民族的肚臍：葛爾納與史密斯對民族起源的爭議

這篇文章目的在分析並比較當代兩位民族主義研究大師－恩尼斯特•葛爾納和安東尼•史密斯－對民族起源的看法，立論的依據是他們在英國「窩立克大學」(Warwich University)的辯論，另外參考兩人相關的著作。所謂的「肚臍」指的是民族創建過程中所依附的歷史背景或族裔淵源。基本上，兩人都接受「肚臍」存在的理論，不同的是雙方對「肚臍」的價值和功用的認知。從某個觀點來看，兩人的爭議可能是「程度」的問題，但是作者認爲這其實是有意的漠視。換句話說，他們太過於堅持自己的理論，以致於難獲共識與交集。民族的起源是民族主義研究中最基本，也是最難回答的問題。如果我們能多花點時間把這個問題弄清楚，當今世界上大部份的族裔衝突和內戰都可以化解。這場辯論雖然沒有預期的精采，卻是有關民族主義論辯的典範，分別代表「現代論」與「原生論」的立場。前者是當令的主流，歐美民主國家和新興的民族國家都接受這種理論；後者雖然沒有市場價值，但要完全加以否認未免過於鄉愿，一些「東方型」與「第三世界」的國家還是相信族裔淵源。

關鍵字

肚臍；現代論；原生論；族裔；公民投票

並列摘要

This essay intends to discuss two of most important scholars in the field of nationalism studies. The author pretends he is a justice been asked to judge who is excellent in the ”Warwick debate”. According to the statements gave by Ernest Gellner and Anthony Smith, complemented with other resources, the author considers this is a debate without conclusion. The fundamental question is ”does nation has a navel?” It is wrong just to answer yes or not. Because what they really want to tell us is ”do nation need a navel?” Navel means the ethnic origin of a nation, If nation has an ancestor, in other word, has the continuity, it is a nation born with a navel. If nation is constructed in modem time, of course, it needs no such remains. The debate is short and banal. Nevertheless, it is very important for the research of nationalism. It represents two approaches to nationalism, i.e., ”modernism” and ”primordialism”. The author concludes if we spent more time to clarify the meaning of definition, most of the ethnic conflicts and civil wars around the world would be dissolved. It is a mainstream to interpret the origin of nation from the point of view of modernism, we should always remember it is impossible to forget our ethnicity.