达格玛·舍弗尔，《知识的归属：超越知识产权》（麻省理工学院出版社，2023年）

大家好。

Hello, everybody.

我是马歇尔·波。

This is Marshall Poe.

我是新书网络的创始人兼主编。

I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network.

如果你正在听这个，那你应该知道，新书网络是全球最大的学术播客网络。

And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world.

我们拥有两百万的全球听众。

We reach a worldwide audience of 2,000,000 people.

你可能已经拥有一个播客，或者正在考虑创建一个播客。

You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast.

正如你所知，这会遇到一些挑战。

As you probably know, there are challenges.

基本上分为两类。

Basically, of two kinds.

一是技术问题。

One is technical.

你需要掌握一些知识，才能制作和发布你的播客。

There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed.

第二个问题是，也是最大的难题，你需要吸引听众。

And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience.

在播客领域，建立听众群体是当今最难做到的事情。

Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today.

请记住，我们在NBN推出了一项名为NBN Productions的服务。

Put this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions.

我们的工作是帮助你创建、制作、发布播客，并托管你的播客。

What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast.

最重要的是，我们会将你的播客分发给NBN的听众群体。

Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience.

我们已经多次为许多学术播客提供过这项服务，我们很乐意帮助你。

We've done this many times with many academic podcasts, and we would like to help you.

如果您有兴趣与我们讨论我们如何帮助您制作播客，请与我们联系。

If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us.

请访问新图书网络的首页，您会看到指向NBN制作的链接。

Just go to the front page of the New Books Network, and you will see a link to NBN productions.

点击链接，填写表格，我们可以进一步交流。

Click that, fill out the form, and we can talk.

欢迎来到新图书网络。

Welcome to the New Books Network.

欢迎来到新图书网络的图书馆科学频道。

Welcome to the Library Science channel on New Books Network.

今天，我邀请到了《知识的归属：超越知识产权》（2023年麻省理工学院出版社出版）的编辑德加马·沙弗、阿纳普尔纳·马米迪普里和马吕斯·布宁。

Today, I'm joined by Degmar Schafer, Anapurna Mamidipuri, and Marius Booning, editors of Ownership of Knowledge, Beyond Intellectual Property, published by MIT Press in 2023.

科学、技术、医学和法律领域的学者们通常将知识视为人类理解的总和，并将其归属视为法律上的占有。

Scholars of science, technology, medicine, and law have all tended to emphasize knowledge as the sum of human understanding and its ownership as possession by law.

与传统上将知识产权主要视为与文字、思想史或科学与法律相关的讨论不同，《超越知识产权的知识归属》提出将技术作为研究知识归属多重影响的核心视角。

Breaking with traditional discourse on knowledge property as something that concerns mainly words and intellectual history or science and law, ownership of knowledge beyond intellectual property proposes technology as a central heuristic for studying the many implications of knowledge ownership.

为此，本书聚焦于法庭、车间、政策和研究实践中的知识与所有权观念，同时揭示学术本身作为揭示知识实践和社会秩序中固有政治性的有力工具。

Toward this end, this book focuses on the notions of knowledge and ownership in courtrooms, workshops, policy, and research practices, while also shedding light on scholarship itself as a powerful tool for making explicit the politics inherent in knowledge practices and social order.

达格玛、阿纳普尔纳和马里乌斯，欢迎来到新书网络。

Dagmar, Anapurna and Marius, welcome to New Books Network.

在讨论你们的书之前，我非常希望你们每个人都能介绍一下自己，比如你们的兴趣、研究方向、教育经历以及目前所在地。

And before we turn to talking about your book, I would love if each of you could introduce yourselves, maybe you know what your interests are, your research interests and what your education journey has been and where you're currently based.

达格玛，如果你愿意先开始的话。

Dagmar, if you'd like to start.

是的，非常感谢你们邀请我们。

Yes, thank you so much for having us.

也非常感谢你们给我们机会向你们的听众介绍我们的书。

And thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to introduce our book to your community.

我的名字是达格玛·舍弗尔。

So my name is Dagmar Schafer.

我受过技术史和汉学的训练，也就是中国研究。

I am actually a historian of technology and sinology by training, so Chinese studies.

从这个角度出发，我开始研究科学史。

And from that perspective, I've started to look into the history of science.

这就是我能说的全部了。

That's basically all I can say.

因此，我也开始对所有权和知识的问题产生兴趣，因为我认为历史学家在其中有所贡献，但他们自己却并未意识到这一点。

And that's how I actually became interested also in the question of ownership and knowledge, both because there is, I think, something that historians contribute to it and that they are actually not aware of.

而且作为一名科学史学家，我对知识传播的一般动态非常感兴趣。

And because as a historian of science, I'm very interested in the dynamics of knowledge dissemination in general.

太好了。

Super.

谢谢。

Thank you.

安纳普尔纳，接下来你来说吗？

Annapurna, would you like to go next?

嗯，你好。

Yeah, hi.

我接受过工程师的训练，曾在一家非政府组织工作多年，与工匠们合作，主要是手工织布工，之后又攻读了科学技术研究（STS）博士学位，探讨手工织布作为一种社会技术。

So I trained as an engineer and worked in an NGO for many years, working with craftspeople, mostly handloom weavers, and then went on to do a PhD in STS, talking about handloom weaving as a kind of sociotechnology.

由于我经常与那些非常有知识但不被视为有知识、而只被视为拥有劳动的人合作，因此我寻找并找到了科技史学家和科学史学家的群体，因为他们的研究对象在很多方面也是工匠。

And since I work a lot with people who are very knowledgeable, but are not seen as being knowledgeable, but having labor, I was looking for I found a community in historians of technology and historians of science because their subjects are also craftspeople in many ways.

所以我觉得和他们交流起来很容易。

So I found it easy to talk to them.

这就是我来到这里的原因。

That's how I come to be here.

