文化產業與部落發展：以卑南族普悠瑪（南王）與卡地布（知本）為例

Cultural Industry and 'Ethnic-Tribal Cultures': Two Case Studies of the Pinuyumayan (Puyuma) People, Eastern Taiwan

臺灣於1994年開始推動「社區總體營造」。這項政策以「文化」為名，將地方的文史工作團體及其本土化論述納入，並且透過各地區的文化特色，形塑認同臺灣的共同意識。另一方面，這項政策強調文化與地方產業的結合，「文化產業化、產業文化化」不但成為2000年之後社區總體營造的政策目標，負責層級也從文化建設委員會提升到行政院。相較於漢人居住的鄉鎮地區強調「地方文化」與「社區」的發展，「族群文化」則是臺灣原住民族發展文化產業時強調的重點。原住民族的菁英甚至認為「社區」是漢人的觀點，「部落」才是他們文化的根源，2000年中期由行政院原住民族委員會推動的「部落永續發展計畫」，更強調「部落」（部落會議）是原住民族政治、經濟與社會文化生活的基本單位。位居臺灣社會、政經邊緣的結構下，臺灣原住民族如何面對這些「發展」？文化與產業、文化與觀光的結合對於當地社會文化帶來哪些影響？在「文化」趨向族群化與本質化的過程中，其呈現的文化形式在我們思索社會文化的持續與轉化時，又具有怎樣的意涵？本文以位處臺灣東部的普悠瑪（南王）與卡地布（知本）兩個卑南族部落為例，描述與比較兩者從一九九○年代後期迄今發展文化產業的情形。本文指出兩者在「文化產業」的發展過程中有著不同形式的展現與實踐。要言之，卡地布透過對「部落」dekalr的集體性強調，創造出一種「部落文化」的形式與實踐，進一步成為「文化產業」發展的基礎與對象。相對地，普悠瑪社會生活的許多面向由愈來愈分殊林立的社會團體執行且呈現出來，而凸顯「文化」鑲嵌於（embedded in）日常生活與習俗的脈絡的特徵，致使「產業」與「文化」結合的可能方式有所限制。兩者的對比，呈現出當代族群文化形式在產業化與日常生活實踐中謀合與衝突的多種面貌。本文也指出「部落」與「文化」的關係隨著文化作為產業的論述而改變，亦即，當部落成為文化產業發展的載體時，「部落」與「文化」的意義相較於先前族群文化復振下的情形，已有一些細微的轉變。而在強調部落文化作為產業發展條件的同時，也可能加速了與資本主義經濟的結合。

Since the 1990s, Taiwan has experienced a new form of nation-building under the Integrated Community-Making Program launched in 1994 by the Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan. Celebrating the value, variety, and strength of local cultures and their products, the Program attempted to construct and redefine the distinctive features of Taiwanese society that were obscured by the framework of Chinese culture imposed by the KMT regime from the late 1940s. In addition to its socio-political implications, however, the Program also had its economic purpose. Since the early 1970s, due to the development of industrialization in Taiwan, many young people gradually migrated to urban areas, leaving their elders and children behind. As a result, rural areas in Taiwan were at risk of “social disorganization.＂ In order to solve the economic and social problems, the Program encouraged each community to rebuild a new sense of community and construct its local distinctiveness through local products, like crops, crafts and scenic attractions, to bring in tourists. In other words, the products of each community should be specifically localized in order to distinguish themselves from coarse mass products. At the same time, the significance of cultivating communal consciousness was emphasized. Nevertheless, the situation was different for the indigenous peoples on the island. In contrast to their Han-Chinese counterparts “culture,＂ or “ethnic culture,＂ became the main concern for the development of the indigenous peoples. Although living side by side with the Han-Chinese people in the same communities, particularly in the plains areas, indigenous peoples were usually in a disadvantaged position with respect to access to social resources Therefore, in order to counteract the unfavorable conditions, indigenous peoples often set up different kinds of associations and substituted “(ethnic) tribe＂ for “community＂ to differentiate themselves from the Han-Chinese. This in turn would enhance ethnic boundaries and ethnic cultures in specific senses. Drawing on studies among the Puyuma and Katratripulr of the Pinuyumayan people (officially referred to as “the Puyuma＂) in Eastern Taiwan, this paper discusses the development of cultural industry in these settlements since the late 1990s. In the course of more than one decade, some differences have developed between them. For example, the Katratripulr have succeeded in getting government funding for local projects and developed their own kinds of cultural industry, while the Puyuma are still trapped in disputes over how to develop their culture. Even so, with more problems emerging, the Katratripulr are beginning to consider how to develop cultural industry without making their traditional social institutions less effective and even damaging their internal unity. Having compared the similarities and differences between these two settlements, I argue that consideration of the development of cultural industry and the formation of ethnic culture in particular should take seriously their respective socio-cultural and local contexts. Furthermore, taken together, I suggest that these two case studies exemplify the complicated way in which the constitutions of “tribe＂ and “culture＂ have been implicated in the development of the capitalist economy in terms of the tourist industry in eastern Taiwan.