文學典律、種族階級與鄉土書寫——張我軍與臺灣新文學的起源

Literary Canon, Racial Scale, and Writing the Homeland: Zhang Wuojun and the Origins of Taiwan Vernacular Literature

一九二○年代張我軍在《臺灣民報》提倡新文學，對日本殖民統治者所認可的舊文學典律直接挑戰。新典律牽涉到建立新的文學語言，二、三○年代臺灣知識分子曾廣泛討論所謂「白話文」的內涵和定義：例如，北京話文究竟是白話文的代詞，抑僅是白話文的一部分？臺灣話有音無字，是否能改造臺灣話使其適合寫作白話文？張我軍的意見和連文卿類似：由於交通便利、東西文化交互影響日深，臺灣話和其他語言一樣具有流動性，如果能自創新詞、新語，白話文「何必拘泥於官音」？三○年代前後臺灣作家的創作語言趨向多元化，如張我軍的北京話文；呂赫若、楊逵等的臺灣話文；還有善用日語借詞者。駁雜多樣的創作語言呈現出作家勇於創新。日據時代臺灣作家為了向殖民統治階級挑戰，除了建立新文學典律以外，也積極參與種族階級(racial scale)論述。世紀之交種族階級論在歐洲、曰本均極盛行，種族階級論成為推廣海外殖民統治的理論依據。對日本人而言，開化亞洲其他「劣等」民族乃「正義之戰」，可以制衡歐洲「優等」民族的海外擴張。中國學者強調改善中國人的「劣等」國民性，以期搖身一變成為強國。臺灣知識分子則企圖打破種族階級論的迷思，認為只要教育和經濟機會均等，臺灣人和日本人一樣可以表現優異，無所謂「優等」、「劣等」民族。二、三○年代的臺灣話文論爭、種族階級論及鄉土文學論爭顯現出「臺灣意識」浮出檯面。臺灣的「特種文化」在日據時代是核心議題之一，到今天「本土化」的議論仍甚囂塵上。應如何建構臺灣的「特種文化」？似乎是歷久彌新的課題。

During the 1920s Zhang Wuojun advocated the vernacular literature movement in Taiwan People's Journal (Taiwan minbao) as a direct challenge to the canon of classical literature embraced by the Japanese colonizers. A new canon involves the establishment of a new literary language. During the 20s and 30s Taiwan intellectuals discussed in depth the content and definition of the so-called “vernacular”: Is Pekinese the substitute for the vernacular, or simply part of the vernacular? With no written language, can Taiwanese be reformed and become suitable for writing? Zhang Wuojun held the same view as did Lian Wenqing: because of the convenience of travel and the influence of Western culture on Eastern culture and vice versa, Taiwanese is in a state of flux like other languages. If new words and new expressions are created every day, “why should we confine ourselves to the official language?” Since the 20s Taiwan writers during the Japanese occupation were liberal in choosing their creative language. For instance, Zhang Wuojun used Pekinese; Lu Heruo and Yang Kui used Taiwanese; some were good at adapting Japanese expressions. The diversity of creative language reflected the writers’ audacity in attempting the new. Besides establishing the canon of vernacular literature, Taiwan writers actively participated in the discourse of racial scale as a means of protest against the colonizers during the Japanese occupation. At the turn of the century theories of racial scale were popular in both Europe and Japan and became the basis of overseas colonization. For Japan, it was a “war of justice” to civilize other “inferior” nations in Asia in order to balance the overseas expansion of the “superior” nations in Europe. Chinese scholars emphasized the improvement of the “inferior” national character of the Chinese people, hoping that as a result China would become a strong nation. On the other hand, Taiwan intellectuals tried to offset the myth of racial scale. They believed that with equal opportunity for education and financial advantages, Taiwanese as well as Japanese could equally excel, and that there were no “superior” or “inferior” peoples. The Taiwanese and vernacular controversy, the racial scale discourse, and the “literature of the homeland” (xiangtu wenxue) debate during the 20s and 30s clearly indicated the surfacing of “Taiwan consciousness” into the mainstream. The “uniqueness” of Taiwan culture used to be one of the core issues during the Japanese occupation, as “writing the homeland” is today. How to construct the wuni-queness” of Taiwan culture seems to be an everlasting question.