第一章 為什么我們需要掌握人類學？

在一兩代人以前，學術圈以外的人幾乎很少知道人類學。只有很少的幾個國家，在大學里開設極少的人類學課程。這門由少數具有獻身精神的發起人引導的學科，被局外人視為晦澀難懂的知識，而局內人則將其視為神圣的知識。人類學家到遙遠的地方進行田野調查，然后帶著令人陶醉的心情返回，但往往分析的是神秘的親屬制度、刀耕火種的農業或“他者”內部的戰爭。除了少量驚人的另類之外，人類學家對外部世界的興趣是適中的，而且其影響力往往局限于學術界。人類學要在人類學家自身所在社會的公共生活中發揮作用，也僅僅是在非常難得的情況下才有可能。

這種情況已經發生了變化。西方越來越多的非專業人士已經發現，人類學提出的一些涉及人類處境的基本見解，可適用于家庭的許多日常情況。在一些國家，高職院校訓練護士和警察時，也要給他們傳授人類學的知識；人類學的概念還被大學的其他學科借用，并應用于新的現象之中；人類學所強調的從下往上、從內向外觀察人類生活的理念，已經影響到了通俗的新聞；學習人類學的學生人數已經逐步增長，有些地方甚至是在顯著地增加。在我執教的奧斯陸大學，1982年人類學系的學生為70人，十年之后就已經增長到了600人。

20世紀90年代，在西方社會中，人類學及其理念成了新聞記者和決策制定者日常詞匯的一部分。這并非巧合。事實上，我堅持認為人類學對于我們理解當今的世界是必不可少的，而且沒有必要為了欣賞其重要性，而追捧非洲的親屬制度或波利尼西亞的交換制度。

Why We Have to Study Anthropology?

A generation ago, anthropology was scarcely known outside of academic circles. It was a tiny university subject taught in a few dozen countries, seen by outsiders as esoteric and by insiders as a kind of sacred knowledge guarded by a community of devoted initiates. Anthropologists went about their fieldwork in remote areas and returned with fascinating, but often arcane analyses of kinship, slash and burn horticulture or warfare among ‘the others'. With a few spectacular exceptions, the interest in anthropology from the outside world was modest, and its influence was usually limited to academic circles. Only very rarely did it play a part in the public life of the anthropologist's own society.

This has changed. Growing numbers of non-academics in the West have discovered that anthropology represents certain fundamental insights concerning the human condition, applicable in many everyday situations at home. Its concepts are being borrowed by other university disciplines and applied to new phenomena, its ideas about the need to see human life from below and from the inside have influenced popular journalism, and student numbers have grown steadily, in some places dramatically. For example, at the University of Oslo, the number of anthropology students grew from about 70 in 1982 to more than 600 a decade later.

In many western societies, anthropology and ideas derived from the subject became part of the vocabulary of journalists and policymakers in the 1990s. This is no coincidence. In fact, it can be argued that anthropology is indispensable for understanding the present world, and there is no need to have a strong passion for African kinship or Polynesian gift exchange to appreciate its significance.

以下幾方面的理由，可以解釋為何人類學可以幫助我們弄明白當代的世界。

首先，不同文化群體之間的接觸在當代日益增多。長距離的旅行已經非常普遍、安全且價格相對低廉。在19世紀，只有少數西方人到過其他國家（包括移民在內），而且一直到20世紀50年代，即使是相當富裕的西方人，也很少去國外度假。眾所周知，這種情況近幾十年已經發生了翻天覆地的變化。國家之間人口的暫時流動，已經日益增多并導致了密切的接觸：商人、救援人員、從富國到窮國的旅行者、勞務移民、難民和雙向流動的學生。訪問“異國他鄉”的西方人，遠比一代或兩代以前要多。20世紀50年代，我的父母親年輕時可能只去過意大利或倫敦一次。而在20世紀80年代我還年輕時，我們可以乘坐洲際鐵路的列車到葡萄牙和希臘，或者在每年的暑假都有類似的旅行。當前，具有同樣背景的年輕人，可以到遠東、拉丁美洲和印度去度假。旅行的范圍得到了拓展，如今會有為人們量身定制的旅行，以及各種特殊的興趣形式，包括“探險旅行”和“文化觀光”，人們在導游的帶領下可以去看南非的市鎮、巴西的貧民窟或印度尼西亞的村落。實際上，對于第三世界的很多社區來說，“文化觀光”已經成了重要的收入來源，這可以視為西方人對其他文化的興趣日益增加的跡象。而從文化觀光到完全的人類學研究，可能只差一小步。

同時，由于我們越來越多地在新環境下“造訪”他們，就可能發生相反的移動，盡管不是因為同樣的原因。正是因為貧富國家之間生存機會和生活水準的極大差異，非西方國家才有數百萬人定居在歐洲和北美。一代人以前，對于西方城市的一位居民而言，為了品嘗次大陸的烹飪風味和欣賞其音樂曲調，他就必須長途跋涉到印度次大陸。實際上到1980年時，我的家鄉還沒有印度菜館。2004年，那里的印度菜館已經多達12家，從四星級的設施到廉價的外賣小菜館鱗次櫛比。全球文化差異的碎片和瑣屑，如今可以在西方人的門階上發現。因此，這激發了他們對他者的好奇心，而且也因為政治原因，變得很有必要去理解文化差異所承載的東西。當前多元文化議題的爭議，諸如少數民族宗教權利、伊斯蘭頭巾和學校的語言教學，以及因為勞動力市場上的種族歧視導致的積極行為，證實了理智解決文化差異的迫切需要。

There are several reasons why anthropological knowledge can help in making sense of the contemporary world. First, contact between culturally different groups has increased enormously in our time. Long-distance travel has become common, safe and relatively inexpensive. In the nineteenth century, only a small proportion of the western populations travelled to other countries （emigrants excluded）, and as late as the 1950s, even fairly affluent westerners rarely went on holiday abroad. As is well known, this has changed dramatically in recent decades. The flows of people who move temporarily between countries have grown and have led to intensified contact:business-people, aid workers and tourists travel from more economically developed countries to less economically developed ones, and labour migrants, refugees and students move in the opposite direction. Many more westerners visit ‘exotic'places today than a generation ago. In the 1950s, people may have been able to go on a trip to Rome or London once in their lifetime. In the 1980s, people could travel by Interrail to Portugal and Greece, and take similar trips every summer. Young people with similar backgrounds today might go on holiday to the Far East, Latin America and India. The scope of tourism has also been widened and now includes tailor-made trips and a broad range of special interest forms including ‘adventure tourism' and‘cultural tourism', where one can go on guided tours to South African townships, Brazilian favelas or Indonesian villages. The fact that ‘cultural tourism'has become an important source of income for many communities in the less economically developed world can be seen as an indication of an increased interest in other cultures from the West. It can be a short step from cultural tourism to anthropological studies proper.

