安身立命於無以為（國）家：泰緬邊境克倫難民的民族主義

Abstract

現代世界是由享有主權的民族國家所構成，並一直被視為是一種自然的、全球性的national order of things。在此秩序中，所有人都被預期屬於某個國家。但，跨國界難民不屬於任何國家，他們是對此秩序的污染。國際援助組織針對難民的救援行動，希望使難民離開兩國之間的邊界。這種行動，目的在穩定既有的national order of things。不過，對某些類型的難民來說，他們有他們自己的方式去重新界定這個national order of things。難民的民族主義運動即是一例。 自緬甸獨立後，便陷入長期內戰。現在，共有超過14萬的克倫難民被暫時安置在泰緬邊境。在淪為難民之前，他們透過民族主義運動重新界定national order of things；在淪為難民之後，他們仍然堅持他們的民族運動。在本文中，我以Anthony Smith的族群符號論為途徑，以理解克倫難民為何堅持其民族主義，以及在流離失所狀態下如何透過文化、歷史與記憶等符號的使用與詮釋，以延續此民族主義運動。 克倫族堅持其民族主義，是源於其神話中對理想國的預示。他們的理想國是一個美麗的、和平的Kawthoolei。為了實現理想國，在流離失所狀態下，他們利用機會，讓難民營成為克倫領地的延伸（extension of Karen territory），並在其中建立他們的社會性文化。因為社會性文化是一個根於領土上的文化。在這個不是真正的領土中所建立的社會性文化，稱之流離失所的社會性文化（displaced societal culture）。為了有效凝聚難民們的民族歸屬意識，革命組織透過各種組織性的活動、民族主義符號的使用，以及集體性社會記憶（social memory）之建構，來動員群眾。不過，群眾並非被動地被動員，他們也透過自發性的活動來凝聚彼此的民族情感。甚至，流離失所這個狀態本身，也成為一種激發民族主義意識的力量。社會性文化中的各種符號，創造出一種同時性（simultaneity），讓所有難民在同一時間內，共同承載相同的記憶與經驗。 克倫難民堅持其民族運動的力量，是來自於一個詮釋並理解過去歷史、當前苦難與未來希望的信念體系。這個信念體系，一方面是根源於他們的神話中對於理想國的預示，一方面則是構築在日常性的生活實踐之上。於是，民族主義，就克倫難民來說，不是某些理論家所說的國家擘畫，而是一些與日常生活及制度安排盤根錯節在一起的社會實踐。

The contemporary world consists of sovereign countries. It has been perceived as a globally accepted national order of things. The global order prescribes that all people must belong to a particular country. However, cross-border’s refugees do not belong to any countries. If they are resulted from communal war, the nationalist movement will also exist among them. The nationalism among Karen refugees is one of the most obvious examples. Before degraded into refugees, the Karen launched their nationalist movement in their land to politically territorialize the land. However, as refugees, they are fenced in refugee camps locating in Thailand rather than freely living in their homeland. They can not use the camps as the base to launch counterattack. But, they still to the greatest extent make use of the situation facing them to continue the struggle. In some condition, the displacement even becomes a force useful for their nationalism. Nationalism is a movement to territorialize the space belonging to particular national community. The KNU attempts to continually territorialize their homeland through hard and soft struggles. The former is proceeded with by deploying landmines and strategic fighting while the latter is processed through political alignment, humanitarian programs, and human right campaigns. Refugee camps are in Thai soil rather than in Karen land. Therefore, such kind of territorialization seems not possible to exist in the camps. Yet, because of a tacit consensus existing between the KNU and Thai authorities, the camps to a certain degree are transformed into a extension of Karen territory. Within the extension of territory, refugees even build their displaced societal culture. The societal culture is built by various daily practices. With practicing the various daily activities, the experiences of running away from homeland as well as the collective memories of the unsuccessful revolution are internalized and become the fabrics of the camps. Living in such fabrics, Karen refugees use various activities, including economic and socio-cultural, as well as organizational and non-organizational, to re/forge their national consciousness and to inspire people’s blood loyalty toward their struggle. Because refugees are fenced in the designated spaces, not only displacement but also fencedness constitutes the inner feature of refugees’ societal culture. The reality and experiences of displacement and fencedness, through these activities, are continually used to re/forge Karen refugees’ national belonging. As a result, Karen nationalism in refugee camps becomes practices processed in everyday life. The most important is, through the daily practices, their relation to homeland is linked up. Consequently, refugees are symbolically “restored” to their aspired homeland. Nationalism always places the potential or real nation at the centre of its concerns and seeks to promote its autonomy, unity and/or identity by pursuing an ideal kingdom. Such an ideal kingdom is the ultimate goal aspired by the members of particular nation. Karen nationalism also has an imagination of the utopia. Yet, a unanimous perspective on how to reach the expected new world had never existed in Karen history. Fortunately, probably after been refugees for over 20 years, the KNU eventually has a blueprint for realizing the ideal kingdom. It is the pursuit of a democratic federal Burma. However, such a blueprint does not acquire unanimity from the Karen. Notwithstanding, Karen refugees still stand with the KNU. For a belief that one day 'going back to live in the aspired Kawthoolei with dignity' is not merely a dream, they thus still support the KNU and their nationalism. Where does the notion derive from? The notion is firmly rooted in their past and a system of interpretation of their present plights and prospective happiness. Nationalism in this regard is defining social practices interwoven with people’s daily lives and institutional arrangements in defiance against the adversaries surrounding them.