Title

M型政黨vs.鐘型意識-台灣國族認同之意識型態及其心理基礎

Translated Titles

M Shape vs. Bell Shape: The Ideology of National Identity and Its Psychological Basis in Taiwan

DOI

10.6129/CJP.2007.4904.08

Authors

黃囇莉(Li-Li Huang)

Key Words

國族認同 ; 集體自我 ; 集體意識 ; 右翼權威性人格 ; 社會支配性 ; national identity ; collective self-identity ; collective consciousness ; right-wing authoritarian ; social dominant orientation

PublicationName

中華心理學刊

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

49卷4期(2007 / 12 / 01)

Page #

451 - 470

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

先前的研究(Huang, Liu, & Chang, 2004)顯示,台灣人民的國族認同正處於「台灣人認同」與「中國人認同」的雙重認同困境中,而此困境有其歷史根源及在文化與政治上與日俱增的矛盾。為了進一步理解雙重認同的意識型態及其心理,本研究以社會建構論觀點,將國族認同視為意識覺醒與努力後之產物,而新編擬國族意識之測量題目。同時,將國族意識(認知信念)、國族認同的情感及對未來國族的想像(行為傾向),合併而為國族認同之意識型態(ideology)。接著探討此意識型態是否得以有效區辨台灣境內主要的三種類別化之國族認同,同時也具有可區辨之前置心理因子。 本研究取樣台灣各地區民眾1368人,2003年間以自陳式問卷進行資料蒐集。問卷中以新編40題項測量國族意識之認知信念,因素分析結果顯示,國族意識有四因子:大中華意識、國民黨正統論、分離獨特意識、台灣小而美;以經本土化修訂後集體自尊(collective selfesteem)量表測量國族認同之情感;以兩岸統一或台灣獨立之支持強度作為對國族未來想像之行為傾向。另外,以強迫選擇方式,將研究參與者區分為「中國人優先」、「台灣人優先」、「祇是台灣人」三種國族認同類型,以作為國族認同意識型態之區辨效標。還有,更進一步以「社會支配性」、「右翼權威性人格」心理態度量表,作為國族認同意識型態之前置因子。 資料分析結果顯示,三種不同國族認同者不但在國族意識上有顯著差異,在認同情感、未來想像及社會支配性與右翼權威性格上也有顯著差異。以區辨分析法(discriminant analysis)就三種國族認同類型做區辨分析,結果亦顯示,三種國族認同類型在意識型態上有清楚且可區辨的多元組型,其中「台灣小而美」與「台灣人尊嚴」居於意識型態之中間,且人數最多,而「分離獨特意識」結合「支持獨立」與另一組合「大中華意識」、「國民黨正統論」及「支持統一」各居於兩端,亦即國族認同的意識型態呈現鐘型分布,而藍綠的政黨支持呈現M型雙峰分布。最後,以結構方程模型(Structure Equation Model, SEM)就心理變項與國族意識型態之二階因子(潛在變項)從事正準相關分析,結構模型也顯現三種國族意識型態有不同的心理基礎。

English Abstract

According to Huang, Liu and Chang (2004), national identity in Taiwan is facing a dilemma of double identity, as both Taiwanese identity and Chinese identity are viable. This predicament has deep historical roots, but controversies between political and cultural aspects of identity have been increasing. In order to know more about the substance of double identity and its psychological basis, the present follow up research treated national identity as an awakening national consciousness. Collective self-esteem (affective component) and identity consciousness (cognitive component) combined with imagination of future nationhood (behavioral tendency) to form an ideology of national identity, which was measured using Likert-style items and entered into a discriminant analysis against categorical measures of national identity. 1368 adult participants from all regions in Taiwan completed a self-report questionnaire in 2003. An indigenous revised scale of collective self-esteem measured affective aspects of identity, and forty new items about identity consciousness were developed. The results of factor analysis indicated that national identity consciousness consisted of four sets of beliefs: ”Greater Chinese consciousness”, ”Kuomingtang (KMT) legitimacy”, ”separation consciousness”, and ”Taiwanese refinement”. Whether participants supported reunification or independence served as the measure of imagined future nationhood. A categorical measure divided participants into three national identities based on forced choice survey responses: ”Chinese First”, ”Taiwanese First”, and ”Taiwanese Only”. These three kinds of national identity were regarded as dependent variables for the ideology of national identity. In addition, personality scales such as ”social dominance orientation”, ”right-wing authoritarian personality” were regarded as antecedent factors of the ideology of national identity. Results demonstrated that people with three types of national identity showed significant differences on four sets of national identity consciousness, collective selfesteem, future imagination and other relevant variables. Discriminant analysis was used to provide a multivariate of analysis of the three types of national identity, and results indicated that ”Taiwanese refinement” and ”Taiwanese self-esteem” were in the middle of ideology and most people agreed with them, ”separation consciousness” combined with ”support for independence” on the one pole; and ”Greater Chinese consciousness” ”KMT legitimacy” and ”support for unification” were on the other opposite pole of ideology. In other words, the distribution of the ideology of national identity was bell shaped but political party support was double peaks M shaped. Finally, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was used to model the influences of psychological factors on the ideology of national identity, and the indicated that the three types of categorical national identity had different psychological bases.

