Jump to the main content block

MOISS

  1. Home

Chuan-Kai Lin

Assistant Professor Chuan-Kai Lin

Chuan-Kai Lin, Assistant Professor

Personal Information

Research Interests: Historical Sociology, Political Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Contentious Politics, Taiwanese Han Folk Beliefs, Fieldwork Methods and Oral History
E-mail：vanguardlin7@gmail.com
Extension：5674
Office：SS 4033

Education

Ph.D. in Sociology, National Taiwan University

M.Arch. in Building and Planning, National Taiwan University

B.A. in Anthropology, National Taiwan University

Current Position

  • Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, National Sun Yat-sen University

Experience

  • Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica (Jan. 2019 – Sep. 2020)

Research Statement

My primary research focuses on the "history of contention" in post-war Taiwan, specifically involving state-building, regime characteristics, contention and social movements, as well as class and ethnic formation.

In my doctoral dissertation, I focused on the "post-February 28" period, which is often regarded in popular discourse and sociological circles as a time of political quiescence. Although contentious politics, as conceptualized by Tilly, Tarrow, and McAdam, encompasses a wide range of struggles far broader than "social movements," mainstream research in Taiwan has predominantly selected social movements from the 1980s to the present as primary case studies. I specifically examined the underground vanguard party organization that emerged in Taiwan after 1946—the Taiwan Provincial Work Committee—to reassess the contentious trajectories of state (re)building and state-society relations in the early post-war period.

In my dissertation, employing a strategy of stratifying social systems, I treated "meso-level" social fields as points of articulation and struggle between regional/international politics, the state, and everyday life. By outlining the trajectories of institutional changes across various fields and the lived experiences of ordinary people, I explained the multiple pathways through which they decided to move toward radicalized underground contention. The puzzle I sought to answer was: Why did the Nationalist government (KMT) in the early post-war period (1945–1949) fail to successfully complete state (re)building and consolidate its legitimacy, despite numerous favorable conditions such as colonial institutional legacies, public support, and international aid? Instead, it catalyzed two waves of island-wide, intense contention that challenged regime legitimacy to varying degrees—initially the high autonomy of the "February 28" uprising (spring 1947), which subsequently swelled into the Taiwan underground party seeking regime overthrow (from 1946 until 1955).

By distinguishing "meso-level" social spaces such as higher education, secondary education, state-owned enterprises, self-employed artisan sectors, agricultural production, and indigenous administration sectors, I first explored the daily experiences and forms of oppression actors in different fields underwent after the war. I then identified which actors in specific structural positions accepted mobilization by the underground party, forming a "cross-field united front" characterized by heterogeneous horizons, thoughts, and demands, until they were successively suppressed by the KMT government after the autumn of 1949. Through this approach, the generalized imagination of "Taiwanese people" was deconstructed and restored to various field positions, demonstrating that students, farmers, state workers, and indigenous elites did not share a "uniform" retrocession experience, nor did they hold "uniform" motivations or ideologies when joining the underground party. Thus, I aim to clarify the empirical and theoretical particularities of this wave of contention.

From January 2019 to the summer of 2020, I served as a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica. During this period, I explored another puzzle that I had not addressed in my dissertation. According to archival records, approximately 45% of political prisoners under the White Terror were Mainlanders ("Waishenren"), whereas Mainlanders accounted for less than 20% of Taiwan's post-war population structure. Meanwhile, academic and popular discourses often used "patron-client theory" to discuss the relationship between Mainlanders and the KMT government. If Mainlanders were a group specially cared for by the KMT, how did "Mainland political prisoners," who constituted nearly half of all political prisoners, come to be?

In my perspective, I refuse to treat "Mainlanders" as a monolithic "ethnic group," and argue instead that the so-called "Mainlanders" who came to Taiwan in the 1949–1950s were a highly heterogeneous group in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, class, political experience, and identity, with their sole commonality being the experience of diaspora. Adopting the analytical framework established in my dissertation, I restored and deconstructed the category of "Mainlanders" into different fields such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, civil service, and education, exploring the trajectories of their daily experiences, resistance, and suppression. Concurrently, to avoid the teleological single-line historical view often presupposed by national history, I also began examining the distinct political and economic trajectory of the Matsu Islands after 1949, explaining how the state governed the region and who became political prisoners under the White Terror in Matsu. These questions remain the core subjects of my ongoing research.

