Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32041
題名: 政治共同體的再建構 - 德東人國族認同的轉變與延續
Re-construction of Political Community - The Transformation and Continuation of National Identity for the East German
作者: 王贊焜
貢獻者: 張台麟
王贊焜
關鍵詞: 德東人
德西人
國族認同
政治共同體
East German
West German
National Identity
Political Community
日期: 2007
上傳時間: 14-Sep-2009
摘要: 1973年西德聯邦憲法法院作出東、西德基礎條約判決指陳 ”基礎條約的特殊性在於,它雖是一項適用國際法規則、並且具有國際法條約效力的兩國間之雙邊條約,然而這兩個國家卻是一個始終尚存、又保有同一民族的整體德國之兩部份”。西德以「基本法(Das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, GG)」治國,在政治自由與經濟成長的輝煌成果,對社會主義東德產生催枯拉朽的體系瓦解,並導致兩個德國在1990年10月3日正式復歸「統一」。\r\n國族認同在德國既因為納粹時代的誤用而被視為一種罪惡及禁忌,二次戰後的德國人,既不能像其他國族國家的人民一般以土地作為政治共同體認同的對象,也不能繼續以國族為認同的對象,乃發展出以體制為認同的對象。統一後德國經濟的表現與落差,不如原先之預測與期待,隨之而來的是,認同自己是「德東人」的前東德人卻越來越多。1990年統一之初,有六成一的東德人回答自己是「德國人」,到了2000年時,認同自己是「東德人」的竟高達七成七。以歷史的角度來看,所謂的日耳曼民族「統一」,在漫長的歷史長河裏,是否竟成短暫一瞬?國族認同其實是不斷「轉變」、需要被「建構」? 德東人的國族認同似乎印證此一說法。
The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in the Basic Treaty of 1973 stated “ The specialty of the treaty is that it applies to, as well as effects, a bilateral international treaty between two states which are existing for long and keep the same nation in the two divisions of the entire Germany as a whole.” The significant political freedoms and economic prosperity that West Germany established under the Grundgesetz (Basic Law), which across the border many of East Germany’s citizens looked to, eventually led to the collapse of socialist and the consequent official unification of two German states into one again on 3rd October 1990.\r\nDue to the Nazis’ distortion of national identity, as well as the changing border in historical Germany, an ideology of identity in political communities has appeared on “systems” for the postwar German, rather than on “nations” or “lands” as for people in other nation state. Alongside the social unequal and decline derived from the disappointing economic performance after unification, more and more pre East German now declare themselves “East German”. In 1990, 61% of pre East German recognized “German”, while in 2000 77% of those recognized “East German”. From the historical point of view, the so called “Germanic unification” ultimate becomes a short memory in the long history? National identity actually transforms and needs to be continuously constructed? The terms of pre East German seem in support of this indication.
參考文獻: 壹、 專書
一、 中文
朱紹中,2006,《德國在擴大的歐盟中:Deutschland in der erweiterten EU》,上海:同濟大學出版。
李金梅,2001,《民族與民族主義》,台北:麥田出版。
辛薔,2005,《融入歐洲 – 二戰後德國社會的轉向》,上海:上海社會科學院出版。
吳滄海,1995,《德國的分裂與統一》,台北:志一出版。
吳叡人,1999,《想像的共同體:民族主義的起源與散布》,台北:時報文化。
洪丁福,1994,《德國的分裂與統一 – 從俾斯麥到柯爾》,台北:臺灣商務。
徐鴻賓、徐京輝、廖立傳,1990,《馬克斯․韋伯與現代政治理論》,台北:久大桂冠聯合出版。
郭恆鈺、許琳菲,1991,《德國在那裏?:聯邦德國四十年》,台北:三民書局。
黃發典,1993,《歐洲百科文庫 – 法西斯主義:Les Fascismes》,台北:遠流出版。
曹衛東,2002,《後民族格局:哈伯瑪斯政治論文集》,台北:聯經出版。
葉陽明,2005,《德國憲政秩序》,台北:五南書局出版。
彭滂沱,1992,《德國問題與歐洲秩序》,台北:三民書局。
趙全勝,1994,《分裂與統一:中國、韓國、德國、越南經驗之比較研究》,台北:桂冠圖書。
韓紅,2002,《民族與民族主義:A Typology of Nationalism》,北京:中央編譯出版。
顧駿,1991,《種族與族類》,台北:桂冠圖書。
二、 西文
Albrecht, Birgit, et al., 2007, Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2008 Zahlen, Daten, Fakten, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
Bender, Peter, 2007, Deutschlands Wiederkehr – Eine ungeteilte Nachkriegsgeschichte 1945-1990, J. G. Cottasche Buchhandlung Nachfolger GmbH, Stuttgart.
