查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 重層土著化下的歷史意識：日治後期黃得時與島田謹二的文學史論述之初步比較分析
- 黃得時的臺灣古典文學史論暨其相關問題
- The Nation and the Colony: On the Japanese Rhetoric of Gaichi Bungaku
- 二十世紀初葉日本人移民美國對華人之衝擊
- 猶待兩岸倡「雙黃」--文學史家黃人與黃得時
- 書寫歷史的書寫--從黃得時文學史觀出發對臺灣文學史書寫的思考
- 中國民族主義的後現代機緣--國家遷徙歷程中的集體疏離與個體能動
- 客家族群意識與歷史的文化建構--客家社區在原鄉與移民地之比較研究
- 國族的界限和文學史：論建構臺灣新文學史與張愛玲研究
- 爭取日文讀者大眾：黃得時及「新銳中篇創作集」
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 重層土著化下的歷史意識：日治後期黃得時與島田謹二的文學史論述之初步比較分析=Historical Consciousnesses of Multilayered Indigenization : A Preliminary Comparative Analysis of the Literary History Discourses of Huang Te-shih and Shimada Kinji |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 吳叡人; | 書刊名 | 臺灣史研究 |
| 卷 期 | 16:3 2009.09[民98.09] |
| 頁 次 | 頁133-163 |
| 分類號 | 863.09 |
| 關鍵詞 | 黃得時; 島田謹二; 文學史; 移民; 土著化; 歷史意識; 殖民文學; 外地文學; 民族主義; Huang Te-shih; Shimada Kinji; Literary history; Settlers; Indigenization; Historical consciousness; Colonial literature; Overseas literature; Nationalism; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 島田謹二的文學史論述，以歐洲的「外地文學」（或殖民地文學）論為理論架構。所謂「外地文學」論，是一種具有二重性的複雜理論。一方面，它從擴張性民族主義的政治立場，視外地文學為母國語文學的延長，也就是移民使用母國語描寫外地生活的文學。這是母國語中心主義的主張。另一方面，它又從寫實主義的文學立場，主張外地文學應書寫具有在地特色的文學，而這個美學主張則必然蘊含了差異，乃至分離的可能。從這個理論立場出發，島田所建構的文學史主體，於是呈現出母國與外地之間的辯證關係。一方面，他主張在臺灣的文學史只能是母國日本語文學史的延長，「臺灣」無法單獨成為文學史的主體。另一方面， 他承認在日本語延長的大脈絡中，隱藏著外地臺灣主體形成的可能性。其次，基於母國語中心主義的語言判準，島田文學史的處理對象只限於能夠運用日語進行文學創作的內地及來臺的日本人作者。第三，在敘事結構上，島田遵循編年史的時間序列進行書寫，然而在這個時間序列之中，隱藏著兩個彼此相關的邏輯：一 方面，島田從外地文學的寫實主義美學尺度，逐步審視衡量不同階段作者作品的藝術的成熟度，然而在另一方面，這個寫實主義美學的逐步成熟，又隱然對應著日本在臺移民的土著化過程。第四，島田文學史中「外地主體」的出現，主要是從他寫實主義文學立場的論理之中衍生出來的結果。換言之，外地主體的出現， 乃是非政治性書寫所產生的非預期的政治性後果。 黃得時的臺灣文學史論述，借用了十九世紀法國史家Hippolyte Taine 的名著《英國文學史》的理論架構，是一種典型的民族文學史論述。首先，黃得時預設「臺灣」構成了一個與「英國」或「日本」平行的文學史書寫的主體。其次，他創造性地延伸Taine 方法論中的「種族」概念，將臺灣人的民族形成，詮釋為「土著化」與「種族融合」這兩個社會史過程的產物。透過這個詮釋策略，他一方面克服了臺灣政治史的不連續性，使臺灣作為文學史書寫主體成為可能，另一方面也建構了一個多元主義的「臺灣人」概念，保留了討論多種族／多語作品的理論空間。第三，在敘事結構上，黃得時遵循一種目的論式的「從移民到落地生根」的土著化時間序列，分期討論從明鄭到清末漢族移民或中國內地作家關於臺灣的文學創作，如何從流亡者、官僚、旅行者書寫，最終轉化為在地書寫的過程。第四、黃得時的臺灣文學史借用了1940 年代初期大政翼贊運動之「地方文化」論所打開的言論空間，來重申1930 年代新文學運動中出現的臺灣文化民族主義論，因此是一種鮮明的政治書寫。 |
| 英文摘要 | The argument of this paper can be summarized as follows. Shimada Kinji’s discourse of literary history adopted the European theory of overseas or colonial literature as its framework. The so-called “overseas literature” is a complicated theory with duality. On the one hand, it regards overseas literature as extension of the literature of the metropole from the political stance of expansionist nationalism. On the other hand, it maintains that overseas literature should creates works with local characteristics, and this aesthetical position entails differences, distortions, oppositions, and even the possibility of secession. Starting from such theoretical position, Shimada went on to construct a subject of literary history that manifested a dialectic relationship between metropole and colony. While he argued that literature in Taiwan could not be anything but the extension of the history of Japanese literature in metropole and thus Taiwan could not become a subject of literary history by itself, he admitted and even maintained that within the larger context of a Japanese language expanded overseas the subject formation of colonial Taiwan was possible. Secondly, based upon the linguistic criterion of Japanese-centrism, Shimada’s conception of literary history dealt only with those Japanese writers traveling or immigrating to Taiwan who had a good command of Japanese as a literary language. The level of written Japanese of the Taiwanese writers was still so primitive that they were excluded from his treatise for the time being. Thirdly, Shimada followed the chronological sequence in constructing his narrative structure, but two related logics were hidden in this time sequence. On the one hand, Shimada evaluated the artistic maturity of each author’s works of various stages according to criteria of realist aesthetics. On the other hand, however, the process of gradual maturation of the realist aesthetics among the authors under discussion tacitly corresponded to that of the indigenization of the Japanese settlers in Taiwan. Fourthly, the emergence of a colonial subject in Shimada’s literary history was a corollary of his aesthetic argument of realism. In other words, the emergence of colonial subject was an unintended political consequence of his unpolitical writing. Huang Te-shih borrowed the theoretical framework of the nineteenth century French historian Hippolyte Taine’s masterpiece, Histoire de la Littérature Anglaise, to construct his own literary history and thus was a typical discourse of history of national literature. First of all, Huang presumed that “Taiwan” constituted a subject of literary history parallel to “England” and “Japan.” Secondly, he creatively extended the concept of race in Taine’s methodology and interpreted the Taiwanese nation formation as the outcome of two processes of social history, i.e., indigenization and amalgamation of races. By way of this interpretive strategy, he on the one hand overcame the discontinuity of Taiwan’s political history and made it possible for Taiwan to become a subject of literary history, and on the other hand constructed a pluralistic concept of “Taiwanese,” thereby preserving a theoretical space for discussing multi-racial and multi-linguistic works. Thirdly, in terms of narrative structure, Huang followed a time sequence of indigenization characteristic of a teleological order of “from settlers to natives.” He discussed period by period how the creative works of Chinese settlers or writers about Taiwan were transformed from the writings of exiles, bureaucrats and travelers to native writings. Fourthly, Huang’s history of Taiwanese literature was a distinctly political writing in that he intentionally appropriated the discourse of local culture of Japan’s Taise Yokusan Movement of early 1940s to represent the thesis of Taiwanese cultural nationalism that emerged out of the new literature movement of the 1930s. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。