請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63587
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 石之瑜(Chih-Yu Shih) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Hsin Cheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭宇馨 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T17:14:25Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-08-20 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-18 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、 中文部分
人民出版社編,1997,《近代中國百年國恥地圖》,北京:人民出版社。 石之瑜、黃競涓,2001,《當代政治學的新範疇:文化、性別、民族》,台北:翰蘆圖書。 石之瑜,2003,《社會科學方法新論》,台北:五南。 石之瑜,2005,《社會科學知識新論:文化研究立場十評》,台北:台大出版中心。 石之瑜,2006,《身分政治-偶然性、能動者與情境》,高雄:中山大學。 石之瑜、廖高賢,2009,《似曾相似-天安門事件後在美國與台灣的中國印象》,台北:台大政治系中國大陸暨兩岸關係教學與研究中心。 中央地圖局編,1916,《中國國恥地圖》,上海:中央地圖局。現藏於美國康乃爾大學。 中華書局編,1927,《中國國恥地圖再編》,上海:中華書局。現藏於香港中文大學。 李征,2009,〈棒球輸大陸怎可叫國恥〉,《海峽短評》,220期。 宋強、張藏藏、喬邊、古清生等,1996,《中國可以說不》,北京:中華工商聯合出版社。 宋強等著,1997,《第四代人的精神》,甘肅:甘肅文化出版社。 何瑜、華立,1995,《國恥備忘錄-中國近代史上的不平等條約》,北京:教育出版社。 洪鎌德,1997,《社會學說與政治理論:當代尖端思想之介紹》,台北:揚智文化。 李康、李猛譯,1998,《社會的構成:結構化理論大綱》,北京:三聯書店。譯自Anthony Giddens. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1984. 李濟琛、陳加林編,1997,《國恥錄-舊中國與列強不平等條約編譯》,四川:人民出版社。 吳玉山,2007,〈宏觀中國:後極權資本主義發展國家-蘇東與東亞模式的揉合〉,徐斯儉、吳玉山編,《黨國蛻變:中共政權的菁英與政策》,台北:五南:309-336。 姜戎,2005,《狼圖騰》,台北:風雲時代。 柯嵐安(William A. Callahan),2000,〈文明與跨國關係〉,《世界經濟與政治》,12: 76-80。 侯玉波,2003,《社會心理學》,臺北:五南。 倪世雄,2003,《當代國際關係理論》,台北:五南。 袁偉時,2006,〈現代化與歷史教科書〉,《中國青年報-冰點周刊》,574期。 陳昌宏,2011,《新加坡中國研究的知識密碼-華裔離散群者的身分策略與能動性展現》,台北:台大政治系中國大陸暨兩岸關係教學研究中心。 曹增美、黃孝先編,民國輯逸、2007印刷,《新編國恥小史》,商務印書館。 張瑩瑞、佐斌,2006,〈社會認同理論及其發展〉,《心理科學進展》,14(30):475-480。 莊萬壽,2011,《中國民族主義與文化霸權:儒教及其典籍之解構》,台北:允晨文化。 黃競涓,2007,〈國際關係理論中的後實證主義學派〉,張亞中(編),《國際關係總論(第二版)》,台北:揚智文化,頁117-144。 黃安邦譯、陳皎眉校訂,1986,《社會心理學(第五版)》,臺北:五南。譯自Sears, David. O., D. L. Freedman and L. A. Peplau. Social Psychology. 郭佳佳,2008,《離散者的中國民族主義-華裔學者趙穗生,鄭永年面對中國的身分策略》,台北:台大政治系中國大陸暨兩岸關係教學研究中心。 葉啓政,1990,《進出「結構-行動」的困境》,台北:三民。 葛小偉,2005a,〈淺析中國民族主義:歷史、人民與情感〉,《世界經濟與政治》,11: 42-48。 葛小偉、麥克爾˙克勞森(Howard Michael Crowson),2008,〈政治取向與美國對華政策〉,《美國研究》,22(3): 32-51。 楊正光主編、張暄編著,1993,《當代中日關係四十年》,北京:時事出版社。 劉北成、楊遠嬰譯,1992,《規訓與懲罰:監獄的誕生》,台北:桂冠。轉譯自Alan Sheridan. Michel Foucault. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. NY: Pantheon Books. 1977. 蔣恭晟,1929,《國恥史》,上海:中華書局。 二、 英文部分 Callahan, A. William. 2004a. Contingent States: Greater China and Transnational Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Callahan, A. William. 2004b. “National Insecurities: Humiliation, Salvation, and Chinese Nationalism.” Alternatives 29:199-218. Callahan, A. William. 2006. Cultural Governance and Resistance in Pacific Asia. London: Routledge. Callahan, A. William. 2009. “The Cartography of National Humiliation and the Emergence of China’s Geobody.” Public culture 21(1): 141-173. Callahan, A. William. 2010. The Pessoptimist Nation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University. Callahan, A. William, and Elena Barabantseva. 2011. China Orders the World : Normative Soft Power and Foreign Policy. D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Callahan, A. William, Florian Schneider and Yih-Jye Hwang. 2011. Cultural Governance and Nationalism in East Asia. London: Routledge; Gries, H. Peter. 1999. “A ‘China Threat’? Power and Passion in Chinese ‘Face Nationalism’.” World Affair 162(2): 63-75. Gries, H. Peter. 2001. “Tears of Rage: Chinese Nationalist Reaction to the Belgrade Embassy Bombing.” The China Journal 46:25-43. Gries, H. Peter and Peng Kaiping. 2002. “Culture Clash? Apologies East and West.” The Journal of Contemporary China 11(30):173-178. Gries, H. Peter. 