頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 日治初期新舊學之爭的歷史考察與時代意義=The Consciousness of the Period and the Importance between New and Old Quarrel in the Early Govern of Japan |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 謝崇耀; | 書刊名 | 人文社會學報. 國立臺灣科技大學 |
卷期 | 4 2008.03[民97.03] |
頁次 | 頁199-229 |
分類號 | 733.2 |
關鍵詞 | 新學; 舊學; 新漢學觀; 論述策略; 資本對抗; New sect; Old sect; New sinology; Discourse strategies; Capitalist conflict; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文首先在敘述日治初期,富殖民色彩的新學之引進與代表本土傳統的舊學之間,所產生的抗衡現象之發展,並一進步探討,臺灣知識份子在此一歷史情境下所扮演的不同角色與作為,及其所反映的時代意義。 基本上,當殖民者強勢導入的體制、語言、建設、風俗等各方面的文化形式逐漸深入社會各階層後,個人若不選擇離開,便不可能置身事外,不受影響。故對於當時臺灣的知識份子而言,日治初期的新舊抗衡雖然存在,但逐漸的,對於新學的態度,已不是「接不接受」,而是「如何接受」的問題了。 故本文除在揭示並敘述此段少為學界討論的文化發展史實外,並希望沿著此一歷史脈絡處理以下三點課題,凸顯出新舊學之爭的時代意義: 1.由於臺籍知識份子多半無法全盤接受殖民者所引進的新學,只是接受的態度與程度,隨著對殖民者本身的認同與否而有差別,因而產生出不同的「新漢學觀」之詮釋,但不論如何,這與日本文化之間,都具有一定的區隔性,故日後臺灣新文化發展,能不完全只是日本文化的複製,實有部分能由此一角度詮釋之。 2.由本文可見,具有民族意識的臺灣知識份子由於初期基於國族認同而產生對新學的排斥,卻也體認到殖民現代性的發展對臺灣主體文化的損害,因此日後乃有超越殖民者欲接受完整現代文化的作為。 3.早期的新舊學之爭其實包括文化與國族的雙重認同問題,但後來仍堅持維繫舊學者,其實真正堅持的已不是生活形式的依循故往,而是一種對民族意識的堅持與自我主體的維繫,故當日本人稱臺灣人為「土人」,稱臺灣傳統學術為「俗學」時,臺灣人乃自行與日本人進行區隔,而稱自己為「臺灣人」,稱日本為「內地人」,因此也才有上述的文化區隔現象與超越殖民現代性的文化發展之產生。由此可見,欲詮釋臺灣新舊學,乃至於日治時期臺灣整體文化的發展,勢必要認清殖民的處境,必然會使許多問題產生複雜的現象,如此方能更深入理解台灣文化由傳統過渡到現代的曲折過程。 |
英文摘要 | The thesis first describes the contrast and its development between the New sect and Old sect. Furthermore, it deplores Taiwanese scholars’ different deeds and their affection during this period. In fact, colonial rule local system, language, construction as well as customs. The scholars either chose to leave or to stay and be dominated. This way, though New and Old quarrel existed in the early govern of Japan, scholars have no choice but to accept the New sect in a certain way. My paper not only shows the cultural development which was rarely discussed, but deal with three main points to distinguish the importance of New and Old quarrel: First, since most Taiwanese scholars could not totally agree with colonial New sect, a “New Sinology” formed. Whatever, it’s different from Japanese culture. It also demonstrated Taiwanese Culture development is not just a duplicate of Japanese culture but having its own uniqueness. Second, from the article, on the one hand, Taiwanese scholars had their own national identity, they rejected the New sect. On the other hand, they are also conscious of colonial modernity damaging Taiwanese culture. They transcended colonial modernity to pursue real modern culture thereafter. Third, the early New and Old quarrel actually involved both culture and national identity. The Old scholars persisted not a traditional lifestyle but a close relation to Taiwan. Therefore, while Japanese called Taiwanese “aborigines”, Taiwanese traditional culture “popular sect”. Taiwanese also had their own opinions. They called themselves “Taiwanese”, as for Japanese “inlanders”. In this way, culture segmentation and complete modern culture appeared. All in all, to figure out Taiwanese New sect and Old sect, and to understand whole Taiwanese culture development, we have to clarify colonial situation they faced and pay attention to many complicated phenomenon produced in that period. Then we comprehend deeply about Taiwanese culture transcendence from tradition to modernity. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。