男分男解的婆媳關係：藍領階級男性在婆媳關係中的陽剛氣質研究

婆媳關係向來被視為是女人的問題，但是在台灣的文化環境下，三代同堂的婆媳關係真的就只是婆婆與媳婦之間的衝突嗎？兼具兒子與先生雙重身份的男性，他在這個關係中有著怎樣的影響與變化？與「霸權陽剛氣質」有何關聯？其陽剛氣質是否會受到婆媳關係的影響而轉變？其所呈現的陽剛氣質是單一、不變的均質型態，還是可以複數與矛盾並存的多元陽剛氣質？再者，藍領男性的陽剛氣質與媳婦的陰柔氣質有無彼此合作或跨界游離的可能？　　本研究基於女性主義立場論，採取質性研究的深度訪談法，以6戶父系三代同堂家庭為對象，在15位受訪者中，有6位藍領男性，分別為4位閩南人，2位客家人，在輔以其他相關關係人的陳述下，共同呈現出三代同堂藍領男性在婆媳關係中的變化歷程。研究顯示，藍領男性之陽剛氣質受到父系親屬結構與儒家文化的深層影響，而且陽剛氣質的族群意象在閩客之間並沒有明顯的差異。　　在婚姻初期，藍領男性在性別分工、輩分主從與孝道理念的影響下，建構並展現出他們面對婆媳關係的陽剛氣質：一為稱職的養家者與孝順的奉養者，一為婆媳關係的局外人與婆媳問題的沉默者。在「霸權陽剛氣質」概念的檢視下，研究顯示，霸權陽剛氣質並不是一個單一、均質的態樣，因為藍領男性在婚姻初期所展現出來的陽剛氣質已有達到霸權陽剛氣質的部份要求，例如稱職的養家者與孝順的奉養者。這不僅讓藍領男性符合霸權陽剛氣質的部分意象，也繼續讓他們追逐與臣服在更完美的霸權意象中。　　研究也發現，藍領男性能否介入並圓滿處理婆媳問題，不僅是他們心中一個潛藏的希望，也是他們所難以面對的矛盾情結。因為只要一介入婆媳關係，就必須對百依百順的奉養原則作出修正，這種親情（母親）與伴侶（太太）的兩難抉擇，讓藍領男性陷入不願介入，卻又希望她們能和樂融融的內在衝突中。因此，能達成這種「不可能的任務」的男人，也可以是霸權陽剛氣質的一種展現。　　最後，在「多元陽剛氣質」概念的應用下，我們發現，藍領男性雖然原本有著趨於一致的陽剛氣質，但隨著婆媳關係的變化，不僅呈現出轉變或不變的情形，更展現出混雜著複數、矛盾與多元樣貌的陽剛氣質，甚至出現納入陰柔氣質的跨界現象。

關鍵字

婆媳關係；父系親屬；霸權陽剛氣質；多元陽剛氣質；藍領男性

並列摘要

The conflict between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is generally viewed as a problem associated with only the two individuals involved. However, in the cultural context of Taiwan where three-generation households are common, does the extent of the conflict go beyond them? What influences and changes is the male, having the dual roles as the son and the husband, expected to create or undergo in the relationship? How are the influences and changes related to hegemonic masculinity? Is the nature of the male’s masculinity subject to change under the influence of the in-law relationship? Is the masculinity projected by the male one-dimensional and homogenous, or plural, meaning multi-dimensional and even contradictory? Furthermore, is there any possibility for collaboration or crossover between the blue collar male’s masculinity and the wife’s femininity? 　　This study is based on the Feminist Standpoint Theory, and adopted qualitative research by conducting in-depth interviews with six three-generation households - three generations of patrilineal families living under one roof. Among the 15 interviewees, 6 of them were blue collar males (4 Hoklo, 2 Hakka). The study revealed, with the aid of statements provided by others related to the interviewees, the course of changes undergone by the blue collar males in the in-law relationship in the traditional three-generation household setting. The research showed that the nature of the blue collar males’ masculinity transformed under the profound influences of the patriarchal family structure and Confucianism, and that no clear distinction was found in their masculinity with regards to ethnicity (Hoklo and Hakka). 　　At the beginning of the marriage, under the influence of notions based on gender-based division of labor, hierarchy in the family, and filial piety, the blue collar males construct and display the masculinity with which they face the in-law relationship – one that represents not only a competent breadwinner and filial obedient son, but also an outsider and a silent one in the in-law relationship. The research concurs on the non-singular and non-homogenous nature of hegemonic masculinity, as the blue collar males demonstrated elements that comprise hegemonic masculinity in the two roles they fulfilled. This fulfillment of roles not only conforms in part to the concept of hegemonic masculinity, but also drives the blue collar males to pursue and commit to the idea even more holistically. 　　The research also found that the blue collar males’ mediation in the in-law conflict could be both a desired option and a dilemma, for any form of intervention would invariably entail alteration to the principles (i.e. filial piety and obedience) that the males live by. The difficult decision of whether to lean towards their mother or their spouse traps the blue collar males in an internal conflict where they are unwilling to intervene while wishing for peaceful coexistence between his mother and wife. Thus the resolution of such dilemma, or a ‘Mission Impossible’, could arguably be considered a form of demonstrating hegemonic masculinity. 　　Lastly, we discovered through the application of plural masculinities that despite the uniformity it originally displayed, the blue-collar males’ masculinity developed, according to the dynamics of the in-law relationship, changes and non-changes, as well as multiple, contradictory, and diverse facets that even incorporates a crossover to effeminate qualities.