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。」
While writing a essay, I changed the research topic because of various erratic errors and suddenly entered the vigorous and lively country world, and I was so confused that I couldn't extricate myself. Urban children can easily find many values that modern life has long lost in the country society: escaping from the city and opening up the country makes me feel free, every farmer has his own face and story, and the sturdy human feelings often make me feel inexplicably moved. However, as a graduate student who is eager to write a essay, I feel very panicked: most of the theoretical training provided by the Institute of Social Sciences, such as Marx, Veber, Tu Ertan, Fu Ke, etc., seem to have no way to help us understand the unique situation of Taiwanese farmers. Later I gradually realized that it was in this borderline land of modern capitalism, in the East Asian countryside, which could not be traced to the subtle historical traces, that the research pattern of "Western Centerism" must encounter the most serious challenges. As Teacher Gao Chengshu reminded us, we should not project our problem awareness too quickly on the research object. Instead, we should slow down and try to understand the daily life of the rural areas, and to help the farmers' joys and sorrows. We can explore truly intentional local issues from a larger "civilized" vision and imagination. In a different sentence, if you want to understand Taiwanese farming, you must step out of the traditional pattern of Western social science and develop social thinking along the local life of farmers. So, the scenery is completely different. I realized that agriculture can be such a profound social academic topic!
This course trial develops from a larger vision of world civilization and explores the relationship between agriculture and society. It is hard to say that for a long time, society has had a deeply rooted "industrial center" thinking (or "urban center", no matter what you say), and often regard agriculture as a more minor or additional question. However, if we seriously look at society from a "holistic" perspective, we will find the ancient evidence of cities and villages, and we have determined the basic structure of a society since the beginning of human civilization. This was the case in the past, and so is today. As long as you discover a little social imagination, you can understand how to maintain the requirements and special tastes of a city’s three meals a day and how it is related to capital! And behind this system, what is the broad and silent country world? Isn’t the so-called social insight lies in trying to penetrate this “behind” and try to see a deeper “structure”?
There are many relationships between agriculture and society. In our time, capitalism connects cities and villages in almost the entire world with its unelastic and strong touch. Some theorists think this means the arrival of "modernization", "industrial era" or "globalization era", but this is not the whole story. Looking at the country from the perspective of the city and understanding the city from the perspective of the country is a completely different landscape. In this regard, this course has a plan to re-understand the “capitalism” on the “belt of capitalism”. However, who said that "agricultural industry" must be the edge? Looking back at the history of capitalist development, from spice process trade, glutinous scent bubble, colonial gardens, bulk grain trade, futures market to food industry, which one does not challenge the sensitive nerves of capitalists? What about leaving the special historical changes since the feudal garden system in Western Europe, and how to explain the industrial revolution, let alone how to understand the problem-solving ideas of the entire Western classical theory! After that, if we try to return to East Asia, what kind of breakthroughs and reflections may be brought by agricultural society?
"Agriculture" as a method can help us re-understand human society. Agricultural industry involves the relationship between man and nature, and more about the relationship between man, the relationship between man and society, and the relationship between society and society. Agricultural industry is reality, culture, and even more structure. Villages and cities jointly participate in shaping a civilization. Agricultural industry is the foundation of every society, even if it is rarely captured by social science. Agricultural industry is an imagination (how do you imagine agriculture?). More importantly, in the face of the urban problem that is difficult to deal with modernity (or postmodernity), how new developments and imaginations may be brought to agricultural society? I still like Bullardel's passage: "Can't world history be compared to a river without sides, headlessness? This metaphor is not just right: world history is not a river, but a few 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。
By Fernan Bulder, Shi Kangqiang, Good Religion, 2015, "Material Civilization, Economy and Capital Theory of the 15th to 18th Century (Volume 1: The Structure of Daily Life: Possible and Impossible). New Taipei City: publication in the publication; distant cultural distribution.
Fei Xiaotong, 2013, "County China". Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.
Hu Muqing, 2015, "Clay: Baby, a simple history of people and land". New Taipei City: Published by Wucheng.
By McPoron, Dunny Zijin, 2012, "Two Difficulties of Dieters: Natural History of Fast Food, Organic and Wild Food". New Taipei City: Everyone publishes; far-reaching cultural distribution.
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 課堂導讀課堂導讀 Classroom Advisor |
30 | 每位同學應認領2至3三週導讀（視修課同學數量而定），進行3至5分鐘個人口頭簡報（毋須製作投影片），介紹指定文本核心論點要旨並且試著提出個人獨立見解。 |
| 讀書心得讀書心得 Reading experience |
20 | 每位同學應針對本課程指定4本教材撰寫4篇讀書心得（1頁以上），並於指定時間內上傳至教學平台。毋須進行文本摘要或堆砌資料，請直接抒發個人閱讀該書之後的學習、體會與批判。 |
| 學期心得報告學期心得報告 Study experience report |
40 | 每1至4位同學為一組，任選一個本課程相關主題撰寫一份學期心得報告（4頁以上），上傳至教學平台。請嘗試提出社會學分析與獨立見解，不可堆砌資料，更不可抄襲。內容包含田野調查或深度訪談者加分。評分標準將同時考量小組成員數量與報告品質。 |
| 平時分數平時分數 Regularity |
10 | 課堂出席、參與以及學習表現的綜合評比。本學期將進行四次隨機點名（不包括校外參訪的點名），不接受事後補假。 |
