InnoNation

台灣的「第三條路」，向何處去？

深夜，正在整理文件，收到了一份email，裡面有著柯林頓進入小岩城圖書館開幕談話的摘要。

讀完，不免有所感懷。有幾位朋友（以及一位官員）曾經向我問道：

什麼是你說的「社會團結的政治」？

這份摘要，提供了柯林頓的以身示法。

而台灣呢？

陳總統今年5月29日在行政院新閣座談會的致詞曾提及：

總統大選時，阿扁曾提出：「四年拼改革、八年顧幸福」。這兩句口號明白點出了 「拼經濟」的真諦。「拼經濟」不在於財富的累積，而在於生活品質的改善，必須 兼顧物質與人文內涵的提升，並要為社會整體的繁榮創造公平的機會。「拼經濟」 不能讓窮爸爸與富爸爸之間的差距愈拉愈大，同時也要為「小如」和「阿宏」這些 弱勢的孩子們，提供成長與發展的保障。

「富裕中的貧窮」是我們必須嚴肅面對的課題，其中牽涉：城鄉發展失衡、人 口結構老化、少數族群社經條件不平等、乃至於傳統家庭價值式微等複雜的因素， 絕對不是只靠一兩個部會，甚至光靠政府的力量就能完全解決。阿扁相信我們擁有 足夠的資源，提供每一位國民適當的發展條件，讓我們發揮集體的力量，在追求經 濟繁榮的過程中，也積極實現我們對社會公義的堅持與信仰。

同樣的精神，也反映在了游院長今年6月1日在立法院的口頭施政報告：

儘管我們已經從過去的困境中走出來，台灣未來的前景令人振奮。不過我們也隱隱 發現，在光明的道路上仍潛藏著挑戰，有待我們去克服：

第一、面對全球化的離心力量，如何以在地化的關懷，強化社會的向心力？儘管面 對全球競爭，我們已經採取了內外兼顧的策略，一方面加強各項基礎建設與環境改 造工程，另一方面大力投資研發創新，促進經濟轉型、強化國家競爭力。雖然這樣 的策略回應了全球化所帶來的外部挑戰，卻同時帶來了國家內部「贏者圈」與「輸 者圈」的社會階層利益矛盾、就業以及貧富差距拉大等社會問題。

第二、面對威權瓦解後的失序，如何重建多元共存的和諧？儘管台灣已經是一個真 正的民主國家，但卻在舊秩序瓦解與新秩序建立的過程當中，損害了社會連結的力 量。現在，我們亟需凝聚台灣社會集體認同的最大公約數，重建和諧與團結。

第三、面對人口結構的變遷，如何維持新興社會的穩定？富裕國家普遍所面臨的高 齡化問題，在台灣已經開始顯現，我們必需儘速回應高齡化社會所帶來的各個層面 的課題，讓每一個公民都能夠在一個安全穩定無後顧之憂的環境之下，共同為台灣 的未來打拼！

當時，他甚且指出：

當前台灣最迫切的危機並不在外部而在內部，是內聚力弱化所造成的信賴和信心的 危機，唯有團結台灣，將兩千三百萬同胞凝結為一個新的國家共同體，我們才有力 量回應外部與對岸的挑戰，讓台灣永續生存下去。

時序即將進入新的一年，這些談話裡所蘊含的「社會團結的政治」，會繼續以怎樣的面貌展開？還是，會被丟到文件夾裡然後遺忘？而我的朋友與同儕，又會以怎樣的方 式，來回應前引談話裡所提到的新時代台灣的挑戰？

重讀一次柯林頓的講稿，飲一杯紅酒，在書桌前，我繼續在思考著，台灣的「第三條路」，會走向何處？該走向何處......

延伸閱讀：

進步運動之必要
張鐵志
2004.11.29　 中國時報

台灣像美國還是烏克蘭？
郭崇倫
2004.11.30　 中國時報

---

[ New Democrats Online]

Idea of the Week: Progressive Ideas for "Conservative Issues"

The dedication of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock was a poignant reminder of a time not so long ago when American politics and government seemed to work, despite enormous partisanship and a rapidly changing set of national challenges.

The presence on the platform of two Republican and two Democratic presidents provided a much-needed moment of unity and comity. As Clinton said, "I'm a little red and a little blue." But for Democrats in particular, the Clinton legacy that the event commemorated -- and the new library has recorded -- should provide fresh inspiration for how we navigate a complex future.

