文資法中「民俗」內涵的探討

Discussion about Folklore in the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act

文化資產保存法及文化資產保存法施行細則中，有關民俗的條文和說明，與學界所論述民俗的範圍和內涵，可再作探討，為了了解民俗，我們從民俗起源發展開始，介紹德國、英國、法國、日本、美國、中國，有關民俗的範圍和內涵一一舉例說明，最後根據世界各國民俗學者所條列的民俗內涵和民間文化範圍，提出民俗的類型，包括物質民俗、社會民俗、信仰民俗和藝術民俗等四類，各類中包含不同的內涵。 我們從所提供的民俗內容模式與文化資產保存方法及施行細則，作一比較，不難發現下列各項，探討如下： 1.民俗範圍狹窄：僅就法條所述，無法窺視全貌，其中社會民俗甚為薄弱。 2.民俗內涵不清，條列式，少關聯性。 3.術語名稱，缺乏學術性的了解，內容重複。 4.其「有關文物」是否有列入的必要？ 5.雖然條文中提到各族群，但未見有關「原住民」字樣或其民俗內涵，只見 「漢人中心主義」。 以上所列舉的五項，是我們從各國民俗研究範圍和內涵分析中，加以綜合，並提出探討，以供大家參考。

Further discussion is required for the discrepancy of the definition and contents of folklore across legal and academic fields. In order to understand the comprehensive meanings of folklore, we use relevant examples from multiple nations (Germany, England, France, Japan, United States, and China) to explain the origin, contents, and development of folklore. Folklore can be further classified into four categories: material, social, supernatural, and artistic folklore. In this paper, we find several important differences between these four categories and what is defined in the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act: 1. Limited range of category: more items can be included in the category of social folklore. 2. Vague contents: lack of description about the important association among different items. 3. Gaps in the definition of folklore between academia and the law. 4. The confusion caused by the inclusion of folk artifacts described in the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act. 5. Han-centralism: failure to consider other ethnic groups. The aim of our paper is to provide policy makers with comprehensive discussion about the content of folklore which can be refined in the future.