從失語到歌唱：部落互助托育行動聯盟的實踐歷程

Abstract

本論文從部落幼兒照顧的現場經驗出發提出疑問：為何看起來較符合人性、很適合在地經營的部落托育班，就因為違法而不能繼續存在？部落托育班的老師們只能順應法令的安排，還是有突圍的可能？由提問出發，經過文獻回顧，我提出三個問題意識：一、「國家對部落托育班的營運規範」和「部落托育班的照顧經驗」產生什麼樣的差異與衝突，使得托育班被政府給「問題化」？二、「部落互助托育行動聯盟」（以下簡稱「聯盟」）如何集結各部落基層的部落托育工作者，展開培力、發聲與行動的歷程？三、「聯盟」如何對中央和地方的行政官僚施加壓力、展開對話，並加入政策的討論與決策過程？ 透過批判民族誌的深描分析，本論文提出以下的研究發現：一、政府主導的幼教專業體制，透過契約文化、以都市園所為本的專家技術、兒童專用及排除風險的空間安排，把部落托育照顧給「問題化」；二、身為部落婦女的托育班老師，在參與「聯盟」活動的過程中，經歷主體化的歷程，從認為自己是不夠專業的照顧者出發，在個人主體、社群主體、歷史主體之間來回往復，培養發聲與行動的能量；三、「聯盟」不僅透過前一階段的婦女運動所創造的制度性管道，取得和行政官僚協商的機會，更嘗試發展自身的專家論述，與政府爭奪對部落托育需求的詮釋權，進而得以推展部落托育的倡議行動，迫使政府生產貼近部落照顧現場的法令和政策。 然而，縱有上述成就，「聯盟」的草根行動絕非一帆風順，而具有兩個部分的行動限制：一、在「部落托育」方面，「聯盟」需面對四項困境，包含：原民會「語言本位」的幼教政策、幼教體制內的「文憑主義」、如何把「部落互助托育」的概念具象化與操作化、以及部落家長的教養難題。二、在「組織培力」方面，「聯盟」仍須處理組織成員的「搭便車」問題，並且隨時要在對外的「認同政治」和對內的「差異政治」之間來回擺盪。 本研究透過「聯盟」的行動歷程，主要希望讓讀者看見兩個重點：一、原鄉部落（或漢人的鄉村社區）具有不同於都市的幼兒照顧文化，政府在制定幼教政策時，必須納入原鄉部落和鄉村社區的差異，研擬因地制宜的法令，並投入心力營造部落（社區）互助的照顧模式，以達成托育公共化的理想；二、「聯盟」的組織架構與運動策略，具有性別的敏感度，為台灣的原住民族運動帶入性別的視角跟觀點。「聯盟」避免組織的代言人化，相信每位成員皆有成為組織工作者的潛能；並試圖扣連部落居民的日常生活經驗，和原住民族的集體權利論述，使一般的部落族人也能對自治議題「有感」，讓更多族人投身原運的實踐。

This master thesis is based on the observation of the childcare practice from several Tribal Childcare Centers (TCCs), which operate in several indigenous tribes in Pingtung County from 2008. In the beginning, I doubted that it seems like TCCs are very suited for indigenous people’s needs, but why they are subjected to closure due to being “illegal”? Furthermore, I discovered that these childcare workers did not passively wait for the policy implementation, but instead tried to gather each other and to form the Tribal Mutual-helping Childcare Action Alliance (TMCAA) in order to dialogue with the government officials. Most of workers are indigenous women, who traditionally do not have the voice in the public spaces of villages. Therefore, it made me passionate to record even to participate their struggles and actions. By using critical ethnography method, I try to explain how the childcare practice in these TCCs is being problematized by the Ministry of Education (MOE). Through the lens of contract culture, expert knowledge based on urban childcare services, and space arrangement rooted in the specific childcare philosophy, childcare services in TCCs are labeled as “disqualified” and “hazardous” by MOE officials. Another discovery in my research is that by using Alain Touraine’s “subjectivation” concept from the New Social Movement (NSM), I analyze how the subjective consciousness of these indigenous women raised through participating activities of TMCAA. Moreover, by borrowing “the politics of needs interpretation” concept from Nancy Fraser, I intend to illuminate that TMCAA not only tried to join in the policy decision processes through institutional channels from the legacy of feminist movement, but also developed their own expert discourse to form the resistance against the government. By inquiring into the collective actions of TMCAA, we could learn that there are different childcare cultures and practices in indigenous tribes and Han people rural communities. The government officials should pay attention to different geographic and ethnic conditions when formulating childcare policies in the future. The last but not the least, it is important to notice that the organization structure and movement strategies of TMCAA are more gender-sensitive than those of other indigenous movement organizations in Taiwan, which creates more possibilities to make the ordinary indigenous people commit to the struggle of indigenous rights.