At the same time as ‘we' visit ‘them' in growing numbers and under new circumstances, the opposite movement also takes place, though not for the same reasons. It is because of the great differences in standards of living and life opportunities between more and less economically developed countries that millions of people from non-western countries have settled in Europe and North America. A generation ago, it might have been necessary for an inhabitant in a western city to travel to the Indian subcontinent in order to savour the fragrances and sounds of subcontinental cuisine and music. Today there are large numbers of Indian restaurants in many western cities, ranging from four-star establishments to inexpensive takeaway holes in the wall. Pieces and fragments of the world's cultural variation can now be found on the doorstep of westerners. As a result, the curiosity about others has been stimulated, and it has also become necessary for political reasons to understand what cultural variation entails. Current controversies over multicultural issues, such as religious minority rights, the hijab (shawl or headscarf), language instruction in schools and calls for affirmative action because of ethnic discrimination in the labour market testify to an urgent need to deal sensibly with cultural differences.

其次，世界正在以其他方式縮小。衛星電視、手機網絡和互聯網，已經為真正的全球、瞬時和無摩擦的溝通創造了條件，不管是好是壞，按照許多人的見解：對于密切接觸、新的和去區域化的社會網絡或“虛擬社區”的發展而言，距離不再是具有決定意義的阻礙物，同時，個人具有更多的信息可以選擇。此外，經濟也正在逐步走向全球一體化。過去數十年來，在數量、規模和經濟重要性方面，跨國公司正在急劇增長。整個20世紀，資本主義生產方式以及總體上在全球占主導地位的貨幣經濟，幾乎已經變得普及。同樣在政治上，全球議題逐漸占據議事日程。政治與和平、環境和貧窮問題，都在全球議題之列，并且涉及如此多的跨國連接，以至于單個國家根本無法令人滿意地加以處理。艾滋病和跨國恐怖主義也是跨國問題，只有通過國際合作才能加以理解和處理。以前相對分離的社會文化環境，現在已經更緊密地糾葛在一起，這促使我們日益認識到大家都在同一條船上的事實：即便可以從階層、文化、地理和機會方面分類，但人類本質上還是一個整體。

再次，在當今時代，文化正在迅速地變遷，這幾乎在世界任何地方都可以感受到。在西方，典型的生活方式當然正在改變。穩定的核心家庭不再是唯一常見和社會可接受的生活方式。青年文化和時尚及音樂的潮流快速變化，以至于年紀稍大者很難迂回曲折地跟隨它們；飲食習慣正在變化，這導致許多國家出現更大的文化多樣性；等等。這樣或那樣的變化使得我們有必要問：“我們究竟是誰？”“什么是我們的文化——說我們具有文化究竟有何意義？”“我們與55年前習慣于居住在這里的人有何共同之處，如今我們與那些居住在完全不同的地方的人又有何共同點？”“是否還可以肯定地講我們主要屬于國家，或者屬于其他更加重要的群體呢？”

最后，近十幾年以來，人們對文化認同的興趣空前高漲，這正逐漸成為一種資本。許多人覺得自己的地方獨特性，正在受到全球化、間接殖民主義和來自外部世界的其他影響形式的威脅，并且作出反應，試圖強化或至少保護他們視為獨特文化的東西。在很多情況下，少數群體的組織要求代表他們選區的文化權利；在其他情況下，國家盡量通過立法，減緩或設法阻止外部的影響或變遷的過程。

Second, the world is shrinking in other ways too. Satellite television, cellphone networks and the Internet have created conditions for truly global, instantaneous and friction-free communications. Distance is no longer a decisive hindrance for close contact; new, deterritorialised social networks or even ‘virtual communities'develop, and at the same time, individuals have a larger palette of information to choose from. Moreover, the economy is also becoming increasingly globally integrated. Transnational companies have grown dramatically in numbers, size and economic importance over the last decades. The capitalist mode of production and monetary economies in general, globally dominant throughout the twentieth century, have become nearly universal. In politics as well, global issues increasingly dominate the agenda. Issues of war and peace, the environment and poverty are all of such a scope, and involve so many transnational linkages, that they cannot be handled satisfactorily by single states alone. AIDS and international terrorism are also transnational problems which can only be understood and addressed through international cooperation. This ever tighter interweaving of formerly relatively separate sociocultural environments can lead to a growing recognition of the fact that we are all in the same boat; that humanity, divided as it is by class, culture, geography and opportunities, is fundamentally one.

Third, culture changes rapidly in our day and age, which is felt nearly everywhere in the world. In the West, typical ways of life are being transformed. The stable nuclear family is no longer the only common and socially acceptable way of life. Youth culture and trends in fashion and music change so fast that older people have difficulties following their twists and turns; food habits are being transformed, leading to greater diversity within many countries, and so on. These and other changes make it necessary to ask questions such as: ‘Who are we really? ', ‘What is our culture, and is it at all meaningful to speak of a “we”that “has”a “culture”? '‘What do we have in common with the people who used to live here 50 years ago, and what do we have in common with people who live in an entirely different place today? ' ‘Is it still defensible to speak as if we primarily belong to nations, or are other forms of group belonging more important? ’

Fourth, recent decades have seen the rise of an unprecedented interest in cultural identity, which is increasingly seen as an asset. Many feel that their local uniqueness is threatened by globalization, indirect colonialism and other forms of influence from the outside, and react by attempting to strengthen or at least preserve what they see as their unique culture. In many cases, minority organizations demand cultural rights on behalf of their constituency; in other cases, the state tries to slow down or prevent processes of change or outside influence through legislation.

我們這個時代，是柏林墻倒塌，以及蘇聯模式的共產主義消失之后的時代；也是互聯網、衛星電視和全球資本主義的時代；還是種族清洗和多族群現代性的時代；在各種其他事物中，這個時代的獨特標簽是全球化和信息化。為了理解這種看似嘈雜、混亂和復雜的歷史時期，有必要采用一種視角看待人類，而不是用預想的假設對人類社會想當然，因而要從全球和地方的角度同時分析人類世界，對其差異和相似性具有敏銳的反應。人類學是唯一能夠滿足以上條件的專業學科，它研究人類在社會中可以想象到的最多變的環境，其目的是要尋找模式和相似性，但最為根本的是要快速地解決復雜的問題，并用簡單的答案來回答。

現在，盡管人類學的概念和觀點在近年來已變得非常流行，但是人類學本身卻依然鮮為人知。人們普遍相信，人類學的目標在于從諸如亞馬孫或婆羅洲這樣的偏僻之地“發現”新的民族。許多假設認為人類學家的魅力來自最新奇的風俗和可以想象的儀式，他們避開了展覽上的老生常談，還有人相信人類學家用一生大部分的時間，穿著或不穿卡其布套裝，在世界各地旅游，間或寫點枯燥無味又博學的旅行見聞演講稿。所有這些關于人類學的概念都是錯的，盡管它們——類似于同類的許多虛構之事——包含了一點點實話。迄今為止，我已經講過人類學對于理解當代世界至關重要，它的很多中心觀點進入了人們的日常生活，而且它——盡管這樣——很少為人所知。因此，讓我們抓緊往下講吧！

Our era, the period after the fall of the Berlin wall and the disappearance of Soviet-style communism, the time of the Internet and satellite TV, the time of global capitalism, ethnic cleansing and multi-ethnic modernities, has been labeled, among other things, the age of globalization and the information age. In order to understand this seemingly chaotic, confusing and complex historical period, there is a need for a perspective on humanity which does not take preconceived assumptions about human societies for granted, which is sensitive to both similarities and differences, and which simultaneously approaches the human world from a global and a local angle. The only academic subject which fulfills these conditions is anthropology, which studies humans in societies under the most varying circumstances imaginable, yet searches for patterns and similarities, but is fundamentally critical of quick solutions and simple answers to complex questions.

