被表述的民俗艺术
|
摘要
话语的表述在任何时候都是敏感的指示器,它显示的不是简单的词汇变迁,而是复杂的文化变迁。这也是本论题试图研究商河鼓子秧歌这一项民俗艺术而着眼于它的表述的缘起,从而揭开话语表述背后的政治、经济、意识形态与文化变迁之间的关联性。
研究对象的选定是基于自己对一项村落民俗艺术——商河鼓子秧歌的田野调查。这一民俗艺术原是流传在鲁北平原上的商河县及附近县域的村落里,在传统年节期间(即春节至元宵节期间)当地群众以自然村落为单位自发组织进行的,有着相对严格的活动程序和组织模式,集伞、鼓、棒、花、丑、戏于一体的大型群众性的民俗艺术活动。一支队伍少者四、五十人,多者几百人,具体花样繁多,颇有“百戏”的特点。本民俗活动最大的特点是在活动时一项都不能少的“礼数”。“闹玩”的队伍挂妆后,到家族祠庙或村庙前先跑一个场,拜神祭祖;再犒劳村里的老少爷们,跑上几场;然后到邻村去“跑村”或“串村”送上几场表演。“跑村”或“串村”的先后次序讲究礼道,有很多说法,要根据两村关系的远近亲疏来决定外出跑村的次序和必须履行的礼数。在当地人看来,“串村”表演的技术高低是其次的,最重要的是整个仪式过程中一个都不能少的礼数,这才是维系两村之间友好关系的关键所在。
自晚清以来,国家的主流话语加强了对这一民俗艺术的表述,非常权威地对它重新命名,并对其仪式程序、组织模式、动作节奏、意象主题等进行了场景性的想象、剪裁和重构。使得这一民俗艺术呈现了不同的名称、意象,它由村落里迎春祭祀、自娱自乐被当地的老百姓称为“闹玩”、“跑十五”的乡风民俗,成为民国时期被当地知识精英眼中的地方“陋俗”;也曾被作为翻身解放标志的“群众艺术”用于群众动员;在文革时期曾一度被称批判为“四旧”停演过;也曾被专家们尊称为“鼓子秧歌”推向舞台表演;并被舞蹈学院冠以“北方汉族男子舞蹈代表”,用于民间舞的课堂教学;随后又被国家命名为“民间艺术”、“国家非物质文化遗产”,被纳入到国家的强化保护体制中。对这一民俗艺术启用新词汇、新名称的目的不仅是为国家的文艺工作者和政府工作者们提供了方便他们表达世界观和思维习惯的有利工具,但同时也影响了其它表达方式或思想方式的存在。从某种程度上讲,新词的使用排挤了老词的应用范围,也动摇了老词的合法性和独立性,一项民俗活动在被表述的过程中加速了被遗忘的流变过程。
本研究就是把这一原为乡土民俗的民俗艺术放置在世界政治经济体系、文化帝国主义和民族国家的历史语境之下,考察持不同意识形态的群体是如何描述言说、命名这一民间艺术或曰象征符号和怎样借用这一符号为自己谋取资源;这一民俗艺术在人们的表述中又发生了怎样的转变。同时,本研究也旨在探讨商河县这一民俗艺术自清末民初以来,在传统与现代、本土与外来文化的碰撞中,伴随着乡村社会生活发生变革而变更的民俗体系中,社区的信仰、社会关系、资源分配方式及地方的权力秩序格局是如何变动,或曰,这一民俗艺术文本在被表述下的有什么回应性表述。
本研究将对田野调查得来的口头传说、社会记忆、社会活动事项、各种文献书写、各种话语力量的互动和社会知识的生产机制作为文本进行文化批评分析,看这一民间艺术形式从被命名为“闹玩”,到“陋俗”、“秧歌”、“四旧”、“商河鼓子秧歌”,、“北方汉族舞蹈的代表”、“民间艺术”,最后演变到“国家非物质文化遗产”种种不同表述的变迁过程,也就是把这一民俗艺术在历史文化语境下,把导致其发生变迁的动因作为文本分析,解读各种文本的内部构成和意图,分析文本产生的不同用法和意义作用的实践。探讨在国家和国际话语场景下,地方民间文化日趋边缘化的过程,国家现代话语和地方性民间知识的互动,并给以历史人类学的讨论。因此,本研究的分析方法既有对这一民俗的实地田野,又要对所有对这一民俗文艺活动相关的学术著作、文学作品、新闻报道、政论、县志等纳入到自己的视野,作为话语文本,放在特定的社会历史场景中进行分析。在此,文本是在一定的场景下为达到一定的目的,而进行的各种话语表述、书写改编、意义的操纵及活动事件等。因此,本研究对这一民俗文本的分析重点不只是放在对这一民俗文艺的自然描述上,也放在作为表述的表述上,看表述背后的文化意识形态和权力结构。
论文在结构上分为七大部分,导论“一项民俗艺术的被表述及理论方法探讨”主要界定对象、提出问题和和学术回顾和综述。。第一章“乡土艺术的自我表述——迎春祭祀的民俗”主要采用口述史的材料,还原展示了乡土村落民俗艺术的本土表述方式和民俗仪式展演的隐喻意义和逻辑意义。第二章“乡土经验遭遇外来知识”重在说明,从清末民初到抗日战争时期,一直到解放初期,这一民俗艺术从名称、形式到内容、主题上的巨大变化,由此揭示了有着本土地方经验的民俗艺术被现代外来话语表述背后的权力运作。第三章“传统的复兴和回应性的表述”主要讲述当地20世纪80年代国家对地方政治、文化控制放松后为期不长的民俗艺术的多元复兴景象,但很快随着城市化、市场化及大众传媒的发展,而日趋边缘化的现状。在接下来的第四章“民间艺术和传统的再造”阐述了在遗产保护的话语体系下,地方政府承担打造地方文化品牌所进行的民间艺术再造工程,不同利益群体对民间艺术这类文化象征资源的争夺,重在解构和分析民俗艺术被表述背后的知识逻辑。第五章“虚空的家园和本土的新经验”用个案说明了农村传统文化主体虚空的整体状况,并对目前所谓的文化保护措施的有效性提出了质疑,同时对在市场经济条件下新文化传统的形成而导致的民俗艺术的另类表述进行了分析,重在探讨实现多元文化互主性对话的可能性。最后,结论“被表述背后”申明围绕民俗艺术被表述这一事实进行主题研究的历史人类学意义,并从学科发展的角度对文化传统保护与知识分子书写责任之间的关系进行了反思。
总之,自清末民初以来,商河等地的民俗艺术活动“闹玩”或“跑十五”被纳入到现代话语的知识范畴内,被命名为“鼓子秧歌”推向舞台,作为民间文化,成为一门学科的研究对象开始,它就进入到被研究者们审视和挑拣的境地,有的形式、内容被有意无意地忽略掉,有的形式、内容又被刻意挖掘出来,在新的语境中被重新表述。任何事物的命名、表述和认同是与政治文化语境密切相连的,话语表述作为文化和意识形态的敏感指示器,显示了社会文化的变迁和流变。这就是本论题试图研究一项民俗艺术而着眼于它的场景性表述的缘起,由此揭示话语表述背后的意识形态与传统民俗文化变迁之间的关联性,并引发了关于民俗艺术表述问题的历史人类学思考。在此,本论文考察的不只是民俗艺术本身,而是打上了引号的“民间艺术”,或者说,本论文的研究对象着眼于一项民间艺术的表述史,是考察在不同的历史阶段,被不同的利益或政治群体在不同的文本语境中所表述的“民间艺术”,是作为知识话语范畴的“民间艺术”。本论文力在呈现的不是话语的真实或真理性与否,而是有关“民间艺术”等诸话语知识得以成为可能的历史条件和社会文化背景;同时,对知识分子在民间艺术的话语知识建构中的角色扮演进行了反思,探讨了在特定的历史文化语境中人们进行话语知识革新和进行话语实践的规则,并促使理解、揭示在作为现代性知识预设的“民间艺术”中哪些思想、内容被删除、忽略或被压抑了,以更好地理解被表述的民俗艺术或作为话语的历史。因此说,本论文是对表述的表述。
Representation has always been a sensitive indicator that demonstrates not only the changes or production of some new terms, but the changes or adaptation of culture. That is why I am to explore Shanghe Drum Yangge Dance, a folk art, in view of its representation. In such a way, the real meaning hidden behind the representation is to be exposed, so is the relationship between the politics, economics, ideology and the changes or evolution of culture.
The object of my research originates from, or to be exact, is based on my own field work. Shanghe Drum Yangge Dance, as a local folk art, had been quite popular and widely circulated among the rural community in the north-west of Shandong Province, such as in Shanghe County and other neighboring counties. During the special event of the Spring Festival (from the Spring Festival to Lantern Festival), the local people take the initiative to organize such an folk activity, which is made up of many individual performances, such as umbrella, drum and stick playing, dances, ballad singing and storytelling, acrobatics, clown's role play etc., and what's more, the activity strictly follows some ritual procedures and organization patterns. According to the local ordinary folks, a team of such a folk art performance consists of at least 40-50 people, and sometimes a team of more than a few hundreds of people is rare. A variety of performances, as so-called "baixi", would be put on. The most peculiar point concerned with such a folk art is the "the rules of etiquette". After the visits to the relatives, it is the time for a village to organize the folk activity. After practicing some rehearsals, the team, dressed in colored silk clothing and decorated with red silk festoons, would put on the first formal performance in front of the temple of the village to show their greatest respect for the community god. Then some performances for their own villagers begin. And later on, it is the time for the folk team to pay some visits to the neighboring villages to offer some performances. There are some special rules to follow in view of the sequence or the order of the visits. The visiting sequence and the application of the rules of etiquette are both based on the relationship of the two villages. The skills of art performance don't matter too much, and it is the perfect practice of rules of etiquette that plays the vital role in the maintaining the proper relationship between the two villages.
