課程簡介

　　本課程從歷史社會學的視野，以日治時期殖民現代性為背景出發，系統性地檢視自二戰後迄今之台灣現代性形構。首先，在梳理了西方現代性的重要相關議題後，更進一步地對台灣「現代性的在地化」展開反思，也同時對西方中心的「現代性」論述進行質疑。長久以來，在台灣「現代性」很少「被問題意識化」（problematized）。因此，對於現代性的理解也趨於單向度、扁平化，缺乏深刻的、較為複雜的辯證內容。一個較系統性地重訪／反思現代性的工作實刻不容緩。

　　本課程主要目的企圖以台灣的「在地化現代性」做為啟發性的置疑架構 （problematique），立足台灣，與「西方現代性」進行廣泛平衡的對話，期能切合並發揮台灣特殊的異質性歷史積澱，洞悉「西方中心論」可能隱涵的偏見與限制，並與既有之本土經驗研究對話。自從十九世紀中葉以來，台灣社會即受到西方經濟、文化與政治體制的影響，主動或被動地追求西方所經歷過的「現代化」，因而使得當代台灣體現在諸如經濟、政治、社會、文化等面向上，有著與西方社會雷同的「普遍」特徵。

　　然而相較於現代性在西方的萌芽、開展與擴散，究竟台灣的現代性和西方的現代性有何牽衍、並行、殊異之處，在何種程度上，台灣社會具有西方社會的現代性特質，這些問題一直困擾著台灣的社會科學研究者，也構成本課程的核心關懷。「他山之石，可以攻錯」，本課程意在為台灣的現代性問題思考，提供更為廣闊的「全球平行比較視野」，探討台灣身處在三大帝國（中國、日本、美國）邊緣所造成的獨特歷史發展。以大歷史之角度，來考察位處帝國邊緣的台灣國家機器，如何折衝其間、並穿透內部社會公私領域之權力部署、及總體資源分配，系統地勾勒台灣現代性形構的主要面向與關鍵議題。

　　身為一個社會學家最想回答的問題是「台灣是一個什麼樣的社會？」而要回答此問題，必須藉由「自我反身性」地回顧戰後迄今台灣社會發展，進行自我描述與建構歷史圖像。必須特別強調的是，要深入地了解台灣社會發展史，必須從國家研究作為重要的起點。因為，非常弔詭地，由於台灣的國家生成有其外來「移入政權」（settled regime）的歷史遺緒，故孤懸獨立於台灣所固有的原生社會，迥然有別於現代西方民族國家，大多孕生自既有社會結構中的歷史路徑。換言之，西方的國家是在既有的社會中浮現、結構化摶成的（state in/through society）。反之，台灣的國家形構是自外和凌駕於社會之上，並進而模塑了後來的社會形構（state over/upon society）。

　　循此，我們可以大膽地宣稱，要全面地深入掌握台灣社會發展史，對國家的研究便構成了Robert Merton所說的「策略性研究場域」（strategic research site）。質言之，國家研究正是彰顯與闡明台灣現代性宏觀歷史進程的起點，和起槓桿作用的阿基米德點。就此意義而言，研究國家的形成與轉型的最終目的在回答「何以致之、孰以致之」地解釋「我們從何處來，現在處於何地、未來將往何處走」的大哉問。惟有在此基礎上，方能更進一步求索未來台灣在全球化挑戰與民主深化的未竟之業之雙重嚴峻挑戰下，所面臨的結構性限制、嚴峻考驗與可能出路的現實關懷。這是身為社會學家的我們責無旁貸的重要課題和使命，也構成本課程的主要問題意識。

Course Introduction

From the perspective of historical sociology, this course takes the colonial modernity during the Japanese colonial period as the background and systematically examines the formation of Taiwan’s modernity since World War II to the present. First of all, after sorting out the important issues related to Western modernity, we further reflect on the "localization of modernity" in Taiwan, and at the same time question the Western-centered "modernity" discourse. For a long time, "modernity" in Taiwan has rarely been "problematized." Therefore, the understanding of modernity also tends to be one-dimensional and flat, lacking profound and relatively complex dialectical content. There is no need to delay the work of revisiting/rethinking modernity in a more systematic way.

