Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153535
|
| Title: | 台灣白色恐怖官方紀念的形成與變遷（1999-2024）
Official Commemoration of the White Terror in Taiwan (1999-2024): A Perspective from Cultural Sociology |
| Authors: | 王安棣
Wang, An-Di |
| Contributors: | 汪宏倫
Wang, Horng-Luen
王安棣
Wang, An-Di |
| Keywords: | 文化創傷
集體記憶
官方記憶
白色恐怖
轉型正義
Cultural trauma
Collective memory
Official memory
White Terror
Transitional justice |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-09-04 15:59:29 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 台灣民主化以來，白色恐怖的歷史記憶已逐漸從民間倡議保存，進入官方積極承認和紀念的階段。然而，官方的例行紀念並未帶來記憶敘事的共識，官方的白色恐怖敘事至今仍然時常引起政治或社會上的爭論。為什麼儘管白色恐怖已受到官方例行性的紀念，有關這段集體記憶的爭論至今卻依然延續？政黨在其中扮演什麼樣的角色？白色恐怖作為一種創傷記憶，又是如何形塑著官方政策的走向？現有的白色恐怖再現研究，大多採取轉型學途徑或文化途徑，但無法有效解析形塑白色恐怖官方紀念的社會過程，以及其中牽涉的結構條件、記憶能動性和敘事框架的衝突。本文採用文化創傷與集體記憶理論，以敘事分析的方法，分析民主化後四任政府的官方致詞與紀念日選擇。本文的主要發現如下：首先，藍綠兩黨在執政時各自運用不同敘事框架：民進黨對白色恐怖的紀念敘事採用「後威權框架」（強調威權統治背景），而國民黨則是採用「後衝突框架」（強調國共內戰背景）。白色恐怖邁入官方例行性紀念的「初始條件」，正是這段歷史的詮釋權，成為藍綠兩黨在官方場域中象徵權力鬥爭的一環。兩黨在執政時採用各自的敘事框架，並壓抑對方的敘事框架，解釋了為何白色恐怖的意義之爭持續在官方場域發生。再來，白色恐怖作為一種官方記憶，在民主化後成為形塑和證成特定官方政策的「文化資源」。其中包括受到歷任政府持續提倡的人權政策，以及不同政黨執政時，政策方向不盡相同的兩岸關係政策。總結來說，以白色恐怖官方紀念為例，本文提供了一個理解台灣民主化後「記憶政治」的成因、內涵與後果的視角，而本文的研究發現，也期望補充現有轉型正義研究對歷史遺緒的認識。
This article examines the meaning-making process of Taiwan's official commemorations of the White Terror. As a historical period overlapped with the Cold War, the Chinese Civil War, and authoritarian rule, the White Terror has become a past that all successive governments have attempted to overcome since Taiwan's democratization. Current literature on cultural trauma suggests that routinization accompanies consolidation of the meaning of traumatic events. However, disputes over the White Terror persist even after it has been commemorated by the officials regularly. Drawing from speeches and memorial day choices of the officials, this article analyzes the narrative frameworks on the White Terror employed by four ruling governments following Taiwan's democratization. It underlines the pivotal role of political parties as mnemonic agents. The main findings are twofold: (1) The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) approaches the White Terror through a "post-authoritarian" framework, seeing this historical period as a human rights-infringing dictatorship