「文化動起來」：賽德克族文化產業的研究

"Activating the Sediq Culture": A Study of Cultural Industry in a Sediq Community

10.30157/JCRTF.201206.0006

王梅霞(Mei-Hsia Wang)；伊婉‧貝林(Iwan Pelin)

文化產業 ； 織布 ； 意象 ； 儀式 ； 賽德克族 ； cultural industry ； weaving ； image ； ritual ； the Sediq

民俗曲藝

176期（2012 / 06 / 01）

233 - 286

繁體中文

本文嘗試從人類學的角度探討在文化產業的發展過程中，地方社會的社會文化性質如何透過不同的方式運作、轉化、或再創造。首先，「文化產業」受到不同力量所形塑，包括不同時期及不同方式的資本主義、西方教會的力量、國家不同單位均影響了當地文化產業的興衰，地方與全球的互動也扮演了重要角色。當地工作坊主人在正式成立工作坊之前與外在大社會的互動經驗，尤其是以個人為中心建立了不同的社會網絡，呈現出賽德克的社會特質如何在當代脈絡中繼續運作。其次，不同工作坊對於織布圖紋的多元解釋，是一個正在進行中的文化再創造過程，尤其織布作為「纏繞的物」（entangled objects），具有多重意象 （image），在不同情境下可以和新的意義結合在一起。進而，本文更深入探討人和布的關係，凸顯當地人的主體性，從當地人織布的心路歷程可以看出人的主體性與物的客體性相互建構的過程，人透過吸納（sublation）物的特性而建構其自我，人和物是一種辯證的關係；而且，個人學習、教導織布的過程也是建立社會關係及社會性人觀（sociality）的過程，社群成員透過分享彼此的特質來建構社會關係，因此個人的認同是社會關係的縮影，也是不斷重新建構的過程；尤其織布是女性實踐waya、以及與 utux溝通的場域，或許可以被視為女性的儀式，女性透過織布而參與了宇宙秩序的再生產。

Cultural industry demonstrates different forms of combining economy and culture. On the one hand, due to the speedy mobility of capital, information, and population, the local community is confronted with a very competitive challenge coming from international forces. On the other hand, the emphasis on ”cultural capital,” such as local knowledge and historical heritage, provides the local people a chance to subjectively interpret their cultures. As ”economy” is presented in the ”cultural form” during cultural industry development, culture is reconstructed, standardized, and objectified as ritual, festival, sport, garment, food, etc. In this process, culture is deconstructed, reconstructed, and represented in a new form. The local people redefine their cultures for fulfilling outer needs and making an inner transformation. This aspect is further associated with colonial government and national construction. Hence, cultural recognition is a dynamic process and a field of power display which includes the possibility of negotiation, competition, and re-creation.Regarding the research of ”culture industry” in Taiwan, many studies have discussed this issue from the aspects of policy promotion, economic development, community empowerment, and tourism. This article tries to discuss culture industry from an anthropological viewpoint, and explores how social or cultural features are operated, transferred, and re-created in the developmental process of cultural industry. This paper, firstly, describes how cultural industry is shaped by different power sources. Capitalism, power from Western churches, and different national departments affect the development of cultural industry. Interaction between the local and the global also plays an important role. Moreover, I will take several weaving workshops as examples to show the hosts' interaction experience with the outside world before establishing their workshops. Social networks based on the individual demonstrate how the Sediq social characteristics operate in a contemporary context.In addition, this article analyzes various interpretations regarding weaving patterns as part of the process of cultural reinvention. As entangled objects, weaving cloth embodies multiple images that combine with different meanings in different contexts. Furthermore, this paper discusses relationships between people and cloth, and highlights the locals' agency. The weavers' psychological journey gives us insight into the process of inter-construction between the subjectivity of human agents and the objectification of objects. In other words, a weaver constructs her identity through the sublation of an object's characteristics. The relationships between humans and objects are, therefore, dialectical. Moreover, learning and teaching weaving provides chances of constructing social networks and sociality. As community members construct social relations through sharing characteristics, a person's identity is an epitome of social relations and the process of reconstruction. More importantly, weaving is a field in which women can practice waya (literally, norms) and communicate with utux (literally, spirits). It could be viewed as a female ritual. Thus women participate in the regeneration of cosmic order through weaving.

