李亦園與臺灣早期人類學：時代和學術的激盪與對話

Li, Yih-yuan and Taiwanese Anthropology (1950s-1980s): The Dialogicality between Academia and Its Times

李亦園（1931-2017）是臺灣培養出來的第一代人類學家，身兼學者、學術行政領導、教學和公共知識份子等多重角色，他的人類學視野，因之牽動著臺灣人類學的發展。本文即是以李亦園的人類學生涯做為觀看視點，以之照見臺灣早期的人類學脈動，特別是1950～1980的臺灣人類學。人類學向以「土著觀點」、「當地知識」或「主位立場」為主要訴求，故而本文亦嘗試建構李亦園自身的「主位觀點」，並以此觀照他豐富多元的人類學生涯。
本文將以李亦園的三類著述為主要素材：(1)學術論著、隨筆、口述史和媒體訪談；(2)未公開發表的《大事記》；(3)李亦園對其他人類學家的評述，特別是凌純聲和陳奇祿兩位人類學院士。其中，尤以第三類著述對於建構李亦園的主位觀點別具啟發。蓋「評述」映射的既是被評述對象之所作為，更是評述者的「視事觀點」；再者，由於李亦園和他所評述的對象分屬不同世代，他的視事觀點也因此標誌了學者與時代之間的「對話」――既是李亦園如何透過時代的眼睛，觀看他所評述的對象，也是李亦園對於他所身處之時代的回應與對話，這些評述因之呈現了李亦園的主位視點，同時亦是我們觀照李亦園之於臺灣人類學發展的探照燈。
在主位視點的探照下，本文析釐出李亦園的四種學術力：開創力、器識力、領導培力，和知識普及力；文末更指出探照燈之外的第五種學術力：尊師傳薪。這些學術力不僅標誌著李亦園個人的人類學生涯，更照見時代的思潮與契機，從而映照臺灣人類學早期的發展歷程。

Academician Li, Yih-yuan (1931-2017) was of the first generation of anthropologists trained in Taiwan. The many roles he played in research, teaching, academic administration, and being a public intellectual speak to his passion for anthropology, and his influence on the development of the field in Taiwan. This article uses Li, Yih-yuan’s career to explore the early development of Taiwanese anthropology, focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s. Given that anthropology aims to understand“the native’s point of view,”“local knowledge,”or“the emic standpoint,”this article also seeks to reconstruct Li's own perspectives on the aspirations of an anthropologist, shedding light on his career and contributions.
The article examines three genres of Li’s writings: (1) academic and non-academic publications, oral histories, and media interviews, (2) unpublished journals, especially his“Journal of Major Events”(dashi ji), and (3) his commentaries on two esteemed Taiwanese anthropologists, Ling, Shun-sheng (1900-1981) and Chen, Chi-lu (1923-2014). The third genre is particularly insightful, as Li’s reflections on these two scholars reveal not only“what is seen”but also the“perspectives taken.”Li’s portrayal of these distinguished figures provides a lens through which he articulated his vision of an ideal anthropologist. Moreover, since Ling and Chen belonged to different generations than Li, his commentaries also reflect the dialogical nature of academic evolution—how Li viewed these scholars through the lens of his time and how he engaged with the academic landscape of his own era. By emphasizing this dialogical relationship, Li’s perspectives on these academicians offer valuable insights into his anthropology career and the development of Taiwanese anthropology before the mid-1980s—a period after which his administrative duties took precedence over research.
Through Li’s perspectives, four key scholarly contributions emerge: (1) pioneering work, (2) broad vision, (3) leadership, and (4) the promotion of public anthropology. As a pioneer, Li was the first Taiwanese anthropologist to focus on cultural change and introduce theoretical frameworks (especially functionalism, culture-and-personality theories) into his analyses in the early 1960s. At that time, most anthropological research in Taiwan was“salvage anthropology”documenting the disappearing traditions of Indigenous peoples, relying heavily on elder interviews and producing descriptive rather than analytical reports. Li also broke new ground as the first Taiwanese anthropologist to conduct fieldwork overseas, particularly in Southeast Asia, starting in 1962. His broad vision was evident in his leadership in comparative analysis and interdisciplinary research, which began in the 1960s and demonstrated his commitment to transcending ethnic and disciplinary boundaries for cultural analysis. Li’s leadership was further reflected in his efforts to mentor a new generation of scholars focused on Han Chinese society, Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples, and folk religions. Thanks to his introduction of social science methods into the study of religion and folk culture, these areas were finally recognized as serious academic subjects in the 1980s. Finally, Li was a prolific writer of popular essays for newspapers and semi-academic journals, introducing anthropology to the general public from the 1960s onward—an achievement unmatched by any other anthropologist in Taiwan, even today. In conclusion, the article also highlights another of Li’s scholarly virtues that extends beyond his commentaries on his predecessors: his deep respect for teachers and his care for students, which exemplifies his dedication to honoring and advancing the scholarly tradition he cherished.
An individual’s scholarly vision is inevitably shaped by the intellectual environment in which they are nurtured. The scholarly contributions discussed in this article illuminate not only Li, Yih-yuan’s characteristics and career as an anthropologist but also his interactions with the academic community of his time. It is through this dialogical relationship between academia and its historical context that we can better understand the early history of Taiwanese anthropology.