本文整理目前台灣學術界對國家認同問題之相關論述，依其思考理亞各之異同加以分類，並提出若干反省及個人意見。首先筆者認為國家認同乃一涉及哲學性思考之問題，與當下政治意味濃厚的統獨問題有別。挨著筆者將蒐集的國家認同論述分成三大類:民族主義、自由主義與激進(基副主義。民族主義思路線調國家認同必須奠基於一個已存在或有待創建的氏梭，構成該民族的共同血j緣、歷史文化或生活經驗乃是個別國民產生情感性歸附的源頭。自由主義相對地主張國家認同應以公民權利表務及合理的怠政秩序為主要根據，至於認可此，憲政秩序之成員是否出自同一種族或分享共同歷史記憶，則不是最重要的考慮。激進吉合述提倡空白主體論及混雜認同，點出主體無必然不變之本質，國家認同也不過是采多流動性認同之一種樣態。若干主張邊緣戰鬥之理論家甚至認為國旅邊界及國族認同應該被打破或超越，以順利跨國性人氏民主之推展o筆者發現每一種論ill主策略都有其優點缺點，也都與統獨立場無必然關聯。但是最後筆者建議在此間是車上，採取某種「以自由主義為基底的務實性思考」最能兼顧理論上的令理性與王克前台灣民采的意向。

The article reviews the theoretical debate of national identity in Taiwan， classifies relevant literatures by the way they approach that question， and points out their merits and shortcomings respectively. I begin with the argument that "national identity" is a philosophical problem distinct from the political issue of "unification/independence" of Taiwan. Then I set out to analyze three basic types of discourse on national identity: nationalism， liberalism and radicalism (includingpost-colonialism and post-structuralism). The proponents of each type make some good points for their arguments， but also present weakness under close examination. I therefore think that certain combination and improvement of all three approaches is a better choice than adopting any single solution. The suggested alternative is "pragmatic thinking with liberal base，\" in which the liberal insistence on democratic constitutionalism and its concession to nationalist aspiration in crisis moment are both considered.