本文以魯凱人的香椿產銷為例，指出文化形式的商品化過程，實 涉及國家經濟治理、資本主義範疇和在地社會文化實踐等三者，在不 同層次上辯證的相互作用及相互建構。首先，地方社會的香椿種植者 將文化形式註冊為商標，私有化和壟斷聚落共享的資產並阻礙其他居 民的近用。當商標出現仿冒時，商標擁有人訴諸法律調解。國家法律 提供了地方社會中弱勢者新的行動形式以對抗權力擁有者，而被剝奪 近用的一方繼續販賣仿冒商品以為對抗。其次，本文將文化商品區辨 為商品體和文化形式的商標，並探討各自的價值來源和萃取剩餘價值 的形式。就商品體的生產和消費而言，魯凱人的親屬建構中介了資本 主義範疇的作用，卻促成商品拜物教；另一方面，親屬道德性被用以 顛覆商品等價交換以達成去商品化的可能。就商標創造而言，擁有者 強調設計乃是個人「心」的工作而能做為貨幣的對價，可藉壟斷租金 以掩飾對他人剩餘價值的萃取。相對而言，被剝奪近用者主張商標設 計有賴祖先和個人的貢獻及文化形式的共享，來抵抗商品化的壟斷。 簡言之，文化商品的生產一方面是資本主義意識形態被個人所中介、 體驗而再現為霸權，另一方面也被地方社會的另類想像所看穿和抵抗。

Drawing on the case of the Chinese mahogany industry in a Rukai community, this paper demonstrates that the commodification of cultural form involves the simultaneous, dialectical interplay between and mutual construction of economic governance, capitalist categories, and local sociocultural practices. First, mahogany farmers appropriate the imagery of a local tutelary as a registered trademark, thereby privatizing and monopolizing communally shared assets. When trademark forgery occurs, the trademark owner appeals to the township court for legal mediation, which empowers the owner to confront the socially powerful engaged in forgery, whereas the party denied access continues making forgery to resist commodification as such. Second, I divide the constitution of a cultural commodity into two parts, commodity-object and trademark with a cultural form, and then scrutinize the composition of value and the forms of value extraction involved in each, respectively. In terms of the production and consumption of a commodityobject, Rukai constructs of kinship/relatedness mediate the workings of capitalist categories, such as wage, and further facilitate a local making of commodity fetishism. In turn, kinship morality is employed to subvert the principle of equivalence in consumption to achieve de-commodification. Indeed, the Rukai imagination of a trademark as being the product of a “work of heart” is conducive to its assuming a commodity form for exchange, which implies that the owner is able to realize the monopoly rent inherent in a trademark, while disguising the owner’s extraction of others’ potential surplus value. Conversely, the party denied access highlights both multiple (ancestral and personal) efforts to manufacture the trademark and kinship morality to defy such a commodified notion. Taken together, the production of a cultural commodity is culturally mediated, experienced, and represented as hegemony, while its ideology is counteracted by an alternative imagination.