西歐民族主義起源的兩種解釋艾禮．坎度理(Elie Kedourie)與厄尼斯特．蓋爾勒(Ernest Gellner)的觀點分析

Two Interpretations of the Origins of European Nationalism: Elie Kedourie and Ernest Gellner

蔡英文(Ying-Wen Tsai)

《問題與研究》 38卷5期 (1999/05) Pp. 77-102

https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.199905_38(5).0005

摘要

本文主旨在於闡釋艾禮．坎度理(Elie Kedourie)與厄尼斯特．蓋爾勒(Ernest Gellner)的民族主義論述，這兩位英國國當代的學者，分別以不同的進路闡述民族主義的歷史起源。坎度理透過觀念史的研究途徑解釋康德的道德自律學說，如何在德國的浪漫主義中，被轉化成為民族自決的理論。而蓋爾勒則以社會人類學的進路，闡述民族主義─做為現代主權國家正當性基礎的理念─如何在西方現代性的處境當中被構成。前者說明十九世紀德國知識階層的處境與浪漫主義思潮之交織在構成民族主義上的作用，後者則強調西方啟蒙之高級文化乃是民族主義學說之構成的重要歷史條件。

關鍵字

民族自決 ； 民族性 ； 道德自律 ； 西歐現代性 ； 高級文化 ； 鄉邦文化

並列摘要

This essay tries to expound an Kedourie and Gellner's discourse on Nationalism. Each interprets the origins of European nationalism via a different approach. Roughly speaking, Kedourie singles out Kant as a crucial progenitor of nationalism, arguing that the severely individualist and universalist ethic of Kant, with its stress on individual self-determination, is either the intellectual warrant or the historic cause of the doctrine of national self-determination. Opposed to that interpretation, Gellner emphasizes the cultural demand of western industrial society as the historic case of nationalism. Gellner argues that the modern sovereign state has to integrate political power and culture in its response to the challenge of industrial society; otherwise it would lose its legitimacy. This essay also critiques the viewpoints about the cause of nationalism in each perspective.

並列關鍵字

national self-determination ； higher culture ； German romanticism ； industrial society

參考文獻

Anderson, B.(1983).Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.London ＆ New York:Verso.

Balibar, Etienne(1991).Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identity.London:Verso.

Fichte, Johann Gottfried(1968).Addresses to the German Nation.New York:

Gellner, E.(1983).Nations and Nationalism.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Gellner, Ernest(1994).Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals.Allen Lane:The Penguin Press.