| Abstract: | 本文以台灣原住民族的「認定與認同」及「傳統名字」相關研究為基點，先觀察相關主題學位論文的趨勢，論述重點在這兩個主題的民族理論研究，及因政策實踐而產生的學術爭論，及研究與現實社會的民族運動間的交叉互動。學位論文多半落後於現實；學者的研究，較能反應出現實社會。但部分研究對「原住民身分認定」與「民族認定」的理論有誤解。原住民族在現代國家體制下，因其民族身分而與其他國民有不同權利義務，因此其民族身分需要鑑別、所屬民族亦需認定。民族認定，依民族學的學理有其主客觀標準。台灣自2001年邵族的民族認定，歷經噶瑪蘭、太魯閣、撒奇萊雅、賽德克，以迄於2014年的卡那卡那富、拉阿魯哇族的新立，作為民族發展運動，均有政大原住民族研究中心的參與，以學術清楚劃開各族之邊界。但是，歷經18年的法規修訂，只有4%的原住民以各種形式改用傳統名字，對於以「正名運動」為始的三十餘年台灣原住民族運動而言，是一大敗筆。雖然也有民族學者對原住民傳統名字議題的研究，但是在社會現實及政策不明的狀況下，傳統名字議題所受的關注不足，未來的發展亦待觀察。
This essay, is founded on related researches of Taiwan Indigenous Peoples` ＂certification and identity＂ and ＂traditional naming＂, firstly observes the tendency of the theses on the related subject; the discourse then emphasizes on the theories of ethnos over the two topics, the debate attributed to policy practice, and the interaction between research and ethnic movements. The theses, occurring later than real events. Researches done by the scholars, by contrast, could reflect the reality much better. However, there are some misunderstanding of the theories of ＂indigenous status＂ and ＂ethnic certification＂. In a modern state, a person has different rights and obligations from other citizens due to his ethnic status; therefore, one`s ethnic status and his ethnic classification both require certification. There are subjective/objective standards in ethnic certification according to ethnological theories. From the Thao in 2001, followed by the Kavalan, the Truku, the Sakizaya, the Seediq, and until the newly certified Kanakanavu and Hla`alua in 2014, the ethnic certifications being as ethnic development, had all been participated by the Center for Aboriginal Studies of NCCU, which had drawn clear boundaries of the ethnic groups academically. However, 18 years after law amendment, merely 4% of indigenous people in Taiwan have changed their traditional name; ironically, while the ＂Name Rectification Movement＂ over thirty years ago. Although there are also some scholars of ethnology who still concern about the issue of traditional naming, under the social circumstances and unclear policies, the attention to the traditional naming`s issue is insufficient and its future development remains to be observed. |
