臺灣自然保育的「西雅圖酋長化」：一個從原住民傳統生態知識出發的基進觀點

The Chief Seattlization of Nature Conservation in Taiwan: A Radical Perspective on Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge

本文著重於考察原住民傳統生態知識在自然保育思潮上的積極貢獻與價值，一方面指出自然保育以及原住民在地知識之間的連結可能性，另一方面更嘗試指出自然保育思潮總是某種在地知識普遍化的結果，因此如何普遍化的過程便值得詳實考究。本文的第一部份以「西雅圖酋長宣言」的文本作為主要論述的開始，透過西方學界的研究成果以及在台灣大眾文化中如何消費該文本的分析，指出「西雅圖酋長宣言」文本背後的多重非原住民建構者與其複雜性，而且不管國內外的主流社會中均充斥著保育人士刻意凸顯「西雅圖酋長宣言」中有關原住民純真、自然且與土地相親的形象，抱持過度浪漫、靜態、且懷舊的對原住民傳統知識的看法，此舉並無力解決與認識當今原住民社會糾結著政治、經濟、與文化差異的生態問題。本文的第二部份轉由呈現國內外學界對於原住民傳統生態知識的研究成果，嘗試指出一種另類的「西雅圖酋長宣言」的解讀，亦即回到原住民部落知識主體的建構性思維，並且高舉一種進步的自然保育「西雅圖酋長化」的可能性。本文的第三部份延續原住民生態知識的討論，繼續深化台灣自然保育的思維，解構了過去台灣社會所宣揚的自然保育思維中所謂的「全球性」，背後濃厚的在地西方特性，顯見在地性與全球性的某種弔詭關係，也藉此反襯出思考原住民在地知識在自然保育思維上的重要性與正當性。整體而言，本文嘗試對「西雅圖酋長宣言」進行一種基進的解讀，並區別出這份宣言的兩種意涵：前者在知識建構的位置上知識的主體乃假手於他人來建構，後者企圖反轉這個方向，而「西雅圖酋長化」的基進觀點正在於論述在地住民（本文以原住民西雅圖酋長為例）如何反客為主，進行有意義的知識建構，這也是台灣自然保育運動亟需深思的重要課題。

This paper examines some possible ways and values that indigenous peoples’ ecological knowledge could contribute for nature conservation. On one hand, this study indicates possible connections between that knowledge and nature conservation. On the other hand, it also illustrates how each influential thought on nature conservation would have its specific locality which involves a process of its originality and ways of globalization. Therefore, it is worthy to note that process. The paper starts with a discourse analysis of mass culture consumption views of “the statement of Chief Seattle” in both English and Chinese worlds. The analysis goes on to point out the complexity and non-indigenous multi-authorship of “the statement” and that it reflects a strong image of innocent, natural, and land-akin attitude depicted by nature conservationists. This image seems to be over-romanticized, static, and full of good-old-days remembrance but has nothing to do with deeper understandings of actual indigenous societies implicated with ecological problems of political, economical and cultural differences. The second part of the paper, based on reviewing international research on indigenous ecological knowledge, highlights an alternative reading of the statement, namely a knowledge constructivist’s approach by the indigenous subject itself. The third part of the paper traces the discussion of traditional ecological knowledge and attempts to de-construct the globality of nature conservation in Taiwan. It indicates that locality always lurks behind thoughts of nature conservation. Truly, in Taiwan, it is “western” locality more than globality. In sum, this paper aims to radicalize “the statement of Chief Seattle” so as to point out the importance of knowledge subject’s position when constructing a meaningful nature conservation for the people concerned.