1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 當「結婚」遇上「嫁娶」－臺灣婚禮中金錢的社會意義
When "Modern Marriage" Meets "Traditional Chinese Marriage"－the Social Meaning of Money in Taiwanese Weddings
作者 許淑翔
Hsu, Shu-Hsiang
貢獻者 鄭力軒
Cheng, Li-Hsuan
許淑翔
Hsu, Shu-Hsiang
關鍵詞 父系宗祧嫁娶邏輯
個人戀愛結婚邏輯
社會關係
金錢移轉
交換
Patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic
Individual`s love and marriage logic
Social relationship
Money transition
Exchange
日期 2020
上傳時間 1-Feb-2021 14:19:00 (UTC+8)
摘要 隨著世代推移和不同文化之間的密切接觸，臺灣婚禮儀式正處於轉變之際，除了傳統儀式之外，還新增許多新式儀式，相較以往擁有更大的彈性變化空間。然而在這變換之際，世代間對婚禮的想像不同，對同一婚禮儀式的解讀各異，許多紛爭也油然而生。為了探究婚禮中的金錢與物質儀式何以帶給人不同的感受？緊張與紛爭在何時產生？面臨衝突時會如何折衷與協商？本研究採取質性研究方法，深度訪談年輕世代與年長世代，輔以參與觀察蒐集資料，具體呈現轉變中的婚禮籌備經驗。
本文指出，真正導致衝突、傷及交情的並非金錢，而是背後不同的思考邏輯。婚姻至少包含兩種思考邏輯，一是父系宗祧嫁娶邏輯；二是個人戀愛結婚邏輯。前者將婚姻定義成男娶女嫁，女生脫離原生家族成為男方家族的成員；後者認為婚姻是男女共組新的家庭，沒有誰脫離原生家族。對婚姻的思考邏輯不同，連帶認為婚姻所建構的關係類型不同，而此關係類型又會進而影響後續的金錢與物質儀式的運用。綜觀臺灣婚禮儀式，小從奉茶禮、媒人紅包，大至聘金、嫁妝，皆需繁瑣的經濟移轉才能完成。然而多種社會關係與多種經濟行為共存於婚禮中，並不會產生「談錢傷感情」的情形，反而需要借助金錢與物質才能將抽象的思考邏輯與社會關係具象化，並以適當的經濟移轉加以維持、增強、建立理想的社會關係。如若個體面臨婚禮中的認知衝突時，會透過欺瞞、家族內部溝通、幫腔、掌握經濟主導權、改變經濟移轉方式或名目、轉變儀式意義、參考雙方退讓程度等方法來折衷與化解衝突。研究顯示，多數人並非僅抱持單一思考邏輯，會採取三種方法：排斥嫁娶核心思想、堅守嫁娶核心思想、改變嫁娶意義，從各邏輯採納可接受的部分，進而拼貼出對婚姻與婚禮的想像，因此才會出現有些年輕世代排斥某些嫁娶意義明顯的儀式，但卻接受其他嫁娶含意較不明顯的儀式；或是長輩雖然接受某些傳統儀式被省略，但是卻堅持保存某些傳統儀式等狀況。但不論是嫁娶邏輯還是結婚邏輯，其思想多少都與父權社會的規則相關，社會更加期待男生能負起養家的責任，因此婚禮、住房的開銷大多由男方出錢，藉此證明自己有養家的能力，同時展現男方家族的經濟地位；其中，男方長輩以及男方特別容易抱持此類想法，反而女方比較不會如此思考。
本研究成果結合制度邏輯的觀點，可以補充關係帳戶的理論視野，由於關係帳戶沒有討論在同一時空下，人們對同種社會關係的思考邏輯不同，會進而衍伸出多種關係類別；對此，本研究從婚禮儀式中的各類經濟移轉，說明背後有何種社會關係，再推導出社會關係背後有何種制度邏輯，同時分析何種社會結構因素使得人們抱持的制度邏輯不同。
As time flows and the different cultures meet, Taiwanese wedding rituals are at a time of change. Apart from traditional rituals, many new rituals have a much more flexible changeable room. However, at this time of change, generations have different imagination of wedding, everyone has different interpretations of the same wedding ritual, and this creates many conflicts. To explore why money and materials can bring different feelings, and when conflicts and nervousness will occur, and how to negotiate and compromise when people face conflicts. This research adopts qualitative research methods, mainly rely on in-depth interviews with different generations, and supplemented by participant observation. These two methods can present changing wedding preparation experiences.
