食物冷熱系統、體驗與人類學研究：慈溪道場個案研究的意義

Hot and Cold Food Classification, Bodily Experience, and Anthropological Studies:Implicatious of Ci-xi Case Study

本篇文章企圖從一個人類學的老研究課題－－食物冷熱系統－－切入，並以筆者進行中的民族誌個案研究做為例子，來探討「體驗」的資料做為人類學之研究主題的意義。筆者強調，從身體主體性出發的體驗－－如食物冷熱的效應－－是人類學民族誌研究不能忽略的一部份，過去人類學對食物冷熱系統研究常從食物的詞彙及分類入手，企圖從語言背後結構性的體系，來分析食物冷熱的分類如何位於文化認知系統的脈絡，並以此來說明食物冷熱的分類與實踐之所以存在，乃文化（或文化的成員）如此認知的結果。筆者認為這種研究的角度混淆了兩個層次的資料：（1）文化成員的「體驗」與經由體驗建構出來的觀念；及（2）此觀念進一步形成的認知模式與知識體系。而此種跳過體驗，直接研究認知的方式，乃是從第二個層次入手，來解釋第一個層次的形成，其結果一方面使得採取認知角度的研究，忽略研究對象的內在經驗所顯示的文化意義，另一方面，亦否定文化成員會以體驗為基礎，進而發展為文化認知模式之可能。

The author re-examines the anthropological research question of hot andcold food systems. Using data from an ethnographic case study, the significanceof bodily experience as an anthropological research topic is discussed, with theemphasis that ehnographic studies should not neglect 'body subjectivity.' Areview of past research on the topic reveals a strong concern for foodclassification in arguments that the hot/cold food system is embedded within abroader context of a cultural cognitive system. In addition, several researchershave asserted that this particular cultural order and practice exists because we(i.e. members of a culture) give it life. The article argues that this kind ofapproach confuses two levels of data:1)concepts that are formed based on thebodily experiences of group members, and 2)the construction of cognitive modelsand cultural knowledge that extends from these concepts. Bypassing experience tostudy cognition means that second-level data is being used to explain theformation of the first. As a result, the significance of inner bodilyexperiences may be ignored, and the possibility that group members base theconstruction of cognitive models on bodily experiences is denied.