道德統治與因果教化：臺灣官方與民間儒教的互動（1930s-1960s）

本文將臺灣有關儒教的論述立場分成兩大類型。第一種類型，是「官方」認可的儒教，由掌握國家統治權力與文教政策的官員、學者為代表；第二種類型，是流行於「民間」的儒教，由沒有統治權力的基層士紳、文人，與一般民眾共同信守、發展而成。從內涵層面觀察，這兩種儒教最大的差異，在於對儒教的「宗教」性質的態度；官方的立場傾向排斥，民間立場則盡力擁護。本文認為，臺灣儒教發展史的其中一種重要面相，就是官方與民間儒教兩種群體各自發展，卻也不斷互相影響的過程。這種發展的歷史結構，可以上溯到清領時期官方的科舉、廟學制度，與民間的文昌、鸞教信仰的互動；並持續形塑於日治時期，日人的「同化」政策，與鸞堂發展勃興、孔廟民間化的關係中。戰後，日人離開臺灣，取而代之的民國政府，為臺灣的民間儒者帶來了以國族主義為基底的現代轉型壓力；本文以高中「中國文化基本教材」、國文、公民、歷史等課程，與孔孟學會發表的論述，代表此時期官方儒教的立場；又以跨越日治與戰後時期的北臺民間儒者──黃贊鈞、施教堂等人的出版事業，代表此時期民間儒教的活動與論述。本文主要的研究議題，就是臺灣的民間儒者如何在一九三○到六○年代，與跨越政權變化的不同官方儒教互相折衝或整合。本文最重要的論點是：無論是日人或民國政府，都利用其體制性權力，透過學校教育促使民眾認可官方的儒教觀，並排斥民間的儒教觀；另一方面，臺灣的民間儒者雖然面臨官方壓力，卻始終不放棄自身的「宗教」信念。為了這個堅持，民間儒者或者擴大社會網絡連結，或者對官方的意識型態虛與委蛇，但也都持續保持一個合作協力的態度，以減輕官方的壓迫。最後，從文教政策對整體儒教活動的影響來看，1967年「中華文化復興運動」的發起，可以被視為臺灣儒教發展史的另一個轉型階段的開始。本文的論點與發現，辨明儒教活動在臺灣文化史上的價值──即使脫離了科舉制度，邁進現代化社會，以「儒」為標籤的道德論述仍持續與政治意識型態、倫理觀、宗教信仰等環節緊密連動。其次，無論從儒教文化圈的視角，或是從儒教思想史的視角來看，本文都能貢獻一個具體實例，來說明「儒」的多元性：一方面，「儒教」在不同地域、不同情境中，確實可能發展出互有異同的制度與生活；另一方面，「儒教」在不同身分、不同社會地位的儒者身上中，其內涵可能會有相當大的差異，這是我們談論「儒」的時候，不能忽略的事實。

關鍵字

臺灣儒教；黃贊鈞；中國文化基本教材；孔孟學會；人海回瀾；正言

並列摘要

This thesis categorizes Confucianism in Taiwan between the 1930s and 1960s into two major types and studies the interaction between them. The first type is official Confucianism, whose promoters were for the most part officials and scholars who not only controlled state administrative power, but were also responsible for implementing cultural and educational policies. The second type is folk Confucianism, which was supported by the grassroots gentry, intellectuals, and the common people. The most significant difference between these two Confucian types lies in their attitudes toward the “religious” nature of Confucianism. The official position tended to condemn religion, while the folk position more often than not supported it. This distinction seems simple in conceptualization; however, the historical context was complicated because of the frequent change of governments in modern Taiwanese history. Whenever there was a change in the ruling power, there was also a corresponding change in the relationship between official and folk Confucianism. While the continuity on the folk Confucian side was obvious, different political regimes promoted different aspects of Confucianism that were congruous with their policies. This thesis gives a brief survey of the relationship between these two types of Confucianism in the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911, ruled in Taiwan till 1895) and then turns to the period of Japanese rule before the Second World War. Finally, it discusses the situation regarding Confucianism with the KMT (Kuomingtang, the Nationalist Party) government after the war. Folk Confucianism was characterized by a mix of Confucian teachings concretized by worship in the Confucian temple, and the local belief in retribution and spiritual writing (luanshu 鸞書). During the period of Japanese rule, official Confucianism accorded with Japan’s assimilation and mobilization policies. After the KMT took over, official Confucianism emphasized nationalist sentiments and modernization. Both the Japanese and the KMT government of the Republic of China encouraged the public to accept their versions of Confucianism and reject folk Confucianism. However, despite this official pressure, Taiwanese folk Confucians never gave up their own “religious” beliefs. While cooperating with the government to promote certain elements of official Confucianism, they made efforts to expand their social network and acted diplomatically with the official ideology in an effort to avoid political oppression. This thesis gives a thick description of the unbalanced interaction between these two types of Confucianism and analyzes their different components as well as the survival strategy used within folk Confucianism. After the 1960s, the situation became even more complicated when we consider that there was also mainland folk Confucianism coming into Taiwan with the KMT government, which had deeply rooted among the masses. Moreover, the Cultural Revolution in China induced the KMT government to launch the “Chinese Cultural Renaissance Movement” in 1967. Although the struggle between these two types of Confucianism after 1967 is beyond the scope of this thesis, it proves that this was an important issue throughout the whole of modern Taiwanese history.