西南民族大学学报（人文社科版）

参考文献

[1]本文根据2007年8月在云南大理召开的“跨越边界与范式——中国西南人类学的再思考”国际学术研讨会上提交的论文修改而成,谨在此对会议的主办方——西南民族大学民族研究院和中央民族大学民族学人类学理论与方法研究中心的邀请表示感谢。另外,本篇论文也源于较早的一篇“穿越边界的文化传输-以蒙为例”论文的修改稿。该文将被选入Kathryn Robinson编辑的“亚洲与太平洋国际公民主义:运动中的自我与主体“。该书将在2008年由Palgrave MacMillan出版社出版。原文中许多被删除的段落在本文中都有所保留,不过本文仅是原文几个部分的总结。这二篇论文均源于我在堪培拉、悉尼和那不勒斯出席不同研讨会与座谈会的发言讲稿。“蒙”(苗语Hmong的汉字记音)在中国大陆主要指民族识别后川滇黔地区自称为“蒙”的苗族,在苗族语言即湘西(东部)方言、黔东(中部)方言和川滇黔(西部)方言中,“蒙”语属西部方言区。大约在18世纪至19世纪时,“蒙”自中国西南地区迁入泰国北部,现有人口12万。除泰国外,在越南和老挝也有自称“蒙”的苗族居住。越战结束后,大批的“蒙”从东南亚移居美国、澳大利亚和加拿大。

[2]Edmund Leach,“The Frontiers of'Burma'”,Comparative Studies on Society and History,3.1,October;49-68,1960;有关族群整合区域的概念,也见Owen Lattimore,Inner Asian Frontiers of China.New York:Capitol Publishers,1940。

[3]一些混沌理论学家认为“中心/边缘”,或中心与边缘的固定关系,能够成为某些制度的“吸引源”(如社会制度);而一种共生的“全球化”现象则是这种“吸引源”所采取的一种特殊形式,如同John Urry和P.Baker所述,“就中心制造边缘而言,中心的一部分也位于边缘,反之亦然”。P.Baker认为,“中心-边缘”的关系是一种“子整体”,一种动态和固定的行为,是秩序与混乱的根源,中心是吸引源,它对于边缘有一种“熵”(holon)的效果,并增加它的随意性!见John Urry,“Mobile Sociology”,British Journal of Sociology51.1.(January/March);185-203,2000;Baker P,“Chaos,Order,and Sociological Theory”,Sociological Inquiry63.1.123-49,1993。

[4]利奇认为克钦山区的居民在不同的社会制度中可以同时占据相应的位置。见Edmund Leach,The Political Systems of Highland Burma.London:The Athlone Press,p.8,1954。

[5]见Bai Zhihong,Difference-Making.Bai Identity Construction in Dali.Unpublished Ph.D.thesis.Canberra.The Australian national University,2007;Susan Blum,“Margins and Centers:A Decade of Publishing on China's Ethnic Minorities”,Journal of Asian Studies.61.4.November.1287-1310,2002;有关中国民族识别的综述,可参见Thomas Mullaney,“Ethnic Classification Writ Large:the1954Yunnan Province Ethnic Classification Project and Its Foundations in Republican-Era Taxonomy”,China Information.18.2.July,2004;Coming to Terms with the Nation:Ethnic Classification and Scientific Statecraft in Modern China,1928-1954.Unpublished Ph.D.thesis.New York:Columbia University,2006。

[6]Sassen质疑国家主权的概念是否一成不变。他认为当今的全球化的过程和人权观念的提高,对于国家掌控非国民出入的绝对权力构成了威胁,见Saskia Sassen,Losing Control?Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization.Columbia University Press,p.xv,1996;“Spatialities and Temporalities of the Global:Elements for Theoriza-tion”,Public Culture12.1.215-232,2000;Etzioni则强调“跨国交往组织”的影响(指国际非政府组织)对国家机构的挑战;他认为国际性社区发展的前兆是跨国公民和国际性精英组成的团体的出现,见Amitai Etzioni,From Empire to Community:a NewApproach to International Relations.New York:Palgrave MacMillan,p.154,2004;而Featherstone在90年代用的是“第三文化”的概念,来指代对民族-国家边界的超越,见Mike Featherstone,“Global Culture(s):An Introduction',to Global Culture,ed.Mike Featherstone.(Special Issue of Theory,Culture and Society,7.2-3.June).Lon-don:Sage Publications,1990。

