還在寫碩士論文的時候，我因為各種陰錯陽差而改變了研究主題，一下子捲入生猛活潑的鄉村世界，從此迷戀不能自拔。都市小孩很容易在鄉土社會中找到許多現代生活早已遺失的價值：逃離城市，開闊的鄉間讓我感覺自由，每位農民都有自己的面孔和故事，濃郁的人情味常令我感動莫名。可是，作為一位急著寫論文的研究生，我感到非常恐慌：絕大多數社會學研究所提供的理論訓練，所謂馬克思、韋伯、涂爾幹、傅柯等等……，似乎都沒有辦法協助我們瞭解台灣農民的獨特處境。後來我才逐漸明白，正是在這現代資本主義的邊緣地帶，在這綿延不盡歷史幽微痕跡的東亞鄉村，「西方中心主義」的研究範式必然遭遇最嚴重的挑戰。如同高承恕老師的提醒，我們不應太快把自己的問題意識投射在研究對象上，反而應該放慢步調，嘗試瞭解農村的日常生活，體會農民的歡喜悲愁，盡可能從一個更大的「文明」視野與想像，來發掘真正有意義的在地議題。換句話說，如果希望瞭解台灣農村，就必須走出西方社會學傳統的格局，沿著農民在地生活展開社會學思考。於是，風景整個不同了。我才認識到，農業原來可以是這麼深刻的社會學議題！

本課程試圖從一個更大的世界文明視野出發，探索農業與社會的關係。不可諱言的是，社會學長久以來存在根深蒂固的「工業中心」思維（或「都市中心」，不管你怎麼說），往往把農業當作比較次要或補充的議題。然而，如果我們認真用「整體」的眼光看待社會，就會發現城市與鄉村的古老辯證，自人類文明伊始就決定著一個社會的基本結構。過去如此，今日亦然。只要發揮一點點社會學想像力，就能瞭解若要維持一座城市龐大人口每日三餐的要求及其特殊品味，背後將是一個怎樣權力與資本交織的複雜食物供應體系！而這個體系背後，又是怎樣廣闊又沈默的鄉村世界？所謂社會學的洞察力，不就在於努力穿透這個「背後」，嘗試看見更深刻的「結構」嗎？

農業與社會的關係，是非常多樣的。在我們的時代，資本主義以其無比靈活又強勢的觸角，串聯起幾乎整個世界的城市與鄉村。有些理論家以為這意味著「現代化」、「工業時代」或「全球化時代」的來臨，但是這並非故事的全部。從城市的角度看待鄉村，以及從鄉村的角度理解城市，完全是不一樣的景觀。就這點而言，本課程確實懷有「在『資本主義的邊緣地帶』重新理解『資本主義』」的企圖。然而誰說「農業」一定就是邊緣呢？回顧資本主義發展的歷史，從香料長程貿易、鬱金香泡沫、殖民地莊園、大宗穀物貿易、期貨市場到食品工業，哪一個不挑動資本家的敏感神經？更何況離開西歐封建莊園體制以來的特殊歷史變遷，又要如何解釋工業革命，更遑論如何理解整個西方古典理論的問題意識！在那之後，假如試著返回東亞，我們熟悉的家園，農業社會學又可能帶來怎樣的突破與反思？

「農業」作為一種方法，可以幫助我們重新認識人類社會。農業涉及人與自然的關係，更涉及人與人的關係，人與社會的關係，以及社會與社會的關係。農業是實踐，是文化，更是結構。鄉村與城市共同參與塑造了一個文明的面貌，農業是每一個社會的基礎構造，即便很少被社會科學捕捉到。農業是一種想像力（你如何想像農業？）。更重要的是，面對現代性（或後現代性）積重難反的都市問題，農業社會學可能帶來怎樣新的啟發與想像？我還是很喜歡布勞岱爾這段話：「不是可以把世界史比作一條無邊無際、無頭無尾的河流嗎？這個比喻還不夠恰當：世界史不是一條河流，而是幾條河流。」

