中國麻風病治理的科學主義與政治儀式

Chinese Scientism and Political Rituals in Leprosy Control

本文試圖透過科學主義與政治動員的角度，來理解中國為何能在短暫的二十五年間，經歷門戶閉鎖政策、且經濟發展落後，卻在龐大的領土中成功地控制住年代久遠的麻風病？馬克思唯物論式的科學主義發展目標是現代中國的建國大綱。在此種意識型態下的科學客觀性，有效壓抑個人的主體性與主觀感受。在此種科學主義的實踐過程中，個體既被無機體化，又透過政治儀式被召喚其能動性，以強化對官方意識型態的信仰與實作。麻風防治則是這場建國大業中的一個公衛指標。整個國家就在這種科學主義的政治動員下，進行了一場大規模的追逐細菌與病人的衛生運動。其中充滿了對科學的信念與迷思、儀式性的道德規勸、污名恐慌。這些複雜且時而自相矛盾的現象，構築了當代中國麻風防治的形貌與內裏。中國麻風防治的例子讓我們看到，生物醫療科技的有效性常被誇大，而人與其他抽象象徵因素卻常被低估。在防疫過程中，非關科學的理念與情緒，可能才是疾病治理成功或失敗的重要關鍵。

This article examines why and how China achieved an internationally acclaimed success in leprosy control within 25 years when this gigantic country was undergoing the close-door policy and was economically underdeveloped during its collectivization era (1950s - early 1980s). By viewing Marxist scientism as the national ethos in contemporary China’s nation-building, this article reveals how the so-called scientific objectivity suppressed the involved individuals’ subjectivities and emotions throughout the disease control campaign. However, in the meantime, those objectified individuals were mobilized to express their agency in internalizing and strengthening their beliefs and practices under the state-sanctioned ideological rubric. Leprosy was on the newly established socialist China's priority list of epidemics to be eliminated. The state engaged in this grand hygienic campaign in which state agents were mobilized to hunt for germs and their victims, all in the name of scientism and patriotism. This grand campaign was full of beliefs and myths surrounding science, ritualized moral persuasion and stigma, all of which were complicated and sometimes paradoxical in nature and constituted the fabric of China’s leprosy control during the collectivization era. The case of China’s leprosy control illustrates the fact that in evaluating disease control, we often emphasize the scientific achievement over the symbolic forces of human actors and their perceived values. This article sheds light on the non-scientific ideals and emotions in disease control that might have been the more critical factors in determining the success or failure of disease governance than we previously thought.