過去如何被記憶與經驗：以霧鹿布農人為例的研究

本文探討「過去」在不同的場合中如何以不同的方式被喚起、傳達、表徵和記憶。從近幾年來霧鹿地區的布農人對一個相當受矚目的歷史人物－Lamatasinsin－之塑造過程出發，本文探討對過去的表徵如何在漢人與國家的介入下成為不同地區的布農人所爭奪的政治資源，以及殖民統治與不同族群之間的權力關係對其社會記憶與歷史觀的影響。這樣的研究取向，與人類學最近對社會記憶的研究中，對其政治面向與爭議性的強調不謀而合。但是，本文也主張我們不應過度強調記憶的政治面向而忽視道德與情感等其他層面，否則將招致把過去化約為現在、把文化化約為政治的批評。因此，本文除了探討布農人如何透過記憶過去來參與現在、積極地與國家和強勢族群互動外，更超越表徵的層次、來呈現布農人如何透過特定的社會活動和實踐來經驗過去。在被界定為打獵的尋根活動中，透過身體與地景相互活化的過程，布農人得以喚起和體現祖先的記憶，由內在經驗到與過去同在，並透過這樣的經驗來建構其歷史主體性與認同。這樣將著重記憶之政治面向的研究角度與現象學的觀點結合在一起，對記憶的社會文化過程進行更深入、更細緻的探討，來傳達過去和現在之關係的複雜性與微妙性的研究，不論在民族誌上或人類學的理論上，都有其獨特的貢獻。

This article takes to task some important theoretical assumptions in the mainstream studies of social memory, namely, the preoccupation with counter-memory and the tendency to view any discrepancy between official history and local memory as a critique of power and colonial oppression. Through the analysis of the processes of constructing a headhunter Lamatasinsin into a historical figure and ’national hero,’ I demonstrate how representations of the past have become a political resource fought over by the Bunun in various areas under the intervention of the Han-Chinese and the state, and highlight the importance of heeding to colonial rule and the power relations between different ethnic groups in the examination of the Bunun’s social memory. Such an approach is in accordance with the emphasis on the political dimension and contestedness of memory in recent studies of subaltern acts of remembering. However, I also argue that we should not overemphasize the political characteristics of memory and ignore its moral and affective dimensions, otherwise we are in danger of reducing the past to the present, and culture to politics. Therefore, this article also aims to move beyond the analysis of representations to show how the Bunun experience the past through certain social practices. Through the discussion of a hunting expedition to the place where Lamatasinsin used to live, I elucidate how the Bunun experience a simultaneity with past through the inter-animation of body and landscape, and how they construct their historical agency and identity through reenactment of the ancestral past. Such an attempt to combine the emphasis on the political dimension of memory with a phenomenological perspective to provide a deeper understanding of the socio-cultural processes of remembering, and to convey the complexity, irreducibility and subtlety of the relationship between the past and the present, is innovative both ethnographically and theoretically.