2004a. China’s New Nationalism: Pride, Politics and Diplomacy. London: University of California Press. Gries, H. Peter. 2004b. “Popular Nationalism and State Legitimation in China.” In State and Society in 21st-century China: Crisis, Contention and Legitimatio, eds. Peter H. Gries and Stanley Rosen. NY: Routledge, p180-194. Gries, H. Peter. 2005b. “Social Psychology and the Identity-Conflict Debate: Is a ‘China Threat’ Inevitable?” The European Journal of International Relations11(2): 235-265. Gries, H. Peter. 2005c. “Nationalism and Chinese Foreign Policy.” In China Rising: Power and Motivation in Chinese Foreign Policy, eds Deng Yong and Wang Fei Ling. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Gries, H. Peter. 2005d. “China’s New thinking on Japan.” The China Quarterly 184: 831-850. Gries, H. Peter. 2006. “The Future of US-China Relations: System, State, and Individual-level Drivers.” In Charting China’s Future: Political, Social and International Dimensions, eds. Jae Ho Chung. Maryland, Lanham: Rowman &Littlefield, 147-164. Gries, H. Peter. 2007. “Narratives to Live By: The Century of Humiliation and Chinese National Identity Today.” In China’s Transformations: The Stories Beyond the Headlines, eds. Lionel M. Jensen and Timothy B. Weston. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Gries, H. Peter, Jessica C. Teets and Stanley Rosen. 2010a. “Introduction: Political Change. Contestation, and Pluralization in China Today”. In Chinese Politics: State, Society and the Market, eds. Peter H. Gries and Stanley Rosen. New York : Routledge, p1-21. Gries, H. Peter, Michael Crowson, Todd Sandel and Huajian Cai. 2010b. “The Olympic effect on American attitudes towards China: Beyond personality, ideology, and media exposure.” Journal of Contemporary China 19(64): 213-231. Gries, H. Peter., Qingmin Zhang, H. Michael Crowson and Huajian Cai. 2011.“Patriotism, Nationalism and China’s US Policy: Structures and Consequences of Chinese National Identity.” The China Quarterly 205: 1-17. Gries, H. Peter, Michael Crowson and Huajian Cai. 2012. “God, guns, and . . . China? How ideology impacts American attitudes and policy preferences toward China,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2(1): 1-40. Iris, Chang. 1997. The Rape of Nanking.:The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. NY: Penguin. Kaufman, A. Alison. 2010. “The ‘Century of Humiliation,’ Then and Now: Chinese Perception of the International Order.” Pacific Focus 25(1): 1-33 Luo, ZhiTian. 1993. “National Humiliation and National Assertion: The Chinese Response to the Twenty-one Demands.” Modern Asian Studies 27(2): 297-319. Schell, Orville. 2008. “China: Humiliation & the Olympics.” The New York Review of Books 55(13). Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., and Flament, C. 1971. “Social categorization and intergroup behavior.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1: 149-178. Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. 1982. “Instrumentality, Identity and Social Comparisons.” In Social Identity and Intergroup Relationships, eds. H. Tajfel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. 1985. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (2nd eds.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C. 1982. “Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group.” In Social Identity and Intergroup Relationships, eds. H. Tajfel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wang, Zheng. 2008. “National Humiliation, History Education, and the Politics of Historical Memory.” Internation Quarterly 52(4):783-896. Wang Zheng. 