飄泊中的依歸：從「家」看雲南Hmongb人的社會關係

Abstract

過往許多文獻中，透露了Hmongb人親屬關係的動態性，且多半以刀耕火耨的生業型態或因戰亂造成的頻繁搬家所需，來說明他們需建立一個彈性較大、可在搬家時去認親的親屬範疇。但經常性的遷徙可否作為Hmongb人在親屬觀念上的主要基礎，卻是值得思考的，因為此一解釋可能僅是基於現象所提出的功能論解釋，Sahlins（1976）曾針對功能論式的解釋提出不同看法並指明：「文化具有自身的邏輯，而非由其外在物質條件所決定」，易言之，「經濟基礎」是實踐活動中的象徵圖式，而不是象徵活動中的實踐圖式。但Sahlins也沒有迴避實踐對文化形式的影響，反倒認為物質力量影響的結果，是依賴於它們的文化包容程度。在此前提下，值得進一步探究的是我們可否以更基本的文化特質，或套用Sahlins所言：「什麼是Hmongb的『意義理性』？」來回答該社會的特色，筆者並希冀以此來面對本文所欲回答的第二個問題：在1952年的土改、1958年至1979年的人民公社時期，直到家庭聯產承包、節育政策後，原有的文化機制如何去扣連（articulation）新的外在條件。在國家力量的強制介入下，地方社會組織固然被施予了積極的「改造」，但大社會對地方的影響，如僅以外在形式的功利主義權力觀觀之，則過於單向且忽略了意識形態作為介入地方運作的可能形式，故重新去探討Hmongb人的意義理性，亦有助於我們去理解當代的情境。 本文立基於文獻中所透露出「家」在該社會中的重要特質，分別以父系群體、姻親、地緣團體等三種主要社會關係作為分析範疇，並從田野的觀察中進一步指出「以家為關係核心」的特質及文化系統中「家」的象徵意涵，如何在當代發揮其影響力。

Many papers have revealed the flexibility of Hmongb interfamily relationships, often ascribing this characteristic to the state of continual migration due to slash and burn agricultural methods and post-war disorder. These researchers have proposed that such conditions may explain the establishment of a relatively flexible kinship category beneficial to the task of finding relatives when on the move. However, this interpretation is flawed in that it is based solely on appearances. Sahlins (1976) has stated that “every culture has its logic, and is not determined by the outside material conditions.” In other words, an “economic basis’’ is a symbolic scheme of practical activity, not just the practical scheme in symbolic activity. Sahlins did not mean that the material forces and constraints are left out of account,or they have no real effects on culture order. It is that the nature of the effects cannot be read from the nature of the forces, for the material effects depend on their culture encompassment. The very form of social existence of material force is determined by its integration in the culture system（ibid.：206）. Taking this as premise, we may explore the validity of interpreting social characteristics by way of a more essential cultural quality, what Sahlins referred to as the “symbolic or meaningful reason” of the Hmongb. This explanation may also help to describe Hmongb society in the aftermath of land reform in 1952, the period of people’s communes from 1958 to 1978, the household contract responsibility system, birth planning policies, et cetera. Although appearances suggest that the state impressed a strong plan to reconstruct traditional social order, we must be careful not to ignore the powerful impact of local society on these processes. In other words, while the Hmongb have been gradually absorbed into the new state bureaucracy, how can originally existing cultural mechanisms “articulate” new outside conditions in this new environment? This is also a question this paper will address. Reference material clearly shows that the concepts of house and family both play important roles in Hmongb society. Therefore, in this paper I analyze these two factors through the lens of three major social categories: the patrilineal group, affinity relationship, and groups in the locality. From observations made during my field research, I also indicate how the characteristic “family centered relationships” as well as the symbolic meaning of “house” in the Hmongb cultural system influence this society today.