柏楊的社會與文化論述，1960-2008

Bo Yang's Discourses on Society and Culture, 1960-2008

陳聖屏(Sheng-Ping Chen)

指導教授 ： 古偉瀛

共同指導教授 ： 林端

國立臺灣大學/文學院/歷史學研究所/博士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.03081

摘要

儘管近年來關於柏楊(郭衣洞，1920-2008)的研究已逐漸受到學界的重視，但仍然缺乏全面而系統性的研究。這篇論文希望能夠從社會與文化的觀點，來理解柏楊思想的基本特徵與發展過程。
在討論柏楊的社會與文化論述之前，我們必須先了解他在戰後台灣文學史上所占據的位置。張誦聖曾經引用法國社會學家布迪厄(Pierre Bourdieu)的場域理論(field theory)，將戰後台灣的文學場域區分出四種藝術位置：主流文學、現代主義文學、鄉土文學，與本土文學。在台灣文學史的教科書中，主流位置被稱為「反共文學」，但至少到1990年代為止，主流位置一直都是台灣文學場域中，最具有社會影響力的文學風格。它繼承五四新文學的傳統，但去除其左傾的因素，並藉由中學教科書教材(例如選讀朱自清和徐志摩的作品)得到教育體系的支持，成為受過國民教育的台灣中產階級最喜愛的文體。我們可以說，以反共文學作家出身的柏楊，其作品雖符合主流位置讀者的品味，但加入了左傾的因素，這個特徵使得他的作品深受新興的中產階級大眾歡迎，卻不為政府當局所喜，最後並因此入獄；但是對具有社會主義傾向的作家而言，柏楊仍然是不折不扣的「右派」。
柏楊認為，60年代台灣社會中存在的諸多問題，都必須歸咎於中國的傳統文化。他引用胡適在1961年提出的說法，認為中國文化是一種沒有「靈性」的醬缸文化，是中國傳統文化中的儒家思想，以及由官僚作為社會主導力量之社會結構的產物。柏楊認為，即使是在60年代的台灣，中國傳統文化仍然根深蒂固，使得台灣社會無論在政治、經濟還是文化上都停滯不前，毫無進步。在此同時，中國共產黨依照馬克思主義的階級鬥爭理論發動文化大革命，使中國大陸陷入被他稱為「硫磺缸」的恐怖社會，中國的社會和文化因而變得更為墮落。最後，他指出1960年代參與「中西文化論戰」的文化保守主義者與全盤西化論者，都無助於改革中國傳統文化的積習，只有「全盤現代化」才能同時改變台灣的社會結構與文化習慣。
儘管柏楊雜文的主題極為繁多，但若以社會批評的角度而言，我們可以試圖將其討論的議題分為四大類。一、討論愛情、婚姻與家庭倫理等私領域的議題，從中我們可以看到舊式家庭理想和現代家庭觀念的衝突。二、藉由對重大社會新聞的評論，批評一般民眾不符合「現代文明」、阻礙社會進步的日常生活習慣。三、對警察(治安機關)、法官(司法機關)與醫師(醫療制度)等行業的猛烈抨擊，而這些弊端則顯示：在戒嚴時期的台灣社會，濫用權力的現象不僅是在政治圈，也在社會各領域中普遍存在。四、由於人民在日常生活的禮儀和行為，是社會結構和文化內容的具體實踐，人們可以藉以判斷某個社會是否已經達到「現代文明」的水準。於是柏楊斷言，以「現代文明」的標準而言，西方社會才是真正的「禮義之邦」，而中國社會(柏楊以台灣社會作為主要案例)則不是。
