透過一個地方社群的派系、廟宇和國家結構的交手過程，本研究企圖理解地方社群做為主體，和做為客體的外在政治結構的協商過程，實是一個文化建構的所在。當Bourdieu以個人的實作（practice）和場域（field）的概念，來說明文化慣習（habitus）的形塑，本研究以地方社群為主體，國家政治結構為客體，闡述主體和客體之間的社群文化界線，如何提供一個緩衝空間－即本文所稱之縫隙，和既有的象徵貯存庫，讓前者得以類似手工藝式的創造手法，轉換外在的結構為地方的象徵建構，因而免除了一個政治風暴，也進行了社群自我的文化建構。本論文借用De Certeau與Paul Willis之日常生活政治相關的概念，說明在小群體或個人與外在結構相遇時，並不是簡單的文化抵抗的論述可以詮釋，而是操作或協商的過程與布局。這個操作布局的過程，是在本身的文化體系、外力的強度以及歷史契機等各種力量折衝下，主體的抉擇，並從中進行文化建構、形塑認同。因此本文也將借用Geertz的論點：模糊文類界線才得以表現地方知識形構的特殊方法論，因為文化的相遇不是機械的累積過程。也因此文化認同不可能形塑於歷史之外，歷史、政治與信仰也在這個過程中互相建構和競奪。

The authors explore the negotiating process between subject (a local community) and object (a broader political structure) through encounters among local political factions, religious beliefs, and the State. In contrast to Bourdieu's emphasis on habitus formation using the concepts of individual practices and fields, we use the concept of interstice to draw the focus on the community boundary where the subject using symbolic repertoire establishes a bricolage to transform the wider structure into a local symbolic construct. We borrow from De Certeau's "practice of everyday life" and Paul Willis's "symbolic creativity" to interpret how a subject operates in a manner that differs from the simply coined "cultural resistance". We suggest that a subject's "art of making" results from interactions among a cultural framework, larger system, and historical occasion, and that this trajectory move along in forming the community identity-that is, an unpredictable "grounded aesthetic" that bends according to historical flow. Inspired by Geertz's work on blurred genres, we adhere to a specific textual style that moves from individual perception to a broader structure.