新たなアジア研究に向けて8号
85/115

Inter-Asia Research NetworksScholars in mainland China have succeeded in transforming past views and evaluations on Hu Shih. Meanwhile, Taiwanese scholars have done much to find ‘commonality’ and ‘plurality’ with the mainland in their historical views. However, to what extent has opinion changed on Hu Shih in Taiwanese academic circles? As we all know, Taiwan went through three regime changes after martial law was lifted. I’m particularly interested in hearing about whether or not Professor Pan faced any kind of difficulties in collaborating with mainland institutions to build the Hu Shih Archival Materials Search System, under these varying political circumstances.The second question concerns the future possibilities of research on Hu Shih: in what areas in particular does Professor Pan believe further research is required? Allow me to give an example from my own research. In mid-1950s Taiwan, under the banner of pushing modernization forward, a debate over whether or not the government ought to once again promulgate the usage of simplified characters broke out. Although Hu Shih was not in Taiwan at the time, and was instead based in America, those scholars who agreed that a reform of Chinese characters, pinyin and national language was necessary, often used Hu Shih’s opinions to legitimize their own views. It goes without saying that Hu Shih played an exceedingly important role in every historical juncture of Chinese cultural reform. However, how much ground is there left for research to cover regarding the influence he had over academic opinion during his time spent in America from 1949 until his return to Taiwan in 1958?In Professor Chan’s stimulating presentation, he introduced the results he achieved across two pieces of research, whilst also explaining the importance of utilizing FO and CO archival materials. Using these kinds of archival materials to reconsider Hong Kong under British control during the period of the May Fourth Movement will be of great use to understanding the complicated nature of May Fourth discourse that Hong Kong experienced. Keeping in line with the theme of today’s symposium, I would like to ask Professor Chan two questions relating to the ‘internal and external’.The first question regards the ‘internal and external’ identity of researchers. When I began to study postwar Taiwan’s cultural and linguistic policies, I felt that as a foreign scholar, it was much easier to touch upon politically sensitive issues in my position as a third party. If we take ‘internal and external’ as keywords to discuss ‘internal and external’ identity when engaging in research on Hong Kong, in what areas can scholars who are native to Hong Kong, and those who aren’t, exhibit their own personal strengths? Furthermore, how can they simultaneously steer clear of oversimplifying the object of their research?The second point concerns the ‘internal and external’ of introducing the results of one’s research. If we take it as a given that historical research is done to appease real-life needs, there is always a risk that historical reality will be used to appease those ends. I am a researcher based in the Japanese ‘periphery’ region of Okinawa and, furthermore, at a university which is located in Okinawa’s ‘periphery’. I find being based in such an environment useful both for looking at history from numerous viewpoints and for being critical of the historical view posited by ‘big-nationism’. What I would like to ask Professor Chan is this: when reevaluating various orthodox historical views from ‘periphery’ regions, to what areas do you attach importance, and in what manner do you alter the way you introduce the results you achieved in your research to scholars and readers who are either ‘internal’ to Hong Kong or ‘external’ to Hong Kong? Furthermore, what kind of response have you received from people ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to Hong Kong respectively?Exactly 97 years have passed since the May Fourth Movement. Coincidentally, ‘97 is also the year in which Hong Kong was returned by the British back to mainland China. In this third and final session of the day, this ironic combination of Hu Shih, the May Fourth Movement and Hong Kong could be called a ‘fortuitous coincidence’.081

元のページ 

10秒後に元のページに移動します

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です