無國籍華文文學：在台馬華文學的史前史，或台灣文學史上的非台灣文學－一個文學史的比較綱領

Abstract

當前的台灣，地圖躺下來了，國民革命歸入中國史；中國成了敵國，本國史只考台灣史。這都是高官的發言甚至施政指南。自政黨輪替後，台灣史、台灣文學率先登上獨立的列車，而逐漸被建構成民族－國史及民族－國家文學。本文不擬介入台灣白熱化的統獨意識型態之爭，而毋寧是藉由我們多年在台「既內又外、既外又內」的知情的局外人的觀察位置，藉大馬華人及華文文學的歷史經驗，提出一些比較觀察（最早的、較粗略的比較見安煥然，1994）。 起點是已成歷史事實的「在台馬華文學」，它處於台馬華文文學的交匯處，雖然參與者有限，著作規模不大，但畢竟有它自身的歷史－雖不一定有傳承，但有明確的延續。從獨派以「台灣意識」為判準的台灣文學史觀來看，它不屬於台灣文學，即使它「在台」；從統派邊疆文學史觀來看，它是邊疆上的邊疆，可聊備一格。但我們拒絕大中國的施捨與收編，一如過往之拒絕兩岸海外華文文學、世界華文文學之類文化民族主義收編。 藉由幾張圖表－兩種民族主義台灣文學史略表、台／馬華文文學史略表、台／馬華文文學史結構圖、華人歷史類型圖、在台馬華文學可能意識取向圖，擬就在台馬華文學－馬華文學台灣租借地－旅台文學特區（黃錦樹，1990）的立場，從比較華文文學史的視角，藉由表列，探討台灣（中文）文學的無國籍性－兩極民族主義的文學史敘事型態之外，是否存在著第三種可能－與民族／國家保持一種創造的緊張性的華文文學？ 在上述條件下，進而質疑文學史體裁的有限性。

Literary and historiographical discourse in Taiwan has been reconstructed as the national literature and national history since the DPP became the ruling party. This paper shows no interest in taking part in the heated Taiwan independencereunification debate; instead, the author emphasizes a comparative study based on the unique experience of a Mahua literature observer/participant and his alien and ambivalent position of insider/outsider of both Taiwan and Malaysia. The point of departure of such an argument is ”Mahua literature in Taiwan,” which crosses the borders of both Taiwanese and Malaysian literatures in Chinese. Though a minor literary institution with only few writers and scholars involved, Mahua literature in Taiwan has its own history and contribution to local literary scene. However, in some fundamentalist Taiwanese literary histories this minor literature is excluded because it does not manifest the so-called ”Taiwan consciousness.” On the other hand, from the perspective of the border literature discourse of the pro-unificationists, it could be regarded as a border literature of the border literature. But Mahua literature in Taiwan, which was against the co-option of Overseas Chinese Literature or World Chinese Literature, should also veto such kind of co-option. Based on a perspective of comparative Chinese literatures, the paper describes the ”borrowed” position of Mahua literature in Taiwan and its structure within the local literary system by presenting a series of tables-which schematize Taiwanese nationalist literature, literary histories and historical structures of Taiwan and Malaysia, Chinese topographical history, and the ideological orientation of Mahua literature in Taiwan. Furthermore, it investigates the concept of a Chinese (Taiwanese) literature without nationality-i. e., the possibility of the existence of a third literature beyond the two extremes of literary nationalism. A creative tension might emerge between such a literature without nation and the nation.