查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 「總力戰」與地方文化：地方文化論述、臺灣文化甦生及臺北帝大文政學部教授們
- 「敝衣破帽」的天之驕子--臺北高校生與臺北帝大預科生
- 穿越皇民化運動時期的動員表象--「決戰臺灣小說集」編輯結構析探
- 臺灣與日本之學術「南進」--臺灣總督府、臺北高商、臺北帝大與日本東南亞研究的系譜
- 從「臺北帝大」到「臺灣大學」--戰後文化重編之個案研究(1945-1950)
- 華麗背後的腐壞：回應橋本恭子《島田謹二《華麗島文學志》研究--以「外地文學論」為中心》中的翻案觀點
- 日據時代的「外地文學」論考
- 「新體制」下的社會／自我凝視--濱田隼雄〈甘井君的私小說〉的脈絡性閱讀
- 文化邊界上的知識生產 : 「外文學門」歷史化初探
- 從帝大到臺大的臺灣法律史研究與教學
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 「總力戰」與地方文化：地方文化論述、臺灣文化甦生及臺北帝大文政學部教授們=Total War and Local Culture: Discourses on the Local Culture in Taiwan, Revival of Taiwanese Culture, and Professors of the College of Liberal Arts and Law of Taipei Imperial University |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 柳書琴; | 書刊名 | 臺灣社會研究季刊 |
| 卷 期 | 79 2010.09[民99.09] |
| 頁 次 | 頁91-158 |
| 分類號 | 541.2 |
| 關鍵詞 | 戰爭期; 大政翼贊會; 地方文化論述; 外地文學; 臺北帝大; 文化甦生; Wartime; The organization in support of the royal monarchy; Discourses on the local culture; Gaichi literature; Taipei Imperial University; Cultural revival; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 「地方文化振興運動」擴及台灣後，引發了以戰時國民精神建設為宗旨，指向「國民性」塑造的「官製地方文化論述」；關切台灣文化主體性與現代性，指向「地方主體」建立的「本土地方文化論述」；以及介於兩者之間，以在台日本人社會處境與未來願景出發的「外地文化論述」。各種立場與類型分歧的台灣地方文化論述，闢出多重文化勢力斡旋的空間，同時產生了間隔官方文化統制與本土文化界直接交鋒的緩衝作用。文化甦生的整體背景為文化動員，戰時台灣的文化復甦現象，乃是上述三者交相促進的結果。台北帝大教授在南進調查與台灣研究的權威，使他們對上述三種論述都產生影響。因此在文化史上，形成了一個殖民地學術威權介入文化生產的特殊時期。本文將透由下列子題對此進行探討：（1）皇民化運動不同階段措施對台灣本土化造成什麼影響？（2）軍事擴張引發的地緣政治變化及帝國推動的「共榮圈」文化運動，如何活化殖民地在帝國中的既有文化位階？台灣文化菁英如何挪用「翼贊地方文化論述」，爭取戰時地方文化的存續與增能？（3）「本土地方文化論述」操作下，戰時台灣文化的復甦取得了哪些成果？「政策開口」下的本土策略，如何被統治階層所洞悉，並隨著政策的縮口被迫進行修正？（4）在台灣文化由「鄉土文化」向「地方文化」進行定位轉換，以及殖民官方推動的台灣學建構熱潮中，台北帝大教授們扮演了什麼角色？（5）學術分工投現於文化統制與文化動員體制的當時，技術性資本最低的文學科教授們，如何在島內文化的扶掖或統制方面有不同介入，成為文化自主性的屏障者或文化統制的協力者？ |
| 英文摘要 | After the movement of invigorating the local culture, which originated in Japan, was enlarged to cover Taiwan, three streams of cultural discourses were respectively but also mutually evoked in Taiwan: “the officially-made discourse on the local culture” with the wartime spiritual construction of people as its primary objective, referring to the issue of shaping proper identities that would qualify people of the nation; “the native discourse on the local culture” mainly concerned about the subjectivity and modernity of Taiwanese culture, referring to the construction of the local subjectivity; “the discourse on the gaichi culture” made by the Japanese in Taiwan by taking into consideration their social circumstances and future vision, lying between the former two poles of cultural discourses. The divergent positions and patterns of discourses on the local culture in Taiwan inaugurated a space for the mediation and intervention of multiple streams of cultural power and furthermore buffered the effects of direct confrontation that might be provoked in an encounter between the cultural policy enforced by the ruling class and the local cultural circle. Cultural mobilization served as the general background of the cultural revival in Taiwan during World War II, which was the result of an interaction among the above-mentioned three streams of cultural discourses. Professors of Taipei Imperial University interfered in surveys on the colonial development in the South and in researches on Taiwan, so they are involved in three kinds of the discourses and result in the impact on it. This paper attempts to explore the diverse cultural discourses in Taiwan through the following subtopics: (1) How did the various measures enforced in different phases of the movement of Japanese assimilation of the local culture influence the trend of localization in Taiwan? (2) How could the geopolitical changes aroused by military expansion and the cultural movement around the Ring of Pan-East-Asian Collective Prosperity launched by the Japanese Empire revitalize the given cultural position of a colony ranked under the imperial standards of categorization? How did the cultural elites in Taiwan appropriate the local cultural discourse in support of the royal monarchy in Japan to strive for wartime maintenance and empowerment of the local culture? (3) Under the operation of “the native discourse on the local culture,” what kinds of fruitful results were achieved during the wartime cultural revival in Taiwan? How did the ruling class eventually become aware of the strategies adopted by “the native discourse on the local culture,” which took advantage of the interstices within the official frame of cultural policies and later as a result was compelled to make amendments to its strategies in terms of the strictly modified cultural policies? (4) During the period of transition from the “homeland culture” to the “local culture” in Taiwanese culture, as well as situated in a popular trend of constructing Taiwan as an academic subject of study officially espoused by the colonial government, what kind of role did professors of Taipei Imperial University perform? (5) During this period when an academic division of labor was effected under the cultural governance and the system of cultural mobilization, how did professors of the Department of Literature in Taipei Imperial University, as the lowest rank of the technical capital in the system of academic mobilization, interfere in different attitudes towards the support or governance of culture in Taiwan so as to become either the defender of cultural autonomy or the collaborator of cultural governance? |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。