Life drama

All of us have a position, and designated to play one of specific role.
Sometime, you just can't refuse or have choice.



When you old enough, you can have some privilege: sit down at the morning, and watch others play their roles.



If you are not aged enough, you need to walk from here to there.





Endless walk, endless work.



Sometime, you just can take a rest, even when you still play your role.



Sometime, you have friend with you in one scene.



Sometime, you need to face your fate, alone.



There always someone addict to "play a role."



When you are breath, you are an actor or actress.
That won't be stopped till life end.
That's life drama.

Life and death in Mt. Everest

這本書是Ortner近期的民族誌，大部分的材料是整理她從19 60年代開始在尼泊爾的Sherpa人所居住的Solu-Kho mbu地區所做的田野調查而獲得的。

不過，相較於她前幾本主要著重在Sherpa人的宗教和日常生活 的民族誌來說，這本比較重視於討論在喜馬拉雅地區從1920年代 開始逐漸活躍的登山運動對於當地的影響。但是，光講這一個外來運 動對於當地的影響是不足的，同時在她書成的那個年代裡頭，Ori entalism正盛行著，因此為了避免落入一種東方主義式的再 現觀點，Ortner在這本書中側重的是Sherpa人怎麼瞭解 和認識西方人的登山遠征活動。換言之，Ortner在這書中想要 做到的，就是 from Sherpa point of view, to evaluate or represent the mountaineering of Himalayan.

雖然，我們可以在書中看到Ortner很重視也很強調這樣的努力 ，但是必須遺憾的說，或者是因為Ortner本身並不攀山，對於 整個攀山的理解必須從書中、從訪談中去建立，因此對於登山活動的 描述其實相較於在書中她對於宗教方面的描述即顯得膚淺，沒有辦法 給人以一種深入的感覺。隨舉一例：Ortner說，Sherpa 參與遠征、當挑夫，主要的動機就是因為這職業雖然有危險性，但是 獲得的經濟上的報酬卻是非常理想的，所以有很多人願意冒險嘗試。 同時，這也是Sherpa很重要的經濟來源。

試想，如果是一個很重要的經濟來源，那麼Sherpa對於他們的 職業，應該會有更多更豐富的論述才是，但是Ortner在這書中 ，卻只能很單純的宣稱，Sherpa跟西方人所想像的不同，他們 並不是因為愛山所以爬山，而是因為愛錢所以爬山，錢是最重要，也 幾乎是唯一的登山動機。

但是，真的只有這樣嗎？我倒不是說他們一定愛山，而是說，在經濟 動機的背後，應該會有更完整的，更全面的對於山對於這個行業的想 法才是，只是在Ortner的書中卻付之闕如。

當然，或者可以理解為何Ortner如此描繪Sherpa，這可 能跟她本身多少有些仇視攀山運動有些關係，因此想要把這運動描繪 成一個少數西方中產階級為了反現代性，反布爾喬亞主流價值而創造 出來的運動、娛樂，Sherpa並不分享這樣的價值，而對他們來 說，登山只有經濟價值云云。

我想，我當然可以接受不同人攀山有不同的原因與動機，不過，即使 只是一種單純的經濟動機，我依舊還是認為也許可以有更完整的Di scourse才是，"They climb only for money" is too superfluous, that can hard to persuade people.

不過不管怎麼說，Ortner在這本書中用一種真的可以稱為局外 人的角度來描述了登山這行為，以及這種運動和西方社會、思想發展 的關係，並且，因為她流暢的書寫，也讓這本民族誌具有相當棒的可 閱讀性，讀起來相當的引人入勝，所以，我依舊很推薦！

Slumdog Millionaire

This novel is fantasy for two reason. The structural is perfect. For me, the author arranges a quiz show to introduce Maham's life history. And it is also because the quiz show makes that life histroy prenstened by a random type. That makes this novel with more pleasure to read.

