ilyagram

Using the “census, map, museum” framing found in Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983), as well as a Foucauldian approach to biopolitics and the art of governing (i.e. governmentality) in the production of knowledge, Hirsch investigates the construction and institutionalization of ethno-national identity categories in the USSR. Rather than study political elites and their pronouncements on the “national question,” Hirsch focuses her attention on the anthropologists, geographers, and ethnographers involved in the discussions regarding the boundary formations around these identity categories as they were debated and reconfigured in censuses, on maps, and in museum exhibits from 1905 to 1941.

The brilliance of the work lies in the rich archival resources through which Hirsch reconstructs the story of ethnographic knowledge production as a technology of rule.（重新把民族誌知識的生產，作為一種統治的技術） She uncovers and explores the continuities and disjunctures between the prerevolutionary actors and institutions charged with the categorization of identity, and the specialists charged with the same tasks in the USSR during the 1920s and 1930s, as the latter worked toward the goal of what Hirsch defines as “double assimilation: the assimilation of a diverse population into nationality categories and, simultaneously, the assimilation of those nationally categorized groups into the Soviet state and society” (p. 14). Double assimilation, she argues, was an interactive process of identity construction that, through census, map, museum, and historical narrative strengthened Soviet rule. This is the first study to provide us with this kind of detailed information on the inner workings of how ethnographic knowledge was produced in the USSR as a set of cultural technologies of rule.（民族誌知識在 USSR 裡以一組統治的文化科技方式被生產、於內裡發揮作用的詳細資訊）

Dr Benson Philip
57 Shahid Sarafraz Street
Ostad Motahari

Dear Sir

Subject Matter : COMPENSATION
You might find it so difficult to remember me. Though, it is indeed, a very long time. On my singular, I am much delighted and privileged to contact you again, after couple of years now. It takes fate, courage and God’s fearing to remember old friends and at the same time, to show gratification to them, despite circumstances that made things, not worked out as we projected then.
I take this liberty to inform you that, the transaction we were pursing together, finally worked out by God’s infinite mercy and I decided to contact you, just to let you know. I have conscience as a human beign, due to your tremendious effort and contribution to make things work out in retrospect.
Meanwhile, I must inform you that, I am presently in Luxemburg for numerous business negotiations with some partners. I just arrived yesterday night and checked into a hotel and decided to go down to the hotel business centre to mail you. Now, with my sincere heart, I have transfer this fund into your account to the tune of USD$800,000.00 ( Eight HUNDRED THOUSAND DECIMAL ZERO-ZERO UNITED STATES DOLLARS) only as COMPENSATION to your dedication, humanity and contribution, as it were.
Please, contact NOW, my confidential secretary,Mrs Helen Mortazavi email address (helenmortazavi@myway.com ) for further directives.

Yours faithfully
Dr Benson Philip

三立記者確實訪問到了世新大學某些學生的說法，指是有為數也許數十（或一百？）學生至現場，出於任課教師要求前往拍攝影片。惟訪問後，三立記者來到了政大，我與另一位學生與記者也談了一些時候，經過說明，記者也察覺，既然昨日有三至五千人參加（分別是警方與活動主辦單位的估計），那麼這些非自主前來的學生，比例上最多只能佔參與者的三十或五十分之一。果真如此，無論是基於事理的重點、專業的平衡要求，或純屬奢望的肯定大學生的參與，三立怎麼能夠將整則一兩分鐘的新聞，集中在這些可能是非自主的學生身上？既然其他電視台似乎沒有如此惡劣表現（三立說周一晚間的新聞，是其「獨家追蹤」），那麼，除了週日及周一晚間的這子新聞，三立的樂生新聞政策，很有可能刻意抹煞抹黑的另一個表現，在於周一晚的第二則樂生新聞，集中在一百來位大學生的跪行，在三立新聞呈現下，少了莊嚴認真的苦修意味，多了玩票任意來去的隨便行為（「有些跪行的學生走進央圖上廁所就不見了 …」）。

事情的經過是這樣的：請看今天稍早學生寄來的信

　　今天中午(0416)，朋友打電話告訴我，三立要採訪學生對遊行的看法，於是我給了她學校負責人(世新)的電話。

　　過不久她又打電話告訴我，三立要的不是主動參與遊行學生的意見，而是希望能找到那些非自願者的意見。(換句話說，可能是一些被老師叫去拍攝影作業…等等的學生) 我只能說這種記者真糟糕，議題設定亂七八糟，真想拆了它！ XD

本文想補充的是，根據我自己一些不算太全面的觀察，有些媒體的問題，甚至不只是「去脈絡化」的問題，而是更嚴重的、有意識的扭曲報導。

我要點名的就是民視( 當然，類似的問題不只發生在民視) 。在病患和樂生聯盟二度前往官邸抗議的當天，民視的相關新聞，在報導完衝突現場之後，事實上是進行了所謂的脈絡報導。但民視怎麼處理呢？他們說明了樂生院區位於捷運新莊線機廠位址的「事實」( 令人納悶的是，明明是捷運試圖「使用」樂生院址，怎麼反過來說是樂生「位於」捷運廠址？ )、訪問已經搬到新大樓的部分病患 (被選擇在鏡頭前露臉的病患對新大樓十分滿意 )、訪問新莊地區的一個老年市民 (抱怨工程延宕犧牲新莊居民權益 )，然後最後再來一個「面對古蹟保存與公共建設的兩難，值得深思」之類看似客觀理性的結語 (報導中完全沒有訪問樂生聯盟或持異議的其他專家 )。

總的來說，這段報導雖然有「脈絡」，但卻鮮明地建構出「少數抗議者無理取鬧，傷害大多數人利益」的論述。換句話說，民視的問題不僅是聚焦衝突場面，而是有意識地操縱輿論。其居心為何( 在民進黨大位之爭暗潮洶湧之際，為蘇貞昌護航？ )，我們也許暫時難以判斷；但是這樣的手法，跟過去戒嚴時期黨 /政控商營的無線三台，如出一轍。當初，對於任何弱勢和街頭抗議活動 (民進黨前身的「黨外」力量深深參與其中 )，三台用的是同樣的論述建構手法來封殺異議和保護主子。如今，執政之後的民進黨與國民黨之間，以及與民進黨關係密切的媒體跟國民黨媒體之間，差距竟愈來愈小。這個政黨與其媒體，一同沉淪，也一同背叛了弱勢族群。

《台灣立報》記者胡慕情，在〈為了土金剷樂生〉專題報導裡（2007.4.10.），詳細的調查採訪了樂生院拆遷背後的巨大砂石利益因素。由於去年大陸宣布禁止砂石出口台灣與鄰近亞洲國家，使台灣的砂石和土方價格飆漲，而這幾年台灣營造工程大興土木，使得砂石利益炙手可熱。報導指出，台北市議員李文英與建材商於上個月實地探查樂生院後發現，該院所在地的土方價值，為市面上最珍貴的級配料，也就是業者稱之為「土金」的具有多重經濟價值的「卵礫石」。已經被捷運工程挖走了七成的樂生院區土地、以及只剩下三成院區的土方，恰好幾乎全是這些「土金」材質。而每一千坪土地可以產生兩千萬毛利，樂生院面積原有三十公頃，扣除挖土機及運送的成本後，這些土金價值十五億！