When I was still writing my master's thesis, due to various circumstances, I changed the research topic and was suddenly involved in the lively and lively rural world. From then on, I couldn't extricate myself from my fascination. It is easy for urban children to find many values ​​that have long been lost in modern life in rural society: escaping from the city, the open countryside makes me feel free, each farmer has his own face and story, and the rich human touch often moves me inexplicably. However, as a graduate student who is eager to write a thesis, I feel very panic: the theoretical training provided by most sociological research institutes, such as Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Foucault, etc., seems to be unable to help us understand the unique situation of Taiwanese farmers. Later, I gradually understood that it was in this fringe area of ​​modern capitalism, in this East Asian countryside with endless traces of history, that the "Western-centrism" research paradigm would inevitably encounter the most serious challenge. As teacher Gao Chengshu reminds us, we should not be too quick to project our own problem consciousness on the research object. Instead, we should slow down, try to understand the daily life in rural areas, experience the joys and sorrows of farmers, and try our best to explore truly meaningful local issues from a larger "civilized" perspective and imagination. In other words, if you want to understand Taiwan’s rural areas, you must step out of the traditional Western sociological pattern and start sociological thinking along the lines of farmers’ local lives. As a result, the scenery was completely different. I just realized that agriculture can be such a profound sociological issue!

This course attempts to explore the relationship between agriculture and society from a larger perspective of world civilization. It cannot be denied that sociology has long had a deep-rooted "industrial center" mentality (or "urban center", no matter how you call it), often treating agriculture as a secondary or supplementary issue. However, if we seriously look at society from a "holistic" perspective, we will find that the ancient dialectic between city and country has determined the basic structure of a society since the beginning of human civilization. It was true in the past and it is true today. As long as you use a little sociological imagination, you can understand what kind of complex food supply system intertwined with power and capital will be behind the requirements and special tastes of a huge population in a city for three meals a day! And what kind of vast and silent rural world is behind this system? Doesn’t the so-called sociological insight consist in trying to penetrate this “behind” and try to see a deeper “structure”?

The relationship between agriculture and society is very diverse. In our era, capitalism, with its extremely flexible and powerful tentacles, connects cities and villages in almost the entire world. Some theorists believe that this means the advent of "modernization," the "industrial age," or the "globalization era," but this is not the whole story. Looking at the countryside from the perspective of the city and understanding the city from the perspective of the countryside are completely different landscapes. In this regard, this course does have the intention of "reunderstanding "capitalism" in the "marginal zone of capitalism"". However, who said that "agriculture" must be marginal? Looking back at the history of the development of capitalism, from the long-distance spice trade, the tulip bubble, colonial estates, bulk grain trade, futures markets to the food industry, which one does not arouse the sensitive nerves of capitalists? What's more, how to explain the industrial revolution due to the special historical changes since the departure from the feudal manor system in Western Europe, let alone how to understand the problem consciousness of the entire Western classical theory! After that, if we try to return to East Asia, our familiar homeland, what kind of breakthroughs and reflections can agricultural sociology bring?

"Agriculture" as a method can help us re-understand human society. Agriculture involves the relationship between people and nature, but also the relationship between people, the relationship between people and society, and the relationship between society and society. Agriculture is practice, culture, and structure. Rural areas and cities jointly shape the face of a civilization, and agriculture is the basic structure of every society, even if it is rarely captured by social science. Farming is a matter of imagination (how do you imagine farming?). More importantly, in the face of the long-standing urban problems of modernity (or postmodernity), what new inspirations and imaginations can agricultural sociology bring? I still like Braudel’s words: “Can’t world history be compared to an endless river with no beginning and no tail? This metaphor is not appropriate enough: world history is not one river, but several rivers.”

費爾南・布勞岱爾著，施康強、顧良譯，2015，《15至18世紀的物質文明、經濟與資本主義（卷一：日常生活的結構：可能和不可能）》。新北市：廣場出版；遠足文化發行。

費孝通，2013，《鄉土中國》。上海：上海人民出版社。

胡慕晴，2015，《黏土：灣寶，一段人與土地的簡史》。新北市：衛城出版。

麥可・波倫著，鄧子衿譯，2012，《雜食者的兩難：速食、有機和野生食物的自然史》。新北市：大家出版；遠足文化發行。

Written by Fernand Braudel, translated by Shi Kangqiang and Gu Liang, 2015, "Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism from the 15th to the 18th Centuries (Volume 1: The Structure of Daily Life: Possibility and Impossibility)". New Taipei City: Plaza Publishing; Hiking Culture Publishing.

Fei Xiaotong, 2013, "Country China". Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.

Hu Muqing, 2015, "Clay: Bay Treasure, a Brief History of People and Land". New Taipei City: Acropolis Publishing.

Written by Michael Pollan, translated by Deng Zijin, 2012, "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Fast, Organic, and Wild Foods." New Taipei City: Everyone Publishing; Hiking Culture Publishing.