Second, the author is almost to good to describe any detail about slum, under his pen, the slum people's life are too vivid that people hard to read this novel just only novel, but also some kind of document. It is really record some important phenonmena about the poverty life. The author try to depict a hard struggal life for this ophant slum child. And therefore, I think people can read this novel and finding some fun by it's own readable character, but also can feel there is very deep morose.

walking creatures.

Near midnight, old man walks on the sidewalk back from my house.


Early morning, Marshall the cat walks to me.


On my way to office, old woman walks across the street and looks at me with unhappy face.


Almost 9 a.m. office lady on her way.


Old couples( I guess) walk, young lovers sit.


11 p.m., a window shopping girl.


Old friendship never die.


Walking for good or evil? I'm not sure.


An old poor vendor walks for survived.


Walking seriously.


The End.

Can the Subaltern Speak?

在Spivak的著名的文章 "Can the Subaltern speak?"中，她認為一定程度上，西方的論述再現著第三世界的時候，這些知識產物一定程度上都跟西方的對於第三世界的政治經濟興趣有著密切的關係，弦外之音是知識和政治經濟基本上是有共謀關係的。

這篇文章的結構基本上簡單的，Spivak先用一些篇幅來說明為什麼她在方法論上就Marx 和Derrida而不願意採用 Foucault 和 Deleuze對於權力對於主體性等等的分析。非常坦白的說，雖然我知道Spivak有詳細的說明原因，不過因為對於這一塊辯論太過於陌生，所以我掌握的不是很好，我只能夠知道的是，她認為這兩位學者雖然對於這件論題做了很多的努力，但是他們的成果當中，暗含了一種她所謂 epistem violence 的危險，因此她認為比較合適用於分析歐洲歷史中權力的問題，而不合適用於後殖民研究之中。因此，她採用Derrida的解構理論，來處理再現的問題。遺憾的是這些我比較不那麼熟悉，因此對於方法論上的掌握，還要在花一段時間才有辦法搞清楚Spivak到底在這裡說了些什麼，又是因為什麼原因決定棄FD兩位，而就DM。

進入Case，在寡婦焚祭的研究當中。Spivak指出，寡婦雖然是這個風俗當中的主角，但是事實上在任何一種官方的、學術的論述當中，她們都只能是沒有聲音的Subaltern。一方面，當英國殖民政府進入時，禁止了這項風俗，並且把這個禁止的「德政」視為是「白種人從棕男人手上救贖棕女人」的文明進程的行當；而即使在英國政府退出了印度，接手執政的印度本土菁英（往往是受了殖民國高等教育的菁英）繼續將禁止這種風俗當作是整體社會進步最好的燈號。換言之，不論是白種人，或者是本土菁英，都是以一種Spivak稱呼為現代性的思考方式來看待寡婦焚祭的議題。在他們的觀點中，寡婦焚祭重要的是，在禁止了這項風俗之後，可以作為某某的象徵，來為某種特定的論述方式服務，至於寡婦本身的聲音，Sorry, that's not the point.

這樣的作為當然引起了國族主義者的不滿，並且將這個風俗引經據典的呈現為「這是寡婦的意願」，作為一個Sati，也就是好的妻子，他當丈夫往生之後，她們理應如此，所以，這暨不是一個父權對於女性壓迫的展演，更不是一個粗暴野蠻的陋習，一切都是從寡婦的意願開展出去的，換言之，他們強調了「這是寡婦的意志」來對抗著現代性的思想。

Spivak認為，不管是在哪一邊，其實都不是寡婦真正的聲音，在這些論述當中，寡婦的聲音都被淹沒了，因此，即使看起來後殖民學者是用比較友善的的態度，甚至比較理解的方式去再現這個風俗，但是依舊還是剝奪了寡婦的聲音和主體性。

Can the Subaltern Speak?

In her famous essay "Can the Subaltern speak?", Spivak indicates that the representaion of the third-world in Western discourse has several latent principles. And in more radical tone, Spivak announces that some Western intellectual production complicit with Western international economic interests. Therefore, she wants to provide an alternative representative way that different from Western discourse, and try to speak for the subaltern woman. That is her main topic.