我們在柏楊的中國歷史論述中，同樣也能發現具有「左傾」特徵、但又不屬於正統馬克思主義的歷史觀。他認為中國的社會結構自周代之後就沒有重大變化，統治階級與被統治階級之間的尊卑界限一直非常森嚴。這種社會結構在政治體制上受到專制君主制度支持，在意識形態上則受到儒家思想提倡的禮教支持。然而，柏楊並不贊成馬克思主義史觀中的經濟決定論，他認為在中國的「專制封建社會」中，政治才是最具主導性的力量，而不是經濟(因為農業社會和儒家思想重農輕商，資本主義與經濟力量無法發展)。在儒家成為官方的正統思想，以及科舉制度確立之後，社會不平等的問題不但沒有緩和，反而隨著時間過去而變得更加嚴重。自宋代開始，政府官職完全被士大夫―地主階級所壟斷，他們永遠將帝王的利益和自身的利益放在第一位，而不顧一般大眾的利益。在專制帝王和士大夫階層的聯手摧殘之下，中國人的人權、尊嚴和創造力都被蹂躪地奄奄一息，因此當英國在鴉片戰爭敲開中國的大門之時，中國人竟毫無招架之力。
在柏楊出獄之後的1980年代，台灣的國民黨政府進入蔣經國主政時代，中國共產黨則開始推動由鄧小平所主導的改革開放政策。此時海峽兩岸與海外的中國知識分子，都同樣面臨下述的問題：中國人是否應該像西方國家一樣實行民主制度，以及中國人是否有能力實行民主制度。柏楊在1985年集結成冊的演講錄與雜文集《醜陋的中國人》，則對於上述問題提出了清楚明確的解答：中國(同時包括台灣和中國大陸)在未來必須實行民主制度，否則中國一定無法與世界其他民族國家競爭，直至滅亡。但如果中國人仍然不肯深刻自我檢討，不肯改變積重難返的社會結構和文化習慣，中國就絕不可能實行民主制度。
在解嚴之後，儘管柏楊並沒有改變他的基本觀點，台灣社會卻已迅速地民主化。在90年代之後，柏楊的社會形象逐漸從惡性重大、思想偏激的叛亂犯，變成年高德劭的作家，與人權運動的象徵人物。他先後擔任國際特赦組織中華民國總會(後改稱台灣分會)的創會會長與人權教育基金會的創會董事長，致力於爭取政治犯的平反與補償，以及推廣人權教育。此時柏楊激烈反對以「亞洲價值」或「國情不合」等藉口抗拒西方民主和人權觀念的言論，強烈支持廢除死刑，以及贊成安樂死。在2000年首次政黨輪替之後，柏楊成為民進黨政府的有給職資政，曾經屢次與其他資政聯名建言，對時局有所影響。在解嚴之後的統獨爭議中，柏楊始終採取反對立即統一與立即獨立的立場，因為前者將摧毀台灣得來不易的民主，後者將立刻引發戰爭，如此一來，台灣的民主同樣也會滅亡，還會使中國改革開放的成果瓦解。因此，他認為台灣的統獨爭議應該經由漫長的民主討論，以及在國際形勢的變遷中，逐漸尋求解決之道。由於柏楊在人權與民主議題上採取激進立場，但在統獨問題上則保持溫和立場，使他在晚年獲得巨大的社會聲望，具有超越文學場域和藍綠對立的「象徵資本」。因此，在2008年柏楊臨終之前，國民黨籍總統候選人馬英九及民進黨籍總統陳水扁，都曾先後探望致意，可謂備極哀榮。然而，他在社會與文化議題上所留下的龐大論述遺產，以及各種加諸於他的偏見與歧視，則仍有待後人加以釐清。

