideas related to expenditure. A gift can therefore be negative, for it is something given purely out of economic reason; it is a mere disposal of expenditure; it is a form of dumping something undesired. A gift can hence be positive, exactly because it is a disposal of something superfluous, instead of an offer to demand something in return; it is a gift given for free which forms no kula, the imposed circle of gift-exchange. A gift can accordingly be vague/in-between (this is very much bordering on the Derridian gift), simply because it is something which first serves no purpose at one end (a waste) and, when it falls into another hand, functions as a favor (a value); it is a “true” gift given unknowingly (by Derrida’s definition).In applying the above understanding of Bataille’s view of gifting, the gift of throne by Herod for Herodias, the gift of birth by Herodias for Salomé, the gift of death by John the Baptist for the rest of the biblical figures, all seem to give the anthropological discourse on gift an unearthing site in the biblical time.
關聯	文化越界, 1(7), 175-200
資料類型	article

dc.contributor	英文系
dc.creator (作者)	陳建龍	zh_TW
dc.creator (作者)	Dahn, Alvin
dc.date (日期)	2012-03
dc.date.accessioned	11-Feb-2015 11:32:01 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.available	11-Feb-2015 11:32:01 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間)	11-Feb-2015 11:32:01 (UTC+8)	-
dc.identifier.uri (URI)	http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73447	-
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	自馬歇．牟斯 (Marcel Mauss) 以來，禮物莫不與權勢的展現及強制的交換經濟為伍。禮物的論述定位，於是往往著墨於其負面的特質。此種師承牟斯的禮物經濟觀點，不僅行之久矣，亦且影響深遠。皮耶．布迪厄 (Pierre Bourdieu) 亦在其列，且更進一步地將禮物的強制交換視為隱匿暴力 (“covert violence”) 的遂行。禮物的強制與暴力似乎成了禮物予人的第一印象，禮物的論述似乎印證了俗諺所反應的社會觀察——「無功不受祿」。然而，見解迥異者，亦不乏其人：伊曼紐爾．列維納斯 (Emmanuel Levinas) 將禮物的重心置於他者，而非贈禮的權勢主體；艾蓮．西蘇 (Hélèn Cixous) 提出生育贈禮的觀念，而不求／無法對等回贈的關係確立禮物的可能性；路易斯．海德 (Lewis Hyde) 探討稍縱即逝的音樂，進而詮釋禮物的藝術特質。他者禮物、生育禮物、藝術禮物…，這些禮物觀點，給予禮物經濟嶄新（相較與牟斯）的詮釋與正面的論述角度。而第三種聲音——非正非負，擺盪逸出——則是喬治．巴岱依 (Georges Bataille) 理解下更為複雜的多重禮物。援引巴岱依，並非巴氏所言，得以總結禮物論述，而提供一無可非議的定見。反之，巴氏之言，倚重禮物面向之多元不定，而此多元不定，適足以反映禮物經濟本身之複雜特質。禮物經濟，古來有之，因脫穎自人性、自歷史、自社群，故單一面向的見解，必扼殺其多重面向，必不及巴岱依所顧及之多元。故巴氏禮物之多元，也由思考的複雜，成為論述的必要。「交界的禮物」，換言之，即為勝任論述的禮物。巴岱依對禮物經濟的思考，多以「消耗」(“expenditure”) 的觀點出發，認為贈禮行為，必多少攸關與消耗的概念。既為消耗，贈禮可為負面行為，因為端賴經濟考量而成，不啻為過剩 (“excess”) 之排出，盈餘不需之清除；既為消耗，贈禮可為正面行為，因為無心而贈，盈餘之出而非割愛之餽，非清除而不快，傾倒之物不求回籠，故無強加其上的回饋循環 (“kula”)；既為消耗，贈禮可為交界而曖昧（此亦為德希達式禮物 (the Derridian gift) 的部份概念），因始於丟棄之餘穢，而終為利他之恩惠，立意不在餽贈，故餽贈得以成，實至名歸之禮物竟而存在。藉巴岱依對禮物的見解，本文試圖揭示聖經莎樂美文本中種種贈禮的意旨與關係：希律王 (Herod) 贈與所奪人妻 (Herodias) 之后位、母(Herodias) 贈與莎樂美 (Salomé) 之生育／生命之禮、約翰施洗者贈與眾人之殉道之禮…。原為發掘人類學的論述，亦在古老的聖經文學中，覓得一文化考古的遺址，擴張論述的版圖。
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	Ever since Marcel Mauss’ anthropological view first read into gifting as demonstration of power and coerced exchange, the negative nature of gifting has been widely noticed and convincingly influential. Pierre Bourdieu, following his footsteps, takes gifting one step further to the level of enacting covert violence. The bad name of gift has become its earmark. There is no free gift out of good will.On the other hand, Emmanuel Levinas offers his gift of Other; Hélèn Cixous suggests gift of birth; Lewis Hyde sees gift of art in the air. These later thinkers seem to perceive the positive side of gifting. For them, there are gifts without political intention or any other string attached…and then there is Georges Bataille breaks from both. It is a break from a clear-cut dichotomy and it is a break into the multiplicity of gifting.By drawing attention to the Bataillean gift, this thesis does not suggest a comprehensive overview of all gift theories and to reach a conclusion. Instead, what makes the Bataillean gift noteworthy is that its complicity serves to reflect the multiplicity of gifting which makes for the whole spirit and significance of the social practice since ancient times.Critical responses to the Bataillean gift have come into a discursive industry by themselves. From Bataille’s constant focus on expenditure to erotic economy (as specified by Part III of The Question of the Gift) and to (not landing on) further multifarious extensions into modern thoughts, numerous modern minds have taken the Bataillean gift for a catalyst that brings forth the gift of postmodernism (Carl Rashke, among others, so claims in publications like Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, explicitly JCRT 5.1. December 2003). This thesis, however, intends no assumption to tackle the challenge of clarifying all elaborations upon Bataille nor to deviate from its focus on how expenditure, as Bataille’s point of departure, enriches the reading of the Biblical Salomé.Bataille focuses on the notion of expenditure for his reasoning of gift. Any gift-giving must be somehow driven by ideas related to expenditure. A gift can therefore be negative, for it is something given purely out of economic reason; it is a mere disposal of expenditure; it is a form of dumping something undesired. A gift can hence be positive, exactly because it is a disposal of something superfluous, instead of an offer to demand something in return; it is a gift given for free which forms no kula, the imposed circle of gift-exchange. A gift can accordingly be vague/in-between (this is very much bordering on the Derridian gift), simply because it is something which first serves no purpose at one end (a waste) and, when it falls into another hand, functions as a favor (a value); it is a “true” gift given unknowingly (by Derrida’s definition).In applying the above understanding of Bataille’s view of gifting, the gift of throne by Herod for Herodias, the gift of birth by Herodias for Salomé, the gift of death by John the Baptist for the rest of the biblical figures, all seem to give the anthropological discourse on gift an unearthing site in the biblical time.
dc.format.extent	231626 bytes	-
dc.format.mimetype	application/pdf	-
dc.relation (關聯)	文化越界, 1(7), 175-200
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	禮物論述 ; 喬治‧巴岱依 ; 消耗 ; 莎樂美
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	Gift ; Georges Bataille ; expenditure ; Salomé
dc.title (題名)	The Gift in Between: The Bataillean Gift that Defies Dichotomy and its Functions in the Biblical Salomé
dc.type (資料類型)	article	en