Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(2006) 如何看待 1970 年代國民黨政權的「正當化」 PDF
(2006) 如何看待 1970 年代國民黨政權的「正當化」 PDF
1970
1972
12 141-1902006 12
2005 10 18 2006 9 4
142
Chih-Chieh Tang
This article challenges the popular opinion that the KMT regime
solved its legitimacy crisis in the early 1970s by strengthening its coalition
with local factions. Reconstructing this history from the perspective of
symbolic struggle, this article points out that the crisis of external
legitimacy was only a catalyst to this political transformation. It was the
internal context that determined the direction of this transformation. And
the fact that this transformation occurred without a mass mobilization had
much to do with the historical conjunction of the power succession inside
the KMT regime. But this also must be attributed to the KMT's ongoing
predicament, which was grounded in its lack of sufficient power, its
previous discourse of legitimation, people's definition of reality and the
crisis in the moment, and dissenting voices in the public sphere. The
discourse "defending Taiwan through reform" came out as guideline und
solved the crisis successfully only because it could temporarily unite the
different positions. Although this political transformation was by definition
neither liberalization nor democratization, it did lead to an opening of
participation in the level of central government that further engendered a
nation-wide opposition. In this sense, the transformation was doubtless the
starting point of Taiwan's postwar regime transformation. Based on these
findings, this article highlights the advantages of an approach that grasps
legitimacy/power from a symbolic dimension in comparison to one that
considers legitimacy as a "mutual recognition between power-holders."
Meanwhile, it emphasizes that future research needs to consider Taiwan's
particular context seriously, to reflect upon the application of the
transitological model, and to develop theory.
1989
1
1986 1972
(legitimacy)
1972
2
1986
1970
1 (1989)
O'Donnell and Schmitter (1986)
2 1970
144
1979
1986 (1989: 98)
(1995: 19)
1970
1972
1977
145
1972
1972 1978
1980
1989100
3
1979
1972
1979
3
146
1970
1970
1968
1970
1977
1995: 179ff.
1970
1989: 94
147
1979
4
1970
1970
Wu 1987
19966
1950
5
6
149
(Wu 1987)
1960 1970
1970
150
1960
7
8
7
8 (1998)
9
151
10
1970
1971
1979
11
Meyer et
al. 1997Thomas et al. 1987 2001
10 (1995: 28ff.)
11
152
(statehood)
1972
1950
1996: 236ff.1999a
12
13
12 (1995)
(1993:
9-10)
13
1970
153
1972
14
15
16
17
18
14 1969
28 1987: 122-123
1972
1972 119
15
16 1990
(Bunce 1995a, 1995b; Karl and Schmitter 1995)
17
18 2004a: 131-132
154
2006
19 20 1975
1970
21
(O'Donnell and
Schmitter 1986: 7) 1986 1987
(contingency)22
19 1990 1994
[1979]
1975 (1999)
1977
20 Cheng (1989: 484) 1970
21
22
2004b
23
(Carothers 2002)
155
1970
24
1970
(1993: 131ff.) Goran
Therborn (1977)
1970
25
26
Cheng (1989)
24 (Linz 1975)
25 Habermas
2004a
26 (1994[1979])(Huang 1976)
(smooth)
(opening)
156
1999: 91ff.
1950
27
1960
(1989)
(Cheng 1989: 485)
(O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986: 19)
(Chu 1992: 25, 34)(Tien 1989: 74, 119)
1980
1970 1950
(1994: 176ff.)
27
1947
1947
1996: 300ff.
157
1965
Elisabeth Noelle-
Neumann(1979, 1994)28
(Luhmann 1996)
29
1968 1
1970 8 12
1971 4
28
29 1950
1980
(Meyer 1996)(2004b: 103)
158
7
10
12
Huang 1976
1994[1979]
30
(intention)31
1947
1947
(performative)(constative)
30 1960
1996:
337-338
31 Austin (1997)(performative/constative)
Luhmann
(1995: 105ff.)
159
32
33
1947
1992: 405-406
1950 12 25
1954
34
32 1972
49:
99
51, 52: 11
33
34 1971 11 22
160
1951 5
1987: 116-117
35
1993: 1681972 3 6
1993: 208ff.
35
46: 13-14
49: 83-84
161
36
37
50: 16
36
37: 6-7
37
162
1972
1969
6
1994:
176ff.
1971 1973
1971 1
38
~
39
163
40
1971 7
1971
1972
1972 5
40
164
41
42
41 1972
42 1972 4
: 94-951973 2
165
1979
43
1972
43
1973
1978
1977:
125-126 2001: 73-74, 84, 95-96, 157ff., 192: Chap. 17,
339(2003) 1970
(1996:
155ff.)
: 311-312
166
2006
(1989)
(1989: 75ff.)
Arthur
L. Stinchcombe (1968) Charles Tilly (1985)
167
(powerholders)
44
45
(coercion)
46
Stinchcombe (1968: 162)
44
45
46
1999: 175-176
168
authority
Stinchcombe Tilly
Tilly
(sover-
eignty)
47
49
50
Stinchcombe
51
Stinchcombe
52
Tilly (1985)
51 Stinchcombe
52 Stinchcombe
(1968: 199)
171
53
(Herrschaftsgewalt)
(Weber 1980: 16ff., 122ff.)