[7]Ong(王爱华)提醒我们在跨国力量与民族-国家间过于简单的对立。然而,Ong和Nonini谈到的规训和自我认同的辩证关系,即民族-国家的管理和个人规避行为之间,仍然塑造了社会与国家的对立关系。Ong的分析建立在与全球化的资本主义逻辑发生纠葛的个人能动性(而不是集体的主体性)与民族-国家间的紧张关系上。见Aiwa Ong(王爱华),Flexible Citizenship:the Cul-tural Logics of Transnationality.Durham and London:Duke University Press,p.16,1999;Aihwa Ong,and Donald Nonini(ed.),Un-grounded Empires:The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transna-tionalism.New York and London:Routledge,p.25,1997。

[8]比如Turton的泰国研究的例子,见Andrew Turton,(ed.),Civility and Savagery:Social Identity in Tai States.Richmond:Curzon Press,2000;Patricia Ebrey对传统中国儒家与文化认同的讨论;Pa-tricia Ebrey,“Surnames and Han Chinese Identity”,Negotiating Eth-nicities in the mainland and Taiwan,ed.Melissa Brown.Berkeley:Institute of East Asian Studies,University of California,1996。

[9]像别的研究者那样,Gupta和Ferguson也指出,跨国流动向大都会的蔓延动摇了中心的文化稳定,这一过程不亚于对“殖民边缘”的冲击。在这一过程中,人与地方所谓的天然联系受到侵蚀(以经济学的中心-边缘模式来对比)。这种天然联系包括居住英国的英格兰人,定居印度支那的“蒙”(苗族)的例子。见A.Gupta and J Ferguson,“Beyond'Culture':Space,Identity,and the Politics of Difference”,in Cultural Anthropology7(1):6-23,1992。

[10]参见Benedict Anderson,Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.London:Verso,1991;Cas-tells的“时间的消逝”和“空间的移动”,见Manuel Castells,The Power of Identity.Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1997和“'Materials for An Exploratory Theory of the Network Society“,The British Journal of So-ciology.51.1.January/March;5-24,2000。

11Talal Asad,(ed.),Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.London:Ithaca Press,1973;Stocking编“序言”,George Stocking,(ed.),Colonial Situations:Essays on the Contextualization of Ethno-graphic Knowledge(History of Anthropology,vol.7),1992。

12我估计泰族与中国广西壮族自治区的壮族之间的联系就像“蒙”与其他族群那样,更像是“文化他者”之间的碰撞与接触,也参考Louisa Schein,“Hmong/Miao Transnationality:Identity beyond Culture”,in Hmong/Miao in Asia,ed.Nicholas Tapp,Jean Michaud,Christian Culas,Gary Yia Lee.Chiangmai:Silkworm Books,2004。

13我在这里引述的是我在2000年5月24-28日参加瑞典隆德大学(Lund University)东亚和东南亚研究中心举办的“中国西南的族群性、政治和跨境文化”会议上提交的论文。会上提交的一些论文颇令人关注,它们在讨论中国的少数民族时,超越了少数民族与汉族对照的主导倾向,强调少数民族彼此间的关系。不过我在早期阶段,即1989年写的有关东南亚“蒙”的民族志报告中也的确只对“蒙”汉认同作过泛泛的比较。

14参见Herman关于这些人群的历史记载,他称他们为“纳苏——Nasu”。John E Herman,“The Mue'ge Kingdom:A Brief History of a Frontier Empire”,in Nicola Di Cosmo and Don Wyatt(eds)Political Frontiers,Ethnic Boundaries,and Human Geographies in Chinese History.London:Curzon Press,2002。

