一個國家、一個時代的文藝的發展狀況和總體面貌的呈現，應該與統治階級或執政黨所奉行的文化政策密不可分。作為近代中國歷史最久的政黨，中國國民黨在建設國家自有其重大的意義。本論文即在這樣的理念及基礎上，進行其國民黨文藝政策的探討。 本論文研究時間以國民黨定都南京、初步統一中國的1928年為起點，以國民黨遷台後，在台灣的中華民國行政院下的文化專責機構——文化建設委員會誕生的1981年為訖點。文建會的成立，在某種意義上，結束了過去以黨領政，以黨決定文藝政策的時代。作為一個長期的文學工作者，我想瞭解國民黨的文藝政策，在推動文學創作、出版，以及傳播思想、文化的歷史進程中，扮演什麼樣的關鍵角色？因此，為國民黨的文藝政策，作一個完整而理性的描述；為國民黨的文藝論述，找出連綴的關係，是撰述此論文的目的。 本論文共分八章。除第一章緒論外，第二章、第三章分別就國民黨在大陸時期、光復初期的文藝政策進行討論，第四章、第五章分別敘述遷台後國民黨如何建構完備的文藝體制，第六章敘述國民黨如何推動文藝政策，第七章論述國民黨文藝政策如何影響台灣文學發展，第八章為結論，試圖為國民黨文藝政策找出延續性及邏輯性，並分析在大陸時期有文藝政策而無力實施的原因；到台灣後的文藝政策，又因過度動用國家龐大的人力物力，被抨擊阻擋了文學的自由發展，禁讀「匪書」所施行的「文化審檢政策」，亦被評為箝制思想言論自由。在社會環境快速變遷下，國民黨來台後的文藝政策，沒有相對的快速調整，以致其對台灣文學及社會曾有的正面意義，也在長期意識型態的二元對立下，被漠視、被消解。 The development and appearance of one nation’s literature and art should be closely associated with the cultural policy which is carried out by the ruling class or the incumbent party. Being the oldest party in modern China, KMT has played a vital role in shaping the future of literature and art policy. The purpose of this dissertation provides an in-depth discussion of the KMT’s literature and art policy. The research period covered in this dissertation ranged from 1928, when KMT chose Nanjing as the capital, to 1981, when the Council for Cultural Affairs was established. Therefore, the establishment of the Council for Cultural Affairs marked the end of party-oriented policy. As a researcher, I want to look at the role KMT played in the promulgation of literature, publication and mass media. In other words, this dissertation deals with the KMT’s literary and artistic productions in relation to its policy. This dissertation comes in eight parts. Chapter one is my Introduction. Chapters two and three touch on KMT’s literature and art policy in Mainland China in the early Taiwan-Recovery period. Chapters four and five delve into the literature and art system that KMT conducted after they retreated to Taiwan. Chapter six focuses on KMT’s literature and art policy. Chapter seven outlines the influence KMT’s literature and art policy have exerted on Taiwan. In my Conclusion, I look at the continuity and logicality of KMT’s literature and art policy, the failure of KMT’s policy in Mainland China and the accusation of KMT’s policy to counteract the freedom of literature, thought and speech. In short, due attention was not paid too KMT’s efforts in literature and society because of KMT’s failure to keep pace with the progress of the modern world in an age of ideological binarism.
