How does the collective identification of indigenous peoples who span contemporary state borders align with and diverge from those borders? This article analyzes how the Mam, an indigenous people divided by the Guatemala-Mexico border, identify collectively. We further existing sociological literature on collective identity “boundary work” by demonstrating how it is shaped by spatial, and not just symbolic, boundaries. Mam individuals and organizations define symbolic boundaries that sustain political-administrative borders (such as municipal divisions within Guatemala and Guatemala’s border with Mexico) in some cases and conflict with them in others. We suggest that state borders and collective identification boundaries become incongruous and contested as social contexts shift and conclude that the symbolic struggle of how to identify as a collectivity has material, and potentially spatial, consequences. K E Y W O R D S : boundary work; collective identities; indigenous peoples; Mam; cross-border nations. Social scientists frequently tie societies, cultures, and nations to specific states, failing to articulate conflicting boundaries between some nations and states (Gupta and Ferguson 1992; Lamont and Moln ar 2002; Rosaldo 1989). In fact, many indigenous nations are fragmented—geographically, socially, culturally, and politically—by state borders. Indeed, conceptualizing peoples as nations bounded within state borders is especially problematic for indigenous nations that span state borders (such as the Mapuche across the Chile-Argentina border, the Tohono O’odham across the MexicoU.S. border, and the Maya-Mam across the Guatemala-Mexico border). These peoples can be characterized as “cross-border nations” (Warren 2013). Struggles to gain recognition as cross-border nations do not typically involve a demand for statehood. Rather, they entail seeking collective rights such as territory and self-determination, consultation and informed consent (on the part of governments from both countries) about projects that will impact their territory and the natural resources therein, and the ability to develop and maintain This research was partially supported by grants from The Latin American and Caribbean Studies Institute and The Graduate School at The University of Georgia. The authors thank the participants, the leaders of Mam councils in Guatemala and Mexico, A ıda Hern andez, and Ajb’ee Jiménez for helping make this research possible. The authors also thank Pablo Lapegna, Rebecca Hanson, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on previous drafts. Direct correspondence to: Jeffrey Gardner, Department of Sociology, The University of Georgia, 401 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: gardnerj@uga.edu. VC The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 439 Social Problems, 2017, 64, 439–455 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spw047 Advance Access Publication Date: 28 February 2017 Article Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/64/3/439/3058567 by Sam Houston State University user on 02 April 2018 relationships across the border for cultural, political, economic, or social purposes (United Nations 2008). How do state borders, as well as forms of collective identification that emerge in relation to them, impede or facilitate the collective