15参见林耀华的民族志报告与研究记载。Lin Yaohua,The Yi of Liangshan.New Haven:Human Area Relations Files,1961以及“New China's Ethnology:Research and Prospects”,in Gregory Guldin(ed.),Anthropology in China:Defining the Discipline.New York:M.E.Sharpe,1991;也见Gerald Berreman,“The Brahmanical View of Caste,Contributions to Indian Sociology”.5.16-23,1971;Robert Deli埁ge,“Replication and Consensus:Untouchability,Caste and Ideol-ogy in India”,Man27.1.155-173,1992。

16Tapp称,如果“所有文化倾向于混生”,那么我们可以说“蒙文化”已具有“蒙”与汉的混生特质,事实上“混生通常是主体符号的颠覆运用和杂揉”,这可以用来解释汉对于“蒙”社会和文化的大部分影响。见Nicholas Tapp,“The Kings Who Flew without Their Heads”,Unity and Diversity:Local Cultures and Identities in China,ed.David Faure&Tao Liu.Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press,1996;Smadar Lavie and Ted Swedenburg(ed.),Displacement,Dias-pora,and Geographies of Identity.Durham,NC:Duke University Press,1996。Castells认为,“蒙”的认同(一种基于族群性的民族主义)构成一种“抵抗性认同”,即“被排斥者对排斥者的排斥”意识,他认为,这种认同一方面“扭转了主体机构与意识形态的价值观,但同时也对其边界起到了强化作用”。见Manuel Castells,The Power of Identity.Oxford:Basil Blackwell,p.9,1997。

17例如,Hall将全球化看作是跨越国家边境的全球过程,这一过程以新的时空组合、联接和整合社区与组织,在社区和组织之间建立起新的交流关系。见Stuart Hall,“The Question of Cultural I-dentity”in Stuart Hall,David Held and Tony McGrew(ed.)Moderni-ty and its Futures.Polity Press in association with the Open University;Cambridge,p.309,1992。

18Gupta和Ferguson的观点,曾得到过许多人的响应。他们认为,与经典的人类学观点不同,毫无疑问,人们的流动性一直都是比较强的,而认同也并不确定,见A.Gupta and J Ferguson,“Beyond C'ulture':Space,Identity,and the Politics of Difference”,in Cultural Anthropology7(1):6-23,1992。我认为,就“蒙”的情形而言,其空间的流动性大是毫无疑问的,但这并不等于说其文化的流动性就很强。

19例如Appadurai认为,跨国流动性的增加和后国家社会形态的形成,加上新型的传媒流动,加速了民族-国家的消失,见Arjun Appadurai,Modernity at Large:Cultural Dimensions of Globaliza-tion.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,p.19,1996。Hall认为,全球化过程挑战并使民族-国家文化的中心与封闭性意识错置,见Stuart Hall,“The Question of Cultural Identity”in Stuart Hall,David Held and Tony McGrew(ed.)Modernity and its Futures.Polity Press in association with the Open University;Cambridge,p.309,1992;Hannerz的观点是,新的跨国联系将导致民族?国家重要性的下降;Ulf Hannerz,Transnational Connections.London:Rout-ledge,1996;同样,Gupta and Ferguson也认为跨国公共区域的出现“必然会使任何封闭的社区或地方观念过时”,见A.Gupta and J Ferguson,“Beyond'Culture':Space,Identity,and the Politics of Difference”,in Cultural Anthropology7(1):6-23,1992;Kearney强调跨国社区将“跨越”并且“规避”民族?国家“确立集体认同意识的权力”,也参考Michael Kearney,“Borders and Boundaries of State and Self at the End of Empire”,Journal of Historical Sociology4.1,1991。

20因为我已在加拿大做过相关的田野调查,同样希望能够在美国、法国和越南开展这项工作。

21当然这个故事有不同版本,他本人则认为对他的指控实际上是当地有些人出于勒索钱财和嫉妒对他的陷害。

22这在“蒙”访问者中很普遍,已经成为惯例。

23在老挝,所有兄弟与同父异母兄弟共同生活在一个单一的一夫多妻大家庭中.

