知識、價值與文化互動：論光復後臺灣土著物質文化保存

KNOWLEDGE, VALUE AND CULTURAL INTERACTION: ON THE RESEARCH AND PRESERVATION OF MATERIAL CULTURE AMONG THE FORMOSAN ABORIGINES AFTER WORLD WAR II

王嵩山(Sung-shan Wang)

《Collection and Research》 3期 (1992/05) Pp. 273-296

https://doi.org/10.6693/CAR.1992.3.14

摘要

人類學在形成專業領域的過程，來自於博物館與田野工作的經驗，對於異文化以參與觀察與深入訪談、設身處地的體會所形成之理解，對於標本「物性知識」的掌握，以及面對問題時區分社會與文化的整合觀點，有助於探討物質文化的保存與維護。本文試圖將已被納入大社會的土著族的社會文化視為一個呈現動態的、整合的整體來看待，這一個「整合的整體」之範疇，不僅只是文化內的，更是與文化外互動成一體。物質文化之保存，顯然決定於不同歷史階段中有關社會文化、知識、價值的性質。討論物質文化保存所含概的自然物性的劣化、與人為因素損壞，雖然要以分析的手段予以區分、分別探討，以明瞭問題之個別的性質，但同時也要有一套綜合的方法，以便於在體系之內，解決內在關係錯綜複雜的文化問題。本文分為土著族物質文化的困境、保存與維護的現況及分析、困境與開展等三個主要部份；討論的時間深度，設定在光復後至今。由於受到歷史因素的影響，對於臺灣土著文化的注意力有階段性的演變，更呈現出不同的知識性質。在保存與維護臺灣土著民族社會文化時，人們較關心的是研究該文化或文化中器物的歷史源流及其表面可見的功能，或者僅以靜態的觀點，偏重文化特質的描述，來處理土著民族的社會文化現象。物質文化的相關知識與價值是有限且客體化的，鮮少討論物質文化與社會文化體系之間的關係。由於這樣的知識傾向與學術興趣，連帶的使物質文化之保存，產生因認識基礎不夠，而導致成效有限的狀況。換言之，討論或實施物質文化之保存的焦點，常常只照顧到表面的「保存因素」。也正因為如此，不論內在實踐或外在規劃，目前在謀求臺灣土著族文化的保存與維護時，都明顯存在著忽略整體觀，使社會體系與文化體系無法相互結合的難題。也就是說，許多涉及保存之成效的「非保存因素」往往被忽略，社會體系與文化體系分離的認識，使得知識與價值之間混淆不清的關係更形嚴重。另一方面，仔細深入的研究土著族社會的性質及其變遷，固然是「外在」的學者的終極關懷，但對生存在一個被剝離社會與文化體系的個體而言，顯然實踐的運作及其結果更為重要。而實踐及其結果，則依賴於對社會文化體系之分別又整合的認識與操作。這樣的難題，使得即使各族有識之士有心於復振「傳統」，也只能在「文化層面」打轉。政策的施行更僅限於裝飾性文化活動、與物質形式之提倡；決策與政策執行者無法將對異文化的觀點與視野，內化為決策或行政的動力，因此執行時呈現出其未具備應有相關文化知識的偏差。由於缺乏整體的視野與土著族本位觀點的關懷，也沒有組成以土著族為主體的團體，導致似乎沒有真正的保存工作。事實上，非但物質文化在學術知識體系中未受重視。異文化本身從未被視為知識的主要對象，無法彰顯其思考體系與生活方式對當代社會的價值，多少顯示目前臺灣的知識體系與社會經濟體系之中，核心與邊緣的對立。而這種價值現象之形成，反過來說，正表現出在漢文化與土著文化互動過程，對於人類學知識體系與土著知識體系，不同的偏重與有所侷限的瞭解。