2009. “Old Wounds, New Narratives: Joint History Textbook Writing and Peacebuilding in East Asia.” History and Memory 20(1):101-126. Winichakul, Thongchai. 1994. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Zhao Suisheng. 2005. “China’s Pragmatic Nationalism: Is It Manageable?” The Washington Quarterly 29(1):131-144. 三、 網路資源 BBC中文網,2012/07/17,〈美59議員要求奧運隊服裝美國製造〉,http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/trad/chinese_news/2012/07/120717_us_china_olympics.shtml,2012/07/17查詢。 BBC中文網,童倩,2012/06/21,〈民調:日本人對中國人惡感創新高〉, http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/trad/world/2012/06/120621_japan_china.shtml,2012/07/10查詢。 三聯生活週刊,2009/09/23,〈1996年《中國可以說不》出版引起轟動〉,http://news.sina.com.cn/c/sd/2009-09-23/133918710480.shtml,2012/07/12查詢。 中國時報社評,2008/08/16,〈陳水扁和棒球,台灣的兩大國恥〉,http://news.backchina.com/viewnews-5003-big5.html,2012/07/08查詢。 中華網,2001/09/16,〈史學家再度呼籲,九一八應禁嫁娶和慶典〉,http://news.china.com/zh_cn/domestic/945/20010916/10106694.html,2012/07/07查詢。 中國新聞網,2012/07/19,〈美議員攛掇奧運制服立法 「中國牌」成美政治籌碼〉,http://www.chinanews.com/gj/2012/07-19/4042567.shtml,2012/07/17查詢。 新京報,陳冰,2012/07/16〈奧運服裝風波是一場美式國粹主義的表演〉,http://www.bjnews.com.cn/opinion/2012/07/16/210426.html,2012/07/17查詢。 新華網,〈樹立社會主義榮辱觀〉,http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/zt20060320/,2012/06/06查詢。 星島環球網,2006/05/06,〈1999年北約轟炸中國駐南使館〉, http://www.stnn.cc:82/culture/today/t20060506_205969.html,2011/06/26查詢。 國際日報,2012/07/19,〈李克強:經貿投資是中美關係的重要組成部分〉,http://www.chinesetoday.com/big/article/642141,012/07/15詢。 聯合早報網,2012/07/16,〈匯報中日關係形勢後日駐華大使今天回北京〉,http://www.zaobao.com/special/china/sino_jp/pages4/sino_jp120716ma.shtml,2012/07/17查詢。 蕃薯藤新聞,2012/03/12,《『金陵十三釵』在台票房悽慘 影評惡評如潮 遭批張藝謀最糟糕的一部電影》, http://n.yam.com/yam/entertain/201203/20120312064344.html。2012/07/17查詢。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63587 | - |
dc.description.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。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T17:14:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R98322012-1.pdf: 5417880 bytes, checksum: 5eaad86430d3636827ec1ce652aad551 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭.................................................................................................................I
中文摘要......................................................................................................III 英文摘要......................................................................................................IV 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 文獻回顧 4 第三節 研究方法-行為者與能動性 11 第四節 國恥論述下的行為者能動性 12 第五節 章節安排 15 第二章 歷史文化中的國恥意識 17 第一節 葛小偉(Peter Hays Gries)的社會背景與研究方法 17 第二節 文本介紹 22 第三節 中國行動者論述 31 第四節 小結 37 第三章 文化霸權與國恥論述 41 第一節 柯嵐安(William A. Callahan)的社會背景與研究方法 41 第二節 文本介紹 45 第三節 中國行動者論述 58 第四節 小結 63 第四章 綜合比較分析 66 第一節 抗日和反西 68 第二節 不同傳播途徑的國恥對話 74 第三節 小結 78 第五章 結論 81 第一節 研究發現 81 第二節 研究建議 85 第三節 結語 87 參考文獻 ………………………………………………………………90 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 兩種國恥?葛小偉與柯嵐安論中國及其民族主義 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Two Approaches to National Humiliation:Gries’ Masses China V.S. Callahan’s Party-State China | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳至潔(Zhi-Jie Chen),溫洽溢(Cia-Yi Wen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 百年國恥,中國民族主義,悲樂觀主義,大眾民族主義,國恥論述, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | National Humiliation,Chinese nationalism,Pessoptimism,New nationalism,National humiliation narrative, | en |
dc.relation.page | 97 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.29 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。