This study explores that money can’t lead to conflict, they are different thinking logic resulting in conflicts. Taiwanese marriage includes at least two thinking logic, one is patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic, and the other is individual’s love and marriage logic. The former defines marriage that the women leave the original family and become the men’s family members; the latter believes that marriage is men and women construct a new family with no one leaving the original family. The logic of thinking about marriage are different, this will influence that the relationship types constructed by marriage are different, and these types of relationships will further affect the subsequent use of money and material rituals. In general, Taiwanese weddings such as tea ceremony, matchmaker red envelopes, bride price, dowry, all of them need complicated economic transfers to complete. Although many social relationships and economic behaviors coexist in weddings, money does not harm the relationship. Instead, we can concrete abstract thinking logic and social relationships through money and materials. Appropriate economic transfers can maintain, enhance, and construct the ideal relationships. When people face cognitive conflicts at weddings, they will deceive families, or they will negotiate with their parent first, stick up for their spouse and parents-in-law, pay for the rituals by themselves, change the economic transfer methods or names, change the meaning of rituals, and refer to the degree of concession between each other and so on. These methods can help them avoid conflicts. This study explores most people don’t simply have one logic, they will intercept acceptable parts from different logic, and then bricolage these parts to realize their ideal image of marriage and wedding. They mainly employ three methods to bricolage: exclude the core of patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic, stick to the core of patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic, and change patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic’s meaning. Because of this reason, we can find some youngsters exclude some rituals with obvious traditional meanings, but accept some rituals with unobvious traditional meanings; or the elders agree to delete some traditional rituals, but they will insist that some traditional rituals cannot be deleted. No matter which logic is, their basic thought is related to patriarchal rules. Society puts more expectations on men to take up the responsibility of supporting their families; therefore, men often pay the expenses of wedding and house to prove their financial ability and their family’s economic status. In contrast to women, men and their parents tend to have such thoughts.
This result of research combined with the point of view of institutional logic can supplement the theoretical perspective of relationship accounting. Since the relationship accounting does not discuss that people have different logic of the same social relationship, which leads to various relationship categories. In this regard, from the various economic transition in wedding rituals, this research explains what kind of social relationships are behind the economic transition, and what kind of institutional logic, which give different definitions to relationships, are behind the social relationship, and analyzes what social structural factors make people have different institutional logic.
參考文獻 一、中文文獻

Long, Becky著、林怡君譯，2001，《結婚大不同—701種創意婚禮進行
式》。臺北：星定石文化出版有限公司。
Warner Fara著、邱如美譯，2006，《夏娃經濟學》。臺北：天下雜誌股
份有限公司。
王崧興，1986，<漢人的「家」觀念與群體>。《人類學論文選集》293-
303。
王灝、梁坤明，1992，《臺灣人的生命之禮：婚嫁的故事》。臺北：臺原
出版社。
何翠萍，1984，〈導言 禮物、人情、債—舊社會禮物交換形式〉。頁1-
28，收錄於何翠萍、汪珍宜譯，《禮物—舊社會中交換的形式與功
能》。臺北：允晨文化實業股份有限公司。
李棟明，1975，<臺灣農村人口外流與經濟發展之研究>。《臺灣文獻季
刊》26(3):126-148。