並列摘要

The issues and phenomena of protecting Formosan Aborigines' material culture explore some substantial aspects such as the knowledge of anthropology, the concept of Chinese people to choose as the main value, and the administration policy after introduced external culture. Herewith we would analyze the characteristics of studying and conservation of Formosan aborigines' material culture in the theoretical and methodological point of view of anthropological knowledge, cultural baises implicit in Chinese concepts of value, and cultural interaction. A dialectic relation between theory and practice gets involved in the discussion of conservation and preservation. From the Japanese occupation period to the Republic of China, the aboriginal culture underwent several changes with various levels and different nature. It is pretty difficult to connect conservation of material culture with skills system, thoughts and religions, and social system of Formosan aborigines under the modern administrative system. The dilemma of separated social system and cultural system makes the unclear relation between epistemology and value even worse. On the other hand, an intensive study of change shows academic ultimate concerned from scholars with external culture background, but practice and result of cultural conservation shall be more important to an individual who live in a separated socio-cultural system. The difficulty made the ones of each tribe who are willing to restore ＂tradition＂ but limited in a confined cultural level. The carryingout of the administrative policy of conservation also is limited in 'decorative' cultural activities are unable to convert the epistemology of other cultures into inner dynamic of administrative system With total population of 330,000 the nine Formosan aborigines dispersed in 30 mountainous and 26 plain administratire regions have their individual socio-cultural systems. The aborigines living in Taiwan are from north to south, occupy the island's central mountains, eastern valley regions, and Orchard Island. There are the Atayal, the Saisiat, the Bunun, the Tsou, the Rukai, the Paiwan, the Ami, the Puyuma, and the Yami. The aborigines who form only 1.7 per cent of the total population of Taiwan, occupy more than half of the total land of the island. We call these nine ethnic groups 'aborigines' because they are the earliest known inhabitants of the island are contrasted with the later Chinese colonists. They came in many migratory waves, beginning a few thousand years before Christ and ending several centuries after The Formosan aborigines earn their livelihood mainly by agriculture, stockbreading, hunting and fishing and in recent years, partially by wage labour. In terms of family structure and kinship traditional Ami society is the only matrilineal group with characteristic of matrilineal extended family structure, matrilocal residence, and a superior status of matrilateral kin. The Bunun, Tsou, and Saisiat are partilineal societies characterized by patrilineal extended family structure, patrilocal residence and a superior status of patrilineal kin. The Rukai, Paiwan and Puyuma are characterized by stem family structure, and equal status for both patri-and matrilineal kin, and alternative residence pattern The Atayal and Yami, on the other hand, are characterized by nuclear family units, patrilocal residence, and paralled status for both bilateral kin (Wang 1990, cf. Hsu 1991). Each of ethnic groups has its sui generis socio-cultural systems and difference among the responses toward the external culture The changing theories of culture in the historical context affect anthropologists, executives, as well as the public to have their special ideas and policies toward cultural problems. For example, some scholars have great interests in the origin and development of culture (inclining to the questions raised by the theory of evolution in the 19th century), some are interested in the inner characteristic raised by the t of particular history and geography of cultural configuration and the relationship between associated culture, some pursue the special function of cultural design and the internal functions of inter-system in culture, some focus on comprehensive conflicts relationshipe in each structure, or the symbolical el due to production factors, production models. Therefore, there are different conclusions in the theoretical proof as well as different attitude toward aboriginal culture and folk arts. Consequently the difference dominates which to research and conservation, the ways of present the information, choose what value concepts to describe, and the interacted relationship between ＂knowledge of other cultures＂ and political power In addition to the strong influence and disapproval against Chinese culture, the incomplete understanding to Formosan aborigine's skills systems, thoughts systems, and social system makes the public even the scholars lacks of profound know about the reality of aboriginal culture. The policy of separation continued during the entire era of Japanese rule (1895-1945) After World War II, contact with majority Chinese, Formosan aborigines have been mistakenly identified by the dominant Chinese as one group instead of nine, they are called 'huan' or 'fan-jen' barbarians in both colloquial Taiwanese and in historical literature. As a result, to conservation and preservation of the Formosan aborigines' socio-cultural systems and material culture became a very rough and ready task. Until the 1980s aborigines could rent land owned by the state without paying taxes. To protect aborigines from being exploited by the Chinese, the