by the Kuomintang (KMT). In contrast, the KMT views this past through a "post-conflict" framework, considering it as part of the Chinese Civil War. ; (2) These two contested views, implemented alternately when either party is in power, serve as cultural resources shaping the government's perspective on contemporary issues, such as human rights and cross-strait relations. This article contributes to the research paradigm of transitional justice by demonstrating the multi-layered legacies of a violent past and providing a perspective from the politics of memory. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文
小笠原欣幸，2021，《台灣總統選舉》。台北：大家。
平井新，2020，〈台灣轉型正義在世界脈絡中的普遍性與未來走向〉。《黨產研究》5: 25-61。
王甫昌，2001，〈民族想像、族群意識與歷史：「認識台灣」教科書爭議風波的內容與脈絡分析〉，《台灣史研究》，8(2): 145-208。
──，2003，《當代台灣社會的族群想像》。台北：群學。
司馬遼太郎，1995，《台灣紀行 : 街道漫步》。台北：台灣東販。
李登輝，1998，《台灣的主張》。台北：遠流。
李淑娟，2021，〈集體記憶・文化創傷 ― 從《返校》系列談台灣的白色恐怖敘事〉。《中國學》75: 79-98。
李禎祥，2015，〈民主化初期的平反工作〉。頁13-29，收入臺灣民間真相與和解促進會編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭 卷二 記憶歷史傷痕》。新北：衛城出版。
李筱峰，2000，〈台灣戒嚴時期政治案件的類型〉。頁117-139，收入戒嚴時期不當叛亂曁匪諜審判案件補償基金會編，《戒嚴時期政治案件之法律與歷史探討》。台北：戒嚴時期不當叛亂曁匪諜審判案件補償基金會。
吳乃德，2006，〈轉型正義和歷史記憶：台灣民主化的未竟之業〉。《思想》2: 1-34。
──，2008，〈書寫民族創傷：二二八事件的歷史記憶〉。《思想》8: 39-70。
──，2015，〈民主時代的威權遺產〉。頁17-67，收入臺灣民間真相與和解促進會編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭 卷一 清理威權遺緒》。新北：衛城出版。
吳介民，2009，〈中國因素與台灣民主〉。《思想》11：141-157。
吳俊宏，2020，《綠島歸來文集》。台北：人間。
吳俊瑩，2022，〈李登輝時代的轉型正義〉。頁301-344，收入歐素瑛、黃翔瑜、吳俊瑩、陳世局編，《李登輝與臺灣民主化學術討論會論文集》。台北：國史館。
吳俊瑩、吳密察、李筱峰、周婉窈、金仕起、祝平一、陳翠蓮、黃維勻、蔡蔚群、薛化元，2015，《我們為什麼反對課綱微調》。台北：玉山社。
吳叡人，2016，〈國家建構、內部殖民與冷戰－戰後臺灣國家暴力的歷史脈絡與轉型正義問題的根源〉。頁45-55，收入吳叡人編，《受困的思想 : 臺灣重返世界》。新北：衛城出版。
汪宏倫，2008，〈國族問題中的制度因素、全球脈絡與怨恨心態〉，頁73-91，收入王宏仁、李廣均、龔宜君編，《跨戒：流動與堅持的台灣社會》。台北：群學。
──，2014，〈東亞的戰爭之框與國族問題：對日本、中國、台灣的考察〉，頁157-225，收入汪宏倫編，《戰爭與社會：理論、歷史、主體經驗》。台北：聯經。
──，2024，〈我們能和解共生嗎？：反思台灣的轉型正義與集體記憶〉。頁95-165，收入許家馨編，《歷史記憶的倫理：從轉型正義到超克過去》。台北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。
周婉窈，2022，《轉型正義之路：島嶼的過去與未來》。台北：玉山社。
林佳龍，1999，〈解釋台灣民主化：政體類型與精英的策略選擇〉，頁87-152，收入林佳龍、邱澤奇編，《兩岸黨國體制與民主發展：哈佛大學東西方學者的對話》。台北：月旦出版社。
──，2008，〈轉型，沒有正義——論國民黨黨產對台灣民主鞏固的挑戰〉。頁95-121，收入徐永明編，《轉型，要不要正義？——新興民主國家與台灣的經驗對話》。台北：台灣智庫。
林國明，2015，〈歷史研究法〉。頁173-218，收入瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞編，《社會及行為科學研究法：質性研究法》。台北：東華書局。
林傳凱，2014，〈「大眾傷痕」的「實」與「幻」：探索「1950 年代白色恐怖《見證》」的版本歧異〉。《歷史臺灣》8: 35-81。