Since the end of the Qing Dynasty, the national dominating ideology has greatly influenced the representation of this rural folk culture, such as authoritatively renaming, imagining, reforming and reconstructing it as to the procedures, the patterns of organization, the movement and rhythm, the image and the theme etc.. Then this folk art has been putting on different names and images, from a folk custom in name of nao-wan and pao-shi-wu for the local people to celebrate the Spring Festival, to show respect for the God and ancestors, and to enjoy themselves, to a local "old-fashioned" customs represented by the local scholars in the times of the Public of China, and to "folk art" as an effective tool to mobilize the masses and a symbol of liberation as well, and to "Guzi Yangge" addressed by some experts, and and to "the representative of male dance art of northern Han ethnic groups", and finally to "national intangible cultural heritage". The uses of the new terms supply the experts and the statesmen of the government with some effective tools to express their view of the world and their way of thinking, which drives away the other ways of thinking or the ways of expressing ideas. In other words, the use of new terms elbows the scope of the use of old terms out, making the old terms illegal, dependent and easily-forgettable and quickening the speed of culture changes. It is clear that the meaning of a folk art has been changed sequentially in the process of being represented by the others with authority.
The research focuses on how different people with different ideology describe, represent and rename this folk art or this symbol of representation in the globally political and economic system and the cultural imperialism and nation-state historical context, how different groups take advantage of this symbol to make profit, and what changes has happened to this folk art in the presentation. At the same time, the focus is also placed on how the social relations, the distribution patters and local political patters change with the reforms in rural life and the system of folk customs at the great social crisis or event. This research is directed to explore what changes this folk art has undergone at the critical social turning point, with the sharp conflicts between the traditional and modern culture, the local and foreign cultures. What's more, the relationship between the changes of this folk art and that of the community belief, between the changes of the economy and that of the social life is also studied. In other words, how this folk art would demonstrate itself during the long historical process of being represented is explored.
The dissertation is to make a discourse analysis of all oral legends, social memory, social activities, various written references, the interactions between different discourses and the productive system of social knowledge from the field work to show the changes of different representations of the folk art in name of "Game Play" and "Lantern Festival Running", then "old-fashioned customs", and "Yangge", and "Shanghe Drum Yangge Dance" , and " the representative of male dance art of northern Han ethnicl group", and finally "national intangible heritage". And the focus is placed on analyzing the cause for the changes of the folk art in the historical and cultural context, and then to interpret the internal formation and the aim of different texts, and to analyze the different usages and implication of the production of the texts are both emphasized. The aim is to explore the process of the marginalization of the local folk culture, the interaction of national modern discourse with the local folk knowledge in the national and international context. And all of this is to be discussed in view of knowledge sociology. The methodology of this research is concerned with the field-work of this folk art, and what's more, all academic works, literary works, news reports, political reviews, and county annals etc. concerned this folk art are all to be analyzed as discourse text in some given social and historical context. That is to say, a text is here interpreted as various discourses representations, writing and editing, practices and activities for some special purpose in some special context. Then the focus of discourse analysis of this folk art is not on the plain description of it, but the re-representation of the representations of it, to find out the cultural ideology and the structure of power hidden in all the representations.
The paper falls into 7 parts. The introduction of "A Folk Art as Represented and Some Theoretical Approaches Concerned" is to offer a brief introduction to the definition of research object, the original motivation or cause for this research, some basic research on this object and the methodological methods to be applied in the research. Chapter 1 is entitled by "Folk Arts Represented as Folk Customs for Gods' Blessing in Spring Festival". In this part, the research of some oral histories is applied to demonstrate the local performance of folk art and the metaphorical and logical significance in the ritual performance, which shows the peculiarity of native way of interpreting and representing the folk life in the time-space view of the rural community. Chapter 2 entitle by "The Local Rural Experience Encounters the Exterior Knowledge" is to demonstrate that the traditionally local experience encountering the exterior knowledge has caused some great changes in folk arts as to the name, the form, the significance and the image, and that the performance of power is also exposed during the process, esp. at turning point of social culture's critical change sinse the end of Qing Dynasty, to the beginning of the Republic of China, to the Resistance War against Japanese, and to the beginning the People's Republic of China. Chapter 3 "The Rebirth of the Tradition and some Representations in Response" mainly states the fact that the rebirth of some traditional and multiple cultures in the 1980's lasts not very long and it is soon marginalized by the urbanization, commercialization and the spread of mass media. Chapter 4 "Folk Art and the Remaking of the Tradition" states that the local government makes a great effort to remaking of the folk culture for the invention of the local cultural band in the international and national context of protecting folk cultures and intangible relics. What's more, the struggle for the symbol of folk culture is depicted and a logical discourse analysis of the variety of cultural practices is also made. In Chapter 5 "The Empty Homeland and Some New Local Experience", a case study is made to demonstrate the situation of the empty subjects of rural culture and some new experience in the market economy, and some argument is directed to the efficiency of the so-called culture protection movement. Finally, in the conclusion "Behind the Representations", it is argued for the significance in the research of the representation of folk arts in view of historical anthropology, and some reflections on the relationship between traditional culture protection and the intellectuals' responsibilities in view of the construction of knowledge are also made.
In summary, since the end of Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Public of China, the folk art nao-wan or pao-shi-wu has been driven into the scope of temporary discourse and become an object of the academic subject of "folk art", then it has been facing up with being examined and chosen up. Some part of it is intentionally overlooked, while some is emphasized to be represented in some new discourse context. That is why I am to do some research of this folk art in view of its representations with the aim to explore the interrelationship between ideology and cultural changes hidden behind some representations or speech interpretations. And some reflections on what "folk art" as a discourse means are made in view of the historical anthropology. The dissertation is a research into the representation of a folk art, to demonstrate the fact that discourse representation as a sensitive indicator of culture and ideology shows not only the changes of terms, but the complicated changes and transformation of social culture, and that the naming of any object is closely related with political and economical context. Then what I study is not a folk art itself, but what is addressed or represented as "a folk art", or the history of the representations of "folk art", which is something, represented as "folk art" by different economical or political groups in different discourse contexts in different historical periods. To be exact, the object of my research is the so-called "folk art" in the scope of discourse knowledge. The research is not to demonstrate whether some discourse is real or not, but the social and historical context for the possibility for the production of the discourses about "folk art"; and it is also to review what kind of roles some intellectuals have been playing in the construction of "folk art" as a subject and some reflections are to be theoretically made; finally, the dissertation attempts to observe and analyze the rules to follow concerned with some knowledge reproduction and discourse practices in some given historical and cultural context. In such a way, a demonstration is to be made as to what ideas, content have been overlooked and suppressed intentionally or unintentionally in some discourses or representation. Then the aim is to be achieved as to the interpretation of a folk art as represented or the history of the folk art as a discourse. So the dissertation is a kind of representation of of representations.