rights of cross-border nations? Addressing this question calls for understanding how the boundary work entailed by processes of collective identification occurs in relation to constructed spatial boundaries, rather than merely symbolic or metaphorical ones. To take on this task, we bridge sociological literature on collective identification and the interdisciplinary literature on indigenous peoples. The literature on indigenous peoples helps us understand that collective identification is spatially rooted in ancestral territories (Basso 1996; Silko 1981). But this work frequently treats collective identity as a given, failing to account for how the indigenous actively construct the boundaries of their collective identification. In contrast, the sociological literature helps us understand that all collectivities create, modify, and maintain symbolic boundaries to define who is and is not part of the collective (Nippert-Eng 2002; Owens, Robinson, and Smith-Lovin 2010). Indeed, social networks continually shape identification (Stryker 2008). However, unlike the literature on indigenous peoples, sociologists rarely address how place, space, and scale shape identification. By addressing ongoing efforts to construct and gain recognition for cross-border indigenous nations through a perspective that bridges these two literatures, we demonstrate that while historical political-administrative borders may constrict indigenous peoples’ collective imaginings, some forms of collective identification can challenge those political-administrative divisions. We do not wish to reify political-administrative borders, however. We recognize that these borders are products of sociopolitical and historical processes involving the construction of symbolic boundaries around notions of “us” and “them.” Nonetheless, the geopolitical character of these borders has important material effects on how people carry out their everyday lives and identify collectively. By integrating the spatial and the symbolic in our analysis, we show how they are, in fact, coconstituting. We examine the relationship between state borders and collective identification through the case of the Maya-Mam, an indigenous people divided by the contemporary Guatemala-Mexico border. Part of a larger project addressing both sides of the border, we focus here on the Guatemalan side. Specifically, we ask: how does Mam collective identification in Guatemala align with and diverge from the state’s political-administrative borders? And how do these alignments and divergences hinder or facilitate Mam rights as a cross-border nation? Our theoretical contribution lies in pointing out that boundary work is not just symbolic, but is often contextually shaped by physical borders or other geographical places. The case of the Mam demonstrates that existing political-administrative borders may facilitate or restrict particular imaginings of the collective. But it also shows that the symbolic struggle involved in defining the boundaries of collectivity has material significance linked to indigenous rights. This symbolic struggle may have spatial consequences as well, since it involves notions of territorial belonging that transcend the segmentation of geographical space produced by state borders. As Nancy A. Naples and Jennifer Bickham Mendez (2015) point out, spatial borders