李俊豪，2005，<戰後臺灣農村勞動遷徙現象：以小龍村為例>。《人口
學刊》31: 69-103。
李玉瑛，1999，<實現你的明星夢－臺灣婚紗照的消費文化分析>。《臺
灣社會研究季刊》36: 147-186。
李秀娥，2015，《圖解臺灣傳統生命禮儀》。臺中：晨星出版有限公司。
胡台麗，1980，<臺灣農村婚姻的變貌：兼談社會文化現象的暸解與解釋
>。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》50: 67-89。
姚漢秋，1991，《臺灣婚俗古今談》。臺北：臺原出版社。
姜琦、許光麃，2013，<運動結婚儀式的意義與類別探討>。《身體文化
學報》16: 127-149。
堀川波、鈴木智子著、洛可譯，2006，《好想和你在一起》。臺北：方智
出版社股份有限公司。
陳其南，1995，《家族與社會：臺灣和中國社會研究的基礎理念》。臺
北：聯經出版事業公司。
陳向明，2002，《社會科學質的研究》。臺北：五南出版社。
陳翊芯，2011，《婚禮儀式中的性別教育意涵》。花蓮：東華大學課程設
計與潛能開發學系教育碩士論文。
陳彥蓉，2017，《百人結婚萬人祝福─臺灣集團結婚之研究》。臺北：臺
北教育大學臺灣文化研究所學位論文。
莊英章，1972，<臺灣農村家族對現代化的適應：一個田野調查實例的分
析>。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》34: 85-98。
莊英章，1994，《家族與婚姻—臺灣北部兩個閩客村落之研究》。臺北：
中央研究院民族學研究所。
許哲皓，2017，《台灣婚姻與住宅選擇：性別差異下之比較》。臺中：東
海大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
梁世武，2009，<台灣族群通婚與族群認同之研究>。《問題與研究》
48(3):33-62。
張媛玲，1997，《臺北婚紗攝影的社會學研究》。臺北：臺灣大學社會學
研究所碩士論文。
張寧靜，1998，《愛情百分百—各國的婚禮習俗》。臺北：正中書局。
張茂桂，1999，<種族與族群關係>。頁239-279，收錄於王振寰、瞿海
源編，《社會學與臺灣社會》。臺北：巨流圖書股份有限公司。
張壽安，2000，<十八、十九世紀中國傳統婚姻觀念的現代轉化>。《近
代中國婦女史研究》8: 41-87。
黃尹青，2006，《愛的圈圈》。臺北：皇冠出版社。
黃萍瑛，2008，《臺灣民間信仰「孤娘」的奉祀—一個社會史的考察》。
臺北：稻鄉出版社。
費孝通，1991，《鄉土中國》。香港：三聯書店有限公司。
彭美玲、呂敦華、羅健蔚，2008，《深情相約—婚嫁禮俗面面觀》。臺
北：國家出版社。
楊晉龍，2017，<傳統經學的「嫁娶觀」與現代「結婚觀」及其相關問題
探論>。《止善學報》22: 3-38。
詹壹雯，2013，《婚禮籌備過程之世代、性別與權力協商》。臺北：臺灣
大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
廖鈺凌，2018，《臺灣婚禮消費者對婚禮元素的重視程度研究》。臺中：
東海大學餐旅管理學系碩士論文。
閻雲翔著、李放春、劉瑜譯，2000，《禮物的流動：一個中國村莊中的互
惠原則與社會網絡》。上海：人民出版社。


二、英文文獻

Ahern, Emily M. , 1973, The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese
Village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Adrian, Bonnie, 2003, Framing the Bride: Globalizing Beauty
and Romance in Taiwan’s Bridal Industry. California:
University of California Press.
Bloch, Francis, Vijayendra Rao, and Sonalde Desai, 2004,
“Wedding Celebrations as Conspicuous Consumption:
Signaling Social Status in Rural India.” Journal of
Human Resources 39(3): 675-695.
Cohen, Myron, 1970, Developmental Process in the Chinese
Domestic Group. Pp. 21-36 in Family and Kinship in
Chinese Society, edited by M. Freedman. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Cohen, Myron, 1985, “Lineage Development and the Family in
China.” Pp. 210-218 in The Chinese Family and Its
Ritual Behavior, edited by Hsieh Jih-Chang and Chuang
Ying-Chang. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology.
Chen, Chung-min, 1985, “Dowry and Inheritance.” Pp. 117-127
in The Chinese Family and Its Ritual Behavior, edited
by Hsieh Jih-Chang and Chuang Ying-Chang. Taipei:
Institute of Ethnology.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron
Cage Revisited:Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields.”American
Sociological Review 48: 147-160.
Friedland Roger, Mohr W. John, Roose Henk, Gardinali Paolo,
2014, “The institutional logic of love: Measuring
intimate life.” Theory and Society, 43: 333-370.
Goode, William Josiah, 1964, The Family. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Goody Jack, 1976, Production and reproduction: a
comparative study of the domestic domain. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Granovetter, Mark, 1985, “Economic Action and Social
Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American
Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481- 510.
Granovetter, Mark, 1995, Getting a Job: A Study in Contacts
and Careers . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kulp, Daniel Harrison, 1925, Country Life in South China.
New York: Columbia University.
Leeds-Hurwitz, Wendy, 2002, Wedding as Text: Communicating
Cultural Identities Through Ritual. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Levav, Jonathan, Peter A. Mcgraw, 2009, “Emotional
Accounting: How Feelings About Money Influence Consumer
Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research 46(1):66-80.