研究对象的选定是基于自己对一项村落民俗艺术——商河鼓子秧歌的田野调查。这一民俗艺术原是流传在鲁北平原上的商河县及附近县域的村落里,在传统年节期间(即春节至元宵节期间)当地群众以自然村落为单位自发组织进行的,有着相对严格的活动程序和组织模式,集伞、鼓、棒、花、丑、戏于一体的大型群众性的民俗艺术活动。一支队伍少者四、五十人,多者几百人,具体花样繁多,颇有“百戏”的特点。本民俗活动最大的特点是在活动时一项都不能少的“礼数”。“闹玩”的队伍挂妆后,到家族祠庙或村庙前先跑一个场,拜神祭祖;再犒劳村里的老少爷们,跑上几场;然后到邻村去“跑村”或“串村”送上几场表演。“跑村”或“串村”的先后次序讲究礼道,有很多说法,要根据两村关系的远近亲疏来决定外出跑村的次序和必须履行的礼数。在当地人看来,“串村”表演的技术高低是其次的,最重要的是整个仪式过程中一个都不能少的礼数,这才是维系两村之间友好关系的关键所在。
自晚清以来,国家的主流话语加强了对这一民俗艺术的表述,非常权威地对它重新命名,并对其仪式程序、组织模式、动作节奏、意象主题等进行了场景性的想象、剪裁和重构。使得这一民俗艺术呈现了不同的名称、意象,它由村落里迎春祭祀、自娱自乐被当地的老百姓称为“闹玩”、“跑十五”的乡风民俗,成为民国时期被当地知识精英眼中的地方“陋俗”;也曾被作为翻身解放标志的“群众艺术”用于群众动员;在文革时期曾一度被称批判为“四旧”停演过;也曾被专家们尊称为“鼓子秧歌”推向舞台表演;并被舞蹈学院冠以“北方汉族男子舞蹈代表”,用于民间舞的课堂教学;随后又被国家命名为“民间艺术”、“国家非物质文化遗产”,被纳入到国家的强化保护体制中。对这一民俗艺术启用新词汇、新名称的目的不仅是为国家的文艺工作者和政府工作者们提供了方便他们表达世界观和思维习惯的有利工具,但同时也影响了其它表达方式或思想方式的存在。从某种程度上讲,新词的使用排挤了老词的应用范围,也动摇了老词的合法性和独立性,一项民俗活动在被表述的过程中加速了被遗忘的流变过程。
本研究就是把这一原为乡土民俗的民俗艺术放置在世界政治经济体系、文化帝国主义和民族国家的历史语境之下,考察持不同意识形态的群体是如何描述言说、命名这一民间艺术或曰象征符号和怎样借用这一符号为自己谋取资源;这一民俗艺术在人们的表述中又发生了怎样的转变。同时,本研究也旨在探讨商河县这一民俗艺术自清末民初以来,在传统与现代、本土与外来文化的碰撞中,伴随着乡村社会生活发生变革而变更的民俗体系中,社区的信仰、社会关系、资源分配方式及地方的权力秩序格局是如何变动,或曰,这一民俗艺术文本在被表述下的有什么回应性表述。
本研究将对田野调查得来的口头传说、社会记忆、社会活动事项、各种文献书写、各种话语力量的互动和社会知识的生产机制作为文本进行文化批评分析,看这一民间艺术形式从被命名为“闹玩”,到“陋俗”、“秧歌”、“四旧”、“商河鼓子秧歌”,、“北方汉族舞蹈的代表”、“民间艺术”,最后演变到“国家非物质文化遗产”种种不同表述的变迁过程,也就是把这一民俗艺术在历史文化语境下,把导致其发生变迁的动因作为文本分析,解读各种文本的内部构成和意图,分析文本产生的不同用法和意义作用的实践。探讨在国家和国际话语场景下,地方民间文化日趋边缘化的过程,国家现代话语和地方性民间知识的互动,并给以历史人类学的讨论。因此,本研究的分析方法既有对这一民俗的实地田野,又要对所有对这一民俗文艺活动相关的学术著作、文学作品、新闻报道、政论、县志等纳入到自己的视野,作为话语文本,放在特定的社会历史场景中进行分析。在此,文本是在一定的场景下为达到一定的目的,而进行的各种话语表述、书写改编、意义的操纵及活动事件等。因此,本研究对这一民俗文本的分析重点不只是放在对这一民俗文艺的自然描述上,也放在作为表述的表述上,看表述背后的文化意识形态和权力结构。
论文在结构上分为七大部分,导论“一项民俗艺术的被表述及理论方法探讨”主要界定对象、提出问题和和学术回顾和综述。。第一章“乡土艺术的自我表述——迎春祭祀的民俗”主要采用口述史的材料,还原展示了乡土村落民俗艺术的本土表述方式和民俗仪式展演的隐喻意义和逻辑意义。第二章“乡土经验遭遇外来知识”重在说明,从清末民初到抗日战争时期,一直到解放初期,这一民俗艺术从名称、形式到内容、主题上的巨大变化,由此揭示了有着本土地方经验的民俗艺术被现代外来话语表述背后的权力运作。第三章“传统的复兴和回应性的表述”主要讲述当地20世纪80年代国家对地方政治、文化控制放松后为期不长的民俗艺术的多元复兴景象,但很快随着城市化、市场化及大众传媒的发展,而日趋边缘化的现状。在接下来的第四章“民间艺术和传统的再造”阐述了在遗产保护的话语体系下,地方政府承担打造地方文化品牌所进行的民间艺术再造工程,不同利益群体对民间艺术这类文化象征资源的争夺,重在解构和分析民俗艺术被表述背后的知识逻辑。第五章“虚空的家园和本土的新经验”用个案说明了农村传统文化主体虚空的整体状况,并对目前所谓的文化保护措施的有效性提出了质疑,同时对在市场经济条件下新文化传统的形成而导致的民俗艺术的另类表述进行了分析,重在探讨实现多元文化互主性对话的可能性。最后,结论“被表述背后”申明围绕民俗艺术被表述这一事实进行主题研究的历史人类学意义,并从学科发展的角度对文化传统保护与知识分子书写责任之间的关系进行了反思。
总之,自清末民初以来,商河等地的民俗艺术活动“闹玩”或“跑十五”被纳入到现代话语的知识范畴内,被命名为“鼓子秧歌”推向舞台,作为民间文化,成为一门学科的研究对象开始,它就进入到被研究者们审视和挑拣的境地,有的形式、内容被有意无意地忽略掉,有的形式、内容又被刻意挖掘出来,在新的语境中被重新表述。任何事物的命名、表述和认同是与政治文化语境密切相连的,话语表述作为文化和意识形态的敏感指示器,显示了社会文化的变迁和流变。这就是本论题试图研究一项民俗艺术而着眼于它的场景性表述的缘起,由此揭示话语表述背后的意识形态与传统民俗文化变迁之间的关联性,并引发了关于民俗艺术表述问题的历史人类学思考。在此,本论文考察的不只是民俗艺术本身,而是打上了引号的“民间艺术”,或者说,本论文的研究对象着眼于一项民间艺术的表述史,是考察在不同的历史阶段,被不同的利益或政治群体在不同的文本语境中所表述的“民间艺术”,是作为知识话语范畴的“民间艺术”。本论文力在呈现的不是话语的真实或真理性与否,而是有关“民间艺术”等诸话语知识得以成为可能的历史条件和社会文化背景;同时,对知识分子在民间艺术的话语知识建构中的角色扮演进行了反思,探讨了在特定的历史文化语境中人们进行话语知识革新和进行话语实践的规则,并促使理解、揭示在作为现代性知识预设的“民间艺术”中哪些思想、内容被删除、忽略或被压抑了,以更好地理解被表述的民俗艺术或作为话语的历史。因此说,本论文是对表述的表述。
Representation has always been a sensitive indicator that demonstrates not only the changes or production of some new terms, but the changes or adaptation of culture. That is why I am to explore Shanghe Drum Yangge Dance, a folk art, in view of its representation. In such a way, the real meaning hidden behind the representation is to be exposed, so is the relationship between the politics, economics, ideology and the changes or evolution of culture.
The object of my research originates from, or to be exact, is based on my own field work. Shanghe Drum Yangge Dance, as a local folk art, had been quite popular and widely circulated among the rural community in the north-west of Shandong Province, such as in Shanghe County and other neighboring counties. During the special event of the Spring Festival (from the Spring Festival to Lantern Festival), the local people take the initiative to organize such an folk activity, which is made up of many individual performances, such as umbrella, drum and stick playing, dances, ballad singing and storytelling, acrobatics, clown's role play etc., and what's more, the activity strictly follows some ritual procedures and organization patterns. According to the local ordinary folks, a team of such a folk art performance consists of at least 40-50 people, and sometimes a team of more than a few hundreds of people is rare. A variety of performances, as so-called "baixi", would be put on. The most peculiar point concerned with such a folk art is the "the rules of etiquette". After the visits to the relatives, it is the time for a village to organize the folk activity. After practicing some rehearsals, the team, dressed in colored silk clothing and decorated with red silk festoons, would put on the first formal performance in front of the temple of the village to show their greatest respect for the community god. Then some performances for their own villagers begin. And later on, it is the time for the folk team to pay some visits to the neighboring villages to offer some performances. There are some special rules to follow in view of the sequence or the order of the visits. The visiting sequence and the application of the rules of etiquette are both based on the relationship of the two villages. The skills of art performance don't matter too much, and it is the perfect practice of rules of etiquette that plays the vital role in the maintaining the proper relationship between the two villages.
Since the end of the Qing Dynasty, the national dominating ideology has greatly influenced the representation of this rural folk culture, such as authoritatively renaming, imagining, reforming and reconstructing it as to the procedures, the patterns of organization, the movement and rhythm, the image and the theme etc.. Then this folk art has been putting on different names and images, from a folk custom in name of nao-wan and pao-shi-wu for the local people to celebrate the Spring Festival, to show respect for the God and ancestors, and to enjoy themselves, to a local "old-fashioned" customs represented by the local scholars in the times of the Public of China, and to "folk art" as an effective tool to mobilize the masses and a symbol of liberation as well, and to "Guzi Yangge" addressed by some experts, and and to "the representative of male dance art of northern Han ethnic groups", and finally to "national intangible cultural heritage". The uses of the new terms supply the experts and the statesmen of the government with some effective tools to express their view of the world and their way of thinking, which drives away the other ways of thinking or the ways of expressing ideas. In other words, the use of new terms elbows the scope of the use of old terms out, making the old terms illegal, dependent and easily-forgettable and quickening the speed of culture changes. It is clear that the meaning of a folk art has been changed sequentially in the process of being represented by the others with authority.