Although the concepts and ideas of anthropology have become widely circulated in recent years, anthropology as such remains little known. It is still widely believed that the aim of anthropology consists in ‘discovering' new peoples, in remote locations such as the Amazon or Borneo. Many assume that anthropologists are drawn magnetically towards the most exotic customs and rituals imaginable, eschewing the commonplace for the spectacular. There are those who believe that anthropologists spend most of their lives travelling the world, with or without khaki suits, intermittently penning dry, learned travelogues. All these notions about anthropology are wrong, although they —like many myths of their kind —contain a kernel of truth.

人類學的特殊性

人類學試圖通過詳細地研究當地人的生活，并用比較法進行補充，以達到對文化、社會和人性的理解，是一門在智力上具有挑戰性、在理論上又富有野心的學科。許多人因為個人原因被人類學所吸引：他們可能在一種陌生的文化環境中成長，或者僅僅是著迷于遙遠的地方，也可能是忙于少數民族的權利問題——移民、土著群體或其他少數民族，根據情況而定——也或者是愛上了墨西哥的一個村莊或是一名非洲男子。但是作為一個專業和一門科學，人類學還有更大的野心，而不只是為個人的自我理解提供答案，或是將旅行的故事或政治手冊帶給別人。在最深的層面上，人類學提出了哲學問題，并試圖通過探討不同狀態下人們的生活來作出回應。在稍微沒有那么崇高的層面上，可以說人類學的任務是產生驚訝，以顯示世界要比人們通常想象的更加豐富和復雜。

或多或少要進行簡化的話，我們可以說人類學主要是提供兩種視角：首先，它能產生有關當今世界文化差異的知識，比如，人類學研究可以處理印度村落社會中種姓和財富的角色、新幾內亞高地居民的技術、南非的宗教、挪威北部的飲食習慣、中東親屬制度的政治重要性或者亞馬孫流域的性別概念。盡管大多數人類學家是一個或兩個領域的專家，但要對一個區域、話題或人口說出令人感興趣的事情，就必須對全球的文化差異有所見識。

其次，人類學提供了方法和理論視角，使得從事這個行當的人可以探索、比較和理解人類生活狀態的不同表現。換言之，這個學科既提供了可以思考的事情，也提供了思考的方式。但是，人類學不僅僅是一個工具箱，它還是一門工藝，可以教會新學者如何獲得一定種類的知識，以及這些知識可能說出的重要道理。就如一個木匠或許擅長制作家具或蓋房子，一位記者可能關注股市的波動，而另一位記者則注意皇室的丑聞，人類學這門工藝也可以用于大量不同的事物之中。和木匠或新聞記者一樣，人類學家也有一套職業技能。

THE UNIQUENESS OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropology is an intellectually challenging, theoretically ambitious subject which tries to achieve an understanding of culture, society and humanity through detailed studies of local life, supplemented by comparison. Many are attracted to it for personal reasons; they may have grown up in a culturally foreign environment, or they are simply fascinated by faraway places, or they are engaged in minority rights issues immigrants, indigenous groups or other minorities, as the case might be—or they might even have fallen in love with a Mexican village or an African man. But as a profession and as a science, anthropology has grander ambitions than offering keys to individual self-understanding, or bringing travel stories or political tracts to the people. At the deepest level, anthropology raises philosophical questions which it tries to respond to by exploring human lives under different conditions. At a slightly less lofty level, it may be said that the task of anthropology is to create astonishment, to show that the world is both richer and more complex than it is usually assumed to be.

To simplify somewhat, one may say that anthropology primarily offers two kinds of insight. First, the discipline produces knowledge about the actual cultural variation in the world; studies may deal with, say, the role of caste and wealth in Indian village life, technology among highland people in New Guinea, religion in southern Africa, food habits in northern Norway, the political importance of kinship in the Middle East, or notions about gender in the Amazon basin. Although most anthropologists are specialists on one or two regions, it is necessary to be knowledgeable about global cultural variation in order to be able to say anything interesting about one's region, topic or people.

Second, anthropology offers methods and theoretical perspectives enabling the practitioner to explore, compare and understand these varied expressions of the human condition. In other words, the subject offers both things to think about and things to think with. But anthropology is not just a toolbox; it is also a craft which teaches the novice how to obtain a certain kind of knowledge and what this knowledge might say something about. Just as a carpenter can specialize in either furniture or buildings, and one journalist may cover fluctuations in the stockmarket while another deals with royal scandals, the craft of anthropology can be used for many different things. Like carpenters or journalists, all anthropologists share a set of professional skills.

一些剛接觸這門學科的新手，對人類學的理論特征會大吃一驚，人類學要求弄懂普通人的日常生活，而這是難以讀懂的事情，許多人認為這極具諷刺性。現在必須插一句的是，許多人類學文本都寫得非常漂亮，但是其中很多都是費盡周折又復雜難解。人類學主張進行分析和理論探討，結果卻往往使人覺得難以接近并使人敬而遠之。（由于它的內容如此重要——還可以爭論的是——令人著迷，因此這只是表明人類學的普及很有必要。）

不只是人類學會對社會和文化開展專業的研究。社會學描述和說明社會生活，尤其是對現代社會，在廣度和深度方面都有突破。政治科學處理各個層面的政治問題，從市政問題到全球話題。心理學通過科學和解釋的方法，研究人類的心理生活。人文地理則用跨國的視角，考慮經濟和社會過程。最后還有一些新近的學科雖然存有爭議，但在文化研究的公眾和學生中間頗受歡迎，比如可描述為文化社會學、思想史、文學研究和人類學的混合。對此說三道四的人認為這是“沒有痛苦的人類學”，意思是說它沒有田野研究和縝密的分析。換言之，學科之間有相當大的重疊，在一定程度上也可以說學科邊界是人為的。社會科學表達了一些相似的興趣，也試圖回應相同的問題，盡管它們還存在一些差異。

此外，人類學也有人文學科的許多共性，比如文學研究和歷史。哲學總能為人類學提供智力輸入，同時這里還有一個面向生物學富有成效又可熱情辯論的前沿領域。

Some newcomers to the subject are flabbergasted at its theoretical character, and some see it as deeply ironic that a subject which claims to make sense of the life-worlds of ordinary people can be so difficult to read. Many anthropological texts are beautifully written, but it is also true that many of them are tough and convoluted. Anthropology insists on being analytical and theoretical, and as a consequence, it can often feel both inaccessible and even alienating. Since its contents are so important and—arguably—fascinating, this only indicates that there is a great need for good popularisations of anthropology.

