居住在中國貴州的侗族，是以平權的運作原則做爲建構社會的理想。在其歷 史發展脈絡中，侗人以非正式的老人議會做爲村寨的政治領袖，領導著沒有階層化設置的羅漢所組成的「款兵」，參與跨越村寨界線的「合款」組織之運行，形成 了具有能發揮政治、軍事與社會功能的區域聯盟機制。然而侗族社會內部事實上 存在著相當程度的差異：先來者/後來者、同姓人/外姓人、本寨/分支以及臘 卡寨/臘更寨等多元而權力位階有所差異的人群。平權與階序兩種特質似乎同時 並存於該社會中。本文主要探討侗人如何在平權的理想下容許差異、規範差異以 及行使權力運作的機制。
在政治層面上，侗人以平權做爲村寨內外運作的主要機制。在文化與意識形 態上，侗人則是以強化「差異」、彰顯「差異」來規範不同來源與性質的人群。侗 人在不同的脈絡中應用了不同的區辨原則，此種運作模式並不是如Dumont所主 張的具有社會整體樣貌的「層次」差異，而是接近於Fox (1994, 1996)及Jolly (1994)等人所提的，在不同的脈絡中的「內容」差異。他們將地緣與血緣做了明 顯的區隔，以地緣的共同性做爲展現平權社會的理想，但是在血緣關係上卻予以 相當細腻的區辨。在血緣關係的認定上，侗人透過起源傳說、人群的遷徙論述、習 慣法的誓言與條約以及身體所展演的象徵權力關係，來分類與區辨不同的人群，並 進而規範之。在人群遷徙的過程中，同屬於後來者的臘更寨與外姓人，侗人設置 了不同的「階序化」機制：被列爲不通婚對象的臘更寨，是臘卡寨的從屬村寨，臘 卡寨人以強化血緣關係的「不可逆轉性」原則來予以差異化；而在同一村寨內的 外姓人，先定居的同姓人則是以服飾、髮式、住屋、禮俗以及儀式空間的使用等 外顯化的象徵展演形式，來予以差異化與邊緣化。

The Kam people of Guizhou Province in China historically established a long tradition of egalitarian self-government without formal political institutions known as Kam kuan $X. Kuan referred not only to alliances and political meetings, but also to Kam common law. There were four levels of kuan organization: village kuan, minor kuan, middle kuan, and major kuan. At all levels’ village elders were on the top as the natural village leaders who made decisions and handled public affairs. The kuan soldiers, volunteer men aged between 16 and 36，executed various jobs (including maintaining public order and repelling intruders) under the command of the elders. However, the Kam society has not been a homogenous one. We still can see various asymmetrical and hierarchical categories of social relations in the society today: early arrivals/late arrivals, big surnames/little surnames, clan villages/segmentary villages, and marriageable/unmarriageable, etc. It seems that both the principles of egalitarianism and hierarchy exist in the society.
The paper examines how the Kam people differentiated various social relationships based on the origins, migratory narratives, oaths, written laws, and symbolism inscribed on human bodies and in their daily lives. By comparing and discussing various asymmetrical and hierarchical categories of social relations，I suggest that the Kam people highly valued the “egalitar-ian” ethos for legal and political affairs. In the context of social affairs such as marriage exchange, however, the Kam in the past established various ways of displaying hierarchy and power for controlling and regulating the marked social groups such as late arrivals, little surnames and the unmarriageable. They developed different mechanisms to differentiate and regulate the marked groups. Therefore, it is in the contexts (James Fox’s concept) rather than the levels (Dumont’s model) that the Kam people operated their concept of hierarchy.