In his remarks yesterday, President Clinton took special note of the unique period of American history which his presidency marked: "This library tells the story of America at the end of the 20th century, of a dramatically different time in the way we worked and lived.

"We moved out of the Cold War into an age of interdependence, with new possibilities and new dangers.

"We moved out of an industrial economy into an information-age economy.

"We moved out of a period when we were obsessed with overcoming the legacy of slavery and discrimination against African-Americans to a point where we were challenged to deal with an explosion of diversity of people from all races and ethnic groups and religions from around the world. And we had to change the role of government to deal with that...."

"When I became president, the world was a new and very different place. And I thought about how we ought to confront it. "America has two great dominant strands of political thought -- we're represented up here on this stage -- conservatism, which, at its very best, draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which, at its very best, breaks down barriers that are no longer needed or should never have been enacted in the first place.

"It seemed to me that in 1992 we needed to do both to prepare America for the 21st century: to be more conservative in things like erasing the deficit and paying down the debt and preventing crime and punishing criminals and protecting and supporting families, and enforcing things like child support laws and reforming the military.

"And we needed to be more progressive in creating good jobs, reducing poverty, increasing the quality of public education, opening the doors of college to all, increasing access to health care, investing more in science and technology, and building new alliances with our former adversaries, and working for peace across the world and peace in America across all the lines that divide us."

"When I proposed to do both, we said that all of them were consistent with the great American values of opportunity, responsibility and community. We labeled the approach 'New Democrat.' It then became known as the 'third way,' as it was embraced by progressive parties across the world."

This is a familiar story, but Clinton's recitation of it is a reminder of the central political and policy challenge facing his heirs today. In a polarized country with a gridlocked government, Democrats must again find progressive ways to address "conservative issues" with progressive proposals, just as Clinton found progressive ways to fight crime, reform welfare, reinvent government, restore fiscal responsibility, and modernize the U.S. military. His record showed this approach could work politically, and more importantly, could make life better for the American people, despite a partisan environment just as toxic as today's.

We're proud that the DLC and PPI helped to develop many of the ideas put into practice by the Clinton administration. And we continue to believe it's an example worth commemorating, and then emulating in the years ahead.

Read the full press release:
"Transcript: Former President Clinton Speaks at Library Dedication,"
The Washington Post, November 18, 2004

遺憾的事.....

一場網路的戰爭，螞蟻雄兵才紛紛出穴，前方卻傳來了停戰協定。

如一位網友所言：「遠方的戰爭，不聞槍炮，不見槍影。我們日日呼吸，工作，沒有任何差別。」但看來，許多人都沒有將這件事情看成化外之事。熱烈的情形，反而倒像這場戰事是發生在每個人的家門前；越過頭頂的砲彈，雖不是要打在你我身上，卻使得許多人都感到憤慨了。一個意味悠遠的徵候。 They all want to do something that they feel good about.

當然，如同所有的戰事，無辜的傷亡，也是有的。

至於遺憾？遺憾的事，是自己還沒掛上google bomb，然而戰事已經告歇。

關於族群與民族的雜記

朋友用電子郵件寄來「外省台灣人協會」的網址。看了看，網頁上關於成立緣由的一段說明，頗值得玩味。這次做個懶人，先原文轉錄：

台灣的外省人其實各式各樣，卻因為共同的流亡經驗而被歸為同類。外省族群與國民黨政權同時來到這個才剛結束日本統治期的島嶼，還來不及與現居族群相互瞭解，就發生了埋下族群裂痕的二二八事件。黨國復興神話所帶來的巨大盲點，造就了五十年來的族群藩籬。實質（多為軍公教身份）與心裡上均徹底依附統治者的外省族群，於是似乎得為此一政治血腥鎮壓集體買單，或被視為結構性共犯。

在新的政治論述中﹐ 外省人失去了昔日的座標。在剝除政治優勢與文化主導權後，外省族群開始體認，外省人其實是台灣人口中的少數。隨著其他族群文化主體論述的日益蓬勃，外省人的相對被剝奪感日益深重。面對福佬族群要為歷史平反的情緒與各種實際作為，又經過幾次政客揮舞族群大旗的選舉，不論是第一代或第二代，強烈的不安全感與被排斥感，已普遍瀰漫於外省族群之間。

但我們外省人自己也要反省，一直以來，是不是以某種中原文化沙文主義的優越姿態，看待混合著移民特色、殖民風格、與平埔原住民文化的福佬文化，及島上其他族群文化？如果我們自己不能拋棄過去黨國教育所灌輸的『道統與正統』這類文化法西斯主義，我們有什麼資格批判取而代之的福佬沙文主義？

