参考文献

• Poulantzas, Nicos.Fascism and Dictatorship: the Third International and the problem of Fascism.New Left Books, 1974.

I study liars. I've never seen one like Donald Trump.

I study liars. I've never seen one like Donald Trump. Bella DePaulo Donald Trump's lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people's.

I study liars. I've never seen one like Donald Trump.

心理學對於很多人來說是很神秘的，每次被問到「你知道我現在在想什麼嘛？」真真地無力吐槽。所以，本期就給大家推薦10部心理學電影，你可以邊看邊學，看看心理學到底有哪些門門道道，輕輕鬆鬆入門來。1、《地球上的星星》豆瓣評分：9.

來源/壹心理那些關於精神病的電影盤點，也許瘋的不是我們，可能是這個世界。21克保羅，一位大學數學教授，患有嚴重的心臟病，生命垂危，幸運的是，成功的心臟移植手術使他死裡逃生，可是，他和妻子的關係並沒有因此而重獲新生。

電影迷是中國最大影迷社群 第一資深影迷自媒體點擊題目下方藍字關注 電影迷接上文。上次介紹了電影中的精神病患者，主要包括多重人格、社交恐懼症和抑鬱症三種，接下來準備介紹一下精神分裂症以及強迫症。

提到「多重人格」，相信很多人聽過這個詞。這個心理學元素是懸疑編劇最愛用的套路了，有大家非常熟悉的《致命ID》《搏擊俱樂部》《禁閉島》等。電影《搏擊俱樂部》劇照1）什麼是多重人格？多重人格具有超過一個（若是2個則稱為雙重人格）的人格存在，就有如「在一個身體里住著好幾個靈魂」。

高智商電影的類型有不少，推理、驚悚、科幻等都是不錯的題材，其中有一種類型影片非常多，這就是精神病類型，這種電影確實深奧，但是看到最後你才發現主角就是個精神病。

話說，這個時代是怎麼搞的？好像沒點精神病都不好意思出來混。沒點抑鬱症不好意思說自己是文藝青年，三不五時感傷感傷，沒事思考一下人生大道理，再感嘆一下人生到底有什麼意義，就能抓著閨密基友說，我好像得了抑鬱症了。

很多懸疑電影通過層層的轉折來引導觀眾進入導演所布局的世界，因此這樣的電影具有很強的代入感，並且隨著邏輯推演的進行，我們自己也有了自己對電影的推測，而當劇情的走向出乎我們意料但是仔細想想又合乎情理，大叫臥槽好厲害的時候，便是這部電影的高潮所在。

不管你是在實習、學車、還是宅在家，這個暑假都已經接近尾聲。新學期將至，看幾部好看又燒腦的高智商片子提提神吧。非常嫌疑犯 豆瓣評分：8.6這是1995年出品的一部美國新黑色電影。影片主要圍繞外號「Verbal」的騙子羅傑·金特接受警方訊問展開。

多重人格症：是指一個人同時具有兩種或多種非常不同的人格。此類患者行為的差異無法以常人在不同場合，不同角色的不同行為來解釋，好像是完全不同的人，每個人格有其個別的姓名，記憶，特質及行為方式。通常原來的人格並不知曉另一個人格的存在，而新出現的人格則對原來的人格有相當的了解。

有些電影一看名字就被深深地吸引了，而有些電影看一眼名字就不想再看了，所以說給電影取名字也是一門學問。正是因為這樣，很多優秀影片因為名字的不起眼，被觀眾們拒之門外。1.《三傻大鬧寶萊塢》(2009) 印度簡單生活，遵從心聲，為自己而活。

作者邓晓芒｜节选自《做一个有反省精神的中国人》｜原载《社会科学论坛》2017年第9期

我与刘小枫的根本分歧，我觉得是他后期说的很多话不真实，我跟他没有很多的交往。前期，我很欣赏他，特别是他跟蒋庆的那种分歧，他跟蒋庆其实也是好朋友、同窗、同门，但蒋庆后来转向国学，而且是那样的一种国学，纯粹政治化的东西，我们有时开会，他老是讽刺蒋庆。他很聪明的，一句话说出来，觉得就是我们的心里话，所以我是很欣赏他的。他早期的一些著作我也很看好，如《诗化哲学》、《拯救与逍遥》。

但到了《拯救与逍遥》，我已经开始有些不太同意了，我准备与他讨论一番的，后来没进行，主要是自己也忙，再加上他那个东西很大，要从头说起，不是一两句可以说清楚的。再后来，越来越觉得他走向另一条路了。当时，就是萌萌还在的时候，我们还是在一条战线上的，不单是交情上，而且在学术上，在思想上，还都是同道。

