木里藏土司政權下被統治的藝術： 一個納西家屋親屬的個案

The Art of Being Governed under the Muli Tibetan Regime: A Case Study of Naxi House Kinship

張慧娜(Bingaman, Maranda Eveline)

指導教授 ： 何翠萍 ； 蔣斌

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/人類學研究所/博士(2020年)

摘要

木里藏土司政權下被統治的藝術：
一個納西家屋親屬的個案

摘要

國家無論是以明顯或隱喻的方式，預設著特定的家庭形式作為理想型，並圍繞著此家族模式形成一個政治經濟環境來進行治理，與此同時，這個框架中仍保留其它家族模式形成的選擇空間。對被治理的人民而言，親屬關係則是種資源，幫助人民在受到管制的環境和經濟結構下被允許的範圍內，每個人利用親屬關係去達到各自的目標，即便其目標和價值觀與國家意識形態之間會有相抵觸之處。在本論文中，我以親屬關係的觀點切入，來探討社會、經濟與國家之間的動態關係，以及此關係如何施加、展現於一個漢藏邊境的小村莊。鷹背村（Eagleback）是一個位於四川省南部的納西族村莊，這區域過去由木里王國，這個藏傳佛教的政權統治了將近三百年。自1970年代以來，研究者注意到這個社區同時存在著數種婚姻形式，以及看似矛盾的親屬關係。在本研究中，我將會以歷史分析的方法，著重在研究鷹背村的親屬關係如何與木里王國治理的方式產生交會。本論文第一部分，回溯經典親屬關係理論和晚近理論創新，於此基礎上，描述鷹背村納西族的親屬關係。我將說明他們的親屬關係系統是由兩個相互構成的秩序組成：第一層秩序是圍繞名為「yao'gho」的家屋，這家屋是構成鷹背村家戶、經濟和政治的基本單位，第二層秩序是由個人親屬網絡構成，其結構與家屋親屬網絡截然不同。這兩層秩序並置時，將使得家屋的「拓撲學反轉」得以實踐，創造出一個家庭在嚴格要求下為了共同集體的經濟、社會與政治利益進行合作，同時仍能提供滿足個人需求的空間。論文第二部分探討鷹背村納西族在1957年前的政治經濟環境，推論當時情境如何創造了至今都可觀察到的親屬結構和實踐。我先討論被稱為「大眾僧院主義」（mass monasticism）的藏傳佛教政治思想，闡述其政權預期特定兩種具體的家庭結構，來服務於社會發展。首先，家庭要擁有比自己所需更多的兒子，並將其獻給僧院寺廟，再者，農民家庭需要為農作提供勞動力，使得農業經濟可以產生足夠的剩餘價值，不僅支持政府官僚機構，同時支持大量的僧院寺院人口。通過考察木里王國治理結構的兩套核心制度：僧院招募制度和財產稅收制度，我探討這兩套制度如何調解人，使家庭組成特定形式，同時亦保留相當程度的空間，讓人可廣泛利用親屬關係追求自身目標。在這脈絡下，我們能夠觀察到「拓撲學的反轉」揭示了鷹背村的「 yao’gho」 家屋如何透過政治與經濟的需求連結到木里僧院的家戶治理體系。綜上所述，我們可知，鷹背村納西族數種親屬關係存在的現象，其實非刻意締造的結果，而是其在木里王國治理結構中，通過此結構中能包容家庭追求其自身目標、價值觀的空間，才得以讓多元親屬關係並存。本民族誌揭示了社會、經濟與國家之間，不斷協調、競爭和妥協的辯證關係，而鷹背村的親屬現象說明了鷹背村納西人的親屬關係本質上是套被統治的藝術。

關鍵字

親屬 ； 家屋社會 ； 納西 ； 西藏 ； 政權

並列摘要

The Art of Being Governed under the Muli Tibetan Regime:
A Case Study of Naxi House Kinship

Abstract

Either explicitly or implicitly, states assume specific familial forms and governance structures are built in a way that create political and economic environments favorable to some familial patterns while foreclosing options for others. For governed populations, kinship is a resource that allows people a means to achieve their own goals within the space governance and economic structures allow, even when those goals are informed by values that are contradictory to state ideology. In this dissertation, I explore the dynamic relationship between society, economy, and state from the vantage point of kinship in a small village of the Sino-Tibetan borderland. Eagleback is Naxi a village in southern Sichuan province that was governed by the Muli Kingdom, a Tibetan Buddhist regime, for nearly three hundred years. Since the 1970s, the community has captured the attention of researchers attempting to understand the co-presence of several marital forms and seemingly contradictory kinship practices. In this research, I take a historical approach to examine how Eagleback kinship intersected with the institutions of the community’s governing body, Muli Monastery.

Building on both classical kinship theory and new innovations, part one of this dissertation focuses on describing the kinship of Eagleback Naxi. I show how their kinship system as a whole is constructed of two mutually constitutive orders. The first order of kinship revolves around named “houses” called yao’gho which make up the basic domestic, economic, and political unit of Eagleback. The second order of kinship is constituted of personal kinship networks that are structurally maintained as distinct from yao’gho kinship. Together these two orders allow for the house’s topological reversal, creating a system in which families are able to demand strict cooperation toward their collective economic, social, and political well-being while still allowing a broad space for the fulfillment of personal needs. Part two explores the political and economic environment that Eagleback Naxi lived in prior to 1957, and how the conditions it created for families correlate with kinship structure and practices still observable in the present. I begin with a discussion of the ideology of Tibetan Buddhist polities described as “mass monasticism,” and describe how the state vision for society’s development included two specific implications for family structure. First is that families would have more sons than they needed and dedicate them to monasteries. Second, is that peasant families would provide labor for an economy that could produce enough surplus to support not just a government bureaucracy, but a large monastic population. Through examination of two central institutions of the Muli Kingdom’s governance structure—the system of monastic recruitment and structures of taxation and property rights—I explore how both were organized to steer families in particular directions while also leaving a broad space for society to utilize kinship in ways that allowed families to pursue their own goals. Within this context, we can observe how the topological reversal that the Eagleback yao’gho achieves relates to the political and economic demands Muli Monastery placed on the families it governed. The kinship system developed by Eagleback Naxi was an unintended consequence of families making decisions about how to live their lives as an expression of their values within the space allowed by the governance structures of the Muli Kingdom. What is revealed is the dialectic relationship between society, economy, and state, characterized by constant negotiation, contestation, and compromise. Essentially, Eagleback kinship is an art of being governed.

並列關鍵字

kinship ； house society ； Naxi ； Tibet ； governance

參考文獻

Adam, Leonhard. 1936. “The Social Organization and Customary Law of the Nepalese Tribes.” American Anthropologist 38 (4): 533–47.

Ahmad, Zahiruddin. 1970. Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Rome: Istito Italiano Per Il Medio Ep Estremo Oriente.

Alpermann, Björn, and Shaohua Zhan. 2019. “Population Planning after the One-Child Policy: Shifting Modes of Political Steering in China.” Journal of Contemporary China 28 (117): 348–66.

Astuti, Rita. 2009. “Revealing and Obscuring Rivers’s Pedigrees: Biological Inheritance and Kinship in Madagascar.” In Kinship and Beyond: The Genealogical Model Reconsidered, edited by Sandra Bramford and James Leach. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Aziz, Barbara N. 1978. Tibetan Frontier Families: Reflections of Three Generations from D’ing-Ri. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.