自由民族主義之一例－論《獨立評論》對中日關係問題的處理

台灣學界似有不少人對民族主義採負面評價，除了由於厭惡中國民族主義或懼怕台灣民族主義等政治因素以外，很可能由於對民族主義的刻板認知，以爲它必然與自由人權、憲政民主的價值相牴觸。事實不然，自由主義的傳統價值與民族主義的傳統價值實有相涵容的空間，除了英國的彌爾(J.S.Mill)或義大利的馬志尼(Giuseppe Mazzini)之類的自由民族主義先例以外，本文認爲以胡適爲代表的《獨立評論》同仁，在1930年代的中國亦表現出自由民族主義的思想特色，他們在九一八事變、僞滿成立以迄七七事變全面戰爭爆發之間，曾屢次呼籲國際聯盟介入調停以便和平解決中日問題，反對以榨錢、拉伕的野蠻手段驅使同胞對日作戰，主張在未失的彊土上面努力「抵抗」―以阻止日本在偽僞滿以外的中國領土上得寸進尺。就像Yael Tamir所描述的自由民族主義特點，《獨立評論》的同仁似已儘量「把國族思考放在自由主義的界線內，而不偏廢其一端」，「不犧牲別的價值來終極地追求另一套價值」，「個人的反省、選擇，與國家的歷史、命運同樣重要」，換言之，《獨立評論》的同仁固然與徐炳和昶、董時進的暴虎馮河不同，與發起學生運動進而策動罷課的激進份子不同，與動輒把「抗日」、「反蔣」綁在一起的地方勢力或共產黨不同，亦與遲不開放憲政而且嚮往法西斯的政府中人不同，何以不同？乃因他們的民族主義立場受到自由主義的範限所致。本文認爲透過自由民族主義的理論概念，有助於釐清「胡適型」民族主義的特色，進而增加對民族主義的信心與揀別能力。

關鍵字

自由民族主義；獨立評論；胡適；中日戰爭

並列摘要

There are not a few people in Taiwan's academic circle who tend to adopt a negative attitude in the evaluation of nationalism, due partly to such political factors as their hatred of China's nationalism or their scare of Taiwan's nationalism; there are also other very probable reasons arising from a rigid perception of nationalism, taking it as necessarily to be in conflict with such values as freedom, human rights, constitutional politics and democracy. The fact has been quite the contrary. Besides such precedents of liberal nationalism as shown either in the Englishman J.S. Mill or in the Italian Giuseppe Mazzini, this paper contends that during the 1930s in China, and represented by flu Shih, the fellow writers with Independent Critic did reveal characteristics of thought quite in line with liberal nationalism. During the period from the September-Eighteenth Event of 1931 to the July-Seventh Incident of 1937 when the all-out war against Japan broke out, these writers were devoted to appealing to the League of Nations for mediation with a view to achieving a peaceful settlement of Sino-Japanese issues; they were also opposed to resorting to barbarous means both for extracting money, and for forcefully enlisting people to serve the armed forces even for the sake of expulsing Japan. On the other hand, they actually called for an all-out ”resistance” in those territories not yet lost to Japan-as an attempt to halt Japan's further encroachment onto China's territories besides the already lost North-East China (Manchukuo). Like the liberal nationalism as described by Yael Tamir, the fellow writers for Independent Critic seemed to have succeeded to a vary degree in placing national thinking within the boundaries of liberalism without losing sight of either. They also renounced the ultimate pursuit of just one value at the expense of the other. For them, reflection and choice are as important as history and fate. In other words, the fellow writers for Independent Critic were of course totally different from Hsü Bing-chang and Dong Shih-jin, who were just outrageous agitators against the Japanese; they also differed from radicals, who simply stirred up student movements and then instigated them to boycott classes; they were also not in the same category of people as the local powers or the Communists, both of whom constantly linked ”repulsing Japan” with ”anti-Chiang Kai-shek” without cause and discrimination; nor were they in the same boat with those in power in the Nanking government, who repeatedly put off the practice of constitutional democracy while holding fast to the dream of fascism. What then is the difference between these writers and them? For me, this ultimately lies in the fact that their stand on nationalism is defined, delineated and informed by their liberalism. This paper holds the view that the characteristics of nationalism of the Hu Shih type can be clarified through an investigation of the very concept of liberal nationalism, and this will further enhance our capacity for make distinctions and strengthen our faith in nationalism.