{"title":"污名与分离:苏格兰渔村的贱民地位与社区持久性","authors":"J. Nadel","doi":"10.2307/3773696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the problem of how and why a small, dependent, and stigmatized occupational community may maintain its social identity long after the material basis for its existence has disappeared. It examines the life history of Ferryden, an east coast Scottish \"fishing village\" which does not fish. It will argue that the ideology ofthe fisherfolk, who have historically been marked as a distinct and low-prestige occupational, residential, and kin-based group, has been used to redefine and preserve village unity in the face of drastic ecological change. It argues further that this means of cultural adaptation contains the seeds of its own destruction and will, in the long run, prove fatal for community identity. Studies of occupational communities in complex societies suggest a strong link between work, residence, and social image (Horobin 1957; Dennis, Henriques et al. 1969; Lummis 1977). The example of Ferryden suggests the possibility ofa consider? able lag between the ecological and the symbolic transformation ofa community's status. The dynamics of boundary-making between fisherfolk and nonfisherfolk will be placed within a context of economic and political dominance and dependency in eastern Scotland. The discussion is based upon data collected during a year of fieldwork and archival research in Ferryden and Montrose in 1975 and 1976. Villages may now have surpassed tribes as archetypal anthropological units of study. They have become our preserve in the sociological wilderness of complex societies. There is even some concern that villages, like tribal societies, might be endangered (Mead 1980). However, the term \"village\" suffers from very nearly the same epistemological ambiguity as \"tribe\" (Fried 1975). That is, everyone uses it, and few bother to define it. Villages may be large or small, isolated or enmeshed in an urban matrix. Villages may house semi-autonomous rural cultivators or industrial wage-slaves. They may be found in tribal, capitalist, or socialist economies (Halpern 1967:122-123). Often, however, it is assumed that villages share a crucial attribute which is often considered to be lacking in the urban setting: a sense of community, of emotional as well as interactional boundedness. Cohen (1982) stresses this affective component in the introduction to his edited volume on rural British communities, which he aptly titles Belonging. However, the literature on British communities also informs us that not all who live in villages \"belong\" (Fleming 1979; Strathern 1981; Elias and Scotson 1965; Jenkins et al. 1960). As Strathern (1982:249) points out, \"an unwarranted","PeriodicalId":123584,"journal":{"name":"Ethnology: An international journal of cultural and social anthropology","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stigma and separation: parian status and community persistence in a scottish fishing village\",\"authors\":\"J. Nadel\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3773696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper addresses the problem of how and why a small, dependent, and stigmatized occupational community may maintain its social identity long after the material basis for its existence has disappeared. It examines the life history of Ferryden, an east coast Scottish \\\"fishing village\\\" which does not fish. It will argue that the ideology ofthe fisherfolk, who have historically been marked as a distinct and low-prestige occupational, residential, and kin-based group, has been used to redefine and preserve village unity in the face of drastic ecological change. It argues further that this means of cultural adaptation contains the seeds of its own destruction and will, in the long run, prove fatal for community identity. Studies of occupational communities in complex societies suggest a strong link between work, residence, and social image (Horobin 1957; Dennis, Henriques et al. 1969; Lummis 1977). The example of Ferryden suggests the possibility ofa consider? able lag between the ecological and the symbolic transformation ofa community's status. The dynamics of boundary-making between fisherfolk and nonfisherfolk will be placed within a context of economic and political dominance and dependency in eastern Scotland. The discussion is based upon data collected during a year of fieldwork and archival research in Ferryden and Montrose in 1975 and 1976. Villages may now have surpassed tribes as archetypal anthropological units of study. They have become our preserve in the sociological wilderness of complex societies. There is even some concern that villages, like tribal societies, might be endangered (Mead 1980). However, the term \\\"village\\\" suffers from very nearly the same epistemological ambiguity as \\\"tribe\\\" (Fried 1975). That is, everyone uses it, and few bother to define it. Villages may be large or small, isolated or enmeshed in an urban