本研究透過文獻分析法、參與觀察法、深度訪談，嘗試理解目前以文化經濟作為治理與地方發展的臺北客家義民嘉年華中，如何進行客家認同的打造，並與1980年代他者建構的客家認同有何不同。而本文理論視角強調該族群節慶如何透過文化經濟模式，進行治理、地方發展，與客家認同的建構。 研究分析指出以下四點：第一、藉由行動者間的治理關係分析，第三部門的行動者在對公部門與私部門具有曖昧的關係，從中顯示了資源的進入與領導權的爭奪，造成關係的質變；第二、透過Ray文化經濟四模式分析地方發展模式，文化展演將臺北客家義民嘉年華展現客家為兼容的「多元」文化、「殊異」於現代都會的文化慶典，成為擴大非客家族群參與的策略；第三、本研究特殊在於，透過區分對內部行動者與對外非客家族群，不同對象的地方認同上具有不同的指涉與操演。如內部行動者涉及原鄉與臺北的地方認同，而對非客家族群，則是將臺北形塑為「多元族群融合」的地方，以啟動其地方認同；第四、在這樣地方認同的操演機制下，透過節慶，乃是建構義民爺代表的忠勇精神作為客家精神與文化傳承的族群形象。 / By conducting document analysis, participant observation, and in-depth interviews, this thesis focuses on the context where cultural economy serves as governance and local development. This study analyes the formation of Hakka identity in the cultural economy of Taipei Hakka Yimin Festival which is different from that in 1980s. The main findings of this thesis center on the following: Firstly, from the perspective of “governance”, due to resources and competition for leadership, the relationships among third sector, public sector, private sector are ambiguous. Secondly, using the four models of cultural economy from Ray to analyze local development, this study identifies that cultural performance is used to construct Taipei Hakka Yimin Festival as a multi-culture which shows compatible of Hakka culture and a festival which is distinct from modern city. And using these features to attract participation of non-Hakka. Thirdly, through distinguishing insider of actors and outsider of non-Hakka, there have different place identity logic to different target. To insider, place identity refers to hometown and Taipei place identity. To outsider, by constructing Taipei as a multi ethnic city is a way to active place identity. Lastly, in demonstration of place identity, the festival is used to build an ethic image which implies the spirit of Yimin as brave and loyalty are seen as Hakka spirit and cultural heritage.

對於俄羅斯與烏克蘭而言，由於兩國之間長久以來極為密切的歷史與文化關係，因此始終難以接受蘇聯瓦解之事實。迄今，許多俄羅斯人依然視基輔為羅斯民族之出生地，且不認為烏克蘭是一個主權獨立的國家。更確切的說，俄羅斯人認為基輔羅斯乃是導引東正教與俄語進入俄國之發祥地。儘管俄烏之間具有不可割捨的兄弟之情，但當兩個民族或想像共同體對於其彼此疆界、文化等存有歧見時，則仍無法避免各種紛至沓來的紛爭問題。就克里米亞之黑海艦隊為例，顯示俄烏對於塞瓦斯托波爾城之想像共同體的重疊。同時，亦攸關俄烏兩國對於領土與心理疆界，產生必須且窘困的界定過程。 克里米亞半島素有黑海”鑰匙”之稱，不但是烏克蘭通往世界之大門，亦是各國經黑海進入東歐和亞洲的良港。由於其戰略位置之重要性，致使各種不同的政治勢必，紛紛介入克里米亞半島領土歸屬問題。蘇聯崩解後，克里米亞半島動盪不安的情勢，已造成黑海地區俄羅斯與烏克蘭雙邊關係之威脅，並儼然形成如同納戈爾諾－卡拉巴赫或阿布卡齊亞緊張衝突之溫床。克里米亞在蘇聯繼承國家之中，雖然尚不足以列入族裔衝突之範疇。但隨著反對國家之間領土紛爭的自決主張之聲浪，及自蘇聯時期懸而未決的軍事政治問題遺緒之情況下。致使克里米亞問題，成為俄烏兩國與國際緊張關係之焦點。 簡言之，克里米亞問題之根源在於其地區的人口分佈與地緣政治歷史。一九四四年，史達林以串通納粹敵國之罪名，將所有克里米亞韃靼人（約二十萬人）集體驅逐遷往中亞地區。截至一九八Ｏ年代末期，在近五十年漫長歲月中，克里米亞韃靼人不但其基本文化權及族群認同遭到否決，甚至於在蘇聯的人口統計資料中，未曾出現克里米亞韃靼人。蘇聯瓦解後，克里米亞始終受到兩方面重疊勢力的控制：其一、克里米亞共和國當局，與要求承認其歷史及領土權利的克里米亞韃靼人；其二、尋求獨立並要求回歸俄羅斯的克里米亞共和國親俄領導人士，及反對克里米亞分離主義之烏克蘭當局。這些勢力圍繞著一個相同的基本政治問題：誰擁有克里米亞半島之主權？就目前情勢而論，克里米亞韃靼積極份子要求承認其國家地位；然而，克里米亞境內及外在的敵對勢力，則頗不以為然。無庸置疑，歷史爭論與目前克里米亞的情勢發展，實乃息息相關。 / For Russians and Ukrainians, the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been particularly difficult due to the extremely close historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Many Russians still view Kyiv as the birthplace of their nation（Rus’）and do not conceive of Ukraine as an independent country. Rather, they think of it as Kievan Rus’, the land that brought the Orthodox Christian religion and the Russian language to Russia. As relations between Russia and Ukraine reveal, however, problems can arise when two imagined communities, or nations, disagree over the boundaries（cultural or otherwise） that distinguish them. In the case of the Black Sea Fleet dispute, the imagined communities of Russia and Ukraine overlap at Sevastopol. Throughout Crimea’s complicated history, the peninsula’s strategic location on the Black Sea has made it a desirable military outpost and warm-water port, leading to territorial claims by a great variety of political forces. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the unstable situation in Crimea has threatened to turn the Black Sea region of Russia and Ukraine into a hotbed of tension similar to Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia. While the Crimea still cannot be listed among the numerous areas of violent ethno-political conflict in the Soviet successor states, it has recently become a focus of domestic and international tension, with conflicting self-determination claims voiced against a background of interstate territorial disputes and an unsettled legacy of military-political issues from the Soviet period. Simply put, the conflict over Crimea has its roots in the region’s demographic and geopolitical history. In 1944, accused of collaboration with the Nazi invaders, the entire Crimean Tatar population（by then some 200,000） was deported, mostly to Central Asia. For over forty years, Crimean Tatars were denied basic cultural rights and even an ethic identity; until the 1980s, Crimean Tatars never appeared in Soviet population statistics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea has been the object of two overlapping rivalries for control: first between the Crimean Republic authorities and the Crimean Tatars, who demand recognition of their historic and territorial rights to the peninsula; and second between pro-Russian leaders of the Crimean Republic, who want either independence or reunification of the peninsula with Russia, and the Ukrainian authorities, who oppose Crimean separatism and insist that Crimea remain an integral part of Ukraine. These movements revolve around the same basic political question: who has sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula? Presently, Crimean Tatar activists regard the Crimean ASSR as a recognition of Crimean Tatar statehood, while their opponents in the Crimea and beyond are convinced that the autonomous formation was purely administrative. The historical controversy is, of course, highly relevant to the present situation in the Crimea.

Orientador: Guilhermo Raul Ruben / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-10T10:54:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mocellin_MariaClara_D.pdf: 1410676 bytes, checksum: a59828769a2004061e567637378842a9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / Resumo: Esta tese trata de um processo de valorização e afirmação de identidade étnica, em Caxias do Sul e região, sobretudo durante as décadas de 1970 e 80, tendo como agentes culturais empresários e intelectuais ligados aos campos empresarial, acadêmico e cultural, dentre outros. A partir da descrição de trajetórias de intelectuais e empresários, a tese identifica a modernização da economia regional e, no mesmo período, a valorização da italianidade. Para demonstrar tal processo de valorização, a tese apresenta a constituição de um campo específico de conhecimento, que versa sobre a temática da imigração italiana, e também a atuação conjunta de empresários e intelectuais nas políticas culturais e de desenvolvimento regional. Empresários e intelectuais são considerados, neste trabalho, importantes agentes culturais que produziram diferentes representações da italianidade. Tais agentes se configuravam em grupos de interesse que desenvolveram ações culturais voltadas à promoção de um grupo étnico. Nesta tese, objetiva-se demonstrar que as ações, produções e simbologias que envolveram tal processo identitário, também podem ser explicadas pelos sentimentos de identificação e de pertencimento grupal / Abstract: This thesis is about the process of valorization and affirmation of an ethnic identity in the region of Caxias do Sul, Brazil, mainly in the decades of 1970¿s and 1980¿s. The agents of this process are entrepeneurs and intellectuals connected to the entrepeneurial, academic, and cultural fields, among others. Using the description of the intellectuals and entrepeneurs¿ life trajectories, this thesis identifies both the modernization of the region¿s economy and the valorization of the culture of the Italian immigrants¿ descendents. To demonstrate such valorization process, this thesis presents the constitution of a specific field of knowledge, which is about immigration and the role of the entrepeneurs and intellectuals in the politics of culture and development of the region. In this study, entrepeneurs and intellectuals are considered important cultural agents, who produced different representations of the Italian identity. Such agents configured interest groups, which developed cultural actions, whose aim was the promotion of their specific ethnic group. This thesis¿ goal is to demonstrate that the action, production and symbolism involved in this identity process can be explained by the identification with, and sense of belonging to, an ethnic grou / Doutorado / Ciencias Sociais / Doutor em Ciências Sociais