[转帖]美国教授看壮族——美国富尔曼大学副教授白荷婷访谈录 - 僚人家园

美国教授看壮族
——美国富尔曼大学副教授白荷婷访谈录

吴薇王明富

　　Katekaup教授中文名为白荷婷，今年34岁，1989年毕业于美国普林斯顿大学政治系，1992年在佛吉尼亚大学获得博士学位，是民族问题专家。她曾两次到中国壮族聚居的广南县考察壮族政治、经济、教育、历史及发展现状，于2000年12月出版了《创造壮族》一书。这次，她借带学生到华东师范大学进行学术交流的机会，到她的老朋友、云南省民委政法处原处长何正廷的故乡———西畴县蚌谷乡大寨村考察壮族传统文化。日前，我们就“美国人眼里的中国壮族”这一话题，采访了白荷婷女士。
2000年以前，在一般美国公众的眼里，中国的“壮族”早已被汉化了，或者干脆就是一个“假的”少数民族。
问：你是什么时候对中国感兴趣的？作为一个美国人，怎么会对居住在遥远的中国边疆的壮族感兴趣呢？
答：1988年，我上大学4年级时，上了中国历史这一课，觉得非常有意思，就想到中国来看看。1989年我大学毕业后，就为到中国来作了充分的准备：学会了普通话，上了有关中国历史、政治、经济的课程。因为普林斯顿大学与亚洲这边有着很好的学术交流关系，常派学生来亚洲教英文，我便于1990年到中国人民大学教了1年的英文。
1992年，我读硕士时开始对世界少数民族感兴趣。我的指导老师就建议我研究壮族，他说：“壮族是中国最大的少数民族。”在这之前，我还从未听说过壮族这个民族。于是，我读了很多关于少数民族的书，也读了很多关于中国少数民族的书，对壮族的了解就是：壮族是中国最大的少数民族；有他们自己的民族自治区；壮族自己的民族特点不突出。壮族既然是中国最大的少数民族，有自己的民族自治区，为什么会没有自己的特点呢？若真的没有特点，中国政府为啥要让他们成立广西壮族自治区呢？壮族人民受到政府肯定后，有着怎样的发展呢？他们对政府有些什么样的要求呢？这些问题在美国当然找不到答案。
问：所以你就带着这些问题来中国考察壮族？
答：对。因为佛吉尼亚大学与云南民族学院有学术交流，1995年1月，我就带着上面的问题，以交流学者的身份，到云南民族学院民族研究所来学习，一直到当年的7月。民院方面给我介绍了云南省研究壮族的专家何正廷，老何又给我介绍了陆华岳、侬开文两人。他们带我到壮族聚居的村寨作调查。
1995年1月，因为陆华岳的老家在广南县革乍村，我就到他家过春节，去了五六天，刚好我的生日也在那几天，他们还买了个蛋糕给我吃，让我过了个愉快的生日。
问：这次考察有什么收获？
答：那是我第一次亲眼见到壮族。看见他们穿着传统的民族服装在乡间的田野上耕作，在县城赶街，听见他们用本民族语言相互交流。
当时，陆华岳正在为《云南壮族》一书作准备，我就借机跟他到云南省壮族聚居的地区走了走，看见了最具代表性的壮族人，最具代表性的壮族用的物品，搜集到不少介绍地方情况的资料，跟不少地方的民委有了接触。感受最深的是，在美国时不完全了解中国的情况，听说政府一个村子一个村子的把人搬到另一个地方居住，还以为中国政府剥夺了他们的人权。我调查后才发现，那些搬迁的村寨大都根本没法活下去，政府让他们到好的地方居住，帮助他们盖学校、建房屋，他们都很乐意。
通过调查、走访，我得出了这样的结论：是中国共产党的民族政策，提高了壮族人民的民族自豪感。1956年至1958年，中央政府搞了民族识别工作，并花了很多心血来介绍壮族的历史、文化、宗教，增强了壮族人的民族意识。新中国还培养了大批壮族干部，这些壮族干部把共产党的民族政策贯彻到工作中，起了很好的作用。同时，我还得出了这样的结论：壮族是有自己的特点的，而且不同地方的壮族有不同的特点。
《创造壮族》一书不仅弥补了英文书籍中介绍壮族的空白，而且让世界人民知道了中国壮族是怎样的一个少数民族。
问：所以你回去后就写了《创造壮族》一书？
答：对。这是我1995年到中国作调查后，于1997年完成的博士论文，经1998年修改后，2000年在美国出版。它讲的是1900年至1995年间，壮族的政治、经济、教育情况，也涉及到壮族的文学和民族风俗。
问：这本书出版后，学术界有什么反响？
答：这本书出版后，全世界有4家杂志作了评价。一是《美国政治协会》杂志作了大力推荐，认为壮族有自己的民族特点，是个真实存在的少数民族；二是英国出版的《中国季刊》于今年3月发表了澳大利亚世界民族研究专家玛卡拉斯教授的文章《介绍〈创造壮族〉一书》，给了我很高的评价。
问：你对文山的壮族老百姓有什么印象？
答：说起这里的老百姓，我真的很感动，到农家去，他们会把最后一个下蛋的鸡杀来给你吃，你需要什么帮助，不必说出来，他们就会尽量地帮助你。还有就是，我在搞调查时曾遇到过许多老百姓，他们大部分没有上过高中、大学，甚至没有文化，但是他们对自己的民族历史都很有研究。由于经济的限制，他们的研究成果没有出版。作为一个摘民族研究的美国人，我希望今后能为文山人民发展经济作出一定的贡献。