matrix. Villages may house semi-autonomous rural cultivators or industrial wage-slaves. They may be found in tribal, capitalist, or socialist economies (Halpern 1967:122-123). Often, however, it is assumed that villages share a crucial attribute which is often considered to be lacking in the urban setting: a sense of community, of emotional as well as interactional boundedness. Cohen (1982) stresses this affective component in the introduction to his edited volume on rural British communities, which he aptly titles Belonging. However, the literature on British communities also informs us that not all who live in villages \\\"belong\\\" (Fleming 1979; Strathern 1981; Elias and Scotson 1965; Jenkins et al. 1960). As Strathern (1982:249) points out, \\\"an unwarranted\",\"PeriodicalId\":123584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethnology: An international journal of cultural and social anthropology\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1984-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethnology: An international journal of cultural and social anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3773696\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnology: An international journal of cultural and social anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3773696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
摘要
本文探讨了一个小的、依赖的、被污名化的职业群体在其存在的物质基础消失后,如何以及为什么可以长期保持其社会身份的问题。它考察了苏格兰东海岸一个不捕鱼的“渔村”费里登(Ferryden)的生活史。它将论证渔民的意识形态,他们在历史上一直被标记为一个独特的、低声望的职业、居住和以亲属为基础的群体,在面对剧烈的生态变化时,已经被用来重新定义和维护村庄的团结。它进一步认为,这种文化适应的手段包含着自身毁灭的种子,从长远来看,将证明对社区认同是致命的。对复杂社会中职业群体的研究表明,工作、居住和社会形象之间存在着密切的联系(Horobin 1957;Dennis, Henriques et al. 1969;Lummis 1977)。Ferryden的例子暗示了考虑的可能性?社区地位的生态化与符号化转型之间存在时滞。渔民和非渔民之间的边界制定动态将被置于苏格兰东部的经济和政治主导和依赖的背景下。讨论是基于1975年和1976年在Ferryden和Montrose一年的田野调查和档案研究中收集的数据。作为人类学研究的原型单位,村落现在可能已经超越了部落。它们已经成为我们在复杂社会的社会学荒野中的保护区。甚至有人担心村庄,像部落社会一样,可能会受到威胁(Mead 1980)。然而,“村庄”一词与“部落”一词在认识论上有着几乎相同的模糊性(Fried 1975)。也就是说,每个人都在使用它,很少有人费心去定义它。村庄或大或小,或孤立或交织在城市矩阵中。村庄里可能住着半自治的农民或工业雇佣奴隶。它们可以在部落经济、资本主义经济或社会主义经济中找到(Halpern 1967:122-123)。然而,人们往往认为村庄具有一种关键的特征,而这种特征通常被认为是城市环境所缺乏的:社区意识、情感和相互联系的界限。科恩(1982)在他编辑的英国农村社区卷的介绍中强调了这种情感成分,他恰当地将其命名为归属感。然而,关于英国社区的文献也告诉我们,并非所有居住在村庄的人都“属于”(Fleming 1979;斯特拉斯恩1981;Elias and Scotson 1965;Jenkins et al. 1960)。正如斯特拉森(1982:249)所指出的,“毫无根据的
Stigma and separation: parian status and community persistence in a scottish fishing village
This paper addresses the problem of how and why a small, dependent, and stigmatized occupational community may maintain its social identity long after the material basis for its existence has disappeared. It examines the life history of Ferryden, an east coast Scottish "fishing village" which does not fish. It will argue that the ideology ofthe fisherfolk, who have historically been marked as a distinct and low-prestige occupational, residential, and kin-based group, has been used to redefine and preserve village unity in the face of drastic ecological change. It argues further that this means of cultural adaptation contains the seeds of its own destruction and will, in the long run, prove fatal for community identity. Studies of occupational communities in complex societies suggest a strong link between work, residence, and social image (Horobin 1957; Dennis, Henriques et al. 1969; Lummis 1977). The example of Ferryden suggests the possibility ofa consider? able lag between the ecological and the symbolic transformation ofa community's status. The dynamics of boundary-making between fisherfolk and nonfisherfolk will be placed within a context of economic and political dominance and dependency in eastern Scotland. The discussion is based upon data collected during a year of fieldwork and archival research in Ferryden and Montrose in 1975 and 1976. Villages may now have surpassed tribes as archetypal anthropological units of study. They have become our preserve in the sociological wilderness of complex societies. There is even some concern that villages, like tribal societies, might be endangered (Mead 1980). However, the term "village" suffers from very nearly the same epistemological ambiguity as "tribe" (Fried 1975). That is, everyone uses it, and few bother to define it. Villages may be large or small, isolated or enmeshed in an urban matrix. Villages may house semi-autonomous rural cultivators or industrial wage-slaves. They may be found in tribal, capitalist, or socialist economies (Halpern 1967:122-123). Often, however, it is assumed that villages share a crucial attribute which is often considered to be lacking in the urban setting: a sense of community, of emotional as well as interactional boundedness. Cohen (1982) stresses this affective component in the introduction to his edited volume on rural British communities, which he aptly titles Belonging. However, the literature on British communities also informs us that not all who live in villages "belong" (Fleming 1979; Strathern 1981; Elias and Scotson 1965; Jenkins et al. 1960). As Strathern (1982:249) points out, "an unwarranted