從排他到趨同：當代臺灣通史類著作中對原住民族群定位的想像論述

本文以文本分析嘗試去理解過去一世紀臺灣通史的論述中「原住民族群」之於「臺灣人」這一主體在相對位置上的變遷。最早，連橫以文化主義為準，將原住民想像成文化落後的番，而與「番」有關論述存在的意義在提供一種他族的對照，以確認「我族」的界限。從而，原住民被排除在臺灣人的範疇外。六○年代的史明將原住民視為與漢人平行的族群，但原住民的主體性係依附臺灣人主體而存在，並且透過通婚、同化的過程逐漸毀棄其主體性。七○年代林衡道則標舉原住民為「同胞」或「同冑」，此原漢係同源、同質的想像，乃是依戰後國府山地行政中同化政策的論述框架而為；此種想像也被導引成為反制臺獨的論述工具。近十年新撰就的臺灣通史文本中，以族群多元史觀進行原住民族的論述，已成共同趨勢。原住民主體雖然隨著泛原住民意識的出現，而逐漸被肯認；但是此主體仍然欠缺完整自主性，必須依附於一個被想像為兼容並緒的更高層的主體社會中。為了成就「共同體」的建構與想像，原住民各族群做為一個獨立的民族或國族的可能性，也變得不可能。同時，血緣混融論則為漢人族群與及原住民族群，找尋到客觀的根基連繫。這不但賦予臺灣人血緣的特殊性，也使社會主體的漢人族群，僭奪了原生族群的發言權；至於臺灣社會的內涵，也從單純的移民社會，過渡成為有原生成份的、本土的多元社會。回顧近百年來臺灣通史文本中對原住民的論述內容的變遷，適可以印證本土的史學工作者正利用原、漢之間從疏離、對抗、互動、到融合的歷史過程，來想像出了一個具有獨特性的臺灣人內涵，或臺灣民族。也正為了成就主體社會的國族想像與建構，臺灣通史著作中對原住民的異己論述，其實成了知識菁英可操作的知識工具。

關鍵字

臺灣通史；原住民；南島語族；族群；國族想像；共同體

並列摘要

Through text analyses of the representative Taiwan general history works completed in the past one hundred years, this paper attempts to realize the transformations of the relative places between these two subjects of ”the Taiwan's indigenous people” and ”the Taiwanese”. In the 1910s, following the culturalism Lien Heng imagined the indigenous people as fan, meaning the non-civilized people. Meanwhile, his discourses about fan only provided with a contrast of ”the others”, in order to verify the boundaries of the ”our group”, Han-Chinese. In the 1960s, Shih Ming regarded the indigenous people as an ethnic sub-group being parallel with the Han-Taiwanese. However, Shih still considered that the indigenous people are subjected to the Taiwanese, and that the subject of the indigenous people is gradually collapsing due to their marriages and assimilations with the Han people. In the 1970s, Lin Heng-tao, according to the KMT government's assimilation policy, saw the indigenous people as a homogenous group comparing with the Chinese. Finally, even though recent historians almost adapt a multi-ethnic view, instead of Sino-centralism, when they write, most of them still think that ”a pan-indigenous people” is only a part of the Taiwanese. As well, in order to construct ”a Taiwanese community”, they also deny the possibility that the indigenous people whether a pan-indigenous group or distinctive tribes/sub-ethnicities could imagine themselves as independent ”nations”. Meanwhile, a discourse analyzing that today most of the Han-Taiwanese have the blood relationship with the ancestral indigenous people due the across-ethnic marriages brings a primordial connection between the Han and indigenous Taiwanese and gives the Taiwanese a special character being distinct from the Chinese in blood. Therefore, the Han-Taiwanese appropriate the position of ”a de facto Native Taiwanese”. As well, the definition of the Taiwanese society has transformed into a native, indigenous, and pluralistic society from a simple immigrant society. Conclusively, the contents of narrations, by these native Taiwanese historians, about the relations between the Han-Taiwanese and indigenous Taiwanese have changed from emphasizing the ”exclusiveness” into the ”homogeneousness” and through arguing this process they imagines a special ”Taiwanese Nation”. Nevertheless, these exotic narrations about the indigenous Taiwanese de facto become a intelligent instrument utilized by the Taiwanese elites to achieve the imagining and building of the ”Taiwanese Nation”.