[[alternative]]Taiwanese Identity and Cross-Strait Governance: Viewpoints from Mainland China Scholars

[[abstract]]自2008 年國民黨重新執政以來，台灣民眾僅認同自己是台灣人的比例屢創新高，引發不少大陸學者的關注。大陸學者主要是引用政大選舉研究中心、TVBS、遠見雜誌、天下雜誌的民調資料。而上述資料無疑呈現台灣民眾對於「中國人」的認同，已明顯少於對只是「台灣人」認同的變化趨勢。大陸學者以「錯位」、「困境」、「異化」、「迷失」、「缺失」，甚或是「悲情渲染」、「選擇性接受社會共同記憶」等用語，來形容台灣民眾的「國家認同」趨勢。大部分的大陸學者都認為台灣民眾的「國家認同」出現「去中趨台」的變化，與前總統李登輝、陳水扁在執政時推行的本土化政策有關，另外也認馬英九執政消極干擾「一個中國認同」，難辭其咎。此外，部分大陸學者也認為歷史或社會記憶、地理因素及經濟發展層面，為台灣民眾發展出有別於大陸同胞的國家認同，提供了應有的催化作用。換言之，將台灣民眾的「國家認同」變化的所有責任都歸咎於執政者，有待商榷。為了改變台灣民眾的「國家認同」趨向，大陸學者提出恢復及建構社會或歷史記憶；深化兩岸經貿合作，努力建構相互依賴的經濟共同體；透過加強兩岸文化交流提升「文化認同感」，進而提升「國家認同感」等舉措。此等舉措的功能，似乎未反映在改變台灣民眾「國家認同」的民調上，在反兩岸服貿協議的太陽花學運後，其作用更有重新被檢視的必要，也需要研究台灣民眾「國家認同」的大陸學者進一步探究。[[abstract]]The trend of Taiwanese people identifying themselves as sole Taiwanese instead of both Chinese and Taiwanese that has reached the peak from time to time since KMT ( Kuomintang) regained power in 2008. That attracts the attention of many Mainland China scholars. They often quote those survey data of Taiwanese identity from Election Study Center National Chengchi University, TVBS TV station, Global Views Monthly, and Common Wealth magazine. The above data indicates the trend that Taiwanese people identifying themselves as Chinese is much less than as Taiwanese. Mainland China scholars use terms, such as “misplace”, “dilemma”, “alienation”, “misguidance ”, “shortcoming”, “overstatement of victimization”, and “selective acceptance of social common memory, etc. to describe the trend of Taiwanese identity. Most Mainland China scholars agree that Taiwanese national identity appears to be “qu zhong qu tai” (con-Sinicization and pro-Taiwanization), which is with regard to the policy of Taiwanization promoted by both former President Lee Teng-hui and Chen Sui-bian as well as one China identity not being supported enough by President Ma Ying-jeou. In addition, some Mainland China scholars also regard historical and social memory, geography and economic development as the driving forces to differentiate Taiwanese national identity from China's. In other words, it is seemingly unfair to ask the rulers to take whole responsibility for the change of Taiwanese national identity. In order to reverse the trend of Taiwanese national identity, Mainland China scholars propose to restore and construct social and historical memory, deepen cross-strait economic cooperation to build mutual benefit economic community, promote cultural identity by enhancing cross-strait culture exchange so as to raise national identity. However the above measures seems not to reflect the change of Taiwanese national identity which need to be reexamined especially after the “Sunflower student protest” on anti-service trade agreement and to be researched by those Mainland China scholars who are interested in Taiwanese national identity