记得当时萌萌发起读毛姆的《月亮与六便士》，要求我们每人要写一篇评论，最后就我写了一篇，周国平写了一篇，他们也都答应了，但后来都没写，也是很遗憾的事。当然各人有各人的事情。所以当年其实都是朋友，刘小枫也是。

后来刘小枫有很多转向，又到基督教，基督教也可以，基督教的精神，不管他信不信宗教，是不是真正的基督徒，这个我不管，人家说他是文化基督徒，这没关系，只要他把基督教的精神传过来，也不错。虽然我不信基督教，但我觉得基督教的精神可以弥补中国文化中的很多东西，虽然对刘小枫的介绍有些不敢苟同，就是他那种用中国文人的心情去体会基督教的爱，这个我不太赞同。

基督教有很多种，天主教可能跟他更合拍一些，但是新教不是那么黏糊的，刘小枫是很黏糊的。但是我觉得这个都还可以理解，都没有什么，而且很可爱。最不能容忍的就是他2012/2013年的国父论，当然他也有前面的铺垫，从廖平、康有为，卡尔施密特，列奥斯特劳斯，特别是施密特，这种完全政治化甚至是法西斯的东西，只讲分清敌我，不讲是非对错，这不是一个学者应该关注的事情，我觉得他有点走偏了，也可能文人的劣根性，他就带有文人气质。

文人气质在我的语汇里不是一个褒义词，中国人的劣根性在文人气质里表现的非常透彻，就是这种自作多情和自以为纯洁。

但是他早年我都还可以理解，也还欣赏，《拯救与逍遥》我非常欣赏，这几个概念抓得非常准，他凭感觉能抓住西方的拯救和中国的逍遥，非常准，几个字就概括了，我觉得他感觉特别准。还有他发表的一些文章，有些我都很欣赏。但他对鲁迅的那种批评，我是不能接受的。鲁迅对文人的批评恰好走出中国文人情结中的一个标志。

鲁迅是很看不起文人的，他不认为自己是一个文人，我也有同感，我对鲁迅是很认同的，但他对鲁迅没法理解，我觉得这恐怕有点问题，但是也仅仅是问题而已，这个都可以讨论的。

但是，国父论这个东西就必须认真对待了，这篇文章原来也是家琪发给我的，我接到看了以后，马上给他回了一封信，感觉这恐怕不行，这需要认真对待一下。家琪不做声，家琪有他的原则，但是我觉得在思想界，这必须要表个态，所以就花了十来天写了一篇文章。

在网上发了引起那么大的反响，我也没有想到。我知道会有反响，但没料到会有那么大的反响。因为有很多年轻人是他的粉丝，所以后来我几次采访我都反复说刘小枫很有才气的，其实我那个文章里头其实也讲到了，我说对刘小枫的这种变化我感到“痛心”，这么有才华的一个学术界标杆性人物，居然落到了为文革的这种东西去辩护，觉得太痛心了。

我要思考的是这是为什么，这是归结到中国文人这种劣根性。中国有句老话“一为文人，便不足观”，就是一成为文人就没什么可说的，文人无行。所以我后来有一系列的怪论：自先秦就是“百家争宠”，中国文人的劣根性就表现在这里，百家争宠，不管你是什么观点，最终是为了争宠，以便获得权力。

中国文人，中国知识分子应该走出这个文人情结。不要去争宠，迎合什么东西，捞一点什么话语权之类的东西，有什么意思？你还不如做点扎实的学问。但是刘小枫这个还是属于文人的范畴。

当然，我也有文人的一面，但我超出了文人的范畴，我用哲学超出了文人。刘小枫是喜欢哲学的，他也文人，当年是文艺青年，他至今还是文学青年，你让他讲哲学，他是讲不了的。所以我说他关心政治哲学，完全走错门了，不应该关心政治学，你去搞基督教都可以，你搞文学比较什么都可以，你不要涉及政治，也不要涉及哲学。你要搞政治，你的心太软；你要涉及哲学你必须要有长期的训练；你谈学理，你必须得有学理上的训练，这个不是一朝一夕之功。所以这方面，我觉得他完全是搞错了。他突然关心起政治来了。当然他本来可能就有这个情结，研究什么施密特、尼采，权力意志都包含有这个，文人“学而优则仕”嘛。

但是你不要直接的去跟政治挂钩，你谈一谈别的都可以，你谈孙中山、毛泽东做啥，不是你谈的，你守住你的那一块地，是很好的学问家，也是很好的思想家，他有思想的，《拯救与逍遥》、《走向十字架的真》、《沉重的肉身》，这些书名都很好的，都非常有意义，大有深意的，我都很欣赏他，不管他里面写的什么，我可以不同意他，但就这题目，抓住问题了。

