民族想像、族群意識與歷史－－「認識臺灣」教科書爭議風波的內容與脈絡分析

N ational Irnagination, Ethnic Consciousness, and History: Content and Context Analyses of the 'Getting to Know Taiwan' Textbook Disputes

本文主要目的，在透過分析一九九七年間《認識臺灣》教科書爭議風波中，爭議內容與發生的社會脈絡，探討臺灣目前民族想像與族群意識之間的糾葛關係。本文指出，《認識臺灣》的爭議，主要的意義在於不同史觀的提出及爭奪進入代表國家歷史詮釋立場的教科書中；而這樣的爭議必須放置到「中國意識」與「臺灣意識」之間長期對抗脈絡中，才能夠理解其發生時機及具體爭議內容。本文解釋了爭議風波中三個主要歷史內容爭議點（「反中」、「親日」、「反李登輝」），是如何在長期民族想像對抗中被拉在一起，以及為何在一九九○年代族群政治競爭脈絡中出現。這兩種不同民族想像目前主要爭議，在於對臺灣「未來」走向（統獨立場）與對「過去」（臺灣與中國的關係及日本統治的定位）之詮釋。對於未來的期望影響到對於過去的選擇與呈現，使得複雜的歷史被壓縮為簡單的符號及立場，使得這樣的爭議難以解決。更重要的是，臺灣民族想像族群基礎，使得這些歷史詮釋爭議，回過頭來重塑及增強了族群分類意識。就族群的意涵來說，一般民眾參與這些爭議的文化心理基礎是，擔心自己族群的文化與集體記憶不被尊重或甚至被抹消，也就是擔心自己族群的滅絕。

This paper discusses the interplay of national imagination and ethnic consciousness in contemporary Taiwan by analyzing the content and the context of the disputes surrounding junior high school textbooks entitled 'Getting to Know Taiwan' in 1997. The author points out that the disputes over the textbooks were a result of different historical visions competing for access to textbooks as a symbol of official recognition. The timing and the focus of the disputes can only be explained in the context of a long-term struggle between the camps of Chinese consciousness and Taiwanese consciousness over that past five decades. The tow sets of competing national imagination in Taiwan diverge in their vision of Taiwan's future (to unify with Mainland China or have Taiwan independence) and their interpretation of Taiwan's past (especially Taiwan's historical relations with Mainland China and the legacy of Japanese colonial rule). The paper explains how the three major focuses of disputes were brought together along the long struggle between national imaginations and their immediate contexts in the rise of ethnic politics in the 1990s. However, as the selection and the presentation of the past is greatly influenced by the vision of the future, complex historical facts were compressed into simple symbols and positions to justify visions of the future, which makes the dispute over history difficult to settle. Furthermore, the ethnic basis of national imagination embedded in the disputes over historical interpretation has reshaped and reinforced the existing ethnic consciousness. Finally, the author proposes that what motivates most people to participate in these disputes in particular and ethnic disputes in general is the worry about others' disrespect or even erasure of one's ethnic culture and collective memory, which is considered a sign of ethnic demise.