and other geographical places frequently become important objects of contestation in the symbolic struggle about how to define the boundaries of collectivity. They, therefore, merit careful consideration in scholarly work trying to make sense of collective identification. In what follows, we first provide some background on the history of the Guatemala-Mexico border about the Mam. Then we review the interdisciplinary literature on indigenous collective identification in Latin America and Guatemala in particular, as well as sociological scholarship on collective identity boundary work. We explain how bridging these literatures highlights the limitations of sociological perspectives that view boundaries as metaphorical or symbolic alone. We then describe our methods. Next, we turn to our findings, first showing how political-administrative borders constrict Mam collective identification. We argue that the state has been effective in promoting forms of identification that impede the construction of the cross-border nation. Often Mam individuals identify in ways that do not recognize the cross-border character of their people, restricting their understandings of collectivity to the boundaries enforced by the state. Nevertheless, considering not only how nationhood 440 Gardner and Richards Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/64/3/439/3058567 by Sam Houston State University user on 02 April 2018 is imposed by the state (from the center outward), but also “the role of local communities and social groups in shaping their own national identities” (Sahlins 1989:8), in a second findings section we show that narratives of Mam collective identification shift depending on context. We show that Mam individuals weave in and out of different scalar narratives, denaturalizing state borders in the process. We also show that Mam organizations promote acknowledgment of the incongruity of these symbolic and spatial boundaries and signal the Guatemala-Mexico border as a site of contestation. In the conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for efforts to establish the rights of cross-border indigenous nations and call for greater attention to spatial issues among sociologists studying collective identity. T H E M A M A N D T H E G U A T E M A L A M E X I C O B O R D E R Ancestral Mam territory encompasses part of western Guatemala (in the regional departments of Quetzaltenango, Retalhuleu, San Marcos, and Huehuetenango) and part of the border state of Chiapas, Mexico. But the Guatemala-Mexico border itself has shifted over time. Chiapas was part of what was known as the “Kingdom of Guatemala” from the middle of the sixteenth century until 1821, the year both countries achieved independence from Spain (De Vos 1994). For a brief period in the late 1830s, several western Guatemalan departments and Chiapas together seceded and declared themselves to be Los Altos, the sixth state in the Federal Republic of Central America. With the collapse of this short-lived federation at the beginning of 1840, Guatemalan leaders continued to demand Chiapas’ return from Mexico (De Vos 1994). After decades of ter

中文翻译：

---

边界工作的空间性：政治行政边界和玛雅人集体认同

