與「亞洲性」重逢—亞洲中心論作為「文化胎記」的想像與實踐
To Re-encounter with “Asianness”—Asia Centrism as Imagination and Practice of “Cultural Birthmark”

張惠嵐

本文旨在探索在面對西方傳播霸權底下，另類的知識建成如何可能？以「去
西化」研究的討論為開端，經由揭示德國哲學家 Karl-Otto Apel 與德國社會學者
Jurgen Habermas 提出，人類知識構成興趣的三種不同類型，說明東、西方本於
知識旨趣理解的殊異，各自發展不同目的的傳播研究。本文依此認為，亞洲中心
論應理解，整體的傳播環境是一共相依存的知識生態，並兼顧知識構成的「溝通
與瞭解的興趣」以及「解放的興趣」。如此，才能真正地使更多在地文化的傳播
取徑與西方傳播並駕齊驅，滲透為傳播思想體系的一部分。文末，本文將提出「文
化胎記」的概念，強調邁向多元的文化中心論，超越文化特殊性與文化普同性的
論辯。

This essay aims at exploration of the methods to constitute knowledge of
otherness upon facing western communication hegemony. To begin with probing into
“De-Westernizing” communication researches, German philosopher Karl-Otto Apel
and Germen sociologist Jurgen Habermas proposed three types of human knowledge
construction interest to illustrate the differences between western and eastern
knowledge-constitutive interests leading to different kinds of communication with
various purposes. Accordingly, this article holds the belief that it should be
comprehended that, for Asia centrism, the communication environment as a whole is a
coexistent knowledge ecology, “interest of communication and understanding,” and
“emancipatory interest;” namely, the only way to make local culture keep pace with
western communication and permeate into the communication ideology. At the end of
this paper, the concept of “cultural birthmark” is addressed to emphasize the
diversified culture centrism exceeding beyond the debates over culture-specificity and
culture-generality.

互為主體、中庸之道、文化胎記、亞洲中心論、歐美中心論。

Asia centrism, U.S. Eurocentrism, cultural birthmark, intersubjective , the middle way

2012.07.07

已授權

張惠嵐_全文_與「亞洲性」重逢—亞洲中心論作為「文化胎記」的想像與實踐.pdf