「怪手都市化」與民間信仰：兩岸的比較

“Bulldozer Urbanization”and Folk Religion: A Cross-Strait Comparison

發展中國家進入工業化與都市化的速度相當快速，常常有整片區域拆除而做新的都市區重劃，或是新建工業園區的的例子，這在改革開放後的中國尤其明顯；而在當代台灣，同樣的情況也依然存在。在強調其破壞性的一面來看，我們或許可以更直接的就稱此為「怪手都市化」︰一個生態環境破壞與劇烈變遷的狀態。本文比較大陸蘇州工業園區（1993年設置）與台灣台南科學園區（1995年設置）興建過程中，政府處置民間信仰的方式與手段上的差異。本文引用了趙鼎新關於國家政權合法性的三分法類型學以助於討論。傳統中華帝國意識形態合法性的貫穿與滲透性相當強，並輔以績效合法性，這是其權力的主要基礎。共產中國用階級與民族主義取代了傳統宗法社會父權意識形態的內容，但對全民身體形式上的掌控反而更滴水不漏。1978年改革開放以後，績效合法性變得極為重要，但位階仍牢牢被壓抑在意識形態合法性之下，這在其社會中產生了一種極為普遍存在而且是意義飽滿的「沉默」。反之，在自由主義意識形態引導之下的當代台灣，三種合法性相互融合與平衡，工業區裡的廟宇，經在地文史工作者協商出國家與地方共享的象徵符號，但民間很快地產生各自解讀與實踐，而讓公營單位在管理上產生焦慮，但這並不會威脅到國家合法性的建構。藉由兩岸類似案例的比較，本文試圖經由這種差異性的對比中，理論化地去認識民間信仰、國家治理、文化資產與地方賦權等面向相互構作歷程裡所具有的相對位置。

Developing countries have been rapidly industrializing and urbanizing, often resulting in the demolition of entire areas for new urban redevelopment or the construction of new industrial parks. This phenomenon is particularly evident in China since the Reform and Opening period. Similarly, Taiwan still occasionally experiences such situations. Highlighting its destructive aspect, we might refer to this phenomenon as“Bulldozer Urbanization”: a state of ecological destruction and drastic change characterized by rapid and indiscriminate removal by bulldozers, followed by the construction of new layouts with a cold and cruel appearance. This paper compares the divergent approaches and strategies adopted by the governments of mainland China and Taiwan in dealing with popular religion during the construction of two industrial parks.
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of two emblematic cases: the establishment of the Suzhou Industrial Park in mainland China in 1993 and the creation of the Tainan Science Park in Taiwan in 1995. Specifically, it investigates how the two governments dealt with the presence of popular religion—particularly temples and local cults—during the course of construction and land expropriation, and the different strategies adopted in managing, incorporating, or suppressing these religious institutions. To frame this comparison, the study draws on Dingxin Zhao’s tripartite typology of state legitimacy, which distinguishes between ideological legitimacy, performance legitimacy, and what might be called legitimacy rooted in tradition.
In the case of the traditional Chinese empire, ideological legitimacy had an exceptionally strong and pervasive influence, penetrating deeply into society, and it was reinforced by performance legitimacy. Together, these two forms constituted the core foundation of imperial rule. Communist China replaced the patriarchal and lineage-based ideological structures of the old order with a new discourse of class struggle and nationalism. Yet, rather than loosening its grip, the regime exercised an even more thorough form of corporeal and social control over its population. After the initiation of the Reform and Opening policies in 1978, performance legitimacy acquired a new and urgent importance. Nonetheless, it continued to be firmly subordinated to ideological legitimacy,, producing a widespread and meaning saturated“silence.”
In contrast, contemporary Taiwan—operating under a liberal ideological framework—presents a different configuration. Here, the three types of legitimacy intersect, merge, and balance one another in more dynamic ways. Within the industrial parks, local temples and religious actors negotiated new symbolic forms that were simultaneously recognized by both the state and local communities. These negotiated arrangements produced shared symbols of legitimacy. However, the meanings and practices associated with these symbols quickly diverged among the broader population, generating a plurality of interpretations and enactments. This diversity, in turn, created anxieties for state agencies and public institutions charged with managing such spaces. Yet, crucially, these anxieties did not amount to a direct threat to the construction or reproduction of state legitimacy.
By bringing these two cases into comparative dialogue, this paper seeks not only to highlight differences in the governance of religion across the Taiwan Strait but also to theorize the broader processes through which popular religion, state governance, cultural heritage, and local empowerment become mutually constituted. The comparative approach underscores the relative positioning of these elements within divergent political contexts and provides insight into how religion and culture are simultaneously sites of contestation, negotiation, and collaboration in the making of modern industrial and urban landscapes.