Museum as Center and Standing at State's Corner----On Discourse of Institutional Contexts of NMP and OPMAM

當代博物館研究諸家理論都指出，博物館係握有權力的國家或少數菁英統治階級控制多數人的政治工具，使博物館看起來像是權勢的機制或奴隸。但，此一將博物館過度簡約為國家或階級產物的工具性論點，似與當代社會發展趨勢有違。為免於偏執，吾人必須更細緻地瞭解其內部組織與外部社會網絡交錯、交織與互動關係。特別是後現代時空中，世界由單元走向多元，社會益形開放民主，社會力的來源，不只來自於由上而下的力量，也不乏見著從下往上者。 基於此，筆者乃選擇兩個國家角落（非關國家發展的地方）做為研究對象。其一為臺灣臺東的「國立臺灣史前文化博物館」（簡稱「史前館」），其二為日本沖繩縣的「沖繩縣立博物館˙美術館」（簡稱「沖博美」）進行比較研究。本研究藉用James Clifford（1999）所提之contact zones（接觸地帶）概念，視博物館為一處場域，也是一種接觸地帶，其間人群互動存在著互惠(reciprocity)、剝削(exploitations)、爭論(contestations) 等關係。由於兩館具足博物館各項功能，且各為其所處社會之重要文化機構、互動場域或活動空間，故在傳統/現代，全球/在地交織的當代脈絡中，博物館因觀光、文化、學術、政治、經濟、商務等等活動，所帶動之種種人群交會，激盪出了各種不同觀點、認同態度與利益競合，此一多重脈絡交織互動的現象值得深入探討。 筆者於第二章與第五章，分別描述臺灣臺東與日本沖繩之自然、社會、文化環境的背景脈絡，確定兩地分別以1972年（沖繩）、1980年（臺東）為發展之分水嶺。在此之前，兩處均為國家所忽視，無緣參加任何總體發展計畫之「非發展」地區。爾後，緣於國家的「道歉」氛圍，在政府力量的帶動下，才開始有一系列的發展計畫。國家試圖經由經濟、社會、文化等綜合發展途徑，拉近城鄉差距，協助位居國家角落的非發展社會有翻身發展的機會。兩個國家角落不具發展工業之條件，卻擁有深具特色的自然人文資源，在發展反思風潮下，國家與地方精英均往觀光休閒產業方向思索定策，而沖繩和臺東兩地更因特殊的歷史資源條件，促使博物館獲得了發展的養份，博物館亦成了國家回應與反饋地方的重要建設項目。 筆者進一步分析史前館與沖博美分別和其所在地方其他博物館之關聯，發現不同的歷史與社會脈絡，使博物館發展受到地方之資源型態、願望、利益群體、族群、觀光市場、國家目標、乃至於國際關係等等力量競合的塑模，呈現了各自迴異的文化治理與文化景觀。沖繩基於「地域認同」根基興建的博物館，顯現出不同層次堆置分工的「地方型博物館」，整體構築出交錯疊合的網絡景象，筆者以「沖繩階層疊域」稱之。而臺東則是多元族群構成的社會，反映在博物館上，則呈現了以「族群型博物館」為主的文化景觀，受政治資源中央權力分配與族群分殊治理制度的影響，臺東博物館之治理營運，顯現出上級主管與地方所屬垂直密切連繫，反之，落於在地卻缺乏橫向聯絡的分隔景象。對此，筆者以「後山族群縱域」稱之。A plethora of theories from contemporary museum studies have suggested that museums have been used as political tools of the state or the elite ruling class who control the majority – a perspective which inexorably links the museum to the instrument of power. However, this overt reductionism or instrumentalism denies reality museums reflect in relation to contemporary society. What are missing from this particular view are the interactive relationships intertwined between institution’s internal organization and external social networks. In our understanding in this postmodern age, when singularism is yielding to pluralism and democracy prevailing, powers in our society operate not only from top to bottom, but also the other way around. In light of this, I have chosen two ‘state corners’ (those having nothing to do with development operated by the state) as my subjects of comparative studies. One is National Museum of Prehistory (NMP) in Taitung, Taiwan. The other is Okinawa Prefectural Museum & Art Museum (OPMAM) in Okinawa, Japan. Drawing upon the notion of ‘contact zones’ developed by James Clifford (1999), this research regards the museum as an arena in which reciprocity, exploitations and contestations are found between people’s interactions. These two organizations have all that museums should have, and both function as significant cultural spaces in their own societies. In the ‘displayscape’ to embody the interweaving tradition and modernity as well as global and local, and with its tourist, cultural, academic, political and economic activities, the museum has become a meeting point for various groups to express divergent views, identities, attitudes and to exchange and compete for benefits. This multi-contextualization needs further study and comprehensive explanations. In chapter 2 and 5, I give an ethnographic description and analysis of the natural, social and cultural environments in Taiwan’s Taitung and Japan’s Okinawa, finding that 1980 for the former and 1972 for the later are their respective turning points of development. Before moving forward to the points, the two places had been non-developed societies ignored by the states and disqualified to join in the governments’ projects for development. They have since been included in the projects initiated by the authorities under an ambiance of official ‘apologies’. Employing economic, social and cultural channels, the administrations have attempted to offer the development opportunities to these non-developed societies located in the corners of the countries, in order to shorten the rural-urban differences. Both state corners are not capable for developing industry, but are rich in natural and cultural resources. In response to the trend of reflexive development, the states and local elites have thought in terms of and decided on developing tourism and leisure industries. With their particular historical resources, both Taitung and Okinawa lay sound foundations for museums to prosper. The museums have thus turned out to be a constructive national policy to respond to and reciprocate the local. Further examination of NMP and OPMAM and their relationships with other local museums have shown that the museums are historically and sociologically shaped under the competition and cooperation among local resources, aspirations, interest groups, ethnicity, tourist markets, and national goals, which reflects distinctive cultural administration and landscape. Based on local identity, OPMAM reflects a ‘local museum’ with different layers of divisions. Representing Taitung’s multiethnic society, NMP equals to an ‘ethnic museum’ as cultural landscape. Influenced by centralization and administration by ethnicity in Taiwan, the management of NMP suggests a vertical link between central authorities and their local subordinates, while there is a widening gap between horizontal coordination at local level. I maintain this phenomenon ‘ethnicity in the realm of rift valleys’