臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文想要討論的經驗問題在於探究轉型政體下的民眾面對民主概念高度的正當性與多義可能，對於「民主」持具何種認知？社會中既存對於「民主」的詮釋模式是否即為民眾據以表述「民主」的認知資源、其間關聯程度如何？而對應於理論上民主概念的規範內涵，這樣的認知是否為政治菁英動員之下錯誤而扭曲的「民主」定義？
本文經由對台灣1986年至2001年之間報紙文章中對於「民主」陳述的整理，抽繹出較顯著的「民主」陳述模式；各「民主」定義除了本身概念意涵不同之外，更具有描繪特定整體政治秩序的意圖，並且經由對其中「人民」特質的闡述、而試圖在政治領域中號召群眾的認可支持。
較為顯著的民主陳述方式包含強調對特定原則規範的遵守，這樣的陳述於解嚴前後對於「人民」有著反動員的意圖、論述中維續著威權政體下二元區分的政治角色區隔。以自由權利的保護以及人民政治參與的原則來界定民主的方式，一方面為政治轉型過程中支持改革的理據，另方面亦為大眾論述中對於民主運作原則的習見闡述；而其中特意標舉「人民」位置的陳述方式則起自於政治競爭全面開放之下對民眾的動員需要，這些與政治轉型過程有關聯的陳述模式在出現當時都曾標誌著改革的需要。談論中央政府權力關係的定義方式亦具有相當能見度，然而這樣的陳述方式當中並未直接提及民眾的角色。集體利益亦為大眾論述中習見的民主陳述，且往往描繪為「民主」所應許的目標。
以調查資料對民眾民主詮釋進行分析，民眾對於「民主開放題」的回答以一種「快照」(snapshot)的方式反映了在受訪者認知當中與「民主」最為直接而熟悉的語彙連結。在這些紛雜的回答當中，有超過七成的答案可於大眾論述中辨識出相近似的陳述；大部分的回答皆對應著大眾論述當中直接指涉著人民角色的陳述，亦可約略在規範民主理論中找到片段對應的理據。若就民主詮釋的變異進行分析，則發現「教育程度」、「政治知識」以及「年齡世代」由於影響了民眾可援用的認知資源，因此對於民主詮釋的變異有著顯著影響；其中政治知識的程度決定了民眾會否傾向援引大眾論述中顯著的陳述方式，而教育程度則影響了民眾會否傾向以「人民參與」及「法治規範」這樣語意上較為複雜的概念來定義民主，而年齡世代則影響了民眾對於特定陳述模式的熟悉程度，年齡較長者對於「法治規範」的陳述方式較為熟悉，而「人民參與」作為在論述場域中較晚出現的陳述模式、則較為年輕世代所接受。另外民眾的統獨立場亦經由預存傾向以及論述闡聯而與其民主詮釋有關，不支持台灣獨立的立場傾向於使民眾由「法治規範」來界定民主。
民眾對於特定民主定義的接受同時意味著接受了該定義所描繪、評估的整體政治秩序，因而影饗了其對於台灣「民主程度」的評斷。將民主定義為「法治規範」者所感知到解嚴前與目前的民主程度差異較低，亦不期待更大程度的民主增益；「自由」的定義者感知到了最大的民主增益程度，並認為當下的民主程度已大致足夠；持「人民參與」的定義者對於未來民主程度增益的可能有著最高的期待。這樣的差異評斷與大眾論述中「法治規範」、「自由」、以及「人民參與」等定義的論述意圖相符合。
這樣的分析結果顯示，政治轉型過程中大眾媒體內對於「民主」的陳述確實與民眾的認知表述有著相當關聯，這樣的對應與合致雖不意味著在個體層次民眾確實經由特定的認知接收而回答了該陳述，然而卻表示這數種詮釋模式為台灣大眾論述中顯著的民主定義，而民眾對於這些民主定義的熟悉程度受其資訊來源以及預存傾向所影響，因而本文可以辨識出較為清晰的對民眾民主詮釋變異的解釋。另外，這些受到援引採擇的陳述模式，其在大眾論述當中原始的論述意圖亦為民眾所接受。
由於大眾傳媒論述與問卷民調的特質，上述抽繹出的民主定義皆僅為對於「民主」的特定陳述，而非表達了體系完整的民主理論。若由規範理論而觀，這些民主陳述看似皆表達了規範民主理論的部分片段，皆可在規範民主理論內找到對應的理據，無論是自由主義所主張的自由權利保護、憲政法治遵守與權力制衡，或共和主義所強調的共善達成，以及實踐民主所需的參與程序；然而單一特定民主陳述卻無法拼湊出完整的規範理論體系，說了一半的理論反可能隱伏著危機。若由經驗資料檢證，則民粹批評當中所描繪「消極被動的、由統治者賦予集體身分」的人民或許並不經由接受著「召喚人民」的民主定義而出現；而強調「法治規範」的民主詮釋者雖有著程度最高的民主價值信念，卻可能由於對匿名的國家法律的強調、而連繫著國家主義的態度。

This thesis intends to explore how ordinary citizens interpret the word democracy in transitional societies. Do the interpretive modes of the word in public discourses provide people’s cognitive resources? Do popular conceptions of the word diverge from normative democratic theory?
This thesis elucidates several main interpretive modes of democracy in Taiwan from newspaper articles during 1986 and 2001. Each interpretive mode not only contains particular definition of the word democracy, but also intends to illustrate the whole political order and citizens’ identities in such political order. A main mode interprets democracy as obeying given rules and laws. This kind of interpretation intends to maintain separate identities between the rulers and the ruled, and prevents ordinary citizens participating in political competitions. Some other interpretive modes illustrate the rationales of political reform. These modes include interpreting democracy as protection of rights and liberty and the process of general political participation. This definition illustrates positive identity of “the people” and intends to mobilize ordinary citizens to take sides in political competitions. Other interpretive mode defines democracy by clarifying the relations among institutions. This definition does not directly concern the role of ordinary citizens. There is also other interpretive mode defines democracy as collective interests.
