「族群」的雙重意義──一個跨領域的觀點

The Janus-Faced Ethnicity: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

本文旨在從不同學科領域的研究中，梳理出關於族群研究的兩大方向：一是將族群視為某種原生性質的社會群體，其獨特之某些特徵（無論是文化、生理、疆域、或象徵性特徵）乃是該群體被認知為族群之最重要因素；另一種研究方向則側重在「他者」與政治權力對於族群「邊界」之「形成過程」的影響。在不同的學科領域以及不同的個案中，兩種分析架構都各自有其解釋力；因而，我們可以預見，這兩種解釋也都將持續存在。不過，在族群政治與族群運動持續發展的浪潮下，後者的影響力勢必將會比以往更為提高。由於族群概念承載了許多不同層次的意義，因此，這兩種不同的理論架構也都為族群研究提供了豐富的研究資源，有助於使研究者於分析時更易於釐清所處理的概念層次意涵。 With an interdisciplinary analysis, this article aims to scrutinize the twodomains of ethnic group research. One claims ethnicity owes greatly to theprimordial traditions of belief and action towards objects such as culturalactivities, biological factors, territorial location and symbols. The otherargues that ethnicity as a product of political strategies people use to formboundaries in the sense of modernity. It concerns “otherness,” “politicalpower,” and “social process.” To a large extent, it is evident that bothapproaches provide sufficient interpretations in different academicdisciplines and cases. It is also foreseeable that both perspectives will keepdominating the research community of ethnic studies. Nonetheless, as theresearch interests in ethnic politics and social movements grow, the latterseems inevitably gaining an increase of influence in the field. On thatpremise, the authors argue that researchers have to clarify the distinctiveperspectives for a clear understanding of concepts and an in-depth analysis.

With an interdisciplinary analysis, this article aims to scrutinize the twodomains of ethnic group research. One claims ethnicity owes greatly to theprimordial traditions of belief and action towards objects such as culturalactivities, biological factors, territorial location and symbols. The otherargues that ethnicity as a product of political strategies people use to formboundaries in the sense of modernity. It concerns “otherness,” “politicalpower,” and “social process.” To a large extent, it is evident that bothapproaches provide sufficient interpretations in different academicdisciplines and cases. It is also foreseeable that both perspectives will keepdominating the research community of ethnic studies. Nonetheless, as theresearch interests in ethnic politics and social movements grow, the latterseems inevitably gaining an increase of influence in the field. On thatpremise, the authors argue that researchers have to clarify the distinctiveperspectives for a clear understanding of concepts and an in-depth analysis.