《人民日报海外版》 (2001年12月19日第五版)

《制造壮族》一书，现在在中国其实是一部禁书。从中可见这个报道之前，该书还没有被列入禁书的行列。看了上面的访谈，得知《制造壮族》是2000年12月就已经出版的了，但是访谈是2001年12月才发表的，之后居然被列入禁书，可见出版之后至少一年之内，中国都没有人看过这本书，以至于没有发现书里的敏感内容，而还煞有介事地在人民日报发表了对她的这么一个访谈。

该报道有些相互矛盾的东西，如一开始就介绍说白荷婷“1992年在佛吉尼亚大学获得博士学位”，但后面访谈白荷婷，有“1992年，我读硕士时开始对世界少数民族感兴趣”这样的回答，难道1992年一年内就可以从读硕士到获得博士学位？这显然是很荒唐的。另外，后面她又回答“我1995年到中国作调查后，于1997年完成的博士论文，经1998年修改后，2000年在美国出版……”，可见1992年在弗吉尼亚大学获得的是硕士学位，而不是博士学位。

我浏览过该书的英文版《Creating the Zhuang》，该书的内容其实和大家所看到的上面的访谈内容大相径庭，因为都是从分析中国民族政策的角度去看壮族是如何“制造”出来的，涉及比较敏感的政治批判色彩，并透露了自从壮族有了法定身份以来，一些大家几乎都没有接触过的内幕，所以成为禁书几乎是必然的。该书作者是研究政治的，而不是研究人类学、民族学的，所以作者对壮族语言和文化的研究仅限于有限的调查材料，加上自己的主观推测来描述，得出的结论就是壮族作为一个统一的民族，是被“创造”出来的，除了还承认壮族有自己民族语言等特点外，其它的观点几乎都是围绕着政策去质疑壮族作为一个民族的存在，与人类学应该有的严谨态度相差甚远，至少在民族研究上，不能算是好文章。

用creating细想一下是不恰当的.如果作者是"围绕着政策去质疑壮族作为一个民族的存在"的话，那么可以说她"与人类学应该有的严谨态度相差甚远，至少在民族研究上，不能算是好文章。"

制造壮族？如果美国人是那样研究的话还真的搞笑。要知道，以汉族为主的中央领导还是明白人的，分而治之是自古的驭国之道，他们不会不明白，尽管现在民族关系很好，但是也要防止国外敌对势力搞破坏呀。她要是那样研究，看来她是不真正了解中国历史和政策，而那样对于一个高级学者来说是不可思议的，还是要看实物才好说话。

Katherine Palmer Kaup
Associate Professor of Political Science/Asian Studies

Johns Hall 111F | 864.294.3150 | kate.kaup@furman.edu

B.A. Princeton University
M.A. University of Virginia
Ph.D. University of Virginia

Dr. Kaup spent December 2004-December 2005 on sabbatical in Washington D.C. representing Furman as the Special Advisor for Minority Nationality Affairs for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. While serving as the Special Advisor on Minority Nationality Affairs at the Commission, Kate carefully monitored the human rights situation in minority areas, as well as the implementation of China's Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law. Her analyses of current developments within the scope of the Commission's legislative mandate regularly appear on the front page of the Commission's Web site. She organized the Commission's April 11th Roundtable entitled "The Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law: How Well Does it Protect Minority Rights?" and participated in several other Commission Roundtables and Hearings. She regularly met with US, Chinese, and international government officials, NGOs, lawyers, and scholars. We are proud of Dr. Kaup's achievements and look forward to her return to Furman.

