地面、桌面與顏面：論文明的三個關係介面

The Ground, the Table, and the Face: The Three Interfaces of Civility

這是一篇為了討論中國近年來在各城市推展的「文明城市」運動而作的觀察和書寫。由於這種「觀察」有特定的情緒和障礙，因此作者使用了一種特製的條件限制來進行觀察。在本文中這種條件限制就稱為「關係介面」，而整個書寫方式則稱為「自我俗民誌」─其中的「自我」正是情緒與障礙的來源。關於「文明」的概念，雖然明知在「文明城市」運動中有一定的語意，但仍要拉到Sigmund Freud, Mary Douglas, Nobert Elias等人的高度，從此衍生關於文明如何應從「社會人」、「型態人」、「關係人」的角度來觀看的問題。這篇自我俗民誌是由作者幾度走訪大陸數個城市之時，隨身攜帶的小筆記中記下的一些瑣事為藍本，經過三個「關係介面」的整合而呈現的結果。從「地面」、「桌面」到「顏面」這三個介面的觀察，有一些書寫上的任意性(arbitrariness)，但也有不得不然的苦衷─這是寫到最後的「非人性」、「最後的附筆」乃至到「後記」之時才勉強說出的認同難題，雖然只是點到為止。

This is the writing of an observation about the “civilized-city movement” currently happening in China. The “observation” is not without emotional difficulties. The problem is exactly about a Taiwanese identity of a Chinese. In order to deal with this especially indispensible methodological problem, the author coined some arbitrary categories called “interfaces of relationing,” and it takes the form of a certain kind of autoethnography. “Auto,” which means the self, is obviously what the difficulty stems from. Whether the concept of civility is or is not precisely in the semantics of the “civilized-city movement,” the author determines that its starting points are Sigmund Freud, Mary Douglas, and Nobert Elias’s discourses of civility, and thus sets up the ground of this discourse as the societal being, the typical being and the relational being. This autoethnography is based on the author’s tourist journals written between 2000-2008 during several visits to some Chinese cities. The ground, the table, and the face are but some casual interfaces or frames for keeping the journals, but the problem of identity concerning historical memory is what the author is struggling with