24先移民新西兰,再迁居澳大利亚基本上是现在所有“蒙”移民的途径,见Gary Yia Lee,“Culture and Settlement:the Present Sit-uation of the Hmong in Australia”in The Hmong of Australia:Culture and Diaspora,ed.Nicholas Tapp and Gary Yia Lee.Canberra:Panda-nus Books,pp.59-96,2004。

25Robin Cohen对海外移居的作用作了详细的介绍,尤其是他认为海外移民社区是全球化影响下具有适应性的社会组织,通过衔接地方和全球的距离来跨越和替代民族?国家。参见A.Gupta and J Ferguson,“Beyond'Culture':Space,Identity,and the Politics of Difference”,in Cultural Anthropology7(1):6-23,1992;Michael Kearney,“Borders and Boundaries of State and Self at the End of Em-pire”,Journal of Historical Sociology4.1,1991;Arjun Appadurai,Modernity at Large:Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.Minneapo-lis:University of Minnesota Press,p.19,1996;Stuart Hall,“The Question of Cultural Identity”in Stuart Hall,David Held and Tony McGrew(ed.)Modernity and its Futures.Polity Press in association with the Open University;Cambridge,p.309,1992;Ulf Hannerz,Transnational Connections.London:Routledge,1996;Robin Cohen,Global Diasporas:An Introduction.Seattle:University of Washington Press,1997。

26同样,在强调互联网极大地削弱了民族-国家管理自身事务的能力以后,Etzioni补充道:“我不认为民族-国家已经过时,民族-国家已丧失了所有的权力,只是它们对事务的督导能力降低了许多”,见Amitai Etzioni,From Empire to Community:a New Ap-proach to International Relations.New York:Palgrave MacMillan,p.144,2004;Ong看来也同意这种观点,她说“当资本、人口和文化流动确实影响到国家主权的时候,政府对于跨国性的挑战也积极采取相应的措施”,见Aihwa Ong,Flexible Citizenship:the Cultural Logics of Transnationality.Durham and London:Duke University Press,p.3,1999;Bernal就厄立特里亚(Eritrean)的事例声称”民族仍然发挥作用”,见Victoria Bernal,“Eritrea goes Global:Reflec-tions on Nationalism in a Transnational Era”,Cultural Anthropology.19.1.February,2004;Levitt和Dehesa认为,国家“并没有消失,而是正在被重构”,见Peggy Levitt and Rafael de la Dehesa,“Transna-tional Migration and the Redefinition of the State:Variations and Ex-planations”,Ethnic and Racial Studies.26.4.July,2003。事实上,似乎大家的意见在这一点上一致,即民族-国家是怎样实现转型的。

[1]Thongchai Winichakul,SiamMapped:a History of the Geo-body of a Nation.Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,1994;Gehan Wijeyewardene,Ethnic Groups across National Boundaries in Southeast Asia.Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,1990;Grant Ev-ans,Christopher Hutton and Kuah Khun Eng,Where China Meets Southeast Asia:Social Change in the Border Regions.New York:St.Martin's Press,2000.

[2]Charles Keyes,“Presidential Address:'The Peoples of Asia'-Science and Politics in the Classification of Ethnic Groups in Thai-land,China,and Vietnam”,Journal of Asian Studies.61.4.1163-1203,2002.

[3]Edmund Leach,The Political Systems of Highland Burma.London:The Athlone Press,1954;也见Fredrik Barth,Ethnic Groups and Boundaries:The Social Organization of Cultural Difference.Bos-ton:Little,Brown,1969;Charles Keyes,“Towards a New Formula-tion of the Concept of Ethnic Group”,Ethnicity3.202-213,1976.

[4]Martin Buber,I and Thou.Edinburgh:T.and T.Clark.1966.

[5]Edward Said,Orientalism.NewYork:Vintage Books,1978.

[6]Andrew Walker,The Legend of the Golden Boat:Regulation,Trade and Traders in the Borderlands of Thailand,Laos,China and Burma.Richmond:Curzon Press,1999.

[7]David Harvey,The Condition of Postmodernity:An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change.Cambridge(US),Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1989.

[8]Charles Keyes,“Presidential Address:'The Peoples of Asia'-Science and Politics in the Classification of Ethnic Groups in Thai-land,China,and Vietnam”,Journal of Asian Studies.61.4.1163-1203,2002.