Mauss, Marcel, 2002, The Gift: The form and Reason for
Exchange in Archaic Societies. UK: Routledge.
Mahoney, James and Kathleen Thelen, 2010, “A Theory of
Gradual Institutional Change” Pp.1-37 in Explaining
Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power,
edited by James Mahoney & Kathleen Thelen. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pasternak, Burton, 1985, “The Disquieting Chinese Lineage
and Its Anthropological Relevance.” Pp. 165-191 in The
Chinese Family and Its Ritual Behavior, edited by Hsieh
Jih-Chang and Chuang Ying-Chang. Taipei: Institute of
Ethnology.
Purbrick, Louise, 2003, “Wedding Presents: Marriage Gifts
and the Limits of Consumption, Britain, 1945-2000.”
Journal of Design History 16(3):215-227.
Pierson, Paul, 2004, Politics in Time: History,
Institutions, and Social Analysis. New Jersey:Princeton
University Press.
Sung, Lung-sheng, 1981, “Property and Family Division.”
Pp.361-378 in The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society,
edited by Emily M. Ahern and Hill Gates. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Staub, S. , 1989, Yemenis in New York City: The folklore of
ethnicity. Philadelphia: The Balch Institute Press.
Strang David and John W. Meyer, 1993, “Institutional
Conditions for Diffusion.” Theory and Society 22: 487
511.
Thaler, H.Richard, 1999, “Mental Accounting Matters.”
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 183-206.
Thornton, Partricia, William Ocasio and Michael Lounsbury,
2012, The Institutional Logic Perspective. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Wolf, Margery, 1972, Women and the Family in Rural Taiwan.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wu Y. H. David, 1985, “The Conditions of Development and
Decline of Chinese Lineages and the Formation of Ethnic
Groups.” Pp. 192-209 in The Chinese Family and Its
Ritual Behavior, edited by Hsieh Jih-Chang and Chuang
Ying-Chang. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology.
Zukin Sharon and Paul Dimaggio, 1990, Structures of
Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zelizer, A.Viviana, 1997, The Social Meaning of Money: Pin
Money, Paychecks,Poor Relief, and Other Currencies. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Zelizer, A.Viviana, 2005, The Purchase of Intimacy. New
York: Basic Books. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Zelizer, A.Viviana, 2012, “How I Became a Relational
Economic Sociologist and What Does That Mean?” Politics
& Society 40(2): 145-174.

三、網路資料

新知女巫，2015，結婚禮俗是「為了我們好」？這是我的婚禮還是家族的。https://womany.net/read/article/6795，取用日期：2020年02月29日。
行政院性別平等會，2019，初婚者之年齡平均數。https://www.gender.ey.gov.tw/gecdb/Stat_Statistics_DetailData.aspx?sn=aeFG0R2tHwmrDtITC%2FJSaA%3D%3D，取用日期：2019年9月22日。
花嫁 All About Wedding，2020，結婚金飾的9項意義。https://www.allaboutwedding.com/post/8，取用日期：2020年11月5日。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
社會學系
107254004
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107254004
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 鄭力軒zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Cheng, Li-Hsuanen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 許淑翔zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsu, Shu-Hsiangen_US
dc.creator (作者) 許淑翔zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Hsu, Shu-Hsiangen_US
dc.date (日期) 2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Feb-2021 14:19:00 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Feb-2021 14:19:00 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Feb-2021 14:19:00 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107254004en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133928-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 社會學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 107254004zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著世代推移和不同文化之間的密切接觸，臺灣婚禮儀式正處於轉變之際，除了傳統儀式之外，還新增許多新式儀式，相較以往擁有更大的彈性變化空間。然而在這變換之際，世代間對婚禮的想像不同，對同一婚禮儀式的解讀各異，許多紛爭也油然而生。為了探究婚禮中的金錢與物質儀式何以帶給人不同的感受？緊張與紛爭在何時產生？面臨衝突時會如何折衷與協商？本研究採取質性研究方法，深度訪談年輕世代與年長世代，輔以參與觀察蒐集資料，具體呈現轉變中的婚禮籌備經驗。
