[[alternative]]The Diversity False Appearance of the Market of Textbooks: As in the Example of the Chinese Textbooks Used in Junior High Schools

[[abstract]] 本研究旨在探討我國國中國文教科書市場開放後的多元化情形。教科書市場開放後，隨著市場的爭議與政策的多變，各種關於教科書市場的討論早已湮沒了教科書多元化的議題。在這樣的關懷下，筆者試圖建立一個教科書多元化應有的基本雛型，從教科書市場的「供需多元化」，到教科書題材的選用和編寫的「內容多元化」，以及教科書所表現的「文化多元化」等，依序進入「教科書多元化」的討論與分析。從分析當中可以看見，不論是市場的供需面，教科書內容的選用與編寫，或是教科書所展現的觀點，雖然都已初步達成多樣化的目標，但距離多元化的理想則還有一段距離。而審定本教科書開放迄今，「多元化」目標的結果仍不如預期，其中原因相當錯綜複雜，但市場、國家與多元在教科書領域中的糾葛卻明顯可見。 在市場供需的分析中，市場本身具有的同質與寡占性質，使得國家介入調整有其必要性，然而在教科書的議價、政策的反覆以及審定制度的諸多干預下，卻都對教科書市場造成不小的負面影響，因此國家角色與作為界線的拿捏應該更為謹慎。而從教科書文本的「內容多元化」分析中，明顯可以察覺在審定制度及升學考試的夾攻下，國編本成了書商在教科書市場求生存的最大公約數，甚至成為審定本教科書的編輯範本，這樣的結果不僅僅是國家介入所造成，更有著市場本身為求生存而與教育這個「準市場」所產生的本質上的衝突。至於「文化多元化」的分析中，則可以察覺不論在弱勢族群自己發聲，或是由強勢文化作家代替弱勢族群發聲的課文中，審定本教科書的編寫仍未能脫離過去和主流的思考框架。這樣的結果可能是國編本的影響，也可能是在社會傳統的文化與結構因素下，市場開放之初，編寫者尚未建立具有足夠反省能力的專業群體所招致。[[abstract]] This study is designed to explore the diversity scenario since the market opening of the Chinese civil version textbooks used in junior high schools. With the market opening associated with market controversies and ever-changing policies, the uprising discussions on the textbook market have overshadowed the issues of textbooks’ diversity. Under such circumstances, I try to construct a basic miniature platform for textbook’s diversity. The discussion ranges from “the diversity of demand and supply” of textbooks’ markets to “the diversity of contents” with regard to material selection, compiling and editing, to “diversity of culture” of textbooks. Accordingly, I will engage in the discussion and analysis of “the diversity of textbooks.” Indeed, these three “diversity” have reached the initial goal, that is, variety, yet there is still much room for the realization of the ideal of diversity because of many complicated reasons—mainly, market, nation, and diversity. Concerning the analysis of market demand and supply, judging from the similarity and dominance in the market itself, the government’s intervention is unavoidable. However, its intervention in the price bargain, the inconsistence of policies, and the censorship system combine to make a greatly negative impact on the market of textbooks. So the government is supposed to play its role more carefully than ever before. What’s more, in terms of “the diversity of contents,” I discovered that under the pressure of censorship and entrance exams, apparently publishers cannot immune to the appeal of the national versions of textbooks, which thus become their examples and principles while editing the civil versions of textbooks. This results from governmental intervention as well as the publishers’ struggle for survival in the would-be market of education. And as to the “diversity of culture,” civil versions of textbooks cannot get rid of traditional and mainstream stereotypes whether they are produced by minority groups themselves or by the dominate writers, who represent minority groups. This may be influenced by the governmental version of textbooks. In addition, at the beginning of the opening of markets, under the influence of social traditional culture and structure, editors still cannot make a professional group, that can reflect on itself