沒有東（方）的東方主義，東方之外

Abstract

近30年來「東方主義」獲得普世的成功。各地學者紛紛以此分析西方如何建構東方的他者，也揭露自身內部的東方主義。原本即無東方的東方主義，在後薩依德的當代，東方主義已經是沒有東方，也沒有方向。失去了東（方），並不意謂失去了意義，反而更保留著一種直覺：作為文化象徵體系中，上下支配關係之提喻。然而，從東方學者、薩依德到後薩依德，「東方主義」形成另一種理論旅行和文本態度。本文借用德希達的「重異能力」分析這種東方主義在不同的脈絡之下，重覆又差異的能力及其意義。而東方主義的重異能力正蘊含著東方的他者。本文試圖以列維納斯倫理哲學，重新思考東方作為他者／其他的意義，亦即將東方放在超驗的絕對他者位置，重估被本質化、被僵固化的東方與西方之關係。東方作為他者的其他，其他的他者，也許是指向永遠開放性，沒有東方的東方主義，同時也指涉與東方共在又此外的他者以及其他等等……

In the past 30 years, ”the Orientalism” has been a big success on a global scale. Inspired by ”the Orientalism”, the scholars, one after another, expose how the Oriental other is constructed and denounce the Orientalism in their own countries. Therefore, with regard to its orient (ation), post-Said Orientalism has neither the Orient nor orientation, though Orientalism is founded on the absence of the Orient from the very beginning. But it does not mean that Orientalism no longer makes any sense; on the contrary, it always keeps a good sense: Orientalism as a metonym for all the dominant/ dominated relationship in the symbolic system of culture. The ”Orientalism” itself had better be considered as a traveling theory and a textual attitude developed among oriental scholars and others, including E. Said and post-Saidians from 19th century on. This article tries to analyze the ability of Orientalism to repeat and differ in different contexts in terms of J. Derrida's ”iterability” and suggests Orientalism's always-already-supposed ”otherwise”. This article also reevaluates the meanings of the Orient as other(s) in the perspective of E. Lévinas' ethical philosophy. Putting the Orient in the transcendent position of the absolute other, we reexamine the essentialized and fossilized relation of the Orient and the Occident. The Orient, as another other and other's wise, signifies the always-openness, which implicates a being-with otherwise and being-out of otherwise (with-out Orient), and so on.