Anthropology is not alone in studying society and culture academically. Sociology describes and accounts for social life, especially in modern societies, in great breadth and depth. Political science deals with politics at all levels, from the municipal to the global. Psychology studies the mental life of humans by means of scientific and interpretive methods, and human geography looks at economic and social processes in a transnational perspective. Finally, there is the recent subject, controversial but popular among students and the public, of cultural studies, which can be described as an amalgamation of cultural sociology, history of ideas, literary studies and anthropology. (Evil tongues describe it as ‘anthropology without the pain', that is without field research and meticulous analysis.) In other words, there is a considerable overlap between the social sciences, and it may well be argued that the disciplinary boundaries are to some extent artificial. The social sciences represent some of the same interests and try to respond to some of the same questions, although there are also differences.

Moreover, anthropology also has much in common with humanities such as literary studies and history. Philosophy has always provided intellectual input for anthropology, and there is a productive, passionately debated frontier area towards biology.

大約一代人之前，人類學還幾乎完全集中在對傳統社會地方生活的細節研究之上，而且民族志研究是它的主要——某些情況下是唯一的——方法。現在，情況更加復雜，因為人類學家如今研究各種類型的社會，其方法也更加千變萬化。本書總體上是要回答“什么是人類學”這個問題，但是現在我們可以說它是文化和社會的比較研究，主要關注當地人的生活。換句話說，人類學區別于其他學科之處在于它堅持社會現實，首要的是要通過人與其所屬群體的關系來建構。例如，當前諸如全球化之類的時髦概念，對于人類學家已經沒有意義，除非可以通過實際的人來研究他們彼此之間的關系和周圍更大的世界。當到達建立“事實真相”這一層面時，才有可能探討本地人的生活世界和更大規模的現象（例如全球資本主義或國家）之間的聯系。但是，只有當人類學家花費足夠多的時間“匍匐而行”時，也可以說是通過放大鏡來研究世界時，他才能夠為了獲得一張全景圖而進入直升機里面。

按照古希臘文的字面意思來翻譯，人類學意味著對人類的研究。正如已經提到的那樣，這里人類學家并沒有壟斷權。此外，本書也不僅僅描述一種人類學。哲學人類學提出了有關人類環境的基本問題。體質人類學研究人類的史前和進化。（有一段時間，體質人類學也包括“種族”研究。由于遺傳學反駁了種族的存在，它們在科學上已經沒有令人感興趣之處，但是在社會和文化人類學方面，種族作為一種社會建構依然使人感興趣，因為在人們賴以生活的意識形態方面，種族保持著其重要性。）另外，文化人類學和社會人類學有時存在區別，不可否認這只是一種模糊的差異。文化人類學是美國（還有其他一些國家）使用的術語，而在一定程度上講，社會人類學的起源則要追溯到英國和法國。歷史上，這些傳統之間存在著一定的差異——社會人類學的根基在社會理論方面，而文化人類學的基礎更加廣泛——但兩者的差異若沒有費心去分析就依然模糊不清。在下文中，只有當有必要強調北美或歐洲人類學的特性時，才會使用到社會和文化人類學的差異。

A generation ago, anthropology still concentrated almost exclusively on detailed studies of local life in traditional societies, and ethnographic fieldwork was its main—in some cases its sole—method. The situation has become more complex, because anthropologists now study all kinds of societies and also because the methodological repertoire has become more varied. This book consists in its entirety of a long answer to the question ‘What is anthropology? ', but for now, we might say that it is the comparative study of culture and society, with a focus on local life. Put differently,anthropology distinguishes itself from other lines of enquiry by insisting that social reality is first and foremost created through relationships between persons and the groups they belong to. A currently fashionable concept such as globalisation, for example, has no meaning to an anthropologist unless it can be studied through actual persons, their relationship to each other and to a larger surrounding world. When this level of the ‘nitty-gritty'is established, it is possible to explore the linkages between the locally lived world and large-scale phenomena（such as global capitalism or the state）. But it is only when an anthropologist has spent enough time crawling on all fours, as it were, studying the world through a magnifying glass, that he or she is ready to enter the helicopter in order to obtain an overview.

Anthropology means, translated literally from ancient Greek, the study of humanity. As already indicated, anthropologists do not have a monopoly here. Besides, there are other anthropologies than the one described in this book. Philosophical anthropology raises fundamental questions concerning the human condition. Physical anthropology is the study of human prehistory and evolution. （For some time, physical anthropology also included the study of ‘races'. These are no longer scientifically interesting since genetics has disproven their existence, but in social and cultural anthropology, race may still be interesting as a social construction, because it remains important in many ideologies that people live by.）Moreover, a distinction, admittedly a fuzzy one, is sometimes drawn between cultural and social anthropology. Cultural anthropology is the term used in the USA （and some other countries）, while social anthropology traces its origins to Britain and, to some extent, France. Historically, there have been certain differences between these traditions—social anthropology has its foundation in sociological theory, while cultural anthropology is more broadly based—but the distinction has become sufficiently blurred not to be bothered with here. In the following, the distinction between social and cultural anthropology will only be used when it is necessary to highlight the specificity of North American or European anthropology.

作為一門大學的學科，人類學并不是很古老的科目——只有大約一百年的教學歷史——但它提出了自古以來不同形式所表達的問題：人們之間的差異是先天的還是后天習得的？為何有這么多的語言，實際上它們又是如何區分的？所有的宗教都有共性嗎？存在哪些統治形式，它們如何發揮作用？按照社會發展水平，是否可能將其排列在一個階梯之上？所有的人都有共性嗎？而且——可能最后總要問的是：人類是什么樣的生物？是具有侵略性的動物、社會動物或宗教動物，還是可能在這個星球上唯一可以自我定義的動物呢？

每個好思考的人對這些事都會有自己的看法。這里面有一些很難徹底地回答，但至少可以用一種準確和熟悉的方式來回答問題。人類學的目標是要對人類生活的各種形式建立盡可能詳細的知識，并發展出一種概念性工具，以便有可能對它們進行比較。這反過來能夠使我們理解人類多種不同方式之間的差異和相似之處。盡管人類學家的記錄千差萬別，但是人類學的存在恰恰毫無疑問地證明，有可能在各種差異之間進行富有成效和容易理解的溝通。若是在文化上不可能理解遙遠的人群，人類學本身就不可能存在。從事人類學的人沒人會相信這不可能（盡管很少有人相信可以理解一切事物）。相反，我們可通過比較清楚地闡明不同的社會。

As a university discipline, anthropology is not a very old subject—it has been taught for about 100 years—but it has raised questions which have been formulated in different guises since antiquity: Are the differences between peoples inborn or learned? Why are there so many languages, and how different are they really? Do all religions have something in common? Which forms of governance exist, and how do they work? Is it possible to rank societies on a ladder according to their level of development? What is it that all humans have in common? And, perhaps most importantly: What kind of creatures are humans; aggressive animals, social animals, religious animals or are they, perhaps, the only self-defining animals on the planet?

Every thinking person has an opinion on these matters. Some of them can hardly be answered once and for all, but they can at least be asked in an accurate and informed way. It is the goal of anthropology to establish as detailed a knowledge as possible about varied forms of human life, and to develop a conceptual apparatus making it possible to compare them. This in turn enables us to understand both differences and similarities between the many different ways of being human. In spite of the enormous variations anthropologists document, the very existence of the discipline proves beyond doubt that it is possible to communicate fruitfully and intelligibly between different forms of human life. Had it been impossible to understand culturally remote peoples, anthropology as such would have been impossible; and nobody who practises anthropology believes that this is impossible （although few believe that it is possible to understand everything）. On the contrary, different societies are made to shed light on each other through comparison.

