課堂如田野：以導論課程作為公共人類學實踐場域

Abstract

本文呼籲，導論教學應被視為公共人類學的一種實踐方式，理由有二：首先，導論課程是學院當中少數可以超越專門化知識生產的藩籬，融合各個次領域研究成果的場域，負責導論教學的教師，必須能清楚掌握人類學的核心概念，以及其在當代仍舊保有的活力；其次，導論教學面對的是初次接觸人類學知識的年輕世代，他們在課程中的學習狀況與回應，正可用來研判與調整學科知識的公共化成效。然而，如果我們以公共人類學的立論來定義導論課程，則在課堂場域中所傳遞的人類學知識（包括核心議題的選擇、理解的框架、以及教學的方式），自然應該隨著我們面對的公眾—學生—而做調整。也就是說，導論課的設計必須建基於學術研究的根本初衷—「什麼是這個時代、這個社會、這個文化最重要的議題？」，幫助我們的公眾—學生—從貫時性（演化／歷史）與共時性（異文化）的比較中理解自身存在處境並且思辯突破困境之道。這篇文章首先評述過去一個世紀之間具代表性的英美人類學教學著作，從跨時代的文獻比較中歸納出人類學教師共同的核心關懷，以及隨著時代氛圍而遞變的教學重點。其次，筆者以自己在三個不同時期、針對不同族群、以及不同的教育環境之中的導論教學經驗作為研究材料，檢視人類學知識究竟／是否提供了何種洞見，協助這三個不同「文化」的學生族群重新理解其所身處的時代課題。最後，筆者提出關於當代人類學導論教學的兩項芻議：1）重新檢視文化相對觀的當代意涵；2）以具前瞻視野與切身相關性的「文化可能性」取代靜態無感的「文化多樣性」。

In this article I propose a pedagogical vision of introductory anthropology that is socially relevant and engaged. I argue that effective teaching in introductory anthropology is based on the instructor's ability to disseminate academic knowledge in a publicly accessible fashion. In addition, the learning outcome and feedback from students taking the introductory course are good indicators as to where or how the classroom material is relevant to public concerns. Therefore, an ideal introductory course should provide insights that help our public-the students-to better comprehend the challenge and hope in their personal existence. In other words, this article is a quest for a public anthropology suitable for contemporary Taiwan society via pedagogical discussion on introductory teaching.The main body of this article is composed of three sections: firstly, I provide a literature review on the three most significant publications in anthropological pedagogy. Secondly, I reflect on my teaching experiences in three different universities settings and examine critically how anthropological concepts have been understood in respective contexts. Lastly, I provide a critique of canonical concepts in anthropology textbook, namely cultural relativism and cultural diversity. I argue that these two concepts have lost their original critical edge and risk being appropriated by the market ideology. Rather than valorizing them as canonical concepts, we need to pay attention to their temporal dimension and investigate how horizons of possibility can emerge from cultural unfamiliarity that so characterizes the nature of introductory anthropology.