Family Law and Politics in the Oriental Empire: Colonial Governance and Its Discourses in Japan-Ruled Taiwan(1895-1945)

東方殖民主義下的家庭法與政治：以日治臺灣的殖民統治與論述為中心

在整個日治臺灣五十年的期間，日本民法典中的家庭法（即，民法中的親屬與繼承兩編），並未施行於臺灣。既有對於臺灣家庭相關法律或習俗的研究，往往將此現象亦或歸諸於殖民統治政權的愚民政策，抑或認為此因家庭相關事務，乃為殖民統治中次要的、非核心的領域。本文討論家庭相關法律、習慣與政策之間的關係，主張日治家庭法與政治事實上以多種方式相互交織。本文所分析的論述，包括殖民地日本官員、學者、法官，對於日本家庭法應否實施於臺灣，乃至整體殖民統治法律架構（「同化—特別」）的論辯。本文發現，家庭相關法律不只是被認為同化的重要工具，更用來在法律上定義孰為臺灣人，孰為日本人。1920年代以降，日本民法漸次施行到臺灣。家庭法一方面是主張殖民地特殊立法者的最後堡壘。另一方面，家庭法也被同化論者認為種族與法律同化的關鍵步驟。家庭法與政治的交織，不只表現在政策實質內容，也表現在各種論述的修辭之中。由於日本身為所謂「東方殖民者」以及作為所謂「國民帝國」的曖昧特質，使得日本殖民統治時，得以交錯主張與被殖民者的「相同」與「不同」點，為其主張與政策辯護。有趣的是，在修辭模式中，對於事實問題（例如「遠—近」或「類似—不同—」）與規範決定（「同化—特別統治」或（採取）「法律—習慣」）有修辭上的相互連接關係。總結來說，臺灣家庭法之所以在整個日治時期，皆依照臺灣習慣而非日本法律加以規制，並非因為其屬於邊緣。相反地，家庭法因為與殖民政策太過密切，而難以進行根本性的改變。

This article challenges the common misconception that in Japan-colonizedTaiwan, family law was considered marginal and secondary in the arena of legalreforms. Instead, through multi-faceted analysis of family laws, customs, andpolitics, the article argues that family law intertwined with politics in variousways. Examples are found in internal discussions among Japanese scholars,political advisors, officials, and jurists, on wide ranging topics from colonialpolicies and legal structures to, more specifically, whether Taiwanese familycustoms or Japanese family law should apply to Taiwanese. Moreover, family lawserved as an essential tool not only for cultural assimilation, but also on legalaspects such as the very definition of who were Japanese/Taiwanese. Theimportance of family law is also reflected in the fact that on one hand, family lawwas viewed as the last bastion for special colonial legislation, and on the otherdeemed a crucial step for racial integration by assimilationists. Moreover, the intertwining of family law and politics were not localized to substantial matter,but also rhetoric. The ambiguity of the Japanese colonialism being a“nation-empire” or “oriental colonialism” made it possible for Japanese toretain a fluidity in its rhetoric based on both similarity and difference at the sametime. There were interconnections between rhetoric modes on “factual question”(such as “close vs. far” and “similar vs. different”) and normative decision (suchas “assimilation vs. special rule” and “Japanese family law vs. Taiwanesecustoms”). Overall, the reason why Japanese colonial rule left Taiwanese familymatters in the customary law regime for the entire colonial time was not that itwas mere an afterthought. On the contrary, family law was too relevant tochange.