The main purpose of this course is to use Taiwan's "localized modernity" as an inspiring questioning framework (problematique), and to conduct a broad and balanced dialogue with "Western modernity" based on Taiwan. It hopes to adapt to and utilize Taiwan's special heterogeneous historical accumulation, gain insight into the biases and limitations that "Western-centrism" may imply, and dialogue with existing local experience research. Since the mid-19th century, Taiwanese society has been influenced by Western economic, cultural, and political systems, and has actively or passively pursued the "modernization" experienced by the West. As a result, contemporary Taiwan has "universal" characteristics similar to Western society in aspects such as economy, politics, society, and culture.

However, compared with the germination, development, and spread of modernity in the West, how are Taiwan’s modernity related to, parallel to, and different from Western modernity? To what extent does Taiwanese society possess the modern characteristics of Western society? These issues have always troubled social science researchers in Taiwan and constitute the core concern of this course. "You can attack the wrong thing with a stone from another mountain." This course aims to provide a broader "global parallel comparative perspective" for thinking about Taiwan's modernity issues, and explore the unique historical development caused by Taiwan's being on the edge of three major empires (China, Japan, and the United States). From a macro-historical perspective, this article examines how Taiwan's state apparatus, which is located on the edge of the empire, interferes with it and penetrates the power deployment in the public and private spheres of internal society, as well as the overall resource allocation, and systematically outlines the main aspects and key issues of the formation of Taiwan's modernity.

The question that a sociologist wants to answer most is "What kind of society is Taiwan?" To answer this question, we must use "self-reflexivity" to review the development of Taiwanese society since the post-war period, self-describe and construct a historical image. It must be particularly emphasized that in order to have an in-depth understanding of the history of Taiwan’s social development, national research must be an important starting point. Because, paradoxically, Taiwan's country was born with the historical legacy of a "settled regime" from outside. It is therefore independent of Taiwan's inherent native society. It is completely different from modern Western nation-states, which are mostly born from the historical path of the existing social structure. In other words, Western states emerged and were structured into existing societies (state in/through society). On the contrary, Taiwan's state structure came from outside and was above society, and thus shaped the subsequent social structure (state over/upon society).

Based on this, we can boldly claim that in order to comprehensively and deeply grasp the history of Taiwan's social development, the study of the country constitutes what Robert Merton calls a "strategic research site." In short, national research is the starting point to highlight and clarify the macro-historical process of Taiwan’s modernity, and it is the Archimedean point that plays a leveraging role. In this sense, the ultimate goal of studying the formation and transformation of countries is to answer the big questions of "why and who caused it" to explain "where did we come from, where are we now, and where will we go in the future." Only on this basis can we further explore the structural constraints, severe tests, and possible solutions that Taiwan will face in the future under the dual severe challenges of globalization and the unfinished business of deepening democracy. This is an important topic and mission that we as sociologists have no shirk from, and it also constitutes the main issue awareness of this course.

王德威編著，2005，《台灣：從文學看歷史》。台北：麥田。
黃煌雄編，2017，《三代台灣人：百年追求的現實與理想》。新北：遠足文化。
黃金麟、汪宏倫、黃崇憲，2010，《帝國邊緣：台灣現代性的考察》。台北：群學。
Erik Olin Wright 著，陳信宏譯，2020，《如何在 21 世紀反對資 本主義》。台北：春山。

Edited by Wang Dewei, 2005, "Taiwan: History from Literature." Taipei: Wheatfield.
Huang Huangxiong, ed., 2017, "Three Generations of Taiwanese: Reality and Ideals in a Century of Pursuit". New Taipei: Hiking Culture.
Huang Huanglin, Wang Honglun, and Huang Chongxian, 2010, "The Edge of Empire: An Examination of Taiwanese Modernity." Taipei: Qunxue.
"How to Fight Capitalism in the 21st Century" by Erik Olin Wright, translated by Chen Xinhong, 2020. Taipei: Spring Mountain.