後殖民的「自然」知識自覺：［蓋婭╳文本╳潛自然］的搭橋

Postcolonial Awareness of Knowledge about Nature: The Bridging of Gaia, Text, and Latent Nature

面對人類世、資本世與媒體控御等詮釋機制的接踵而生，臺灣表現「自然」之方式，實正面臨思想策略與方法技術之危機。例如：文學僅以文字表現「自然」所面臨數位影音與藝術創作的美學挑戰；以及因「自然／文化」的二分既定性，導致現代社會瀰漫某種乞靈於「人與自然分離」的都市神話。在「自然／文化」二分的歷史語境，「自然」似已變成某種難以喚起政治行動之遁詞，多少人至今依舊僅將「自然」視為風景或地理。
本文立足於後殖民的立場，將分別透過文化翻譯論述與社會符號學質疑「自然」語意，並對「自然」進行「解．建構」的政治批判。本文將持文化翻譯視角，指出不同文類表現「自然」之差異性，再依社會符號學之精神，不帶嘲諷地宣稱：「凝視自然成為了一種都市神話」，並說明解構前的表現「自然」方式，曾如何侷限我們面對氣候變遷與生態問題的生命政治。最後再提出《面對蓋婭》的迴圈式視域，以及「蓋婭×文本×潛自然」對話平台作為回應。僅盼「蓋婭視域的能動者」得見後，文學將更能掌握「書寫自然」的生命政治與權力流動之方式。

In the face of interpretative mechanisms such as the Anthropocene, Capitalocene, and media control, Taiwan’s representation of“nature”is currently experiencing a crisis in ideological strategies and methodological techniques. For example, literature, relying solely on the text to depict“nature,”has increasingly confronted aesthetic challenges posed by the capabilities of digital audiovisual and artistic creation to represent“nature”in alternative ways, and the entrenched dualism of“nature/culture”has led to the pervasive urban myth of“separation of humans from nature”in modern society. Within the historical semantic context of the“nature/ culture”dichotomy,“nature”seems to have evolved into a somewhat elusive term that hinders the mobilization of political action. Many individuals still perceive“nature”merely as a scenic backdrop or geography.
This paper is situated within a postcolonial framework and will engage in the cultural translation discourse and the socio-semiotic interrogation of the semantics of“nature.”It seeks to politically critique“nature”through a process of“deconstruction and reconstruction.”Adopting a cultural translation perspective, the paper highlights the differential representations of“nature”across various literary genres. In accordance with the spirit of socio-semiotics, the paper asserts without irony,“Gazing upon nature has become an urban myth,”elucidating how the pre-deconstruction representations of“nature”have constrained our biopolitics in addressing climate change and ecological issues. Finally, it introduces a cyclical perspective inspired by Facing Gaia and proposes the dialogue platform of“Gaia×text×latent nature”as a response. It is hoped that the“agents of the Gaia perspective,”once informed, will empower literature to better grasp the biopolitics and power dynamics in“writing about nature.”