本文是一项关于“民族文化进校园”的民族志研究，旨在回答的核心问题是：各方主体如何促成“民族文化进校园”的动态与持续？此前关于“民族文化进校园”的研究主要是在静态化的视角下聚焦在其功能和价值、内容和形式以及问题与对策的讨论，缺乏对其动态性和过程性分析。本文从行动理论的视角出发来研究“民族文化进校园”，通过厘清微观层面上“民族文化进校园”中的各主体、主体的声音、行动逻辑、社会行动结构的构建，呈现其动态化和过程化的本体意涵。

基于对云南省德宏傣族景颇族自治州陇川县民族小学三个多月的田野调查，本文认为微观层面“民族文化进校园”中的主体主要有校内的校长、教师、学生和校外的管理部门、社会组织、学生家长和非物质文化遗产传承人。这些主体的行动目标和手段相异，但由于彼此之间存在相应的权力关系以及受到相同的文化情境与价值规范的指导与规约，冲突得以消解，协商成为可能，在此基础上共同构建“民族文化进校园”的社会行动结构。这一社会行动结构具有“回应需求—达成目标—建构整合—结构维系”的特征，不同于帕森斯强调结构的先在性和稳定性，这一社会行动结构的生成是行动者积极建构的产物，同时在这一过程中主体也受到一些既有社会秩序和规范的指导，且这一社会行动结构是变动不居的，其本真性呈现在其和行动者的互动实践过程中。

需要注意的是，“民族文化进校园”归根到底是要回答社区的民族传统文化如何进入学校并在学校传承的问题。对于这一问题的回答并非是简单的增加资金投入或者增加上课时间这样技术层面的话题可以替代的。“民族文化进校园”不仅是社区民族传统文化对学校教育的适应过程，也是学校教育如何规制社区传统民族文化的过程，是一个持续互动和双向调适的过程。从学校的主体视角出发来看待“民族文化进校园”，需要注意到学校教育的文化选择问题，具体表现在“民族文化为什么进入学校”、“哪些民族文化进入学校”以及“民族文化怎么进入学校”的问题。学术层面上行动者与社会行动结构在日常生活中不间断的互动实践是实践层面“民族文化进校园”动态化、过程化的内在逻辑，而学校的主体性发挥是关键性因素。

This paper is an ethnographic research on “ethnic culture into school”, which aims to answer the core question: how can all parties promote the continuity and change of the dynamic process of “ethnic culture into school”? Previous studies on “ethnic culture into school” mainly focused on its function and value, content and form, as well as the discussion of problems and countermeasures from a static perspective, lacking of dynamic and process analysis. From the perspective of action theory, this article studies the “ethnic culture into school”, and restoring its dynamic and procedural nature by presenting the subject, the subject's voice, the action logic, and the construction of the social action structure in the “ethnic culture into school” Ontological meaning.

Based on more than three months’ field work in Long Chuan County, Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan Province, this paper believes that the main subjects in the micro-level “ethnic culture into school” are principals, teachers, students, and off-campus management departments, inheritors of intangible cultural heritage, and social organizations. And the parents of students. The goals and means of action of individual actors are not the same, but due to the corresponding power relationship between them and the guidance and regulation of the same cultural context and value norms, negotiation becomes possible, and on this basis, the social action structure of “ethnic culture into school” is jointly constructed. This social action structure has the characteristics of “responding to needs—achieving goals—constructing integration—structural maintenance”. Different from Parsons' emphasis on the preexistence and stability of the structure, the formation of this social action structure is the product of the active construction of the subject actors. Meanwhile, in this process, the subject is also guided by some existing order and norms, and this social action structure is constantly changing, and its authenticity is presented in the process of its interaction with the subject actors.

It should be noted that the question of “ethnic culture into school” is to answer the question of how the ethnic traditional culture of the community enters the school and inherits in the school. The answer to this question is not to increase capital investment or increase class time, which is a technical topic that can be replaced. “ethnic culture into school” is not only a process of adaptation of community traditional culture to school education, but also a process of how school education regulates community traditional ethnic culture, which is a process of continuous interaction and two-way adjustment. From the perspective of the main body of the school, we should pay attention to the cultural choice of school education, which is embodied in “why ethnic culture should enter the school”, “what ethnic culture should be chosen to enter the school” and “how ethnic culture enter school”. That is to say, the continuous interactive practice of individual actors and social action structure in the process of daily life is the internal logic of the continuous and long-term practice of “ethnic culture into school”, and the subjectivity of the school is the key factor.