太棒了。

Amazing.

谢谢。

Thank you.

马里乌斯？

Marius?

你好。

Hi.

我是奥斯陆大学早期现代史的助理教授，主要研究早期现代欧洲的知识产权史。

I'm an assistant professor of early modern history at the University of Oslo, where I mainly work on the history of intellectual property rights in early modern Europe.

我想我对法律作为知识生产与国家形成过程之间转折点的变革性影响很感兴趣。

And I guess I'm interested in the transformative impact that the law has as a switching point between knowledge production and processes of state formation.

太棒了。

Fantastic.

谢谢。

Thanks.

那么，谈到这本新书《知识的归属》，我非常好奇这个项目是如何诞生的，以及你为这本书设定了哪些主要目标。

So then I guess turning to this new book, Ownership of Knowledge, I'm really curious about how this project came to be and what the what the main goals were that you had for this book.

阿努普尔娜，也许我们可以先从你开始。

Anupurna, maybe we could start with you.

对我来说，这个项目始于维达格马尔和马里乌斯之间已经进行的一个项目。

Well, it started for me with a project that was already ongoing between Vedagmar and Marius.

他们当时在讨论知识产权，并试图超越知识产权。

They were talking about intellectual property, going beyond intellectual property.

我也受邀参加了那次研讨会。

And we had a conference to which I was also invited.

会上有法律史学家，还有其他研究不同知识所有权体系的学者。

And there were legal historians and there were other scholars who actually were looking at different regimes of knowledge ownership.

很明显，这两个学术群体之间缺乏交流。

And it seemed it was quite clear that these two communities were not communicating to each other.

因此，我们三人都对这一问题感到担忧。

And so I think all three of us were concerned about that.

但我们各自的切入点却非常不同。

And so but we had very different entry points.

我的想法是，这些人根本不懂。

Mine was that, yeah, these people don't get it.

我们必须告诉他们这究竟是怎么回事。

We have to tell them what it's all about.

于是我给达格玛尔写了信，她说：那你过来吧，我们聚一聚。

And then I wrote to Dagmar and she said, well, then come on over and let's get together and.

看看我们能为这场对话做些什么。

See what we can do about that conversation.

所以，这就是我这边的起点。

So that's where it started for me.

太棒了。

Amazing.

达格玛，我很想听听你对这一切是如何开始的看法。

Dagmar, I'd love to hear your perspective on how all of that started.

是的，谢谢。

Yeah, thank you.

我的经历其实是从我和阿努普娜坐在一栋玻璃办公大楼里面对面开始的，我们意识到彼此都在努力工作，并且有一些共同点。

I mean, actually, it started with Anupuna and me sitting across each other in a glass office business building, realizing that we were all both were working very hard and had something in common.

直到经过几次交谈后，我们才意识到这种共同兴趣究竟在哪里。

And we only realized after having a couple of conversations where this common interest actually was.

那就是，我们都从事知识相关的工作，或者说，我们经常思考知识社群的问题。

Namely, in the way in which we are workers on knowledge, or like we think about knowledge communities a lot.

我们都对工作中人们被剥夺所有权的方式感到非常沮丧，对吧？

And we were both very frustrated in the way in which it ownership is taken from people through our work, yeah?

所以我们某种程度上也对此负有责任。

So that we are kind of also responsible for it.

那么，作为历史学家、非政府组织工作者，或从法律角度研究科学的人，你究竟该如何阻止这种情况呢？

And so how do you actually stop that as a historian, as an NGO worker, as somebody who looks at the sciences from law.

实际上，我认为这个想法成形于我强迫阿努普纳骑自行车，沿着密歇根湖骑行的时候。

And actually, I think the idea took form as I tried to force Anapuna on a bicycle and take a ride to like basically along the Michigan's Lake.

我认为，正是在那里，这个想法真正开始蓬勃发展。

And I think that's where the idea really began to thrive.

太棒了。

Fantastic.

马里乌斯，我很想知道你是如何参与这个项目的开端的。

Marius, I'm curious how you took part in the start of this.

是的。

Yeah.

我只能附和迪安娜所说的话。

I can only follow-up on agree with what Dianna said.

我通常与法律史学家或专注于法律层面的人合作。

So I I I normally work with, I guess, people, historians of law or people who really work on the legal aspects of things.

在本次会议期间以及会后，我们大量讨论了如何挑战这一叙事，以及如何真正超越知识产权。

Then during this conference and also afterwards, we were talking a lot about how to challenge that narrative and how to go indeed beyond intellectual property.

这一切就是这样开始的。

That's how it all got started.

我认为最吸引我的，也是学者在这一切中所持的政治立场。

I think what interested me most was also the political aspect of the political stance of the scholar in all this.

那么，作为学者，我们的角色是什么？

So what's the role of us as scholars in this discussion?

然后我就跟着参与进来了。

And then I just rode along.

是的。

Yeah.

我知道我们稍后会谈到学者的角色。

And I know we will get to talking about the role of scholars.

但在前言和第一章中，你已经为全书奠定了基础。

But in the preface and the first chapter, you've laid out this foundation for the rest of the book.

首先，你探讨了‘可知性’这一概念，将可知性与可拥有性联系在一起。

So first, you write about the concept of what is knownable, tying together what is knowable and what's ownable.

然后，你提出了一章理论内容，探讨我们如何理解知识被财产化的各种方式。

And then you present a theoretical chapter that explores how we can understand all the different ways that knowledge is made property.

那么，你能再多谈谈你是如何得出‘可知性’这一想法的吗？并解释一下你理论所奠定的基础。

So could you speak a little more about how you arrived at this idea of the knownable and then explain the foundation that your theoretical lays out.

我不确定你们谁想先回答这个问题。

I'm not sure which of you wants to start on that.

我知道肯定是达格玛尔最先提出‘可知性’这个说法的。

Well, I know for sure that it was Dagmar who first said knownable.