The research focuses on how different people with different ideology describe, represent and rename this folk art or this symbol of representation in the globally political and economic system and the cultural imperialism and nation-state historical context, how different groups take advantage of this symbol to make profit, and what changes has happened to this folk art in the presentation. At the same time, the focus is also placed on how the social relations, the distribution patters and local political patters change with the reforms in rural life and the system of folk customs at the great social crisis or event. This research is directed to explore what changes this folk art has undergone at the critical social turning point, with the sharp conflicts between the traditional and modern culture, the local and foreign cultures. What's more, the relationship between the changes of this folk art and that of the community belief, between the changes of the economy and that of the social life is also studied. In other words, how this folk art would demonstrate itself during the long historical process of being represented is explored.
The dissertation is to make a discourse analysis of all oral legends, social memory, social activities, various written references, the interactions between different discourses and the productive system of social knowledge from the field work to show the changes of different representations of the folk art in name of "Game Play" and "Lantern Festival Running", then "old-fashioned customs", and "Yangge", and "Shanghe Drum Yangge Dance" , and " the representative of male dance art of northern Han ethnicl group", and finally "national intangible heritage". And the focus is placed on analyzing the cause for the changes of the folk art in the historical and cultural context, and then to interpret the internal formation and the aim of different texts, and to analyze the different usages and implication of the production of the texts are both emphasized. The aim is to explore the process of the marginalization of the local folk culture, the interaction of national modern discourse with the local folk knowledge in the national and international context. And all of this is to be discussed in view of knowledge sociology. The methodology of this research is concerned with the field-work of this folk art, and what's more, all academic works, literary works, news reports, political reviews, and county annals etc. concerned this folk art are all to be analyzed as discourse text in some given social and historical context. That is to say, a text is here interpreted as various discourses representations, writing and editing, practices and activities for some special purpose in some special context. Then the focus of discourse analysis of this folk art is not on the plain description of it, but the re-representation of the representations of it, to find out the cultural ideology and the structure of power hidden in all the representations.
The paper falls into 7 parts. The introduction of "A Folk Art as Represented and Some Theoretical Approaches Concerned" is to offer a brief introduction to the definition of research object, the original motivation or cause for this research, some basic research on this object and the methodological methods to be applied in the research. Chapter 1 is entitled by "Folk Arts Represented as Folk Customs for Gods' Blessing in Spring Festival". In this part, the research of some oral histories is applied to demonstrate the local performance of folk art and the metaphorical and logical significance in the ritual performance, which shows the peculiarity of native way of interpreting and representing the folk life in the time-space view of the rural community. Chapter 2 entitle by "The Local Rural Experience Encounters the Exterior Knowledge" is to demonstrate that the traditionally local experience encountering the exterior knowledge has caused some great changes in folk arts as to the name, the form, the significance and the image, and that the performance of power is also exposed during the process, esp. at turning point of social culture's critical change sinse the end of Qing Dynasty, to the beginning of the Republic of China, to the Resistance War against Japanese, and to the beginning the People's Republic of China. Chapter 3 "The Rebirth of the Tradition and some Representations in Response" mainly states the fact that the rebirth of some traditional and multiple cultures in the 1980's lasts not very long and it is soon marginalized by the urbanization, commercialization and the spread of mass media. Chapter 4 "Folk Art and the Remaking of the Tradition" states that the local government makes a great effort to remaking of the folk culture for the invention of the local cultural band in the international and national context of protecting folk cultures and intangible relics. What's more, the struggle for the symbol of folk culture is depicted and a logical discourse analysis of the variety of cultural practices is also made. In Chapter 5 "The Empty Homeland and Some New Local Experience", a case study is made to demonstrate the situation of the empty subjects of rural culture and some new experience in the market economy, and some argument is directed to the efficiency of the so-called culture protection movement. Finally, in the conclusion "Behind the Representations", it is argued for the significance in the research of the representation of folk arts in view of historical anthropology, and some reflections on the relationship between traditional culture protection and the intellectuals' responsibilities in view of the construction of knowledge are also made.
In summary, since the end of Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Public of China, the folk art nao-wan or pao-shi-wu has been driven into the scope of temporary discourse and become an object of the academic subject of "folk art", then it has been facing up with being examined and chosen up. Some part of it is intentionally overlooked, while some is emphasized to be represented in some new discourse context. That is why I am to do some research of this folk art in view of its representations with the aim to explore the interrelationship between ideology and cultural changes hidden behind some representations or speech interpretations. And some reflections on what "folk art" as a discourse means are made in view of the historical anthropology. The dissertation is a research into the representation of a folk art, to demonstrate the fact that discourse representation as a sensitive indicator of culture and ideology shows not only the changes of terms, but the complicated changes and transformation of social culture, and that the naming of any object is closely related with political and economical context. Then what I study is not a folk art itself, but what is addressed or represented as "a folk art", or the history of the representations of "folk art", which is something, represented as "folk art" by different economical or political groups in different discourse contexts in different historical periods. To be exact, the object of my research is the so-called "folk art" in the scope of discourse knowledge. The research is not to demonstrate whether some discourse is real or not, but the social and historical context for the possibility for the production of the discourses about "folk art"; and it is also to review what kind of roles some intellectuals have been playing in the construction of "folk art" as a subject and some reflections are to be theoretically made; finally, the dissertation attempts to observe and analyze the rules to follow concerned with some knowledge reproduction and discourse practices in some given historical and cultural context. In such a way, a demonstration is to be made as to what ideas, content have been overlooked and suppressed intentionally or unintentionally in some discourses or representation. Then the aim is to be achieved as to the interpretation of a folk art as represented or the history of the folk art as a discourse. So the dissertation is a kind of representation of of representations.
引文
[1]张朝群.鼓子秧歌.舞蹈通讯.1982.第3期.
[2]张浔,刘志军.山东鼓子秧歌.北京:人民音乐出版社,1983.
[3]罗雄岩.中国民间舞蹈文化教程.上海:上海音乐出版社,2005.第113页.
[4]中国民族民间舞蹈编辑部.中国民族民间舞蹈集成(山东卷).中国ISBN中心,1998.
[5]商河县文学艺术界联合汇编.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.
[6]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2002.
[1]傅谨.草根的力量——台州戏班的田野调查与研究.桂林:广西人民出版社,2001.
[2]张士闪.乡民艺术的文化解读.济南:山东人民出版社,2006.
[1]王杰文.仪式、歌舞与文化展演.北京:中国传媒大学出版社,2006.第1-6;252-6页.
[2]刘晓真.从乡俗礼仪到民间艺术——当代山东商河鼓子秧歌文化功能的变迁与传承.中国艺术研究院硕士论文.2003.
[1]海登·怀特著.后现代历史叙事学,陈永国、张万娟译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003.
[2]麦克·赫兹费尔德.什么是人类常识:社会和文化领域中的人类理论实践,刘珩等译.北京:华夏出版社,2005.第61-99页.
[1]列维-斯特劳斯.结构人类学,陆晓禾等译.北京:文化艺术出版社,1991.
[2]马歇尔·萨林斯.历史之岛,蓝达居、张宏明等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[3]埃里克·沃尔夫.欧洲与没有历史的人民,赵丙祥等译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,1982.
[4]杜赞奇.从民族国家拯救历史,王宪明译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[1]王明珂.华夏边缘:历史记忆与族群认同.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.第28-56页.
[2]王铭铭.走在乡土上.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[1]王铭铭.社会人类学与中国研究.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第9-19页.
[2]王铭铭.村落视野中的文化与权力——闽台三村五论.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第246-256页.
[3]王铭铭.溪村家族.贵州:贵州人民出版社,2004.
[1]爱德华·W·萨义德.东方学,王宇根译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.
[1]爰德华·W·萨义德.文化与帝国主义,李琨译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1993.
[2]Asad,Tala ed.,Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.New York:Academic Press,1973.
[3]伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦.沃勒斯坦精粹,黄光耀、洪霞译.南京:南京大学出版社,2003.
[1]马歇尔·萨林斯.文化与实践理性,赵丙祥译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[2]马歇尔·萨林斯.甜蜜与悲哀,王铭铭、胡宗泽译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000.
[3]Cohen,Anthony,Whalsay:Symbol,Segement and Boundary.Manchester:Manchester University Press,1987.
[1]郭于华.仪式与社会变迁.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.第1页.
[2]Gennep,Arnold van,The Rites of Passage.Trans,M.B.Vizedom and G.L.Caffee.Chicago:The University of Chigago Press,2001:39.
[3]维克多·特纳.仪式过程:结构与反结构,黄剑波、柳博赞译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.第171页.
[1]Leach,Edmund,Social Anthropology,London:William Collins Sons & Co.Ltd.1982:33-36.
[2]Leach,Edmund,Social Anthropology.London:William Collins Sons & Co.Ltd.1982:83-86.
[3]郭于华.仪式与社会变迁.北京:社会科学文献出版社.2000.第1页.
[1]埃文思—普里查德.努尔人,褚建芳等译.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[2]克利福德·格尔茨.文化的解释,韩莉译.南京:译林出版社,1999.第3-6页.
[3]乔治·马尔库斯等.作为文化批判的人类学,王铭铭等译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[4]詹姆斯·克利福德,乔治·马尔库斯编.写文化,高丙中等译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[1]高丙中.汉译人类学名著丛书总序.写文化.北京:商务印书馆,2006.第4页.
