「午餐檢體盒內的山羊」原鄉長照的治理性與解殖經驗分析：以南投縣原鄉部落的家庭托顧服務為例

午餐檢體盒代表著國家權力控制照顧行為的治理技術，而山羊肉代表著原住民族日常生活中的照顧文化，兩者如何共存？人口高齡化之下，長期照顧服務逐漸成為原鄉部落長者晚年生命獲得妥適照顧的重要資源，然而主流意識所形塑的長照服務規範忽略了原住民族對於照顧的文化脈絡，進而形成一種福利上的殖民。本研究以長照服務下最貼近部落的服務之一：家庭托顧服務為例，透過建制民族誌的研究方法，利用社會學家傅柯（Michel Foucault）所提出的「治理性（governmentality）」理論基礎，關注部落家托員工作中的斷裂經驗。研究發現，家庭托顧規範中的治理性主要源自於福利民營化下的新管理主義（new management）「標準作為服務品質的維繫」為主體化的知識，其強調了服務的安全性、市場機制的平衡、隱私溫馨的家庭環境，這些意識透過照顧服務體系中的文本，形成一套治理技術，使原住民族無法以自己的方式照顧老人，富有文化觀點的照顧者在長照體系中被汙名為「不適任的家托員」。但從家托員工作的斷裂經驗中，也同時發現到部落中的照顧有著其他的意識形態與照顧知識在主導照顧的進行，這些包含了原住民族部落中傳統、緊密、互助的社群網絡與親屬關係，以及土地與人力資源缺乏的背景。在地的工作者面對這樣的斷裂，有兩種從客體回到主體的策略。一種是進行照顧上的文化轉譯，將照顧的關係、時空、角色重新詮釋，讓照顧能符合長照體制中所規範，又能看見在地部落需求與文化脈絡。不過在以文本作為治理技術的長照政策之下，單向的權力施展使平等的對話無法進行。因此第二種策略是對規範的反抗，這包含將在地論述的集結與對話，並透過倡議進入照顧論述的公共領域與主流照顧論述抗衡。兩者都仰賴工作者長期以來累積的文化能力與工作知識作為基礎，其目的都在於產生文化照顧，進而達到照顧「解殖」的目的。

關鍵字

治理性；文化照顧；福利殖民；家庭托顧

並列摘要

How do governmentality and traditional caring culture co-exist in adult care foster of indigenous village? As population aging, long term care service has become the major resource for indigenous elders to achieve the goal of “aging in place”. However, the care policy made by majority couldn’t meet the caring culture of indigenous people, which leads to a result of new form of colonization, “welfare colonization”. This thesis takes Adult Foster Care for example, try to analyze the “disjuncture” experience of care workers by the “governmentality” theory frame raised by Michel Foucault. This research collected data with institutional ethnography method, attempting to answer following questions: 1. How governmentality works in adult foster care policy? What are the differences between then=m and the traditional caring culture of indigenous people? 2. When facing disjuncture, how care workers translate policy to make caring meet culture? 3. How do indigenous care workers resist the power of governmentality from majority? As a result, governmentality of adult foster care policy mainly came from the notion of “standard as quality” in New Management. Safety, market mechanism, and family value are three discourses to form governmentality, which have been maintained by technics such as care contract, service record, license, and sample box of lunch. These limit care workers to practice the caring culture of village. Nevertheless, governing taking place on “subject of freedom”, and disjuncture often leads to resist the governmentality. The caring culture of these care workers relate to the social bonding and close kinship of indigenous culture. One way is to translate the relationship, time and space, and role of caring, to make the adult foster care meet the need of indigenous elders. This way makes limited effect on care system due to the one-way oppression form by technic of governmentality. The second, radically, way is to resist the major care discourse by forming the discourse of indigenous care culture, and competing others in public sphere. Both of these actions require the caring knowledges of care workers. The ultimate goal is to “de-colonizing” elders care.