臺灣原住民困境的歸因解釋比較漢人觀點與原住民觀點

THE SOCIOECONOMIC PLIGHT OF TAIWAN'S NATIVE AUSTRONESIAN-SPEAKING PEOPLES: Squaring the Accounts of Han Chinese and Native Peoples

本文兼顧漢人觀點與原住民觀點，比較雙方如何解釋台灣原住民所遭遇的社經困境，由此彰顯其在大社會處境的社會心理癥結。全文將困境歸因分為內在個人歸因與外在結構歸因兩大類來分析。內在個人歸因以「自己不努力」為代表來解釋原住民困境的主因，是一種可以控制或改變的個人特質，所以抱持這種歸因者，意涵著不同情原住民困境。外在結構歸因則以「社會不公平」為主因代表，超越了個人所能控制的範圍，持此歸因者也就意謂著對原住民比較同情。文中分析樣本包括「台灣地區社會意向調查」中的漢人受訪者，共1,564名，以及「都市山胞城鄉遷移與認同之追蹤研究」計劃中的原住民受訪者，計367名。對漢人觀點的分析，按照受訪者個人跟原住民接觸的經驗、自認瞭解原住民的程度兩項標準，綜合製成「跟原住民熟悉或陌生」指標，再以這項指標將漢人分為三群副樣本，檢視自變項在各群副樣本中的效應。探討原住民觀點的部分，則分析阿美、泰雅、排灣三族樣本如何解釋整體原住民的社經困境。後者除了分析一般自變項的效應外，另外著重跟漢人接觸的機會（例如親戚、鄰居、教會成員、標會會員中有無漢人、比例多少等）如何導致對困境所作歸因的差異。主要研究發現及其意涵有二。第一，社經地位高的漢人認為原住民的困境可以同時追溯到內在個人歸因與外在結構歸因；教育程度較高的原住民，則偏向內在個人歸因，對外在結構歸因沒有明顯立場，其中傾向依族別略有差異。漢人中堅份子對原住民的同情有限度，原住民一般知識份子對其他原住民的困境則似乎更不同情。原住民亟欲尋求從政策上作重大的結構改革，這種知識份子不能全力支持的現象，將是待以克服的阻力。第二，鄰近山地鄉的漢人對原住民特別不同情；一般漢人對原住民困境的看法，也未必隨著跟原住民有所接觸、對原住民多加瞭解，而更為同情。原住民當中如果跟漢人接觸機會較多，則族群意識降低，並傾向採取責備的立場來看一般原住民的社經困境。族群接觸強化了原有族群關係中的不均等位階，讓互動雙方更加深大社會對原住民的不良印象，而偏向以內在個人歸因來看原住民的社經困境。

This study examines how Taiwan's Han Chinese and Native (Austro-nesian-speaking) Peoples differ in how each explains the socioeconomic plight faced by the majority of Taiwan Native Peoples. Causal attributes include those that are individualistic (some would say internal), such as laziness and lack of motivation, versus those that are structural (some would say external), such as discrimination and lack of opportunity. Those who attribute individualistic causes also tend to blame Native Peoples for their own plight, while those who attribute structural causes usually express greater sympathy toward the Native Peoples. To explore these attributions, this essay analyzes data from two recent surveys: (1) the Taiwan General Survey of Social Attitudes (T'ai-wan ti-ch'u she-hui i-hsiang tiao-ch'a 台灣地區社會意向調查), which contains a Han Chinese sample of 1564 respondents, and (2) the Panel Study of Rural-Urban Migration and Urban Commitment among Tu-Shih Shan-Pao (tu-shih shan-pao ch'eng-hsiang ch'ien-i yu jen-t'ung chih chuei-tzung yen-chiu 都市山胞城鄉遷移與認同之追蹤研究, which contains a Native People sample of 367 respondents. By combining two variables from the Han Chinese sample, a single index containing three subgroups can be constructed. The two variables are: (1) contact experience with Native Peoples, and (2) knowledge about Native Peoples. The three subgroups are: (1) familiar, (2) somewhat familiar, and (3) unfamiliar with Native Peoples. The sample of the Panel Study is divided into three ethnic groups: Amis, Atayal, and Paiwan. Analysis of this sample also takes into account contact experience between Native People respondents and Han Chinese relatives, neighbors, church members, and fellow members of mutual aid associations. Two major findings reported in this essay are important for their policy implications. Firstly, causal attributions vary by the socioeconomic status of the respondents. For instance, upper-and middle-class Han Chinese employ both individualistic and structural attributions, a sign showing limited sympathy for the plight of Native Peoples. By contrast, better-educated Native Peoples only agree to individualistic attribution, thus exhibiting even less sympathy for the plight of Native Peoples in general than upper-and middle-class Han Chinese. This antipathy would represent a critical obstacle were the Native Peoples to reform by means of social reconstruction. Secondly, Han Chinese respondents do not differ in their causal attributions either in terms of their contact experience with or knowledge of Native Peoples. However, Han Chinese who live close to 'Native Peoples townships' show a stronger hostility toward the plight of Native Peoples. Moreover, Native People respondents who have more contact with Han Chinese likewise attribute the plight of Native Peoples to individualistic causes. In short, cross-ethnic contact experience seems to widen the gap between Han Chinese and Native Peoples. Such an experience strengthens Han Chinese negative images as to the origins of the socioeconomic conditions of Native Peoples. Also, interethnic contact experience likewise strengthens the negative images that some Native Peoples have of Native Peoples in general. Whether Han Chinese or Native Peoples, increased contact experience results in attributing the plight of Native Peoples to individualistic rather than structural characteristics.