從Karl Mannheim世代概念探究反課綱學生的認同與行動

Abstract

2015年反課綱學生運動是解嚴後首次由高中生主導的大規模學生運動，從2015年5月1日臺中一中學生抗議後，經歷學生串聯倡議期、學生運動高峰期及學生返校深耕期，期間教育部雖未廢除104課綱，但同意新舊版本教科書並行。後於2016年5月31日蔡英文政府廢止104課綱，學生獲得參與學校課程審議會的代表權，參與課綱的審議。支持及反對課綱微調，常被解讀為大中國史觀及臺灣史觀之爭。然而從過程黑箱、檢核小組成員代表性的程序正義，到微調內容所反映的意識型態，反課綱學生反對課綱微調原因不盡相同，難以單一原因解讀。因此本研究以Mannheim世代概念為研究框架切入瞭解反課綱學生的認同與行動，進而以世代位置將焦點放在歷史脈絡，關注歷時性的時代變遷如何影響反課綱學生展現出共時性的認同與行動，促成反課綱學運集體實踐，以及學運經驗如何影響反課綱學生往後的認同與行動。本研究採敘事探究取向，訪談四位參與反課綱學運學生，研究發現在「社運蓬勃的民主時代」下，太陽花學運引發學生對社會議題的關注，隔年課綱微調議題與學生經驗相關，啟發反課綱學生回顧自己的生命經驗，對「教育轉向本土化教育時代」及「處於校園學權萌芽的時代」所形成的生命經驗進行反思。在這些交織的時代變遷下，反課綱學生因其所處家庭及學校場域，形成各自相似卻又不同的生命經驗，從反對與經驗脫節的中國史、回憶並連結家族記憶、發展出支持多元史觀的「扎根生命的在地認同」；覺知或深化在校園及教育政策失聲處境形成「受迫無權的學生認同」。這些認同與增加中國史篇幅及未納入學生聲音的104課綱對立，並因其對民主與社群的想像，形成歸屬及責任感，激發學生集體實踐。除退回課綱訴求本身，反課綱學生期望透過學運展現學生主體性，重新定義自己的認同，包含學生身份與校園文化。The 2015 Anti-Curriculum Amendments Student Movement is the first large-scale student-led movement following the lifting of Martial Law in Taiwan. It began with a protest initiated by Taichung First Senior High School students on May 1, 2015. Progressing through three phases— the student initiative period, the peak of student movements, and the period where students return to school for in-depth exploration—the movement led to the Ministry of Education agreeing to the simultaneous use of new and old versions of textbooks, though it did not abolish the 104 curriculum. On May 31, 2016, the Tsai Ing-wen government officially abolished the 104 curriculum, granting students the right to participate in the school curriculum review committee.Interpretations of support and opposition to the curriculum changes often focused on the clash between “Greater China” and “Taiwanese” historical perspectives. However, the students’ multifaceted opposition stemmed from various reasons, making it challenging to attribute the movement to a single cause. To delve into the identity and actions of anti-104 curriculum amendments students, this study employs Mannheim’s generation concept as the research framework, examining how diachronic changes of the times influence synchronic identity and actions.Using a narrative research approach, the study interviewed four students involved in the anti-curricular student movement. In the “democratic era of vigorous social movements,” the Sunflower Student Movement drew students’ attention to social issues, and the subsequent curriculum amendments issue led them to reflect on their life experiences in the “era of education turning to localized education” and “the era of budding student rights.” Amid these intertwined changes, anti-curricular students developed similar yet distinct life experiences shaped by family and school contexts. They opposed a Chinese history disconnected from their lives, seeking a “life-rooted local identity” supporting multiple historical perspectives. Simultaneously, they were conscious of issues overlooked in school and education policies, therefore forming an “oppressive and disenfranchised student identity.” These identities are shaped in opposition to the 104 curriculum which emphasizes Chinese history and excludes students’ voices. Their imagination of democracy and community cultivated a sense of belonging and responsibility, therefore inspiring collective participation in the student movement. In addition to the demands of revoking the curriculum, anti-curriculum students aimed to express their student subjectivity and redefine their identity, both as students and within campus culture.