如同過去外省族群掌握文化發言權，如今未經反省的本土化論述，儼然壟斷對「愛台灣」判準的認定。我們認為，要掙脫目前台灣島內族群關係困局，唯有揚棄這類主客異位，但框架相同的族群文化論述。如此，外省人才可能真正在台灣生根立命，與其他族群平等、和諧的共處。

主客異位，但框架相同的族群文化論述。這句話，指出了當前台灣「nation-building」過程的弱質。台灣民族主義，如果只是中國民族主義的倒影，同樣是以一個核心的族群文化語彙（ethnocultural terms）來界定、劃分政治空間，與配置、規範成員─非成員之間和之內的政治─倫理關係，將無法處理、面對下一個歷史階段台灣這個移民社會的社會團結問題：如何接納不同時期的新舊移民，成為這個國家地位平等的公民？

進一步說，不論是中國的「祖國民族主義」(homeland nationalism），還是台灣進行中的「民族化國家」（nationalizing state），都在不同程度上倚靠或依附著以「純質」的血統＼族群文化作為成立正當公民身份的基礎的政治構想。這種無視於國界的分隔、流傳於兩岸間的政治構想，就其觀念的系譜學而言，也許可以相當可靠地溯源至十九世紀以來的「東西對抗」中，東亞知識份子集團「自我催加的東方主義」（Aihwa Ong）。解開這種「倒轉的東方主義」的束縛，反省二十世紀東亞「現代化」的各式政治─文化計畫的共通限制，會不會也是今天在台灣推動「公民民族主義」時，不應忽略的文化面向與意義？從這個角度來看，基於「政治」的理由（或，更準確地說，基於政治計算的理由）而封閉「教科書修訂」的討論，對整個社會，到底是幸？還是不幸？

沿伸閱讀：

A "Momentary Glow of Fraternity"
Aihwa Ong

台北？台北.....

豬小草的蘇格蘭遊記，記錄下了一位蘇格蘭導遊的話語：

「最後我有一段話要告訴各位。我不是反英格蘭人，不是反皇室。但我承認我是反英國政府。但是，我並不是蘇格蘭民族黨的一員，我不屬於任何政黨。我只是蘇格蘭地方工作室的一員。我並不是一個國族主義者，因為我知道國族主義是充滿危險的，它只會帶來戰亂。所以，我寧願說我在過去兩天所講的是一種蘇格蘭精神，而不是蘇格蘭國族主義。但是，在我心裡我衷心相信有一天蘇格蘭將成為一個獨立的國家。因為我們有知識、財富，還有對建國的期望。...最後，我要告訴各位的是：沒有人能夠給你榮耀，然而一旦你有了榮耀，沒有人可以將它奪去」。

隔著遙遠的蘇格蘭之鏡，也許我們反而可以更清楚地看到自己。

台灣要求正常國際地位的種種卑微聲音，沒有偉大到──如某些學院左派所認為的──是一種「次帝國主義」。

我常常納悶，如此感性敏銳的左翼文化批評，為何批判的口徑，只會是此岸，而卻總不及海峽的彼岸？意圖「南進」的台灣，是帝國主義走狗，而意圖將東南亞收納為後院的中國，卻是「亞洲文明的驕傲」？

沿伸閱讀：

Horng-luen Wang
Rethinking the Global and the National: Reflections on National Imaginations in Taiwan
Theory, Culture & Society 2000 17: 93-117

Abstract:

This article explores the interplay between the globalization process and the nation/nation-state by examining the case of contemporary Taiwan. Globalization is analyzed along four dimensions: flows of people, flows of culture, economic globalization and international/transnational institutions.

Along each dimension, it is found that globalization has had a profound impact upon how cultural and political elites imagine their nation, leading to rising aspirations for nationhood and nation-stateness. Meanwhile, nation-building efforts have deepened Taiwan's embeddedness in globalization, where globalization itself is being employed, both by the state and non-state elites, as a strategy to construct the nation.

Three implications suggest that the relationship between 'the global' and 'the national' be reconceptualized. First, nations and nationalism can be better comprehended against a global/international backdrop, as national identity to a large extent depends upon the imagined or real approval of other nations.

Second, there emerges a new strategic alliance between the global and the national, in the sense that globalization gives new ground upon which the nation can be (re)formulated. And finally, by reinforcing certain institutional prerogatives of nations and nation-states, globalization may also lead to an increased desire for nationhood and nation-stateness in cases where the latter two have not been fully realized.