1993年，我首次造訪中國大陸梅縣客家地區的古村。我驚訝地發現農村在改革開放之後，村民普遍失去了過往對村幹部的尊敬和信任，尤其令我深感詫異的是公社瓦解和去集體化（decollectionization）之後，農村所出現的那種紊亂現象，那種一塌糊塗得好像完全無人能撐大局的脫序現象，好像再也沒有新的地方政治權力能夠取代當年毛澤東時期公社運動所展現的地方組織力及管理力。古村不再像早期人類學者所言那般的中國南方村落了。村子裡沒有特定的世家大族足以掌控地方領導核心，沒有集體資產能做為村民的共同經濟收入，沒有地方富豪能透過貸款或壟斷控制當地的交易或農業生產，以至沒有任何長老和／或財閥能支配集體生產。那時候，村民對村中的公共事務表現得漠不關心。 1995年，我再度造訪古村時看到的卻是另一幅截然不同的景象。本是紊亂的村落變得井井有條。那些曾經嚷著事不關己的村民都顯得活躍起來，經常關注村子的發展。他們竟會興奮地告訴我，他們要成立祠堂委員會，他們要重建古村。時至今天，古村祠堂委員會的成立已成為當地社區的重要力量。在社區營造的過程中扮演了重大的角色。同時，它亦成為了村民的集體象徵。特別是跟地方政府交涉各種事務之時，它更加是村中的一股重大的政治勢力。 究竟傳統文化包括宗族、宗教、習俗等在社區發動和組織的過程中起著什麼樣的作用？村民自我認同的重構在近代中國農村地方政治裡扮演什麼樣的角色？社區發展如何借用農村的傳統文化網絡和資源呢？古村的例子對我們這群在農村搞社區發展的學者又有甚麼的啟迪和借鑑作用呢？本文將重點探討古村自發組織形成的歷程，尋索宗族、自發組織、與社區發展三者之間的關係，以及村民自發組織在中國農村基層政治的意涵。

When I first visited Ku Village in 1993, my impression was that the authorities at the village level had gradually lost the trust and respect of the villagers over the course of rural reform because the local government at village level no longer functioned properly. I was also struck by how disorganized the village had become after decollectivization, as no administrative or political body could totally replace the functions of the Mao era collective, and certainly none had taken over the duties and powers of the once formidable village organs. Unlike other villages in South China, no family in Ku had grown into a powerful group and assumed leadership. There also was no cooperatively owned property to provide a source of village income. No one controlled trade or local agricultural production through credit and commercial monopolies. No elders or wealthy kinsmen dominated communal rituals. I discovered that households worshiped their ancestors and gods individually. During my initial stay, villagers were indifferent to the public affair of the village. However, when I returned to Ku Village in 1995, I found a quite different situation: the unorganized village had become organized. Those who had been indifferent to village affairs were now concerned about the development of the village. The villagers eagerly told me about their plans to rebuild Ku Village and invited me to participate in their projects including road paving and repairing the ancestral hall. They bypassed the village government by establishing their own village organization based on kin elders and lineage. They began to reorganize themselves cooperatively according to cultural and religious principles. In these processes, Ku solidarity was formed and they identified with their common ancestors and local deities through reciprocity, warmth or filial duty. In this paper, I am going to ask: What is the relationship between traditional culture and community mobilization and organization? How to make sense of the relationship between the rebirth of local religion and the (re)formation of village identity? In the community development process, how can we make use of the local cultural network and resources? What is the implication of the (re)formation of local identity in the local politics of rural China?