資本主義生產形式的發展，割斷了農業小生產的命脈；
這種小生產正在無法挽救地走向滅亡和衰弱。〔……〕
資本主義的大生產將把他們那無力的過時的小生產壓碎，
正如火車把獨輪車壓碎一樣是毫無問題的。
——恩格斯
小農原則的重要性還表現在，
它代表逃離了我們目前所遭遇的
這種日益全球化的、多維度的農業危機的一種有力方式，
其核心在於堅定地進行生態資本、社會資本和文化資本的重建，
以作為小農農業逐漸賴以創立的主要資源。
——范德普勒格
這是一個兼重知識、批判與實踐的課程，目的在於瞭解全球農糧體制的侷限，展望另類農業實踐的可能。但是有別於一般社會學的課程——在我們看來，「社會學」本身也是必須受到批判的對象。事實上，自19世紀古典社會學誕生以來，基本上大多數社會學家都把「工業化」、「大都會」與「現代性」等現象置於問題意識的核心，追問資本主義對於現代社會的影響。然而，這裡所謂的「現代社會」，幾乎看不到任何的農村、農業與農民，也不存在土地、作物與食物。不得不承認，社會學相當程度上是一門「城市中心」的學科，不但下意識排除了城鄉關係的視野，斬斷了人類與自然的聯繫，無視依附於發達資本主義國家的第三世界，更假設人類根本不必吃喝！彷彿現代人只要掏出銅板，就能立刻在便利商店買到美味的巧克力與熱騰騰的黑咖啡，想吃任何東西，食物自然而然就能夠從廚房端上餐桌。
當然，社會學家並非完全無視農業的存在，但是基本上只是把農村當作城市的鏡像，寄寓著落伍的想像與童年的鄉愁，結果反而疏遠與懸置了真實的農村問題。雷蒙・威廉斯在《鄉村與城市》中精彩指出，近代英格蘭文學中無論是「進步的城市與衰敗的農村」還是「腐敗的城市與美好的農村」，都是受工業化生活刺激而廣泛創造出來的意識形態。這些意識形態不但掩蓋了農村地區（與第三世界）極為多樣與複雜的社會面貌，更誤導了公眾對於「農政問題」（Agrarian Questions）與「食農問題」（Agri-Food Questions）與的理解。這部分說明了為什麼社會學面對食物、農民、農業與農村問題的時候，總是顯得有些欲振乏力，這很有可能是因為社會學長期以來和它的批判對象——資本主義現代社會，都分享了許多共同的特質，同樣疏遠了土地與自然，貶低農業勞動的價值，不再能夠理解食物背後生態紋理、社會關係與文化想像，同樣四體不勤，五穀不分。
本課程希望展示，面對食農與農政等議題，社會學同樣能夠展現出令人驚喜的解釋力與穿透力。但是這裡有一個前提：作為一位社會學的學徒，首先必須恭身自省，卸下原先引以為豪的（現代性的）知識武裝，再一次重新認識與想像這個世界！藉由文本的閱讀、課堂的討論以及田野的實作，本課程希望和同學們一同暫時離開擁擠的現代都會，造訪開闊的鄉村世界，和農民聊天，試著耕作土地，並且藉由食物／農作物這條線索，從新思考自然、個人與社會的關係。結合歷史學、人類學與社會學的視野，我們可以發現全球農糧體制塑造了現代世界（此話不誇張），但也衍生許多難以調和的尖銳矛盾，看似無堅不摧，某個角度來看卻又非常脆弱。正是處於邊陲的鄉村地區，資本主義的邏輯顯得更加清晰與粗暴，但又不是那麼全面與絕對，許多空隙依舊保留許多異質的、多樣的與豐富的地方風貌，與資本主義展開長期的角鬥與拉鋸。另類農業實踐的真實意義，從來不僅僅在於提出控訴，而是希望創造更多有意義的連結，展望更加自由、生態與美味的生活方式。
The development of capitalist production forms has cut off the lifeblood of small agricultural production;
This small production is irretrievably heading towards destruction and decline. […]
Capitalist large-scale production will crush their powerless and outdated small-scale production,
Just as a train crushes a wheelbarrow with no problem.