跨越当代国家边界的土著人民的集体认同如何与这些边界保持一致和不同？本文分析了被危地马拉和墨西哥边界分割的土著人 Mam 如何集体认同。我们通过展示空间边界而不仅仅是象征性边界如何塑造集体身份“边界工作”，进一步推进现有的关于集体身份“边界工作”的社会学文献。Mam 个人和组织定义了象征性的边界，在某些情况下维持政治行政边界（例如危地马拉境内的市政部门和危地马拉与墨西哥的边界），而在其他情况下与这些边界发生冲突。我们认为，随着社会环境的转变，国家边界和集体认同边界变得不协调和有争议，并得出结论，如何将集体认同视为集体的象征性斗争具有物质和潜在的空间后果。关键词：边界工作；集体身份；本土居民; 妈妈；跨界国家。社会科学家经常将社会、文化和国家与特定国家联系起来，未能阐明某些国家和国家之间的冲突边界（Gupta 和 Ferguson 1992；Lamont 和 Moln ar 2002；Rosaldo 1989）。事实上，许多土著民族在地理、社会、文化和政治上都因国家边界而支离破碎。确实，对于跨越国家边界的土著民族（例如跨越智利-阿根廷边界的马普切人、跨越墨西哥美国边界的 Tohono O'odham 以及跨越美国边界的玛雅-玛姆人），将民族概念化为国家边界内的民族尤其成问题。危地马拉-墨西哥边境）。这些民族可以被描述为“跨境国家”（Warren 2013）。争取作为跨境国家获得认可的努力通常不涉及对建国的要求。相反，它们需要就将影响其领土及其自然资源的项目寻求集体权利，例如领土和自决权、协商和知情同意（在两国政府方面），以及开发和维护的能力 这项研究得到了拉丁美洲和加勒比研究所和佐治亚大学研究生院的部分资助。作者感谢参与者、危地马拉和墨西哥 Mam 委员会的领导人 A ıda Hern andez 和 Ajb'ee Jiménez 帮助使这项研究成为可能。作者还感谢 Pablo Lapegna、Rebecca Hanson 和匿名审稿人对先前草稿的深刻评论。直接通信至：Jeffrey Gardner，佐治亚大学社会学系，401 Baldwin Hall，Athens，GA 30602。电子邮件：gardnerj@uga.edu。VC The Author 2017. 牛津大学出版社代表社会问题研究学会出版。版权所有。如需权限，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup。com 439 Social Problems, 2017, 64, 439–455 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spw047 Advance Access 出版日期：2017 年 2 月 28 日文章下载自 https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/64/3/ 439/3058567 由 Sam Houston State University 用户于 2018 年 4 月 2 日提出，出于文化、政治、经济或社会目的（联合国 2008 年）。国家边界以及与之相关的集体认同形式如何阻碍或促进跨境国家的集体权利？解决这个问题需要理解集体认同过程所带来的边界工作如何与构建的空间边界相关，而不仅仅是象征性或隐喻性的边界。为了承担这个任务，我们将关于集体认同的社会学文献与关于土著人民的跨学科文献联系起来。关于土著人民的文献帮助我们理解集体认同在空间上植根于祖先领土（Basso 1996；Silko 1981）。但这项工作经常将集体认同视为既定的，未能说明土著如何积极构建集体认同的边界。相比之下，社会学文献帮助我们理解，所有集体都创造、修改和维护符号边界来定义谁是集体的一部分，谁不是集体的一部分（Nippert-Eng 2002；Owens、Robinson 和 Smith-Lovin 2010）。事实上，社交网络不断塑造身份认同（Stryker 2008）。然而，与关于土著人民的文献不同，社会学家很少讨论地点、空间和尺度如何塑造识别。通过将这两种文献联系起来的视角来解决为跨境土著民族构建和获得认可的持续努力，我们证明虽然历史政治行政边界可能会限制土著人民的集体想象，但某些形式的集体认同可以挑战那些政治-行政区划。然而，我们不希望将政治行政边界具体化。我们认识到，这些边界是社会政治和历史进程的产物，涉及围绕“我们”和“他们”的概念构建象征性边界。尽管如此，这些边界的地缘政治特征对人们如何进行日常生活和集体认同具有重要的物质影响。通过在我们的分析中整合空间和象征，我们展示了它们实际上是如何协同构成的。我们通过玛雅-玛姆（Maya-Mam）的案例来研究国家边界与集体认同之间的关系，玛雅-玛姆是一个被当代危地马拉-墨西哥边界分割的土著民族。作为针对边界两侧的更大项目的一部分，我们在此关注危地马拉一侧。具体来说，我们要问：危地马拉的 Mam 集体认同如何与国家的政治行政边界保持一致和不同？作为一个跨境国家，这些对齐和分歧如何阻碍或促进妈妈的权利？我们的理论贡献在于指出边界工作不仅是象征性的，而且经常受到物理边界或其他地理位置的影响。Mam 的案例表明，现有的政治行政边界可能会促进或限制集体的特定想象。但这也表明，界定集体边界所涉及的象征性斗争具有与土著权利相关的物质意义。这种象征性的斗争也可能产生空间后果，因为它涉及超越由国家边界产生的地理空间分割的领土归属概念。正如 Nancy A. Naples 和 Jennifer Bickham Mendez (2015) 指出的那样，在如何界定集体边界的象征性斗争中，空间边界和其他地理场所经常成为争论的重要对象。因此，在试图理解集体认同的学术工作中，它们值得仔细考虑。在下文中，我们首先提供有关危地马拉-墨西哥边境关于 Mam 的历史的一些背景。然后我们回顾了拉丁美洲和危地马拉土著集体认同的跨学科文献，以及关于集体认同边界工作的社会学学术研究。我们解释了桥接这些文献如何突出社会学观点的局限性，这些观点将边界单独视为隐喻或象征。然后我们描述我们的方法。接下来，我们转向我们的发现，首先展示政治行政边界如何限制妈妈的集体认同。我们认为，国家在促进阻碍跨境国家建设的认同形式方面一直是有效的。Mam 个体通常以不承认其人民的跨境特征的方式进行识别，将他们对集体的理解限制在国家强制执行的边界内。尽管如此，不仅考虑到 2018 年 4 月 2 日山姆休斯顿州立大学用户从 https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/64/3/439/3058567 下载的国家地位 440 Gardner 和 Richards国家（从中心向外），以及“当地社区和社会团体在塑造他们自己的民族认同方面的作用”（Sahlins 1989:8），在第二个发现部分，我们展示了妈妈集体认同的叙述根据上下文而变化. 我们展示了 Mam 个体在不同的标量叙事中进进出出，在这个过程中使国家边界变得自然。我们还表明，Mam 组织促进承认这些象征性和空间边界的不协调性，并将危地马拉-墨西哥边界标记为争论的场所。最后，我们讨论了这些发现对建立跨境土著民族权利的努力的影响，并呼吁研究集体认同的社会学家更加关注空间问题。THEMAMANDTHEGUATEMALA 墨西哥边境祖玛姆领土包括危地马拉西部的一部分（在克萨尔特南戈、雷塔胡勒、圣马科斯和韦韦特南戈等地区）和墨西哥恰帕斯州的一部分。但危地马拉-墨西哥边界本身随着时间的推移而发生了变化。从 16 世纪中叶到 1821 年，恰帕斯是被称为“危地马拉王国”的一部分，这一年两国从西班牙独立（De Vos 1994）。在 1830 年代后期的短暂时期内，危地马拉西部的几个省和恰帕斯州一起脱离并宣布自己为中美洲联邦共和国的第六个州洛斯阿尔托斯。随着这个短暂的联邦于 1840 年初崩溃，危地马拉领导人继续要求恰帕斯从墨西哥返回（De Vos 1994）。经过几十年 中美洲联邦共和国的第六个州。随着这个短暂的联邦于 1840 年初崩溃，危地马拉领导人继续要求恰帕斯从墨西哥返回（De Vos 1994）。经过几十年 中美洲联邦共和国的第六个州。随着这个短暂的联邦于 1840 年初崩溃，危地马拉领导人继续要求恰帕斯从墨西哥返回（De Vos 1994）。经过几十年