Looking forward, I hold two major aspirations for my research. First, having gradually explored the trajectories of contention in Taiwanese society during the 1940s and 1950s starting from the end of World War II in 1945, I hope to continue exploring the largely forgotten history of contention in the 1960s and 1970s. This should contribute to supplementing, revising, and ultimately challenging mainstream perspectives (biases) that anchor the origin of the "democratization" wave or authoritarian transition in the 1980s. Second, I hope my research outcomes are not confined solely to academia. Since the autumn of 2018, I have successively experimented with connecting and collaborating with schools, grassroots educational bases, creators, and indigenous hometown residents where historical events took place, hoping to bring this history back to its sites of origin and turn it into material for contemporary reflection on the relationships between the past, present, and future. In the foreseeable future, this serves as my guiding beacon moving forward.

期刊論文

  • 林傳凱（2025）。〈2025臺南人權月〉。《臺江臺語文學》（55）：29-34。
  • 林傳凱（2024）。〈概覽發生在校園中的「政治案件」圖像〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》（10）：16-24。
  • 林傳凱（2024）。〈閻王、三姑、白蛇傳──戰後地下黨「工人政治新劇」史（1949-1950s）〉。《歷史台灣》（已通過審查）。
  • 林傳凱（2023）。重新思考「歷史的想像」與「歷史路徑的考察」：評《強制移住》。《台灣社會學》，46，187-195。
  • 林傳凱（2023）。〈「白色恐怖」中的女性政治犯──重思「歷史真實」與「再現」的政治〉。《性別平等教育季刊》，101。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈校園中的不義遺址──層疊於臺大校園的白色痕跡〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》，6。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈再思台灣脈絡中「政治受害者」與「傷」的本地意涵〉。《本土心理學研究》，57。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。〈危崖下的相遇──記七十年前政治犯、綠島居民、與新生訓導處的交織搓揉〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》，4。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。〈「四六事件」七十周年後的新芽──記台灣大學、台灣師大、國防醫學院近年的校園白色記憶實踐〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》，5。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。〈犁跡與爪痕──凋零在「曾文區」土壤的白色稻穀〉。《ACT藝術觀點》，88。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈迎魂歸鄉──如何在各鄉鎮談「白色恐怖」的一點筆記〉。《台灣民主季刊》，16(4)，143-156。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈芎林白影─1950年代的「中學教師被捕事件」〉。《新竹文獻》，72。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈大浪襲來－綠島新生訓導處「再叛亂」案的真相與平反〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》，2，41-45。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈迎魂歸鄉－試探研究者、創作者的角色協作，與「群眾創作」的當代意涵〉。《藝術觀點ACT》，82。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈流血的身體、只剩骨頭的身體－側寫「白色恐怖」下雲林地區的兩位女性〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》，3。
  • 林傳凱（2019）。〈戒嚴與「白色記憶」──我們喪失的「雞婆精神」〉。《向光：人和人權的故事》，1，12-16。
  • 林傳凱（2014）。〈大眾傷痕的「實」與「幻」──探索1950年代白色恐怖「見證」的版本歧異〉。《歷史台灣》，8。
  • 林傳凱（2013）。〈地下革命中的迫迌人──林元枝和李漢堂的故事〉。《觀台灣》，17。
  • 林傳凱（2012）。〈「他們為什麼不說話？」論1940年代抗爭史田野中的一些觀察〉。《跨界：大學與社會參與》，2。

