台灣文學的本土化典範：歷史敘事、策略的本質主義與國家權力

Abstract

1980年代以來，「本土化」做為關於台灣的知識建構與文化再現之參考架構，在台灣的文學（與歷史）領域引起激烈爭論。本文的目的在解釋本土化典範為何在文學領域引起遠較其它領域嚴重的爭論衝突、為何文學領域中的這個議題與族群和民族主義認同政治的關係遠比其它領域更為密切。關於這些現象的歷史發展過程，一些既有的研究已有探討。因此本文另闢蹊徑，從理論分析的角度提出三點解釋：第一，由於文學的本土化典範是一種敘事的本土化典範，其相關的爭論有如世界觀的衝突；第二、由於認同政治∕文化鬥爭中的「策略的本質主義」與本質主義之間不易區分，即使是策略性的認同宣稱，也容易引起本質主義色彩的對抗；第三，因為文學的本土化典範終究涉及國家權力。本文對這三方面解釋的分析討論，都圍繞在文學本土化典範的基本性質，亦即它是一種敘事化、相對封閉的意義形構整體。

”Indigenization”, or bentuhua, a general idea that the uniqueness of Taiwanese society/ culture/history must be appreciated and interpreted from the viewpoint of the Taiwanese per se, has been a powerful paradigm that directs and informs the discourse on Taiwanese literature and history since the 1980s in Taiwan. In this paper I aim to explain why the literary indigenization paradigm has come to cause fiercer debates and has closer connection with the identity politics of ethnicity and nationalism than the indigenization idea in other areas (except history). Some studies have made contribution to the understanding of the historical, empirical context of the creation and rise of the indigenization paradigm in literature. Instead this paper focuses on the theoretical, analytical dimension and offers three theoretical, analytical explanations for the questions: 1) because the literary indigenization paradigm engenders a kind of antagonism between different historical narratives which is difficult to be weakened; 2) because in the identity politics strategic essentialism is ready to slide from a mere strategy to a form of de facto essentialism that provokes an essentialist backlash; 3) because the literary indigenization paradigm and the conflict caused by it, after all, involves state power. In this paper the discussion of these three factors centers on the essence of the indigenization paradigm in the area of literature, that is, a narrativized view of reality as a meaningful configuration that identifies the narrator in an exclusive way.