Courses:
PS 11 Introduction to World Politics
PS A46 Politics of China
PS A47 Politics of Asia
Developing Nations
Communism in Transition
Revolutions

Discipline and Specialty: Political Science, China

Current Research Topic: Ethnic Politics in China, Chinese Legal Development, Local-Central Relations

Publications:
Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China (Boulder: Lynner Rienner Press, 2000)

Chuangzao zhuangzu: Zhongguo de shaoshu minzu zhengce he tade yingxiang (Kunming: Yunnan zhuangzu xuehui, forthcoming) [Translation by the Yunnan Zhuang Studies Association of Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China]

Understanding Contemporary Asia Pacific (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Press, under contract)

“Regionalism versus Ethnicnationalism in the People’s Republic of China” China Quarterly (December 2002; Winner 2002 Gordon White Award)

“China: Ethnic Conflict in the World’s Largest Multinational State,” in Joseph Rudolph (ed) Encyclopedia of Modern Ethnic Conflict (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2003)

“The China Disabled Person’s Federation,” paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, September 2004

“Ethnic Brothers? The Impact of Sino-Vietnamese Relations on Ethnic Identity,” presented at the Southeastern Regional Conference of the Asssociation of Asian Studies, Jekyll Island, GA January 2003 and the National Association of Asian Studies Meeting, New York City, March 2003.

Professional Distinctions:
Gordon White Award presented by China Quarterly

Southeast Regional Conference of the Association for Asian Studies. President, 2004; Vice-President January 2003; Program Chair 2000. Executive Board Member 2000, 2003-2006.

Special Advisor for Minority Nationality Affairs, Congressional-Executive Commission on China, 2005

Executive Manager: China Initiative, The Richard W. Riley Institute of Government, Politics, and Public Leadership

Invited Conferences:
“Place Imaginaries, Mobilities, and the Limits of Representation,” sponsored by the Centre for Research on Provincial China, Sydney Australia, June 2004.

“China’s Opening to the West Conference” sponsored by the China Quarterly, University Technology of Sydney, and the Hamburg East Asian Institute in Hamburg, Germany May 2003.

"Taiwan Relations Conference sponsored by the University of South Carolina 2002, 2003.

Other Research Interests: Poverty Alleviation in Rural China; Refugee Resettlement Issues; PRC Religious Affairs Policy; Civil Society in China

General Interests: U.S. Foreign Policy

Current Research Topic: Ethnic Politics in China, Chinese Legal Development, Local-Central Relations

Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China (Boulder: Lynner Rienner Press, 2000)

Chuangzao zhuangzu: Zhongguo de shaoshu minzu zhengce he tade yingxiang (Kunming: Yunnan zhuangzu xuehui, forthcoming) [Translation by the Yunnan Zhuang Studies Association of Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China]

Understanding Contemporary Asia Pacific (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Press, under contract)

“Regionalism versus Ethnicnationalism in the People’s Republic of China” China Quarterly (December 2002; Winner 2002 Gordon White Award)

“China: Ethnic Conflict in the World’s Largest Multinational State,” in Joseph Rudolph (ed) Encyclopedia of Modern Ethnic Conflict (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2003)

“The China Disabled Person’s Federation,” paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, September 2004

Southeast Regional Conference of the Association for Asian Studies. President, 2004; Vice-President January 2003; Program Chair 2000. Executive Board Member 2000, 2003-2006.

Special Advisor for Minority Nationality Affairs, Congressional-Executive Commission on China, 2005

Executive Manager: China Initiative, The Richard W. Riley Institute of Government, Politics, and Public Leadership

“Place Imaginaries, Mobilities, and the Limits of Representation,” sponsored by the Centre for Research on Provincial China, Sydney Australia, June 2004.

“China’s Opening to the West Conference” sponsored by the China Quarterly, University Technology of Sydney, and the Hamburg East Asian Institute in Hamburg, Germany May 2003.

"Taiwan Relations Conference sponsored by the University of South Carolina 2002, 2003.

