鑲嵌於性別符碼體系的社會資本生產與運用：以台灣兩個社區的女性參與為例

The Production and Use of Social Capital Embedded in the Gender Code System: Two Cases of Women’s Community Participation in Taiwan

自Robert Putnam開啟社會資本有助於公民參與之研究以來，批評者相繼提出應關注其中所潛藏的性別議題，本研究即嘗試以性別觀點，探究台灣社區發展中社會資本的性別化主要表現在以下兩個面向：首先，由女性所建構的「內聚型社會資本」，發揮了開啟社區行動的重要基礎，並進一步做為一種再生產性社會資本，促使社區主事者得以建立與縣政府及和其他社區的向外社會網絡，亦即Putnam 所謂的「橋接型社會資本」。然而，此女性內聚型社會資本，在Putnam帶動的社會資本研究中，卻鮮少受到肯認。其次，儘管女性社區志工社會網絡開啟社區發展成果，但社區日常實踐的性別符碼體系，促使社區成員將男性在社區場域中的在場和缺席，都詮釋為一種與女性社區參與相對立的性別隔離，因而形成「詮釋性的社區網絡陰性化」。而此社區網絡的陰性化，也進一步使得女性傾向於將社區的參與網絡，視為有助於個人社交生活與心理健康的私人連繫，而鮮少賦予此行動網絡得以挑戰政府政策與資源結構的公民社會意義。

Since Robert Putnam began researching the relationship between social capital and civic engagement, critics have frequently argued for the need to focus on hidden gender issues. The current study aims to reveal the gendered implications of social capital in the context of community development in Taiwan and argues that the gendering of social capital in the community is embedded in two central aspects. First, bonding social capital, which is largely maintained by local women, serves as an important foundation in initiating the process of community development. Furthermore, the bonding social capital produced by local women reinforces the reproduction of outward social networks for leaders of the community in terms of their connections with local governments and other communities, otherwise known as bridging social capital. The contributions made by bonding social capital maintained by women, however, have rarely been recognized in Putnam-inspired social capital studies. Second, while women volunteers' networks can help spur vibrant community building, the gender-coded system practiced in daily community life often drives community members to interpret men’s presence or absence in a manner that solidifies gender separation, thus leading to the interpretative feminization of local community participatory networks. Such interpretative feminization of community networks frequently limits women to viewing their own community networks and participation as contributing solely to personal social life and mental health, rarely empowering them to consider their participatory network as potentially significant to addressing and challenging governmental policy and resource structures.