「原始社會」生於複製技術時代：日本時代的風景明信片、民族形塑與原住民族

Abstract

此次演講，筆者透過影像研究的角度，探討原住民族與非原住民族的關係，並從照相技術、明信片生產與民族分類等方式，觀察日本殖民政府如何將台灣原住民族「形塑」為一種知識與管理對象。筆者分析兩個重要的明信片背景──屈尺（今新北市新店區）與角板山（今桃園縣復興鄉），藉此描述此「形塑」的過程。這些被製造出來並廣為傳播的原住民影像，連同被記錄下來的文化流失過程，筆者認為日本的殖民統治，非常符合傅柯所提到的「知識」與「權力」結構。1902年森丑之助在屈尺為兩對夫婦留下的影像，是日治時代第一個充滿「泰雅特質」的影像記錄。這些「人類學式」的影像，形成一種民族的完整性，筆者認為，這呼應了清代至日治時代對「蕃人」或「生蕃」的既有印象。經由這種設計好且挑選過的影像，森丑之助的記錄強化了泰雅族人孤立於新店溪流域其他漢人之形象。第二個案例，筆者探討的是角板山的「馴化」過程，角板山儼然成為一個「原住民模範部落」。1895年，角板山被形容成充滿「野蠻人」的山間部落，然而到了1920年，角板山已經成為非常熱門的旅遊景點，遊客可以在紀念品店買到許多印製族人身影的明信片。跟屈尺的狀況類似，透過剪接、選景與拍攝的角度，角板山被塑造成一個成功的文明化部落，而在這之前，這些「山地人」跟平地人的接觸並不多。這些影像的展演，建構出一個內部同質、又不同於漢人的「原住民族」，這樣的分類，也配合蕃地治理政策，將原住民族的土地交易與個人稅務獨立出來。因此，蕃地政策豎立了一道防線，原住民無法輕易遷徙到平地、港口或都市，而這些地方都屬於殖民政府的「普通行政區」。筆者認為，從日本殖民統治的方式，可以看到「第四世界」的雛形，換句話說，把原住民族視作一個具有當代政治意義的主體，其實跟日本針對「平地人／原住民族」的「雙元政策」有關。

This talk will take a visual-studies approach to Indigenous-outsider relations to argue that the interdependent technologies of photography, postcard production, and ethnic classification “produced” Taiwan Indigenous Peoples as objects of knowledge and government in Japanese ruled Taiwan. I will analyze two important sites of photographic and postcard production to illustrate this process: “Kusshaku” (Quchi) 屈尺and “Kappanzan” (Jiaobanshan) 角板山. Based on close readings of the types of Indigenous imagery produced and disseminated from these sites, I suggest that Japanese colonial rule—in addition to its well documented destructive impact—was productive in this Foucauldian sense of the word. Mori Ushinosuke`s森丑之助1902 portraits of two married couples near “Kusshaku” were the first successful photographic documents of “Atayalness” to be made under Japanese colonial rule. These anthropometric-photographs constituted an argument for Indigenous ethnic integrity, to counter the prevailing Qing-Japanese discourse on “savages” (fanren or shengfan), I argue. Through the use of staging and image selection, Mori`s most famous photographs also exaggerated the level of Quchi-Atayal cultural isolation from Han peoples in the Xindian River area. The second case I examine is the “domestication” of Jiaobanshan/Kappanzan into a “model Aborigine village.” In 1895, “Kappanzan” was portrayed as the home of “savage” emissaries from unknown mountain locations. By the 1920s, however, Kappanzan was the most accessible Indigenous tourist site in Taiwan. The picture postcard sets distributed at the gift shop in Kappanzan, again through the use of cropping, scene selection, and captioning, told a story of a successful civilizing mission in the highlands among peoples who had been little touched by contact with Han Taiwanese. The visual discourses that constructed internally homogenous “Aborigines” as a population distinct from “Han Taiwan” paralleled practices in “Special Administration” that promoted Indigenous Peoples` isolation from participation in land markets and individually levied tax burdens. “Special Administration” also erected barriers to migration to the plains, ports, and cities of colonial Taiwan, which were ruled under “Normal Administration.” Because Special Administration was based on the notion that Indigenous Peoples were ethnically and temporally distinct from Han Taiwanese, and lacked the capacity to participate in a modern political economy, Police rule obstructed the dispersion of capillary power that characterized the disciplinary regime that obtained under “Normal Administration.” There is good reason to believe, I contend, that the birth of the Fourth World, or Indigenous Peoples as a modern political formation, is tied to practices of administrative bifurcation like the one instituted in Japanese governed Taiwan.