本文指出，真正導致衝突、傷及交情的並非金錢，而是背後不同的思考邏輯。婚姻至少包含兩種思考邏輯，一是父系宗祧嫁娶邏輯；二是個人戀愛結婚邏輯。前者將婚姻定義成男娶女嫁，女生脫離原生家族成為男方家族的成員；後者認為婚姻是男女共組新的家庭，沒有誰脫離原生家族。對婚姻的思考邏輯不同，連帶認為婚姻所建構的關係類型不同，而此關係類型又會進而影響後續的金錢與物質儀式的運用。綜觀臺灣婚禮儀式，小從奉茶禮、媒人紅包，大至聘金、嫁妝，皆需繁瑣的經濟移轉才能完成。然而多種社會關係與多種經濟行為共存於婚禮中，並不會產生「談錢傷感情」的情形，反而需要借助金錢與物質才能將抽象的思考邏輯與社會關係具象化，並以適當的經濟移轉加以維持、增強、建立理想的社會關係。如若個體面臨婚禮中的認知衝突時，會透過欺瞞、家族內部溝通、幫腔、掌握經濟主導權、改變經濟移轉方式或名目、轉變儀式意義、參考雙方退讓程度等方法來折衷與化解衝突。研究顯示，多數人並非僅抱持單一思考邏輯，會採取三種方法：排斥嫁娶核心思想、堅守嫁娶核心思想、改變嫁娶意義，從各邏輯採納可接受的部分，進而拼貼出對婚姻與婚禮的想像，因此才會出現有些年輕世代排斥某些嫁娶意義明顯的儀式，但卻接受其他嫁娶含意較不明顯的儀式；或是長輩雖然接受某些傳統儀式被省略，但是卻堅持保存某些傳統儀式等狀況。但不論是嫁娶邏輯還是結婚邏輯，其思想多少都與父權社會的規則相關，社會更加期待男生能負起養家的責任，因此婚禮、住房的開銷大多由男方出錢，藉此證明自己有養家的能力，同時展現男方家族的經濟地位；其中，男方長輩以及男方特別容易抱持此類想法，反而女方比較不會如此思考。
本研究成果結合制度邏輯的觀點，可以補充關係帳戶的理論視野，由於關係帳戶沒有討論在同一時空下，人們對同種社會關係的思考邏輯不同，會進而衍伸出多種關係類別；對此，本研究從婚禮儀式中的各類經濟移轉，說明背後有何種社會關係，再推導出社會關係背後有何種制度邏輯，同時分析何種社會結構因素使得人們抱持的制度邏輯不同。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) As time flows and the different cultures meet, Taiwanese wedding rituals are at a time of change. Apart from traditional rituals, many new rituals have a much more flexible changeable room. However, at this time of change, generations have different imagination of wedding, everyone has different interpretations of the same wedding ritual, and this creates many conflicts. To explore why money and materials can bring different feelings, and when conflicts and nervousness will occur, and how to negotiate and compromise when people face conflicts. This research adopts qualitative research methods, mainly rely on in-depth interviews with different generations, and supplemented by participant observation. These two methods can present changing wedding preparation experiences.
This study explores that money can’t lead to conflict, they are different thinking logic resulting in conflicts. Taiwanese marriage includes at least two thinking logic, one is patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic, and the other is individual’s love and marriage logic. The former defines marriage that the women leave the original family and become the men’s family members; the latter believes that marriage is men and women construct a new family with no one leaving the original family. The logic of thinking about marriage are different, this will influence that the relationship types constructed by marriage are different, and these types of relationships will further affect the subsequent use of money and material rituals. In general, Taiwanese weddings such as tea ceremony, matchmaker red envelopes, bride price, dowry, all of them need complicated economic transfers to complete. Although many social relationships and economic behaviors coexist in weddings, money does not harm the relationship. Instead, we can concrete abstract thinking logic and social relationships through money and materials. Appropriate economic transfers can maintain, enhance, and construct the ideal relationships. When people face cognitive conflicts at weddings, they will deceive families, or they will negotiate with their parent first, stick up for their spouse and parents-in-law, pay for the rituals by themselves, change the economic transfer methods or names, change the meaning of rituals, and refer to the degree of concession between each other and so on. These methods can help them avoid conflicts. This study explores most people don’t simply have one logic, they will intercept acceptable parts from different logic, and then bricolage these parts to realize their ideal image of marriage and wedding. They mainly employ three methods to bricolage: exclude the core of patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic, stick to the core of patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic, and change patriarchal clan traditional marriage logic’s meaning. Because of this reason, we can find some youngsters exclude some rituals with obvious traditional meanings, but accept some rituals with unobvious traditional meanings; or the elders agree to delete some traditional rituals, but they will insist that some traditional rituals cannot be deleted. No matter which logic is, their basic thought is related to patriarchal rules. Society puts more expectations on men to take up the responsibility of supporting their families; therefore, men often pay the expenses of wedding and house to prove their financial ability and their family’s economic status. In contrast to women, men and their parents tend to have such thoughts.