[1]爱德华·W·萨义德.东方学.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.第28页.
[1]Zerubavel,Eviatar,Hidden Rhythms." Schedules and Calendars in Social Life.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1981.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.明清商河县志集.济南出版社,2005.第153页.
[1]商河县乡土志(清光绪三十三年).明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第426页.
[1]萧凤霞.二十载华南研究之旅.清华社会学评论.2001,第1期,第186页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第125页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第391页.
[2]革非.清水幻象.北京:作家出版社,2002.
[3]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第448-449页.
[4]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第127页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第449页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第158页.
[2]同上.第158页.
[3]同上.第206页.
[1]古之乡学,三年业成,考其德艺,以其贤者能者荐升于君。时有乡大夫作主人为之设宴送行,待以宾礼饮酒酬酢,皆有仪式,称乡饮酒礼。
[2]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第208页.
[3]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第210页.
[1]商河县乡土志序.明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第394页.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南出版社,1994.第587页.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南出版社,1994.第587页.
[1]郑正.冀鲁边区杂忆六首.郑路镇志.1988.第300页.
[1]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2002.第33页.
[1]商河县志.济南:济南出版社,1994.第17页.
[2]同上.第73页.
[1]山东商河县郑路镇镇志编委会.郑路镇志.1988.第53页.
[1]全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第124页.
[2]闻君.韧在何处?抻在那里?全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第86-89页.
[3]薛守义.论现代意识与民间舞蹈创作——谈鼓子秧歌如何搬上舞台.同上.第71页.
[1]苗晶.苗晶同志在研讨会上的发言.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第97页.
[2]吕艺生.民间舞在现代社会中.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第79-81页.
[3]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文艺出版社,2002.
[1]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文艺出版社,2002.第29页.
[2]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南:济南出版社.1993.
[3]同上.第443-437页.
[4]同上.第592-594页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第458-460页.
[2]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第458-460页.
[3]王明珂.华夏边缘:历史记忆与族群认同.台北:允晨文化实业股份有限公司,1997.第50-51页.
[1]傅谨.生活在别处.读书,2003,11:28-35.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.明清商河县志集.济南出版社,2005.第158页.
[1]郑培凯编.口传心授与文化传承.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2006.第256页.
[1]郑培凯编.口传心授与文化传承.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2006.第259页.
[1]Greenberg,Clement.Collected Essays and Criticism,ed.John O' Britain.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1986:Ⅰ 12.
[2]吕艺生.民间舞在现代社会中.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第79-81页.
[1]Foucault,Michel.Discipline and Punishment.New York:Pantheon,1978:23.
[2]杜赞奇.文化、权利与国家:1900-1942年的华北农村.南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.第4页.
[1]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文艺出版社.2002.第237-238页.
[2]于蔚泉.鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2005.第178-211页.
[1]刘晓真.从乡俗仪礼到民间艺术——当代山东商河鼓子秧歌文化功能的变迁与传承.中国艺术研院2003年硕士学位论文.
[2]傅谨.生活在别处.读书,2003,11:28-33.
[3]吕艺生.民间舞在现代社会中.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第79-81页.
[1]邓正来.知识生产机器的反思和批判.社会学家茶座.山东人民出版社,2004.第2期,第49页.
[2]马歇尔·萨林斯.文化与实践理性,赵丙祥译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[1]阿尔君·阿帕杜莱.全球文化经济中的断裂与差异.文化与公共性,陈燕谷译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[2]埃文思—普里查德.努尔人,褚建芳等译.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[3]本尼迪克特·安德森.想象的共同体,吴叡人译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[4]罗兰·巴特.流行体系:符号学与服饰符码,敖军译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[5]菲奥纳·鲍伊.宗教人类学导论,金泽、何其敏译.北京中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[6]阿雷恩·鲍尔德温等.文化研究导论,陶东』XL等译.北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
[7]本尼迪克特.文化模式,王炜等译.北京:华夏出版社,2001.
[8]弗朗兹·博厄斯.原始艺术,金辉译.上海:上海文艺出版社,1989.
[9]皮埃尔·布迪厄.艺术的法则:文学场的生成和结构,刘晖译.北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[10]阿里夫·德里克.跨国资本时代的后殖民批评,王宁等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[11]杜赞奇.文化、权利与国家:1900-1942年的华北农村,王福明译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.第4页.
[12]杜赞奇.从民族国家拯救历史,王宪明译.北京:,社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[13]黄宗智.华北的小农经济与社会变迁.北京:中华书局,2000.
[14]E.霍布斯鲍姆、兰格,T..传统的发明,顾杭、庞冠群译.南京:译林出版社,2004.
[15]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2002.
[16]邓正来.研究与反思——中国社会科学自主性的思考.沈阳:辽宁大学出版社,1998.
[17]邓正来.知识生产机器的反思和批判.社会学家茶座.山东人民出版社,2004年,2:49.
[18]董晓萍、欧达伟.乡村戏曲表演与中国现代民众.北京:北京师范大学出版社,2000.
[19]费孝通.乡土中国生育制度.北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[20]费孝通.中国绅士,惠海鸣译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
[21]米歇尔·福柯.词与物——人文科学考古学,莫伟民译.上海:上海三联书店,2001.
[22]傅谨.草根的力量——台州戏班的田野调查与研究.桂林:广西人民出版社,2001.
[23]傅谨.生活在别处.读书,2003年,11:28-35.
[24]高宣扬.布迪厄的社会理论.上海:同济大学出版社,2004.
[25]詹姆斯·克利福德,乔治·马尔库斯编.写文化,高丙中等译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[26]克利福德·格尔茨.文化的解释,韩莉译.南京:译林出版社,1999.
[27]克利福德·格尔茨.地方性知识,王海龙、张家碹译.北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[28]革非.清水幻象.北京:作家出版社,2002.
[29]葛兰言.古代中国的节庆与歌谣.赵丙祥、张宏明译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005.
[30]郭于华主编.仪式与社会变迁.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[31]哈贝马斯.作为“意识形态”的技术与科学,李黎、郭官义译.上海:学林出版社,1999.
[32]海登·怀特著.后现代历史叙事学,陈永国、张万娟译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003.
[33]麦克尔·赫兹菲尔德.什么是人类常识:社会和文化领域中的人类理论实践,刘珩等译.北京:华夏出版社,2005.第61-99页.
[34]塞缪尔·亨廷顿,文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建,周琪等译.北京:新华出版社,1999.
[35]胡潇.民间艺术的文化寻绎.武汉:湖北美术出版社,1994.
[36]斯图尔特·霍尔编.表征,徐亮,陆兴华译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[37]唐纳德·R·凯利.多面的历史,陈恒,宋立宏译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003.
[38]保罗·康纳顿.社会如何记忆,纳日碧力戈译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[39]詹姆斯·克利福德,、乔治·马尔库斯编.写文化,高丙中等译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[40]安东尼·吉登斯.民族.国家和暴力,胡宗泽、赵立涛译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[41]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果,田禾译.南京:译林出版社,2002.
[42]罗伯特·莱顿.艺术人类学,靳大成等译.北京:文化艺术出版社,1992.
[43]列维—斯特劳斯.野性的思维,李幼蒸译.商务印书馆,1987.
[44]列维-斯特劳斯.结构人类学,陆晓禾等译.北京:文化艺术出版社,1991.
[45]戴维·理查兹.差异的面纱:文化、人类学及艺术中的文化表现,如一等译,沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2003.
[46]刘志琴编.近代中国社会生活与观念变迁.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[47]刘青峰编.民族主义与中国现代化.香港:中文大学出版社,1994.
[48]刘晓真.从乡俗礼仪到民间艺术——当代山东商河鼓子秧歌文化功能的变迁与传承.中国艺术研究院硕士论文,2003年.
[49]乔治·马尔库斯等.作为文化批判的人类学,王铭铭等译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[50]马林诺夫斯基.文化论,费孝通译.北京:华夏出版社,2001.
[51]马塞尔·莫斯.礼物——古式社会中交换的形式与理由,汲晶译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[52]荣世诚.戏曲人类学初探:仪式、剧场与社群.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003.
[53]马歇尔·萨林斯.历史之岛,蓝达居、张宏明等译.上海:上海人民出版社.2003.
[54]马歇尔·萨林斯.“土著”如何思考,张宏明译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[55]马歇尔·萨林斯.文化与实践理性,赵丙祥译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[56]马歇尔·萨林斯.甜蜜与悲哀,王铭铭、胡宗泽译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000.
[57]爱德华·W·萨义德,东方学,王宇根译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.第28页.
[58]爱德华·W·萨义德.文化与帝国主义,李琨译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1993.
[59]商河县文学艺术界联合汇编.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.
[60]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南出版社,1994.
[61]商河县志编纂委员会编.明清商河县志集.济南出版社,2005.
[62]山东商河县郑路镇镇志编委会.郑路镇志.1988.第53页.
[63]爱德华·W·萨义德.最后的天空之后——巴勒斯坦人的生活,金碉珏译,北京:新星出版社,2006.
[64]安东尼·史密斯.全球化时代的民族与民族主义,龚维斌、良警宇译.北京:中央编译出版社,2002.