所以我认为你应该来回答这个问题。

So I think you should answer this.

是的，我不太确定我们是否真的能再把这些整合在一起。

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if we can actually really get that together again.

但我认为，我们书的引言中的例子至少很好地概括了这一点。

But I think the example in the introduction of our book, at least very much summarizes it for me.

所以，无论你是骑自行车，还是作为科学家或工匠做事，总是存在这三个方面，或者说，通过身体、头脑和双手来理解事物的多种维度，对吧？

So this idea of whether you ride a bicycle, or whether you do something as a scientist or a craftsman, there are always these three sides, or like these many facets of knowing something with your body, through your mind, through your hands, right?

如果你真的理解某事，中国哲学认为这是与生俱来的，你就必须真正掌握它。

You need if you really comprehend something, so Chinese philosophy says it's innate, then you have to really grasp it.

你必须能够复述它，对吧？

You have to be able to reiterate it, right?

用语言表达出来，付诸实践，对吧？

To put it into words, to perform it, right?

所以要让所有这些方面都直接掌握在你手中。

So to have all these facets directly at your hands.

而当你真正拥有知识时，就是这样。

And so that's when you really have knowledge.

所以你拥有了它。

So you have it.

然后你把它传递给其他人。

And then you give it away to somebody else.

就像我试图说服安娜普尔娜骑自行车一样，对吧？

Like when I tried to convince Annapurna to ride with the bike, right?

尽管她好像曾提到过，我不骑自行车，但她还是做到了，对吧？

Even though she I think she mentioned at one point, like, I'm not riding the bike, but she made it, right?

所以她实践了它。

So she performs it.

她拥有这辆自行车。

She has the bicycle.

她使用了这个工具。

She uses the instrument.

你对身体所知的东西，是有物质性的，对吧？

You have a materiality to what you actually know with your body, right?

所有这些事物实际上都是存在的。

It's like all these things are actually there.

而正是在那时，你才能真正理解。

And that's when you are able to know.

当你能够理解时，你也能拥有它、给予它，并与他人分享。

And then it's when you're able to know, you're also able to own it, and to give it away, and to share it with somebody else.

所以我认为，觉悟的陷阱在于，我曾经意识到：我们确实拥有它，但我们以为拥有它、占有它和给予它，是两回事。

So I think the enlightenment trap is somehow that's where I had this awareness of recognition of like, so we have it, but we think having it, and owning it and giving it away are two things.

这怎么可能呢？

How can that actually be?

我们为什么实际上要这么做？

And why are we actually doing that?

我认为，正是在这种认知中，我领悟到：我们总是将知识割裂，总是懂得如何强调知识的这些不同片段，这实在非常奇怪。

And I think that's where the insight was born that there is something really very strange in the way in which we always fragment knowledge, and always know how to emphasise these different fragments of having knowledge.

既然我们知道知识是一个如此全面的概念，我们为什么还要这么做？

Why are we doing that, when we know that knowledge is such a comprehensive category?

也许你们可以补充一下。

Maybe you guys can fill in.

希望这没有太哲学化。

I hope this was not too philosophical.

这非常有帮助。

That was really helpful.

是的，如果你们中有谁想进一步补充的话。

Yeah, if one of you would like to add to that.

我认为教条总是从可知之物开始的。

I think that dogma so always starts with the knownable.

我总是从可知的和可拥有的出发，然后试图说，这其实并不完全契合，这一直是我们 refining '可知之物' 概念的常方法，而这一概念实际上在每个案例中都强烈地浮现出来。

And I always start with the knowable and the ownable and then try and say, well, it's not really fitting, you know, and this has been a constant way for us to refine, what we mean by the knownable, which actually emerge very strongly from each of the cases.

因此，每一个案例都非常契合人们如何将可知之物转化为可知的和可敬的。

So you have every one of those cases fits very nicely into how people actually manipulate the knownable into turning into the knowable and the honorable.

对我个人而言，我有一个非常明确的立场：在手工艺中，'拥有知识' 和 '拥有知识' 这两个概念并不相符。

And for myself, I have a very clear place from which what is considered having knowledge and what is considered owning knowledge just don't fit with craftspaper.

所以你知道如何编织特定的图案，但你没有权利编织它，因为这是文化遗产，任何人都可以编织。

So you have the knowledge of weaving a particular motive, but you don't own the right to weave it because it's cultural property and anybody can weave it.

因此，你所建立的这种知识所有权体系，实际上并不符合他们对‘已知’的理解方式。

So you've created this regime that we have of knowledge ownership doesn't actually fit their way of the known.

这是一个非常明确的立场，让我能够从已知的存在出发去寻找值得注意之处，但它正被碎片化。

That's a very clear position from which I could look or look for the notable from knowing that it exists, but it's being fragmented.

是的，这很有道理。

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

谢谢。

Thank you.

马里乌斯，你对这个框架还有什么要补充的吗？

Marius, is there anything that you wanna add to that framework that came out there?

没有。

No.

没什么。

Not really.

我觉得说得很好，对我来说，这本质上归结为一个非常简单的观点：我们常常把物体或其他东西视为要么被拥有、要么被知晓，却忽略了另一面。

I think it was well, put I mean, I think for me, it's it's it's it's essentially boils down to something very simple that that we often talk of of of even objects or whatever it is as as being either owned or or known, and and we tend to neglect the other side.

因此，谈论一个物体时，不能只谈所有权而不讨论其认识论，反之亦然。

So one cannot talk about something, an object, for instance, just by talking about ownership without discussing its apostomology and vice versa.

所以，这是一种非常有趣而直接的逻辑，即这两者始终内在关联，我希望这本书也能向读者和学术界展示这一点。

So it's a very funny, straightforward logic, so to say, that the two are always intrinsically linked, And I hope that this book shows that as well to readers and the scholarly community as well.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

绝对如此。

Absolutely.