人類學的神秘之處可以這樣來解讀：全世界的人天生具有同樣的認知和身體器官，但他們卻發展出了截然不同的人和群體，具有不同的社會類型、信仰、技術、語言和有關幸福生活的概念。每個群體內部個人被先天賦予的才能各不一樣，群體之間也不相同，同樣在樂感、智力、直覺和其他特性方面，人與人之間也是千差萬別，但這些特性在全球的分布卻十分均勻，并不是非洲人“天生就具有樂感”，或北方人“天生耐寒而內向”。就這些現有的差異而言，它們并不是天生就有的。另一方面，特殊的社會環境的確可以刺激個人天賦的樂感潛質，而另外的環境則可以鼓勵個人抽象思考的能力。莫扎特是一個極具音樂天賦的人，但如果他出生在格陵蘭島，即使他的遺傳代碼完全不變，他也不可能成為世界上最偉大的作曲家。或許他最后只能成為一名糟糕的獵手（因為他出了名的急躁）。

換言之，誠如人類學家格爾茨（Clifford Geertz）所言，所有的人與生俱來都有潛能過上許多種截然不同的生活，然而我們卻只能以一種生活結束人生。人類學的中心任務之一就是解讀他者的生活，而且我們也本可過上這樣的生活。

The great enigma of anthropology can be phrased like this: All over the world,humans are born with the same cognitive and physical apparatus, and yet they grow into distinctly different persons and groups, with different societal types, beliefs, technologies, languages and notions about the good life. Differences in innate endowments vary within each group and not between them, so that musicality, intelligence, intuition and other qualities which vary from person to person, are quite evenly distributed globally. It is not the case that Africans are ‘born with rhythm', or that northeners are ‘innately cold and introverted'. To the extent that such differences exist, they are not inborn. On the other hand, it is true that particular social milieux stimulate inborn potentials for rhythmicity, while others encourage the ability to think abstractly. Mozart, a man filled to the brim with musical talent, would hardly have become the world's greatest composer if he, that is a person with the same genetic code as Mozart, had been born in Greenland. Perhaps he would only have become a bad hunter (because of his famous impatience).

Put differently, and paraphrasing the anthropologist Clifford Geertz, all humans are born with the potential to live thousands of different lives, yet we end up having lived only one. One of the central tasks of anthropology consists of giving accounts of some of the other lives we could have led.

啟蒙運動和進化論學派

這里不適合詳細描述人類學的歷史，但為了對現狀和最近的過去提供一個適當的背景，就有必要及時地給出簡明扼要的回顧。

人類學和其他人文科學一樣，是在18世紀末期歐洲啟蒙運動時期，隨著人們認知能力和科學好奇心的增加，作為一個獨具特色的問詢領域而出現。幾個世紀以來，歐洲傳教士、官員和其他旅行家記錄的資料，或多或少可靠地敘述了遙遠地方的人們，而這也構成了有關文化變遷一般理論的原材料。（有時候，一種較早的理論歸結于孟德斯鳩，認為文化差異是氣候變遷的結果。）從19世紀中期開始，一種被稱為進化論的理論開始占據主導地位。這種學說的追隨者假定，社會可以按照發展層次進行排序，而且毫無疑問的是作者自己所處的社會，就成了長期和艱苦的社會進化的最終產物。諸如弓、箭、使用馱畜的犁耕農業以及書寫之類的技術要素，都被安置在“進化層次”的邊界上。進化論的模型完全與達爾文1859年發表的生物進化學說兼容（而且在形式上相似），而且殖民思想認為非歐洲的人必須接受比其發展序列更高的人的嚴厲統治，必要時可以采用武力。

ENLIGHTENMENT AND EVOLUTIONISM

This is not the place for a detailed account of the history of anthropology, but a brief excursion back in time is necessary in order to give a proper context to the present and the recent past.

Like other human sciences, anthropology emerged as a distinct field of enquiry in Europe following the period of heightened intellectual awareness and scientific curiosity known as the Enlightenment, at the end of the eighteenth century. More or less trustworthy accounts about remote peoples had already been recorded for centuries by European missionaries, officers and other travellers, and they now formed the raw material for general theories about cultural variation. (An early theory, sometimes attributed to Montesquieu, explained cultural differences as a consequence of climatic variation.) From the mid-nineteenth century onwards, a family of theories usually described as evolutionism became dominant. The adherents of these doctrines assumed that societies could be ranked according to their level of development, and unsurprisingly built on the premise that the author's own society was the end-product of a long and strenuous process of social evolution. Technological elements such as the bow and arrow, plough-driven agriculture with beasts of burden and writing were posited as the boundaries between the ‘evolutionary levels'. The evolutionist models were both compatible with (and similar in form to) Darwin's theory of biological evolution, which was launched in 1859, and with the colonial ideology stating that non-European peoples must be governed and developed from above, sternly and with force if need be.

到19世紀末期，進化論遭遇了來自傳播論的嚴峻挑戰，這種學說主要盛行于講德語的國家，顧名思義就是強調研究文化特征的傳播。進化論傾向于假定每種社會包含著自己發展的胚芽，而傳播理論則主張變遷主要通過接觸和“采借”來產生。

20世紀前十年內，西方社會的特色是發生了重要的變遷，而第一次世界大戰則使之達到了劇烈的高潮。在同一時期，人類學也發生了近乎完全的革命。已有的進化論和傳播理論的解釋模型因為種種原因被人拋棄。

進化論如今已經被判定為一種具有根本性缺陷的方法論。現在，人類學家所開展的日益細致和精確的研究，并未表明社會按照預定的模式在發展，而認為學者自己的社會處于階梯上部的標準假設，已經暴露出簡單的偏見和歧視。具有基本相同技術的社會（比如南非的桑人和澳大利亞的土著），它們之間有著相當多的文化差異，這表明按照進化論所說的，“原始人”可以被視為我們自身社會早期的樣子是不可想象的事。

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, evolutionist accounts met serious competition in diffusionism, a largely German language tendency which, as the name suggests, emphasized the study of the spreading of cultural traits. Whereas the evolutionists tended to assume that every society contained the germ of its own development, diffusionists argued that change largely took place through contact and‘borrowing'.

Momentous changes characterized western societies during the first decades of the twentieth century, with the First World War as a dramatic high point. In the same period, a near total revolution took place in anthropology. The established evolutionist and diffusionist explanations were discarded for several reasons.

Evolutionism was now judged as a fundamentally flawed approach. The increasingly detailed and nuanced studies which were now at the anthropologists' disposal did not indicate that societies developed along a predetermined pattern, and the normative assumption that the scholar's own society was at the top of the ladder had been exposed as plain bigotry and prejudice. The considerable cultural differences between societies possessing roughly the same technology (such as San in southern Africa and Australian Aborigines), indicated that it was unthinkable that ‘primitive peoples'could be seen as suggestive of what our own societies might have been like at an earlier stage, which evolutionists claimed.