[65]孙庆忠.近二十年来人类学汉族社会研究述评.民族研究.2005年,第2期.
[66]汤林森.文化帝国主义,冯建三译,上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
[67]维克多·特纳.仪式过程:结构与反结构,黄剑波、柳博赟译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[68]斐迪南·藤尼斯.共同体与社会,林荣远译.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[69]王建民.田野工作与艺术人类学、人类学学科建设.广西民族学院学报,2004年,第5期.
[70]王杰文.仪式、歌舞与文化展演.北京:中国传媒大学出版社,2006.
[71]王明珂.华夏边缘:历史记忆与族群认同.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.第28-56页.
[72]王明珂.羌在汉藏之间:一个华夏历史边缘的历史人类学研究.台北:联经,2003.
[73]王铭铭.社会人类学与中国研究.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第9-19页.
[74]王铭铭.走在乡土上.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[75]王铭铭.溪村家族.贵州:贵州人民出版社,2004.
[76]王铭铭、潘忠党.象征与社会.天津:天津人民出版社,1997.
[77]王铭铭、王斯福主编.乡土社会的秩序、公正与权威.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[78]王铭铭.村落视野中的文化与权力——闽台三村五论.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第246-256页。
[79]王铭铭.失去的繁荣.杭州:浙江人民出版社年,1999.
[80]王铭铭.西方人类学思潮十讲.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005.
[81]王铭铭.想象的异邦.上海:上海人民出版社,1998.
[82]埃里克·沃尔夫.欧洲与没有历史的人民,赵丙祥等译,上海:上海世纪出 版集团,1982.
[83]伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦.沃勒斯坦精粹,黄光耀、洪霞译.南京:南京大学出版社,2003.
[84]薇思瓦纳珊编.权力、政治与文化——萨义德访谈录,单德兴译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006.
[85]萧凤霞.二十载华南研究之旅.清华社会学评论,2001,1:186.
[86]萧凤霞.传统的循环再生——小榄菊花会的文化、历史与政治经济.历史人类学学刊.2003,第1卷,第1期.
[87]于蔚泉.鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2005.第178-211页.
[88]张士闪.乡民艺术的文化解读.济南:山东人民出版社,2006.
[89]张小军.历史的人类学化和人类学的历史化——兼论被史学‘抢注'的历史人类学.历史人类学学刊.2003,第1卷,第1期.
[90]张浔、刘志军.山东鼓子秧歌.北京:人民音乐出版社,1983.
[91]张紫晨.中国民间小戏.杭州:浙江教育出版社,1989.
[92]张朝群.鼓子秧歌.舞蹈通讯.1982,第3期.
[93]赵世瑜.狂欢与日常.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002.
[94]赵世瑜.眼光向下的革命——中国现代民俗学思想史论.北京:北京师范大学出版社,1999.
[95]郑培凯编.口传心授与文化传承.桂林:广西师范大学出版社.2006.
[1]Appadurai,Arjun,"Theory in anthropology:Center and Periphery".Comparative Studies in Society and History.1986,29,3:356-61.
[2]Asad,Tala ed.,Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.New York:Academic Press,1973.
[3]Barnard,Alan,History and Theory in Anthropology.Cambridge:University of Cambridge Press,2000.
[4]Bell,C.,Ritual Theory,Ritual Practice.New York & Oxford:Oxford University Press,1992.
[5]Bernard,H.R.ed.Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology.California:Alta Mira Press,1998.
[6]Bourdieu,Pierre,"On Symbolic Power",Language and Symbolic Power.Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press,1981:163-170.
[7]Bucldand,Theresa J,ed.,Dance in the Field:Theory,Methods and issues in Dance Ethnography.Basingstoke:Macmillan Press Ltd,1999.
[8]Cohen,Anthony,Whalsay:Symbol,Segement and Boundary.Manchester:Manchester University Press,1987.
[9]Cohen,Bernard,The Newtonian Revolution:With Illustrations of the Transformation of Scientific Ideas.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980.
[10]Coppet,Daniel ed.,Understanding Rituals.Great Britain:Biddles Ltd,Guildford and King's Lynn,1992.
[11]Desmond,Jane C.ed.,Meaning in Motion:New Cultural Studies of Dance,Duke University Press,1997.
[12]Douglas,Mary,Purity and Danger:An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1966.
[13]Fabian,Johannes,Time and the Other:How Anthropology Makes its Object.New York:Columbia University Press,1983.
[14]Feuchtwang,Stephan,The Imperial Metaphor:Popular Religion in China,London:Routledge,1992.
[15]Foucault,Michel,The Archaeology of Knowledge.New York:Pantheon,1972.
[16]Foucault,Michel,Discipline and Punishment.New York:Pantheon,1978:29.
[17]Geertz,Clifford,The Interpretation of Cultures.New York:Basic Books,1973.
[18]Gennep,Arnold van,The Rites of Passage,trans,M.B.Vizedom and G.L.Caffee,Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,2001:39.
[19]Hanna,Judith Lynner,To Dance is Human:A Theory of Nonverbal Communication.Texas:University of Texas,1979.
[20]Hsu,Francis L.K.,Under the Ancestors' Shadow:Chinese Culture and Personality.New York:Columbia University Press,1948.
[21]Kertzer,David,Ritual,Politics,and Power.New York:Yale University Press,1988.
[22]Kuhn,Thomas,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1970.
[23]Leach,Edmund,Rethinking Anthropology.London:Arhlone,1961.
[24]Marcus,George & Myers,Fred R.ed.,The Traffic in Culture.California:University of California Press,1995.
[25]Marcus,George,& Dick,Cushman,"Ethnographies as Texts",Annual Review of Anthropology,1982,Vol.11,pp.25-69.
[26]Mueggler,Erik,The Age of Wild Ghosts:Memory,.Violence,and Place in Southwest China.Berkeley:University of California Press,2001.
[27]Napier,David,Foreign Bodies:Performance,Art,and Symbolic.Anthropology California:University of California Press,1992.
[28]Royce,Anya Peterson,The Anthropology of Dance.Hampshire:Dance Books Ltd,2002.
[29]Sahlins,Marshall,Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities.Michigan:Michigan University Press,1981.
[30]Sahlins,Marshall,"The Sadness of Sweetness:the Native Anthropology of Western Cosmology," Current Anthropology.1996,37.3:395-428.
[31]Sahlins,Marshall,Culture and Practical Reason.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1976.
[32]Sangren,Steven P.,History and Magical Power in a Chinese Community,Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
[33]Schechner,R.,The Future of Ritual:Writing on Culture and Performance,London & New York:Rutledge,1992.
[34]Siu,Helen F.,Agents and Victims in South China:Accomplices in Rural Revolution.New Haven:Yale University Press,1989.
[35]Turner,Victor,The Forest of symbols:Aspects of Ndembu Ritual.New York:Cornell University,1970.
[36]Turner,Victor,Dramas,Fields,and Metaphors:Symbolic Action in Human Society.Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1974.
[37]Turner,Victor,The Anthropology of Performance.New York:PAJ publication,1986.
[39]Wolf,Eric.,Europe and the People without History.Califomia:Califomia University Press,1982.
[40]Wolf,Arthur,ed.,Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society,Stanford:Stanford University Press,1974.
[41]Zerubavel,Eviatar,Hidden Rhythms:Schedules and Calendars in Social Life.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1981.
[2]张浔,刘志军.山东鼓子秧歌.北京:人民音乐出版社,1983.
[3]罗雄岩.中国民间舞蹈文化教程.上海:上海音乐出版社,2005.第113页.
[4]中国民族民间舞蹈编辑部.中国民族民间舞蹈集成(山东卷).中国ISBN中心,1998.
[5]商河县文学艺术界联合汇编.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.
[6]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2002.
[1]傅谨.草根的力量——台州戏班的田野调查与研究.桂林:广西人民出版社,2001.
[2]张士闪.乡民艺术的文化解读.济南:山东人民出版社,2006.
[1]王杰文.仪式、歌舞与文化展演.北京:中国传媒大学出版社,2006.第1-6;252-6页.
[2]刘晓真.从乡俗礼仪到民间艺术——当代山东商河鼓子秧歌文化功能的变迁与传承.中国艺术研究院硕士论文.2003.
[1]海登·怀特著.后现代历史叙事学,陈永国、张万娟译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003.
[2]麦克·赫兹费尔德.什么是人类常识:社会和文化领域中的人类理论实践,刘珩等译.北京:华夏出版社,2005.第61-99页.
[1]列维-斯特劳斯.结构人类学,陆晓禾等译.北京:文化艺术出版社,1991.
[2]马歇尔·萨林斯.历史之岛,蓝达居、张宏明等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[3]埃里克·沃尔夫.欧洲与没有历史的人民,赵丙祥等译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,1982.
[4]杜赞奇.从民族国家拯救历史,王宪明译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[1]王明珂.华夏边缘:历史记忆与族群认同.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.第28-56页.
[2]王铭铭.走在乡土上.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[1]王铭铭.社会人类学与中国研究.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第9-19页.
[2]王铭铭.村落视野中的文化与权力——闽台三村五论.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第246-256页.
[3]王铭铭.溪村家族.贵州:贵州人民出版社,2004.
[1]爱德华·W·萨义德.东方学,王宇根译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.