──，2015，〈白色恐怖口述史的檢討〉。頁79-116，收入臺灣民間真相與和解促進會編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭 卷二 記憶歷史傷痕》。新北：衛城出版。
林靜雯，2016，〈召喚記憶的展示－白色恐怖死難者遺書展〉。《博物館學季刊》23(3): 63-89。
若林正丈，2016，《戰後臺灣政治史：中華民國臺灣化的歷程》。台北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。
馬英九，2007，《原鄉精神——台灣的典範故事》。台北：天下遠見。
侯坤宏，2006，〈戰後臺灣白色恐怖論析〉。《國史館學術集刊》12: 139-203。
──，2011，《研究二二八》。新北：博揚。
柯朝欽，2011，〈戒嚴時期政治犯平反運動的持續與公共化〉。頁290-328，收入何明修、林秀幸編，《社會運動的年代：晚近二十年來的台灣行動主義》。台北：群學。
──，2015，〈轉型正義與歷史記憶的分歧〉。頁71-87，收入臺灣民間真相與和解促進會編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭 卷三 面對未竟之業》。新北：衛城出版。
徐永明，2008，〈導論：追求台灣政治的轉型正義〉。頁1-8，收入徐永明編，《轉型，要不要正義？——新興民主國家與台灣的經驗對話》。台北：台灣智庫。
陳英泰，2017a，《回憶3：開啟白色恐怖平反之門》。台北：吳三連台灣史料基金會。
──，2017b，《回憶4：到達不了的平反之路》。台北：吳三連台灣史料基金會。
陳翠蓮，2008，〈歷史正義的困境－族群議題與二二八論述〉。《國史館學術集刊》16: 179-222。
張炎憲、陳美蓉，2009，《戒嚴時期白色恐怖與轉型正義論文集》。台北：吳三連台灣史料基金會。
曹欽榮，2008，〈歷史交響詩——白色恐怖口述與跨領域研究初探〉。《中華人文社會學報》8: 166-182。
──，2020，〈臺灣民主運動之後綠島紀念園區的挑戰〉。《博物館與文化》20: 57-82。
黃丞儀，2022，〈自由民主憲政秩序之為物－試論台灣轉型正義實證法化的基礎、爭議與侷限〉。《台灣法律人》10: 40-60。
黃秀端，2008，〈政治權力與集體記憶的競逐－從報紙之報導來看對二二八的詮釋〉。《臺灣民主季刊》5(4): 129-180。
黃默，2008，〈台灣人權的回顧與展望〉。《台灣民主季刊》5(4): 180-187。
許家馨，2024，〈導論：從轉型正義的反思到歷史記憶的倫理〉。頁1-71，收入許家馨編，《歷史記憶的倫理：從轉型正義到超克過去》。台北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。
湯舒雯，2013，《史的暴力，詩的壟斷 ——台灣白色恐怖的文學見證、癥候閱讀與文化創傷》。台北：國立政治大學台灣文學研究所碩士論文。
楊孟軒，2024，〈歷史記憶與記憶的歷史：創傷、情感、牽連性與和解〉。頁257-298，收入許家馨編，《歷史記憶的倫理：從轉型正義到超克過去》。台北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。
葉虹靈，2015，〈台灣白色恐怖創傷記憶的體制化過程：歷史制度論觀點〉。《台灣社會學》29: 1-42。
鄭祖邦，2017，〈中國因素與台灣教科書爭議〉。頁147-187，收入吳介民、蔡宏政、鄭祖邦編，《吊燈裡的巨蟒：中國因素作用力與反作用力》。台北：左岸。
蕭阿勤，2012，《重構台灣：當代民族主義的文化政治》。台北：聯經。
魏廷朝，1997，《臺灣人權報告書（1949-1995）》。台北：文英堂。
貳、英文
Alexander, Jeffery C. 2012. Trauma: A Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Alexander, Jeffery C. and Elizabeth Butler Breese. 2011. “On Social Suffering and Its Cultural Construction.” Pp. xi-xxxv in Narrating Trauma: On the Impact of Collective Suffering, edited by Ronald Eyerman, Jeffrey C. Alexander and Elizabeth Butler Breese. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Alexander, Jeffery C. and Philip Smith. 2004. “The Strong Program In Cultural Sociology: Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics.” Pp. 11–26 in The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander. New York: Oxford University Press.
