劉克襄《野狗之丘》的動保意義初探：以德希達之動物觀為參照起點

Animal Advocacy in Ka-Shiang Liu's Hill of Stray Dogs: Jacques Derrida's Animal Concern as a Point of Departure

論及台灣當代的自然書寫，就不可不提劉克襄這位相當具有代表性的作家。他長期關注於生態觀察，早期書寫的對象雖以鳥類為主，但其實大至鯨魚小至昆蟲，都曾成為他作品中的關懷焦點。劉克襄最新的一部小說《野狗之丘》則改寫自他的野狗觀察筆記，一方面從動物行為學的觀點，描寫野狗的交配或覓食等行為，另一方面，也讓野狗道出自己的心聲，甚至還分析牠們的潛意識。值得注意的是，劉克襄並非只是在實驗一種動物寫作的可能性，當他不惜冒著「化人主義」的批判，以擬人化口吻書寫野狗時，其實也賦予了這部作品更深一層的動保意義：他之所以試著從動物角度揣想其心靈，是因為企圖以「反人類中心」的角度與動物溝通、聆聽牠們的聲音，以便將這種聲音傳遞給更多讀者，讓在都市中長期被污名化的野狗多一絲被包容的希望。為彰顯《野狗之丘》的動保意義，本文將以法國哲學家德希達的動物觀為參照之起點，並援引其他相關之動物論述來檢視劉克襄的作品，以期深入思考作家對於野狗的描寫如何讓動物為自己發聲、進而引領讀者重新思考野狗與人的關係。德希達對於傳統哲學最大的不滿，在於其預設動物沒有論理、溝通、哀悼等能力。本文將說明劉克襄的作品如何呼應了德希達對傳統哲學的解構，批判了人類中心的論述，並成功地提供了一種回應動物他者的方式。另一方面，德希達曾以被貓看到自己的裸體會感到羞愧、且又會因這種羞愧而羞愧的心情為例，說明將動物視為觀看的他者，可以如何啟發人對於自身身份的思考，但這種「被動物看到」的經驗與心情，在劉克襄的作品中則較匱乏。換句話說，劉克襄雖然將野狗視為觀看的他者，凸顯牠們彼此觀看以及觀看人類的種種經驗，但作者自己或社區周遭的人與野狗間的眼神交會，在書中則不得見。本論文因此也將談及，這個面向的缺乏對於劉克襄的動物觀有什麼樣的影響、又是否造成了作品的某些不足之處。

Continually devoting himself to ecology observation and incessantly writing about various kinds of animals, Ka-Shiang Liu plays a vital role in contemporary Taiwan's nature writing. His recent work, The Hill of Stray Dogs, is a novella in memory of the dogs that were killed in the stray dog eradication program enforced by Taipei City Government. In this novella, Liu does not confine himself to describing stray dogs' behavior from the ethological perspective. He also speaks for them by unearthing their thoughts and even their unconscious. Liu's mode of writing brings us to the controversy concerning whether animal writers are justified in endowing non-human animals with a voice of their own. In this paper, I argue that The Hill of Stray Dogs, instead of uncritically underwriting anthropomorphism, aims at criticizing anthropocentric prejudice. Liu's involvement with animal protection will be thrown into relief once we bring Jacques Derrida's theoretical dealings of animals in dialogue with Liu's novella. Derrida has contended that the animal-other still has the power to 〞manifest to me in some way its experience of my language〞 (2002: 387, original emphases), even though they cannot speak human language. Moreover, he questions whether we can deny non-human animals' abilities, such as mourning, pretending, suffering, as traditional philosophers do. I therefore maintain that Derrida's animal concern finds a loud echo in The Hill of Stray Dogs. In addition to drawing on Derrida's theory, I will resort to Martha C. Nussbaum's appeal for animal flourishing, Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert's advocacy of human-animal geographical co-existence, among others, to demonstrate how Liu's anti-anthropocentric stance is justified. However, while Liu vividly describes the exchanges between strays as well as their gazes at one another, in contrast to Derrida's emphasis on the experience of being looked at by the animal, he fails to portray how humans feel about being seen by strays. I thus conclude that if Liu did not shun depictions of how strays may look at human beings, he might address the human-animal relations in a more enlightening way. For the answer to the question concerning 〞who I am,〞 as Derrida asserts, actually lies in 〞the animal that I therefore follow after〞 (l'animal que donc je suis (á suivre)).