傳播論被拒絕的主要原因是它作出的有關接觸與傳播過程的假定，無法得到證實。同樣的現象存在于一個或兩個地方的事實，比如技術或信仰，自身并不能證明它們之間有過歷史的接觸。所討論的現象可能已經在多個地方獨立地發展出來了。另一方面，沒有人質疑傳播現象的發生（實際上對于當代社會科學的趨勢即全球化研究而言，這是一個重要的前提），尚有爭議的是20世紀的少壯派過度地批判了傳播理論，結果使得人類學走向了另一個極端——只是研究單個的小規模社會。

無論如何，迄今為止的要點在于收集“他文化”的資料——大約在第一次世界大戰前十年——遭受了更加嚴格的質量要求，就收集資料的人員而言，專業研究者逐步替代了其他旅行者，繼續長途跋涉收集那些詳細和更加特別的資料。

Diffusionism was rejected chiefly because it made assumptions about contacts and processes of diffusion which could not be substantiated. The fact that similar phenomena, such as techniques or beliefs, existed in two or more places, did not in itself prove that there had been historical contact between them. The phenomenon in question might have developed independently in several places. On the other hand, nobody doubts that diffusion takes place (it is in fact a central premise for a contemporary trend in social science, namely globalisation studies), and it may well be argued that the ‘Young Turks'of early twentieth-century anthropology overdid their critique of diffusionism, with the result that anthropology became lopsided in the opposite way; as the study of single, small-scale societies.

Be this as it may, the main point is that the collection of data about ‘other cultures'was by now—the decade preceding the First World War—subjected to ever stricter quality demands, and as far as the people who did the collecting were concerned, professional researchers gradually replaced other travellers, going on lengthy expeditions to collect detailed and often specialised data.

現代人類學的四位創始人

按照慣例，現代人類學的創立需要提到四個人：博厄斯（Franz Boas）、馬林諾夫斯基（Bronislaw Malinowski ）、拉德克里夫·布朗（A.R. Radcliffe-Brown）和莫斯（Marcel Mauss）。1864年，博厄斯出生于德國，但在19世紀80年代和90年代移居美國，并在美國待了比較長的時間。作為哥倫比亞大學的一名教授，博厄斯幫助建立了美國文化人類學，并且直到1942年去世時，一直都是該學科無可爭議的領頭羊。20世紀前半葉，大部分有名的美國人類學家，都曾經是博厄斯的學生。

博厄斯有著廣泛的興趣，但就本書而言，我們將其與兩個特別重要和典型的概念聯系起來，這有助于對美國人類學的定義：文化相對主義和歷史特殊論。文化相對主義的觀點認為每個社會、每一種文化都需要用自己的方式從其內部來理解，不可能也沒有特別的興趣去將各個社會排列在進化的階梯之上。

在博厄斯年輕時，進化論的觀點非常普及。他堅持認為，要理解文化的差異，這種思維方式并不令人滿意。事實上，他認為相信一些社會客觀上比其他社會更加先進，完全是一種種族中心主義的謬論，這種觀點明顯受制于自身文化具有優越感的偏見和未經考慮的觀念。

文化相對論是一種主要的方法（不是一種世界觀），旨在脫離研究者的偏見盡可能獨立地探討文化的差異。它的目標是學會觀察世界，盡可能與信息報道人或“當地人”采用同樣的方式看待世界。只有先做到這一點，才有可能進行理論分析。在當今有關文化接觸和西方移民“融合”的公開辯論中，可能會設定類似的理想：只有當一個人理解了他人的生活時，才能夠對其作出道德評價。

博厄斯的歷史特殊論非常接近于文化相對論，包含的主要觀點是每個社會都有其獨特的歷史，也就是說不存在社會必須經過的“必要階段”。因此，不可能總結出歷史的順序，因為它們都是獨一無二的。博厄斯堅持認為，所有的社會都有自身可持續的路徑，有其自身的變遷機制。在人類學家之中，這種觀點和文化相對主義的特定形式總是爭論不休，但它們已經產生了深遠的影響，直至今日。

THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Four men are conventionally mentioned as the founders of modern anthropology:Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski, A.R.Radcliffe-Brown and Marcel Mauss. Boas, born in 1864, was German, but emigrated to the USA after several lengthy stays in the country in the 1880s and 1890s. As a professor at Columbia University, he was instrumental in establishing American cultural anthropology, and ‘Papa Franz'was the undisputed leader of the discipline until his death in 1942. Most of the American anthropologists of note in the first half of the twentieth century had been students of Boas.

Boas had very wide-ranging interests, but in this context, we shall associate him with two particularly important, and typical, concepts, which contributed to defining American anthropology: cultural relativism and historical particularism. Cultural relativism is the view that every society, or every culture, has to be understood on its own terms, from within, and that it is neither possible nor particularly interesting to rank societies on an evolutionary ladder.

In Boas' youth, evolutionist perspectives were widespread. In order to understand cultural variation, he argued, this way of thinking is not satisfactory. In fact, he regarded the belief that certain societies were objectively more advanced than others as an ethnocentric fallacy, that is a view governed by prejudice and an unconsidered belief in the superiority of one's own culture.

Cultural relativism is primarily a method (not a world-view) designed to explore cultural variation as independently as possible from the researcher's prejudices. Its aim is to learn to see the world, as far as possible, in the same way as the informants, or ‘natives', see it. Theoretical analysis can begin only when this is achieved. In today's public debates about cultural contact and ‘integration' of migrants in the West, a similar ideal might be posited; only when one has understood the lives of others, can it be justified to make moral judgements about them.

Boas' historical particularism, which is closely related to cultural relativism, consists of the view that every society has its own, unique history, which is to say that there are no ‘necessary stages'that societies pass through. As a result, it is impossible to generalise about historical sequences; they are all unique. All societies have their own paths towards sustainability and their own mechanisms of change, Boas argued. Both this view and certain forms of cultural relativism have always been controversial among anthropologists, but they have been deeply influential up to the present.

1884年，馬林諾夫斯基出生于波蘭，在克拉科夫上學，但他后來移居英國，這促進了他對人類學的研究。馬林諾夫斯基在他那個時代是一名具有超凡魅力又能鼓動人心的教師，在關于集中田野工作的方法上，他持續的影響力一直特別的強烈。馬林諾夫斯基不是第一個在地方社區開展長時間田野工作的人（比如博厄斯就曾做過田野工作），但是他在一戰時期研究特羅布里恩島民是如此的詳細和透徹，以至于他所設定的標準即使在今天也無可挑剔。通過一系列關于特羅布里恩島的著作（第一本也是最有名的著作是《西太平洋的航海者》），馬林諾夫斯基顯示了巨大的知識潛能，在對小群體開展緩慢、縝密和費力的詳細研究方面，他的田野工作堪稱典范。他認為特羅布里恩島民的宗教和政治組織具有很大的權威，并且由于他對他們的生活方式具有非常廣泛的知識，所以能夠證明這些局部體系之間的相互關聯性。

在他的田野工作方法中，馬林諾夫斯基著重強調學習當地人的語言，并且推薦的主要方法是參與觀察：民族志學者應該與研究對象一起生活，參與他們的日常活動，同時要進行系統的觀察。直至現在即使不完全一樣，也是與之相似的觀點在指導人類學的田野工作。

