頡頏、協力與協商－ 日治初期漢醫傳統性、近代性、合法性的生成與交混

Abstract

研究者若要著手研究「漢醫」，首先必須處理:「漢醫的定義是什麼?」 這個問題。漢醫歷來缺乏專門培育以及認證人才的機制，造成漢醫的定義模糊； 加上公共衛生體制與西醫的衝擊，漢醫的疆界產生位移與變動。以往的研究者， 多藉由法條與各項政策的實施，勾勒漢醫在日治時期的發展狀態。然而，法令並 非單純的條文，還必須實踐與推行。透過公共衛生體制、防疫政策以及各種對於 醫療人員資格的篩選與管理的實施，將醫生與病人、殖民者與被殖民者、漢醫與 西醫、漢醫與密醫、近代性與傳統性串連起來。 因此漢醫不是一個既定的範疇，而是會透過關係網絡中不同身分行動者間的 互動，而有了不同的內涵。所以，西方近代醫學並不必然地與近代化劃上等號， 相對地漢醫也不直接地等同於傳統。殖民者的政令也非由上而下，單向地壓迫被 殖民者，被殖民者也有協商與反抗的空間。本文將深入去探究，在總督府對於管 理漢醫的醫療法令之外，行動者如何在不同的事件之中，構成不同的關係網絡； 而網絡中各行動者的頡頏、協力與協商的互動，又如何重新定義漢醫。

To research Chinese Medicine (Hanyi), one must first define it. Historically Chinese Medicine has suffered a lack of professional scrutiny and talent, which has left Chinese Medicine inadequately defined; as well as this, the influence of the introduction of Western medicine on public health organizations also redefined and shifted the traditional boundaries of Chinese Medicine. Previous research has focused on legal definitions and the implementation of policy to portray the development of Chinese Medicine during the Japanese colonial era. However, law is not limited to simple clauses; it also involves implementation and promotion. Through public health organizations, immunization policies, as well as policies governing the qualification and management of medical personnel, therefore doctor and patient, colonizer and colonized, Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine, Chinese Medicine and Quackery, tradition and modernity all became inextricably linked. Therefore, Chinese Medicine is not a predefined range, but rather its meanings arises from the interaction of a network of different actors. So, contemporary Western Medicine should not necessarily be seen as equivalent to modernization, and, by the same token, Chinese Medicine should not be seen as equivalent to tradition. The political decrees of the colonial government weren't top-down, oppressing the colonized in a one-way fashion, the colonized also had space to negotiate and resist. This thesis will attempt to explore, excluding the medical laws issued by the colonial authorities concerning Chinese Medicine, how actors participated in different events, causing different networks of relation and the forces of antagonism, reciprocity and arbitration within these networks, and how these redefined Chinese Medicine.