This result of research combined with the point of view of institutional logic can supplement the theoretical perspective of relationship accounting. Since the relationship accounting does not discuss that people have different logic of the same social relationship, which leads to various relationship categories. In this regard, from the various economic transition in wedding rituals, this research explains what kind of social relationships are behind the economic transition, and what kind of institutional logic, which give different definitions to relationships, are behind the social relationship, and analyzes what social structural factors make people have different institutional logic.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機、問題與目的 1
壹、 研究動機 1
貳、 研究問題與目的 4
第二節 研究方法 4
壹、 資料蒐集與抽樣方法 4
貳、 資料分析 6
參、 研究倫理 6
肆、 研究限制與反思 7
第三節 文獻回顧 8
壹、 有限理性—非理性的原因 8
貳、 交換與社會關係 14
參、 婚禮中的新舊儀式 16
肆、 兩種制度邏輯對婚禮金錢的影響 18
第二章 宴客桌錢與禮金 27
第一節 關係的猜測與評估：發喜帖的技巧 28
第二節 收禮金還是不收禮金：關係的考量 33
第三節 桌錢的分擔與禮金的分配 39
第三章 父系宗祧嫁娶邏輯下的婚禮儀式 41
第一節 「將伊的土塗伊的壁」－加強婚後生活品質的聘金與嫁妝 42
第二節 「男方本來就比較吃虧」－父系宗祧嫁娶邏輯的影響 45
第四章 個人戀愛結婚邏輯下的婚禮儀式 50
第一節 「最貴的炫耀財」－求婚戒、結婚對戒的重要性 51
第二節 「大部分是我先生出」－戒指、婚紗、婚攝、ring
security、伴郎伴娘等 52
第五章 當嫁娶邏輯與結婚邏輯相遇後的衝突、折衷與拼貼 58
第一節 「收聘金像賣女兒」－父系傳統宗祧下女方身份的變化 58
第二節 「他們就是愛面子」－嫁娶邏輯與結婚邏輯的衝突與折衷 72
第三節 「小孩子講的不算」－結婚是兩家族的事還是兩個人的事？ 79
第四節 「金項鍊就是一個礙事的東西」－不同邏輯下產生相異意義的相
似物品 83
第五節 「我就覺得不公平」－嫁娶邏輯與結婚邏輯的折衷 91
第六節 多種邏輯的拼貼 96
第七節 雖非儀式卻會影響儀式的物件－房子 105
第六章 結論 109
第一節 研究結論 109
第二節 研究建議 116
參考文獻 118
附件 123
附錄一 受訪者資料一覽表 123
附錄二 訪談大綱 129		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 4848160 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107254004en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 父系宗祧嫁娶邏輯zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 個人戀愛結婚邏輯zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會關係zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 金錢移轉zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 交換zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patriarchal clan traditional marriage logicen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Individual`s love and marriage logicen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social relationshipen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Money transitionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Exchangeen_US
dc.title (題名) 當「結婚」遇上「嫁娶」－臺灣婚禮中金錢的社會意義zh_TW
dc.title (題名) When &quot;Modern Marriage&quot; Meets &quot;Traditional Chinese Marriage&quot;－the Social Meaning of Money in Taiwanese Weddingsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻

Long, Becky著、林怡君譯，2001，《結婚大不同—701種創意婚禮進行
式》。臺北：星定石文化出版有限公司。
