2010-08-012024-05-17https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/683522摘要：威權統治者期待工人階級不只是勤奮的生產者，同時也能夠扮演忠誠的國民之角色。但是不同的脈絡下，政治忠誠的定義卻有極端的差異。在大部分的情況下，工人只要不參與激進的工會運動，不要關心政治，就算是忠誠的工人。在其他地區，工人被迫要參與一連串由上級所發起的政治活動，並且在各種日常生活議題，順應統治菁英的種種要求。在歷史上，毛主義時期的中國、戰爭期間的日本，以及黨國體制下的台灣，都出現了這種政治動員的現象。在這些地區，工人都是經歷了以廠場為基礎的全方面控制。 本研究比較中國、日本、台灣三地，以釐清政治動員的興衰過程。工人階級是如何回應由上而下的意識型態灌輸？他們是生產出了何種的政治忠誠？表面上看來，工人是順從於菁英的要求，因他們沒有發動來自草根的集體行動；但是進一步來看，工人階級其實採取諸多的日常抵抗策略，以因應他們的政治依附困境。透過比較研究的設計，本研究關切工人抵抗到底帶來了何種程度的影響，以及最終又是如何地限制了統治精英的動員意圖。 <br> Abstract: 　　Authoritarian regimes expected workers to play the dual role of diligent producers and loyal citizens simultaneously. The definition of political loyalty varied in different contexts. In most cases, workers were deemed loyal as long as they refrained from radical unionism and political activities, whereas, other workers had to meet a more demanding criterion by demonstrating their political commitment in many everyday activities organized by the management. Historically, Maoist China, wartime Japan and postwar Taiwan fell into the second type of political mobilization. 　　This research aims to study three Asian countries comparatively to understand the dynamic of political mobilization. How did workers respond to the ideological engineering from above? What kind of loyalty did they manufacture? Beneath the superficial conformity, this study focuses on the way how workers adopted a rich variety of everyday resistance to cope with their political dependence. It will be argued that workers’resistance left an indelible legacy for the subsequent evolution of industrial relation.忠誠政治動員日常抵抗loyaltypolitical mobilizationeveryday resistance