Assmann, Aleida. 2020. “Cultural Memory.” Pp. 25-36 in Social Trauma – An Interdisciplinary Textbook, edited by Andreas Hamburger, Camellia Hancheva and Vamık D. Volkan. Cham: Springer.
Bodnar, John. 1991. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Braester, Yomi. 2007. “Taiwanese identity and the crisis of memory: Post-Chiang Mystery.” Pp. 213-232 in Writing Taiwan: A New Literary History, edited by David Der-Wei Wang and Carlos Rojas. Durham: Duke University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers, and Margit Feischmidt. 2002. "1848 in 1998: the Politics of Commemoration in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia." Comparative Studies in Society and History 44(4): 700-744.
Caldwell, Ernest. 2018. “Transitional Justice Legislation in Taiwan before and during the Tsai Administration.” Washington International Law Journal 27(3):449-483.
Caruth, Cathy. 1996. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative and History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Chang-Liao, Nien-Chung, and Yu-Jie Chen. 2019. "Transitional justice in Taiwan: Changes and Challenges." Washington International Law Journal 28(3): 619-643.
Chen, Chun-Hung and Hung-Ling Yeh. 2019. “The Battlefield of Transitional Justice in Taiwan: A Relational View,” Pp. 67-80 in Taiwan and International Human Rights A Story of Transformation, edited by Jerome A. Cohen, William P. Alford and Chang-Fa Lo. New York: Springer.
Corcuff, Stephane. 2002. “The Symbolic Dimension of Democratization and the Transition of National Identity Under Lee Teng-hui,” Pp. 73-101 in Memories of the Future: National Identity Issues and the Search for a New Taiwan, edited by Stephane Corcuff. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
De Graaf, Paul M. 1986. “The Impact of Financial and Cultural Resources on Educational Attainment in the Netherlands.” Sociology of Education 59(4): 237-246.
Durkheim, Emile. 2001. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elster, Jon. 2004. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eyerman, Ron. 2004. “The Past in the Present: Culture and the Transmission of Memory.” Acta Sociologica 47(2): 159-169.
Gillis, John R. 1994. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory. Edited by Lewis Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hansen, Thomas Obel. 2014. “The Vertical and Horizontal Expansion of Transitional Justice: Explanations and Implications for a Contested Field.” Pp. 105-124 in Transitional Justice Theories, edited by Susanne Buckley-Zistel, et al. New York: Routledge.
Hite, Katherine, Cath Collins and Alfredo Joignant. 2013. “The Politics of Memory in Chile.” Pp. 1-29 in The Politics of Memory in Chile: From Pinochet to Bachelet, edited by Cath Collins, Katherine Hite and Alfredo Joignant. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Ho, Ming-Sho. 2020. “The Changing Memory of Tiananmen Incident in Taiwan: From Patriotism to Universal Values (1989-2019).” China Information 36(1): 90-111.
Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, Christopher R. 2014. “Revisiting Identity Politics under Ma Ying-jeou,” Pp. 120-136 in Political Changes in Taiwan Under Ma Ying-jeou: Partisan Conflict, Policy Choices, External Constraints and Security Challenges, edited by Jean-Pierre Cabestan and Jacques deLisle. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Kim, Mikyoung. 2008. “Pacifism or Peace Movement?: Hiroshima Memory Debates and Political Compromises.” East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 31(3): 518-544.
Korycki, Kate. 2017. “Memory, Party Politics, and Post-Transition Space: The Case of Poland.” Journal of International and Area Studies 15(1): 61-78.
Lin, Sylvia Li-chun. 2007. Representing Atrocity in Taiwan: The 228 Incident and White Terror in Fiction and Film. New York: Columbia University Press.
Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stephan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lee, James. 2024. “Taiwan and the “New Cold War.”” EurAmerica 54(1): 69-116.
