日治後期臺灣的農村社會事業

Abstract

本文以日治後期臺灣的農村社會事業為主題，探討該時代背景下，為何產生及實施農村社會事業。由於社會資源有限，在近代化遲緩的農村中，社會事業以何種方式實施，以及這些實施方式的特質如何，是本文探討的主要問題。 1920年代起，總督府除了舊有的「救貧(救助窮民)」事業外，也推動以「防貧(預防貧困)」為主軸的社會事業。但是代表「防貧」事業的方面委員，以及經濟保護事業的實施範圍，全以都市為中心，因此使地方發展受到相當程度地限制。另一方面，由於農民運動的出現，以及與1930年的農產物價格暴跌，讓官方意識到必須實施農村政策，並認知到實施農村社會的必要性。 在1934年「第六屆全島社會事業大會」中，「部落改善に関する具体的方法(改善部落的具體方法)」獲得決議。該決議重視部落的「隣保(互相扶助)」精神，並且帶有推動「公民化(帝國國民化)」的社會教化性質，亦即官方企圖以部落居民為主體，「改善部落決議」成為官方政策理想的狀況。因此，此一決議成為農村社會事業的方針。在農村，方面委員除了負責原來的調查與救助外，也負責實施改善部落事業。另外，地主的「愛佃(地主扶助佃農)事業」，以及改善部落組織，成為支撐農村社會事業的主體。不過，他們實施的社會事業也逐漸轉向社會教化性質。 農忙托兒所是農村特有的社會事業，同時也展現出農村社會事業的特質。該事業雖然原本是愛佃設施之一，但隨著官方的推動，也添加了教化的要素。尤其，臺中州為了進行對兒童及其家人，甚至部落的教化，推廣展設置托兒所。亦即托兒所成為推動部落公民化的機關。而且，在進入到戰爭時期後，托兒所甚至成為戰爭動員的機關，亦即兒童皇民化。 總之，1920年代社會事業以都市為中心，在進入1930年代之後，官方有必要強化農村地區統治時，農村就成為社會事業的對象。農村社會事業在「改善部落」這個冠冕堂皇的口號下，否定農村傳統習俗與生活，並對農民進行公民化。由於戰爭的爆發及戰爭的延長，使得教化的性質也更加強。但是在二次大戰後，因國民政府的政策，農村社會事業制度畫下了句點。This theme of this paper is based on rural social welfare programs of Tai-wan colonial period after the 1930s and explores the reasons for the generation and implementation of such enterprises during this historical period in time. In what ways were social welfare programs implemented in light of the limited social resources and slow pace of modernization in rural communities? What were the characteristics of these methods of implementation? This paper has car-ried out a series of investigations for each of the questions raised above. Since the 1920s, the Japanese Government-General of Taiwan had begun to promote centered around "poverty prevention", in addition to existing "poverty relief" enterprises. However, the representing committees for "poverty preven-tion" enterprises and the scope of implementation for enterprises aimed at eco-nomic protection were all centered around cities, thus they were considerably re-stricted in terms of development in rural areas. At the same time, the emergence of peasant movements , as well as the plunge of agricultural product prices in the 1930s, caused the authorities to recognize the necessity of implementing rural policies and rural societies. During the "7th Islandwide Social Enterprise Conference" held in 1934, a law for "specific methods of improving rural communities" was passed. The law valued the spirit of "neighborliness" and "mutual assistance" in villages, while carrying with it the aim of social education in terms of promoting "citizeniza-tion" and "nationalization", that is to say, the authorities attempted to modify the villages into their idea of an ideal state, with the villagers as their main subjects. This law set the direction for rural social welfare programs. The committee members of the villages were, in addition to being responsible for existing sur-vey and relief efforts, also responsible for the implementation of these enterpris-es aimed at improving the community. Among the villagers, the "enterprises of care and assistance for land tenants" and organizations for improvement imple-mented by land owners also became the main units supporting rural social wel-fare programs. However, these social welfare programs gradually came to en-compass the aim of social education. The rural childcare center was a social enterprise unique to the villages and showcases the characteristics of rural social welfare programs. Although the enterprise originally fell under the category of "care and assistance for land ten-ants", elements of social education were included following promotion efforts by the authorities. In particular, Taichung City had promoted social education for social education for children, their family members, and even their villages. In other words, the childcare center became an institution for promoting the citizen-ization of rural communities. It even became an institution for the promotion of war from before to after the war, that is to say, the Japanization of children. In short, social welfare programs were generally developed around cities from the 1920s, and it was not until the 1930s that rural communities became the target for the formation of social welfare programs, when the authorities rec-ognized the need to strengthen their rule in rural areas. Under the honorable banner of "improving rural communities", the social welfare programs denied the traditional customs and ways of life of the rural communities and carried out citizenization upon the villagers. The aim of social education further intensified in light of the outbreak and extension of war. Yet in the end, the social welfare programs were put to an end after the end of war, in light of the national gov-ernment's policy of "eliminating the toxic legacy of the past".