如果宣稱人類學調查始于博厄斯和馬林諾夫斯基，可能會誤導別人。當然，人們提出有關文化差異的問題，還有數千年來“其他人如何生活”，以及文化理論和民族志在他們之前很久就以各種方式存在。然而，在將人類學轉化成一個十分有組織和清晰的知識體系，使其配得上科學的頭銜方面，他們的貢獻可能超過任何其他人。通過長期參與觀察的田野工作方法，確保民族志學者獲得的知識在進行比較時能可靠和有用，文化相對主義原則的意圖不僅僅是抑制偏見，而且要發展一種中性和敘述性話語來描述文化差異。

盡管不怎么重要，但博厄斯和馬林諾夫斯基的傳記或許能反映他們對于文化差異的非正統方法。正如前面所說，兩個人都在國外度過了大部分成年的生活——德國出生的博厄斯在美國，波蘭出生的馬林諾夫斯基在英國。人們可能會懷疑，不管是對他們的祖國，還是他們所身處的新國家，他們都會產生一種無根和不相容的感覺，而當他們開始發展自己的新學科時，這些恐怕不是一種有價值的資源吧？只有當一個人能夠從一種邊緣優勢角度去看自己的文化時，他才能夠采用人類學的術語來理解它。大部分人可能窮其一生也不會真正地思考這樣的事實，即他們受到特定文化的深刻影響。與那些認識到他們自己的習慣和觀念都是在特定社會環境中創造的人相比，在特定情況下這種無視自己的“盲目性”使他們更不適合研究其他人；如果他們在別的地方被撫養，他們在重要的方面將會是不同的個體。這種反思——自我反省——既是文化和社會比較研究的一種條件，也是它的一種結果。當剛入門的人類學家從田野工作返回時，他必然會以一種新的眼光看待自己的社會。然而在一定程度上，一個人在開始自己的田野工作前，需要從心理上將自己的社會拋在腦后。人類學家試圖通過人類學概念和模式的教學，以傳授這種技巧，但是學生不太可能認識到他們已經獲得了這些東西，除非太遲了而無法回到更早的無知狀態。

Malinowski, born in 1884, was a Pole who studied in Krakow, but he emigrated to England to further his studies in anthropology. Malinowski was a charismatic and inspiring teacher in his time, but his sustained influence has been particularly strong regarding intensive fieldwork as method. Malinowski was not the first to carry out long-term fieldwork in local communities （Boas, for one, had done it）, but his study of the inhabitants of the Trobriand islands during the First World War was so detailed and thorough that it set a standard which has its defenders even today. Through a series of books about the Trobriands, the first and most famous of which was Argonauts of the Western Pacific, Malinowski showed the enormous intellectual potential of the slow, meticulous and painstakingly detailed study of a small group of which his fieldwork was an exemplar. He wrote about the economy, the religion and the political organisation of the Trobrianders with great authority, and due to his very comprehensive knowledge of their way of life, he was able to demonstrate the interconnections between such partial systems.

In his field methodology, Malinowski strongly emphasised the need to learn the native language, and recommended that the main method should be one of participant observation: the ethnographer should live with the people he studied, he should participate in their everyday activities, and make systematic observations as he went along. Similar if not necessarily identical ideals guide anthropological fieldwork even today.

It would be grossly misleading to claim that anthropological investigations began with Boas and Malinowski. Of course, people have asked questions concerning cultural variation and ‘how others live' for thousands of years, and both cultural theory and ethnography had existed in various guises long before them. Yet they contributed, perhaps more than anyone else, to turning anthropology into a body of knowledge sufficiently organised and coherent to deserve the label science. The method of fieldwork through long-term participant observation ensured that the knowledge procured by ethnographers was reliable and usable in comparisons, and the principle of cultural relativism was intended not only to keep prejudices in check, but also to develop a neutral, descriptive terminology for describing cultural variation.

Although hardly of central importance, the biographies of Boas and Malinowski may shed a little light on their unorthodox approaches to cultural variation. As indicated above, both men spent most of their adult life abroad; the German Boas in the USA, the Pole Malinowski in England. One may wonder if the uprootedness and alienness they must have felt, both in relation to their native countries and towards their new ones, could not have been a valuable resource when they set out to develop their new science. For it is only when one is able to see one's own culture from a marginal vantage point that one can understand it in anthropological terms. Most people live their entire lives without reflecting upon the fact that they are profoundly shaped by a particular culture. Such ‘homeblindness' by default makes them less suited for studying other peoples than those who have realised that even their own habits and notions are created in a particular social environment, under special circumstances; and that they would in crucial ways have been different individuals if they had been raised elsewhere. This kind of reflexivity—self-reflection—is both a condition for the comparative study of culture and society, and a result of it. When the novice anthropologist returns from her first fieldwork, she inevitably views her own society in a new light. However, one must also, to some extent, be able to leave one's own society behind mentally before embarking on fieldwork. Anthropologists try to impart this skill through their teaching of anthropological concepts and models, but the students are unlikely to realise that they have acquired it until it has become too late to return to an earlier state of innocence.

事實上，很多人類學家具有的個人背景，在一定程度上使他們疏離了與他們有關的社會；相當多的人在另外一個國家度過一年或數年的時光，作為外交官的子女、援建工人或傳教士；有些人具有少數民族背景或被另一個國家所接納；猶太人在同行中總是堅定的代表。婦女在人類學領域的表現比在其他學術職業中更加突出。換句話說，例如作為一名局部的陌生者就是一個有利條件。

然而，在20世紀的前十年，第三位杰出的人類學家是英國本土人拉德克里夫·布朗（1881—1955年）。他在1937年重返牛津大學擔任教授之前，有很多年是在芝加哥、南非開普敦和悉尼的大學從事教學和科研工作。布朗出名主要是因為他對社會人類學有著雄心勃勃的科學規劃。布朗與博厄斯不同，在一定程度上與馬林諾夫斯基也不一樣，他的興趣不在文化及其意義上，他關注的是社會運行的方式。布朗深受涂爾干的社會學理論的影響，并將其作為墊腳石開發出了人類學的結構功能主義，而涂爾干的社會學理論主要是有關社會整合的學說。結構功能主義的理論堅持認為，社會的各個部分或制度都要履行特定的功能，這與人體各個器官對整個身體的貢獻方式一樣；人類學的最終目標包含在建立“社會的自然法則”之中，這與自然科學法則的創立具有同樣精確的層次。與博厄斯和馬林諾夫斯基一樣，布朗也有杰出和富有獻身精神的學生圈子，其中一些是戰后最具影響力的英國人類學家。然而，其中許多人最終拋棄了布朗的原初計劃。之后很快就清楚的是，社會要比細胞與化合物更加不可預測。

