| 英文摘要 |
In this article, originally read at the Symposium on Taiwan Aborigines (August 24—September 1,1974, Academia Sinica, Taipei), the author reviews strictly the studies of Formosan Aboriginal social organization done by Chinese and Japanese anthropologists after Second World War. Some essential results are summarized below: 1) In processing ethnographical corpus, a few of Chinese works stuck unnecessarily to stereotypes initiated by former students. Yi-fu Ruey's classification of kinship terminology, Chi-lu Chen's types of family structure and Shao-hsing Chen's table of family components were among the most popular. The obsession on these stereotypes may have prevented the later students from penetrating the fundamental problem of each tribe. The Bunun studies are taken as examples to illustrate the situation. In the study of family structure, native's normative concept of the membership is more relevant than the statistical or normal distribution of different family types, but the former concept received little attention. The Bunun's Omaha trend of kinship terminology elegantly demonstrated by Toichi Mabuchi also eluded the perception of a specialist's confusing study on Bunun kinship. 2) The Harvey-Liu Notation System of kin types, proposed mainly by Pin-hsiung Liu and applied in another monograph on Paiwan tribe, boldly reduced conjugal relationship to parent-child link. Its logical processes are criticized in the article. 3) Hwei-lin Wei's works on kinship organization of Formosan aborigines are comprehensive, but lack rigidity and consistency in his theoretical considerations. He was criticized for his subjectivism and lineage-centrism in the analyses of ethnographic materials. 4) Wei and his followers' lineage-centrism had been criticized by Sung-hsing Wang from the standpoint of non-unilineal theory. However, with indefinite concept of kith-based group and elusive terms of religious relationship and economic relationship, he did not solve the fundamental problems of Atayal's and Yami's principles of group formation. 5) Some anthropologists of structural-functional school inclined to search a constitution of social organization for a society. However, it seems that not all societies must have a supreme constitution of this kind. The classification of any societyi nto a lineage, unilineal, bilineal or non-unilineal type was more often the anthropologist's bias rather than the native's reality. 6) Some discussions of group formation confused the concepts of range and substance. For example, difference of lineality among Atayal, Yami and Ami is perhaps of range, not of kind. But the succession among Paiwan, Rukai and Puyuma is irrelevant to sex which is the only criterion of classification of lineality. Anthro-pologists used to neglect social features other than sex in the studies of kinship organization. 7) Some ethnographic works of Chinese students patterned vapidly after a pre-designed inventory without proper integration. Thus they presented identical framework. Every aspect of social life received equal treatment separately. It seems more similar to a patchwork rather than a holistic view. After reading such works we still know very little about the nature of the society investigated. 8) In the studies of domestic and communal rituals, some authors are inclined to adopt functionalistic view. But lack of considerations of social context has weakened their arguments. The more productive paradigmatic (metaphoric or symbolic) dimension still awaits further development. In this article, I illustrate the point with the Yami case. 9) This framework of review can also be applied to the studies of material culture and arts which prospered several years ago but is now considered passe. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
