一九三０年代臺灣基層行政的空間結構分析－－以「農事實行組合」為例

「民風作興運動」本質上就是一種「部落振興運動」，同時也是一種「國民精神總動員運動」。廣義的「民風作興運動」應該涵蓋這三個運動；就時間而言，大體橫整亙個一九二○年代。因此本研究從這個歷史架構上切入，以「民風作興運動」為經，「農事實行組合」（「組合」，相當於今日臺灣的「合作社」）為緯，試圖解析三十年代日治臺灣基層行政的空間結構。要言之，街庄役場（相當於今日的鄉鎮公所）係以「民風作興運動」為媒介，而得以整合各種農事團體以及保甲等組織，一般認為，保甲是各種農事團體的基礎地域單位。但是，仔細推敲三十年代臺灣「民風作興運動」在基層行政上所展現的空間結構，不難發現「大字」（舊街庄，大體上小於派出所轄區，而大於保甲的保單位區域）事實上與「保甲」並列為空間結構分析上的兩個基礎概念。　其次，農事實行組合的實施因地制宜，有相當程度的差異性，民風作興運動開始不久後，各州廳依含在各地，或沿著各級行政體系，或只在純粹農村地區，組成農事實行組合或農事實行小團體，以統一監督農村各種小團體。狹義的「農事實行組合」指的是法人化後的組合，但廣義的「農事實行小團體」則不以法人為限，因此包括任意組合的農事小團體。原則上，一九三七年七月中日交戰之後，部落振興會大體成為農事實行小團體的「母體」，而農事實行小團體則是部落振興會的生產部門。但是，高雄州的系統組織剛好相反，川千農村地區（換言之，市街地或漁村除外）的部落振興會，幾乎都透過度事實行組合來運作；臺中州的系統組織則採兩者並行方式。東部臺灣的運作情形雖不脫部落振興的整合原則，但實際作業相當疏落不齊。　可以肯定的是，當日本帝國自準戰走向戰爭時期之際，部落振興會也同步轉化為行政系統的末端細胞，一方面將市街左下各主要基層機構和小團禮初步加以整合，一方面也接受市役所和街庄役場的統制。細究此一結構性轉化，民風作興運動中農事實行小團體的法人化實為結構性媒介，此一轉化之所以可能乃因為農事實行組合是一個以「大字」或「保」「以下單位」為基礎的地域組織，而這個地域組織的實踐必須落實到「部落」這個概念。換言之，農事實行小團體的地域單位是「部落」，而「部落」這個概念本質上就是一個「社會生活單位」－－不單指稱「生產區域單位」，同時也意指「基層行政單位」。

The 1936 Movement to Remake Folk Customs (Minfu Sakko Undo) in Taiwan laid the foundation for the Movement for the General Spiritual Mobilization of All Japanese (Kokumin Seishin Sodoin Undo), launched empire-wide in 1938. A key to understanding the nature of the Movement to Remake Folk Customs is through the spatial analysis of Agricultural Implementation Associations (Nogyo jikko kumiai), which involve both cooperate persons (if defined strictly)and individuals (if broadly defined). It is commonly assumed that the buraku shinkokai (Sub-Village Revival Associations) were organized along the lines of the hook. While this observation remains largely valid, a closer look at the 1936 Movement to Remake Folk Customs reveals, however, that the picture was somewhat more complex. Briefly, oaza (sub-village zones), along with hook, were two key concepts for conceptualizing the spatial structure of the sub-village level administration in rural Taiwan during the latter part (1920-1945) of the Japanese colonial rule0depending on regional variations. In principle, the 1936 Movement to Remake Folk Customs in Taiwan was organized –as were many other movements within the Japanese empire-along the administrative hierarchy. Thus, each prefecture had a prefectural association (shu minfu sakkokai), each county a county association (gun minfusakkokai), each township or village a matching association (gai or shu sakkokai), and each oaza or hook (pao-chia) unit a buraku shinkokai. Similarly, the implementation of the Movement to Remake Folk Customs varied in accordance with locality. As soon as the Movement to Remake Folk Customs was launched, various agricultural groups in most prefectures were soon brought under the unified supervision of Agricultural Implementaion Associations, most of which were newly created. T he primary goal of Agricultural Implementation Associations was to revive Taiwan's economy, and in doing so they were to be guided by Associations to Remake Fold Customs (minfu sakkoai) along the lines of the administration. Where the sub-village level organization of Agricultural implementation Association (rather than the buraku shindokokai) that acted as the cell units for the Movement. The case of Taichu (Taichung) Prefecure, it seems, was a result of compromise, and implementation in eastern Taiwan was loosely observed. To Ro I argue the buraku shinkokai was created partially to reinforce –not replace– the coordination of existing local groups' the police administration in transportation, social order, and sanitation remained the responsibility of the hook. In this way, the Movement to Remake Folk Customs was designed mainly to improve local 'enlightenment,' despite the fact that the range of the movement was intended to be all-inclusive. Finally, the examination of two crucial geo-administrative units, hook (pao-chia in Chinese) and oaza, begins to explore the question of how a buraku should be defined.