[9]Ernest Gellner,Nations and Nationalism.Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1983和Anthony Smith,Nationalism and Modernism:A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism.London and New York:Routledge,1998.

[10]Anders Baltzer Jorgensen,“Forest People in a World of Ex-pansion”,in Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Identity:Proceedings of the8th Conference of Nordic Ethnographers/Anthropologists,ed.Carola Sandbacka.Helsinki:The Finnish Anthropological Society,1977.

[11]Ruey Yih-Fu(芮逸夫)and Kuan Tung-kuei,Chuannan Yaque Miao de hun sang lisu(Marriage and Mortuary Customs of the Magpie Miao,Southern Szechuan),(Monograph Series A,No.23,Institute of History and Philology,Academia Sinica,Taipei,1962);也见David Crockett Graham(葛维汉),Songs and Stories of the Ch'uan Miao(Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections123,The Smithsonian In-stitution,Washington D.C.,1954).

[12]Arjun Appadurai,Modernity at Large:Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1996.

[13]Aihwa Ong,Flexible Citizenship:the Cultural Logics of Transnationality.Durham and London:Duke University Press,pp.2,11,1999.

[14]Allan Hanson,“The Making of the Maori:Cultural Invention and its Logic”,American Anthropologist,vol.91,pp.890-902,1989;H.B.Levine,“Comment on Hanson's‘The Making of the Maori”',American Anthropologist vol.93,pp.444-9,1991;Kirsten Has-trup and Karen Olwig,“Introduction”,in Karen Olwig and Kirsten Hastrup(eds.),Siting Culture:the Shifting Anthropological Object.London and New York:Routledge,1997.

[15]Benedict Anderson,Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.London:Verso,1991;也见Pni-na Werbner,“The Fusion of Identities:Political Passion and the Poet-ics of Cultural Performance among British Pakistanis”,The Politics of Cultural Performance,ed.David Parkin,Lionel Caplan and Humphrey Fisher.Providence:Berghahn Books,1996;Bruce Robbins,“Intro-duction Part I:Actually Existing Cosmopolitanism',in Cosmopolitics:Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation,ed.Pheng Cheah,Bruce Robbins.Minneapolis and London:University of Minnesota Press,1998.

[16]Bruce Robbins,“Introduction Part I:Actually Existing Cos-mopolitanism“,in Cosmopolitics:Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation,ed.Pheng Cheah,Bruce Robbins.Minneapolis and London:University of Minnesota Press,1998.

[17]Aihwa Ong(王爱华)and Donald Nonini(ed.),Un-grounded Empires:The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transna-tionalism.New York and London:Routledge,p.5,1997.

[18]Linda Basch,Nina Glick Schiller and Cristina Blanc,Na-tions Unbound:Transnational Projects,Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States.London and New York:Routledge,1994.

[19]Aihwa Ong,Buddha is Hiding:Refugees,Citizenship,the New America.Berkeley:University of California Press,2004.

[20]Manuel Castells,The Power of Identity.Oxford:Basil Blackwell,p.276,1997.

[21]Aihwa Ong,Flexible Citizenship:the Cultural Logics of Transnationality.Durham and London:Duke University Press,p.15,1999.

[22]Aihwa Ong and Donald Nonini(ed.),Ungrounded Em-pires:The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism.New York and London:Routledge,p.326,1997.

[23]Nina Glick Schiller and Georges Fouron,“Terrains of Blood and Nation:Haitian Transnationalist Social Fields”,Ethnic and Racial Studies22.2,1999.

[24]Aihwa Ong and Donald Nonini(ed.),Ungrounded Em-pires:The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism.New York and London:Routledge,p.23,1997.

[25]Linda Basch,Nina Glick Schiller and Cristina Blanc,Na-tions Unbound:Transnational Projects,Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States.London and New York:Routledge,1994.

[26]Khachig T.l.yan,“The Nation-State and Its Others:in Lieu of a Preface”,Diaspora.1.1.Spring3-7,1991和“Rethinking Diaspora(s):Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment”,Diaspora5.1.3-36,1996.

[27]Manuel Castells,The Power of Identity.Oxford:Basil Blackwell,pp,2,243,306,1997.