Brubaker, Rogers, 1996, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dirlmeier, Ulf, Andreas Gestrich, Ulrich Herrmann, Ernst Hinrichs, Christoph Kleßmann, Jürgen Reulecke, 2001, Kleine deutsche Geschichte, Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart.
Dirlmeier, Ulf, Andreas Gestrich, Ulrich Herrmann, Ernst Hinrichs, Christoph Kleßmann, Jürgen Reulecke, 2006, Kleine deutsche Geschichte, Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart.
Historische Ausstellung im Reichstagsgebäude in Berlin, Fragen an die deutschen Geschichte – Ideen, Kräfte, Entscheidungen von 1800 bis zur Gegenwart, 15. Auflage, Deutscher Bundestag Referat Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Bonn.
Hobsbawm, Eric John Ernest, 1990, Nations and Nationalism since 1780 : programme, myth, reality, Cambridge University Press.
Hürten, Heinz, 2003, Deutsche Geschichte in Quellen und Darstellung, Band 9, Weimarer Republik und Drittes Reich 1918-1945, Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart.
Kinder, Hermann, und Werner Hilgemann, 2004, dtv-Atlas Weltgeschichte, Band 1, Von der Anfängen bis zur Französischen Revolution, 37. Auflage, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München.
Kinder, Hermann, und Werner Hilgemann, 2004, dtv-Atlas Weltgeschichte, Band 2, Von der Französischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart, 37. Auflage, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München.
Lehnert, Detlef, 1999, Die Weimarer Republik, Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart.
Mommsen, Wolfgang J., 1998, Leopold von Ranke und die moderne Geschichtswissenschaft, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.
Peters, B. Guy, 1999, Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism, New York: Pinter.
Rudzio, Wolfgang, 2006, Das Politische System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 7., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Schroeder, Klaus, 2006, Die veränderte Republik – Deutschland nach der Wiedervereinigung, 1. Auflage, Verlag Ernst Vögel, Stamsried.
Smith, Anthony D., 1997, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism, London: Routledge.
Sontheimer, Kurt, und Wilhelm Bleek, 1999, Grundzüge des politischen Systems der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Piper Verlag GmbH, München.
Sontheimer, Kurt, Wilhelm Bleek und Andrea Gawrich, 2007, Grundzüge des politischen Systems der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Piper Verlag GmbH, München.
Steinmo, Sven, et al., 1992, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Vom Bruch, Rüdiger, und Björn Hofmeister, 2002, Deutsche Geschichte in Quellen und Darstellung, Band 8, Kaiserreich und Erster Weltkrieg 1871-1918, 2., durchges. Auflage, Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart.
Weidenfeld, Werner, 1999, Handbuch zur deutschen Einheit 1949-1989-1999, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main.
貳、 期刊
一、 中文
葉陽明,2006,〈專論 西德因應德國分裂時期(1949-1990)之憲政安排〉,《國際關係學報》,22:11-43。
葉陽明,2007,〈戰後德國極右主義、極右政黨對憲政民主之挑戰〉,《社會科學論叢》,1(1):33-94。
蔡英文,2002,〈民族主義、人民主權與西方現代性〉,《政治與社會哲學評論 – 民族主義專輯》,3:1-46。
二、 西文
Almond, Gabriel, 1956, “Comparative Political Systems”, Journal of Politics, 18, pp.391-409.
Anderson, Benedict, 2001, “Western Nationalism and Eastern Nationalism – Is there A Difference That Matters?”, New Left Review, pp.31-42.
Gellner, Ernst, 1981, “Nationalism”, Theory and Society, 10:753-775.
Greenfeld, Liah, 1995, “The Worth of Nations: Some Economic Implications of Nationalism”, Critical Review, 9(4):555-584.,
Hall, Peter A. And Rosemary C. R. Taylor, 1996, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”, Political Studies, 44(5):936-957.
Mann, Michael, 1995, “A Political Theory of Nationalism and Its Excess”, in Suknmar Perieal ed., Nations of Nationalism, Budapest: Central European University Press, pp.44-65.
Marcussen, Martin, and Klaus Roscher, 2001, “Europe and the Other and Europe as the Other”, International Affairs, 77 (4):1004-1005.
Müller, Jan, 1997, “Carl Schmitt – An Occasional Nationalist?”, History of European Ideas, 23(1):19-34.
Offer, Claus, 1998, “Homogeneity and Constitutional Democracy: Coping with Identity Conflicts through Group Rights”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(2):113-141.
O’Leary, Brenda, 1997, “On the Nature of Nationalism: An Appraisal of Ernest Gellner’s Writings on Nationalism”, British Journal of Political Science, 27:191-202.
Yark, Bernard, 2001, “Popular Sovereignty and Nationalism”, Political Theory, 29(4):517-536.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
歐洲語文學程碩士在職專班(MPES)
95952006
96
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095952006
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
index.html115 BHTML2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.