Warner Fara著、邱如美譯，2006，《夏娃經濟學》。臺北：天下雜誌股
份有限公司。
王崧興，1986，<漢人的「家」觀念與群體>。《人類學論文選集》293-
303。
王灝、梁坤明，1992，《臺灣人的生命之禮：婚嫁的故事》。臺北：臺原
出版社。
何翠萍，1984，〈導言 禮物、人情、債—舊社會禮物交換形式〉。頁1-
28，收錄於何翠萍、汪珍宜譯，《禮物—舊社會中交換的形式與功
能》。臺北：允晨文化實業股份有限公司。
李棟明，1975，<臺灣農村人口外流與經濟發展之研究>。《臺灣文獻季
刊》26(3):126-148。
李俊豪，2005，<戰後臺灣農村勞動遷徙現象：以小龍村為例>。《人口
學刊》31: 69-103。
李玉瑛，1999，<實現你的明星夢－臺灣婚紗照的消費文化分析>。《臺
灣社會研究季刊》36: 147-186。
李秀娥，2015，《圖解臺灣傳統生命禮儀》。臺中：晨星出版有限公司。
胡台麗，1980，<臺灣農村婚姻的變貌：兼談社會文化現象的暸解與解釋
>。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》50: 67-89。
姚漢秋，1991，《臺灣婚俗古今談》。臺北：臺原出版社。
姜琦、許光麃，2013，<運動結婚儀式的意義與類別探討>。《身體文化
學報》16: 127-149。
堀川波、鈴木智子著、洛可譯，2006，《好想和你在一起》。臺北：方智
出版社股份有限公司。
陳其南，1995，《家族與社會：臺灣和中國社會研究的基礎理念》。臺
北：聯經出版事業公司。
陳向明，2002，《社會科學質的研究》。臺北：五南出版社。
陳翊芯，2011，《婚禮儀式中的性別教育意涵》。花蓮：東華大學課程設
計與潛能開發學系教育碩士論文。
陳彥蓉，2017，《百人結婚萬人祝福─臺灣集團結婚之研究》。臺北：臺
北教育大學臺灣文化研究所學位論文。
莊英章，1972，<臺灣農村家族對現代化的適應：一個田野調查實例的分
析>。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》34: 85-98。
莊英章，1994，《家族與婚姻—臺灣北部兩個閩客村落之研究》。臺北：
中央研究院民族學研究所。
許哲皓，2017，《台灣婚姻與住宅選擇：性別差異下之比較》。臺中：東
海大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
梁世武，2009，<台灣族群通婚與族群認同之研究>。《問題與研究》
48(3):33-62。
張媛玲，1997，《臺北婚紗攝影的社會學研究》。臺北：臺灣大學社會學
研究所碩士論文。
張寧靜，1998，《愛情百分百—各國的婚禮習俗》。臺北：正中書局。
張茂桂，1999，<種族與族群關係>。頁239-279，收錄於王振寰、瞿海
源編，《社會學與臺灣社會》。臺北：巨流圖書股份有限公司。
張壽安，2000，<十八、十九世紀中國傳統婚姻觀念的現代轉化>。《近
代中國婦女史研究》8: 41-87。
黃尹青，2006，《愛的圈圈》。臺北：皇冠出版社。
黃萍瑛，2008，《臺灣民間信仰「孤娘」的奉祀—一個社會史的考察》。
臺北：稻鄉出版社。
費孝通，1991，《鄉土中國》。香港：三聯書店有限公司。
彭美玲、呂敦華、羅健蔚，2008，《深情相約—婚嫁禮俗面面觀》。臺
北：國家出版社。
楊晉龍，2017，<傳統經學的「嫁娶觀」與現代「結婚觀」及其相關問題
探論>。《止善學報》22: 3-38。
詹壹雯，2013，《婚禮籌備過程之世代、性別與權力協商》。臺北：臺灣
大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
廖鈺凌，2018，《臺灣婚禮消費者對婚禮元素的重視程度研究》。臺中：
東海大學餐旅管理學系碩士論文。
閻雲翔著、李放春、劉瑜譯，2000，《禮物的流動：一個中國村莊中的互
惠原則與社會網絡》。上海：人民出版社。


二、英文文獻

Ahern, Emily M. , 1973, The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese
Village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Adrian, Bonnie, 2003, Framing the Bride: Globalizing Beauty
and Romance in Taiwan’s Bridal Industry. California:
University of California Press.
Bloch, Francis, Vijayendra Rao, and Sonalde Desai, 2004,
“Wedding Celebrations as Conspicuous Consumption:
Signaling Social Status in Rural India.” Journal of
Human Resources 39(3): 675-695.
Cohen, Myron, 1970, Developmental Process in the Chinese
Domestic Group. Pp. 21-36 in Family and Kinship in
Chinese Society, edited by M. Freedman. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Cohen, Myron, 1985, “Lineage Development and the Family in
China.” Pp. 210-218 in The Chinese Family and Its
Ritual Behavior, edited by Hsieh Jih-Chang and Chuang
Ying-Chang. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology.
