後現代史家認為歷史編篡的內容是在諸多權力機制影響下形成的論述,各派觀點競相爭奪代言權。參考瓊.蕾森(June Layson, 1994a, pp. 12-14)提出關於舞蹈歷史書寫之新觀點,本研究檢視1911年以來臺灣與大陸出版13項臺灣舞蹈史書稿,發現詮釋與書寫的差異。不同生活經驗、不同檔案資料、不同舞蹈類型、不同文化認同、不同國家主義,導致不同觀點與論述。本研究經由比較臺灣島內不同世代的研究者的書寫,發現由中國認同到臺灣認同的轉變;經由比較分住兩岸的研究者的著作,顯現文化認同與國家認同的立場差異。本研究初探臺灣舞蹈史論著,發現歷史書寫游移變異的特質。
Post-modern historians regard historiography as discourse subject to influence of powerful institutions. Rival ideologies and institutions compete for the right to represent the past. Consulting the new approach of writing dance history proposed by June Layson (1994a, pp.12-14), This paper analyses 13 texts of Taiwanese dance history published in mainland China and Taiwan after 1911 and discover the difference on interpreting and writing the past. Different experience of life, different archival materials, different genre classification, different cultural identity and different national identity result in diverse perspectives and discourses. A transformation from Chinese identity to Taiwanese identity is discovered through comparing works written by different generation of researchers based in Taiwan. The standpoint difference on cultural and national identity is revealed through comparing works written by researchers cross the Taiwan Strait. Through a preliminary inquiry on writings of Taiwanese dance history, this research discover the transformational characteristic of history.