六○年代《臺灣文藝》小說研究(1964-1969)--以認同敘事為中心的考察

Abstract

本論文以吳濁流在一九六四年所創刊的《臺灣文藝》出發，探討其在六○年代小說中所展演的各種文學現象，並藉由「敘事認同」的理論視角，分析文本中有關事件書寫背後所隱含的意識型態與敘事意圖。 以六○年代作為文本觀察起點，透過《臺灣文藝》的發行，省籍作家得以在二二八事件以後有了第一次的集結，在歷經殖民階段及戰爭經歷之後，臺灣民眾並沒有立刻獲得思索與追求台灣自我認同的機會，反在大中國民族主義的敘事中，被迫抹去相關的歷史和集體記憶。是以「殖民亡靈」的追索，「鄉土」的召喚，係作家亟欲處理的問題，透過現實的書寫，尋求主體的認同；此外，對於「性別」與階級議題的關懷，也是六○年代男女作家辯證拉扯的所在，不論是階級或是女性的各種敘事，都有不同的認同議題。 藉由細緻的文本分析，本論文發現幾個結論：第一，戰後第一二代臺灣作家在不同政權轉換下，開始回視母土，並以日本精神拒斥中國祖國意識，造成六○年代臺灣人民自我認同的疏離與無奈。第二，六○年代作家辯識了「城/現代」、「鄉/傳統」、「臺灣/西方」的文化差異，開始進行「發現臺灣」的書寫運動，並檢視邊緣人的階級問題及下層知識份子的困境。第三，女性議題在男性作家筆下藉以承載作家階級及社會認同問題；而女性作家的文本中，呈現陰性書寫的特質，透過絮絮叨叨的生活細節，勾勒出女性主體認同與女性歷史。This research takes a literary magazine, Taiwan Literature, as the point of departure. Taiwan Literature was founded by Zhuo-liou Wu in 1964. I intend to explore the implied ideology and narrative intention of this magazine during the ‘60s by using the theoretical perspective of narrative and identity.

In the aftermath of colonial rule, WWII, and the 228 Incident, Taiwanese people did not have the chance to reflect upon and pursue Taiwanese Identity. On the contrary, they were compelled to submerged in the grand narrative of China at the expense of their own historical collective memory. Therefore, the pursuit of the “colonial phantom”and the calling of the native land became issues that writers wish to deal with, and through writing they look for their identity. In addition, issues regarding gender and class are also important concerns of these writers.

Through textual analyses, this research arrives at the following conclusions. First, the first and second generations of post WWII writers, having been through different political regimes, began to look at their motherland and expressed pro-Japan inclination in order to oppose Chinese nationalism. And this has resulted in the alienation of self-identity. Second, these writers began to make distinctions among phenomena such as city-as-modernity, rural-as-tradition, and Taiwan vs. West. In their efforts to discover and represent Taiwan, they also endeavored to deal with problems of class by portraying the marginalized people and lower-echelon intellectuals. Third, male writers regarded gender issues as carrier of class issues and social identity, while female writers wrote about gender in a distinctively feminine style, expressing female subjectivity and women’s history.