「農村再生條例」於二○○八年年底通過一讀後，引發臺灣社會的關注。農村是否會因這部法令而「再生」或是「再見」，成為反對者與支持者之間論辯的一條軸線。沿著此一軸線，展開了關於「什麼是農村『再生』？」以及「農村要『再生』成什麼樣子？」的意義鬥爭。在這一場關注農村再生條例的行動中，行動者各自運用不同的方式進行著意義鬥爭，意義的鬥爭透過象徵權力的操弄而施展開來，而民間社會則透過地方紮根的方式來進行對抗。「農村再生條例」的制訂與
立法，全面引發了臺灣社會對「農」此一議題的重新關注。雖然已完成立法，但關注的行動並沒有結束，如同本文所試圖闡釋且吾人必須理解的是，國家與官方施展著象徵權力，而象徵權力作為建構論述的權力，會確立人們的認知與信仰，把現存的政治與經濟關係合理化，有助於不平等的社會關係間的再生產。因此，關注農村再生條例的行動不只是立法是否通過的鬥爭，實質上這是一場關於農村之意義的鬥爭，同時它也是意識型態的鬥爭，仍將繼續進行。

Since the Rural Regeneration Act had passed the first reading, it had
aroused the whole society paying attention on it. The debate between
opponents and supporters is on the question if the rural in Taiwan will be
revival or died. Along the axis, the struggle for the meaning of “what is
rural regeneration” and “what will it be” has spread out. In the action of
concerning the Rural Regeneration Act, agents involve in the struggle over
the meaning in different ways and it was manipulate through symbolic
power, while the civil society made confrontation through rooted in the local community.The Rural Regeneration Act had aroused the whole society to concern issues of agriculture again. Although it had been legislated, the action of concerning has not over. What the article explored and we should understand is that the power presented by the state and authority is symbolic power, which is the power of discourse construction, and it will establish our cognition and belief. Also, it will rationalize the existed relation of politics and economy, and then reproduce the unequal social relationship. Therefore,the concerning action is not merely the struggle for the legislation of Rural Regeneration Act. The struggle over the meaning and ideology of rural will still continue.