Makeham, John. 2005. “Introducation.” Pp. 1-14 in Cultural, Ethnic, and Political Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan, edited by John Makeham and A-Chin Hsiau. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Makeham, John and A-Chin Hsiau. 2005. Cultural, Ethnic, and Political Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matten, Marc Andre. 2012. “The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei: A Contested Place of Memory,” Pp. 51-89 in Places of Memory in Modern China: History, Politics, and Identity, edited by Marc Andre Matten. Leiden: Brill.
Murphy, Helen and Ya-ling Chang. 2022. “Repair through Empathy: Narratives of Reconciliation in Two White Terror Memorial Parks in Taiwan.” Museums & Social Issues 16(1): 1-16.
Nora, Pierre. 1992. Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, Vol. 1 - Conflicts and Divisions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Olick, Jeffrey K. 1999. “Genre Memories and Memory Genres: A Dialogical Analysis of May 8, 1945 Commemorations in the Federal Republic of Germany.” American Sociological Review 64(3): 381-402.
──. 2007. The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility. New York: Routledge.
Olick, Jeffery K. and Joyce Robbins. 1998. “Social Memory Studies: From “Collective Memory” to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:105–40.
Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy. 2011. “Introduction,” Pp. 3-62 in The Collective Memory Reader, edited by Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rowen, Ian and Jamie Rowen. 2017. “Taiwan’s Truth and Reconciliation Committee: The Geopolitics of Transitional Justice in a Contested State.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 0: 1-21.
Saito, Hiro. 2006. “Reiterated Commemoration: Hiroshima as National Trauma.” Sociological Theory 24(4): 353-376.
──. 2010. “From Collective Memory to Commemoration.” Pp. 629−638 in The Handbook of Cultural Sociology, edited by John. R. Hall, Laura Grindstaff and Ming-Cheng Lo. Oxon: Routledge.
──. 2016. The History Problem: the Politics of War Commemoration in East Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Shih, Fang-Long. 2011. “Memory, Partial Truth and Reconciliation without Justice: the White Terror Luku Incident in Taiwan.” Taiwan in Comparative Perspective 3: 140-151.
Smith, Anthony D. 2008. The Cultural Foundations of Nations: Hierarchy, Covenant, and Republic. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Taylor, Jeremy E. 2010. “QuJianghua: Disposing of and Re-appraising the Remnants of Chiang Kai-shek’s Reign on Taiwan” Journal of Contemporary History 45(1): 181-196.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1947. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
Stolojan, Vladimir. 2017. “Transitional Justice and Collective Memory in Taiwan: How Taiwanese Society is Coming to Terms with Its Authoritarian Past.” China Perspectives 2017/2: 27-35.
Teitel, Ruti G. 2000. Transitional Justice. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Vinitzky-Seroussi, Vered. 2002. “Commemorating a Difficult Past: Yitzhak Rabin's Memorials.” American Sociological Review 67(1): 30-51.
Wagner-Pacifici, Robin and Barry Schwartz. 1991. “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a Difficult Past.” American Journal of Sociology 97(2): 376-420.
Wu, Chia-Rong. 2021. “Spectralizing the White Terror: Horror, Trauma, and the Ghost-Island Narrative in Detention.” Journal of Chinese Cinemas 15(4):1-14.
Yang, Dominic Meng-Hsuan. 2020. The Great Exodus from China: Trauma, Memory, and Identity in Modern Taiwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeh, Hsin-Yi. 2014. “A Sacred Bastion? A Nation in Itself ? An Economic Partner of Rising China? Three Waves of Nation-Building in Taiwan after 1949.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 14(1): 207-228.
──. 2018. “Telling a shared past, present, and future to invent nationality: The commemorative narrative of Chinese-ness from 1949 through 1987 in Taiwan.” Memory Studies 11(2): 172–190.
Yu, Ching-Hsin. 2005. “The Evolving Party System in Taiwan, 1995–2004.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 40(1/2): 105-123. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
110252009 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110252009 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 200901.pdf | | 2380Kb | Adobe PDF | 3 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
