Becoming “Japanese”: Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation
Becoming “Japanese”: Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation
复制标题
成为“日本人”：殖民地台湾与身份形成的政治
DOI：
10.1080/03612759.2001.10525977
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thomas R. H. Havens
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomas R. H. Havens
利奥·T S. Ching，助理教授。I;本书讨论了日本殖民统治下的台湾作家（194 S）如何在台湾原住民、日本人和中国文化的认同中挣扎。成为“日本-R，\e”，intcndcd为专家，区分日本的同化政策（docikrr）的20世纪30年代中期和帝国化（koorninku）之后。在日本帝国主义统治下，台湾知识分子只能在日本国民的义务下，没有日本公民的权利。《全面战争动员，1937- 1945》。这种有点不连续的、有角度的旋转，在对殖民/后殖民历史学的批评和对殖民时代台湾文学文本的批评之间旋转。第一章以不同的成功率，反对“特殊”。“日本帝国主义和殖民主义是不同的和独特的”（19）。他敏锐地指出，日本不像英国或法国，不必直面殖民历史，因为它在1945年后经历了突然的，而不是长期的殖民统治。第二章探讨日本殖民主义如何帮助塑造自治的台湾人的身份，在1945年之前和之后，在岛上的汉族heritlige; MD其在日本统治下的经验。根据民族文化的解释，Ching反而将台湾意识定位于“政治投射”，不满于“殖民台湾的社会经济条件和政治可能性的减少”（77）。第三章准确地描述了台湾反殖民情绪的阶级含义，并努力（有时是尴尬地）否认日本在20世纪30年代中期之后的帝国化政策仅仅是早期同化努力的强化或产物;相反，它是新的和不同的。秦认为，“身份之争”是帝国主义“逻辑的一个组成部分”（125）。他从舒建夏、杨贵、龙应宗的殖民文学作品中，提供了有用的例证。台湾原住民是第四章的重点。在帝国化下，东京不再把原住民视为野蛮人，而是作为帝国的臣民，欢迎他们作为“志愿者”加入日本军队。清的主要贡献在于第五章和第一章吴浊流的《亚洲孤儿》（1943-4.5）。他的论点被他称为“超越同一性，走向意识”。根据吴的文学文本，克林认为，“意识的重建”是一个更具历史性和批判性的方式来评估台湾对殖民主义的反应，“而不是身份的政治”（I 76）-一个值得进一步阐述的想法。不幸的是，《成为日本人》显示了不恰当的编辑和许多不标准的罗马化。
Leo T. S. Ching, an assistant professor of. I; ipanese at Duke University, discusses how writers in Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule (1 HOS-194S) struggled with identities as Taiwancsc natives, Japanese subjects, and lega-tee5 01’Chinese culture. Becoming “Japan-r,\e,” intcndcd for specialists, distinguishes hetween Japan’s policies of assimilation (docikrr) bcforc the mid-1930s and imperial-i/; ition (koorninku) thereafter. Under imperialization, Taiwan’s intellectuals had to internal-i/c their obligations as Japanese subjects, without rights as Japanese citizens, during. I; ipan’s mobilization for total war, 1937-45. This somewhat discontinuous, angular vollime gyrates between critiques of comparative colonial/postcolotiial historiography and prC-ci4 of colonial-era Taiwanese literary texts. Chapter 1 argues, with mixed succcss, against thc “particuiari~,. ntion of Japanese imperialism and colonialism as somehow diffcrcnt arid unique’’(19). Ching perceptively notes that Japan, unlike Britain or France, has not had to confront its colonial past head-on because it underwent sudden, not protracted, dccolonixation atter 1945. The second chapter examines how Japanese colonialism helped to shape autonomous Taiwanese identities, before and after 1945, in relation both to the island’s Han Chinese her-itlige; md to its experience under Japanese rule. Rcjccting ethnocultural explanations, Ching instead locates Taiwanese consciousness in a “political projection” dissatisfied with “socioeconomic conditions and thc decreasing political possibilities in colonial Taiwan”(77). Chapter 3 accurately sketches the class implications of anticolonial sentiment in Taiwan und labors, at times awkwardly, to deny that the Japanese policy of imperialization dter the mid-1930s was a mere intensification, or outgrowth, of earlier efforts at assimilation; instead it was new and different. Ching conciudcs that “the struggle over identities” W; IS ‘‘an integral part of the very logic” of imperialization (125). He offers useful illustrations from colonial literary works by Shuu Kin-ha, Yang Kuei, and Lung Ying-tsung.‘Taiwanese aboriginnls are the focus of Ching’s fourth chapter. Under imperialization,‘Tokyo no longer regarded aboriginals as savages but instead as imperial subjects, welcomed to lapan’s armed forces as “volunteers.” Ching’s chief contribution lies in the fifth and linal chapter on Wu Cho-liu’s Ajia no koji (Orphan of Asia, 1943-4.5). His argument rriight he styled “beyond identity to conwiousness.” Drawing on Wu’s literary text, Cliing holds that “the reconstitution of consciousness” is a more historical and critical way to assess Taiwan’s response to colonialism “than the politics of identity”(I 76)-an idea deserving future elaboration. Unfortunately, Becoming “Japanese” displays infelicitous editing and many nonstandard Romanizations.