近10年以来，西方学术界有种观点：在上世纪50至70年代末的民族识别中，“国家在制度层面垄断了分配族群符号的权力”，当年的民族识别“也造成了在实践意义上国家对族群分类的事实垄断”。然而，在当年被识别的白马人居住的草河坝，族群符号分配的国家话语却无法主导草根社会对族群符号的实际分配过程，而且国家分配的族群符号（白马藏族）与草根叙事之间存在着事实上的张力。%Over the past 10 years,there is a kind of Western academics view:National recognition in the 1950s to the late 1970s,“the state in the system level monopolized of the power of distributing ethnic symbols”;national recognition of the year“also resulted in the fact that the state monopoly of ethnic classification in the practical sense”. However,in the identified Caoheba living in Baima people in the year, National discourse assigned ethnic symbols can not lead the actual distribution process that grassroots community is Corre-sponding to ethnic symbols,Moreover,there is the existing actual tension between ethnic symbols of national distribution (Baima Ti-betan) and the grassroots narrative .
展开▼