还有，我信批判主义，首先就是自我批判，很多人都没有意识到这一点，以为我是文革式的大批判，尽批判别人，不批判自己，这是误解。每个中国人，中国的文人，特别是中国的知识分子，都应该从自我批判开始，来进入到一个更高的层次，这是我对当今文化界的一个总体期盼。

一个人如果没有自我批判精神，至少你要象巴金、韦君宜那样有自我反省，如果连这个都没有，中国文化根本就没有希望，你会衰落，越来越衰落，甚至灭亡。

我就是想绝地反击，死里求生，中国在这样一个情况下，我们能不能避免象埃及文化那样的绝路，埃及文化已经灭亡了，现在我们要考古学来挖掘，来考证埃及文化和印第安玛雅文化，中国千万不能像那样。那就要靠我们这些人有自我反省、自我批判的精神，来超越我们自己，我们自己当我们的考古学者，第一个考古对象是自己。

我当然也是中国文化熏陶出来的，虽然我家里不是什么书香门第，我父母是革命干部，满脑子五四青年的那些东西，革命传统的东西，但是仍然是中国文化。只要我看书、识字、想问题、用汉字，就是中国文化，就要反省。

所以我提出新批判主义，首先就提出批判自已，当然我提出批判自己，并不意味着我不当自己了，我还是自己，我还是中国人，但是要有一个反省精神。

中国人要有这一点，而中国知识分子最缺的就是这一点。你不应该把自己变成西方人，我也基本上没有出过国，也不想成为西方人，我就是中国人，应该是一个有反省精神的中国人。

Dr. SYED FARID ALATAS is a sociologist who has done extensive research on alternative models of Sociology, especially based on Ibn Khaldun’s theories. He teaches at National University of Singapore. His research area is fundamentally premised on the notion of decolonization of knowledge. His important books are: Democracy and Authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia: The Rise of the post- Colonial State and Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism.

MUHAMMED NOUSHAD interviews Dr. Syed Farid Alatas in Calicut, Kerala.

I would like to begin with an autobiographical question. Your father Syed Husain Al Atas was one of the pioneers to write about the need for dewesternising knowledge. And your uncle, Syed Naquib Al Atas, has had the path-breaking work ‘Islam and Secularism’ with its ideological critique on the epistemological crises in the Muslim world. How did their thoughts influence you in developing an orientation towards “Alternative Discourses” against Eurocentrism?

Long time back, my father was very concerned about imitation and uncritical following of the west. He came upon the idea of “the captive mind” in the 1970s; he used to write several articles and give lectures. He put those ideas into practice when he wrote his seminal work, The Myth Of The Lazy Native, which is a critique of the colonial construction of the natives – the Malaya, the Javanese and the Filipinos – that they are lazy. This work which came out in 1977, was one of the works cited by Edward Said in his Orientalism. Said devotes a few pages to discuss my father’s work. So, when I was growing up, the atmosphere in the house was always very conducive. Though I often saw my father quite disgusted about the practice of imitating the west blindly, he was never anti-western. In fact, he was a great admirer of some western writers and sociologists. He was a strong apologist for uncritical imitation and slavish mentality towards the west, in terms of ideas and culture.

What I learned from my uncle was again about the problems of Orientalism. When I was a teenager, he used to criticize Orientalists whenever I visited him. Of course I didn’t understand what he really meant. When I started my university education, I started understanding what he used to tell me when I was a kid. He was mostly criticizing the way the Orientalists understood Islam, Muslims in South East Asia and how the understanding of the west differed from the understanding of Muslims about certain practices of Islam. Naturally, I developed an appreciation towards the problems of Orientalism. My father led me to think about other possibilities. He practiced alternative sociology in his book with the theories of Ibn Khaldun. Since my childhood I had started hearing his name and was fascinated by it. But I never knew what he did and thought until I seriously read him in the university. I found myself very interested in him and started seriously working on him. For me, the importance of studies on Ibn Khaldun is that I am not just doing a critique of western sociology, but giving a model of alternative sociology, one can say the Khaldunian sociology.

Decolonization of knowledge often remains a vague idea for many people. What is it exactly? Is it synonymous with indigenization of knowledge?

