「漢奸」：國族認同的形塑與演變

Abstract

在以往的「漢奸」研究中，往往偏重於「漢」想像共同體的建立，但本文欲藉由「奸」符號的軍事、政治等人力資源運用的策略與修辭手腕，討論「漢奸」符號如何與國族認同發生關連。因此，本文以下列三方面討論這個議題：首先，「漢奸」是在哪些歷史情境下出現？在政治以及軍事的歷史脈絡裡如何發展，或者有無相關的詞彙可以對照、對話。其次，是中國面對戰爭時，漢奸的內容、應用，為何以及如何產生內向式的思考，將罪責都指向漢奸？第三，不同權力集團或意識形態，是在什麼樣的歷史脈絡中產生判斷「漢奸」的標準？其意義為何？這些現象又和國族認同有什麼關係？在戰爭時刻，以敵我關係的軍事或政治手法來作為道德和不道德的區分，是以修辭手段而非以行動劃分，人力資源運用得當就擁有話語權，而這樣的人力也成為攻擊敵方陣營的武器，並促成民族向心力。所以，「漢奸」不只是關於「漢」民族的想像與認同，也是政治和軍事策略的運用，將人作為資源、武器策略的演變。隨著華夷與文明觀的滑動，不同的認同會導致不同的漢奸認定的依歸。是以，在不同的學科分科下，要討論「漢奸」的國族認同問題，在人力運用與族群的劃歸判定的策略上，將也是個待於解決的面向。如何在戰爭下看見策略、人力的運用，將其還原看到原本歷史中的運用方式，將是解讀「漢奸」議題中，由「漢」奸至漢「奸」另一種思考面向。

In the past, a ＂Han traitor＂ studies focused frequently on how to create a Han imagined community, but this paper tried to focus on how a traitor was used in human resources management, military, politics and in the discourse strategies, to discuss a ＂Han traitor＂ as a symbol regarding with national identity. Therefore, this article discusses the following three aspects of this topic: Firstly, a ＂Han traitor＂ occurred in what historical condition? How did it develop politically and militarily in a historical context? Were there any related terms could be corresponded with it? Secondly, when China was in war, there were any different meaning by applications or contents in terms of ＂Han traitor?＂ Why and how traitors occurred guilt emotions or directed to be? Thirdly, the different power groups or ideologies stand on what standards to judge ＂Han traitor＂? What does the phenomenon means and relations with national identity? In the wartime, based on two countries military and political relationship to distinguish between morality and immorality, people choose discourse strategies rather than an action. The country can use human resources management which means who owns better discourse, and this can also attack enemy and encourage national unity. Thus, ＂Han traitor＂ is not only mention about what the national image and identity but also the applications of political and military strategies. When Chinese view rapidly effect by foreign and diverse civilization views, different identities make different ＂Han traitor＂ judge standards. In conclusion, how to understand a ＂Han traitor＂ issue in multilateral views of strategies, human resources management, military, politics and etc..., it seems to be very significant. History can be restored, ＂Han traitor＂ become an adjudgment terms and always be the critical parts these should not be ignored.