從羅蘭巴特（Roland Barthes）符號論論「多元就業開發方案」的意義

論文摘要台灣就業政策方案的發展，從政策變遷角度來看「多元就業開發方案」的推出，無論在政策概念、執行模式與政策目標等各方面，均可謂是一項具突破性的創新實驗計畫，近年來已儼然成為一個熱門議題。本文以為在政策科學的研究中，對於某一政策議題的理論架構的選定應該是開放的，且存在多種可能研究途徑，有鑑於羅蘭.巴特符號論對於人文社會科學的研究有相當大意涵。循此，吾人將嚐試以此理論觀點來詮釋「多元就業開發方案」之可能意義與效果，這種研究途徑是有別於當今台灣政策學界常用的「實證分析理論」。首先，經由對符號學發展脈絡的初探，進而理解闡述巴特符號論的核心∼符號意義兩個層次的系統分析模式。他試圖指出一個被人符碼化的符號，存有兩個層次的符號意義，第一層次是符號的直接意指（denotation），這發生於第一符號系統中，指的是符號的外顯意義。第二層次是文化意義（cultural meanings），包含形式、實質與象徵等三種不同的意義，這發生於第二符號系統中。其次，本文引用巴特符號論的觀點提出一個假說，即是將「多元就業開發方案」視為是一個符號。然後，以多元就業開發方案執行歷程中的相關經驗記錄資料為文本，透過閱讀這些文本「理解」其背後的文化意義指明，進而評估其對於解決失業的可能效果。研究指出，多元就業開發方案在推動過程中確實蘊含三種文化意義，而且象徵意義恐大於形式意義。循此，本文認為相較於「多元就業開發方案」做為解決失業問題之聯想，這樣的二元對立統一思考模式，似乎過度簡化了政策的可能意義，畢竟失業問題的解決是一高度整合性的政策與行動。所以，吾人不可簡單理解一個政策方案即是一套解決問題的方案。第三，從巴特符號論的三種文化意義所呈現之狀態來解讀，必須指出的是，其答案應該是虛中有實且實中有虛，換言之，答案是「說不定」且難以被實證的。最後，進一步反思如何創造此政策方案的真義與被信賴的價值。第四，本文深知「理解」始終是「自我理解」與「偏見」。對於巴特符號論及其在「多元就業開發方案」意義詮釋與評價，某種程度也只是一種筆者的「自我理解」。因此，本文的論點只是眾多可能論點的其中之一。關鍵詞：多元就業開發方案、羅蘭.巴特、符號論、直接意指、文化意義

關鍵字

關鍵詞：多元就業開發方案、羅蘭.巴特、符號論、直接意指、文化意義

並列摘要

Abstract The proposing of the “Multi-Employment Promotion Program” may be regarded as a ground-breaking innovative experiment in the aspect of policy concept, goal and its implementation mode, and has established itself as one of the hottest issues for some years, viewing from the perspective of changing process of governmental employment programs. The author holds that an open-work and multi-approach theoretical framework should be taken into consideration when selecting a target policy issue in the study of policy science. In light of the profound significance of Roland Barthes’ symbolism in the study of humanities and social science, the author intends to interprete the potential meaning and effect of the “Multi-Employment Promotion Program” an approach differentitating from the commonly adopted “theory of empirical aanlysis” by contemporary Taiwanese academics. First of all, through a brief exploration to and comprehension of the developmental context of symbolism, the author tries to elaborate the core of Roland Barthes’ symbolism: the two-order systematic analysis modes comprising the significance of sign. What Roland Barthes attempts to propose is the two-order meanings exists in the same coded sign, e.g. the direct and extrinsic first-order denotation, which happens in the first sign system; and the second-order cultural meanings, which contains connotation, myth and symbol happening in the second sign system. Secondly, this study proposes an assumption that the “Multi-Employment Promotion Program” be regarded as a sign by applying the point of Roland’s symbolism. Then, by reading the text of documented data of related experience during the implementation process, the author tries to “comprehend” the hiddened cultural signification and evaluates the possible effect of the“Multi-Employment Promotion Program” in its attempt to solve unemployment. Findings show that three cultural meanings did exist in the process of promotion of the “Multi-Employment Promotion Program” which carried more symbolic meaning than connotation. Therefore the author argues that the association of as a solution to the “Multi-Employment Promotion Program” a model of thinking of subject-object dual opposites and unity, tends to oversimplify the possible meaning contained in the policy due to the highly integrated nature of policy and enaction in solving unemployment problem. Researcher should avoid following the simple linear comprehension that any policy program is in itself an effective solution to the targeted problem. Thirdly, we must point out that the answer to the unemployment, interpretating from status reperesented by three different types of cultural meanings of Roland Barthes’ symbolism, is laden with both essence and abstractness. In other word, it is “equivocal” and empirically elusive. Finally, the author tries to propose ways to recreate the value of authencity and reliability of the Program by embarking a further rethinking of the policy-making process. Lastly, the author is well aware that all kinds of comprehension are after all self- comprehensions and “biases” All interpretations and evaluations of the “Multi-Employment Promotion Program” and Roland Barthes’ symbolism made by the author are therefore considered as author’s self-comprehension and should account for only one of the many arguments that have existed. Key words：The Multi-Employment Promotion Program；Roland Barthes；symbolism；denotation；cultural meanings