關鍵字

柏楊 ； 郭衣洞 ； 醬缸 ； 社會 ； 文化 ； 民主 ； 人權

並列摘要

Despite the importance of the study of Bo Yang (Guo Yi-dong, 1920-2008) has been gradually noticed, there are few comprehensive studies. This dissertation focuses on Bo Yang’s thinking from the perspectives of society and culture.
First of all, we have to know Bo Yang’s position in the post-1945 Taiwan’s literary field. I cite Sung-seng Yvonne Chang’s study, which uses Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory to categorize the Taiwan literary field as four artistic positions: Mainstream writers, Modernists, Nativists and Localists. Mainstream writing is also called “anti-Communist literature,” and had been dominative literary style until 1990s. Because it inherited from the May-Fourth tradition short of leftist factors and was supported by education system, it became most favored by the Taiwanese middle class schooled by the national education. Bo Yang, as an anti-Communist writer, could conform to the Mainstream style; however, he added some leftist flavors into his books, which made him popular but unaccepted by the government and was accordingly put into prison. But for those left writers, Bo Yang was indeed a rightist.
In addition, Bo Yang attributes many problems in the Taiwan society in 60s to Chinese traditional culture. He refers to Hu Shih’s idea and proposes that Chinese culture, with no spirituality, is a “vat of soy source” which is molded by Confucianism and bureaucracy and was the reason why Taiwan in 60s could not make progresses in politics, economy and culture. At the same time, the Cultural Revolution broke out and China fell into a “vat of brimstone”, a metaphor offered by Bo Yang, which made Chinese culture more degenerative and decayed. Finally, he opposes the cultural conservatism and Westernization in the East-West controversy and claims that only modernization could transform Taiwan’s social structure and cultural habits.
Moreover, judging from the social criticism perspective, we can categorize Bo Yang’s satirical essays into four categories: the first one focuses on the private fields, in which we can find out the conflicts between the outdated family ideas and the new ones. The second one, inspired by the vital social news, includes the criticisms on the Taiwan people’s daily habits which fail to meet the standards of modern civilization. The third one includes the Bo Yang’s attacks on the police, the judiciary system, and the medical system to expose the abuses of power all around the society under the martial law. The forth one is centered on the standards of modern civilization. Bo Yang thinks that judging from the practices of people’s daily civility and behaviors could ascertain whether a society is civilized and in his opinion, only Western societies are genuine modern civilizations.
Furthermore, the features of Bo Yang’s discourses on Chinese history are leftist rather than Marxist. He thinks that China’s social structure had remained stable since Zhou dynasty. The ruling class and the ruled were separated strictly, which was supported by despotism and Confucianism. However, he disagrees with Marxist economic determinism and proposes that in China’s “despotic-feudal society” was dominated by political power instead of economic one. After Confucianism being orthodox and the civil examination being established, the social inequality was exacerbated. Since Sung dynasty, the government positions had been monopolized by literati-landlord class, who cherished the emperors’ and their benefits more than people’s welfare. Accordingly, the Chinese human rights, dignity and creativity were destroyed, which made the Chinese people undefended when the Opium War broke out.
In the 1980s, as Bo Yang being set free, KMT was administered by Chiang Ching-kuo, and CCP started setting out economic reform promoted by Deng Xiao-ping. At this time, the intelligentsia across the strait faced the following question: should the Chinese follow Western democracy or are the Chinese qualified to operate democracy? Bo Yang answered this question in The Ugly Chinaman: China (including Taiwan and Mainland China) must operate democracy in the future; otherwise, China will not keep pace with other countries and will go to its doom. However, if the Chinese would not awake to correct the social structure and cultural habits, it is impossible to operate democracy in China.
After the martial law was lifted, even though Bo Yang did not alter his ideas, Taiwan was rapidly democratized. In the 1990s, Bo Yang’s social image of radical insurrectionist was turned into prestigious writer and symbolic icon of human rights movement. He took the positions of presidents of AI’s branch in Taiwan and Human Education Foundation, committing himself to compensate for political prisoners and promote human rights education. At this time, Bo Yang embraced the following ideas: he strongly opposed the statements which base on “Asian values” and “being not acclimatized in China” against Western democracy and human rights; he strongly stood for abolishment of death penalty; finally, he promoted euthanasia. After 2000, Bo Yang was hired by the DPP administration, but he opposed both immediate unification and immediate independence. He suggested that the disputes over unification and independence be settled by democratic communication and international mediation. Owing to his positions toward human rights, democracy and the disputes over unification and independence, he became prestigious in his late years and gained symbol capital beyond Taiwan’s literary field and political struggle between pan-blue and pan-green groups.

並列關鍵字

Bo Yan ； Guo Yi-dong ； vat of soy sauce ； society ； culture ； democracy ； human rights

參考文獻

李淑珍，〈二十世紀「中國通史」寫作的創造與轉化〉，《新史學》第19卷第2期，2008年6月，頁85-147。

張清榮編，《柏楊與監獄文學：2007柏楊學術國際研討會論文集》，台南：國立台南大學，2008。

陳永發，《中國共產革命七十年修訂版(下)》，台北：聯經出版公司，2001。

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rule of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans., Susan Emanuel, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.

謝郁慧，《台灣早期幽默散文研究》，中央大學中國文學系在職專班碩士論文，2007。