关注议题

以下为同心人文科学的会议、期刊、专著与学术社群所关注的议题。在瞬息万变的当代社会中,这些皆是极需探讨且独特的议题。无论从何种角度来看,每一个议题之间都有深切的关联。

我们居住在一个被科学、科技与经济、商业所主导的理性主义社会之中,社会是否稳定不断被这些议题所引导。尤其在研究和学习的领域中,唯理论的思想具有更强大的主导力,人文的思考模式则被漠视。

We live in an era which seems to be dominated by the rationalisms of science-technology and economics-commerce. These appear daily as enormously powerful forces, driving us alternately to doom or salvation. They make their domineering presence felt ever more heavily in places of learning and research, and often at the expense of the humanities.

然而,没有人文就没有科学与科技;没有了人文也没有经济与商业。人文不仅是第三主要的学科,学习人文科学的目的即是要让其他两个领域更为完整。人文科学的要旨便是研究人类的本质并未人类建立一个规范章程,发展人道、人文化、人权、人文全球化、人文当地化…等的行动方案。

There is no science-technology, however, without the human. There is no commerce-economics without the human. Not only are the humanities a third major area of inquiry; the object of study of the humanities is integral to the other two. The humanities interrogate the nature of the human and build a normative agenda for the human, developing programs of action for the humane, the humanistic, human rights, global humanity, the locally humanised ...

人文-科学-科技 Humanities-Science-Technology

现在是拓展科技-科学章程的时机了。让我们将科学与科技定义为一种艺术

Now is the time to broaden the agenda of techno-science once again. How better than to redefine science and technology as ‘arts’?

西方对于科技-科学(techno-science)一词的基础是来自希腊文中的“techne(艺术、技艺) ”,等同于拉丁语中的“ars(艺术、技艺)”。然而科技科学在当代的含意变得较为狭隘,通常即单指某一种形式的技术。这个结果导致科技科学的“去人性化”,使这个概念变成一个极度追求理性与实用性的程序。相对来说,无论是希腊文的teche或拉丁文的ars,都有艺术、工艺与科学的意思,泛指牵涉到实作(技术的应用、使用工具)与论证(了解自然界与物质运作的原理)的实践性智慧。这些技艺是人类生存的重要手段,为人类带来了其他物种没有的能力:审美观(一般我们了解的“艺术”)、人文价值的浸透,以及实践技术。

The western roots of techno-science are the Greek concept of ‘techne’, and its Latin equivalent ‘ars’. These roots tell of a narrowing of definition in modern times, and of a particular kind. It is a narrowing which dehumanizes techno-science, reducing it to programs of merely instrumental rationality. More broadly, by contrast, ‘techne’ and ‘ars’ meant art, craft and science, a kind of practical wisdom involving both doing (application of technique, using tools) and reasoning (understanding the principles underlying the material and natural world). These ‘arts’ are the stuff of human artifice, and the result is always an aesthetic (those other ‘arts’) and human value-drenched, as well as instrumental. Such is an artfulness that can only be human, in the fullness of our species being.

我们的时代需要重新定义“科技科学”。举例来说,新科技和信息科学事实上结合了大量的人文思想与以人为本的设计:网路搜索与标签、语意网的命名规则和本体论、新媒体的信息架构、信息混搭的取得性和操作性使得人类的应用技术达到前所未有的整体化、使上述这些技术能成真的高度成熟的程式码。虽然这些新科技带给人们无限的希望,但也隐藏着危机:譬如说生物医学和生物科技所造成的伦理问题,或者自然界的永续性等议题。

Indeed, our times may well demand such a redefinition. The new technologies and sciences of informatics, for instance, are infused to a remarkable degree with the human of the humanities: the human-centered designs which aim at ‘usability’; the visual aesthetics of screen designs; the language games of search and tag; the naming protocols and ontologies of the semantic web; the information architectures of new media representations; the accessibility and manipulability of information mashups that make our human intelligence irreducibly collective; and the literariness of the code that drives all these things. So too, new biomedical technologies and sciences uniquely inveigle the human—when considering, for instance, the ethics of bioscience and biotechnology, or the sustainability of the human presence in natural environments.

人文-经济-商业 Humanities-Economy-Commerce

比起以往,在商业生产主导的社会中,人类的问题更加的复杂,这些问题与人类的利益、需求和目的紧密的相连。

Today more than ever, questions of the human arise in the domain of the econo-production, and these profoundly imbricate human interests, needs and purposes.

