跨國共構歷史教材之越國理解：以中日韓《東亞三國的近現代史》為例

Abstract

為瞭解跨國共構歷史教材的意義與爭議，本研究以中日韓三方合作經驗為例，思考跨國共構教材的價值，並提出理想的共構模式。首先以文獻探討國際教科書對話的背景及發展現況，為後續討論奠定歷史背景圖像；次者，透過實地訪談13 位中國大陸、日本及韓國的參與者，瞭解共構的歷程、發展與挑戰；再者，分析《東亞三國的近現代史》架構及內容議題，以之與中、日、韓三國的國家版歷史教科書進行對照探討，從兩者的差距探究共構版本的限制與特點，並反思跨國共構歷史教材的意義及問題。 研究發現：東亞三方形成跨國學術共同體，建立歷史對話機制，增益了歷史視野的相互理解；共構版教材賦予教材更開放的定義，不限定單一國家作者及單一國家，具有拓寬歷史視野及縮小各自國家對歷史理解存在的差異；而「共構」使得部分歷史記憶有了再議的可能，惟難以短時間改變主流記憶及結構面的分歧。最後，中日韓共構經驗所呈現的「東方模式」，融合東方文化強調集體、共識、民族性等性質，有跨國取向，但尚未達到越國的境界。 針對研究發現，本研究提出若干建議：1. 針對共構版本進行實徵性研究，瞭解落實程度與使用情形；2. 進行現行歷史教科書內容的修訂，並將共同編撰歷史教材的經驗轉化為現行歷史教科書敘寫的建議。3. 教材共構的理想模式，應關照教師及學生的需求，在持續對話與評估中達到循環改進。In order to understand the significance and controversies in the cross-national joint construction of the history teaching materials, this study aimed to study the col-laborative project of“A History to Open the Future” between China, Japan, and Korea. Firstly, the development of the international textbook dialogue was explored to better understand historical background of joint construction. Secondly, thirteen members of the compilation committee were interviewed to learn about the collaboration process and how historical controversies and practical development challenges were dealt with during process. Thirdly, the content and structure of the jointly-constructed history books were analyzed as a comparison to those of the official history textbooks of each country. Based upon the differences found in the analysis, further investigation on the uniqueness and limitations of the jointly-constructed version was conducted, and reflections were made on the significance and the challenges of the cross-national joint construction of the history teaching materials. The research findings were as follows. (1) The joint construction experience helped China, Japan and Korea of the East Asia to form a cross-national academic community and to establish a dialogue mechanism for history writing, increasing mutual understanding of different historical perspective. (2) The joint-construction version provided more open views to the history teaching materials beyond the traditional limits of single-nationality author(s) or a single unified national perspective, not only expanding the historical perspective but also reducing the gaps among the national perspectives of each individual country. (3) The “joint construction” has made possible the re-consideration of certain historical memories; however, it is difficult to bring about changes in the mainstream historical memory and the differences of structural mechanism within a short time. (4) China, Japan and Korea joint construction experience is an “Oriental Mode”. It emphasizes an integration of the Eastern culture such as collective, a common consensus and national sentiment. It has taken a cross-national orientation, but has not yet reached the transnational realm. This study proposes a number of recommendations. (1) Empirical studies on the implementation and usage of the joint construction version should be carried out. (2) Revisions on current official history textbooks need to be carried out, and the experiences and lessons learned from jointly-constructing history teaching material should be transformed into recommendations for the writing of the official history textbooks. (3) The ideal approach to the joint construction of the history teaching materials should focus on the needs of the teachers and students, and achieve a continual improvement cycle through the ongoing dialogues and evaluations.