——Engels
The importance of the small farmer principle is also reflected in:
It represents an escape from what we are currently experiencing
A powerful way to address this increasingly globalized, multidimensional agricultural crisis,
Its core lies in resolutely rebuilding ecological capital, social capital and cultural capital,
As the main resource on which smallholder agriculture was gradually established.
——Vanderpleg
This is a course that combines knowledge, criticism and practice, with the purpose of understanding the limitations of the global agri-food system and looking into the possibilities of alternative agricultural practices. But it is different from general sociology courses - in our view, "sociology" itself must be criticized. In fact, since the birth of classical sociology in the 19th century, most sociologists have basically placed phenomena such as "industrialization", "metropolis" and "modernity" at the core of their problem consciousness, questioning the impact of capitalism on modern society. influence. However, in the so-called "modern society" here, there are almost no villages, agriculture, or farmers, and there are no land, crops, or food. I have to admit that sociology is to a considerable extent a "city-centered" discipline. It not only subconsciously excludes the perspective of urban-rural relations, cuts off the connection between humans and nature, ignores the Third World that is dependent on developed capitalist countries, and also assumes that human beings No need to eat or drink at all! It seems that as long as modern people take out a coin, they can immediately buy delicious chocolate and hot black coffee at a convenience store. If they want to eat anything, the food can naturally be brought to the table from the kitchen.
Of course, sociologists do not completely ignore the existence of agriculture, but they basically regard the countryside as a mirror image of the city, embodying outdated imagination and childhood nostalgia. As a result, they alienate and suspend the real rural issues. Raymond Williams brilliantly pointed out in "Country and City" that in modern English literature, whether it is "progressive cities and declining countryside" or "corrupt cities and beautiful countryside", they are all widely created inspired by industrialized life. The ideology that comes out. These ideologies not only conceal the extremely diverse and complex social landscape of rural areas (and the Third World), but also mislead the public's understanding of "Agrarian Questions" and "Agri-Food Questions" . This partly explains why sociology always seems a little weak when it comes to issues of food, farmers, agriculture, and rural areas. This is most likely because sociology has long been opposed to its target of criticism—capitalist modern society. They all share many common traits. They are also alienated from the land and nature, devaluing the value of agricultural labor. They are no longer able to understand the ecological texture, social relations and cultural imagination behind food. They are also indifferent to the four bodies and the five grains.
This course hopes to show that sociology can also show surprising explanatory and penetrating power when it comes to issues such as food agriculture and agricultural politics. But there is a premise here: as an apprentice of sociology, you must first reflect on yourself, take off the (modern) knowledge you were proud of, and re-understand and imagine the world again! Through text reading, classroom discussions and field practice, this course hopes to temporarily leave the crowded modern city with students, visit the open rural world, chat with farmers, try to cultivate the land, and use food/crops to This clue rethinks the relationship between nature, individuals and society. Combining the perspectives of history, anthropology and sociology, we can find that the global agricultural and food system has shaped the modern world (this is no exaggeration), but it has also given rise to many sharp contradictions that are difficult to reconcile. It seems invincible, but from a certain perspective, it is And very fragile. It is in rural areas on the border that the logic of capitalism appears clearer and rougher, but not so comprehensive and absolute. Many gaps still retain many heterogeneous, diverse and rich local features, and they have launched a long-term struggle with capitalism. Saw. The true meaning of alternative agricultural practices has never been just to make accusations, but to create more meaningful connections and envision a more free, ecological and delicious lifestyle.