I understand people have difficulty in understanding decolonization of knowledge and properly comprehending its concepts. I don’t think somebody has defined it in a scientific, systematic way. Decolonizing knowledge simply stand on the premise that our minds have been colonized in various ways. And we have to liberate our mind and its processes. Some people, a lot of people, do not use the term decolonizing knowledge, nowadays. They use other terminology, but all of them have almost the same thing in mind. Some people use decolonizing knowledge in the metaphorical sense; they don’t think the mind is virtually colonized. Throughout the third world, there are various movements, speaking about developing some kind of alternative to the dominant western social sciences. Some call it decolonization of knowledge, others call it indigenization. Some call it nationalization. In Taiwan, there was a movement to Sinicize social sciences. In some Muslim circles, it is Islamization of knowledge, which is also about dewesternisation. Christians have developed Christian social sciences. So, all these different ideas about alternatives don’t mean the same thing. For example, if you take the example of indigenization of sociology, what Taiwanese mean may not be equally shared by Indians or Filipinos. These are very amorphous ideas, often very vague. In many of the cases, the problem is they don’t actually do indigenization, rather they talk about it. But what does it exactly mean? There is a need for clarity. Is it about using indigenous terms? Does indigenization mean rejecting western social sciences or western concepts? Is it a problem that to be met in the level of epistemology or methodology or theories? These things are to be worked out by the people who talk about the need for indigenization.

Do you mean to say that the idea of decolonization of knowledge remains at the level of a proposal, whereas practically, as you have written at places, the institutional and theoretical dependency upon the west continues? When a third world scholar makes a research plan, how could she devise a strategy to get rid of the west’s intellectual imperialism?

A third world scholar doesn’t need a particular strategy. If your mind is not colonized, if you are aware of the problem, you can make an effort to be intellectually independent and do the work. For example, in my work on Ibn Khaldun, I developed a theoretical framework from his writings. At times, I have looked at it critically, too, recognizing the need to integrate concepts from western sociology. He has some very important and unique ideas and theories, particularly about the rise and decline of the state. But the problem is that he doesn’t talk about economy. It is as if what he is talking about happens in an economic vacuum. As his use of economy is very simplistic, we need to bring in concepts from modern social sciences, for example, Marxism and its concepts on the mode of production. They can be combined with the Khaldunian model, so that you strengthen the Khaldunian theory. This can be done individually or collectively. No academic institution may ask you to do it. But as long as your institution allows you to do it, there is no issue. You can think about it, write it and even get published in international journals so that you get recognition in all circles. That is not the issue. The problem is the method by which I do – in my case, I believe I have done quite a lot and my works have been translated into various languages – is not academically followed after. It has no impact on the university where I teach, apart from some of my students. The curriculum remains unaffected. What you have is the status quo. Our third world universities are aspiring to be the top universities in the world to be ranked in the international rating. Our Vice Chancellors are obsessed with international ranking, not with serious, genuine scholarship. When you model yourself after top western universities, you are not interested in dismantling the academic dependency. However, in many universities, they give you academic freedom. So you can work out alternative discourses. I think India has produced the most brilliant alternative voices in contemporary social sciences. There are scholars like Sudhir Kakar and Ashis Nandy and new disciplines like Subaltern Studies.

You’ve elaborately written about the issue of ‘relevance’ or ‘applicability’ of western social sciences to non-western societies. I am interested to know how the academic administrators responded to this call. Don’t you think those who are in power – educational ministers, university administrators etc – have to open up their minds to alternative ideas and discourses?

Of course, I think they have to. But they do not. Honestly speaking, they are not interested. For example, in my university, no administrator ever took an interest in discussing my ideas or works. Apart from a few colleagues, no administrator, none of the head of the departments, none of the people who had a role in curriculum development ever took an interest.

Does it mean that even at the top level of academicians there is a lack of awareness about academic dependency? Or are they just satisfied with the status quo?

They do not see the problem. I think they are aware that there are people who talk about academic colonization. They think that people like me are stuck in the colonial days. They think we have already transcended this problem, we are not imitators and there are no relevant problems of Orientalists.

In the larger context of decolonization of knowledge, how do you evaluate the Islamization of knowledge project, particularly Ismail Raji Farouqi stream?

I evaluate it as an extreme reaction to western knowledge hegemony. It is a kind of nativism, which is at the same time, lacked mastery and seriousness towards western knowledge. I believe when they proposed this idea, they did not have any serious understanding of the western social sciences. Those who talked about Islamic sociology didn’t have a serious knowledge of the existing body of knowledge that western sociology had created. Unless you are well-versed in the theoretical traditions of the western social sciences, you can’t even produce a convincing critique of that. At the same time, this school of Islamization of knowledge didn’t seriously look at the knowledge tradition of Islamic heritage, too. I think they had this simplistic idea of applying some basic Islamic concepts to western knowledge. It was a sort of naive understanding of Islamizing disciplines: Islamic sociology, Islamic economics, Islamic anthropology and so on.

