Rocha Leon Antonio
Needham Research Institute, 8 Sylvester Road, Cambridge CB3 9AF, UK.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2011 Sep;42(3):328-43. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.01.003. Epub 2011 Jul 22.
This paper begins with a discussion of the scientia sexualis/ars erotica distinction, which Foucault first advances in History of Sexuality Vol. 1, and which has been employed by many scholars to do a variety of analytical work. Though Foucault has expressed his doubts regarding his conceptualization of the differences between Western and Eastern discourses of desire, he never entirely disowns the distinction. In fact, Foucault remains convinced that China must have an ars erotica. I will explore Foucault's sources of authority. To this end, I introduce the work of famous Dutch sinologist Robert Hans van Gulik, who published the tremendously influential Sexual Life in Ancient China in 1961, and also explore Joseph Needham's view on Chinese sex. I argue that, Foucault, in his fierce polemic against the "Repressive Hypothesis", himself imagined a utopian Other where pleasure and desire were organised differently. I end on a discuss on Orientalism and the project of "Sinography" of comparative literature scholars Haun Saussy, Eric Hayot and others.
本文开篇讨论了“性科学/性爱艺术”的区别，这一区别由福柯在《性史》第一卷中首次提出，许多学者已运用它开展了各种分析工作。尽管福柯对自己关于西方与东方欲望话语差异的概念化表达过疑虑，但他从未完全摒弃这一区别。事实上，福柯始终坚信中国必定存在一种性爱艺术。我将探究福柯的权威依据。为此，我引入著名荷兰汉学家高罗佩的著作，他于1961年出版了极具影响力的《中国古代房内考》，同时也探讨李约瑟对中国性文化的观点。我认为，福柯在激烈批判“压抑假说”时，自己构想了一个乌托邦式的他者，在那里快乐和欲望有着不同的组织方式。最后我将讨论东方主义以及比较文学学者奚密、埃里克·海厄特等人的“汉学书写”计划。
