隨著 1990年代以來平埔族群爭取文化復振及正名運動的發展，一度被認為已經消失的平埔族群再度進入公眾的視野中，但在學者及行政部門的眼中，依舊認為平埔族是已經消失的族群。針對平埔族群主觀認同與學者及行政部分客觀表徵之間的不一致，本文嘗試運用社會學家鮑曼提出的「系統∕基質」組概念作為分析工具，從主觀 ?客觀及隱?顯兩條主軸進行論述。本文主張，平埔原住民族元素依然存在於台灣文化中，但作為「客體」和作為「主體」所呈現的面貌與命運並不相同。在「系統」秩序中，平埔族群作為知識的和政治的對象被決定，是客觀表徵的對象；但作為「基質」，平埔族群的文化由族人實踐著、活生生地存續著，是其意義網絡的母體。在此，文化是一種主觀呈現。透過鮑曼這組概念，筆者將台灣文化中的平埔族群元素劃分為四大類型進行討論：（ 1）作為隱而未顯的客觀表徵元素；（ 2）作為論述對象的客觀表徵元素；（ 3）作為爭取族群集體認同的主觀呈現元素；以及（ 4）作為隱私化個人認同實踐的主觀呈現元素。最後，以這兩年發生在花蓮縣富里鄉大庄部落大滿族群內部的衝突，彰顯系統與基質衝突下的族群內部在爭取族群認同過程中面對的困境。 

According to scholars and administrations, the Plains Indigenes have lost their cultural identities and it is almost impossible to distinguish them from Taiwanese Han people. Against this dominant perspective, this article argues that the elements of the plains indigenous culture are still an organic part of Taiwanese culture. Why dominant perspective holds that the plains indigenous cultures have been disappeared for a long time? It takes a perspective of system. From the viewpoint of system, plains indigenous culture is the object of representations which has been classified within a well-defined order constructed by scientific and administrative representations. On the contrary, if we take the perspective of matrix, elements of plains indigenous culture, which submerged under Taiwanese cultures, will be living resources for the subject to spin their webs of significance, that is, their ethnic identification. For the goal of multiculturalism, it is our obligation to recognize the plains indigenous cultures that are still alive in Taiwan society and to respect the people who live their cultural matrix for identifications and recognitions.

全文連結：http://www.tisanet.org/quarterly/11-4-2.pdf