By analyzing respondents’ definitions of democracy in Taiwan survey data, more than seven tenth of the answers are similar to the interpretations found in newspaper articles, and most of the answers directly concerning ordinary citizens’ roles in the political system. The structural relationships among people’s conceptions of democracy, their socioeconomic variables and individual predispositions indicate that people’s education level, general political knowledge and generations have great impact on their definitions of the word, since those variables influence people’s accessibilities to different cognitive resources. Those with higher political knowledge are more prone to define democracy based on the interpretive modes appeared in public discourses. Those with higher education level are more likely to define democracy as “popular participation” or “obeying given laws”, which are comparatively more complicated answers. The older generations are more familiar with the definition of “obeying given laws,” and the younger generations are more receptive to the definition of “popular participation.” People’s national identity as a kind of predisposition has effects on their interpretation of democracy. Those who do not agree with Taiwan independence are more prone to define democracy as “obeying given laws.”
People’s reception of particular definition of democracy implies that they are more likely to agree with the whole political order illustrated in that definition. Those who define democracy as “obeying given laws” perceive smaller democratic progress between the regimes under martial law and present government, and do not expect “more democracy.” Those who define democracy as “liberty and freedom” perceive comparatively largest democratic progress, and are satisfied with present democratic status. Those who define democracy as “popular participation” expect much more democratic progress in the future. These analyses indicate that during democratic transition, popular conceptions of democracy have high relations with the interpretive modes in public discourse. This consistency does not mean that people hold their definition in reference to particular public discourse at the micro level, but it indicates that these interpretive modes are significant definitions of democracy in Taiwan society at the macro level. Combining the variables of public discourses, people’s political knowledge and predispositions, this thesis can elucidate more clear explanations to the variances of popular conceptions of democracy. Furthermore, people also receive the intentions of these definitions of democracy in public discourse.
