愛知大學中國學程沿革---對日本文明教育的反思

Abstract

愛知大學的「中國研究科」成立於1991年，係日本研究中國人文社會科學的綜合研究所，其獨特性在於儘管日本國內培養許多中國研究者，但愛知大學卻是唯一為此設立中國研究科的學術機構。愛知大學在戰前的前身為「東亞同文書院大學」，乃當時日本唯一設立於中國（上海）的大學，由興亞主義者組成的「東亞同文會」所經營。 該學科的歷史發展過程，恰好經歷日本近代史上的兩次文明化教育。第一次是1868年明治政府為了追趕歐美各國的教育環境，公布近代教育制度；第二次則是二次大戰後受聯合國占領的背景下，基於1948年美國教育使節團報告書的改革方案，重定日本戰後教育改革的理念及方向。而本文的研究目的主要是探討日本愛知大學的中國學程，在戰前日本盛行「排中」思想的氛圍裡，如何在中國設立學校並展開自主的中國研究；又何以能在戰後面臨美式教育制度的進逼，被迫更換校名卻又堅守其中國研究的模式。 本文研究成果有五點，首先是東亞同文書院大學與明治政府「捨棄中國」的教育政策背道而馳，這點即使在戰後經歷校名與架構改組也未改變初衷。第二是該學科深受區域研究的影響，主因是區域研究的視野遠較國別研究廣泛，並且不易遭受媒體輿論的左右。而最後整合第三至第五點觀察，本文發現該學科的孤軍奮戰反映日本國民仍然普遍抱持「蔑視中國」的態度，而日本政府對中國研究看似積極，卻不脫學術服務國家利益的思維，這兩點也導致中日關係的停滯，以及易受政治操弄的波及。

Established in 1991, the ‘Graduate School of China’ of Aichi University is a comprehensive graduate school in Japan that focuses on the study of Chinese humanities and social sciences. It is unique because Aichi University is the sole academic institution that has set up a graduate school of China study although Japan has cultivated many researchers of China. Aichi University was formerly known as ‘University of East Asia Common Culture College’ before the War. It was the only one university that Japan had set up in China (Shanghai) and it was run by the ‘Asia Common Culture Association’ established by the Great East-Asian Regionalists. The historical development of this discipline happened to experience the two civilization educations in Japan's modern history. The first time was the modern education system announced by the Meiji government in 1868 in order to catch up with the educational environment in Europe and in the United States. The second time was the philosophy and direction of the post-war education reform that was reset by Japan according to the reform program proposed in the U.S. education envoys’ report in 1948 under the occupation by the United Nations after World War II. This study aims at investigating the China Program provided in Japan’s Aichi University to understand how this university could be set up in China and started the independent study of China under the prevailing ideological atmosphere of ‘discrimination against China’ before the War and how this university could stay true to its model of research of China after being forced to change its name while facing the promotion of the American education system after the War. This study has achieved 5 results. First of all, University of East Asia Common Culture College ran in the opposite direction of the educational policies of ‘giving up China’ of the Meiji government. On this point, its original idea was never changed while being forced to change its name and structure after the War. Secondly, this discipline is deeply influenced by regional studies. The main reason is that the vision of regional studies is broader than country studies and it doesn’t easily subject itself to the influence of media and public opinions. Finally, the 3rd, 4th and 5th results indicate that the fact that this discipline fights alone reflects the Japanese people’s general attitude of ‘contempt for China’; although the Japanese Government seems very active in the studies of China, it never stops thinking the purpose of academic studies is to provide national interests; owing to these two points, Sino-Japanese relations stay stagnant and subject to political manipulation easily.