亞細亞主義與殖民地臺灣：日、臺人之思考與行動

Abstract

亞細亞主義是一種主張亞洲內部應團結以與外界對抗、競爭的思想。本文旨在考察亞細亞主義影響下，臺灣總督府、在臺軍部、在臺日人、臺灣人知識分子、「御用紳士」等群體的思想與行動，解明亞細亞主義在日治時期臺灣的發展，以及與殖民統治的複雜關係。由於臺灣身處中國、日本間的特殊地位，日本統治伊始，殖民者、被殖民者已對亞細亞主義與臺灣統治的關係提出意見。1920年代，亞細亞主義議論在日本國內流行，臺灣亦受此潮流影響。在臺日人、臺人知識分子、「御用紳士」紛紛基於各自的政治理想，提出不同樣貌的亞細亞主義，甚至付諸於行動。1930年代，九一八事變後，以松井石根（1878-1948）的思想為代表、具強烈日本中心性質的「大亞細亞主義」興起，對外主張以「皇道宣布」達成亞洲民族的團結、復興，對內亦主張以「皇道」達成「內臺融和」，兩者一體兩面。面對大亞細亞主義潮流，臺灣輿論界呈現日、臺分裂的情形，雙方分裂亦反映在行動上。為促成對外的「皇道宣布」，臺灣大亞細亞協會於1934年成立，然而因總督府、軍部、臺灣人各自抱有不同態度，具體南進工作只能仰賴軍部等積極派推動；為促成對內的「內臺融和」，軍部與右翼日人結合攻擊臺人知識分子，臺人知識分子則在總督府支持下組成東亞共榮協會對抗，直到1936年「祖國事件」後總督府接納軍部意見，開始打擊臺灣人的社會運動。在此背景下，謝龍闊（c.a.1895-1940）主導的大同促進會，主張依循大亞細亞主義，在日本勢力下追尋個人成就，提供了臺灣人一條另類的出路。1937年中日戰爭爆發，總督府立場與軍部一致，對內展開大亞細亞主義宣傳協助皇民化及戰爭動員，對外使臺灣大亞細亞協會開始具體南進工作，兩者皆隨著戰爭持續而逐漸加強。1941年太平洋戰爭爆發後，在總督府眼中，臺灣將成為「大東亞的中心」，實現大亞細亞主義的對內、對外意義。不過，儘管臺灣人表面呼應日本的戰爭理念，實際上仍能在大亞細亞主義中維持自身理想。最後，本文認為臺灣人透過對亞細亞主義的思考與行動，解決其夾在中日之間的尷尬處境，更引導其發展出某種獨特的「臺灣人意識」。Pan-Asianism is an idea that aims to unite Asian nations in order to repel or compete with “Other.” The purpose of this study is to examine the thoughts and actions of various actors, including the Government-General of Taiwan, the military authorities, Japanese immigrants, Taiwanese intellectuals, and pro-colonial government gentry, under the influence of Pan-Asianism during the Japanese rule of Taiwan. Through this examination, this study hopes to elucidate the development of Pan-Asianism during the Japanese rule of Taiwan, and to clarify the relationships between Pan-Asianism and colonial rule.Due to Taiwan’s unique position between Japan and China, since the beginning of Japan’s rule, colonizers and colonized alike had expressed their opinions about the relationship between Pan-Asianism and Japan’s rule. With the widespread of Pan-Asianist discourse in 1920s, Japanese immigrants, Taiwanese intellectuals, and pro-colonial government gentry all commented on the idea based on their own political visions, and even put it into actions.After the Manchurian incident of 1931, Japan-centered “Greater Asianism (Dai Ajiashugi)” soon began to dominate the discussion of Pan-Asianism. As seen in the thoughts of Matsui Iwane (1878-1948), Greater Asianism aimed to achieve Asian Unity externally with the spread of the “Imperial Way (Kōdō)”, and to achieve “Japanese-Taiwanese Harmony (Naitai Yūwa)” internally under the “Imperial Way”. Facing the rise of Greater Asianism, discussions in Taiwanese newspapers showed a clear division between Taiwanese and Japanese, which was also reflected in their actions.In 1934, the “Greater Asia Association of Taiwan (Taiwan Dai Ajia Kyōkai)” was founded to promote the “Imperial Way” externally. However, because of the different attitudes from Government-General, the military authorities, and Taiwanese, more concrete “southern expansion” maneuvers could only be carried out by military officers and their supporters. Meanwhile, the military authorities combined with right-wing Japanese began to attack Taiwanese intellectuals to achieve “Japanese-Taiwanese Harmony” internally. Taiwanese intellectuals with the support of Government-General formed the “East Asia Co-Prosperity Association (Tōa Kyōē Kyōkai)” to mitigate attacks, until Government-General sided with the military authorities and suppressed existing Taiwanese social movements in 1936. Under this circumstance, Hsieh Lung Kuo’s (c.a.1895-1940) “Datong Promotion Association (Daidō Sokushin Kai)” claimed that Taiwanese should follow Greater Asianism and Japan’s expansion to seek their personal success, thus giving Taiwanese an alternative way out.With the outbreak of Sino-Japanese War in 1937, the differences between Government-General and the military authorities had mostly settled. Government-General launched Greater Asianist propaganda programs to assist the Japanization (Kōminka) movement and wartime mobilization internally, and utilized the Greater Asia Association of Taiwan to help Japan’s“southern expansion.” As the war went on, wartime propaganda and mobilization intensified, and the Government-General believed that Taiwan would achieve Greater Asianism’s external and internal goals and become “the center of Greater East Asia” after the Pacific War broke out. Needless to say, the reality was more complicated, and Taiwanese still maintained their own visions under Japan’s Greater Asianism. In the end, this study argues that Taiwanese of various backgrounds each found their own ways to embrace/reconcile with Pan-Asianism, which not only resolved their dilemmatic position between Japan and China, but also helped them to develop their own identities.