本館出版品

從現代化理論的系譜看國父思想與臺灣現代性論述

A View on the Thoughts of Founding Father Dr. Sun Yat-sen and the Discourse of Taiwan Modernity from the Genealogy of Modernization Theories

孫學研究

1996-2657

半年刊

2020/11/12

第29期

p.23-46

本研究之目的，乃是欲撥開現代化理論之迷霧，重新發掘國父思想(尤其是國家建設三階段論)於臺灣史上，乃至整個中國史上的價值。最終能一體回應廣義的現代化理論各流派，並亦能回應所謂日本殖民現代性之論述。從而希望藉此研究，打破「因為─所以」式的機械連結史觀，重新看到中國現代化歷程中生機勃勃，而所有因素交互為用的一體世界。
現代化理論諸流派中，無論是Seymour Lipset (1922-2006), Gabriel A. Almond (1911-2002), Edward Shils (1910-1995), James Coleman(1926-1995)，在解釋中國現代化的歷程時，皆有其侷限。許多理論在解釋非西方國家時，難免變成一普羅克瑞提斯的鐵床(procrustean bed)，以西方普世的真理觀及人權標準，衡量一地是否「現代化」。而且，更嚴重的問題是，現代化理論往往只是回頭解釋現代化的過程，對其何以發生及如何實踐，則幾乎並無具文。
因此，研究國父思想顯得十分必要。國父在《建國大綱》中便以規劃出軍政、訓政、憲政的國家建設三階段論。此則與西方現代化理論的「直通」大相逕庭，反倒與詹鶽(Chalmers Johnson，1931~2010)的國家發展理論，及以杭亭頓(Samuel Phillips Huntington，1927~2008)為代表的政治穩定論暨民主化理論在旨趣上略通聲氣。而在歷史實踐上，現代化理論的指導性同樣是有待驗證的。相較之下，國父思想的國家建設三階段論則為中國國民黨所奉行。由《訓政綱領》到制憲，乃至實現中華民國自由地區總統直選，均可謂是在國父的思想路線圖底下完成。
然而，在現代化過程中創造的「臺灣奇蹟」，其解釋乃受到不少質疑與挑戰。比方將日本視為臺灣現代性的鼻祖，而刻意壓抑清朝劉銘傳等人的貢獻、貶低光復後的國府貢獻等論述。亦或，在中華民國順利完成自由化、民主化、憲政化的過程中，簡單歸因於黨外抗爭的貢獻、美國為首的國際壓力等，而忽略了國父思想中國家建設三階段論於國民黨人的指導性。故而，本文將重新拋出幾個問題，並結合國父思想的理路加以思考：現代化理論有何弊病？為何在中國不見得有適用性？而在「臺灣經驗」中，國父思想又在什麼關鍵之處發生了作用，而這種作用是其他諸理論所不能完滿解釋的？

The purpose of this study is to unveil the mist of modernization theories and rediscover the value of the thoughts of founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen (especially the Three Phases of National Reconstruction) to the timeline of Taiwanese history and the entire Chinese history. This ultimately responds to all the schools of generalized modernization theories and responds to the so-called discourse of Japanese colonial modernity. Through this research, the “causality” mechanical link to historical views is broken, which re-exposes the one world where all factors interact throughout China’s modernization process full of vitality.
All the schools of modernization theories, whether Seymour Lipset (1922-2006); Gabriel A. Almond (1911-2002); Edward Shils (1910-1995); or James Coleman (1926-1995), have their limitations when interpreting China’s modernization process. When interpreting non-Western countries, many theories inevitably become Procrustes’ procrustean bed, which measures if a place is “modernized” based on the universal view of truth and the standard of human rights in the West. Further, a more serious problem is that modernization theories often go back to explain the process of modernization, but how it happened and how it was implemented are almost undocumented.
Therefore, the study of founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s thoughts has its absolute necessity. In the Fundamentals of National Reconstruction, founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen planned the Three Phases of National Reconstruction, namely, military administration, political tutelage of the people, and constitutional administration. This is vastly contrary to “direct connection” in the Western modernization theory, but the purport somewhat echoes the national development theory of Chalmers Johnson, 1931-2010 and the political stability theory and democratization theory represented by Samuel Phillips Huntington,1927-2008. In terms of historical implementation, the guiding nature of modernization theories is to be verified. Comparatively, founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s thoughts in the Three Phases of National Reconstruction are pursued by the Kuomintang (KMT). From the political tutelage for the people, constitution, to the realization of direct Presidential elections in the free region of the Republic of China have been completed under founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s ideological line map.
However, the explanations of the “Taiwan miracle” created during the modernization process are still much questioned and challenged, such as deeming Japan as the originator of Taiwan’s modernity, deliberately suppressing the contributions of Liu Ming-Chuan and others in the Qing Dynasty, and belittling the Nationalist government’s contribution after the retrocession. It could also be that throughout the process of the Republic of China’s successful attainment of freedom, democratization, and constitutionalism, the success was attributed to the contributions of non-party resistance or international pressure headed by the United States, but overlooked the guiding nature of founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Three Phases of National Reconstruction to the KMT. Hence, several questions were brought up again in this paper, which along with the rationale of founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s thoughts, and were given a thought. What are the drawbacks of modernization theories? Why are they not necessarily applicable in China? In the “Taiwan experience”, what key areas did founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s thoughts play a role, which cannot be fully explained by other theories?

國立國父紀念館

臺北市

投稿日：民國109年7月7日；接受刊登日：民國109年11月2日。