- 著者
-
菅野 敦志
- 出版者
- 一般財団法人 アジア政経学会
- 雑誌
- アジア研究 (ISSN:00449237)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.51, no.3, pp.41-59, 2005-07-31 (Released:2014-09-30)
- 参考文献数
- 46
This paper clarifies the significance and implications of Chiang Ching-kuo’s ‘cultural construction’ and his ‘Taiwanization’ (localization) policy that brought a drastic change in the Kuomintang’s cultural policy in postwar Taiwan. ‘Cultural construction’, launched by Chiang Ching-kuo, is the name that has been given to the last of the twelve major construction projects beginning in 1977, and includes the construction of local cultural centers and the establishment of a Cultural Commission in cabinet. By the construction of cultural centers in every county and major city, this ‘cultural construction’ is acknowledged as the most important cultural policy in the 1970s, having a strong impact on cultural developments in Taiwan thereafter. The major findings of this paper are concerned with the implications of Chiang’s ‘cultural construction’ and his intention of promoting a ‘Taiwanization’ policy, not only in political administration but also in cultural administration. The basis of this discussion will be centered on the following observations. Firstly, Chiang Ching-kuo’s landmark announcement to launch his own cultural policy marked a clear transition from Chiang Kai-shek’s policy of the 1960s. Secondly, the highly symbolic appointment by Chiang Ching-kuo of Ch’en Ch’i-lu, a prominent Taiwanese scholar in the field of Taiwanese aboriginal studies, to the chair of the newly founded Cultural Commission in 1981, represented the first time the KMT was to place a local-oriented personality as the head of the government’s national cultural administration. As a result, Ch’en’s concern with local culture and the notion of Chinese culture opened up new horizons for the KMT’s cultural policy. Thirdly, Chiang Ching-kuo’s policy of cultural localization is evident through the establishment of Taichung’s first cultural centre, founded in 1976 by the well-known Taiwanese poet Ch’en Ch’ien-wu. When examining the significance of Chiang’s localization policy, we should not neglect the fact that the ideas of a single Taiwanese intellectual became the base upon which Taiwan’s cultural policy was formed after 1970. Fourthly, the establishment of display rooms and museums in local cultural centers, exhibiting notions of the ‘tradition’ and ‘uniqueness’ of various local places, presents a good illustration of the enhancement of local history and culture to represent the cultural policy of the new age. Such museums, initially conceived by Ch’en Ch’i-lu, can nowadays be seen everywhere, while the concept itself continues to be strongly promoted by the present government. Finally, following the ‘Local Autonomy Act’, enforced in 1999, local cultural centers were gradually reorganized into local cultural bureaux. In short, it can be said that Chiang’s cultural centers became a prototype that since the 1990s has provided the basis for the decentralization of cultural policy. Hence, due to the above reasons, it is possible to state that Chiang Ching-kuo’s ‘cultural construction’ was a significant part of his ‘Taiwanization’ policy, which can be defined clearly as the ‘turning point’ in the KMT’s cultural policy.