Topic Category 社會科學 > 心理學
Reference
  1. 吳乃德(2001)。認同衝突和政治信任:現階段台灣族群政治的核心難題。台灣社會學,4,75-118。
    連結:
  2. 李美枝(2003)。台灣地區族群與國族認同的顯性與隱性意識。本土心理學研究,20,39-71。
    連結:
  3. 李美枝、李怡青(2003)。我群與他群的分化:從生物層次到人的層次。本土心理學研究,20,3-38。
    連結:
  4. 高恆信、李美枝(2001)。台灣省籍、黨籍政治意識型態再政治群體中的糾結。本土心理學研究,13,1-40。
    連結:
  5. 黃俊傑(2006)。論中國經典中「中國」概念的涵義及其在近世日本與現代台灣的轉化。台灣東亞文明研究學刊,3(2),91-100。
    連結:
  6. Adonor, T.W.,Frenkel-Brunswik, E.,Levinson, D.J.,Sanford, R.N.(1950).The authoitarian personality.New York:Harper.
  7. Altemeyer, B.(1998).The other `thoritarian personality`.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,30,47-92.
  8. Anderson,Benedict(1983).Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.London:Verso.
  9. Anderson,Peter(2004).The Intranquil Island: Reconsideration of "Blue and Green in South China Sea".台灣社會季刊,55,225-224.
  10. Bargad, A.,Hyde, J. S.(1991).A study of feminist identity development in women.Psychology of Women Quarterly,15,181-201.
  11. Conover, P. J.,Feldman, S.,I. Jost,J. Sidanius (Eds.)(2004).Political Psychology.New York:Psychology Press.
  12. Dittmer, L.,Kim, S.(Eds.)(1993).China`s quest for national identity.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  13. Downing, N.,Roush, K.(1985).From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women.The Counseling Psychologist,13,695-709.
  14. Gurin, P.,Miller, A. H.,Gurin, G.(1980).Stratum identification and consciousness.Social Psychology Quarterly,43(1),30-47.
  15. Hobsbawm, E.(1990).Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  16. Huang, L.L.,Liu, J. H.(2005).Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation.Personality and Individual Differences,38(2),267-276.
  17. Huang, L.L.,Liu, J.H.,Chang, M.(2004).The "Double Identity" of Taiwanese Chinese: A dilemma of politics and culture rooted in history.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,7(2),149-168.
  18. Jost, J.,Banaji, M.,J. Sidanius (Eds.)(2004).Political Psychology.New York:Psychology Press.
  19. Jost, J.,Sidanius, J. (Eds.)(2004).Political Psychology.New York:Psychology Press.
  20. Knight, K.,J. P. Robinson,P. R. Shaver,L. S. Wrightman (Eds.)(1999).Measures and political attitudes.California:Academic Press.
  21. Li, M. C.,Liu, J. H.,Huang, L. L.,Chang, M.,A. Bernardo,C. Gastado-Conaco,Emma Liwag (Eds.)(2007).The self, Relationships, and Subjective Well-Being in Asia: Psychological, Social, and Cultural Perspectives.South Korea:Kyoyook-kwahak-sa Publishing Company.
  22. Liu, J. H.,Hilton, D. J.(2005).How the past weighs on the present?: Social representations of history and their impact on identity politics.British Journal of Social Psychology,44,537-556.
  23. Liu, J. H.,Huang, L. L.,McFefries, C.(2008).Cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism as a function of political power and social change.Asian Journal of Social Psychology