Still, Islamic Economics appears to be practically successful, to a large extent.

The most successful attempt in Islamization of knowledge has been in economics. Successful in the sense that they have created a body of theoretical knowledge. But this itself shows the weakness of the project. Islamic economics, in my mind, is conventional economics with all its faults, dressed up in Islamic terminology. The conventional economics has its hypothetical deductive model with its bourgeoisie nature. It is a product of capitalism and hence never critical of capitalism. Islamic economics also happens to be pro-capitalism. It doesn’t have a serious critique of capitalism, the kind of critical theories developed by Marxism and its thinkers. They have worked on the concept of alienation, understanding it as a basic sociological process of capitalism. They have a definition of exploitation, it is not just an emotional outburst, it has to do with the labor theory of value. The Islamic economists haven’t done any of this. They don’t have a critique of capitalism, other than very shallow ones. They propose Islamic economics and Islamic banking system as alternatives, but to begin with such claims won’t be enough. They say capitalism allows differences and disparities, so we will fix it through zakat. This is naive. The west has done far better than many Muslim countries in terms of bringing about equality. In many Muslim countries, we don’t know how zakat is being spent. Anyhow, what Islamic economics tend out to be is an apology for capitalism. It is ideological in the sense that Islamic economics fits in the global capitalist system. It can exist side by side, because it is abstract and theoretical and it has no impact. It doesn’t really challenge the system. The Islamic banking system, of course, is being put into practice as part of Islamic economics. But it itself is accommodated into capitalism.

I would like to get your comment on the way sectarianism has influenced Muslim intellectualism. 

First of all, some of the sects do not have a vibrant intellectual tradition. Salafis and Wahabis are examples. In fact, their ways of thinking run counter to developing intellectual traditions. They are so influential that they inhibit development of alternative, creative intellectual traditions in the Muslim world. That is one way to look at the problem of sectarianism in the level of knowledge. You often find un-intellectual or anti-intellectual orientations in Islam are spreading. Such anti-intellectual sects become dominant and influential with enormous resources. They influence universities and students and researches through funding. The other problem of sectarianism is to do with the Sunni Shia conflict. It is a big problem as it creates a big division in the Islamic scholarship. In the cases of normal sectarianism, you have the possibilities of mutual interaction, but here you lack it. You take the case of Shia Muslim social thought and Shia philosophy. There are great scholars like Ali Shariati, Murtaza Mutahari and Allama Jafari whose contribution to the evolution of social theory and the philosophy of social sciences is vital. But they are generally not read in the Sunni world, which is a pity. Their writings are very erudite, relevant and very necessary for Sunnis to read. This hardly happens partly because Sunnis are prejudiced against Shias. They regard Iranian tradition of scholarship as an alien one. Even among people who are not overtly anti-Shiite, their view of Shiism is somehow strange and narrow minded. They are not interested to learn about Shia thoughts on various things. I think Sunnis will be intellectually poorer if they don’t understand what Shiites have to say about various things.

Now we have the stream of political Islam. How do you look at the influence and impact it made on Muslim intellectualism, particularly on contemporary social sciences? 

Generally, the political movements in the Islamic world, from Jamat-e-Islami to Ikhwan al-Muslimin have not been very positive towards developing alternative intellectual traditions or autonomous social sciences in the Muslim world. But it will not be fair to put all the blame on them. They were not positive because, first of all, it was not their primary intention to create alternative disciplines. Secondly, these kinds of movements are a normal feature of our society, so will you have them. You will have extremists and parochial religious movements in all societies. But yet, their presence doesn’t prevent the emergence of creative knowledge in those societies. Because, such societies provide you a space for alternatives. The problem in Muslim countries is not that there is political Islam. It is quite natural for political Islam to exist and we shouldn’t argue against them. The problem is there are no alternatives; there is no alternative to politics and governments, the ruling elites. And there is no space for alternative knowledge, too. Sometimes, the governments even flirt with Islamic political groups in order to counter other groups and thus attain a balance. Saddam did this. Governments often let Islamic groups work legitimately so that they can watch them, use them and suppress other alternative groups.

Let’s look at the Arab Spring. Do you see an intellectual awakening? How is it going to influence the Muslim intellectualism in the long run?