它要求我们记住整个这一系列的维度。

It asks us to, like, remember the whole the whole spectrum of that.

因此，本书的第二章到第十章呈现了多位贡献者提供的各种案例研究，我不会要求你们任何一人代表这些贡献者发言，但如果有你们想特别强调的贡献，请尽管提出来。

So then chapters two through 10 of this book present a variety of case studies by several contributors, and I don't want to ask any of you to speak on behalf of those contributors, although if there's contributions you'd like to highlight, please do.

但你也撰写或合著了其中一些案例研究，我想我们可以重点讨论这些部分。

But you also wrote or co authored some of these case studies, and I thought we could maybe focus on those.

第一部分探讨了图书出版中的知识所有权问题。

In the first section, looking at knowledge ownership within book publishing.

马里乌斯，你的章节探讨了我们当前知识产权框架是如何形成的。

Marius, your chapter here explores how our current framework of intellectual property has developed.

你能跟听众分享一下这段历史，以及你指出的这个历史叙事所依赖的偏见和假设吗？

So could you share some of that history with listeners and some of the biases and assumptions that you point out this historic narrative is relying on?

在这个案例研究中，我研究了法学院学生是如何被教授知识产权法的历史的。

So what I did in that case study was to look at the way in which law students are being taught the history of intellectual property law.

我考察了大学所使用的教材，特别是那些用于构建过去与现在之间连续性的修辞策略。

So I looked at the selection of textbooks that are used at universities and especially at the rhetorical strategies that are being used to create a sort of continuity between past and present.

我发现的一个问题是，这个故事的讲述方式实际上非常类似于鲍文和路德维希·冯·诺伊曼所描述的童话讲述方式。

And well, one of the things I found, for instance, is that that actually the way that that story is being told very much resembles the way in which Bowen and Ludwig von Neurathology, the way in which in which fairy tales are told.

因此，故事中总有一个稳定的状态，然后外部力量改变了这种状态，最终我们进入了一个新的稳定状态。

So there's a sort of a stable situation, then there are external forces that change the situation, and then we end up in a new stable situation.

这就是这段历史被强行塑造的方式。

And that's the way that that history is being clobbered out.

让我感到惊讶的是，因此某些方面被着重强调，而其他方面则被弱化。

Well, what surprised me is that therefore there's certain aspects that have more emphasis and others less so.

所以，如果你读这些书，就会发现法律有一种自然的扩展趋势，本质上，讲述的是它如何走向现代的过程。

So there's this sort of natural expansion of the law, if you read those books, essentially, the story of, you know, how it became modern.

而且，从法律角度来看，这确实很有道理。

And, you know, it makes a lot of sense from a legal perspective.

我的意思是，这些都是由杰出学者撰写的优秀著作，它们在教授法学院学生时具有非常特定的功能。

So, I mean, these are these are all all very good books written by excellent scholars that are are teaching law students that have this very specific function.

但我仍然对梅特兰所说的‘历史的逻辑’与‘法律的逻辑’之间的这种差异感到惊讶。

But I guess I was still surprised about this this this divide between what Meitland called the logic of history and the logic of the law.

历史学家希望将事物置于其背景中理解，而律师则只关心或倾向于关注当下，历史只是通向现代性的垫脚石。

So historians want to see things in their in its context, whereas lawyers actually only are interested or tend to be interested in the present, and history is just a stepping stone for modernity.

是的，这极大地影响了我们对‘何物可被拥有’的理解。

And, yeah, well, that that impacts a lot the way in which we think of what can be owned.

所以，这不仅是关于知识的占有，更是关于对占有的认知。

So this is not just a story of ownership of knowledge, but also the knowledge of ownership, so to say.

而这正是我想在这篇文章中指出的，或者说是我想在这一章中研究的内容。

And and that's what I wanted to point out in this article, or that's what I wanted to study in this chapter.

是的，将这一点回溯到我们如何教授人们，比如对教科书的审视，这非常有趣。

Yeah, and it's so interesting to take that back to how we are teaching people, like this examination of textbooks.

我觉得这真的、真的非常引人入胜。

I found that really, really fascinating.

第二组案例研究则考察了用于授权认知与占有的不同实践，例子涵盖从纺织品制作到小学科学实验。

And then the second group of case studies looks at different practices that are used to authorize knowing and owning with examples ranging from textile creation to grade school science experiments.

安纳普尔纳，我很希望你能谈谈你与维鲁恩·穆尔蒂合著的关于南印度当代古典音乐表演实践的章节。

And, Annapurna, I would love if you could speak about the chapter you co authored here with Virun Murti about performance practice of contemporary classical music in South India.

我非常欣赏你指出拉格是一种知识形式。

I really love how you point out that raga is a form of knowledge.

所以，我很希望你能分享这个例子，以及你得出的结论，说明实践与社会背景如何成为拥有知识的合法方式。

So I would love if you could share about this example and those conclusions you arrived at and how all of this exemplifies practice and social context as a legitimate way of owning knowledge.

好的，我刚才想从我们那里提到的章节开始讲起，因为我们在那一节中引入了知识占有的三种实践。

Okay, I was saying that I would like to start a little bit with the section that we have there, because we actually introduced the three practices of knowledge ownership in that section.

我们的观点是，通常我们认为这些是认知的方式，但在这里我们真正要提出的是，它们同时也是占有知识的方式。

And the point is that we think of them usually as ways of knowing, but what we are really putting forward here is that they are also ways of owning knowledge.

因此，如果我们有这三种物质体现形式：语言、身体和物体。

So if we have these three material instantiations, the word, body, and object.

而我们在这节中特别讨论的是，当知识主要通过命名来授权、通过物体来授权，或通过身体来授权时，知识是如何运作的。

And we are talking particularly in this section about how knowledge works when it's predominantly working, authorized by naming, and when it's authorized in an object, the ownership, or when in a body.

