日本學者藤井省三對於日治時期臺灣皇民文學提出一個有趣的解 釋：他認為因為日語的普及、以及文學作品的風行，當時臺灣社會透 過讀書市場的成熟而逐漸構成所謂「公共領域」。此外，大量流通的 文學出版品刺激著臺灣民眾的集體意識，因此臺灣民族主義的雛形也 在當時略見端倪。本文認為，(1) 藤井省三其實誤植了「印刷資本主 義」、「公共領域」等理論概念。這些概念所欲解釋的特定歷史對象並 非殖民地臺灣的情形；(2) 在擁有壓倒性力量的日本殖民政府統治下， 「公共領域」的成熟有其困難；(3) 「 印刷資本主義」不足夠解釋日治 時期臺灣民族主義的生成；(4) 在這樣的思路背後，藤井省三在無意中 偏袒了具有普世性格的現代性理論，故而將技術面的現代性視同於文 化面的現代性。最後，必須牢記，所謂「理論」在某種意義上是對於 西歐社會極具限定性的描述，不能夠將本土的經驗置入無所不包的文 化與歷史模型，從而僵化了對於自身獨特性的認識。

Japanese scholar Fujii Shozo offeres an interesting explanation of the Taiwanese Komin Literature during Japanese Occupation: he holds that because of the widespread use of the Japanese Language and popularity of literary works, what is called public sphere was gradually formed in Taiwan society, while the reading market was maturing. Besides, masscirculated literary publications stimulated the collective consciousness of the Taiwanese. Therefore, the nationalism of Taiwan in its infancy could be observed. The present paper holds that (1) Fuji Shozo actually misplaced such theoretical concepts of “print capitalism” and “public sphere”. These concepts are intended for specific historical circumstances, rather than those of colonial Taiwan. (2) Under the overwhelming reign of the Japanese colonial government, the maturation of the “public sphere” faced its hardships. (3) The concept of “print capitalism” is an inadequate explanation for the formation of Taiwanese Nationalism during Japanese Occupation. Last but not least, what is to be borne in mind is that what we call “theory” is, in a sense, specific depiction of the society of Western Europe and cannot integrate local experiences into an all-encompassing cultural and historical model that rigidifies the knowledge of our own uniqueness.