對于大多數人類學家而言，這里要提到的第四位創始人最為重要。莫斯（1872—1950年）與諸如文化相對論之類的概念、參與觀察之類的方法或結構功能主義之類的理論沒有聯系。然而，他對于人類學的影響卻具有決定性，尤其是在法國。莫斯是涂爾干的侄兒，直到涂爾干1917年去世之前，他們一直密切地合作著書立說，其中一部有關原始分類的著作是兩人一起寫的。莫斯是一個博學之士，熟悉多種語言、全球的歷史和經典著作。盡管他從未開展過田野工作，但他寫的富有洞察力的論文卻能覆蓋很廣泛的主題（還毫不松懈地教導觀察的技巧）：關于不同社會中人的概念、民族主義以及作為社會產品的身體。他最著名的貢獻是一篇非常有分量的論文，討論傳統社會中的禮物交換。莫斯認為在缺乏中央集權的情形下，禮物交換和服務的互惠性是社會關系的“黏合劑”。禮物可能是以自愿的形式出現，但事實上是義務性的，它們可以產生感情的債務，以及相當廣泛與持久的社會責任。直至現在，其他人類學家仍在這種視角上進行分析。

In fact, a significant number of anthropologists have a personal background which has to a certain degree alienated them in relation to their society; quite a few have spent several years in another country as children of diplomats, aid workers or missionaries; some are adopted from another country or have a minority background;and Jews have always been strongly represented in the profession. Women have always been more prominent in anthropology than in most other academic professions. For once, in other words, being a partial stranger can be an asset.

The third of the leading anthropologists during the crucial first decades of the twentieth century was never the less a native Englishman, AR Radcliffe-Brown （1881-1955）. Radcliffe-Brown, who spent many years teaching and undertaking research at the universities of Chicago, Cape Town and Sydney, before returning to a chair in Oxford in 1937, is chiefly known for his ambitious scientific programme for social anthropology. Unlike Boas, and to some extent Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown's interest was not in culture and meaning, but in the ways societies functioned. He was deeply influenced by Emile Durkheim's sociology, which was primarily a doctrine about social integration, and used it as a stepping-stone to develop structural-functionalism in anthropology. This theory argued that all the parts, or institutions, of a society filled a particular function, roughly in the same way as all bodily parts contribute to the whole; and that the ultimate goal of anthropology consisted in establishing ‘natural laws of society'with the same level of precision as the ones found in natural science. Like Boas and Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown had his circle of outstanding, devoted students, some of them among the most influential British anthropologists of the postwar years. However, his original programme was eventually abandoned by most of them. It would soon become clear that societies were much less predictable than cells and chemical compounds.

To many anthropologists, the fourth ancestor to be mentioned here is the most important one. Marcel Mauss （1872-1950）is not associated with a concept such as cultural relativism, a method like participant observation, or a theory such as structural-functionalism. Yet his influence on anthropology, especially in France, has been decisive. Mauss was a nephew of the great Durkheim, and they collaborated closely until Durkheim's death in 1917, writing, among other things, a book entitled Primitive Classification together. Mauss was a learned man, familiar with many languages, global cultural history and the classics. Although he never carried out fieldwork, he wrote insightful essays covering a broad range of themes （and relentlessly taught techniques of observation）: on the concept of the person in different societies, on nationalism and on the body as a social product. His most famous contribution is a powerful essay about gift exchange in traditional societies. Mauss shows that reciprocity, the exchange of gifts and services, is the ‘glue'that ties societies together in the absence of a centralised power. Gifts may appear to be voluntary, but are in fact obligatory, and they create debts of gratitude and other social commitments of considerable scope and duration. Other anthropologists continue to build analyses on this perspective even today.

簡單地講，這四個創始人及其學生確定了20世紀人類學的主流。（可能有些更令人著迷的智力師承，但這里的篇幅不允許我深入展開。）然而，人類學總是一門自我批判的學科，這些大師不僅僅通過他們的箴言和著作來發揮影響力，還會挑起批判和評論。一戰后，博厄斯（與博厄斯學派）的文化相對主義就遭受到強有力的抵抗，新生代的人類學家重新回到博厄斯之前的情形，關注社會進化并集中于物質條件、技術和經濟。馬林諾夫斯基以及他的學生在一定程度上，都因為理論較弱又不聚焦而遭到批評。就布朗而言，人們批評他似乎相信他那精巧的模型遠比嘈雜的社會現實更加真實。在法國，多年之后很多年輕人將莫斯視為無關的人物，政治上激進的人類學家更加熱衷于研究沖突而不是整合。

在第二次世界大戰之后的數十年間，人類學家迅速地成長并多樣化。新的理論學派和觀點開始顯現，在新的領域開展了田野工作，其復雜性和透視性也增加了；新的研究中心和大學院系開始成立，到21世紀初，全世界已有數千名職業人類學家，他們都擅長于某一方面的研究。可以說在這種熱鬧的多樣化背景下，有一個明確和清晰的主題。原因是我們繼續回到了同樣的基本問題之上，這在各地幾乎都以同樣的方式出現。巴西的人類學家和他的俄羅斯同事，可以完全相互理解（假定他們有一種共同的語言，大多數時候是英語）；主張男女平等的后現代主義者與人文生態學者有很多差異，但如果他們都是人類學家，則在智力上還是會有很多共性。盡管存在理智的弒父和弒母行為、激烈的爭辯和令人迷惑的專業化，我們仍然可以通過人類學對普遍與特殊之間關系的一貫興趣，以及它對“當地人視角”的強調和對當地人生活的研究，還有它試圖理解社會關聯的野心和對不同社會的比較，來清晰地描述人類學。

Slightly simplistically, one may say that these four founders and their many students defined the mainstream of twentieth-century anthropology. (Several fascinating minor lines of intellectual descent also exist, but space does not permit an exploration of them here.) However, anthropology has always been a self-critical subject, and these great men did not only exert influence through their admonitions and writings, but also by provoking contradiction and criticism. The cultural relativism of Boas (and the Boasians) met strong resistance in the postwar years, when a new generation of American anthropologists would return to the pre-Boasian concerns with social evolution and concentrate on material conditions, technology and economics. Malinowski, and to some extent his students, were criticised for being unfocused and theoretically weak. Radcliffe-Brown, on his part, was criticised for seeming to believe that his elegant models were more truthful than the far more chaotic social reality; and in France, Mauss was, some years later, largely seen as irrelevant by young, politically radical anthropologists who were more keen on studying conflict than integration.

In the decades after the Second World War, anthropology grew and diversified rapidly. New theoretical schools and perspectives appeared, fieldwork was carried out in new areas, which also added complexity and perspectives; new research centres and university departments were founded, and at the start of the twenty-first century, there are thousands of professional anthropologists worldwide, all of them specialised in one way or another. It may still be said that underneath this teeming diversity, there is a clearly defined, shared subject. The reason is that we continue to return to the same fundamental questions, which are raised in roughly the same ways everywhere. A Brazilian anthropologist and her Russian colleague may perfectly well understand each other (provided they have a common language, which in most cases would be English); there is much to distinguish a feminist postmodernist from a human ecologist, but if they are both anthropologists, they still have much in common intellectually. In spite of intellectual patricides and matricides, heated controversies and bewildering specialisation, anthropology is still delineated through its consistent interest in the relationship between the unique and the universal, its emphasis on ‘the native's point of view'(Malinowski's term) and the study of local life, its ambition to understand connections in societies and its comparisons between societies.

擴展閱讀

Barnard, Alan（2000）History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kuper, Adam （1996）Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School,3rd edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.