[1]爰德华·W·萨义德.文化与帝国主义,李琨译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1993.
[2]Asad,Tala ed.,Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.New York:Academic Press,1973.
[3]伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦.沃勒斯坦精粹,黄光耀、洪霞译.南京:南京大学出版社,2003.
[1]马歇尔·萨林斯.文化与实践理性,赵丙祥译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[2]马歇尔·萨林斯.甜蜜与悲哀,王铭铭、胡宗泽译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000.
[3]Cohen,Anthony,Whalsay:Symbol,Segement and Boundary.Manchester:Manchester University Press,1987.
[1]郭于华.仪式与社会变迁.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.第1页.
[2]Gennep,Arnold van,The Rites of Passage.Trans,M.B.Vizedom and G.L.Caffee.Chicago:The University of Chigago Press,2001:39.
[3]维克多·特纳.仪式过程:结构与反结构,黄剑波、柳博赞译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.第171页.
[1]Leach,Edmund,Social Anthropology,London:William Collins Sons & Co.Ltd.1982:33-36.
[2]Leach,Edmund,Social Anthropology.London:William Collins Sons & Co.Ltd.1982:83-86.
[3]郭于华.仪式与社会变迁.北京:社会科学文献出版社.2000.第1页.
[1]埃文思—普里查德.努尔人,褚建芳等译.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[2]克利福德·格尔茨.文化的解释,韩莉译.南京:译林出版社,1999.第3-6页.
[3]乔治·马尔库斯等.作为文化批判的人类学,王铭铭等译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[4]詹姆斯·克利福德,乔治·马尔库斯编.写文化,高丙中等译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[1]高丙中.汉译人类学名著丛书总序.写文化.北京:商务印书馆,2006.第4页.
[1]爱德华·W·萨义德.东方学.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.第28页.
[1]Zerubavel,Eviatar,Hidden Rhythms." Schedules and Calendars in Social Life.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1981.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.明清商河县志集.济南出版社,2005.第153页.
[1]商河县乡土志(清光绪三十三年).明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第426页.
[1]萧凤霞.二十载华南研究之旅.清华社会学评论.2001,第1期,第186页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第125页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第391页.
[2]革非.清水幻象.北京:作家出版社,2002.
[3]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第448-449页.
[4]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第127页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第449页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第158页.
[2]同上.第158页.
[3]同上.第206页.
[1]古之乡学,三年业成,考其德艺,以其贤者能者荐升于君。时有乡大夫作主人为之设宴送行,待以宾礼饮酒酬酢,皆有仪式,称乡饮酒礼。
[2]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第208页.
[3]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第210页.
[1]商河县乡土志序.明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第394页.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南出版社,1994.第587页.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南出版社,1994.第587页.
[1]郑正.冀鲁边区杂忆六首.郑路镇志.1988.第300页.
[1]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2002.第33页.
[1]商河县志.济南:济南出版社,1994.第17页.
[2]同上.第73页.
[1]山东商河县郑路镇镇志编委会.郑路镇志.1988.第53页.
[1]全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第124页.
[2]闻君.韧在何处?抻在那里?全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第86-89页.
[3]薛守义.论现代意识与民间舞蹈创作——谈鼓子秧歌如何搬上舞台.同上.第71页.
[1]苗晶.苗晶同志在研讨会上的发言.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第97页.
[2]吕艺生.民间舞在现代社会中.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第79-81页.
[3]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文艺出版社,2002.
[1]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文艺出版社,2002.第29页.
[2]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南:济南出版社.1993.
[3]同上.第443-437页.
[4]同上.第592-594页.
[1]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第458-460页.
[2]明清商河县志集.济南:济南出版社,2005.第458-460页.
[3]王明珂.华夏边缘:历史记忆与族群认同.台北:允晨文化实业股份有限公司,1997.第50-51页.
[1]傅谨.生活在别处.读书,2003,11:28-35.
[1]商河县志编纂委员会编.明清商河县志集.济南出版社,2005.第158页.
[1]郑培凯编.口传心授与文化传承.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2006.第256页.
[1]郑培凯编.口传心授与文化传承.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2006.第259页.
[1]Greenberg,Clement.Collected Essays and Criticism,ed.John O' Britain.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1986:Ⅰ 12.
[2]吕艺生.民间舞在现代社会中.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第79-81页.
[1]Foucault,Michel.Discipline and Punishment.New York:Pantheon,1978:23.
[2]杜赞奇.文化、权利与国家:1900-1942年的华北农村.南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.第4页.
[1]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文艺出版社.2002.第237-238页.
[2]于蔚泉.鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2005.第178-211页.
[1]刘晓真.从乡俗仪礼到民间艺术——当代山东商河鼓子秧歌文化功能的变迁与传承.中国艺术研院2003年硕士学位论文.
[2]傅谨.生活在别处.读书,2003,11:28-33.
[3]吕艺生.民间舞在现代社会中.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.第79-81页.
[1]邓正来.知识生产机器的反思和批判.社会学家茶座.山东人民出版社,2004.第2期,第49页.
[2]马歇尔·萨林斯.文化与实践理性,赵丙祥译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[1]阿尔君·阿帕杜莱.全球文化经济中的断裂与差异.文化与公共性,陈燕谷译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[2]埃文思—普里查德.努尔人,褚建芳等译.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[3]本尼迪克特·安德森.想象的共同体,吴叡人译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[4]罗兰·巴特.流行体系:符号学与服饰符码,敖军译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[5]菲奥纳·鲍伊.宗教人类学导论,金泽、何其敏译.北京中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[6]阿雷恩·鲍尔德温等.文化研究导论,陶东』XL等译.北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
[7]本尼迪克特.文化模式,王炜等译.北京:华夏出版社,2001.
[8]弗朗兹·博厄斯.原始艺术,金辉译.上海:上海文艺出版社,1989.
[9]皮埃尔·布迪厄.艺术的法则:文学场的生成和结构,刘晖译.北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[10]阿里夫·德里克.跨国资本时代的后殖民批评,王宁等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[11]杜赞奇.文化、权利与国家:1900-1942年的华北农村,王福明译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.第4页.
[12]杜赞奇.从民族国家拯救历史,王宪明译.北京:,社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[13]黄宗智.华北的小农经济与社会变迁.北京:中华书局,2000.
[14]E.霍布斯鲍姆、兰格,T..传统的发明,顾杭、庞冠群译.南京:译林出版社,2004.
[15]陈学孟.商河鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2002.
[16]邓正来.研究与反思——中国社会科学自主性的思考.沈阳:辽宁大学出版社,1998.
[17]邓正来.知识生产机器的反思和批判.社会学家茶座.山东人民出版社,2004年,2:49.
[18]董晓萍、欧达伟.乡村戏曲表演与中国现代民众.北京:北京师范大学出版社,2000.
[19]费孝通.乡土中国生育制度.北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[20]费孝通.中国绅士,惠海鸣译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
[21]米歇尔·福柯.词与物——人文科学考古学,莫伟民译.上海:上海三联书店,2001.
[22]傅谨.草根的力量——台州戏班的田野调查与研究.桂林:广西人民出版社,2001.
[23]傅谨.生活在别处.读书,2003年,11:28-35.
[24]高宣扬.布迪厄的社会理论.上海:同济大学出版社,2004.
[25]詹姆斯·克利福德,乔治·马尔库斯编.写文化,高丙中等译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[26]克利福德·格尔茨.文化的解释,韩莉译.南京:译林出版社,1999.
[27]克利福德·格尔茨.地方性知识,王海龙、张家碹译.北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[28]革非.清水幻象.北京:作家出版社,2002.
[29]葛兰言.古代中国的节庆与歌谣.赵丙祥、张宏明译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005.
[30]郭于华主编.仪式与社会变迁.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[31]哈贝马斯.作为“意识形态”的技术与科学,李黎、郭官义译.上海:学林出版社,1999.
[32]海登·怀特著.后现代历史叙事学,陈永国、张万娟译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003.
[33]麦克尔·赫兹菲尔德.什么是人类常识:社会和文化领域中的人类理论实践,刘珩等译.北京:华夏出版社,2005.第61-99页.
[34]塞缪尔·亨廷顿,文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建,周琪等译.北京:新华出版社,1999.
[35]胡潇.民间艺术的文化寻绎.武汉:湖北美术出版社,1994.
[36]斯图尔特·霍尔编.表征,徐亮,陆兴华译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[37]唐纳德·R·凯利.多面的历史,陈恒,宋立宏译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003.
[38]保罗·康纳顿.社会如何记忆,纳日碧力戈译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[39]詹姆斯·克利福德,、乔治·马尔库斯编.写文化,高丙中等译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[40]安东尼·吉登斯.民族.国家和暴力,胡宗泽、赵立涛译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[41]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果,田禾译.南京:译林出版社,2002.
[42]罗伯特·莱顿.艺术人类学,靳大成等译.北京:文化艺术出版社,1992.
[43]列维—斯特劳斯.野性的思维,李幼蒸译.商务印书馆,1987.
[44]列维-斯特劳斯.结构人类学,陆晓禾等译.北京:文化艺术出版社,1991.
[45]戴维·理查兹.差异的面纱:文化、人类学及艺术中的文化表现,如一等译,沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2003.