台灣農村陣線，2015，《巷仔口的農藝復興：社區協力農業，開創以農為本的美好生活》。台北：果力文化。
安娜・羅文豪普特・秦著，謝夢璇譯，2018，《末日松茸：資本主義廢墟世界中的生活可能》。新北市：八旗文化。
沃爾夫著，賈士蘅譯，2003，《歐洲與沒有歷史的人》。台北：麥田出版。
帕特爾著，葉家興等譯，2009，《糧食戰爭》。台北：高寶國際。
波倫著，鄧子衿譯，2012，《雜食者的兩難：速食、有機和野生動物的自然史》。新北市：大家出版：遠足發行。
恰亞諾夫著，蕭正洪譯，1996，《農民經濟組織》。北京：中央編譯局。
范德普勒格，2013，《新小農階級：帝國和全球化時代為了自主性和可持續性的鬥爭》。北京：社會科學文獻出版社。
恩格斯，1972，〈法德農民問題〉。選自中央編譯局，《馬克思恩格斯選集（第四卷）。北京：人民出版社。
斯科特著，程立顯、劉建譯，2013 《農民的道義經濟學：東南亞的反叛與生存》。南京：譯林出版社。
舒爾茨著，梁小民譯，2009，《改造傳統農業》。北京：商務印書館。
黃樹仁，2002，《心牢：農地農用意識形態與台灣城鄉發展》。台北：巨流。
楊弘任，2014，《社區如何動起來？：黑珍珠之相的派系、在地師傅與社區總體營造》。新北市：群學。
葛伯納著，蘇兆堂譯，1979，《小龍村——蛻變中的台灣農村》。台北：聯經。
霍布斯邦著，蔡宜剛譯，2013，《非凡小人物：反對、造反與爵士樂（下冊）》。台北：麥田，城邦文化。
Taiwan Rural Front, 2015, "Agronomic Renaissance in Xiangzikou: Communities work together in agriculture to create a better life based on agriculture." Taipei: Guoli Culture.
Anna Loewenhaupt Qin, translated by Xie Mengxuan, 2018, "Matsutake at the End of the World: Possible Life in a World of Capitalist Ruin". New Taipei City: Eight Banners Culture.
Wolfe, translated by Jia Shiheng, 2003, "Europe and the People Without History". Taipei: Wheatfield Publishing.
Written by Patel, translated by Ye Jiaxing and others, 2009, "Food War". Taipei: KBA International.
Written by Pollan, translated by Deng Zijin, 2012, "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Fast Food, Organics, and Wild Animals". New Taipei City: Everyone Publishing: Hiking Publishing.
Chayanov, translated by Xiao Zhenghong, 1996, "Peasant Economic Organization". Beijing: Central Translation and Translation Bureau.
Vanderpleg, 2013, The New Peasant Class: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in Ages of Empire and Globalization. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press.
Engels, 1972, "The Peasant Question in France and Germany". Selected from the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, "Selected Works of Marx and Engels (Volume 4)". Beijing: People's Publishing House.
Written by Scott, translated by Cheng Lixian and Liu Jian, 2013 "The Moral Economics of Peasants: Rebellion and Survival in Southeast Asia". Nanjing: Yilin Publishing House.
Schultz, translated by Liang Xiaomin, 2009, "Transforming Traditional Agriculture". Beijing: Commercial Press.
Huang Shuren, 2002, "Heart Prison: Farmland Agricultural Ideology and Taiwan's Urban and Rural Development." Taipei: Juliu.
Yang Hongren, 2014, "How to mobilize communities?" : Black Pearl’s factions, local masters and overall community creation. New Taipei City: Qunxue.
"Xiaolong Village—Rural Taiwan in Transformation" written by Gerbner and translated by Su Zhaotang, 1979. Taipei: Lianjing.
Hobbs Bang, translated by Cai Yigang, 2013, "Extraordinary Little People: Opposition, Rebellion and Jazz (Volume 2)". Taipei: Wheat fields, city-state culture.
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 讀書心得讀書心得 Reading experience |
40 | 請針對本課程指定之四大議題單元（分別涵蓋三至四篇閱讀文本），分別撰寫一篇1400字以上的讀書心得報告，並於指定時間上傳至iLearn網站。應盡力概括文本的核心論點與論述框架（避免流水帳），並且提出獨立的分析與批判。當然，不可抄襲。 |
| 文本導讀文本導讀 Text introduction |
20 | 請同學挑選兩篇閱讀文本，並於當周上課時間進行5至10分鐘的文本導讀。應盡力概括文本的核心論點與論述框架（避免流水帳），提出問題與挑戰，或是分享衍生相關議題。 |
| 期末田野報告期末田野報告 Final field report |
20 | 對本學期的閱讀、討論與田野，撰寫3000字以上的田野期末報告。應注重個人的體會與收穫，尤其是參與課程討論與田野實作的反思。不必進行專題研究，也不一定要有清楚的結論。很多時候，光是提出一個重要的問題，也很有意義。 |
| 平時分數平時分數 usual scores |
20 | 課程出席、參與與態度的綜合評比。 |
