國家圖書館 期刊文獻資訊網

連結國家圖書館 連結期刊文獻資訊網

臺灣期刊論文索引

摘要

本篇出處 思與言 39:2 民90.06 頁89-164
篇名 中國民族主義.帝國主義.臺灣獨立運動--評三本90年代中國出版的「臺獨研究」專書
作者 許維德
中文摘要        透過三本90年代中國出版的「臺獨研究」專書,本篇論文企圖對中國學者一向用來分析理解臺獨運動的「帝國主義論」-認為臺獨勢力的形成是戰後以美國為首的外國勢力干涉中國內政的產物-做一番探討與批判。 事實上,這些作用用以分析臺獨運動的「帝國主義論」和他們心目中對民族主義的認識是息息相關的。從1920年孫文倡議「中華民族」的概念以來,做為歷史發展上比較「晚近」的中國民族主義,其本身至少混雜了中國傳統的「文化主義」民族觀、孫文式的「疆域主義」民族觀、以及史達林式的「客觀主義」民族觀等三種論述來源。正是這三種論述來源的混合,造成了這些中國學者的民族觀具有強烈的「本質主義」傾向,動輒以命定式的血緣主義來理解中國民族的意義。也正由於這種暗藏這種「本質主義」式的民族觀,這些學者雖然援引帝國主義論來皆析臺獨運動,卻只是隨意地使用「帝國主義」這個詞彙,並未從學理的角度來嚴肅對待這個詞彙的意義。 我對中國學者的這個「帝國主義論」有下點批評。第一,在概念上,對中國學者而言,「外國」以及「帝國主義」之間,似乎隨時隨地都可以劃上等號,並不需要做任何進一步理論上的推演。第二,這種架構忽略了任何社會運動產生的內在脈絡。第三,這個分析架構也完全忽略了「行動者」在社會結構中的能動性。第四,這個帝國主義論的論述架構為特定政治立場服務的色彩過於明顯。
英文摘要   Based on three books conducted by Chinese scholars regarding the Taiwan Independence Movement (TIM), this paper tries to criticality examine the so-called "imperialism,"-- the thesis adopted by most, if not all, Chinese scholars while analyzing the issue relevant to TIM. According to this thesis, the origin and development of the postwar TIM is conceived as the product caused by foreign power, which is led by the United States, for the purpose of interfering Chinese domestic politics. This paper argues that we have to explore these Chinese scholars' notion of nationalism for comprehending their rationale of adopting the imperialism as the framework for analyzing the TIM. Since the concept of Chinese nation was invented by Dr. Sun in 1920, as the "late comer" in history, Chinese nationalism articulates at least three different discursive sources: the "culturalism" derived from the Chinese tradition, the "territorialism" proposed by Dr. Sun, and the "objectivism" imposed from Stalin's definition of nation. Partly due to the combination of these discursive sources, these Chinese scholars tend to treat nation as essentially "primordial given," meaning some underlying and fundamental set of ascriptive characteristics. Accordingly, although adopting the framework of imperialism for analyzing the TIM, they tend to conventionally use the word "imperialism" and never try to elaborate the meaning of this vocabulary seriously. I have four comments about the notion of imperialism suggested by these Chinese scholars. First of all, this framework does not make differences between "foreign countries" and "imperialism" conceptually. Since everything related to foreign countries is seen as the conspiracy of imperialism, it does not necessary to develop a "real" theory of imperialism at all. Second, this framework ignores the significance of "domestic context" for understanding the emergence of any social movement. Third, while emphasizing too much on the "structure," this framework does not pay attention to the possible contribution made by "actor" for changing the status quo. Finally, it is obvious that this framework is connected with some specific political purpose.