專書論文

  • 林傳凱（2025）。〈2025臺南人權月〉。《臺江臺語文學》（55）：29-34。
  • 林傳凱（2025）。〈另一種視角：臺灣青年民主自治革命促進會的來龍去脈／林傳凱〉。224-260，《回家是一趟沒有線性終點的旅程：白色恐怖與我的左派阿公》。臺北市：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2025）。〈重估多種制度下「真相」與「和解」的複雜關係：兼論「真相」為何一定要兼顧「和解」〉。《臺灣社會學》（49）：165-178。
  • 林傳凱（2023）。〈重探戰後初期臺北盆地「地下抗爭」的空間軌跡（1945-1955）〉。收錄於**《城市共筆：第十屆臺北學學術研討會論文集》。台北：台北市立文獻館。
  • 林傳凱（2023）。〈血的邀請函－－一九五零年代「地下黨」台灣省工作委員會的形成脈絡〉。收錄於《永遠不再：台灣威權體制下的壓迫與抵抗》。台北：奇異果文創。
  • 林傳凱（2023）。〈閩江口外的三條小船－探索馬祖列嶼的「前線白色恐怖」〉。收錄於《永遠不再：台灣威權體制下的壓迫與抵抗》。台北：奇異果文創。
  • 林傳凱（2023）。〈軍隊曾是一個大牢籠－概論戰後「外省」軍人白色恐怖的歷史圖像〉。收錄於《永遠不再：台灣威權體制下的壓迫與抵抗》。台北：奇異果文創。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈霧鎖金門——戒嚴與戰地政務下的金門政治案件(1949-1970s)〉。167-198，《金馬地區解除戰地政務30週年暨轉型正義學術研討會論文集》。臺北市：行政院。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈國家的治理，民眾的反抗－－詮釋此處的空間性質〉。收錄於《「2020台北雙年展」專輯》。台北：台北市立美術館。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈王文培：我能不留戀的走這要走的路〉。收錄於《無法送達的遺書：記那些在恐怖年代失落的人（增訂版）》。新北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈白色畫廊──一九五○年代的遺書群像〉。收錄於《無法送達的遺書：記那些在恐怖年代失落的人（增訂版）》。新北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。〈曾錦堂：迷霧中的四張容顏〉。收錄於《無法送達的遺書：記那些在恐怖年代失落的人（增訂版）》。新北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。〈流血的身體、寂寞的枯骨──側寫「白色恐怖」下雲林地區的兩位女性〉。收錄於《靈魂與灰燼：臺灣白色恐怖散文選 卷四 原地流變》。台北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。〈茅坑、橫貫公路、榮民醫院──重探戰後底層陸軍「為匪宣傳案」的歷史面貌〉。收錄於《成為台灣人：遷徙、跨界與多元故鄉 論文集》。台南：成功大學人文社會科學中心。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。〈由「鐵血救國團」案（1953）到「返鄉運動」（1980s）－重構一位「二進宮」軍人政治犯的生命史〉。收錄於《威權鬆動：解嚴前台灣重大政治案件與社會變遷（1977-1987）國際學術研討會論文集》。台北：國史館。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈「省籍和解論」的影像敘事：重探白克存世的唯二作品〉。收錄於《看得見的記憶：二十二部電影裡的百年台灣電影史》（頁57-76）。台北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈50年代的恐怖心靈史──左翼、地下、血的預感〉。收錄於《讓過去成為此刻：台灣白色恐怖小說選 四卷本導讀手冊》。台北：國家人權博物館、春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈學生工作委員會〉。收錄於《電影裡的人權關鍵字：第六十九信》。台北：奇異果。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈郵電工作委員會〉。收錄於《電影裡的人權關鍵字：第六十九信》。台北：奇異果。
  • 林傳凱（2020）。〈描繪「剛剛消逝的過去」：解嚴初期探索「白色恐怖」的三部電影〉。收錄於《看得見的記憶：二十二部電影裡的百年台灣電影史》（頁365-382）。台北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2019）。〈迷霧新莊──消逝的1949-1959〉。收錄於《在地壯遊－新莊泰山的常民記憶》。
  • 林傳凱（2015）。〈白色恐怖口述史的檢討〉。收錄於《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：台灣轉型正義階段報告》。台北：衛城出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2015）。〈政權更迭與學生抗爭〉。收錄於《學運․動生：台灣戰後學運回顧特展》。台北：中央研究院社會學研究所。
  • 林傳凱（2015）。〈曾錦堂〉。收錄於《無法送達的遺書：記那些在恐怖年代失落的人》。台北：衛城。
  • 林傳凱（2014）。〈2014年「反服貿」抗爭中的權力、民主、與異質實踐──歷史社會學視角的初步分析〉。收錄於《318佔領立法院：看見希望世代》**。台北：奇異果。

專書

  • 林傳凱（2025）。《白牆與粉筆灰：探索臺南校園政治案件》。臺北市：時行文化。
  • 林傳凱（2022）。《無法送達的遺書：記那些在恐怖年代失落的人（增訂版）》（與林易澄、胡淑雯、楊美紅、羅毓嘉合著）。臺北市：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱、張旖容（2023）。《春日的偶遇——白色恐怖、我的阿公黃溫恭與家族記憶追尋》。台北：春山出版社。
  • 林傳凱（2021）。《空總：白色檔案考（上）（下）》（Air Force Command Headquarters: An Archaeology of the White Archive）。台北：當代文化實驗場C-Lab。
Click Num: