墨西哥與儀式史學(xué)

符號(hào)的沼澤和人類學(xué)、文學(xué)理論的泥潭似乎都與歷史的陸地相距甚遠(yuǎn)。當(dāng)然，那些借鑒文化人類學(xué)的學(xué)者，尤其是格爾茨，也遭到了諸多批評(píng)。羅納德·維特斯（Ronald WaIters）十多年前就曾指出，當(dāng)格爾茨在進(jìn)行深描時(shí)，他并不是特別清楚應(yīng)該如何避免“潛在的愚昧無(wú)知”。而維特斯和其他許多學(xué)者更為關(guān)心的是，對(duì)于象征意義的關(guān)注似乎使得社會(huì)對(duì)于真實(shí)民眾的影響消失了，就像對(duì)于階級(jí)、剝削和權(quán)力等概念的關(guān)注一樣。他明確地指出，牢記“象征性戲劇可以為權(quán)力、統(tǒng)治、剝削和反抗等更遠(yuǎn)大的目的服務(wù)”這一點(diǎn)非常重要。(59)加布麗埃爾·斯皮格爾（Gabrielle Spiegel）在最近發(fā)表的一篇論述文本和語(yǔ)境關(guān)系的文章中指出，對(duì)于文本意義（而不是人類經(jīng)驗(yàn)）的關(guān)注常常會(huì)讓歷史行動(dòng)者的社會(huì)作用被遺忘。在她看來(lái)，有必要認(rèn)識(shí)到“社會(huì)活動(dòng)的全部意義并不止于它的象征意義”。(60)

基于這些批評(píng)，不同時(shí)代、不同地方的歷史學(xué)家一直在探索宗教在國(guó)家建設(shè)中的地位。即使像格爾茨最近所說(shuō)的那樣，“權(quán)力的表象及其實(shí)質(zhì)很難被撬開”，但是探討國(guó)家權(quán)力的形式與實(shí)質(zhì)的各種嘗試仍然取得了可喜的成果，尤其是對(duì)于羅馬帝國(guó)和當(dāng)代加納等不同社會(huì)的考察。(61)在拉丁美洲，歷史學(xué)家也已經(jīng)接受了將國(guó)家以及有關(guān)權(quán)力、政治的問(wèn)題重新納入社會(huì)歷史這一挑戰(zhàn)。(62)本書聚焦于統(tǒng)治的儀式以及那些墨西哥人（自西班牙殖民統(tǒng)治以來(lái)）用于接受、改造、忽視或爭(zhēng)奪權(quán)威的儀式，旨在為上述事業(yè)貢獻(xiàn)一點(diǎn)綿薄之力。

正如威廉·泰勒所指出的，掌握拉丁美洲歷史面臨的一個(gè)困難在于，從表面上看，它似乎是那么熟悉。(63)因此，存在這樣一種預(yù)判，那就是整個(gè)拉丁美洲的發(fā)展（無(wú)論哪個(gè)國(guó)家）都是相同的，都類似于歐洲或美國(guó)的模式。但在膚淺的表象以外，其實(shí)存在巨大的差異；而且，盡管存在延續(xù)性，細(xì)微而明顯的差別仍然是墨西哥文化表現(xiàn)的特征。我們希望能彰顯墨西哥的這種獨(dú)特性及其關(guān)聯(lián)。

因此，我們結(jié)合相關(guān)的理論或史學(xué)知識(shí)對(duì)本書的每篇文章進(jìn)行了介紹。我們關(guān)注歐洲和美國(guó)的研究，同時(shí)也會(huì)提及其他拉丁美洲的案例，以便讀者進(jìn)行比較，從而更加全面地了解墨西哥豐富的文化歷史。

---

(1)本節(jié)標(biāo)題受到愛(ài)德華·赫爾曼（Edward S. Herman）和諾姆·喬姆斯基（Norm Chomsky）所著的《制造共識(shí)：大眾傳媒的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)》（Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media）（紐約，1988；中文版參：邵紅松譯，北京：北京大學(xué)出版社，2011）的啟發(fā)。本書中的部分主題與他們的論點(diǎn)產(chǎn)生了共鳴。

(2)Patricia Seed, “Taking Possession and Reading Texts: Establishing the Authority of Overseas Empires,”William and Mary Quarterly 49, 3d ser. (April 1992): 183-209.錫德教授考察了英國(guó)人和西班牙人所使用的占有行為的象征意義，并依據(jù)住房的建造和旗幟或十字架等標(biāo)志加強(qiáng)的占有聲明確立了上述兩者的區(qū)別。引自該文第206—207頁(yè)。

(3)通過(guò)理解阿茲特克人的方式來(lái)檢驗(yàn)儀式的最初嘗試，詳見Inga Clendinnen, Aztecs: An Interpretation(Cambridge, 1991), 236-263。

(4)AAAM, vol. 1058; Festividades Diversas, Legajo I, Expediente 2. Decree, August 29, 1822.

(5)Paul Friedrich, “Revolutionary Politics and Communal Ritual,” in Political Anthropology, ed. Marc J.Swartz, Victor W. Turner, and Arthur Tuden (Chicago, 1966), 191-220；Imelda de León, coordinator,Calendario de Fiestas Populares (México, 1988), vii.

(6)Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theater-State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton, NJ, 1980), 128.（中文版參：《尼加拉：十九世紀(jì)巴厘劇場(chǎng)國(guó)家》，趙丙祥譯，北京：商務(wù)印書館，2018。）

(7)Inga Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570 (Cambridge,1987), 115.

(8)參見里斯·艾薩克（Rhys Isaac）所著《弗吉尼亞的轉(zhuǎn)變，1740—1790》（The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790）（教堂山，北卡羅來(lái)納，1982）一書的方法論附錄，第323—357頁(yè)。

(9)盡管當(dāng)權(quán)者試圖通過(guò)對(duì)社會(huì)秩序的理想化描述（往往通過(guò)儀式）使其合法化，但是這一過(guò)程不可避免地為主體提供了形成批評(píng)的象征性工具。參見James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak:Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, CT, 1985), chap. 8, esp. 338。（中文版參：《弱者的武器：農(nóng)民反抗的日常形式》，鄭廣懷、張敏、何江穗譯，南京：譯林出版社，2007。）就墨西哥語(yǔ)境中這一發(fā)展以及斯科特對(duì)于墨西哥的假設(shè)的討論，參見Alan Knight, “Peculiarities of Mexican History: Mexico Compared to Latin America, 1821-1992,” JLAS 29(Quincentenary Supplement, 1992): 115, 124-125; and Knight’s “Weapons and Arches in the Mexican Revolutionary Landscape,” in Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico, ed. Gilbert M. Joseph (Durham, NC, 1994)。

(10)Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols (lthaca, NY, 1967), 20-30.

(11)Christel Lane, The Rites of Rulers: Ritual in Industrial Society-The Soviet Case (Cambridge, 1981), 25. 本段落的大部分材料均基于萊恩對(duì)于象征和儀式的討論，第191—238頁(yè)。

(12) David Cannadine, “The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition,’ c. 1820-1977,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge, 1983), 157. 另參見坎納丁之前的一篇文章”The Transformation of Civic Ritual in Modern Britain: The Colchester Oyster Feast,” PP 94 (February 1982): 107-130。

(13)David Brading, “Tridentine Catholicism and Enlightened Despotism in Bourbon Mexico,” JLAS 15(1983): 1-22; Juan Pedro Viqueira Alban, ?Relajados o reprimidos? Diversiones públicas y vida social en la ciudad de México durante el Siglo de las Luces (México, 1987). 這本書的英譯本由學(xué)術(shù)資源聯(lián)盟（Scholarly Resources）提供。

(14)Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev.ed. (London, 1991), 81, 169, 205-206.（中文版參：《想象的共同體：民族主義的起源與散布》，吳叡人譯，上海：上海人民出版社，2016。）另參見簡(jiǎn)·弗朗哥（Jean Franco）在《密謀女性：墨西哥的性別與代表》（Plotting Women: Gender and Representation in Mexico）（紐約，1989）一書中關(guān)于墨西哥的想象共同體的討論，第134頁(yè)。

(15)Annick Lemperiere, “D’un centenaire de l’indépendance à l’autre (1910-1921): L’invention de la mémoire culturelle du Mexique contemporain”，法國(guó)巴黎第一大學(xué)（the Université de Paris-I）未發(fā)表演講.

(16)Ilene V. O’Malley, The Myth of the Revolution: Hero Cults and the Institutionalization of the Mexican State, 1920-1940 (Westport, CT, 1986).

(17)Enrique Plasencia de la Parra, Independencia y nacionalismo a la luz del discurso conmemorativo(1825-1867) (México, 1991), 137-138；Fernando Serrano Migallón, El Grito de Independencia:Historia de una pasión nacional (México, 1981).

(18)關(guān)于阿根廷的案例，參見Henry Ph. Vogel, “Elements of Nation-Building in Argentina: Buenos Aires,1810-1828” (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 1987)。

(19)David A. Brading, The First America: The Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots, and the Liberal State,1492-1867 (Cambridge, 1991), 634-637, 645.

(20)Eric Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Invention Traditions,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Hobsbawm and Ranger, 4-5, 9. 另參見“Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914,” 同前引, 263-307。

(21)參見Mi libro de Historia de México. Quinto Grado (México, 1992)。

(22)Mona Ozouf, Festivals and the French Revolution, trans. Alan Sheridan (Cambridge, MA, 1988),262-282.

(23)Clifford Geertz, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power,” in Rites of Power: Symbolism, Ritual, and Politics since the Middle Ages, ed. Sean Wilentz (Philadelphia, 1985),30.

(24)Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer, The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution(Oxford, 1985), 187-188, 191, 200. 關(guān)于本書的墨西哥版本，參見Knight, “Weapons and Arches,”and “Peculiarities of Mexican History,” 138-144。

(25)引自Alan Knight, The Mexican Revolution (Cambridge, 1986), 2: 497。

(26)參見本書第九章和第十章，作者分別為比茲利和弗倫奇；以及Steven B. Bunker, “Making the Good Old Days: Invented Tradition and Civic Ritual in Northern Mexico, 1880-1910” (Honors thesis,University of British Columbia, 1992)。

(27)關(guān)于一家公司通過(guò)影像構(gòu)建社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的案例，參見David E. Nye, Image Worlds: Corporate Identities at General Electric, 1890-1930 (Cambridge, MA, 1985)。

(28)Maurice Agulhon, The Republic in the Village: The People of the Var from the French Revolution to the Second Republic, trans. Janet Lloyd (Cambridge, 1982), 91.

(29)William B. Taylor, Drinking, Homicide, and Rebellion in Colonial Mexican Villages (Stanford, CA,1979）；Nancy M. Farriss, Maya Society under Spanish Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival (Princeton, NJ, 1984).

(30)參見George M. Foster, Tzintzuntzan: Mexican Peasants in a Changing World (Boston, 1967)。更多最近的研究包括John M. Ingham, Mary, Michael, and Lucifer: Folk Catholicism in Central Mexico(Austin, TX, 1986)；Guillermo de la Pe?a, A Legacy of Promises: Agriculture, Politics and Ritual in the Morelos Highlands of Mexico (Austin, TX, 1981), 197-224；Judith Friedlander, Being Indian in Hueyapan: A Study of Forced Identity in Contemporary Mexico (New York, 1975)。

(31)Stanley Brandes, Power and Persuasion: Fiestas and Social Control in Rural Mexico (Philadelphia,1988), 127-139. 該作者在第139頁(yè)列舉了得出相同結(jié)論的其他研究。

(32)Ingham, Mary, Michael, and Lucifer, 180, 189.

(33)關(guān)于單一社區(qū)內(nèi)新教徒與天主教儀式之間的沖突，參見Sheldon Annis, God and Production in a Guatemalan Town (Austin, 1987), 90—98。在危地馬拉的圣安東尼奧（San Antonio），儀式活動(dòng)變得如此昂貴，以至于天主教儀式生活所產(chǎn)生的費(fèi)用（代表著某種文化稅或?qū)τ谏鐓^(qū)的投資）相當(dāng)于一個(gè)家庭總收入的四分之一。盡管在這個(gè)特定的社區(qū)，人們對(duì)于上述費(fèi)用有著不同的看法；不出所料，當(dāng)?shù)氐男陆掏秸J(rèn)為這既是一種“浪費(fèi)”，也是一種“罪過(guò)”。

(34)邁克爾·索南舍爾（Michael Sonenscher）在《工作與工資：自然法、政治與18世紀(jì)的法國(guó)貿(mào)易》（Work and Wages: Natural Law, Politics and the Eighteenth-Century French Trades，Cambridge,1989）一書中描述了儀式是如何創(chuàng)造一個(gè)“具有暫時(shí)性差異的復(fù)雜世界”的，第298頁(yè)。參見第295—327頁(yè)關(guān)于伙伴社的延伸討論。

(35)Marcello Carmagnani, “Un movimiento político indio: La ‘rebelión’ de Tehuantepec, 1660-1661,”17-35, and Eric Van Young, “Mentalities and Collectivities: A Comment,” 337-353, esp. 340-341, in Patterns of Contention in Mexican History, ed. Jaime E. Rodríguez O. (Wilmington, DE, 1992).

(36)Paul J. Vanderwood, Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police, and Mexican Development, rev. and enlarged ed. (Wilmington, DE, 1992), 148-150.

(37)阿居隆（Agulhon）認(rèn)為“政治提供了場(chǎng)合及目的，而民俗則提供了表達(dá)手段”。參見Republic in the Village, 164, 254, 258-259。關(guān)于喧囂儀式，參見Alan Greer, “From Folklore to Revolution:Charivaris and the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837,” Social History 15, no. 1 (January 1990)；關(guān)于狂歡節(jié)，參見Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Carnival at Romans (New York, 1979)以及Natalie Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, CA, 1975)。

(38)David Garrioch, Neighbourhood and Community in Paris, 1740-1790 (Cambridge, 1986), 196-201;Robert Muchembled, Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 1400-1750 (Baton Rouge, LA,1985), 122-148, 171-174, 212; Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (New York,1978), 207-243; Robert A. Schneider, Public Life in Toulouse, 1463-1789: From Municipal Republic to Cosmopolitan City (Ithaca, NY, 1989), 353.

(39)Pilar Gonzalbo Aizpuru, “Las fiestas novohispanas: Espectáculo y ejemplo,” Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 9, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 45. 關(guān)于波旁王朝反對(duì)民間天主教，特別是大眾宗教游行、儀式和“迷信”的運(yùn)動(dòng)的更多內(nèi)容，可參見Brading, The First America, esp. 494-500, 509,549, 558。

(40)Viqueira Albán, ?Relajados o reprimidos?, 240. 可參見作者對(duì)于從大眾手中奪取公共空間的嘗試的廣泛探討，第133—169頁(yè)、第222—240頁(yè)。

(41)參見“Peaceful and Working People: The Inculcation of the Capitalist Work Ethic in a Mexican Mining District (Hidalgo District, Chihuahua, 1880-1920)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, 1990)。對(duì)于在公共空間爭(zhēng)奪中使用符號(hào)的精彩概述，參見James Epstein, “Understanding the Cap of Liberty:Symbolic Practice and Social Conflict in Early Nineteenth-Century England,” PP 12, no. 2 (February 1989): 75-118; Patrick Joyce, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class,1848-1914 (Cambridge, 1991), 53-54。

(42)參見（例如）Knight, Mexican Revolution，1:245-246; Carlos Martínez Assad, El laboratorio de la revolución: El Tabasco garridista (Mexico, 1979)。

(43)Ellen M. Litwicki, “From Patrón to Patria: Fiestas and Mexicano Identity in Late Nineteenth-Century Tucson”（該論文發(fā)表于1992年美國(guó)歷史學(xué)家組織年會(huì)）。

(44)Susan G. Davis, Parades and Power: Street Theatre in Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia (Philadelphia,1986), 151-153.

(45)Mary Ryan, “The American Parade: Representations of the Nineteenth Century Social Order,” in The New Cultural History, ed. Lynn Hunt (Berkeley, CA, 1989), 149.

(46)William H. Beezley, Judas at the Jockey Club and Other Episodes of Porfirian Mexico (Lincoln, NE,1987), 89-124.

(47)(Princeton, NJ, 1987), 6, 34, 38, 157-191, 225. 關(guān)于烹飪這一被忽視的話題以及它是如何將公共與私人慶祝活動(dòng)相聯(lián)系、表達(dá)民族主義并在地方及家庭層面踐行國(guó)家計(jì)劃的，可參見阿爾讓·阿帕杜萊（Arjun Appadurai）提出的理論模型，“How to Make a National Cuisine: Cookbooks in Contemporary India,” CSSH 30, no. I (January 1988): 3-24；以及帕特里夏·金塔納（Patricia Quintana）和卡羅爾·哈雷爾森（Carol Harrelson）在《墨西哥的生活盛宴》（Mexico’s Feast of Life）（Tulsa，OK，1989）一書中提出的食譜實(shí)踐。另參見Jeffrey M. Pilcher, “?Vivan Tamales!The Creation of a Mexican National Cuisine” (Ph.D. diss., Texas Christian University, 1993)。

(48)James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT, 1990；中文版參：《支配與抵抗藝術(shù)：潛隱劇本》，王佳鵬譯，南京：南京大學(xué)出版社，2021); E. P.Thompson, “Patrician Society, Plebeian Culture,” Journal of Social History 7, no. 4 (Summer 1974):382-405. 基思·巴索（Keith Basso）在《“白人”的畫像：西部阿帕切人的語(yǔ)言游戲和文化符號(hào)》（Portraits of “The Whiteman”: Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbols among the Western Apache，Cambridge, 1979）一書中仔細(xì)考察了在阿帕切族居留地被作為一種對(duì)外界（尤其是威權(quán)）的反抗形式的嘲諷行為。

(49)參見“Bakhtin, Marxism, and the Carnivalesque” in Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts,Language, by Dominick LaCapra (Ithaca, NY, 1983), esp. 301-306。針對(duì)拉卡普拉（LaCapra）影響的討論，可參見Lloyd S. Kramer, “Literature, Criticism, and Historical Imagination: The Literary Challenge of Hayden White and Dominick LaCapra,” in Hunt, ed. New Cultural History, 97-128。

(50)AGN, Historia 19, fol. 257v-282; 羅馬耶穌會(huì)檔案館（Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu）收藏的1676年5月28日?qǐng)?bào)告《墨西哥》（“Mexicana”），發(fā)表于Documentos para la historia de México, 4th ser., 3: 272-294。感謝蘇珊·迪茲（Susan Deeds）提醒我們注意這些信息。參見“Horrific Comedy: Cultural Resistance and the Hauka Movement in Niger,”Ethos 12, no. 2 (Summer 1984): 165-188，保羅·斯托勒（Paul Stoiler）在文中對(duì)臣民如何利用傳統(tǒng)文化實(shí)踐和模仿顛覆殖民當(dāng)局進(jìn)行了令人振奮的考察。

(51)María Elena Díaz, “The Satiric Penny Press for Workers in Mexico, 1900-1910: A Case Study in the Politicisation of Popular Culture,” JLAS 22, no. 3 (October 1990): 497-525. 該文章還被收錄于John A. Britton, ed., Molding the Hearts and Minds: Education, Communications, and Social Change in Latin America (Wilmington, DE, 1994)。

(52)William H. Beezley, “Mexican Political Humor,” Journal of Latin American Lore 11, no. 2 (1985):195-223.

(53)Octavio Paz, The Labyrinth of Solitude, trans. Lysander Kemp (New York, 1985), 51.

(54)Davis, Society and Culture, 124-151.

(55)Epstein, “Understanding the Cap of Liberty,” 100-107.

(56)Joyce, Visions of the People, 171, 225.

(57)“Introduction: Custom and Culture,” in Customs in Common, ed. E. P. Thompson (London, 1991), 6.另參見作者在《貴族與平民》（The Patricians and the Plebs）一書中對(duì)法律及政治的戲劇性質(zhì)的談?wù)摚?6頁(yè)。

(58)關(guān)于在墨西哥運(yùn)用象征與現(xiàn)實(shí)二分法的早期研究，可參見Ruth Behar, “Sex and Sin, Witchcraft and the Devil in Late-Colonial Mexico,” American Ethnologist 14, no. 1 (February 1987): 34-54。

(59)Ronald G. Waiters, “Signs of the Times: Clifford Geertz and Historians,” Social Research 47, no. 4(Autumn 1980): 544, 553. 提出該觀點(diǎn)的其他學(xué)者包括Suzanne Desan in “Crowds, Community, and Ritual in the Work of E. P. Thompson and Natalie Davis,” 68; Aletta Biersack, “Local Knowledge,Local History: Geertz and Beyond,” in Hunt, ed., New Cultural History, 72-96。

(60)Gabrielle Spiegel, “History, Historicism, and the Social Logic of the Text in the Middle Ages,”Speculum 65, no. 1 (January 1990): 85.

(61)Clifford Geertz, “History and Anthropology,” New Literary History 21(1989-90): 331. 另參見Sean Wilentz, ed., Rites of Power: Symbolism, Ritual, and Politics Since the Middle Ages (Philadelphia,1985); David Cannadine and Simon Price, Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge, 1987)。

(62)一個(gè)最近的例子可參見Richard Graham, Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil (Stanford,CA, 1990)。

(63)WiIliam B. Taylor, “Between Global Process and Local Knowledge: An Inquiry into Early Latin American Society History, 1500-1900,” in Reliving the Past: The Worlds of Social History, ed. Olivier Zunz (Chapel Hill, NC, 1985), 115.