[46]刘志琴编.近代中国社会生活与观念变迁.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[47]刘青峰编.民族主义与中国现代化.香港:中文大学出版社,1994.
[48]刘晓真.从乡俗礼仪到民间艺术——当代山东商河鼓子秧歌文化功能的变迁与传承.中国艺术研究院硕士论文,2003年.
[49]乔治·马尔库斯等.作为文化批判的人类学,王铭铭等译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[50]马林诺夫斯基.文化论,费孝通译.北京:华夏出版社,2001.
[51]马塞尔·莫斯.礼物——古式社会中交换的形式与理由,汲晶译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[52]荣世诚.戏曲人类学初探:仪式、剧场与社群.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003.
[53]马歇尔·萨林斯.历史之岛,蓝达居、张宏明等译.上海:上海人民出版社.2003.
[54]马歇尔·萨林斯.“土著”如何思考,张宏明译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[55]马歇尔·萨林斯.文化与实践理性,赵丙祥译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[56]马歇尔·萨林斯.甜蜜与悲哀,王铭铭、胡宗泽译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000.
[57]爱德华·W·萨义德,东方学,王宇根译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.第28页.
[58]爱德华·W·萨义德.文化与帝国主义,李琨译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1993.
[59]商河县文学艺术界联合汇编.全国首届商河鼓子秧歌研讨会文集.1992.
[60]商河县志编纂委员会编.商河县志.济南出版社,1994.
[61]商河县志编纂委员会编.明清商河县志集.济南出版社,2005.
[62]山东商河县郑路镇镇志编委会.郑路镇志.1988.第53页.
[63]爱德华·W·萨义德.最后的天空之后——巴勒斯坦人的生活,金碉珏译,北京:新星出版社,2006.
[64]安东尼·史密斯.全球化时代的民族与民族主义,龚维斌、良警宇译.北京:中央编译出版社,2002.
[65]孙庆忠.近二十年来人类学汉族社会研究述评.民族研究.2005年,第2期.
[66]汤林森.文化帝国主义,冯建三译,上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
[67]维克多·特纳.仪式过程:结构与反结构,黄剑波、柳博赟译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[68]斐迪南·藤尼斯.共同体与社会,林荣远译.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[69]王建民.田野工作与艺术人类学、人类学学科建设.广西民族学院学报,2004年,第5期.
[70]王杰文.仪式、歌舞与文化展演.北京:中国传媒大学出版社,2006.
[71]王明珂.华夏边缘:历史记忆与族群认同.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.第28-56页.
[72]王明珂.羌在汉藏之间:一个华夏历史边缘的历史人类学研究.台北:联经,2003.
[73]王铭铭.社会人类学与中国研究.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第9-19页.
[74]王铭铭.走在乡土上.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[75]王铭铭.溪村家族.贵州:贵州人民出版社,2004.
[76]王铭铭、潘忠党.象征与社会.天津:天津人民出版社,1997.
[77]王铭铭、王斯福主编.乡土社会的秩序、公正与权威.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[78]王铭铭.村落视野中的文化与权力——闽台三村五论.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.第246-256页。
[79]王铭铭.失去的繁荣.杭州:浙江人民出版社年,1999.
[80]王铭铭.西方人类学思潮十讲.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005.
[81]王铭铭.想象的异邦.上海:上海人民出版社,1998.
[82]埃里克·沃尔夫.欧洲与没有历史的人民,赵丙祥等译,上海:上海世纪出 版集团,1982.
[83]伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦.沃勒斯坦精粹,黄光耀、洪霞译.南京:南京大学出版社,2003.
[84]薇思瓦纳珊编.权力、政治与文化——萨义德访谈录,单德兴译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006.
[85]萧凤霞.二十载华南研究之旅.清华社会学评论,2001,1:186.
[86]萧凤霞.传统的循环再生——小榄菊花会的文化、历史与政治经济.历史人类学学刊.2003,第1卷,第1期.
[87]于蔚泉.鼓子秧歌.北京:中国文联出版社,2005.第178-211页.
[88]张士闪.乡民艺术的文化解读.济南:山东人民出版社,2006.
[89]张小军.历史的人类学化和人类学的历史化——兼论被史学‘抢注'的历史人类学.历史人类学学刊.2003,第1卷,第1期.
[90]张浔、刘志军.山东鼓子秧歌.北京:人民音乐出版社,1983.
[91]张紫晨.中国民间小戏.杭州:浙江教育出版社,1989.
[92]张朝群.鼓子秧歌.舞蹈通讯.1982,第3期.
[93]赵世瑜.狂欢与日常.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002.
[94]赵世瑜.眼光向下的革命——中国现代民俗学思想史论.北京:北京师范大学出版社,1999.
[95]郑培凯编.口传心授与文化传承.桂林:广西师范大学出版社.2006.
[1]Appadurai,Arjun,"Theory in anthropology:Center and Periphery".Comparative Studies in Society and History.1986,29,3:356-61.
[2]Asad,Tala ed.,Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.New York:Academic Press,1973.
[3]Barnard,Alan,History and Theory in Anthropology.Cambridge:University of Cambridge Press,2000.
[4]Bell,C.,Ritual Theory,Ritual Practice.New York & Oxford:Oxford University Press,1992.
[5]Bernard,H.R.ed.Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology.California:Alta Mira Press,1998.
[6]Bourdieu,Pierre,"On Symbolic Power",Language and Symbolic Power.Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press,1981:163-170.
[7]Bucldand,Theresa J,ed.,Dance in the Field:Theory,Methods and issues in Dance Ethnography.Basingstoke:Macmillan Press Ltd,1999.
[8]Cohen,Anthony,Whalsay:Symbol,Segement and Boundary.Manchester:Manchester University Press,1987.
[9]Cohen,Bernard,The Newtonian Revolution:With Illustrations of the Transformation of Scientific Ideas.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980.
[10]Coppet,Daniel ed.,Understanding Rituals.Great Britain:Biddles Ltd,Guildford and King's Lynn,1992.
[11]Desmond,Jane C.ed.,Meaning in Motion:New Cultural Studies of Dance,Duke University Press,1997.
[12]Douglas,Mary,Purity and Danger:An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1966.
[13]Fabian,Johannes,Time and the Other:How Anthropology Makes its Object.New York:Columbia University Press,1983.
[14]Feuchtwang,Stephan,The Imperial Metaphor:Popular Religion in China,London:Routledge,1992.
[15]Foucault,Michel,The Archaeology of Knowledge.New York:Pantheon,1972.
[16]Foucault,Michel,Discipline and Punishment.New York:Pantheon,1978:29.
[17]Geertz,Clifford,The Interpretation of Cultures.New York:Basic Books,1973.
[18]Gennep,Arnold van,The Rites of Passage,trans,M.B.Vizedom and G.L.Caffee,Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,2001:39.
[19]Hanna,Judith Lynner,To Dance is Human:A Theory of Nonverbal Communication.Texas:University of Texas,1979.
[20]Hsu,Francis L.K.,Under the Ancestors' Shadow:Chinese Culture and Personality.New York:Columbia University Press,1948.
[21]Kertzer,David,Ritual,Politics,and Power.New York:Yale University Press,1988.
[22]Kuhn,Thomas,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1970.
[23]Leach,Edmund,Rethinking Anthropology.London:Arhlone,1961.
[24]Marcus,George & Myers,Fred R.ed.,The Traffic in Culture.California:University of California Press,1995.
[25]Marcus,George,& Dick,Cushman,"Ethnographies as Texts",Annual Review of Anthropology,1982,Vol.11,pp.25-69.
[26]Mueggler,Erik,The Age of Wild Ghosts:Memory,.Violence,and Place in Southwest China.Berkeley:University of California Press,2001.
[27]Napier,David,Foreign Bodies:Performance,Art,and Symbolic.Anthropology California:University of California Press,1992.
[28]Royce,Anya Peterson,The Anthropology of Dance.Hampshire:Dance Books Ltd,2002.
[29]Sahlins,Marshall,Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities.Michigan:Michigan University Press,1981.
[30]Sahlins,Marshall,"The Sadness of Sweetness:the Native Anthropology of Western Cosmology," Current Anthropology.1996,37.3:395-428.
[31]Sahlins,Marshall,Culture and Practical Reason.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1976.
[32]Sangren,Steven P.,History and Magical Power in a Chinese Community,Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
[33]Schechner,R.,The Future of Ritual:Writing on Culture and Performance,London & New York:Rutledge,1992.
[34]Siu,Helen F.,Agents and Victims in South China:Accomplices in Rural Revolution.New Haven:Yale University Press,1989.
[35]Turner,Victor,The Forest of symbols:Aspects of Ndembu Ritual.New York:Cornell University,1970.
[36]Turner,Victor,Dramas,Fields,and Metaphors:Symbolic Action in Human Society.Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1974.
[37]Turner,Victor,The Anthropology of Performance.New York:PAJ publication,1986.
[39]Wolf,Eric.,Europe and the People without History.Califomia:Califomia University Press,1982.
[40]Wolf,Arthur,ed.,Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society,Stanford:Stanford University Press,1974.
[41]Zerubavel,Eviatar,Hidden Rhythms:Schedules and Calendars in Social Life.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1981.