台灣解嚴後世代國族認同的形成軌跡與經驗歷程

國族認同問題是台灣長年來的糾結所在，直到近十年社會大眾的認同趨勢轉向以台灣人認同為主，甚至2014年太陽花學運後出現「天然獨世代」的說法，似乎開啟了新的局面。本研究認為天然獨的說法雖然有其政治效用，卻未能捕捉這個世代國族認同的深層內涵，更忽視其多樣的經驗歷程與形成軌跡。國族認同不僅是認知上的自我分類，更是個體透過一組內化的國族敘事所獲得的有意義的自我理解。本研究深度訪談十六名解嚴後出生的受訪者，並將他們的認同經驗敘說與其個人生命史及台灣特殊的國族處境扣連，從動態的觀點提出一個考慮了本土政治社會脈絡的國族認同發展模型。其中，普遍發生於國中至大學時期的「認同危機」經驗迫使個體無法安於「認同萌芽期」形成的國族認同，而展開「認同探索與轉化」與「認同承諾與深化」以填補自我理解出現的裂縫。然而，基於台灣內部分歧、外受威脅的集體處境依舊，個人的國族認同無法抵達「整合完備型」的理想狀態，而是持續在「認同中間狀態」迴旋形構。處於中間狀態，一方面為個體在國族認同上帶來遲疑與困惑感，一方面則蘊藏著朝向歷史探索、分歧中進行對話、以及預備面臨未來變局的動能。最後在討論部分提出上述結果的理論意涵與研究限制，並說明認同敘說和持續對話的重要性。

關鍵字

解嚴後世代；國族認同；認同危機；轉化學習；意義維持論

並列摘要

The issue of national identity is a long-term struggle in Taiwan but recently a new situation seems to be opened up. In the past ten years, the general public has turned to Taiwanese identity over than double identity, and the “Tian-Ran-Du” generation emerged after Sunflower Movement in 2014. Although the term “Tian-Ran-Du” may have some political utility, it cannot capture the deep connotation and divergence in the development of this generation’s national identity. National identity is not only a cognitive self categorization but also a meaningful self-understanding gained by the individual through a set of internalized national narratives. In-depth interviews were conducted with sixteen respondents separately and the narratives were analyzed in the context of their personal lives and of the special national situation in Taiwan. With dynamic view, a national identity development model considering local political and social context was proposed. The first identity status is identity germination. Individuals generally experience identity crisis and move out of this germination status from adolescence to early adulthood. They either turn to exploration and transformation to form a new identity, or turn to deepening and commitment, or both. In doing so the cracks in self-understanding would be repaired. However, under the internal disagreement and externally threatened situation of Taiwan, one’s national identity cannot move into the ideal status of identity synthesis but rather stranded in the intermediate state between germination status and synthesis status. This would bring a sense of hesitation and confusion for the individual, but on the other hand, the intermediate state contains the potential for historical exploration, dialogue in disagreement, and preparation for uncertain future. Implications and limitations was discussed and the importance of identity narration and continual conversation was noted.