Usually, intellectuals and great ideas precede revolutions. That is how it has always happened in history. Mao preceded Chinese revolution. Shariati preceded Iranian revolution. A host of French thinkers preceded the French revolution. Of course when a revolution takes place, if it is a genuine revolution, it develops in certain directions, and it produces a new generation of thinkers. But, I don’t see any thinkers preceding the Arab Spring. What happened there was not preceded by new ideas. Can we see any thinker like Shariati who came up with really new ideas and seized upon people and used those ideas to inspire them towards a different society? In Egypt or Yemen or Syria, this is not happening. I am not saying that what they are doing is not right. But it is not a revolutionary kind of thing.

You have an interest in inter-faith dialogue, too. Muslim world has a lot of preachers, but most of them, at least those who dominate, happen to be aggressively self-righteous in their attitude towards other faiths. Is it an ideal way? What kind of an inter-faith dialogue you propose to?

Of course there are aggressively self-righteous Muslim preachers and they have got a lot of followers and admirers. There are also a good number of Muslim leaders who are very committed to inter-religious dialogue. They are all over the world. Some of them do very good work; some of them are based in the west. They have done a lot to improve the image of Islam and made very close genuine ties with the Americans and the British and people from other parts of Europe. That is there. One of the big obstacles or deficiencies is that in this dialogue, Muslims have not developed an expertise or mastery in other religions, whereas the leaders of other religions, certainly the Christians and Jews, have developed mastery over Islam. You will see a number of Catholic scholars and even priests who have PhDs in Islamic studies. For example, Father Thomas Michael is a Jesuit priest from America, who researched under the supervision of Fazlur Rahman from the University of Chicago. He knows Arabic and his thesis was on Ibn Taimiya. There are several Catholic priests and Jewish scholars of his standing. How many Muslims are there? First of all, how many Muslim mullahs have PhDs? There are many ordained Catholic priests with PhDs in Islamic studies, which is a very good thing. How many Muslim scholars have PhDs in Christian studies, know Hebrew and read Greek commentaries of Bible? Extremely few. This imbalance is the problem. You cannot talk with equal erudition.

Is that why many Muslim preachers often behave with arrogance and aggressiveness, during inter-faith dialogues?

Because they are defensive. Then there are others who are not defensive, but they are not able to discuss ideas and discourse at the same level of the Christian scholars. For example, if we want to have a series of Christian Muslim dialogue, putting fifty Muslims and fifty Christians on two stages, there will be several Christian scholars who know Arabic and have PhDs in Islamic studies, but on the Muslim sides, how many scholars will be there with such status? One or two. Even they are not famous or established. The result is that you cannot have an equal dialogue. You know there are Catholic scholars who know the Quran very well; they will be familiar with the great tafsirs, Sufis and philosophers, having been read their works in Arabic and Persian. How many of the Muslims know the Bible that well? The dialogue will be uneven.

In one of your speeches, you mentioned that there is a noticeable shift in the old prejudiced attitude of Orientalist writings. Can you elaborate?

There is still Orientalism today, but it is not the same Orientalism that we had in the past in the 19th century or early 20th century. That Orientalism was characterized by Orientalist scholars having prejudiced, negative views about Islam, which clearly came across in their scholarship. They believed that Islam was a bad religion, a fake religion, and that Islam encourages violence, it is against women and human rights and so on. Quran is a confusing text, they thought. And very often we notice their researches had to do with the colonial powers and the colonial interests. Today, many of those western scholars who study Islam are studying out of genuine interest. I would say, many of them, probably most of them, are not against Islam. If they are against Islam, it doesn’t encroach on their scholarship. They keep it with themselves, and this is because of the training. They are trained to be objective and to set aside your personal views and at least not to affect your research. As a result, there are many objective researches done by western scholars on Islam, and if there are problems, it is not because of prejudice, but because of theoretical and methodological problems. So, the Orientalism today is not characterized by prejudice, rather it is characterized by a neglect of the non-western concepts. It was also true about the Orientalism of the past, but today enmity or prejudice is not a dominant feature. For example, when they study Ibn Khaldun, they praise him as founder of sociology, recognize his genius, but, restrict Ibn Khaldun and his work to itself, not as a source of new ideas to use and apply. That is a way of neglecting Ibn Khaldun altogether. That for me is a major feature of Orientalism today.

Muslims had a great tradition of establishing and running great centers of knowledge across the Muslim world. Where did Muslims leave that tradition and why they are left behind intellectually?

Those days, the great knowledge centers were supported by great rulers. Today, none of the rulers in the Muslim world are inspired by history. None of them are inspired by Harun Rasheed or Khalifa Maimum or any other Abbasid or Uthmaniya rulers. Most of the Arab rulers, for instance, are illegitimate rulers. Their primary concern is to maintain power. So, naturally, they are not interested in any other creative thing.