Stinchcombe
(1968: 162)
53
(1989: 79)
172
54
55
Stinchcombe
58
Pierre Bourdieu (1991: 127f)
59
right
[Foucault 2000b: 25]
57
(Luhmann 1994: 128)
58 Stinchcombe
59
(McAdam 1999, 2003(1996)
1979 1989
(2000)
174
60
Luhmann (1989: 28, 34)
61
(Kontingenzformel)
(1989)
60 Gramsci
(Lears 1985)
61 Bereitschaft
bereit
175
(negative sanction)62
(Luhmann 1976: 523, 1991b: 181, 1991c)
63 (selectivity)
(Luhmann 1969,
64
64 Foucault (2000)
Foucault (2000a: 340-341, 346; 2003: 13ff., 29, 35-36)
(repression)
(effect)
177
65
(Luhmann 1995:
104)
67
1970
66 Habermas
(1973: Part 3)
67
(Adamson 1980: 170)
179
1972
(1989)
180
1970
1970
181
1970
1970
68
69
1989
(Bunce 1995a; Carothers 2002;
Gazibo 2005; Mahoney and Snyder 1999)
Ruth Berins Collier
and David Collier (1991) James Mahoney (2001)
1972 1986
1972
1986
1986
183
184
(1971.01-1972.04) 374649505152
(1996)
1: 129-209
(1989) 2(1): 71-116
(1993) 14: 123-163
(1996)
(1999)
153-188
(1995)
20: 17-55
(1999)(1977-1986)
(1996)
331-351
(2001)
(Arrigo, Linda Gail) (1998)
(2001)national question
1: 183-239
(1989)
2(1): 145-161
(1996)
351-385
(2000)
1970-86 38: 133-206
(1998)
(1946-94) 169-259
(1999)
87-152
(1990)
185
45-70
(1993)
(1994)
(1994[1979])
115-176
(1995)
(2000) 150: 126-133,
151: 108-133
(1995)
(1988)1945-88
(1977)
(1993) 1-40
(2000)
(1992)
(2004a)
10: 121-184
(2004b) 36: 63-112
(2006)
(1989)(1950-1986)
(1999a)
(1999b)
(1999) 1-28
(1987)
(2001) 1970
(1996)1950
186
(1999a)
213-232
(1999b)
141: 32-45
(2003) 1970
5: 195-250
(1998)
(1950-1969)
Adamson, Walter (1980)
. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Arendt, Hannah (1972)
. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Austin, John L. (1997[1962]) , 2nd ed. Reprint.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barkun, Michael (1968)
. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Berman, Daniel K. (1992)
. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Translated by Gino Raymond and
Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bunce, Valerie (1995a) Should Transitologists Be Grounded? 54(1):
111-127.
(1995b) Paper Curtains and Paper Tigers. 54(4): 979-987.
Carothers, Thomas (2002) The End of the Transition Paradigm.
13(1): 5-21.
Cheng, Tun-jen (1989) Democratizing the Quasi-Leninist Regime in Taiwan.
41(4): 471-499.
Chu, Yun-han (1992) . Taipei: Institute for National
Policy Research.
Collier, Ruth Berins, and David Collier (1991)
. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Collins, Randall (1986) . Cambridge: Cambridge
187
University Press.
Congressional Quarterly Service (1967) .
Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service.
Foucault, Michel (2000a) vol. 3. Edited
by James D. Faubion. New York: The New Press.
(2000b)"Il faut dfendre la socit" Cours au Collge de France, 1976
1976
(2003) .
Edited by Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana. New York: Picador.
Gazibo, Mamoudou (2005) New Institutionalism and the Crisis of Transitology. Pp.
155-175 in , edited by Andre Lecours.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Gould, Mark (1987) . Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Habermas, Jrgen (1973) , 2nd ed.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hamilton, Gary G. (1989) Heaven is High and the Emperor is Far Away: Legitimacy and
Structure in the Chinese State. 84: 141-167.
Huang, Mab (1976) .
Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.
Karl, Terry Lynn, and Philippe C. Schmitter (1995) From an Iron Curtain to a Paper
Curtain. 54(4): 965-978.
Knoke, David (1990) . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe (1985)
. London: Verso.
Lears, T. J. Jackson (1985) The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and
Possibilities. 90(3): 567-593.
Linz, Juan (1975) Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Pp. 175-411 in
vol. 3. Edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Luhmann, Niklas (1969) Klassische Theorie der Macht: Kritik ihrer Prmissen.
16(2): 149-170.
(1976) Generalized Media and the Problem of Contingency. Pp. 507-532 in
188
, Vol. 2. Edited by Jan J. Loubser, Rainer C. Baum, Andrew Effrat, and Victor
M. Lidz. New York: The Free Press.
(1988) , 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.
(1989) , 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
(1991a) Soziologie des politischen Systems. Pp. 154-177 in
. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
(1991b) Einfhrende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie symbolisch generalisierter
Kommunikationsmedien. Pp. 170-192 in l
. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
(1991c) Symbiotische Mechanismen. Pp. 228-244 in
. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
(1994) Die Zukunft der Demokratie. Pp. 126-132 in l
. Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
(1995) Metamorphosen des Staates. Pp. 101-137 in
vol. 4.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
(1996) , 2nd ed. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
(1997) vol. 1. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
(2000) . Edited by Andr Kieserling. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
Mahoney, James (2001) Path-Dependent Explanations of Regime Change: Central
America in Comparative Perspective.
36 (1): 111-141.
Mahoney, James, and Richard Snyder (1999) Rethinking Agency and Structure in the
Study of Regime Change: Rethinking Agency and Structure in the Study of Regime
Change. 34(2): 3-32.
Mann, Michael (1989)
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAdam, Doug (1999) Introduction to the Second Edition. Pp. vii-xlii in
, 1930-1970. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
(2003) Beyond Structural Analysis: Toward a More Dynamic Understanding of
189