让我们再一次由文字的根本意涵来讨论:希腊文中的“oikonomi(经济)”或拉丁文中的“oeconomia(经济)”在现今大部分的时候被以较狭隘的解释为“商业生产(econo-production)” 。在现代社会中,“经济”和“生产”用来代表跟有偿工作、服务或商品的生产与发布、市场贸易等相关的活动。然而,由辞源学来看,我们可以发现经济一词其实代表更广的含意:在家庭中(希腊文的“oikos”代表家庭;“nemein”代表管理)与工作场合中,一种以满足人类需求为目的的集体工程。而“节约”(thrift或economizing)也不仅是代表着看守财物底线,而是养护与保藏人类的精力与自然资源。

Returning to roots again, the Greek ‘oikonomi’ or the Latin ‘oeconomia’ integrate the human in ways now all-too-easily lost to the more narrowly understood contemporary understandings of econo-production. In the modern world, ‘economy’ and ‘production’ have come to refer to action and reflection pertaining to the domains of paid work, the production of goods and services, and their distribution and market exchange. At their etymological source, however, we find a broader realm of action—the realm of material sustenance, of domesticity (the Greek ‘oikos’/household and ‘nemein’/manage), of work as the collaborative project of meeting human needs, and of thrift (economizing), not just as a way of watching bottom lines, but of conserving human effort and natural resources.

比起过往,当今社会人类的问题更是来自经济生产活动,这些问题与人类的利益、需求和目的紧密的相连。若我们能由人文和全新的观点来看待这些议题,或许能够缓解当今社会中,全球化经济与“知识经济”的本质和后果所造成的棘手问题。

Today more than ever, questions of the human arise in the domain of the econo-production, and these profoundly imbricate human interests, needs and purposes. Drawing on the insights of the humanities and a renewed sense of the human, we might for instance be able to address today’s burning questions of economic globalization and the possible meanings and consequences of the ‘knowledge economy.’

人文科学的本质与目的

人文科学的本质与人文科学的目的是什么?

And what of the humanities in themselves and for themselves?

在教育和学术的领域之外,人文科学常被批评者认为是过于深奥的、不着边际的。比起科技科学或经济生产,人文科学看似没有什么实际的“价值”。

To the world outside of education and academe, the humanities are considered by their critics to be at best esoteric, at worst ephemeral. They seem to have less practical ‘value’ than the domains of techno-science and econo-production.

事实上,人文科学是关于文化、地区、时间、主观性、意识、意义、传播和革新的学科,有什么学科能比研究这些与我们生活息息相关的主题更实际呢?这些学科包含人类学、考古学、艺术、传播、文化研究、地理、政府、历史、语言、文学、媒体研究、哲学、政治、宗教与社会学等。社会科学和社区服务通常被认为是与人文科学相近的主题,但人文科学甚至有更广大的范畴,有时社会科学与社区服务被认为是人文科学的领域之一。

But what could be more practical, more directly relevant to our very existence than disciplines which interrogate culture, place, time, subjectivity, consciousness, meaning, representation and change? These disciplines name themselves anthropology, archaeology, art, communication, arts, cultural studies, geography, government, history, languages, linguistics, literature, media studies, philosophy, politics, religion and sociology. This is an ambitious program even before mention of the social sciences and the professions of community service which can with equal justification be regarded as closely related to the humanities, or even subjects of the humanities, more broadly understood.

在这个广大的范围之下,同心人文科学国际会议、期刊系列、专书系列和学术社群有两个主要关注焦点:

Within this highly generalized scope, the Humanities Conference, Journal Collection, Book Imprint and News Weblog have two particular interests:

跨学科:人文科学是需要透过跨领域对话来定义知识论、观点和内涵来进行学习、反思与行动的学术领域。

Interdisciplinarity: The humanities is a domain of learning, reflection and action which require dialogue between and across discipline-defining epistemologies, perspectives and content areas.

全球化和多元化:人文科学被认为是能够察觉并分辨人类历史、思想与经验的领域,并且能够探讨全球化的当代悖论。这个特性改变了早期人文科学仅单一探讨人道主义本质的思考模式。

Globalism and Diversity: The humanities are to be considered a space where recognizes the dynamics of differences in human history, thought and experience, and negotiates the contemporary paradoxes of globalization. This serves as a corrective to earlier modes of humanities thinking, where one-sided attempts were made to refine a singular essence for an agenda of humanism.

人文科学来到一个变化莫测的时代,在这个环境中要求更多更深度的对话,人文科学也因而得以发光发热。在这个过程中,或许有机会能够突破我们对知识系统仅限制在科技科学与经济生产的现况。

The humanities come into their own in unsettling spaces like these. These kinds of places require difficult dialogues, and here the humanities shine. It is in discussions like these that we might be able to unburden ourselves of restrictively narrow knowledge systems of techno-science and econo-production.

同心学术联合会的人文科学国际会议、期刊、专著与学术社群的主要对谈主题范围可广可精,无论探讨的范围与主题为何,主要的焦点是重新定义人文与人文科学的实践。在理性主义主导之下,人文主义被推至不受重视的角落,所以现在人文科学在务实与重建的两个重要理由之下,必须重新开启新的对话,针对人类问题提出根本性的质问。

The conversations at the conference and the publications in the journals, book series and online network range from the broad and speculative to the microcosmic and empirical. Whatever their scope or perspective, the over-riding concern is to redefine the human and mount a case for the humanities. At a time when the dominant rationalisms are running a course that seems at times draw humanity towards ends that are less than satisfactory, the disciplines of the humanities reopen fundamental questions of the human—for pragmatic as well as redemptory reasons.