sale of land in reservation areas to non-aborigines was prohibited. Politically, the percentage of aboriginal representation at prefectual (hsien) and provincial levels is higher than their population ratio. College entrance examination standards are less rigid for aborigines, and most of them can waive their tuition. Through these measures, aboriginal societies have been, to some extent, protected from the effects of increased contact with wider Taiwan society over the past three decades. During the first thirty years of current Chinese rule, all nine aboriginal groups maintained in their territories a great deal of indigenous socio-cultural heritage. During the 1970s, when economic development in Taiwan began to take off, tremendous pressure for socio-cultural change was placed on aboriginal communities; since that time, indigenous peoples have found it diffcult to maintain stab n their traditional social institution (Hsu 1991) The activities of conservating and preservating Formosan aborigines' material culture after Taiwan restoration are: various academic researches (Chen 1968), collections and management done by museums (Wang 1991), the installation and establishment of cultural villages and cultural zones, set up cultural centers and national parks, collection and publication done by privates, the reservation of traditional tribal areas and the cultural revivalization movement, the constitution of relevant policy and administrative measures done by the executive organizations. It is obvious from these activities that the Formosan aboriginal culture was taken as 'static model', the anthropological circle in Taiwan could not have a deep-rooted and integrated grasp of the holistic epistemology of anthropology, and no action was taken to promote self-development of socio-cultural system of each ethnic group. It seems that the emphasis on building up a more harmonious society and look down on the development of local and minor culture, and the research topics were limited to vanished or vanishing custom and material culture. There is neither an integrated and dynamic point of view nor a detailed operation methods to research and conservation aboriginal culture. Different epistemology and value concepts lead to specific achievement and misplace in practices. From the anthropological point of view and the traditional value concept of Chinese culture, people have more interests in reconstruction of the cultural or ethno history and made a description of the visible functions of material culture instead of their practices in the integrated socio-cultural system (Chen 1968, 1978). Almost no linkage has been set between material culture and socio-cultural system, and they were usually deal with technology and arts of Formosan aborigines as an isolation cultural traits. The material culture is gradually separating from its original context and losing its original meaning, and the methodology was narrow reliance on the statements of a few informants, other methods in addition to participant observation, such as interview schedules, questionnaires, psychological tests and historical records have not came into use. The necessary accumulative study is lacking. The introduction of Western concepts and in anthropological study Taiwan generally neglects the context of theoretical construction and the cultural backgrounds of western scholars. There are lacking comparative studies, and few regional studies on the direction and dynamics of socio-cultural change. Most anthropological studies in Taiwan concentrate on the study of the social system rather than on the cultural system (Huang 1983). Such trend makes the conservation of material culture ineffective. In 60's the American anthropologists focusing their academic research on Han society makes the shift from the Taiwan aborigines to studies of both Chinese and areas outside China, created less opportunities of learning aborigines' culture. In the process of interacting with Chinese culture after 1980s, a few practical methods contained in aboriginal culture and the revival of celebration accompanied by traditional religions are taken as the basis of recognizing tribal culture. Unfortunately, these have neither holistic nor native point of view concern, and there is no organization composed in a form of aboriginal society's structure principle, hence it lacks really successful work to conservation aboriginal culture again. In fact, the definition of ＂valued things＂ have many different level of recognition involved, such as the nature of knowledge, options from ownership and psychological emotion, and pressure from the distribution of politico-economic power and resource, creates a great influence on aboriginal culture. The material culture in aboriginal society has never been emphasized. Also the aboriginal culture has never been upgraded as the subject of knowledge even in the process of conservation. There are lots to comparative study to understand the aborigines' socio-cultural system and their adjustment to the nature environment and external culture of Taiwan. At this moment, some initial work of taking Formosan aboriginal culture as a dynamic reproductive system is being done. Such research and conservation phenomena of material culture among the Formosan aborigines after World War II, shows the opposes of core and margin in the academic system and politico economical structure of Taiwan. On the other hand, in the interacting process of western culture, Chinese culture, and aboriginal culture, such phenomena and concepts of value suggests the bias and limitations to aboriginal knowledge system and antropological epistemology.