  24. Liu, J.H.,Wilson, M.W.,McClure, J.,Higgins, T. R.(1999).Social identity and the perception of history: Cultural representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand.European Journal of Social Psychology,29,1021-1047.
  25. Luhtanen, R.,Crocker, J.(1992).A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one`s social identity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18(3),302-318.
  26. Malinowski, B.(1926).Myth in primitive psychology.London:Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
  27. Pratto, F.,Sidanius, J.,Stallworth, L.M.,Malle, B.F.(1994).Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67,741-763.
  28. Ray, J.J.(1989).The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific.Personality and Individual Difference,10(3),331-336.
  29. Reicher, S.,Hopkins, N.(2001).Self and nation.London:Sage.
  30. Richard, K. M.(1989).The relationship of self-monitored dating behaviors to level of feminist identity on the Feminist identity Scale.Sex Roles,20,213-226.
  31. Searle-White, J.(2001).The psychology of nationalism.New York:Palgrave.
  32. Sidanius, J.,Pratto, F.(1999).Social Dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  33. Sidanius, J.,Pratto, F.(Eds.),I. Jost(2004).Political Psychology.New York:Psychology Press.
  34. Stanley, L.,Wise, S.(1993).Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology.New York:Routldege.
  35. Whitley, B. E.(1999).Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(1),126-134.
  36. 白翠琴、夏潮基金會主編(1999)。略論中國意識的內涵及特色。中國意識與台灣意識-1999澳門學術研討會論文集,台北:
  37. 江宜樺(1998)。自由主義、民族主義與國家認同。台北:揚智。
  38. 江政寬、夏潮基金會主編(1999)。台灣歷史中的反抗精神。中國意識與台灣意識-1999澳門學術研討會論文集,台北:
  39. 吳乃德(1996)。自由主義和族群認同:搜尋台灣民族主義的意識型態基礎。台灣政治學刊,1,5-40。
  40. 吳乃德、張茂桂編(1993)。族群關係與國家認同。台北:業強。
  41. 施正鋒(2003)。台灣民族主義。台北:前衛出版社。
  42. 施正鋒、夏潮基金會主編(1999)。台灣意識的探索。中國意識與台灣意識-1999澳門學術研討會論文集,台北:
  43. 張茂桂、蕭新煌(1987)。大學生的「中國結」與「台灣結」-自我認定與通婚觀念的分析。中國論壇,25(1),34-52。
  44. 張灝、洪泉湖、謝政論編(2002)。百年來兩岸民族主義的發展與反省。台北:東大圖書。
  45. 黃俊傑著(2000)。台灣意識與台灣文化。台北:正中書局。
  46. 黃俊傑著(2007)。台灣意識與台灣文化。台北:臺大出版中心。
  47. 黃麗生、夏潮基金會編(1999)。正史中分裂時代的「中國」。中國意識與台灣意識-1999澳門學術研討會論文集,台北:
  48. 黃囇莉(2003)。「中國人」、「台灣人」認同之先後秩序與意涵之變化。教育部卓越計畫未發表手稿。
  49. 黃囇莉、黃光國(1979)。權威及獨斷人格對中美斷交事件知覺的影響。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊,48,155-196。
  50. 盧建榮(1999)。分裂的國族認同:1975∼1997。台北:麥田。
Times Cited
  1. 張婉瑜(2009)。社會犬儒主義的動態歷程探討 —以2008年總統大選為例。中原大學心理學研究所學位論文。2009。1-104。 
  2. 徐寒羽(2014)。「操之在我」或是「交給政府」? ——兩岸民眾文化和大我認同對政治參與傾向的影響。臺灣大學心理學研究所學位論文。2014。1-46。 
  3. 蘇俐貞(2009)。台韓金融改革的政治分析比較:1998-2008。政治大學政治研究所學位論文。2009。1-130。
  4. 邱健吾(2010)。草莓族的意識型態與對中華民國國旗認同度關係之研究。臺灣師範大學圖文傳播學系學位論文。2010。1-97。
  5. 袁碩成(2010)。當前台灣民主困境的出路之探索:權力分享式民主與審議式民主的取徑。政治大學社會學研究所學位論文。2010。1-173。
  6. 徐千雅(2012)。2009年高雄世運電視廣告的符號學分析—論廣告中的城市行銷與國際連結。臺灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所學位論文。2012。1-100。
  7. 林孟如(2013)。民主化與本土化後 國家認同之研究 -以2012年第十三屆 總統大選首投選民為例。中正大學政治學系學位論文。2013。1-152。