You mentioned that there are various streams in the decolonization project. What is the possibility of pluralism here? Could people of different cultures and orientations work together?

Yes, of course. And such a joint effort is lacking. A lot of efforts are going on different parts – in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa. Indians, Filipinos and South Africans are very active in this endeavor. In Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Morocco and certain parts of Turkey, there are strong movements. We have people working in various parts of the world, but with no coordination. People in these countries do not know each other and no idea about what others have been doing. This is the problem.

[Originally published in Islamicity.com: http://www.islamicity.org/4708/orientlism,-muslim-intellectualism-and-political-islam%5D

• Interview

• Arab Spring
• Decolonisation
• Ibn Khaldun
• Inter-faith
• Islam
• Islamic Economics
• Muslim World
• Orientalism
• Salafism
• Sunni-Shia

Freelance Writer. Teacher. View all posts by mnoushad

4 comments

1. de frémancourt says:
   February 3, 2016 at 11:19 am

   Reblogged this on de frémancourt and commented:
   Fascinating exchange of ideas. I’m particularly interested in the applicability and vital relevance of this discussion on decolonising academics and academia – especially academics in/from the global South) to a whole range of research and academic practice in the social sciences, including, especially, my own discipline of international politics.

   Reply
2. billmurd says:
   August 5, 2016 at 10:05 am

   Reblogged this on CREATIVE GRAPHIC DESIGNER.

   Reply
   • mnoushad says:
     August 6, 2016 at 4:16 pm

     thank you.. love.

     Reply
     • billmurd says:
       August 6, 2016 at 6:21 pm

       love you too

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

50 年後，日本人口數推估會從現今 1.2 億減少至 8 千萬人，若不改善，日本的勞動力、GDP 總額，以及在地文化，也會跟著這 4 千萬人一同蒸發。因此，日本現在全民卯起來推動「地方創生」、「地域活性化」，讓政策、人才、資金到位，在鄉鎮展開一場場「地方革命」！

去年三月在台灣播出的日劇「搶救拿破崙之村」（ナポレオンの村），描述一位超強的熱血公務員，排除萬難反轉滅村的命運，他的這股傻勁也感動了村民、公務員、地方官員、移住者等，讓大家願意團結一心，大步邁進。

該劇的熱血公務員其實真有其人，是一位名叫高野誠鮮的「石川県羽咋市農林水産課」的公務員，當時他僅用預算 60 萬日幣，打造「神子原米」品牌，並獲羅馬教宗讚揚，此舉不但讓神子原米一炮而紅，也成功吸引更多年輕入投入耕種，讓村落四年後擺脫「限界集落」（指 65 歲以上的人口超過半數的村落）的困境。

50 年後推估日本人口少三分之一

近年日本政府推動的「地方創生」，可算是全民共感，因為日本整體人口正在下滑當中，若不改善，根據日本內閣府統計，預估在 2060 年，人口會少將近 4 千萬人，且其中有近四成人口超過 65 歲，隨之而來的勞動力不足、GDP 成長緩慢、高齡化社會、文化傳承不易等，都是十分棘手的問題。

因此現在在日本，不管是電視劇也好、學界、產業界、地方與中央政府，都全員動起來一起「地方創生」，安倍晉三首相更提到「地方是日本活力來源」、「地方沒有活力，日本就沒活力」，並在 2014 年任命石破茂內閣大臣，成立「鄉鎮、人才、工作創生本部事務局」（まち・ひと・しごと創生本部事務局），由中央開始揮起地方創生的旗幟。

中央送人送錢到地方

日本總務省砸下大筆預算，讓地方公開募集「地域活性協力隊」（地域おこし協力隊），提供 20 萬日幣不等的月薪（在日本約等於大學畢業基本薪資），在鄉鎮地方執行活絡計畫，為期三年。此舉希望能把人才從都市吸引至鄉下，協助農產品六次產業化（註）、空屋改造、創業育成、宣傳行銷等工作。據統計，2015 年日本政府號召了超過 2,600 青壯年返鄉，花了超過 100 億日幣預算，希望能解決想去鄉鎮地方工作，卻找不到適合工作的窘境。

另外，日本政府也推出「故鄉納稅」（ふるさと納税）的政策，讓國民能將自己應繳的稅金，直接繳納給喜愛的地方政府，並獲得自選的在地農產品當作謝禮。此政策在日本國民當中人氣不小，2015 年給予地方的寄付金（捐款）也高達近 1 千 5 百億日圓。

