探尋「民族」核心：以臺灣民族主義為例

公民與族裔的分類是民族主義研究常見的分析架構，許多學者試圖以公民民族主義概念為民族主義提供正當性，然而該分類的使用卻存在許多問題。既有的民族主義分類過於簡單，無法處理國族認同的複雜性；純粹的公民與族裔民族主義僅在理論上存在，因此民族主義的公民性與族裔性並非截然二分的兩種類別，強行套用將無助於對民族主義的理解；此外，公民民族主義是理想化的理論概念，現實中並未存在可行的案例與具體的發展路徑。取該分類學而代之，本文使用史密斯的核心族群觀點，主張民族乃是以佔主導地位的核心族群及其文化為中心所建立的共同體，其成員具備共同特徵，並且尋求政治自決。本文以既有的臺灣民族主義研究、高中歷史與國文課綱，以及調查資料作為分析文本，實證公民民族主義概念的侷限與國族內部核心族群的存在。在對既有的臺灣民族主義之分析中，即便諸位學者嘗試以自由主義、公民民族主義的視角對臺灣民族主義的發展加以詮釋，卻都存在無法忽視的矛盾，並凸顯國族內部核心族群的存在。而在高中歷史及國文課綱的變動中，對立國族的衝突難以調和，公民式認同無以實踐，證實公民民族主義可行性的匱乏。最終，在既有調查資料的檢視中，一個不同於中國大多陸、以臺澎金馬為範疇的共同體已然成形，但與政治的激烈對立相對，截至2013年，多數的臺灣民眾皆能對少數群體、外來移民及文化加以包容，即便是陸配、中華文化等對立於臺灣民族主義的中國因素亦能予以涵納。經由本文的研究發現，實證公民與族裔的分類、公民民族主義概念並無法有效增進學界對民族主義的理解，漠視國族的族群本質，將導致民族主義研究陷入瓶頸。唯有正視民族的本質，並對其包容與排他性質進行理解，對方能扭轉國族情緒越發激昂乃至危急自由民主體制的困境。

關鍵字

臺灣民族主義；公民民族主義；核心族群；包容度；排他性

並列摘要

A common analytical framework in the study of nationalism is the dichotomy between civic and ethnic nationalism. Many scholars have tried to use the concept of civic nationalism to provide legitimacy for nationalism. However, there are many problems in the use of this dichotomy. The dichotomy of nationalism is too simple to deal with the complexity of national identity. Pure civic and ethnic nationalism only exist in theory, so civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism are not two distinct categories. In addition, civic nationalism is a goal a country longs for, but one that is hard or impossible to achieve as an ideal type. In this thesis, I want to bring the study of nationalism back to its roots--every state has a dominant ethnic group that acts as the building block of national identity. The nation state is actually a political community created by a dominant ethnic group, which determines its characteristics. Hence, ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism differ not in type but in degree as the former takes an exclusive approach to dealing with outsiders while the latter adopts an opposite stance. This thesis uses the research on Taiwanese nationalism, high school history and Chinese language curriculum, and survey data as data to empirically demonstrate the limitations of the concept of civic nationalism and the existence of core ethnic groups within the nation. In the analysis of Taiwanese nationalism studies, even if scholars try hard to interpret the development of Taiwanese nationalism from the perspectives of liberalism and civic nationalism, there are still contradictions that cannot be ignored and highlight the existence of core ethnic groups within the country. In the changes of high school history and Chinese language curriculum, it is difficult to reconcile conflicts with rival nation identity, and civic identity cannot be practiced, which proves the lack of the feasibility of civic nationalism. In the end, in the review of the survey data, a community that is different from the majority of China’s mainland and Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu has taken shape. However, in contrast to the fierce political opposition, as of 2013, most people in Taiwan were able to tolerate minorities, immigrants, and culture, and even Chinese factors that were opposed to Taiwan’s nationalism, such as mainland spouses and Chinese culture, could also be included. Through the research of this thesis, it proves that the dichotomy of civic and ethnic nationalism cannot effectively enhance the understanding of nationalism. It ignores the ethnic nature of the nation and will make nationalism research stagant. Only by facing up to the nature of the nation and understanding its inclusive and exclusive characteristics can we reverse the country’s increasingly passionate and even threatening predicament of the liberal and democratic system.