「蕃地」開發、「蕃人」控制及臺灣原住民族群性的展現：以蘭陽溪中上游地域為中心（上篇）

Developing “Savages' Land,” Controlling “Savages,” and the Performance of Ethnicity of Taiwan's Indigeneous People: A Case Study on the Middle and Upstream of Lanyang River

本文質疑原住民土地正義研究者與運動者為日治時期臺灣蕃地開發與蕃人控制建立的論述，運用大量既有與新出土的史料，一方指出該論述「不夠政治」的缺憾，另方面以蘭陽溪中上游地域為中心，試著將政治重新帶回此研究主題。與既有研究相對照，當原住民土地正義的研究者每每將殖民政權本質化為心思縝密、手段高明的掠奪者，且將原住民族視為邊界固定、內涵一致的單一行動者，本文採取一個後結構及後殖民的視野，追問殖民政府在設計臺灣蕃地的取用及控制（access and control）的架構時，如何對臺灣的蕃人予以分類，這些分類又如何隨著臺灣資本主義化及近代國家化而逐漸固定，甚至成為當代原住民族歷史正義及轉型正義論述中的「族群」。另外，本文對「何謂歷史」的理解也與既有原住民土地議題的研究者不同。我不認為前述空間秩序的建立可化約為線性的、循著一定階段緩緩推進的歷史。汲取晚近在批判地理學及科技與社會研究中引起廣泛討論的「拼裝」，我認為所謂總督府於蕃地建立的治理體系沒什麼創新之處。在規劃此體系時，本文顯示，總督府的靈感往往來自清朝對臺灣蕃地及蕃人的治理經驗、歐美等國的過時社會學及人類學理論、與蕃人互動與協商之際習得的蕃情等。正因為這套體系是如此異質，且構成成分間甚至沒什麼關聯，研究者就不應當將之視為滴水不漏、讓歷史行動者身陷其中難以自拔的治理體系。唯有採取如此的認識論立場，本文主張，我們才能挖掘、分析及欣賞歷史行動者在該拼裝之縫隙中迸發及展演的能動性。

This essay argues against the discourse which scholars and activists manufacture about indigenous land justice in order to reveal the courses through which the Japanese colonial government developed Taiwan's savage land and in the meantime brought savages under their control. On the one hand, I argue that the current political discourse is not political enough. On the other hand, using the middle and upstream of Lanyang River as an example, this essay examines a great deal of known and recently unearthed archival materials, brining politics back into the subject of indigenous land justice. While scholars tend to essentialize the colonial government as if it were an omniscient and cunning predator, and meanwhile treat indigenous people as if they were a unified, homogeneous, clearly defined and bounded group of people, this essay adopts a poststructuralist and postcolonial view, inquiring: 1. how did the colonial government frame the access to and control of savages' land according to and contingent on a classificatory system of the savages? 2. how did this system of classification become stabilized and consolidated as the savages' land got entangled with global capitalism and underwent the course of state-making? 3. to what extent did this stabilized and consolidated system of classification give rise to concepts such as “ethnic group,” “tradition” and “culture” as seen in today's discourses on indigenous historical justice and transitional justice? Also noteworthy is that the way in which this essay treats history differs from current literature. I don't think that the history of how the colonial government established a system of government over the savages' land can be considered progressive and lineal. To grasp the complexity, contingency, and fluidity of this history, I rely on a concept that has provoked wide discussion and debate in the fields of both human geography and anthropology: assemblage. I argue that the system of government which the Japanese colonial government imposed on savages' land was by no means novel. After analyzing how the colonial government pulled together various elements to put the savages' land in order, I show that the sources of those elements were remarkably diverse, ranging from the Qing empire's experience in dealing with Taiwan's savages, to some rather outdated European and American theories of sociology and anthropology, to fragmented pieces of information gathered during colonial officers' interactions with savages. Because the system of government was a heterogeneous and contingent one, I suggest that scholars no longer deal with that system as if it were a compact and watertight one within which the colonized got helplessly entangled and suppressed. Only by adopting such the epistemological and methodological stances can we unearth, analyze, and appreciate the agency which emerges and is performed by the colonized subjects.