当然，所有案例都同时包含这三种形式，因为现实就是这样运作的。

And of course, all the cases have all three together because that's how it works.

但这样有助于我们更好地理解不同体制是如何运作的。

But this helps us to kind of look at how different regimes actually work.

因此，如果你是从事物体相关工作的人，比如关于爪哇蜡染的案例就会更贴切。

So if you're someone who's working with objects, the case about the object, the Java Batik, would make more sense, for example.

而如果你更关注课堂中的教学实践，那么艾米·斯拉顿的案例就非常合适。

And if you're more interested in what happens with pedagogy in a classroom, then Amy Slaton's case is really good for that.

我的意思是，这确实传达得很清楚。

I mean, it really communicates.

所以关于音乐这一章，当然，我是和我的合著者维伦一起写的。

So the thing with the music chapter, of course, I wrote it with my coauthor, Viren.

目前在音乐界，特别是在卡纳提克音乐界，正爆发一场激烈的争议，关于某个特定种姓群体的主导地位，其中一些人现在甚至指责自己窃取了这些知识。

And there's a raging controversy right now in the music world, in the Carnatic music world, about the dominance of a particular caste group who are now, some of them, accusing themselves of having appropriated that knowledge.

但即使在这一争论中，也明显存在将‘高尚的’与‘可拥有的’区分开来的问题。

But even in that debate, there is a clear problem of separating the noble and the ownable.

维拉和我很好奇，如果我们说知识像音乐一样是通过表演来体现的，那么所有权就是通过表演来实现的，这个案例会是什么样子。

Veera and I wondered how that case would look like if we said, well, knowledge is performed as music is, then the ownership is through performance.

你表演你所知道的，这就是你拥有知识的方式。

You perform what you know, and that's how you have that knowledge.

那么，知识就存在于身体和关系之中，对吧？

Then the knowledge is located in bodies and relationships, right?

因此，它的运作方式——包括与排除——将通过身体如何包含和排除来实现。

So the way in which it will operate, the inclusion and the exclusion will happen through how bodies include and exclude.

所以，你属于某个种姓或某个俱乐部。

So, you belong to a certain caste or to a certain club.

通过社会包容，你也可以在认识论上包容，或者通过社会排斥造成认识论上的排斥。

And by social inclusion, you can also include epistemically, or you exclude socially and you've created epistemic exclusion.

因此，我们正是想在这个案例中展示这一点。

So that's what we were trying to show in that case.

是的，谢谢。

Yeah, thank you.

我认为，那种所有权与知识之间的张力在这里确实非常明显。

And I think that, yeah, that tension between ownership and knowledge was really, really apparent to me there.

那些可能不主张所有权的人，或许也有空间去认识到，他们的知识本身就伴随着所有权。

And folks who might not claim ownership, having space maybe to recognize that there is ownership that comes along with their knowledge.

是的，这向我们提出了许多有趣的问题。

Yeah, asks a lot of interesting questions of us.

接下来，我们转向第三组案例研究，这些研究探讨了社会和经济领域对知识所有权的影响。

And then moving to the third group of case studies, these explore how domains of society and economy have consequences for knowledge ownership.

达格玛，你在这里写了一章，探讨了前现代中国手工艺知识的归属问题。

And Dagmar, you wrote here a chapter that looks at ownership of craft knowledge in pre modern China.

当时存在哪些方式来合法化和拥有知识？

What types of practices existed at this time for legitimizing and owning knowledge?

这些实践如何推动、构建或消除权力？

And how did those practices work to shift and build or erase power?

命名如何成为规范手工艺工作的一种方式？

How did naming become a way to regulate craft work?

是的，完全正确。

Yes, absolutely.

我认为这正是安纳普尔纳总是说的，名字对中国历史学家来说如此重要，因为士人——也就是学者——实际上为一切事物命名，而他们之所以能命名，是因为他们能拥有自己所知道的东西。

I think it's the piece why Annapurna always says, like, names are so important for historians of China, because the literati, so the scholars actually name everything, and that's because they can name it, they can actually own what they know.

我想强调的是，这种做法在中国历史上是如何被延续了几个世纪的。

And I wanted to emphasize how this in Chinese history has been mobilized over centuries.

这也意味着，在中国历史上，你几乎找不到真正的版权法，对吧？

And also meant that in Chinese history, you don't find really copyright laws, right?

所以威廉·阿福德写了一本非常流行的书，说偷书是一种高雅的过错。

So there's a very popular book by William Alford saying, like, to steal a book is an elegant offense.

我认为辛西娅·布罗卡在书中很好地展示了如何拥有木版。

I think Cynthia Broca in the book really very nicely shows how you can own the woodblock.

但中国学者总是认为，如果你无法掌握知识，仅仅读一本书是没有用的，对吧？

But Chinese scholars always believe like, if you are not able to grasp the knowledge, it doesn't help that you read a book, right?

这并不意味着你就真正懂了，但这也是一种绝佳的策略，用来否认那些不懂如何操纵文字和命名的人。

That doesn't mean that you know But it's also a great strategy to disown all those people who don't know how to manipulate words, right, and manipulate namings.

我认为你可以看到这一趋势在现代中国历史中的长期延续，比如现代中国对待品牌或商标，以及拥有悠久版权历史的理念。

And I think the long arc that you can see to that, for instance, in modern Chinese history is the way in which modern China deals with brands or trademarks, or the idea of having a long history of copyright.

所以让我以安纳普尔纳提到的工匠为例。

So they have to really Let me take the example of the craftspeople that Annapurna was talking about.

我们所知的真正多产的工匠、工程师或科学家的名字非常少，他们总是湮没在集体之中。

There are very few names, like, of actual very prolific craftsman engineer or scientists that we know of, they always disappear in the collective.

