福佬客的歷史變遷及族群認同（1900年迄今）：以高雄六龜里、甲仙埔之北客為主的調查分析

研究福佬客的學者多以強勢文化／弱勢文化或是福佬化的觀點，來討論台灣各地福佬客的現象；另一派則主張福佬客只是一種族群現象，福佬客雖然喪失語言能力，但是在文化上仍舊持續保有其原來的客家認同。作者認為上述兩種論述皆忽略了福佬客日常生活實踐上所展現的族群彈性認同行為。本文以高雄沿山兩溪流域地區福佬客歷史遷移（1900年迄今）的個案，來探索福佬客的族群認同變遷過程，並以社會/信仰重置的觀點，來討論福佬客的族群界線變遷機制。高雄六龜里及甲仙埔之北客移民，因日治時期後社會經濟的改變，造成客籍族群人口大規模的南移。北客在新的移居地重新進行一連串迥異於原居地的族群互動、社會生活、信仰組織等的重置，而這些重置的過程，北客移民會發展許多在地化策略，目的在延續既有的認同，但也同時造成北客族群的族群界線認同的改變。隨著移民世代的增加，北客族群後裔信仰歷經如此重置的過程：從一神逐漸變為多神的信仰；從原鄉信仰轉變為在地信仰；從單一族群變為混同族群的信仰。本文將強調這些信仰與認同的改變，是導致本區北客移民在地化的重要機制。

關鍵字

福佬客；族群認同；信仰重置；義民爺信仰

並列摘要

Those who studied Fulao-Hakka people tended to argue that Fulao-Hakka people were socially and culturally dominated by Fulao people. The other perspective claimed that those Fulao-Hakka people, who could not speak Hakka language though they were Hakka people, were simply ”ethnic phenomena” of Hakka identity. It follows that Fulao-Hakka people still kept their Hakka identity, although they could not speak Hakka language. Based on the discussions above, I argue that both of these points fail to examine the flexible and multiple identities of Fulao-Hakka people. With an intensive and historical investigation of the two case studies of Fulao-Hakka people living in both Liuguili and Jiaxianpu in Kaohsiung mountain area, I have examined both the social and religious rearrangements of these people and showed how these socio-cultural rearrangements shaped their ethnic boundary. Most of these Fulao-Hakka people living in these areas were Hakka descendants from Hsinchuchou in the early twentieth century. The two cases showed that these immigrants from northern Taiwan adopted many strategies, such as the use of Fulao language as their main language of social communication, a mixture of local religions, and frequent social interactions with other local ethnic groups, in order to be culturally adapted to local communities. Also, a historical ethnography of the worship of Yiminye, a god worshipped by Hakka people originally, of these two areas revealed, firstly, how these Hakka people and their descendants changed in terms of religion and, secondly, how religion played a crucial cultural mechanism of localization among these immigrants.