台灣有機農業之鄉村性論述—以富里鄉羅山村為例

A Study on Rurality Discourse of Local Perspective —An Example of Luoshan “Organic Villiage”, Fuli Township,Taiwan

陳玠廷(Jie-Ting Chen)

指導教授 ： 蕭崑杉

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/農業推廣學研究所/碩士(2007年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2007.01344

摘要

從二次戰後至今，受到現代化進程的影響，台灣鄉村在農業生產型態上出現了巨大的改變。

鄉村性（rurality）是描述、判斷鄉村之所以為鄉村的標準，過去許多研究傾向透過實證取徑的指標測量，描述鄉村性組成之元素，對這樣的研究而言，農業生產僅是對鄉村性探討中的一個變項，在農業活動已然式微的今日鄉村中，有些學者認為農業已失去在鄉村性討論上的重要性，然而本研究從社會再現的觀點思考鄉村性，認為鄉村居民日常言語所透露出的概念、意象、符號可作為描繪鄉村形象的依據，而鄉村民眾日常言語的表現，又受其生活經驗、所接收資訊等的影響，對部分生活在鄉村的居民而言，仍視農業為其最重要的生活經驗，這說明了對農業活動的理解，仍是探討鄉村性一個重要的面向。

本研究將以台灣省花蓮縣富里鄉「羅山有機村」為例，以質性訪談的方式進行田野調查，並輔以相關文件資料的使用，探討了這五十多年來社會發展的過程中，當地居民在農業形式上的改變，特別是為了回應風險社會而出現之有機農業的發展脈絡，並探討其鄉村性特徵。研究者於研究中發現，羅山村的農業發展歷經了「傳統鄉村的農業」、「受工商業影響下的現代農業」與「永續發展的有機農業」等三階段，而鄉村性在不同的階段中，亦呈現出「自然素樸的鄉村性」、「模糊的鄉村性」與「再現反思的鄉村性」等不同面貌。

關鍵字

鄉村性,有機農業,反身性,第二現代,論述分析

並列摘要

Since the post-war age, Taiwan’s countryside, under the impact of modernization, has gone through a tremendous transformation in terms of modes of agricultural production.

Rurality is set as a criterion to depict and diagnose the reason why rural is rural. Many studies in the past have a propensity of employing positivist approaches to explore rurality. As far as those studies are concerned, agricultural production is merely a variable in the understanding of rurality. However, with the fact that the modern countryside has already shown a decline in agricultural production, some experts hold that agriculture has lost its importance in examining rurality. This study is aimed at exploring rurality from the social construction perspective, emphasizing the concept, image, as well as symbol that rural people express in daily common language could be served as a base to depict rural environment. And what rural people phrase in daily language is also under the influence of their experience in life and the information they receive. To part of peasant living in the countryside, what means the most in life experience is still agriculture. This means that the understanding of agricultural activities is still an important element in understanding modern rurality.

Applying qualitative interview to conduct fieldwork, with the supporting materials from related documents, this study takes an example of Luoshan “Organic Villiage”, Fuli Township, Hualien County to find out in the process of socioeconomic development in the last half century, the change of different method of agricultural production especially the context of the development of organic farming. In this case study, as the form of agricultural production in “Luoshan Villiage” had passed through “Traditional Farming”, “Conventional Farming” and “Organic Farming”, the form of rurality in each stage expressed itself as “The Naïve Rurality”, “The Vague Rurality” and “The Representation of Reflexive Rurality” respectively.

並列關鍵字

Rurality, Organic Farming, Reflexivity, Second Modernity, Discourse Analysis

參考文獻

周桂田 (1998). "現代性與風險社會." 台灣社會學刊 21: 89-129.

藍逸之 (2006). "城鄉發展或是農業發展的鄉村？." 土地問題研究季刊 5(2): 30-41.

李永展 (2005). "永續鄉村營造之初探." 中華水土保持學報 36(4): 339-354.

謝宏昌 (1998). "論重構地方識別作為永續鄉村發展基礎." 農業推廣學報 14: 137-152.

蔡必焜 (2001). "鄉村發展的後現代意涵." 農業推廣學報 18: 123-137.