Due to the characteristics of newspaper articles and survey data, the interpretive modes collected in this thesis are not complete definitions of democracy. As for normal democratic theory, these interpretive modes sound as if they present partial essence of normal definitions, such as the protection of liberty, rule of law and balance of power in liberalism and common wealth in communitarian tradition. However, these partial definitions cannot derive to complete normal theory, but might incubate caveats. From empirical data, this thesis argues that although those who define democracy as “obeying given laws” hold highest democratic value, they are more prone to nationalism, since this definition highlights anonymous national power.

口試委員會審定書 i
誌 謝 ii
中文摘要 iv
英文摘要 vi
第一章 問題、文獻與研究架構 1
壹、問題意識 1
貳、文獻回顧 2
一、政治場域中的「民主」概念 2
二、民眾的民主信念 4
三、民眾的民主認知 5
四、可能的認知參照 9
參、研究架構 10
一、經驗研究的探索 10
二、規範理論的映照 14
肆、章節安排 22
第二章 民主論述－分析策略與研究方法 23
壹、對於「民主」論述的分析策略 23
一、政治論述 23
二、論述與轉型過程 25
三、「民主」概念的特殊性 27
貳、台灣政治論述中的「民主」－1945年至1986年 28
參、對於「民主」論述的研究方法 33
一、關鍵論述時刻與抽樣 33
二、主題分類 36
三、分析標的 39
第三章 台灣民主論述的內容與變遷 41
壹、「民主」為改革的目標與運作的典範 41
一、1986年民進黨成立至1989年底增額立委選舉 42
二、1990總統選舉至1992資深民代全面退職 46
三、1993國民黨政爭至1996首次總統直選 52
四、1996年至2000年兩次總統選舉期間 55
五、2000年政黨輪替之後 57
六、小結 57
貳、民主與國家邊界 59
參、民主陳述中對權力關係的想像 66
第四章 民眾對於民主概念的認知表述 71
壹、資料來源與變項處理 71
一、資料來源與民眾的「民主」陳述 71
二、自變項處理 74
貳、誰說「民主」是什麼？ 77
參、民主詮釋的影響 87
肆、誰是民主公民？ 94
第五章 結論與檢討 100
壹、研究發現 100
貳、研究限制 103
參考文獻 104
附錄一 問卷原始問項與登錄方式 111
附錄二 關鍵論述時刻抽樣時點 114
附錄三 報紙文章內容登錄編碼 115
附錄四 受訪者對「民主」詮釋的分類方式 119

Anderson, Richard D. Jr. 2001. "The Discursive Origins of Russian Democratic Politcs." In Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy, ed. R. D. J. Anderson, M. S. Fish, S. E. Hanson and P. G. Roeder. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Anderson, Richard D. Jr., Valery V. Chervyakov, and Pavel B. Parshin. 1997. "Discourse and Democratic Participation: An Investigation in Russia." http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/anderson/repart2.htm.
Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language & Symbolic Power. Translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Edited by J. B. Thompson. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bratton, Michael , and Robert Mattes. 2001. "Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental?" British Journal of Political Science 31:447.
Bratton, Michael, and Katundu Liatto. 1994. "A focus group assessment of political attitudes in Zambia." African Affairs 93 (373):535.
Camp, Roderic Ai. 2003. "Learning Democracy in Mexico and the United States." Mexican Studies 19 (1):3.
Camp, Roderic Ai 2001. "Democracy through Latin American lenses: an appraisal." In Citizen views of democracy in Latin America, ed. R. A. Camp. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carter, April, and Geoffrey Stokes. 1998. "Introduction: Liberal Democracy and its Critics." In Liberal Democracy and its Critics, ed. A. Carter and G. Stokes. Cambridge: Polity Press
Chang, Yu-tzung, and Yun-han Chu. 2004. Confucians values and conception of democracy: an empirical study of mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Paper read at the Transformation of Citizen Politics and Civic Attitudes in three China Societies, November 19-20, at Taipei.