Other Research Interests: Poverty Alleviation in Rural China; Refugee Resettlement Issues; PRC Religious Affairs Policy; Civil Society in China

Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China
Pacific Affairs, Summer 2001 by Diana Lary

CREATING THE ZHUANG: Ethnic Politics in China. By Katherine Palmer Kulp. Boulder

The Zhuang are the largest "minority nationality or people" (non-Han group) in China; in 1957 the province of Guangxi was renamed the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. This sounds like the formal recognition of a people denied a homeland - people such as the Ukrainians or Latvians - but nothing could be further from the Zhuang experience.

As a distinct people, the Zhuang came into being only in the early 1950s, after the Communist conquest of China. They were previously known by a number of different names; they had no shared identity or history, no common language. They were quite unlike other nationalities in China (Tibetans, Mongols, Uighurs) who had a highly developed sense of their own identity and of their difference from the Han.

One of the questions Katherine Kulp addresses in her scrupulously researched study is whether a people can be a people without formal consciousness. Her conclusion is that this is quite possible, given a fragmented topography, lack of education and pervasive poverty. The Zhuang were always distinct enough to warrant being called a nationality (people); they simply did not realize it themselves. An outside stimulus was what was needed to raise a latent ethnic consciousness to a formal one. The stimulus was the arrival of the Communists.

Why did Beijing designate the Zhuang as a formal nationality and give them first half and then all of Guangxi? There are several possible reasons, each loaded with interpretation. One is that Beijing needed a special system of government to administer a region very different from others. A second is that Beijing was following Soviet policies towards nationalities. A third is that by recognizing the Zhuang as an official nationality, Beijing ensured that the largest minority nationality would be an unthreatening one, unlike the recalcitrant but numerically inferior Tibetans, Mongols and Uighurs. A fourth is that Beijing needed the Zhuang to eradicate the influence of the previous Han rulers of Guangxi. A fifth is that Beijing wanted the Vietnam border under special, essentially military, rule.

Kulp's extensive interviews in Guangxi and in neighbouring Yunnan and her detailed documentary research lead her to the conclusion that the first explanation is correct, that the Zhuang were recognized and granted an autonomous region in order to integrate them politically into a unified Chinese administrative system. Making Guangxi a Zhuang region required raising Zhuang consciousness. Raising consciousness was the order of the day in 1950s China. The CCP was engaged in consciousness-raising struggles on many fronts, to develop class consciousness and to develop national consciousness. These struggles presupposed that people had yet to recognize who they were.

Kulp does a fine job of recreating the often irrational passions of the time and struggles manfully with the ideological and terminological problems which haunt the scholar of Chinese Marxism, but one major element is missing from her analysis: in the stress on political systems she has little to say about military issues. The CCP takeover of Guangxi was a military one and fighting continued in some areas until 1952, three years after the formal conquest. Kulp cites astonishing figures for the number of "anti-Communists" killed in this period- 470,000. This figure may be a translation of a Chinese term "annihilated" (xiaomie) which does not have to mean physically killed but, whatever the term, the figure speaks of a highly contested takeover and therefore of a crucial role for the People's Liberation Army, one which continued right through to the 1980s.

Becoming Zhuang was not easy. The Zhuang were recognized only a few years before China's descent into the Cultural Revolution. Guangxi was thrown into chaos, the new "Zhuang" attacked as "local chauvinists" by Red Guards. To add insult to these attacks, the Zhuang were labelled later, in Zheng Yi's Scarlet Memorial, as cannibals. Both accusations are deeply unjust. Consolidating the Zhuang identity did not restart until the 1980s. Under the new economic policies that stressed making money, not ethnicity, the protagonists of Zhuang identity faced more propitious conditions.

But whatever the initial reason for their recognition was, or how tortuous the path, Kulp argues that the long-term outcome was the creation of a genuine nationality, with its own language, a recovered history and a strong sense of identity. It took a long while to happen. The evidence that Kulp has collected is of a vibrant people growing in self-confidence, - i.e., real ethnic self-determination - although they are now ignored by Beijing.

从这篇书评来看，白荷婷博士似乎并没有质疑壮族作为一个民族的存在。例如“Her conclusion is that this is quite possible, given a fragmented topography, lack of education and pervasive poverty. The Zhuang were always distinct enough to warrant being called a nationality (people); they simply did not realize it themselves.”
不过书中某些关于中国现代历史的内容显然使这本书难以在中国大陆出版。

連書名都是用 ethnic 耶，ethnic politics 就是族群／族裔政策耶，也即使大陸所謂的民族政策耶，很明顯，大陸捨國際性的 ethnic 而改用 nationality 並不獲得外間的認同耶。

以下是引用季人在2006-2-6 15:34:58的发言：

Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China
Pacific Affairs, Summer 2001 by Diana Lary

.....

