兩種國恥？葛小偉與柯嵐安論中國及其民族主義

Abstract

自滿清末年的鴉片戰爭到1949年中華人民共和國成立這一百年間的歷史，史稱「百年國恥」。國恥歷史塑造了當代中國人的國恥意識，也成為中國人看待對外關係的主要依據，中國對外遭遇衝突時將過去的歷史傷痕與現在的事件連結，就產生了強硬的外交政策，尤其表現在近幾年與美國與日本的雙邊關係上。 本文研究重點在於分析及探討在英語文獻上所出現對中國國恥的兩種主張，第一種是認為中國國恥有其歷史和社會基礎，「國恥意識」雖然由政府塑造，但是實踐者卻是人民；而另一種則是認為國恥為政治動員及統治權術下的一種「國恥敘事」的方式。前者重視的傳播途徑是由下至上的渠道，以學者葛小偉作為代表；而後者則指出國恥是自上而下的教育方式，以學者柯嵐安為例。 本文以學者紀登斯提出的「能動者」和「能動性」概念做為分析的途徑，研究國恥論述中最重要的兩個行為者群體「國家�黨國�政府」和「人民」是怎樣受國恥意識影響或是利用、控制國恥意識？他們在國恥論述下的能動性為何？研究發現葛小偉由於自身的中國經驗，對人民的情感有很深的體會，故對群眾能動性高度讚許，而對國家的能動性則給予負面評價，認為國家的能動性不足且內涵空虛，外交政策受到民眾的意見所左右。而柯嵐安則解構了中國黨國的作為，他指出黨國以國恥論述塑造出中國人二元對立的悲樂觀情緒，而最後他筆下的國恥論述成了文化霸權，制約著中國人民和政府。

The one hundred years of history dating from the First Opium War of 1840 to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 are known as the 'Century of Humiliation'. The memory of these years of national humiliation has shaped contemporary China’s consciousness and their fundamental views on foreign affairs. When China interacts with the outside world, they associate their past suffering with current events, which leads to a harsh foreign policy, especially towards America and Japan. The main purpose of this thesis is to analyze and discuss two views of China's National Humiliation in English literature. One view is that China’s national humiliation has a historical and social basis. This view holds that although the sense of humiliation certainly is shaped by the government, it is also practiced by the people. The other view is that the narrative of national humiliation is a means of political mobilization and propaganda. The former, espoused by Dr. Peter Hays Gries, argues that the sense of national humiliation has been formed in a bottom–up manner, beginning with the masses, while the latter, championed by authors like Dr. William A. Callahan, argues that it has developed via a top-down approach, shaped entirely by the state. I use Dr. Anthony Giddens's concepts of “agent” and “agency” to answer the following questions: How would the two most important agents, the “state/ party-state/ government” and the “masses”, be controlled and influenced by the consciousness of national humiliation? What are their roles in the narrative of national humiliation? Because of his experience living in China, Gries has a deep understanding of the Chinese people’s emotions. Therefore, he highly praises the role of the masses in shaping the national consciousness, while he considers the state’s role to be empty and insufficient. He believes that the people’s opinions affect China's foreign policy. Callahan, in contrast, deconstructs China's party-state system, and points out that the party-state system uses the narrative of national humiliation to shape China's pessoptimism. In conclusion, he argues that the sense of national humiliation becomes a cultural hegemony, confining China's people and their government.