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schaeffner. 1997. "Discourse and Politics." In Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. T. A. van Dijk. London: Sage.
Chong, Dennis. 1993. "How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties " American Journal of Political Science 37 (3):867.
Chu, Yun-han. 1992. Crafting democracy in Taiwan Taipei: Institute for National Policy Research.
Conover, Pamela Johnston; Crewe, Ivor M.; Searing, Donald D. 1991. "The Nature of Citizenship in the United States and Great Britain: Empirical Comments on Theoretical Themes." Journal of Politics 53 (3):800-32.
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dalton, Russell J., Doh C. Shin, and Willy Jou. 2007. "Popular Conceptions of the Meaning of Democracy: Democratic Understanding in Unlikely Places." Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine.
Dryzek, John S., and Jeffrey Berejikian. 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory." American Political Science Review 87 (1):48-60.
Dryzek, John S., and Leslie Holmes. 2002. Post-communist democratization political discourses across thirteen countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunne, Michele Durocher. 2003. Democracy in Contemporary Egyptian Political Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dupuis-Deri, Francis. 2004. "The Political Power of Words: The Birth of Pro-Democratic Discourse in the Nineteenth Century in the United States and France." Political Studies 52 (1):118-34.
Erikson, Robert S., John P. McIver, and Gerald C. Wright. 1987. "State Political Sulture and Public Opinion." American Political Science Review 81 (3):797-814.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
———. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Ferree, Myra Marx, William A Gamson, Juergen Gerhards, and Dieter Rucht. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse- Democracy and The Public Sphere in Germany and The United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flanagan, S. C., and Aie-Rie Lee. 2000. "Value change and democratic reform in Japan and Korea." Comparative Political Studies 33 (5):626-59.
Gamson, William A 1992. Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, William A, and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach." American Journal of Sociology 95 (1):1-37.
Gray, John 1997. "After Social Democracy." In Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought, ed. J. Gray. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gu, Edward X. 2001. "Who Was Mr Democracy? The May Fourth Discourse of Populist Democracy and the Radicalization of Chinese Intellectuals (1915-1922)." Modern Asian Studies 35 (3):589-621.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1998. "Three Normative Models of Democracy." In The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, ed. C. Cronin and P. D. Greif. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hanson, Russell L. 1988. "Democracy." In Political innovation and conceptual change, ed. J. F. Terence Ball, Russell L. Hanson. Cambridge ; New York Cambridge University Press.
Held, David. 1996. Models of Democracy. 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald. 2003. How solid is mass support for democracy- and how can we measure it? Paper read at How east asians view democracy: the region in global perspective, December 8-9, at Taipei.
Karlstrom, Mikael. 1996. "Imagining Dmocracy: political culture an democratisation in Buganda." Africa 66 (4):485-505.
Kornberg, Allan, and Harold D. Clarke. 1994. "Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: The Canadian case." Political Research Quarterly 47 (3):537-63.
Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. "Toward Consolidated Democracies." Journal of Democracy 7 (2):14-33.
Lukin, Alexander. 2000. The political culture of the Russian "democrats". Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Macpherson, Crawford Brough. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marcus, Richard R., Kenneth Mease, and Dan Ottemoeller. 2001. "Popular Definitions of Democracy from Uganda, Madagascar, and Florida, U.S.A." Journal of Asian and African Studies 36 (1):113-32.
McClosky, H, and J Zaller. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Miller, Arthur H. , Vicki L. Hesli, and William M. Reisinger. 1997. "Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in post-Soviet societies." British Journal of Political Science 27:157.
Morlino, Leonardo, and Jose R. Montero. 1995. "Legitimacy and Democracy in Southern Europe." In The politics of democratic consolidation : southern Europe in comparative perspective ed. R. Gunther, N. P. Diamandouros and H.-J. Puhle. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Nursey-Bray, Paul. 1983. "Consensus and Community: African One-party Democracy." In Democratic Theory and Practice, ed. G. Duncan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ottemoeller, Dan. 1998. "Popular perceptions of democracy: Elections and attitudes in Uganda." Comparative Political Studies 31 (1):98-124.