Before she open up her main topic. Spivak spends many page to explain that why she choice Marx and Derrida's theory but not Deleuze and Foucault. I am not familiar to French philosophy, so in fact, I can not catch lucidly of her argument. All I know is that she choice Derrida's theory as a base for her own. And also, she doesn't agree to Foucault and Deleuze that these two philosophers claimed that "the oppressed, if given the chance, can speak and know their conditions." In other words, Spivak believes that the oppressed can never has a chance to comprehense the condition they are, because there are something impede them to have chance, which Spivak calls "epistemic violence."

The epistemic violence is a concept that hard to catch if one who are familiar to Foucault and Deleuze. But I think the word means something that can causes a violation results to somepeople, or creates inequity in intellectual level. Therefore, even thought that many disciplines turn their eyes to the third- world, especially those subaltern classes and poverty. Spivak claims that though it is a good phenmomenon, but the latent episteme viloence will cause such disciplines' research cause subaltern woman as mute as ever.

Since, I am weak in current Western philosophy and also poor in my English writing, so let's go straight to her case study-- the self- immolation of widow in someplace India. In this case, Spivak is not "introduce" or "explain" a extoic custom to Western society, but uses this as a case to present that subalter-- the widow women. No matter in the modernity discourse, or the post- colonial discourse can not have their own voice. On the modernity side, the prohibition of the immolation had been represented as "white men save brown women from brwon women", in another side, the post-colonial discourse represents such custom as "The women wanted to die."

Spivak indicates that both rehetoric do not provide any space for those widow. We can not find out their real thought from the document or the discourse. Those widow, deprived of their voice by scholar, become subject of discourse. And can be distorted by these opposing sides.

Spivak beleives that those "untold" are those most important things. And in my viewpoint, Spivak want to find out a kind of voice that is pristine, pure and undistorted by any discourse. The vocie must be straight from subaltern women. In other words, that is a representative problem for her. how to nuturalize intellectual represent of subaltern is her main point, but I just wonder that what is different between what she disdain and whate she do? If we all agree that purily objectivity is a chimera when we need to do any representation?

The other America

據說，這本書在它出現的年代裡頭是相當重要的，並且在書成之後幫作者贏得了一個政府的職位，開啟了著名的政策"Fight to proverty"，然後，這個政策在稍後的不久被宣告失敗。當時是哪位總統在位我忘記了，不過我記得這樣的一件事情。

本書在處理的是一九五零到六零年代時美國的貧窮現象。作者分別從各種不同的族群、階級、狀態、年齡等等分章討論，並且逐一指出在社會結構、經濟狀態以及政府設計出來解決這些不同族群的貧窮問題時所碰到的困難，以及造成這些貧窮持續存在的原因。

作者用了和Lewis一樣的詞彙「貧窮文化」來指稱某種根深蒂固於貧民窟住民心中的一種雜揉悲觀主義和宿命觀的人生態度。並且認為這種態度會導致整個窮困的狀態難以被社會以及政府的這種措施所根除，因此他提出了各式各樣的社會福利政策不僅需要實際的照顧和改善貧者的生活條件，同時也需要從心理的層面去著手，這樣才可能把「The other America」徹底的消滅。

不過，一整本讀來，對於作者以文化這個詞彙所指涉的事物還是覺得很晦澀，我並不能很明確掌握他用這個詞指的是怎樣的狀態、觀念、價值或者其他？

然後，如果就後續的發展來看的話，我覺得這本書很好的證明了一個有理想熱情的學者，迫切的想要改變社會使社會變的更好的學者，不一定就真的具有洞見和能力去掌握到那些真的需要被改變的事實，以及改變社會的方法。但不管怎麼說，作為一本對於一九五零和六零年代的美國貧窮問題有初步掌握的書籍來說，這是一本好讀易懂的書了！