地方創生總司令官

有人有錢之後，還要有出力的營運團隊，此時地方政府的角色便十分重要，需活用外部的捐款、補助金，一同與在地青年、企業，挖掘原有的資源，創造更多可能性。此時，「從地方發起」、「為在地人而生」的概念十分重要。當中，也有不少地方政府會委託地方創生專家、顧問或學者，構思作戰計畫，例如以策劃大地藝術祭、由北川富朗領軍的「Art Front Gallery」，以及以社區設計為核心、由山崎亮主導的「Studio L」等，都曾成功祭出漂亮的全壘打。

復甦地方為企業責任

另外，日本不少大企業也將活絡地方作為企業的 CSR 方針，像是日本電信電話株式会社（NTT）也利用「資訊及通訊科技」（ICT），支援在地育兒、教育、老人照護、觀光等。ANA 航空的機上餐也推出日本各地的鄉土料理，讓國內外乘客感受日本豐富的飲食文化。麒麟啤酒配合在地飲食、風土與口味，研發出 47 都道府縣的在地啤酒，更找來當紅偶像團體嵐代言。

振奮學界案例如雨後春筍

日本學界也建立許多地方復甦成功的案例，收錄在「地域活性學會」每年出版的研究誌等，同時也開發各種實驗性高的地方振興手段，如慶應大學的系統設計與管理研究所，推動以「系統設計思考」思維，從中洞察「社會系統」的問題點，並在各方參與的工作坊中，構思創新方案。

一個人也行 在地創業正夯

現在不少日本年輕人在工作數年後便會 U-Turn 或 I-Turn 移居到鄉鎮，進駐在地的創業育成中心，或成立網路公司、設計事務所、顧問業等。「U-Turn」意指在大都市磨練後，返回原出生地工作；「I-Turn」則指從外部移住至其他鄉鎮。這兩類人才通常能帶入外部的新技能、新人脈，能與在地人激發出更多新想法。對移住者來說，在自然裡生活、生活費低、育兒環境佳等要素非常吸引人。廢校改造而成的秋田「五城目町馬場目」創業基地，就是一個活力十足的成功案例。

日本的現在 台灣的未來

根據台灣國家發展委員會 105 年度的人口報告推估，台灣 2021 至 2025 年即達到人口高峰，往後便會逐年減少，並於 2026 年邁入超高齡社會（老年人口超過 20%），此老化速度與低生育率都遙遙領先日本與歐美各國。然而，日本的種種案例也僅供參考，每個國家、鄉鎮其實都有不同的問題脈絡。

回望台灣，台灣現在不少鄉野地方，也開始有理想抱負的年輕人移住，像是青農、第二代接班人，以及年輕民宿老闆（如天空的院子），或在地方舉辦有趣活動（如稻田裡的餐桌），值得期待的例子不勝枚舉。

然而，台灣的地方發展例子多半規模偏小，國際化程度也相對不高，仍有很多發展空間。再者，台灣民眾對於人口減少的危機感仍普遍偏低，應即早凝聚個人、政府、產學界的力量，設計出專屬台灣每區的「地方創生」方案。

雖然地方創生非一蹴可幾，常需要 5 到 10 年不等才會看到成果，然而台灣的優點是地理面積小、基礎建設完善，且人文地理多元，因此，一日城鄉兩邊跑並非難事，相信也期待，台灣能在人口下滑特快車啟動之前，已在台灣各角落，有遍地開花的地方創生正在發生。

原文收錄於 Rakko.me：〈日本擋得住人口減少特快車嗎？全民總動員的地方創生計畫〉  

註：六次產業化 = 農業生產（一級） x 農產加工（二級） x 直銷（三級）

▍早鳥預購價（單本99）：換日線夏季號→向全世界投履歷
▍出刊限定絕版方案：（四本+創刊號=499元）

《延伸閱讀》
〈自然、藝術、人三角完美結合—2015 越後妻有大地藝術祭 Echigo Tumari Art Triennale 大地の芸術祭 越後妻有アートトリエンナーレ〉

《關聯閱讀》
【Daniel Lin@台灣】致農委會主委曹啟鴻：用品牌模式經營台灣「大農業」，讓返鄉青年以世界為舞台
小國小城，一樣有說不完的故事──珍惜在地歷史，芬蘭人教我的事

《作品推薦》
「北上」日本工作生活，也可以響應「新南向」政策？──不劃地自限的新創案例
日本政府推動「超值星期五」，要用改善勞權「拚經濟」：一石二鳥？還是硬湊的"PPAP"？

執行編輯：YUKI
核稿編輯：張翔一

為何我們需要藝術？──演化論觀點丨于千

Ellen Dissanayake, What Is Art For?

布迪厄（Pierre Bourdieu），法國社會學、人類學、哲學家

亞里士多德《詩學》