Paley, Julia. 2002. "Toward an anthropology of democracy." Annual Review of Anthropology 31:469.
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democracy Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plant, Raymond. 2002. "Social Democracy." In Democratic Theory Today: Challenges for the 21st Century, ed. A. Carter and G. Stokes. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Plattner, Marc F. 1993. "The democratic moment " In The global resurgence of democracy, ed. L. Diamond and M. F. Plattner. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 1995. "The History of the Word "Democracy" in France." Journal of Democracy 6 (4):140-54.
Saward, Michael. 1994. "Democratic Theory and Indices of Democratization." In Defining and Measuring Democracy, ed. D. Beetham. London: Sage Publications.
Schaffer, Frederic Charles. 1998. Democracy in translation : understanding politics in an unfamiliar culture. N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. "What Democracy is... and is Not." Journal of Democracy 2 (3):75-88.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. 民主理論現況. 陳毓麟譯. 台北市: 商周出版.
Simon, Janos. 1995. "What Does Democracy Mean for Hungarians?" Coexistence 32 (4):325-40.
———. 1996. Popular conceptions of democracy in post-communist europe. Vol. . Glasgow: Center for the Study of Public Policy.
Wong, Tomothy Ka-Ying, and Milan Tung-Wen Sun. 2000. "Democratic Theorizing in Taiwan: A Reconstruction." Democratization 7 (2):90-112.
Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy." Foreign Affairs 76 (6):22-43.
Zaller, John R. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge; New York Cambridge University Press.
王甫昌. 1996. "台灣反對運動的共識動員：一九七九至一九八九年兩次挑戰高峰的比較." 台灣政治學刊 1:129-207.
王振寰, 錢永祥. 1995. "邁向新國家？民粹威權主義的形成與民主問題." 台灣社會研究季刊 20:17-55.
江宜樺. 2001. 自由民主的理路. 台北市: 聯經.
吳乃德. 2001. "反動論述和社會科學－台灣威權主義時期的反民主論." 台灣史研究 8 (1):125-61.
李筱峰. 1991. 台灣民主運動四十年. 台北市: 自立晚報社.
李樹山. 2002. 瞧與橋：審議式與激進民主的連結想像. 碩士論文, 政治學系, 國立台灣大學, 台北市.
唐諾. 2004. "槍聲後的新民主啟蒙." 中國時報, May 7-8, E7.
徐永明. 2001. "「南方政治」形成？台灣政治支持的地區差別1994-2000." 社會科學季刊 2 (4):167-96.
張佑宗. 2000. 文化變遷與民主鞏固 : 臺灣民主化經驗的比較觀. 博士論文, 政治學系, 國立政治大學, 台北.
郭秋永. 2001. 當代三大民主理論. 台北市: 聯經.
楊芙宜. 2003. 民主化與國家認同的轉變 : 從政治菁英論述到民眾態度的分析. 碩士論文, 政治學硏究所, 國立臺灣大學, 台北市.
廖達琪, 秦鳳英. 1992. "知識菁英團體對威權體制民主化的影響－台灣「大學雜誌社」個案分析." 中山社會科學季刊 7 (4):43-57.
劉義周. 1994. "台灣選民政黨形象的世代差異." 選舉研究 1 (1):53-73.
蕭全政. 1998. "從政治學三種觀點看當前的公共行政與公共政策." 理論與政策 12 (2):83-95.
蕭阿勤. 2003. "認同、敘事、與行動：台灣1970年代黨外的歷史建構." 台灣社會學 5:190-250.
———. 2005. "世代認同與歷史敘事." 台灣社會學 9:1-58.
薛化元. 1996. 《自由中國》與民主憲政－1950年代台灣思想史的一個考察. 台北縣: 稻鄉出版社.