但不管当时认可他们（壮族）的最初的原因是什么，也不管过程是如何的艰巨，Kulp 声称，长期的结果是一个真正民族的诞生，有他们自己的语言，恢复的历史和强烈的自我认同感。这些经历了一个很长的过程。Kulp 所收集的证据是一个在自信中成长的有活力的人民（壮族），也就是说，真正的民族自决，尽管这些目前被北京所负略。

可惜我英文太差,看不了英文书籍."北姑"讲话都习惯带个"耶"字的吗?呵呵．

壮族当然早已存在，但统一的＂壮族＂这一个名称确实是解放后才有的．而且解放初期还是叫做＂僮族＂，虽然读音相同．所以仅从名称来说，似乎可以说是＂创造壮族＂，不过显然作者不会是这个意思．

作者认为壮族作为一个民族是事实存在的，但包括壮族自身也很少意识到这一点。中国的少数民族政策作为一种外部刺激因素，推动了壮族自身统一的民族意识的形成和强化。
民族不是静态的存在体，而是始终处发展形成的动态过程中。对于壮族而言，在经历了历史上长期内部区隔与外来影响后，20世纪50年代后又进入了迅速发展甚至飞跃发展的时期，尤其表现为民族意识的觉醒。从这个角度来说，一个更加统一和自我意识更加鲜明的壮族正在形成之中。

An outside stimulus was what was needed to raise a latent ethnic consciousness to a formal one. The stimulus was the arrival of the Communists.

提高一個潛在的族群意識而成為正式的需要外間的鼓勵，而鼓勵就是共產黨的到來。

為何北京要識別壯人為一正式的民族與及給予他們開始一半到後來整個廣西呢？有數個可能的原因，而每一個都背負著解釋。

第三是承認壯族為一官方認可的民族，而北京又保證成為最大的少數民族之後對政權沒有威脅，不像藏人、蒙古人及維吾爾人這些不聽話不過人口數量卻比了下去的。

其实最根本的原因是：壮族原本就是一个与汉族不同的民族。
解放后的民族识别只不过是使这个事实更加广为人知而已，而这种甄别工作实际上从1930年代徐松石等学者的研究就开始了。

所謂民族的認同，與及外間承認與否，還要看自己耶，當初共產黨承認客家族，不過後來客家人又重回漢人懷抱，並以中原正宗自居耶。

漢人的所謂民系，根本也是不同民族耶，比烏克蘭人跟俄羅斯人的差別更大耶。

呵呵～学者在所谓create过程的不同阶段起的各种作用不可小觑

他们有时是在政府这边的，像民族识别阶段；但有时又未必，比如像现在受过欧风美雨熏陶的一些学者

在制造族别及族别意识这个话题上，讨论本族及外族学者在其中的活动和思考、所做的取舍，也许比讨论壮族是否是被人为制造出来的更有意思

白荷婷起的这个书名反映了欧美一部分人类学者对民族形成的问题建立的一派看法：即民族是人为构建的“想象的共同体”（这本名著就不用在这说了吧），构建民族的，实质上是包括国家、学者、利益驱动者及受这些力量驱使的普通民众等等力量，民族不是一个实有的存在，而是这些力量通过种种想象形成的认同而建构的。

事实真是如此吗？至今仍有争论。这一观点描述的也许只是多元的文化模式和多元的民族建构方式之中的一种——而且是从以西方为中心的立场做的考察与思考（也许白也在一定程度上局限于此立场，这是无可厚非的）。小可觉得，从学术上说（而非从国家政治上）我们今天所置身其中的壮族也许在某种程度上确是被建构起来的。但这构建过程仍然是建立在凝聚这个民族的语言、历史、信仰及艺术等等独有特征，且民众基础深厚的认同上的。

更值得注意的是，在国家和学者联手，牵动民众的力量建构壮族过程中，舍弃了哪些原本不应或不必舍弃的东西？是否重造或臆造了什么阻碍这个民族的进程的东西？构建了哪些推动或削弱民族认同的东西呢？在下觉得，这也许才是我们就此书重新思考的出发点：它应该启发我们在认识壮族这个“共同体”时，关注更多从前我们尚未有足够关注——而西方学者又已研究到的东西，并做出自己的回应，发出自己的声音。有时“只缘身在此山中”看不清的东西，就是需要我们跳出原来的框架体系，做新的考察与思考，才能识出“庐山真面目”罢。