場域之間的空間：1990年後官方臺灣文學外譯計畫的發展

The Space between Fields: On the Development of the Governmental Translation Programs of Taiwanese Literature after 1990

李怡坤(Yi-Kun Lee)

指導教授 ： 黃克先

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/社會學研究所/碩士(2021年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202104319

摘要

本文旨在探討1990年後官方臺灣文學外譯計畫的發展過程：（1）在1990年到2015年的「外譯的民族主義時期」，外譯計畫如何從補助中國古典文學、文化資產叢書、臺灣文學，轉變成聚焦臺灣文學；（2）在2015年之後的「外譯的文化內容產業時期」，外譯計畫又是如何被納入文創產業政策之中，從而變得愈發重視市場。
在「外譯的民族主義時期」，由於1970年代的外交危機，國民黨政權宣稱的統治範圍和實際統治範圍的落差被暴露，中華民國作為象徵暴力的正當壟斷者的地位出現動搖。對此，科層官僚提出文化建設的政策，試圖彌補流失的象徵資本。在這個脈絡下，權力場域的新位子得以浮現，文建會因而成立。然而，有別於學者強調文建會已是一般的文化機關，我指出文建會仍肩負反共的期待。當時的行政院高層，為了避免法統爭議以及進行反共的文化作戰，捨棄文化部、成立「事權分散、缺乏行政權」的文建會。換句話說，政治因素仍顯著影響文建會的運作。因此，我認為早年的文建會坐落於政治場域、文化場域之間，兩個場域的行動者在此交會、互動。
來自政治場域的「制度制定者」，為了塑造中華民國的道統地位，而重視中國古典文學、文化資產叢書的外譯，來自文化場域、重視一般文化政策的「業務執行者－文學人員」，則重視臺灣文學的外譯。只不過，隨著臺灣民族主義持續發展以及文學人員的作用，官方外譯計畫在社會空間的位置自1990年代末逐漸移向文學場域，制度制定者的影響力衰退，書單轉而聚焦臺灣文學。
到了「外譯的文化內容產業時期」，由於全球化、中國崛起帶來的產業升級壓力，加上臺灣文化場域的二元結構並不穩固，行政院聚集經濟部、文建會、新聞局、教育部人員，開始推動文化創意產業政策。因此，2000年代初期的權力場域變動，開創了介於政治、經濟、文化場域之間的文創政策空間。
我將聚集於此空間、負責扶持文創產業的官員稱為「文創官員」。他們因應臺灣文創產業「多樣、小型、分散」的特性，發展出「三合一邏輯」，亦即認為串聯產業鏈、扶持文化內容產業、整合相關事權三件事應同時進行。他們因此將外譯計畫從臺文館整合到Books from Taiwan平臺，又將該平臺整合到文策院，以「邊界跨越者」和「邊界組織」的手段扶持產業。有別於「文學人員」重視純粹生產場域的文學作品，「文創官員」重視面向市場的作品以及文創產業的整體發展，「文創官員」並且希望藉由和版權經紀人合作，在國際的商業出版場域建構台灣文學的市場。

關鍵字

臺灣文學 ； 外譯計畫 ； 場域 ； 場域之間的空間 ； 文化創意產業

並列摘要

This thesis explains how the governmental translation programs of Taiwanese literature developed after 1990. First, this thesis examines how the grant programs changed from subsidizing the translation of Chinese classics, the Cultural Assets Book Series, and Taiwanese literature to focusing on Taiwanese literature in the “nationalism period” (1990-2015). Second, this thesis examines how the program was integrated into the cultural industries policy in the “creative industry period” (2015- ).
In the “nationalism period,” the gap between the ROC’s claimed territory and its actual territory was exposed because of its diplomatic crisis in 1970s. The KMT regime as the legitimate monopoly of symbolic violence was challenged. As a result, the bureaucracy proposed policies for cultural affairs to replenish symbolic capital. New positions thus emerged in the field of power. The Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA) was established. However, different from researchers who regarded the CCA as a normal cultural institute, this thesis pointed out that it still undertook anti-communism tasks. High-level officials in the Executive Yuan established the CCA, which lacked executive power, because they wanted to avoid controversy about legitimacy and to promote anti-communism policies. In other words, political factors still significantly influenced the operation of the CCA. Thus this thesis asserts that the CCA was located between the political field and the cultural field, and that actors from these two fields interacted in the CCA.
“Institution makers,” who were from the political field, valued the grant for translating Chinese classics and the Cultural Assets Book Series, for they wanted to strengthen the Confucian orthodoxy of the ROC. On the other hand, “executors,” who were from the cultural field, valued the grant for translating Taiwanese literature; they did not emphasize the anti-communism affairs. However, because of the development of Taiwanese nationalism and the influence of the literary personnel, the position of the translation grant programs in the social space moved toward the literary field since the end of 1990s. The influence of the “institution makers” subsided. The translation grant programs started to focus on Taiwanese literature.
In the “creative industry period,” because of the globalization and China’s economic rise, Taiwan was under pressure to upgrade its industries. The dualist structure of the cultural field was also not very firm. In this context, the Executive Yuan assembled officials from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the CCA, the Ministry of Education, and the Government Information Office, attempting to foster the cultural and creative industries. In other words, in the early 2000s, the changes of the field of power created the space of cultural industry policies, which was located between the economic field, the political field, and the cultural field.
This thesis names the officials gathering in this space “cultural industry officials.” In response to the “multiplicity, small-scale, and dispersion” of Taiwanese cultural industries, these officials developed the “three-in-one logic” while fostering the industries. The “three-in-one logic” means that they tend to do three things at the same time: to foster the creative content industry, to construct the industry chain, and to unite the executive powers. According to the three-in-one logic, these officials integrated the translation grant program into the platform “Books from Taiwan,” then integrating the platform into TAICCA. The cultural industry officials use the method of “boundary spanner” and “boundary organization” to foster the creative content industry. They emphasized the economic value of literary works and the development of cultural industries. They also attempted to construct the market of Taiwanese literature in the international publishing field by collaborating with literary agents.

並列關鍵字

Taiwanese literature ； translation grant program ； field ； the space between fields ； cultural and creative industries

參考文獻

Anonymous. 1961.” Editorials.” Free China Review. 11(2): 3-6.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus, trans. by Peter Collier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

──. 1994. “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field,” trans. by Loc J. D. Wacquan and Samar Farage. Sociological Theory 12(1): 1-18.

──. 2005. The Social Structures of the Economy, trans. by Chris Turner. Malden, MA: Polity.

──. 2014. On the State: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1989-1992, trans. by David Fernbach. Malden, MA: Polity.