1. Wang, Mei-hsia(2008).The Invention of Ethnicity and Culture: A Comparative Study on the Atayal and the Truku in Taiwan.Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology,68,1-44.
   連結：
2. 王梅霞(2009)。從「交換」看族群互動與文化再創造：日治初期苗栗地區泰雅族的研究。考古人類學刊，71，93-144。
   連結：
3. 陳芬苓(2008)。原住民經濟困境與社區文化產業發展之可能─以桃竹苗地區為例。國家與社會，4，1-41。
   連結：
4. 傅茹璋(2002)。新經濟時代地方文化產業發展之研究─以鶯歌陶瓷文化產業為例。規劃學報，29，39-57。
   連結：
5. 顏亮一、許肇源、林金城(2008)。文化產業與空間重構：塑造鶯歌陶瓷文化城。臺灣社會研究季刊，71，41-69。
   連結：
6. Comaroff, Jean,Comaroff, Jone(2000).Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming.Public Culture,12(2),291-343.
7. Foster, Robert J.(Edited)(1995).National Making: Emergent Identities in Postcolonial Melanesia.Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan Press.
8. Friedman, Jonathan(1994).Cultural Identity and Global Process.London:Sage Publications.
9. Gell, Alfred(1992).Inter-tribal Commodity Barter and Reproductive Gift-exchange in Old Melanesia.Barter, Exchange and Value: An Anthropological Approach,Cambridge:
10. Hirsch, Eric(1990).From Bones to Betelnuts: Processes of Ritual Transformation and the Development of a 'National Culture'.Man,25,18-34.
11. Keesing, Roger(ed.),Tonkinson, Robert(ed.)(1982).Reinventing Traditional Culture: The Politics of Kastom in Island Melanesia.Mankind,13,297-399.
12. Miller, Daniel(1987).Material Culture and Mass Consumption.Oxford:Blackwell.
13. Parry, J.(ed.),Bloch, M.(ed.)(1989).Money and the Morality of Exchange.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Siikala, J(Edited)(1990).Culture and History in the Pacific.Helsinki:The Finnish Anthropological Society.
15. Simmel, Georg,Frisby, David(Edited),Bottomore, Tom(Translated),Frisby, David(Translated)(1990).The Philosophy of Money.London:Routledge.
16. Strathern, M.(1992).Qualified Value: The Perspective of Gift Exchange.Barter, Exchange and Value: An Anthropological Approach,Cambridge:
17. Strathern, M.(1988).The Gender of the Gift.Berkeley:University of California Press.
18. Thomas, Nicholas(1991).Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
19. Weiner, Annette(1992).Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving.Berkeley:University of California Press.
20. 山路勝彥(1986)。臺灣泰雅賽德克族姻兄弟和己身孩子關係的認定。臺灣土著社會文化研究論文集，臺北:
21. 王梅霞(2010)。從治病儀式看泰雅族與太魯閣族的情緒展演。臺灣原住民巫師與儀式展演論文集，臺北:
22. 王梅霞(2006)。泰雅族。臺北:三民書局。
23. 王梅霞(2011)。從小米到茶葉：賽德克族的經濟發展。第三屆族群、歷史與地域社會，臺北:
24. 王梅霞(2003)。從gaga的多義性看泰雅族的社會性質。臺灣人類學刊，1(1)，77-104。
25. 呂欣怡(2008)。客家文化在內灣聚落的再造：論觀光中介者的角色。文化創造與社會實踐研討會，臺北:
26. 依婉•貝林(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立東華大學民族發展所。
27. 南投縣仁愛鄉春陽社區發展協會(2005)。重點示範部落計畫成果報告書。南投:春陽社區發展協會。
28. 南投縣仁愛鄉春陽社區發展協會(2006)。春陽重點部落計畫成果報告書。南投:春陽社區發展協會。
29. 南投縣仁愛鄉春陽社區發展協會(2007)。春陽重點部落計畫成果報告書。南投:春陽社區發展協會。
30. 展智管理顧問有限公司(2006)。時尚部落。臺北:經濟部中小企業處。
31. 展智管理顧問有限公司(2007)。賽德克族進階編織技法。臺北:經濟部中小企業處。
32. 馬群傑、陳金貴(2008)。文化產業經濟與文化發展課程之分析與比較─以臺南市為例。公共事務評論，9(1)，25-57。
33. 張淑君、劉怜均(2006)。農村地方文化產業行銷策略之研究─以彰化縣埔鹽鄉永樂社區為例。中華農學會報，7(4)，414-27。
34. 陳其南(1995)。社區總體營造與文化產業發展。臺灣手工業，55，4-9。
35. 黃應貴(2008)。存在、焦慮與意象─新自由主義經濟下的東埔地方社會。文化創造與社會實踐研討會，臺北:
36. 楊穎婷、王珮琪(2009)。國立臺灣大學人類學系98學年度文化田野實習報告：賽德克族國立臺灣大學人類學系98學年度文化田野實習報告：賽德克族,未出版
37. 臺灣經濟研究院(2003)。,臺北:行政院文化建設委員會。
38. 劉曉蓉(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士班。

1. 曾麗芬(2013)。南投縣賽德克族傳統織布工藝與Puniri（經挑技法）保存現況：以Seta Iban（張玉英）母女三代為研究對象。文化資產保存學刊，24，33-57。
2. 賴秦瑩、郭俊巖、王德睦(2015)。臺灣原住民部落合作事業的限制與可能：以信義鄉為例。社會政策與社會工作學刊，19(2)，145-183。
3. 賴淑娟(2020)。織藝與織憶：花蓮縣卓溪鄉賽德克族Duta群編織技藝與記憶的日常實踐。民俗曲藝，209，211-274。
4. 王梅霞(2014)。從waya看資本主義的轉化過程：一個賽德克部落的經濟變遷。考古人類學刊，80，53-102。
5. 王梅霞(2018)。轉化、交織與再創造：賽德克族的宗教變遷。考古人類學刊，89，1-55。