而正是文人定义了这些人究竟具备何种专长。

And it's the literati who define what kind of expertise these people actually have.

所以无论他们是皮革匠、织工、车工，还是从事其他何种工作。

So whether they are tanners or weavers, or wheelers, or what kind of tasks they are actually performing.

因此，通过不命名这些人，也不允许他们的个性显现，现代中国可以宣称，例如，景德镇陶瓷生产者或制作者的地方文化遗产，仿佛这是一种共同分享的技艺，而无需归功于个人，对吧？

So by not naming those people and not allowing their individuality to show, modern China can claim, for instance, a local cultural heritage of, for instance, Jingdezhen porcelain producers or makers, and can do as if this is a commonly shared craft, and It does not need the attribution to individuals, right?

于是，你将其视为文化遗产，却不将其纳入工程故事的一部分，就像在德国的普鲁士时代，德累斯顿或梅森等地的人们真正开始发现和发明新的瓷器技术那样。

So you make it cultural heritage, but you don't make it part of, for instance, an engineering story, as you would do that in the German landscape through the Prussian times when actually in Dresden or elsewhere, people in Meissen started to really discover and invent new techniques of porcelain.

所以你看，由于当时的历史学家、哲学家和学者们关注的是通过语言、描述和记录来操控知识的不同方式，因此你拥有了一段完全不同的历史。

So you see, you have an entirely different history, because historians and philosophers and scholars at that point in time were focusing on different ways of manipulating knowledge through their words, through their descriptions, through their documentation.

我想展示并说明，如果历史学家声称中国没有拥有或操控知识的历史方式，也不属于法律范畴，那你只是忽略了故事的另一部分。

And I wanted to show that and say that, like, look here, if historians then claim that China doesn't have historical ways to own knowledge or to manipulate it, and it was not part of law, you are missing part of the story.

你没有看到实际发生的事情。

You don't see what actually happened.

你并不需要法律来操控人们如何拥有知识。

You don't need laws to manipulate how people can own knowledge.

这可能也是许多人类学家在当代世界所讲述的故事，对吧？

And that's probably a story a lot of anthropologists have told as well, right, in the contemporary world.

但我看到这里有一种特定的思考方式。

So, but I see there a certain way of thinking about it.

如果你不能真正突破这些思维方式，就总会陷入同样的陷阱。

And if you don't really break out of these, like, ways of thinking, then you always end up in the same trap.

完全正确，没错。

Absolutely, yeah.

我觉得这是一个非常生动的例子，展示了社会实践如何抹去具体的人、抹去特定类型的专业知识和知识生产。

And I thought that was such a, vivid example of how social practices can erase specific people, erase specific kinds of expertise and knowledge making.

是的。

Yeah.

因此，你在本书的结尾部分探讨了学术研究本身如何影响知识与所有权。

And so then you wrap up this book with a section on how the work of scholarship itself impacts knowledge and ownership.

它使某些人成为合法的知者，同时将其他人变为非知者。

It legitimizes knowers and turns other people into not knowers.

然后你分享了一些分析所有权与知识关系的工具。

And then you share some tools for analyzing the relationships of ownership and knowledge.

实际上，马里乌斯，你在本集开头提到了对学者和学术研究的影响。

And actually, Marius, you referred a little bit at the top of this episode to implications for scholars and scholarship.

所以我不知道你是否愿意从这里开始，和我们多分享一些你希望读者从这本书中获得的工具和想法，不仅关于他们自己的学术研究，也关于他们如何看待现有的学术或所谓的知识——什么被认定为知识，以及你希望这本书为现有的对话和可能开启的新对话增添什么内容。

So I don't know if you want to start off here just sharing with us a little bit more about the tools and ideas you hope readers take away from this book in terms of their own scholarship, but also how they look at existing scholarship or quote unquote knowledge, what is deemed knowledge, what you hope this book will add to existing conversations and and new conversations that might start.

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

Sure.

我认为阿努普尔娜更适合回答关于最后一章的问题，但我希望其他人能从这本书中汲取的，是更认真地对待所有权这一问题，尤其是在某些法律情境下，但并不总是局限于法律。

So, I think Anupurna is better positioned to answer the question on the last chapter, but my hope for others to take that they take away from this book, I guess, you know, this is written for a community of science, technology, SDS scholars, that they take this question of ownership more seriously to begin with in some cases of the law, but doesn't always have to be the law.

我的意思不是在谈法律史，也不是法律教义，而是法律技术或法律的工具如何影响，我甚至可以说塑造了正在产生的知识类型。

So, I mean, I'm not talking about legal history, so not about legal doctrine, but rather how legal technologies or technologies of the law actually affect and I would say shape also the type of knowledge that is being produced.

这种知识是如何在字面意义上被合法化的。

So how this knowledge gets legitimized in a rather literal sense.

这就是我的期望。

So, that's my hope.

总是很好能抱有希望，希望其他人能从中获得启发，并继续开展更多类似本书所提出案例的研究。

It's always good to have hope that others will take inspiration and continue with more case studies also along the lines that the ones we proposed in the book.

谢谢。

Thanks.

阿努普尔纳，你是否想补充一下，再详细谈谈这个结论章节？

Anupurna, do you want to add to that and tell us a little more about that concluding chapter?

我觉得就像达格玛尔说的，你指出了问题，说如果想理解知识的归属，光靠命名是不够的。

I think like Dagmar said, you know, you identify the problem, you say, well, naming is not going to do it if you want to understand ownership of knowledge.

但我们所依赖的这些根深蒂固的对立，当它们以文字形式呈现时，就变成了一种抽象，一种认识论。

But there are these deep rooted oppositions that we work with, that somehow when it's in words, there's an abstraction and there's epistemology.

但如果你谈论的是物体和身体，那就变成了物质性、社会性。

But if you're talking about objects and bodies, then it's material, it's social.

因此，某种意义上存在着一种开放的对立。

So somehow there is an open opposition.

这几乎像是物质性和社会性无法成为知识。

It's almost like material and social cannot be knowledge.

它们可以是知识的来源，但不能成为知识所有权的场所。

They can be sources of knowledge, but they can't be sites of ownership of knowledge.

因此，这些划分在我们脑海中根深蒂固。

So we have these divisions very much in our head.

所以，我们在这一章中试图说明：如果我们把词语、身体和物体都视为所有权、知识或知识场所的同等表现形式，那么我们能得出什么结论？

So what we try to do in that chapter was say, Okay, if we treat words, bodies, objects all on equal terms as kind of instantiations of either ownership or of knowledge or sites of knowledge, then what can we come up with?

因此，命名与表演和使用一样，都是一种物质性的实践。

So naming becomes as material a practice as performance and use.

而表演和使用所产生的抽象性，与命名不相上下。

And performance and use generate as much abstraction as naming.

这为我们提供了一个工具，正是我们希望本章发挥的作用：鼓励学者们也将现有的物质实践和社会结构视为挖掘知识所有权理解的场所，而不仅仅局限于文本之外。

And what that gives us, that's what we want to use the chapter for as a tool, is encourage scholars to also look at existing material practices and social arrangements as also places where you can mine for understanding knowledge ownership, and not just alongside the text.

所以我认为，这就是这一章想要实现的目标。

So I think that's what that chapter is trying to do.

非常感谢。

Thanks so much.

达格玛，关于你希望这能引发哪些新的讨论，或者你希望它对学者产生怎样的影响，还有什么要补充的吗？

Dagmar, is there anything you would add there about, you know, what new conversations you hope this starts or how you hope it impacts scholars?

我应该先说，至少阿努蓬和我，有时还包括马里乌斯，在这一部分上真的非常纠结。

I should probably first say like that at least Anupon and I, and sometimes Marius as well, were really struggling over this last part.

有两个人帮了我们很多，维韦克和——

And there were two people who helped us a lot, Vivek and-

简。

Jan.

简？

Jan?

简。

Jan.

是的，他

Yeah, who

帮我们深入思考了这个问题，给了人们这个工具，对吧。

helped us a lot to think that through, right, to give people this tool.

有段时间，我真的很生安纳普尔纳的气，因为她放了这么多图表进去，反而让事情变得更复杂了。

And at some point, I was really mad at Annapurna because she put all these diagrams there, and it made it even more complicated.

然后她又把它变得简单了。

And then she made it easy again.

但我们制作这些图表时非常愉快。

But we had a lot of fun producing them.

但我真正想说的是，我认为所有知识工作者——而我想我们所有人某种程度上都是——尤其是那些在知识生产等级中处于高位的人，比如科学家、历史学家、社会学家，我希望他们意识到自己究竟拥有多少权力，以及他们有时是如何运用语言的。

But what I really want to say is I think there is I mean, I really want all knowledge workers, and I think we all are somehow, especially those of us who stand very high, right, in the hierarchy of knowledge making, scientists, historians, sociologists, I want them to realize how much power they actually have, and what they're doing sometimes with words.

我的学科背景是历史学。

I mean, very often, I'm coming from the discipline of history.

我经常听到同事们说：我们没有权力。

And I hear a lot of colleagues saying like, we have no power.

但我认为我们其实是有权力的。

And I think actually we do.

我们正在摧毁体系。

We destroy systems.

而且我们还维持着它们，对吧？

And we also keep them up, right?

我们让它们继续运转，即使我们对它们并不满意。

And we make them going and continue even though we are unhappy with them.

我认为我们应该提醒所有人这一点，明确地说：看，我们可以用完全不同的方式来做。

And I think alerting us all to this fact and really saying like, look, we could do it really differently.

我们的工作，无论是当图书管理员、科学家，还是任何其他职位，都会产生巨大的影响，因为我们的现代世界如此依赖这些工作，对吧？

There are like, there's a real, there's a huge impact with work we are doing, being a librarian, being a scientist, being whatever position you are actually because our modern world is like, is so important to it, right?

它真正推动着我们的经济、社会和文化。

It's really driving our economy, our societies, and our cultures.

我们把自己理解为这些知识工作者。

We understand ourselves as these knowledge workers.

我希望他们对此保持高度谨慎。

And I want them to be very careful with that.

我希望他们认真思考自己所做的事情，然后对自己的行为保持高度负责。

And I want them to really seriously think that to what they're doing, and then be very conscientious with, like, what they are doing.

因为我认为在那本书的创作过程中，有很多人挑战我们，说这并不算什么，或者这并不光荣。

Because I think in the production of that book, and we had a lot of people challenging us with like, but this is not an or this is not an honorable.

实际上并没有任何条件作用在发生。

And there is no conditioning really going on.

我想挑战每一个读这本书的人：如果你能给我们举出一个例子，证明你没有把一件事和另一件事条件性地联系起来，我就请你去一个美丽的热带岛屿度假四周。

And I would like to challenge everybody who's reading that book and saying like, if you can show us one thing where you're not really conditioning the one with the other, like, I'll buy you a vacation in a wonderful island, a tropical island for the next four weeks.

我敢肯定，你无法说服我们，存在一个这种情况没有真正发生。

I'm pretty sure you can't convince us that there is a case where this is not actually happening.

当你仔细观察时，你会发现，如果你定义了一个可拥有的东西，比如你拥有一辆自行车，是的，因此你就能学会骑车，对吧？

Where you're not really, if you look carefully, you see how if you define an ownable that you own the bike, yeah, and therefore you are able to learn how to cycle, right?

或者因此，你就不能骑车，对吧？

Or therefore, you cannot cycle, right?

所以你可以决定自己要做什么。

So you can decide what you're doing.

这种关系，总是这样的。

This relationship, it's always like this.

在我们这个现代社会中，竟然能忽视如此简单的事情，视而不见不平等正是由将彼此割裂所造成的，我认为这是一项惊人的历史发展，真的令人惊叹。

And that we can overlook something so simple in our modern world that we can overlook that and do as if inequality is not caused by fragmenting one from the other, I find an amazing historical development, really amazing.

因为最终，如果你真正意识到这一点，我会回望过去，心想：我怎么会曾经相信，定义不同种类的知识就能让我们摆脱这个困境呢？

Because in the end, if you really realize that, I think I'm I look back and I think like, how could I ever have believed that, like, defining different kinds of knowledges will get us out of this trap, right?

就能让世界变得更加平等。

Will get us, like, make the world more equal.

我怎么会曾经相信这一点呢？

How did I ever believe that?

我希望人们在阅读这本书时，真的能从中汲取这一点。

And that I hope people really take from the book when they read it.

他们拥有影响这一状况的力量。

That they have the power to influence that.

当然。

Absolutely.

我认为，你的观点深深触动了我——作为知识工作者，我们所有人必须认识到，我们在识别这些问题或忽视它们时所拥有的力量。

And I think, I mean, it really resonates with me, your comment that it's important for us to all recognize the power we have as knowledge workers in the way we identify these things or not.

我认为在我们常去的场所，比如图书馆和档案馆，这种情况很常见。我们有时认为那里没有所有权，因此就不做标记，但这为其他人留下了夺取所有权、掌握权力并制造不平等的空间。

I think we see that a lot in the spaces I am usually in, in libraries and archives, and sometimes we think that there's no ownership, and so we don't label it, but that leaves space for other other folks to to take that ownership, to take that power, to create these inequalities.

我认为你详细阐述了许多分析这些情境的方法，我觉得非常有帮助。

And I think you laid out a lot of ways for, like, examining those those scenarios that I found really helpful.

是的，谢谢。

Yeah, thank you.

而且我认为这里还有一个根本性的问题，对吧？

And I think there is also this whole question, right?

我工作在一个以科学为基础的机构里。

I'm working in a, like, science based institution.

因此，马克斯·普朗克学会主要由从事前沿研究的科学家组成。

So, the Max Planck Society mainly consists of people who are scientists who do cutting edge research.

而我们正在就开放数据和开放科学展开讨论。

And then we're having these debates on open data and open sciences.

你就会意识到，要让人们对这一点有清晰认识有多困难：开放性同时意味着，有些人因自己所掌握的知识而得不到应有的回报。

And you realize how difficult it is to make clear to people that openness, at the same time conditions that some people get not rewarded for what they know, right?

这是一种不平等。

It's an inequality.

我希望如果人们读到这一点，他们会意识到自己实际上在做什么。

And I hope that if people read that, then they realize what they're actually doing.

对，我们可以用更细致的方式讨论这些问题，认可所有与不同类型知识相关的人。

Right, and we can have like more nuanced ways for talking about things and recognizing all the everyone who's connected to different kinds of knowledge.

是的。

Yeah.

我已经占用了你们很多时间，但在结束之前，我很希望你们每个人能分享一下你们接下来在做什么。

Well, I've taken a lot of your time, but before we wrap up, I would love if you could each share what you're working on next.

如果你们有其他基于这本书的项目，或者任何全新的、现在正在着手的工作——这本书已经完成了。

If you have other projects that come out of this book or anything completely new you're working on now that maybe you have time, this book is wrapped up.

阿努普尔纳，你先来好吗？

Anupurna, do you want to start?

好的。

Yeah.

我们已经做了，这本书我们一直都在做

So we've already done so we've been working on this book for

很长时间。

a really long time.

而且

And

为了传达我们真正想表达的内容，贾加马尔让我重写了九到十次，然后她自己又重写了一遍。

in the sense that to to to get across what we really wanted to say, Jagmaar made me rewrite stuff like nine, ten times and then rewrote it herself.

她说：别碰我的金句，回去看看之前的版本，你会发现完全不同的东西。

She said, Don't mess with my golden words and go back to the version and see something completely different.

然后事情就这样发生了。

And this is what happened then.

但整个过程非常愉快。

But it was very enjoyable.

我认为，继那之后，去年五月我们在柏林举办了一场为期两周的会议，达加马尔帮助我们组织了这场会议，来自印度的手织布工、来自巴西的陶艺家、巴布亚新几内亚的园丁和语言学家，以及学者们齐聚一堂。

And I think so following that, we had a conference last May in Berlin for two weeks, where we brought where Dagmar basically helped us organize a conference where handloom weavers from India and potters from Brazil and gardeners and linguists from Papua New Guinea came along with scholars.

而且发生了一场对话。

And there was a conversation.

我们通过相互跟随彼此的实践，找到了一种中间语言。

We were able to kind of find a kind of an intermediate language through following each other's practices.

所以有一个纺纱工作坊，还有一个烹饪工作坊。

So there was a spinning workshop and there was a cooking workshop.

于是我们慢慢开始彼此交流。

And so we slowly managed to start talking to each other.

所以我认为，这让我们能够从科学和法律中那种令人不堪重负的主导性知识所有权观念中退后一步。

So I think that what this gives is that it allows us to take a step back from what feels like a very overwhelming dominant idea of knowledge ownership with science and law.

我特别喜欢我们这本书的一点是，即使对于科学和法律领域内部的人而言，这也是一个明显的问题。

And what I particularly like about our book is that it's clearly a problem even for those people within science and law.

这并不仅仅是那些外部人士面临的问题。

This is not a problem only for those people who are operating outside.

因此，虽然我可能更多地在那个领域使用它，但真正令人兴奋的是，并不存在这样的情况：‘这套方法适用于科学和法律，却不适用于你们其他人。’

So while I might be using it more in that space, what is really exciting is that there isn't that kind of thing that, okay, this works for science and law, but it doesn't work for you other guys.