Chen, Chung-min, 1985, “Dowry and Inheritance.” Pp. 117-127
in The Chinese Family and Its Ritual Behavior, edited
by Hsieh Jih-Chang and Chuang Ying-Chang. Taipei:
Institute of Ethnology.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron
Cage Revisited:Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields.”American
Sociological Review 48: 147-160.
Friedland Roger, Mohr W. John, Roose Henk, Gardinali Paolo,
2014, “The institutional logic of love: Measuring
intimate life.” Theory and Society, 43: 333-370.
Goode, William Josiah, 1964, The Family. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Goody Jack, 1976, Production and reproduction: a
comparative study of the domestic domain. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Granovetter, Mark, 1985, “Economic Action and Social
Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American
Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481- 510.
Granovetter, Mark, 1995, Getting a Job: A Study in Contacts
and Careers . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kulp, Daniel Harrison, 1925, Country Life in South China.
New York: Columbia University.
Leeds-Hurwitz, Wendy, 2002, Wedding as Text: Communicating
Cultural Identities Through Ritual. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Levav, Jonathan, Peter A. Mcgraw, 2009, “Emotional
Accounting: How Feelings About Money Influence Consumer
Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research 46(1):66-80.
Mauss, Marcel, 2002, The Gift: The form and Reason for
Exchange in Archaic Societies. UK: Routledge.
Mahoney, James and Kathleen Thelen, 2010, “A Theory of
Gradual Institutional Change” Pp.1-37 in Explaining
Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power,
edited by James Mahoney & Kathleen Thelen. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pasternak, Burton, 1985, “The Disquieting Chinese Lineage
and Its Anthropological Relevance.” Pp. 165-191 in The
Chinese Family and Its Ritual Behavior, edited by Hsieh
Jih-Chang and Chuang Ying-Chang. Taipei: Institute of
Ethnology.
Purbrick, Louise, 2003, “Wedding Presents: Marriage Gifts
and the Limits of Consumption, Britain, 1945-2000.”
Journal of Design History 16(3):215-227.
Pierson, Paul, 2004, Politics in Time: History,
Institutions, and Social Analysis. New Jersey:Princeton
University Press.
Sung, Lung-sheng, 1981, “Property and Family Division.”
Pp.361-378 in The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society,
edited by Emily M. Ahern and Hill Gates. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Staub, S. , 1989, Yemenis in New York City: The folklore of
ethnicity. Philadelphia: The Balch Institute Press.
Strang David and John W. Meyer, 1993, “Institutional
Conditions for Diffusion.” Theory and Society 22: 487
511.
Thaler, H.Richard, 1999, “Mental Accounting Matters.”
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 183-206.
Thornton, Partricia, William Ocasio and Michael Lounsbury,
2012, The Institutional Logic Perspective. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Wolf, Margery, 1972, Women and the Family in Rural Taiwan.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wu Y. H. David, 1985, “The Conditions of Development and
Decline of Chinese Lineages and the Formation of Ethnic
Groups.” Pp. 192-209 in The Chinese Family and Its
Ritual Behavior, edited by Hsieh Jih-Chang and Chuang
Ying-Chang. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology.
Zukin Sharon and Paul Dimaggio, 1990, Structures of
Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zelizer, A.Viviana, 1997, The Social Meaning of Money: Pin
Money, Paychecks,Poor Relief, and Other Currencies. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Zelizer, A.Viviana, 2005, The Purchase of Intimacy. New
York: Basic Books. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Zelizer, A.Viviana, 2012, “How I Became a Relational
Economic Sociologist and What Does That Mean?” Politics
& Society 40(2): 145-174.

三、網路資料

新知女巫，2015，結婚禮俗是「為了我們好」？這是我的婚禮還是家族的。https://womany.net/read/article/6795，取用日期：2020年02月29日。
行政院性別平等會，2019，初婚者之年齡平均數。https://www.gender.ey.gov.tw/gecdb/Stat_Statistics_DetailData.aspx?sn=aeFG0R2tHwmrDtITC%2FJSaA%3D%3D，取用日期：2019年9月22日。
花嫁 All About Wedding，2020，結婚金飾的9項意義。https://www.allaboutwedding.com/post/8，取用日期：2020年11月5日。		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202100109en_US